The bottom-left one for Feminists doesn’t fit. The others are things that were created by their own group, for example, the KKK was created by Christians. That Feminist meme, on the other hand, wasn’t created by feminists but by someone else to mock them.
And the “keep calm and hate god” was clearly created by a theist, not an atheist
Good point. Why would an atheist hate something which doesn’t exist. The whole meme is bad.
Many atheists “hate god” as in hate the idea of a god. I can see atheist making that as a meme and I know some edgy atheists post that kind of shit all the time, which tbh is corny as hell.
The word god is used as a stand-in for religion. A synecdoche.
The number of assholes calling themselves feminists vastly outnumber the actual feminists. They have lost control of the word.
Most feminists just don’t call themselves feminists anymore because doing so makes you very likely to get harassed
I prefer to call myself egalitarian
Well they’re not really the same thing, feminism is a social movement with the goal with furthering equality. Egalitarianism just means you think everyone’s equal, doesn’t mean you actually care enough to make that a reality.
I disagree and as far as I can tell, so does Wikipedia.
Then you failed to read what I wrote
You implied that an egalitarian person doesn’t have the goal of furthering equality, did you not?
The Wikipedia article on egalitarianism says:
By promoting equal opportunities, egalitarianism aims to level the playing field and reduce disparities that result from social inequalities.
and
Egalitarian doctrines have supported many modern social movements, including the Enlightenment, feminism, civil rights, and international human rights.
Do you not feel that what you claim and what Wikipedia says are in conflict? At any rate, what I mean by being egalitarian is also to work toward achieving an egalitarian society, and in practice I do work toward that goal.
I vote OP take the meme down and repost it with Shiela Jeffries or Camille Paglia replacing the feminist…
TBF I think it’d be risky to use legit examples for that panel
TERFs maybe?
My thought exactly. Most of the “feminists” who do fit that stereotype ended up becoming Feminist Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes.
Ahahahahahaa FARTs
Good point, pic of JK Rowling would fit there I’d say.
Or the “all men are rapists” crowd, one of the two tbh.
Can’t say I’ve ever come across one of those
There is a lot of overlap, TERFs usually have a problem with trans women because they deeply mistrust men. The “R” is there for a reason.
I have to say personally I surround myself with wonderful and kind men so it makes sense that I’ve never met someone in real life who so adamantly hates all of them.
I understand being wary of men for statistical reasons, for example I won’t get into a situation where I’m in a room alone with a man I don’t know well, but that’s not to say I assume every man I meet is a rapist.
Hell, hot take incoming (this one is controversial): we can even acknowledge that a lot of men have raped people without knowing it for many years because of the way they were socialized with media that encouraged pestering for sexual attention. A lot of men I know are guilty of this but I think it’s important that that can be redeemable if they recognize that it happened and have since changed their behaviour. This seems to be an extremely common experience and I wouldn’t go as far as to call them rapists because that was not their intention and they are usually horrified when they realize it.
Sorry for the tangent, I do feel like this isn’t talked about enough.
we can even acknowledge that a lot of men have raped people without knowing it
I wouldn’t go as far as to call them rapists because that was not their intention
I see what you’re getting at, but I really wouldn’t use that word in any context where there might have been, for example, any power dynamic or some form of coercion. I believe that keeping it reserved for situations where violence or significant coercion are involved is better for everyone, especially the victims.
Doesn’t mean using mild coercion/emotional blackmail/pestering/shaming/… is okay behaviour, not at all, it’s just that saying no/leaving won’t usually do much beyond change the relationship between the people involved. Talking about that is fine, good and needed, using “rape” to describe it will probably shut down any conversation before it can even begin, though.
I’d also argue that that sort of behaviour is something both men and women engage in, maybe in different ways but, well, the expectation on men is to always be sexually available, so it sometimes becomes an issue when they are not. Mutual respect and understanding really are the most important things in a relationship, both participants are fully realized human beings, not just “the girlfriend/wife” or “the boyfriend/husband”. But people seem to forget that sometimes and I don’t know what can be done about that.
The best example of an asshole atheist they could find was one making a shitty anti-theist meme, meanwhile the examples of asshole Christians and Muslims are violent
CCP and USSR stamped out religious practice, but go off.
As an Atheist myself, don’t delude yourself into thinking religion is unique in its capacity for horrors. Humans have that capacity, any group we make would also have that capacity.
I was commenting on the examples the meme chose to use. It implies they couldn’t find examples of violent atheists
And by implication pointed out the difficulty in finding one. Unless you literally made a statement about just the types of images they chose with no further intellectual depth, which I mean is possible (I do that shit all the time), it comes with the assumed next statement about there not being violent atheists, or at least there are less violent atheists. So I was talking to that point.
That being said, I’m autistic so I might just missing the point, but I figured that my statement should still be made in case others thought like I did initially. There have been atrocities committed by atheists and there are violent atheists.
“Praise science!” - Southpark
Clearly they didn’t dona good enough job seeing how religion was never stamped out you wana be victum
The existence of religions itself is harmful to me. Religions make public manipulation very easy. This leads to power accumulation, which is very dangerous for me (unless I’m the one doing the manipulation). Hence, it is in my interest to stamp out all religions.
However, the methods used by the CCP and the USSR failed to stamp out religion. Repression makes religion stronger. In my opinion, societal indoctrination of the laws of logic would stand a better chance at eradicating religion. In other words, good education that revolves around the workings of logic, logical fallacies, etc. would stand a bigger chance at this
well you can find them on social media hating on women instead. a lot of early atheist youtubers went on to become gamergaters.
or look at a popular one like Dawkins who is busy being a transphobe nowadays. imagine being an atheist and wasting the remainder of your precious and only life trying to make the precious and only life of the most marginalized people in society even worse.
or sam harris who literally defended torture.
Still. Putting Dawkins up against the KKK is a reach.
each of them doing what they’re capable of. the kkk used to have a lot of power. dawkins is just a misogynistic, transphobic nerd. it’s all circumstance. full time hating can lead to a lot of places. for bitches like him it’s mostly trying to get others to do the dirty work.
Many atheists take part in racism and violence. There was plenty during the Cold War, collapse of Yugoslavia, Gulf War, post-9/11 and both Trump terms.
Yeah but they don’t do it in the name of atheism. Being an atheist doesn’t mean you can’t be a cunt just the same as being religious doesn’t mean you can’t be a cunt.
Mao, Kim jong un, Stalin…
They weren’t killing in the name of atheism though
“The Soviet Union (1922–1991) had a long history of state atheism, whereby those who were seeking social success generally had to profess atheism and stay away from places of worship; this trend became especially militant during the middle of the Stalinist era, which lasted from 1929 to 1953.”
“The Communist Party engaged in diverse activities such as destroying places of worship, executing religious leaders, flooding schools and media with anti-religious propaganda, and propagated “scientific atheism”.[55][56] It sought to make religion disappear by various means.[57][58] Thus, the USSR became the first state to have as one objective of its official ideology the elimination of the existing religion, and the prevention of the future implanting of religious belief, with the goal of establishing state atheism (gosateizm).”
I’ve went through that personally so I’m very well aware but still I don’t think its very much of the same thing. It’s less due to atheism per se and more to do with the fact that people groups were just dangerous to the regime and this extended way beyond religion.
Finally someone who can think
And when the Cathars, or the Templars were eradicated, or when Protestants and Catholics went to war, do you really think it’s because of sincerely held beliefs regarding their God, or because one group threatened the hegemony and material wealth of the other? In the case of the Protestants, the single most critical doctrine they went after was the Catholic belief that doctrinal authority came in part from the Bible, and in part from the Church; whereas Protestants argued for Sola Scriptura - the belief that doctrinal authority came from the Bible alone. And even the 95 theses clearly had the goal of ending a system of exploitation and financial parasitism by the Catholic church. Welcome to real politics.
None of this does anything to change that cases of church authority are still functionally the same as those of state atheism and anti-theism. In the case of Christian churches, you have the view that only Christianity is the truth and everything else is both the result of the devil, and leads to evil, and therefore all other beliefs are invalid and ultimately must be eradicated.
In the case of these varying state atheist groups you have governments expressing that atheism is the only valid belief system, and again, all others must cease. And anti-theists are explicit about their view of all other religious beliefs being invalid and needing to be eradicated.
If persecutions and executions against religious people by governments that are saying everyone has to be atheist isn’t killing in the name of atheism, then what the fuck is?
You can sugar coat it however you like and No-True-Scotsman till the cows come home, but North Korea, iirc, even today, kills, imprisons and tortures more people for their beliefs than any other country.
Believing that atheists are somehow immune from shittiness is absurd. No broad category of people is immune from shittiness.
Again they don’t kill these people cause they believe in god and they are against god, they kill them cause a large group of people who believe in a higher power could undermine their own dictatorial power and control, there’s a reason a lot of these assholes try to elevate their image to a god like being, they want to desperately control the narrative.
No atheist hates god. How can you hate something you don’t think exists?
I guess you can hate god as a concept. God can be proven to exists in human minds (no esoteric stuff, just psychology and sociology). You can hate this scientific fact and what it means for humankind.
Tbf, you can think god isn’t “real” while also hating the concept of “god” for being responsible for so much war and division throughout history (among other reasons.)
Well in that case, if a religious person accuses you that you hate their god, it’s still not true. Because that religious person thinks of their god as a real entity, while you hate their concept of god. The target of that hate is not the same.
People hate on fictional characters all the time though.
There is a difference between god as a character and God as a concept; the former one is (in my belief) nonexistent, the latter exists as long as his worshipper worship him.
I dunno. I’m not entirely an atheist (my religion is blasphemy. If the gods exist, they like a target) but I can hate something I don’t think exists. Some of those deities are godsdamned genocidal maniacs and pedophiles.
ITT people missing the point and projecting their own beliefs and values.
This is how people “strawman”. It’s easy to hate on atheists if you just see them all as their asshole members. The truth is that any group has their violent nutjobs and vocal minorities. You can’t just say all Muslims are terrorists just the same as you can’t say feminists are hateful crazies.
Nah organized religon is actually evil
I dont get it, which minority am I supposed to blame for all my problems now?
the assholes
Unfortunately, they are no longer a minority.
You’re right, Mexicans do suck
Put the /s on, we need it these days.
PP_BOY_ is amazed that the Mexicans he hired can operate a vacuum cleaner
The 1%
As much as I resent religion, I do believe it’s fundamentally a human problem. People everywhere have a tendency to corrupt beliefs in order to justify being assholes to one another.
100%
That being said, dogmatic belief systems, which tend to be common in religion, seem to act as force multipliers in this regard.
Yeah especially if such dogmatic beliefs make people think dumb or unethical stuff is somehow okay.
Religon was created as a control mechanism for governments that didn’t have the capability to enforce laws.
It’s a method to make communities self police.
Today it is a dangerous tool left lying around for any con man to pick up and weild
That’s why fascist movements always have a religious/nationalist base.
Terrible implementation of a decent idea, try again
There are in fact assholes of every stripe and it is good to be aware of those within your own “camps”
Prefer the Norman Rockwell version of Rosie the Riviter:
https://www.nrm.org/rosie-the-riveter/
The Norman Rockwell Museum are cowards. The photo crops out the bottom, where she’s using Mein Kampf as a footstool.
That is cowardly, that’s one of the few things its good for. Maybe fixing a wobbly table leg, and when you’re out of toilet paper.
And ‘assholes’ just appear at random? Nothing in these groups increases or decreases the asshole frequency? Imagine if we thought of all culture that way. Forget about progressive politics changing people’s minds and thereby their behavior. “Some people are just ‘assholes’, what are you gonna do?”
Assuming the probability of assholiness based on culture is how you treat cultures unequally. You fight assholiness in the individual level. You can’t change a culture like that. You can only educate people and they will change their own culture.
Assuming the probability of assholiness based on culture is how you treat cultures unequally.
If you agree that bad ideas can be part of cultures (large or small) to a higher or lesser degree, it follows that some cultures have a higher frequency of people with the need for the individual ‘education’ you’re suggesting.
Not all beliefs are equal. If you hold by a holy text that says that women can (and should) be bought and sold or are otherwise ‘lesser’ than men, or you revere an imbecilic demagogue who claims that all immigrants are rapists, murderers and gang members, then yes, the “culture” of your group will have a higher probability of any given person being an asshole than a group of randomly-selected Humanists, for example. To equivocate that all belief systems are equal from a moral perspective is deeply naive.
ETA: I am not a humanist, because I believe that there is a point at which violence is necessary and justified to protect other lives and the rights thereof.
The Christian one should be a missionary actually helping people. Christian faith that only exists in church is a false faith
Proud asshole here
That’s right, extremism breeds assholes.
Need an asshole, hyrulian fortune teller…
Is that Elon
3 of these are real examples things the people on the right did, the last is a meme made to make fun of feminists. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a level of feminism that goes too far, I just have yet to see an example of this in real life. There’s something about women in general that makes society eager dismiss them offhand as silly and ridiculous whenever they have opinions.
So you’ve never met a TERF in real life?
I think the term mostly refers to bigots. Most “TERFs” aren’t even radfems, they just use “protecting women” as an excuse for their bigotry.
There are some women like that in real life actually
That something is patriarchy.
