The picture says, "I'm in your base, killing your mans," in Greek.
Joe recently argued some stuff. As he reveals no personal information about himself whatsoever, I don't see anything wrong with quoting him in full, so I'm going to do that (formatting mostly preserved... for freshness!):Recently, stepping_stones argued that atheists should persuade religious Americans that religion is stupid, counter-productive, and crazy by screaming at religious people that they are stupid and crazy. The rationale for this behavior is that:Social change very rarely is accomplished simply by politely deferring to the majority in public while striving behind closed doors to create a smooth transition; don't get me wrong, I think it would be wonderful if that worked all the time, but to insist that we keep trying that and only that strikes me as criminally naive.
But this misunderstands how excruciatingly difficult social change is. The first issue that militant atheists fail to consider is this: Nine times out of ten, social movements fail. In the words of Andy Stern, "Change is inevitable. But progress is not." Social evolution (or revolution if you like) is a contingent phenomenon that arises based on the particular social, historical, and political situation.
For example, stepping_stones argued that the gay rights movement spoke truth to power, and didn't give a fuck if it made people uncomfortable. As a result, "in most places it's OK to be gay now." That's a great a narrative, if it were true (it isn't by a long shot). Nothing about the gay rights movement (or any social movement for that matter) is that cut and dried. No social movement... "fits into...nice little categories."
There's always tremendous tension in a social movement between those that want to work within the system (aka sell out to the status quo) and those that agitate for revolution (aka DESTROY THE CORRUPT ESTABLSIHMENT). I do not know of an instance in which it was obvious at the time what course of action (or combination thereof) was most likely to achieve success. It is only in retrospect that the course to victory seemed obvious for that particular movement. In other words, it's a gamble, one which most people loose.
So in terms of the God Sucks movement, the question that militant atheists should ask themselves is this: Have I convinced religious people that they are crazy and stupid by calling them crazy and stupid directly to their faces?
If you think the answer is yes, then you have a profound misunderstanding of how people in our society reason on an emotional and psychological level. If you think that people naturally seek the Truth, no matter where it leads or the answers that they will get, then consider this: most people don't even know what the scientific method is.
So here's my response:
In the first place, I never said anybody ought to be "screaming at religious people that they are stupid and crazy." That's some rather egregious conflation of two separate points: one, that we shouldn't be "meek" or whatever merely so as not to offend; two, that we shouldn't be afraid to say that the actual crazies are crazy. These are two separate but similar tools for dealing with two separate but related problems.
All this bullshit about "militant atheism" is, quite simply, a red fucking herring. Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, the unholy trinity of atheism, have all said that they're fine with people having whatever faith they want, but what gets their goat is the kid gloves treatment that religion gets (unlike anything else at all), and how the crazies want to foist their bullshit on everyone else (and not only have, but in many cases continue to get away with this). The only way to raise these issues at all involves using verbiage which can be seen by anyone as "offensive," provided they're looking for a fight and want to make a cheap grab at some imaginary moral high ground. See Firebrands for more on this. The money quote: "...what the religious apologists approve of is atheists who wish they were religious. That subservient, conciliatory posture is what they like to see, since it validates their presuppositions about the importance of theistic belief. By contrast, atheists who are proud and happy to be atheists, who have no need of superstition, and who are not afraid to say so - they will always be perceived as disrespectful and rude." This attitude is an obstacle even to discussion, let alone change, and I see no reason to defer to it.
To be fair, this does go hand-in-hand with the second point which you seem to have conflated with the first; namely, that we can't shirk from calling out religious crazies on their crazy bullshit - what's important is that this doesn't apply to all religions and related ideas, but to all and only the crazy religious bullshit. Most people don't have a problem dealing with your garden variety crazy bullshit as such, because they're willing to look it in the eye and say, "Yep, that's crazy bullshit." Most religious bullshit, to the extent that it's not crazy, is harmless (if silly). Likewise, crazy religions don't really bother me so long as they're "bullshit-free" (meaning that they don't try to foist their nonsense on anyone else). It's only when it's all three of crazy, religious, and bullshit that I have a problem. Like calling for a teacher's death because of what her class named their teddy bear, or saying that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, or preparing for the second coming of Jesus Fuck My Eye Christ. This particular brand of insanity makes it impossible for people to get along - and people can and do get along in spite of vehement, deep, outspoken disagreements. What's important is not that people all believe the same thing or even respect each other's opinions, but that we treat each other like human beings, and there are religious crazies who simply don't want to do this. This attitude, this ancient superstitious bastion against civilization, is a glaring incongruity that needs to be resolved - even though most people don't subscribe to it, the vocal minority who do are a threat to society and should be dealt with accordingly, instead of being allowed to hide behind the mask of piety.
I hope I've resolved that misunderstanding. With the rest, though, I think we agree on the facts (for the most part), but disagree on the conclusions to be derived therefrom. I'll address your paragraph on the difficulty of social change next. First, though, I'm confused on something. You said, "But this misunderstands how excruciatingly difficult social change is." I'm not sure where this is coming from, because I was talking about something else entirely; namely, that sometimes more than one approach is needed to accomplish a complex goal. I don't really see the connection between the two. Michelle said she didn't like the name, thought it was stupid, and implied that it was embarrassing to the viewer; I countered that sometimes it's good to be a little obnoxious, and alluded to gay pride parades and rallies for support; what's the connection to misunderstanding the difficulty of social change?
I understand that social change is quite difficult, but you're correct that beyond that basic observation, I get fuzzy. I'm not quite sure what you mean about social movements "failing," though. What exactly is your definition of failure? If you just mean that certain groups fail to accomplish certain goals at certain times, well, I suppose you could look at it that way; but that strikes me as silly, like saying that a person who puts out 100 job applications over two months and gets employed by the very last one "failed to get a job 99 times out of 100." Sure, you could look at it that way, but what counts is that the one came through; up until that point, our hypothetical person was simply job searching, not "failing." I can only think of a social movement as "failed" if everyone gives up on it and forgets about it. And sure, history is written by the winners, but... well, enough pontificating - what exactly do you mean? Can you name some social movements that have failed?
As for the whole "OK to be gay" thing, I meant that anti-gay discrimination is legally actionable, and everyone I know (not just everyone I hang out with, everyone I know, period) is OK with homosexuality - they may not like it, but they're at least at the "live and let live" stage, which is what I meant by "OK." Christians even have this thing about accepting people of different orientations on the basis that we're all sinners: "I'm not OK, and you're not OK, but that's OK." It's one of the rare examples of them actually putting off the business of afterlife judgment until the afterlife. True enough about "no social movement '[fitting] into... nice little categories,'" though. It's still a transitioning thing, and you're always gonna have your neanderthals who hate gays (or blacks... or women... or atheists) because of who they are, but the balance has definitely shifted.
As for your point on intra-movement tension, I couldn't agree more. Since nobody knows ahead of time which course of action will be most productive, we should try all of them, all at once. To continue my "tool" metaphor from above, the different tactics will actually have different levels of success in different situations. Sometimes a hammer will be most appropriate, sometimes a screwdriver will be. One common argumentative tactic among believers is to insist that, since they don't believe what the fundies believe, the arguments against fundie beliefs don't apply to them, and therefore their beliefs have not been shown to be unjustified (besides, why are we still talking about those crazy fundies, anyway?). There are several missteps here, but the analogous one is where you say, "Look, that hammer isn't going to work all the time; stop using it, and use this screwdriver instead." Of course the hammer won't work all the time, but neither will the screwdriver! What's needed is a full toolbox! It so happens that I prefer to work with hammers, and you prefer to work with screwdrivers; the main difference between us, as far as I can tell, is that I'm leaving you to your screwdriver business because you seem to like it, but you seem to want me to stop hammering and start screwdriving because you don't like to hammer. Which, now that I put it that way, is kind of the problem in the first place: I'm OK with us both using our different tools, but confused as to why you're not, and I find it rather ridiculous that you think all the hammers should be put away just 'cuz they won't work all the time always.
As for the "God Sucks" movement, it's not about converting everybody, it's about staking out our own cultural turf, so to speak - and not in the closet, but out in public with fucking everybody else. There are religious zealots who are "courteous" enough to not mind the existence of atheists so long as they just sit down, shut up, and let God's people drive the bus. This not only lets them foist their superstitions on others, it also lets them hoodwink people into thinking there's no opposing viewpoints on the matter. The best way I know of to let people know that there are opposing viewpoints and there are substantial communities of atheists out there is to advocate those viewpoints and advertise those communities. I'm part of the outspoken, logic-obsessed, science-loving, "angry" atheist community; there's also the "polite" atheist community, and the apolitical atheist community, and all kinds of other communities. Pointing out the craziness and the stupidity isn't about converting the crazy and the stupid, it's about getting the moderates to recognize the dangers and distance themselves from the lunatic fringe. It's analogous to how you rail on political policies as being crazy or stupid; you're not trying to change the policymaker's mind, you're trying to bring everyone's attention to the fact that the emperor has no clothes. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?
Last, as a point of clarity, you don't reason with emotions, you reason with thoughts. Emotions are reactions. If you think someone is "thinking with their heart," you're just plain wrong; they're reacting emotionally instead of thinking. I know that there are true believers who will never be convinced, and people who are open to convincing by methods other than reason who will not be convinced by me personally, and I'm OK with that. I'm not "after" them. I'm after the people who want to talk about logic, who will be convinced by evidence and argumentation, and who aren't afraid to tackle issues head-on instead of pussyfooting around everyone's precious fucking feelings. Y'know, people like me, back when I believed on Jebus.
EDIT: Joe quoted some other guy besides me, too (oops!), so I removed the part where I said he quotes only me. In response to Michelle's comment, I changed "cited" to "alluded to," and added "rallies" to "parades," which is both correct and what I meant in the first place.
But this misunderstands how excruciatingly difficult social change is. The first issue that militant atheists fail to consider is this: Nine times out of ten, social movements fail. In the words of Andy Stern, "Change is inevitable. But progress is not." Social evolution (or revolution if you like) is a contingent phenomenon that arises based on the particular social, historical, and political situation.
For example, stepping_stones argued that the gay rights movement spoke truth to power, and didn't give a fuck if it made people uncomfortable. As a result, "in most places it's OK to be gay now." That's a great a narrative, if it were true (it isn't by a long shot). Nothing about the gay rights movement (or any social movement for that matter) is that cut and dried. No social movement... "fits into...nice little categories."
There's always tremendous tension in a social movement between those that want to work within the system (aka sell out to the status quo) and those that agitate for revolution (aka DESTROY THE CORRUPT ESTABLSIHMENT). I do not know of an instance in which it was obvious at the time what course of action (or combination thereof) was most likely to achieve success. It is only in retrospect that the course to victory seemed obvious for that particular movement. In other words, it's a gamble, one which most people loose.
So in terms of the God Sucks movement, the question that militant atheists should ask themselves is this: Have I convinced religious people that they are crazy and stupid by calling them crazy and stupid directly to their faces?
If you think the answer is yes, then you have a profound misunderstanding of how people in our society reason on an emotional and psychological level. If you think that people naturally seek the Truth, no matter where it leads or the answers that they will get, then consider this: most people don't even know what the scientific method is.
So here's my response:
In the first place, I never said anybody ought to be "screaming at religious people that they are stupid and crazy." That's some rather egregious conflation of two separate points: one, that we shouldn't be "meek" or whatever merely so as not to offend; two, that we shouldn't be afraid to say that the actual crazies are crazy. These are two separate but similar tools for dealing with two separate but related problems.
All this bullshit about "militant atheism" is, quite simply, a red fucking herring. Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, the unholy trinity of atheism, have all said that they're fine with people having whatever faith they want, but what gets their goat is the kid gloves treatment that religion gets (unlike anything else at all), and how the crazies want to foist their bullshit on everyone else (and not only have, but in many cases continue to get away with this). The only way to raise these issues at all involves using verbiage which can be seen by anyone as "offensive," provided they're looking for a fight and want to make a cheap grab at some imaginary moral high ground. See Firebrands for more on this. The money quote: "...what the religious apologists approve of is atheists who wish they were religious. That subservient, conciliatory posture is what they like to see, since it validates their presuppositions about the importance of theistic belief. By contrast, atheists who are proud and happy to be atheists, who have no need of superstition, and who are not afraid to say so - they will always be perceived as disrespectful and rude." This attitude is an obstacle even to discussion, let alone change, and I see no reason to defer to it.
To be fair, this does go hand-in-hand with the second point which you seem to have conflated with the first; namely, that we can't shirk from calling out religious crazies on their crazy bullshit - what's important is that this doesn't apply to all religions and related ideas, but to all and only the crazy religious bullshit. Most people don't have a problem dealing with your garden variety crazy bullshit as such, because they're willing to look it in the eye and say, "Yep, that's crazy bullshit." Most religious bullshit, to the extent that it's not crazy, is harmless (if silly). Likewise, crazy religions don't really bother me so long as they're "bullshit-free" (meaning that they don't try to foist their nonsense on anyone else). It's only when it's all three of crazy, religious, and bullshit that I have a problem. Like calling for a teacher's death because of what her class named their teddy bear, or saying that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, or preparing for the second coming of Jesus Fuck My Eye Christ. This particular brand of insanity makes it impossible for people to get along - and people can and do get along in spite of vehement, deep, outspoken disagreements. What's important is not that people all believe the same thing or even respect each other's opinions, but that we treat each other like human beings, and there are religious crazies who simply don't want to do this. This attitude, this ancient superstitious bastion against civilization, is a glaring incongruity that needs to be resolved - even though most people don't subscribe to it, the vocal minority who do are a threat to society and should be dealt with accordingly, instead of being allowed to hide behind the mask of piety.
I hope I've resolved that misunderstanding. With the rest, though, I think we agree on the facts (for the most part), but disagree on the conclusions to be derived therefrom. I'll address your paragraph on the difficulty of social change next. First, though, I'm confused on something. You said, "But this misunderstands how excruciatingly difficult social change is." I'm not sure where this is coming from, because I was talking about something else entirely; namely, that sometimes more than one approach is needed to accomplish a complex goal. I don't really see the connection between the two. Michelle said she didn't like the name, thought it was stupid, and implied that it was embarrassing to the viewer; I countered that sometimes it's good to be a little obnoxious, and alluded to gay pride parades and rallies for support; what's the connection to misunderstanding the difficulty of social change?
I understand that social change is quite difficult, but you're correct that beyond that basic observation, I get fuzzy. I'm not quite sure what you mean about social movements "failing," though. What exactly is your definition of failure? If you just mean that certain groups fail to accomplish certain goals at certain times, well, I suppose you could look at it that way; but that strikes me as silly, like saying that a person who puts out 100 job applications over two months and gets employed by the very last one "failed to get a job 99 times out of 100." Sure, you could look at it that way, but what counts is that the one came through; up until that point, our hypothetical person was simply job searching, not "failing." I can only think of a social movement as "failed" if everyone gives up on it and forgets about it. And sure, history is written by the winners, but... well, enough pontificating - what exactly do you mean? Can you name some social movements that have failed?
As for the whole "OK to be gay" thing, I meant that anti-gay discrimination is legally actionable, and everyone I know (not just everyone I hang out with, everyone I know, period) is OK with homosexuality - they may not like it, but they're at least at the "live and let live" stage, which is what I meant by "OK." Christians even have this thing about accepting people of different orientations on the basis that we're all sinners: "I'm not OK, and you're not OK, but that's OK." It's one of the rare examples of them actually putting off the business of afterlife judgment until the afterlife. True enough about "no social movement '[fitting] into... nice little categories,'" though. It's still a transitioning thing, and you're always gonna have your neanderthals who hate gays (or blacks... or women... or atheists) because of who they are, but the balance has definitely shifted.
As for your point on intra-movement tension, I couldn't agree more. Since nobody knows ahead of time which course of action will be most productive, we should try all of them, all at once. To continue my "tool" metaphor from above, the different tactics will actually have different levels of success in different situations. Sometimes a hammer will be most appropriate, sometimes a screwdriver will be. One common argumentative tactic among believers is to insist that, since they don't believe what the fundies believe, the arguments against fundie beliefs don't apply to them, and therefore their beliefs have not been shown to be unjustified (besides, why are we still talking about those crazy fundies, anyway?). There are several missteps here, but the analogous one is where you say, "Look, that hammer isn't going to work all the time; stop using it, and use this screwdriver instead." Of course the hammer won't work all the time, but neither will the screwdriver! What's needed is a full toolbox! It so happens that I prefer to work with hammers, and you prefer to work with screwdrivers; the main difference between us, as far as I can tell, is that I'm leaving you to your screwdriver business because you seem to like it, but you seem to want me to stop hammering and start screwdriving because you don't like to hammer. Which, now that I put it that way, is kind of the problem in the first place: I'm OK with us both using our different tools, but confused as to why you're not, and I find it rather ridiculous that you think all the hammers should be put away just 'cuz they won't work all the time always.
As for the "God Sucks" movement, it's not about converting everybody, it's about staking out our own cultural turf, so to speak - and not in the closet, but out in public with fucking everybody else. There are religious zealots who are "courteous" enough to not mind the existence of atheists so long as they just sit down, shut up, and let God's people drive the bus. This not only lets them foist their superstitions on others, it also lets them hoodwink people into thinking there's no opposing viewpoints on the matter. The best way I know of to let people know that there are opposing viewpoints and there are substantial communities of atheists out there is to advocate those viewpoints and advertise those communities. I'm part of the outspoken, logic-obsessed, science-loving, "angry" atheist community; there's also the "polite" atheist community, and the apolitical atheist community, and all kinds of other communities. Pointing out the craziness and the stupidity isn't about converting the crazy and the stupid, it's about getting the moderates to recognize the dangers and distance themselves from the lunatic fringe. It's analogous to how you rail on political policies as being crazy or stupid; you're not trying to change the policymaker's mind, you're trying to bring everyone's attention to the fact that the emperor has no clothes. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?
Last, as a point of clarity, you don't reason with emotions, you reason with thoughts. Emotions are reactions. If you think someone is "thinking with their heart," you're just plain wrong; they're reacting emotionally instead of thinking. I know that there are true believers who will never be convinced, and people who are open to convincing by methods other than reason who will not be convinced by me personally, and I'm OK with that. I'm not "after" them. I'm after the people who want to talk about logic, who will be convinced by evidence and argumentation, and who aren't afraid to tackle issues head-on instead of pussyfooting around everyone's precious fucking feelings. Y'know, people like me, back when I believed on Jebus.
EDIT: Joe quoted some other guy besides me, too (oops!), so I removed the part where I said he quotes only me. In response to Michelle's comment, I changed "cited" to "alluded to," and added "rallies" to "parades," which is both correct and what I meant in the first place.