(a three part blog series)
Building a Community with Insufficient Data
I keep chewing this thought over in my head, this one nagging meme that got planted there by way of innumerable trolls during innumerable battles in my tenure on the blogosphere. It’s been percolating in my brainpan at least since the inception of the label “Atheism Plus” and the community that coalesced around it. Longer than that, in fact. Playing over and over, like a drum beat.
That thought is, atheism is not enough.
It is good, important, even vital to become an atheist; to free yourself from the intellectual and in some cases physical impediments that religion imposes. But that should be the beginning of a journey into freethinking, not the end of it. Without a god or gods, you have no moral lawgiver, so you have to build your own morality.
I wrote an essay called Mission Creep not too long ago, wherein I detailed my own journey into, through and beyond atheism. I kind of thought that would be the end of that particular train of thought, given that I argued quite strongly that our communities are presently evolving, and this evolution entails recognizing a number of aspects of social justice that intersect heavily with contrareligious social justice causes.
But the meme kept surfacing elsewhere, in any argument that even approached in a sidelong way the idea that knowing someone’s an atheist isn’t enough to know whether they’re a good person. I’ll grant you that this did come up most noticeably when Atheism Plus was first coalescing into a real “thing”, but before that, any time an atheist on the blogosphere would discuss anything to do with feminism, gay rights, politics or social justice, you’d get the same sort of arguments: that belief or lack thereof in a god means absolutely nothing else.
And that argument’s correct. In a manner of speaking.
Though, if you’re one of these people, you may not like the way this argument’s correct.
Reflect for a moment on some famous atheists in the media. Three big ones spring to mind immediately: Bill Maher, Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins. I can, however, tell you with some confidence that all three disagree with me on a number of, to me, fundaental values, even where all four of us agree on the point that there is (with near certainty) no deity involved in any capacity with this universe or its happenings. All four of us likewise agree that organized religion is a power structure built by and maintained by people with a vested interest in controlling vast swathes of humankind.
But there are some important and, frankly, more significant differences in philosophy between us than the slim territory on which we agree.
Bill Maher has expressed hyperskepticism about the germ theory of disease and vaccinations, verging on governmental conspiracy theories about the topic — which would be hard enough to swallow if he weren’t also blatantly misogynistic. But the God thing? I’m right there with him. Yep, there aren’t any gods. Total agreement.
Penn Jillette uses his platform to promote libertarianism, and not the nice civil libertarianism, but the truly Randian, drastically self-centered and entirely morally bereft sort that would be impossible to build a functional society around. And that’s not to mention his own heaping helping of misogyny. But on the topic of deities, he and I could probably break bread amicably.
And Richard Dawkins, the closest thing some atheists seem to have to a saint, himself has feet of clay in some areas. Even where I have immense respect for his efforts in popularizing science, in advocating for the dismantling of various religious institutions, and in his exposition on the powerful idea of memetics (which predates him somewhat, but HIS meme travelled!), I must still take issue with his repeated and flagrant dismissal of sexism in anything but the absolute worst cases imaginable — if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated, you’re experiencing zero bad, by his scalar value system. But again, I know you could find nothing but overlap between he and I, on our thoughts as to whether or not some higher power exists.
And that’s not even broaching the differences we have within the fraction of the community that exists primarily on the internet. I can’t even begin to parse the ways TJ Kincaid, The “Amazing” Atheist, and I disagree about close to every moral precept he’s ever evinced, because I find the majority of them to be objectively harmful in a number of ways to individuals within society, and to society as a whole. Suffice it to say, he represents my views on no topics outside of the existence of a god or gods. If we agree on anything else, I’ve yet to see it, and I would be honestly surprised.
So we call one another out on these fundamental philosophical differences. We do it here, and get labelled as bullies for it — even while people are really being bullied by the hypocritical and ostensibly anti-bully faction aligned against us. We all do it. We draw lines in the sand and we argue against people who cross them.
Why are we — all of us, on every side of every battle within the atheist blogosphere, even those of you who absolutely hate me, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Rebecca Watson, Freethought Blogs, Skepchick, or any ally or friendly entity thereto — so willing to draw our personal lines so differently, and to call people to the carpet over differences in philosophy who might otherwise be our allies in the battle against religious privilege?
There’s a simple answer to that rhetorical question. Every one of us already realizes, practically innately, that atheism isn’t enough.
Yes. Exactly. Keep going! I think the identification of “atheist” and/or “skeptic” has been artificially papering over cracks. Deep rifts even. It’s creating a group identity where there really isn’t one, in any way that matters except the one that says ‘no gods.’ Granfalloon, as Vonnegut put it.
Looking forward to part 2.
felix3333
For what it’s worth, parts 2 and 3 are already written, though I might refine them depending on the comments here. This is certainly not the whole argument, and in fact is practically just the “set-up”.
Oh, and I always think of this Castlevania boss when I hear “Granfaloon.” That’s its Japanese name, where here we call it Legion.
http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/Z2paOzh0nq4/mqdefault.jpg
Not sure what that is… I always think of Paul Theroux on his travels, on a train through China, meeting other Americans. They claim kinship (oh, you’re from X state too! Why fancy that!), meanwhile he despises their every utterance. But being suddenly in the minority in a foreign land, they’re expected to hang together and find common cause.
It’s an area boss from a video game I like. A whole bunch of people clinging together for no other reason than to cling together, basically. A giant ball of people. Or more accurately, flesh golems. Fighting it is a war of attrition, with people practically dripping out of the ball to attack you in hordes. The Vonnegut coinage is probably where the boss got its name.
Yes, the Theroux story is exactly right. They have one tiny similarity in coming from the same place (and thus speaking the same language), but they have no other commonalities or common causes.
Good stuff Jason. Kind of sad that you even need to say it though, since it falls into the ‘self evident’ category.
Flesh golems and hordes, eh? Whoa. I can see how it fits, tho. There’s one going after that UofT student right now.
http://manboobz.com/2012/12/09/mra-paul-elam-launches-a-hate-campaign-against-a-college-student-for-attending-a-demonstration-and-making-twitter-jokes/
Bingo. I, too, find many of these more significant. I’ll happily work with theists of all stripes on anti-misogyny or anti-racism projects, while I find it much more troubling to try to work with misogynists or racists on projects that oppose religious hegemony. I haven’t actually sat down to think through WHY I find those to be more significant areas of dis/agreement (well, cognitive heuristics of some sort, but I’m not self-aware of the specifics of their functioning), but I clearly do so.
I’ll just leave this here: Secular Wholeness. Pointers on the “search for secular ways to: …Weave a richly-connected, supportive community… enjoy the comfort of meaningful ritual… prepare for deaths, our own and those of ones we love…”
Interesting that you should post another thing that I particularly disagree with, even where they claim to be part of the “secular community”. I don’t see ritual as particularly comforting. I see it as allowing your brain to slip into routine, a different cognitive process than actual thinking. I see it as a potential danger.
[…] it drives you nuts, let me know. Don’t yell at Jason. He’s only doing my bidding. Also, he illustrated one of his recent posts with a delicious bit of geology, so you can’t hold […]
I must still take issue with his repeated and flagrant dismissal of sexism in anything but the absolute worst cases imaginable — if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated, you’re experiencing zero bad, by his scalar value system.
Have you got a quote to back this up?
[…] « Atheism is not enough (pt 1) […]
…while I find it much more troubling to try to work with misogynists or racists on projects that oppose religious hegemony.
Do any such projects really exist where a significant number of racists or misogynists are supporting them?
Yeah, I’ve thought this since about the time I became an atheist. Don’t believe in God? Bully for you. Now are you a skeptic who rejects gods for the same reason as you reject homeopathy and accept vaccines, and do you work for a world where everyone — irrespective of religious identification — can have a shot at a decent happy life, by breaking down the ancient injustices about sex and race and economics and all the rest?
The original comments on the Pharygula post “Always Name Names” have disappeared into the Scienceblogs black hole, but Google Dawkins and “Dear Muslima” and “Zero bad” and you’ll find them:
Dear Muslima:
Zero bad:
Anthony K:
Thanks for the response. I did wonder whether “Dear Muslima” would be drawn upon as support. But the problem with that is that the first paragraph of DM itself contradicts what was said in the main post.
From DM:
Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you.
And Jason said:
I must still take issue with his repeated and flagrant dismissal of sexism in anything but the absolute worst cases imaginable — if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated, you’re experiencing zero bad, by his scalar value system.
Just by comparing the two it can be seen that RD mentioned more than simply genital mutilation as an example of sexism and misogyny. Being unable to drive a car isn’t the “absolute worst case imaginable”, as bad as it is, so that too argues against the way JT has characterised RD’s position.
JT has made a pretty serious claim about RD, but the facts don’t seem to support it. I haven’t seen anything to suggest he dismisses sexism in “anything but the absolute worst cases imaginable”.
PS: I would like to leave aside the whole EG issue for the moment as that has been argued to death over the past year or so. Regardless of anyone’s position on the matter, I’m pretty sure everyone can agree that it is far from the worst case imaginable.
I am so not interested in the canard that “pretty serious claims” of misogyny are worse than the misogynistic dismissal itself.
Hell, I’m now using my real name because I’ve been doxxed by the Slymepitters, which is only a “pretty serious” violation when it happens to them, of course.
That’s not in dispute. What Dawkins did was use an extreme case to argue that Elevatorgate was ‘zero bad’.
He’s the one committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, not those bringing his comments up.
PS: I would like to leave aside the whole EG issue for the moment as that has been argued to death over the past year or so. Regardless of anyone’s position on the matter, I’m pretty sure everyone can agree that it is far from the worst case imaginable.
First yousay you want to “leave aside” the EG issue; then you say something totally stupid about the EG issue. News flash: Rebecca Watson NEVER said or implied that her EG incident was anything more than a guy makiing a totally inappropriate move. The sum total of her criticism of EG (in an informal address that was mostly positive) was “guys, don’t do that.” That’s it. She never tried to retend it the worst thing a woman could suffer. Wankers like you who insist that “it is far from the worst case imaginable” are refuting an assertion that no one ever made.
Well, this seems to be spiraling into the accretion disk of the feminisim black hole but I’ll venture to reply to Blogmeister Jason,
I doubt strongly your life is ritual-free; almost no-one’s is. Christmas with prezzies and tree and family? New Year’s eve? Stand for the anthem at a ball game?
I say rituals are how we bind time, assert control — comforting even if illusory — over the progress of time. Religions do an excellent job of parasitizing this, providing an array of rituals at all different frequencies, from prayer five times a day for Muslims to the big Christian annual events. I collected some suggestions on how we could take back ritual, use it in a conscious and intentional way to structure a secular life. Nothing earth-shaking about that, but I thought fairly practical. I think you would be pleased, if you actually read that chapter, by how it suggests the opposite of not-thinking, but rather recognizing where one has mindless routines and making them conscious and meaningful in ways that unique to yourself.
Raging Bee:
First yousay you want to “leave aside” the EG issue; then you say something totally stupid about the EG issue. News flash: Rebecca Watson NEVER said or implied that her EG incident was anything more than a guy makiing a totally inappropriate move. The sum total of her criticism of EG (in an informal address that was mostly positive) was “guys, don’t do that.” That’s it. She never tried to retend it the worst thing a woman could suffer. Wankers like you who insist that “it is far from the worst case imaginable” are refuting an assertion that no one ever made.
And I didn’t say that she did. What I meant to get across (though perhaps I didn’t explain it as well as I could) was that EG, a relatively minor occurrence at the time, is one specific instance that doesn’t really compare to the more serious instances of actual sexism and misogyny that JT was claiming in the initial post that Dawkins viewed as “zero bad”. “Repeated and flagrant” implies more than just the EG incident.
I would also note that JT doesn’t directly mention EG in the original post, and that’s another reason I was attempting to put that particular issue to one side to focus on the topic of the post and what he actually said, rather than risk the thread being pushed off track.
I hope that’s a little clearer; enough perhaps to avoid future unnecessary name-calling.
Anthony K:
Now that you’ve said it I recognised you as Brownian from Pharyngula (and other blogs you comment on, of course). Regarding the doxxing: as a test I typed “Brownian Pharyngula” into google, and literally the fourth entry down is an atheist nexus link that states your full name and alias in the title of the web page. Is this really what constitutes doxxing, because I had thought it involved finding information that was not readily available?
That’s not in dispute. What Dawkins did was use an extreme case to argue that Elevatorgate was ‘zero bad’.
I certainly agree he could have worded things a hell of a lot better than he did.
He’s the one committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, not those bringing his comments up.
I disagree. JT has essentially said “if not genital mutilation, then zero bad” is RD’s viewpoint. That’s clearly not the case, as even the Dear Muslima post you provided in support of the statement shows. To me it seems like JT was making a generalisation for effect, and that’s something sceptics need to be careful about in my opinion.
TriffidPruner,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting (certainly Jason isn’t) that one needs to eliminate all ritual. But many of us don’t feel the need for the kind of secular aping of religion you’re peddling.
If it’s readily available, then what would be the point of linking the identities other than an attempt to intimidate me for messing with the wrong guy? “Levelling the playing field” were the words used. There’s hardly a need if the playing field is already level.
Man, the gymnastics skeptics go through to justify their bizarro obsessions would make any Catholic envious.
That’s twice you’ve not addressed the ‘zero bad’ comment.
I’ll have to read your chapter later, TriffidPruner, but I’d go further and suggest that you can safely drop the ‘almost’ from “I doubt strongly your life is ritual-free; almost no-one’s is.”
I would also note that JT doesn’t directly mention EG in the original post, and that’s another reason I was attempting to put that particular issue to one side to focus on the topic of the post and what he actually said, rather than risk the thread being pushed off track.
The “Dear Muslima” letter was in response to RW’s comments about the EG; so you can’t really separate the two. Dawkins’ totally disproportionate, self-serving, and inflammatory response was totally pointless (he wasn’t a party to the incident, and had no relevant expertise to offer), and was of aht main causes of the ongoing hate directed against someone who, in all likelihood, would haver have got this much attention were it not for Dawkins’ ignorant-assed stunt.
You can quibble all you want about whether JT was exactly correct in everything he said about Dawkins’ letter — but either way, it was still a stupid, babyish, pointlessly mean-spirited thing for any grownup, let alone a famous writer and scientist, to do. There’s no excusing or justifying it.
I certainly agree he could have worded things a hell of a lot better than he did.
So why didn’t he? He’s a WRITER, who’s famous for his BOOKS, which atheists seem to love because they’re WELL WRITTEN. “He misspoke” doesn’t work as an excuse here.
Anthony K:
That’s twice you’ve not addressed the ‘zero bad’ comment.
That’s because it’s not relevant to the main point I was trying to make about what JT said. To repeat:
“I must still take issue with his repeated and flagrant dismissal of sexism in anything but the absolute worst cases imaginable — if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated, you’re experiencing zero bad, by his scalar value system. “
As Raging Bee said the EG incident was nothing more than a guy making an inappropriate move. RD’s “zero bad” comment referred to that specific encounter in the elevator, and not to anything sexist or misogynist.
What JT has done is unfairly conflate the two, implying a position that RD has not been shown to hold. That is the point I’m making.
I’m fucking done with liars.
As Raging Bee said the EG incident was nothing more than a guy making an inappropriate move. RD’s “zero bad” comment referred to that specific encounter in the elevator, and not to anything sexist or misogynist.
RD’s comment accused RW of making a big deal out of a minor incident, which she had not done. So basically he made fun of her for dong something she had not done, and pretty much demanded she shut up because her concerns weren’t important enough for his attebntion. That’s kinda sexist right there.
I’m interested in this sidebar, because it’s particularly telling. Why is my characterizing his quote the way I do so grievous a mischaracterization, when he has — in the original quote Anthony K provided — himself made a severe mischaracterization of Rebecca Watson’s “guys don’t do that”?
I mean, seriously, does he honestly think that Watson said “hey Muslim women, stop complaining about your genital mutilation and inability to drive cars alone”? Do YOU?
Also: what the living crap. For all their whining about people “dropping dox”, they did it *again*? Despite their vociferous complaining that someone had Googled Justin Vacula and got a phone book entry that showed where he apparently lived?
It’s like they don’t have mirrors in their world.
Anthony K:
I’m fucking done with liars.
I don’t believe what I said in comment 25 was incorrect, if it is could you point out where instead of slinging epithets?
Jason Thibeault:
Why is my characterizing his quote the way I do so grievous a mischaracterization, when he has — in the original quote Andrew K provided — a severe mischaracterization of Rebecca Watson?
If he has mischaracterised RW, does it make it okay to mischaracterise him? I was trying to deal with the original post rather than anything to do with RW, who was not mentioned specifically in the original post in any case. The discussion has got rather sidetracked, and I would rather deal with the main point I initially made before moving on to anything else, otherwise it will be hard to keep track!
But since you’ve commented, let me ask: do you think it fair to claim that RD thinks that anything less than genital mutilation is “zero bad”? Especially given the fact that the first part of the “Dear Muslima” comment suggests otherwise? Not to
I mean, seriously, does he honestly think that Watson said “hey Muslim women, stop complaining about your genital mutilation and inability to drive cars alone”? Do YOU?
I can’t claim to know what he thinks. As for me, no, I don’t believe that she was saying that.
For fuck’s fucking sake.
I further contend that my “mischaracterization” is nothing but a description of the consequences of his argumentation. He intentionally misconstrued Watson’s intent, and mocked her by pretending that she was claiming that her “bad” was worse than others’. He then compared her experience to someone chewing gum next to him, and explicitly said it was “zero bad”.
I stand by what I wrote in the original post. When you don’t elide the circumstances of what he said, I’ve made an entirely fair characterization.
More specifically, that was a dishonest attempt at inserting your opinion of the Elevatorgate incident, especially after writing “PS: I would like to leave aside the whole EG issue for the moment as that has been argued to death over the past year or so.”
Anthony K:
RD’s “zero bad” comment referred to that specific encounter in the elevator, and not to anything sexist or misogynist
As Raging Bee said in an earlier comment:
Rebecca Watson NEVER said or implied that her EG incident was anything more than a guy makiing a totally inappropriate move.
Was the incident itself sexist or misogynist? No. It was an inappropriate move, but not something sexist or based on hatred of women. The “zero bad” comment referred to EG. You yourself said that in an earlier comment.
So where is the lie in what I have said?
More specifically, that was a dishonest attempt at inserting your opinion of the Elevatorgate incident, especially after writing “PS: I would like to leave aside the whole EG issue for the moment as that has been argued to death over the past year or so.”
Yet despite that you kept raising it. Would you have preferred me to ignore you? You even made a point of raising the fact that I had not responded to the “zero bad” comment, which relates to the EG incident as you yourself said. So which is it, am I to respond or not? You can’t have it both ways, and it’s certainly no justification for calling me a liar.
Is it your contention that Dear Muslima does not relate to EG?
Jason Thibeault:
I stand by what I wrote in the original post. When you don’t elide the circumstances of what he said, I’ve made an entirely fair characterization.
So for example. A woman in Saudi Arabia is not allowed to drive a car. This is less bad than genital mutilation. You have claimed that RD says that “if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated, you’re experiencing zero bad, by his scalar value system”. Therefore you are implying that he thinks women in Saudi Arabia being discriminated against by not being allowed to drive is “zero bad”.
And you think that characterisation is accurate, and reflected in his other writings?
And that’s the argument. You don’t get to assume your conclusion because you don’t want to talk about it.
To correct Raging Bee, RW’s use of the example in “Guys, don’t do that” was in fact a characterisation of the sexist nature of atheist gatherings, and specifically one of the reasons that gender parity doesn’t exist at many of them.
Oh, I see. So because I only mentioned the worst of them, rather than mentioning *all* of the things that Dawkins pretended that Watson said, I am mischaracterizing him. Gotcha.
So, shall I revise the original post to say ” if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated and can’t drive a car alone and your husband’s allowed to beat you and you’ll be stoned to death for adultery, then the sexism you experienced is zero bad”?
Or perhaps you’d instead like to tell me why you parse Dawkins so exceedingly generously and me so exceedingly finely.
Anthony K:
Is it your contention that Dear Muslima does not relate to EG?
Of course it does. But since both your statements in support of JT’s original post referenced it, I had no choice but to deal with it somehow. You provided me with no other evidence bar that.
Note though that the first part of DM is what I emphasised, since that was sufficient to show that the black/white “either genital mutilation or zero bad” characterisation of RD’s position was incorrect, using the very quote you used to try and support it.
Then, since you knew both comments referred specifically to Dawkins on EG, you should not have written: “PS: I would like to leave aside the whole EG issue for the moment as that has been argued to death over the past year or so.”, and if you were honest, you especially would not have then presupposed your conclusion to slip in your little editorials.
Further dishonesty: “I certainly agree he could have worded things a hell of a lot better than he did.”
You do? Better? Why? As you said, “I can’t claim to know what he thinks.”
If that’s the case, then you cannot claim he could have worded things any better than he did, because all you have to go on is exactly what he wrote.
Again, Dawkins used the hyperbolic contrast to disingenuously diminish RW’s claim. And now you’re all pissy because of a “very serious claim.”
JT:
Oh, I see. So because I only mentioned the worst of them, rather than mentioning *all* of the things that Dawkins pretended that Watson said, I am mischaracterizing him. Gotcha.
You are mischaracterising him because you claimed that RD thinks that anything less than genital mutilation is “zero bad” without even directly referencing RW in the post. That implied it was a broad view of his that was not solely about this incident.
” I must still take issue with his repeated and flagrant dismissal of sexism in anything but the absolute worst cases imaginable”
Your words. No reference to RW.
So, shall I revise the original post to say ” if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated and can’t drive a car alone and your husband’s allowed to beat you and you’ll be stoned to death for adultery, then the sexism you experienced is zero bad”?
If you do you should break the sentence into two so it’ll read better.
Or perhaps you’d instead like to tell me why you parse Dawkins so exceedingly generously and me so exceedingly finely.
Because after reading your post I was sceptical of the claim that you made, and after looking at the evidence you have provided I still believe that you are wilfully mischaracterising him. That’s what sceptics do, look at the evidence.
Right. That’s what I’m doing, and that’s why I called you a liar.
Maybe you’re not. Maybe you’re just slightly dishonest, or not nearly as careful of your words as you insist others should be.
Anthony K:
Then, since you knew both comments referred specifically to Dawkins on EG, you should not have written: “PS: I would like to leave aside the whole EG issue for the moment as that has been argued to death over the past year or so.”, and if you were honest, you especially would not have then presupposed your conclusion to slip in your little editorials.
So why did you not immediately point this out rather than continue the discussion and only accuse me of lying when it suited you? I note, again, that you have ignored what I said about the first part of DM being sufficient to disprove the claim in the original post.
Further dishonesty: “I certainly agree he could have worded things a hell of a lot better than he did.”
You do? Better? Why? As you said, “I can’t claim to know what he thinks.”
If that’s the case, then you cannot claim he could have worded things any better than he did, because all you have to go on is exactly what he wrote.
This doesn’t make sense. My opinion that he could have written things better does not need me to be able to read his mind.
Dawkins’ use of “Dear Muslima” and “Zero bad” are again an example of Dawkin’s black-and-white thinking, not anyone else’s.
If ‘better’ as in “more well written”, then no, you don’t. Is that your argument?
Because, if you mean ‘better’ in the way you do, as in trying to shift Dawkins’ fallacy of the excluded middle onto others, then yes, you are insisting that what he wrote was not what he meant.
Because you hadn’t assumed a conclusion about EG yet, dumbass, namely that it had nothing to do with sexism.
You can deal with JT on whether singling out FGM out of “yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery”. Frankly, it’s beside the point.
Using these two quotes, JT would not be wrong to write “if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated and can’t drive a car alone and your husband’s allowed to beat you and you’ll be stoned to death for adultery, then the sexism you experienced is zero bad”.
As you agreed.
Anthony K:
Because you hadn’t assumed a conclusion about EG yet, dumbass, namely that it had nothing to do with sexism.
Now who is claiming to read whose mind?
Using these two quotes, JT would not be wrong to write “if you’re not being forced into having your genitals mutilated and can’t drive a car alone and your husband’s allowed to beat you and you’ll be stoned to death for adultery, then the sexism you experienced is zero bad”.
As you agreed.
As I would have thought was obvious, I wasn’t being serious with the comment about breaking it up into multiple sentences. I didn’t agree it was accurate.
The hour’s getting late here so I’ll have to pick this thread up again in the morning. Thanks for the discussion.
Willfully mischaracterising? Because in context, the point is completely lost if Dawkins referred to FGM, unescorted driving and travel restrictions, and threats of violence and death, rather than simply FGM. Right.
Okay, you are an idiot. You hadn’t yet assumed a conclusion in what you’d written here.
If this kind of wilfully obtuse wanking mixed with affronted hyperskepticality is what skeptics do, then it’s no wonder so fucking many people still believe in angels and homeopathy.