Greta Christina has been writing professionally since 1989, on topics including atheism, sexuality and sex-positivity, LGBT issues, politics, culture, and whatever crosses her mind. She is author of
The Way of the Heathen: Practicing Atheism in Everyday Life, of
Comforting Thoughts About Death That Have Nothing to Do with God, of
Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why, of
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless, and of
Bending: Dirty Kinky Stories About Pain, Power, Religion, Unicorns, & More, and is editor of
Paying For It: A Guide by Sex Workers for Their Clients. She has been a public speaker for many years, and many of her talks can be seen on YouTube. Her writing has appeared in multiple magazines and newspapers, including Ms., Penthouse, Chicago Sun-Times, On Our Backs, and Skeptical Inquirer, and numerous anthologies, including
Everything You Know About God Is Wrong and three volumes of
Best American Erotica. (Any views she expresses in this blog are solely hers, and do not necessarily represent this organizations.) She lives in San Francisco with her wife, Ingrid. You can email her at gretachristina (at) gmail (dot) com, or follow her on
Facebook.
He did it well.
I have learned a lot, these last few days. For me, at least, this has been good.
Thanks for posting.
Good for James to change his mind and admit he was wrong.
Props to James.
Beautifully written, too. It’s going on my “I wish everyone would read this” list.
That was a really well done retraction, very thought out and cognizant of everything involved. Thanks to him for doing so.
well, that’s at least something.
I read it. Then I scrolled down a bit, noted that the topmost comment is Steersman, and NOPE’d the fuck outta there. Don’t need the opinion of the dude who thinks bigoted slurs are ok if they’re used to cut down minorities that have gotten too uppity.
Well … I did write to Mr. Silverman last night and he did answer my email tonight.
Based on the email, he isn’t thinking an apology is necessary at this time. Seems like a repeat of Ronald Lindsay’s initial response after the Women in Secularism conference.
Thank you, James
Like Shoa-deniers and anti-vaxxers , the anti-abortion movements ALL seem to be driven by unreasoned emotions with ‘facts’ endlessly (re)marshalled to prop up the a priori position.
Thus ‘debating’ them gives passive endorsement to worthless ideas. But how do we answer bogus claims without repeating them. If believers are impervious to information, what venue is available to reach those who are capable of learning?
Thanks for the re-post, Greta! Just out of interest, are there comments on my blog? If so, I cannot see them (for whatever reason). Just want to make sure I’m not missing anything.
jflcroft @ #9: Alas, right out of the gate, you’ve got Steersman, a notorious SlymePitter and MRA, derailing things into the usual MRA talking points. But there are also some nice, supportive comments and apparently sincere attempts to engage on the issue.
@johnthedrunkard #8:
I see this as the central paradox of postmodern understandings of information and discourse. Critique inevitably necessitates stating (or re-stating) the position one wishes to critique, which fundamentally reinforces the idea. As it’s a paradox, there isn’t really a resolution; best practice is to simply try to pay attention to context and try to predict whether any given action will do more good or harm on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we’re in lose-lose situations; if we can’t do no harm, it’s preferable to do the least harm (or to do harm to the party/ies best able to cope with that harm).
Thanks for pointing this out Greta.
Thanks to James as well, for recognizing he was wrong.