Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

Silly me, rushing in without checking before sending.

I edited it. Simply criticized a specific sarcastic comment made by Coyne. Sarcasm itself proves nothing. I don't know, then, if using sarcasm to discredit a target as a substitute argument counts as a fallacy.

I don't think sarcasm itself is bad, nor parody and irony. However it's problematic because they can be easily misunderstood. They aren't necessarily fallacious though.

I simply misspoke on that, then.

Otherwise familiar with Coyne?

edited 1st Mar '17 8:55:05 AM by MerryMikael

Yes.

What do you think of his outlook, then?

I don't know enough of him to say specifically. However if he's similar to the others I mentioned, then we'd have our disagreements.

I'm not really for or against him, funny enough. But I try to seek out different viewpoints even though I don't agree with any of them.

Perhaps I should do something else than yammer.... Well, here's a video by The Amazing Atheist, as a response to another Youtuber calling himself Black Pigeon Speaks.

edited 3rd Mar '17 2:59:15 PM by MerryMikael

Oh god, not TJ Kincaid.

In this video he's pretty measured and not shouty at all, if that's your problem with him.

My problem with him is that he's a sexist pedophile.

Okay, some references, please? Apparently you don't want anyone to listen to anything he says - unless that's just ad hominem you just used.

If you or anyone else wants to listen to him that's fine, it's your right, but I don't care for him after he insulted a rape victim on a Reddit AMA and told them whoever raped them deserved a medal.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TheAmazingAtheist

This goes into detail of some of his less pleasurable offenses.

edited 3rd Mar '17 5:39:37 PM by AdricDePsycho

Yeah, unfortunately he's a scumbag Mikael. His atheism videos I've seen are generally okay, but the rest... Ugh.

Where's the bit about pedophilia? I don't see it.

Also, the very Rational Wiki -article you link to, Adric, itself refers to Kincaid trying to help those actually suffering from oppression, only to twist it around to somehow be out of spite towards feminists and thus meaningless. Excuse me?!

And I also happened to stumble upon a video of his where he attempts to defend himself, but I don't aim to change your opinion of him. If you don't care or want to watch, sure. If anyone does or is interested, viewer be a judge - but perhaps any possible discussion about that would demand its own branch. I'd suggest we steer away from that here.

Back to the one responding to the Black Pigeon, I linked it, because I'd watched it. I'd appreciate if anyone wanted to share thoughts on the arguments in that video. I'm not asking you to like the guy. Is that necessary in this case?

edited 13th Apr '17 3:36:51 PM by MerryMikael

Sorry. I don't know who this "Black Pidgeon" is, and Kincaid might make some valid statements in the video you posted. But from what I know of him through watching other videos he's made, I'd prefer not to add to his views. Perhaps you could post a brief video summary?

His arguments with regards to atheism (including in that video) aren't so bad, as I've said. It's the rest of his views that I take issue with. There are many other sources of such views. We don't need to view him for them.

I didn't find his defense of himself compelling. There are some things we just shouldn't joke about. So if you do, people will react this way. For me and others, there is a line closer than actual rape. His lack of empathy for others "feelings" (it goes much, much deeper by far) is telling. I'm not saying all of the criticisms are right, or that he never makes a valid point against some. Though some of this can be excused by youth and ignorance, the rest can't. He doesn't address much of the things people had issues with anyway that I can tell. It's also obvious to me that practically no one will ever admit they were a misogynist, racist etc., yet any person's denial seems pretty convincing for him. That seems pretty naive to me. Anyway, even if you agree with him to some degree, this seems like a Don't Shoot the Message situation at best. There are many strawmen and false dilemmas here. Yes, telling rape jokes does not mean you're a rapist, or even a "rape supporter". However, that also doesn't make it appropriate either. Learning more of what rape victims go through would be a good idea, but he just doesn't seem about to do that.

edited 4th Mar '17 6:00:43 PM by Fireblood

Sounds like an apt summa summarum.

I thought you wanted to go more into detail on that video, but okay.

edited 7th Mar '17 2:58:38 AM by MerryMikael

Sorry, that's what my first sentence was meant to address, right here: "His arguments with regards to atheism (including in that video) aren't so bad, as I've said. It's the rest of his views that I take issue with. There are many other sources of such views. We don't need to view him for them."

edited 5th Mar '17 6:41:30 PM by Fireblood

I'm a little curious as to where this tendency towards misogyny among prominent male athiests (Kincaid, Dawkins, etc.) comes from.

Dawkins is old. That might have something to do with it.

Dawkins isn't a misogynist. He's a bit anti-feminist, and only against the most modern ideas in feminism (which he seems too old and sort of lazy to properly understand). He still does, I think rightly, call himself a feminist. In his memoir he talks of an incident, when he was starting out his academic career, where he participated in - and IIRC, led - a strike because the university wasn't promoting men and women equally. (Don't quote me on this; it's been at least a year since I read it, so I remember it very vaguely.)

I'm not trying to defend his position regarding the current topics in feminism. I just think it's unfair to call him a misogynist. He's behind the times but he doesn't actually treat men and women differently, at least as far as I can tell.

But yeah, he's definitely behind the times on certain social issues. He often talks of cases where he's been wrong about something and changed his mind when the proper evidence, or an alternative way of viewing a question, has been explained to him. He probably did grow up with some misogynistic and racist and homophobic attitudes, which he grew out of through experience and education. I believe, if he could just accept that he's still not done learning, that he could still grow by talking to a prominent and well educated feminist thinker. Unfortunately, based on his public comments about this subject, his main contact with feminism these days is with people who are either ignorant of, or dishonest about, feminism, and he's basically listening to them as if they were valid experts.

So basically, old and in a bad crowd about modern feminism, but not a misogynist.

Some feminist atheists, such as PZ Myers, have suggested that the movement is suffering from having so many old people becoming so popular among the atheist movement. To be a leading expert in your field, you have to work in it for a long time (even longer if you want to be recognised as an expert in addition to being one). People like to hear from the best academics in each field, and very often this means that the go-to people, especially if you're looking for ones who have already established a public profile, will be quite old. They'll also tend to be men (depending on the field a bit) because of gender inequality. For similar reasons, they'll tend to be white. It's not their fault, but they might be biased or ignorant about some social issues.

So that's a sampling issue that comes from wanting the top academics in each field, and preferring ones who are already famous for their work in that field (as opposed to being famous just for advocacy of a social or political cause). I'm hopeful that this issue will be resolved automatically, as the pool of leading academics diversifies in time. Of course, it would be even better if the people in the elite now were to change their attitudes, and to some extent I'm sure that's happening, but we don't live in an ideal world.

There does also seem to be a problem with younger advocates of atheism, though. Even people who have no other expertise, and thus aren't selected from a limited pool of people with a full career within a specific field, seem to have a disproportionate share of people with regressive attitudes. I don't think this is because they're following the example of the old leaders of the movement. It's probably a reflection of some other social force - maybe something like the alt-right boom, although most of the prominent atheist advocates I've listened to are leaning to the left. (Most, not all.)

Of course, it could just be a sampling error. Perhaps, for every 10 Youtube atheists or atheist bloggers making almost entirely the same points in a very similar manner, the only ones who are noticed are the ones who make some notable mistake or create a controversy. That controversy, then, will drive people to view their content to see what the fuss is about, and that gives them traffic that pushes them above people who would otherwise have been their equals, in terms of visibility.

edited 6th Mar '17 6:56:51 AM by BestOf

Young "Rationalists" seem to think that perfect rationality comes with the welcome pack rather than being something to aspire to.

I think it's also generally due to libertarian thinking from young rationalists. Or, well, alleged libertarian thinking. People like Sargon of Akkad probably don't fully follow that kind of logic.

Oh yes, Sargon of Akkad.

edited 7th Mar '17 2:57:08 AM by MerryMikael

Yeah, not to hot on him either, similar reasons towards my dislike of The Amazing Atheist.