Cerrone - I think you missed my meaning. Or maybe I'm missing yours, I'm completely willing to accept that I might be an idiot or that I didn't express myself well.
"Hate speech is an orwellian concept many people use frequently to condemn..." - Okay, when I said 'hate speech' what I mean was exactly what Paul is talking about - bullshit nitpicking, and a whole lot of shouting without actually accomplishing anything. If the person came up with a passionate argument, I completely agree that it should be addressed/engaged. I love passionate arguments. What I don't think makes a positive impact in this world in any sense is useless "I hate [insert usually random and pointless shit to complain about]." I see people like this all the time. I think I mentioned in my post that we SHOULD get angry about many things - the harmful actions religions have made people do in their name SHOULD be argued against and activism taken. I'm not saying sit idly by. But you must agree there's a difference between what I think you're trying to say, which is "we're not going to stand by while you do this anymore" and "I hate you because you do this" (which I think we can agree isn't constructive.)
"We are a society that values socially damaging and destructive individualism, not the individual. It's a trick of media plain and simple, and if you doubt that, try and assert your individualism in a way that isn't identifiable with a clique" - Yup, let's see... If I'm understanding this correctly, I think the experiences I went through in high school were quite enough. I mentioned the cliques because I WASN'T part of one and damn did it piss people off when they couldn't label me - it unsettles people. The point I was trying to make went with whether or not you call atheists a 'group', and if you do then you must realize that just like those groups back then, one or two bad faces can spoil the rest of the school/world for them. It's not right - we ought to recognize each person for the individual that they are, but the fact is that most of society doesn't. A few loud and obnoxious people calling themselves atheists going up to religious people and basically acting the same way my ex's ignorant Baptist family treated me makes it look to anyone else looking on that atheists are no different from those who follow invisible men.
How exactly do you define extremeism, and where do you draw the line? When I hear extremist, I think of terrorists. I think of people bombing places they feel don't fit into their version of society. I think of people who use unnecessary violence on the idea that it's the only way to get attention. Of course, this is only my opinion, but I'm sorry I don't feel like we're living in Brave New World. I have to be quite honest, the second you refer to that and 1984, I start to close off - it's too much like my paranoid, racist, delusional and bipolar father, who thinks the world has been blinded. Before you accuse, I'm not putting those labels on you! I just think it's unfair to say that we're living in a world where people have no idea what the hell is going on.
I do not define activism as someone trying to outgun another person. An activist to me is someone who comes up with a positive solution that, even if not implemented, gets people thinking. Extremist: 9/11 terrorists. Activists: those people who relentlessly pursue justice for their families through the courts after those bastard Catholic priests, using media coverage to make it so that these pedophiles can no longer hide even behind the money of the church.
Why do I think Paul had a point? Because when people from any religion, group, clique, etc sit around and talk about only how they hate something, day in and day out, it's the first step down that road to lynchings and the like. Sit a bunch of fundamentalists down and let them whip themselves up about how they 'hate fags'. Do you think atheists are above that? Who's to say in the future there won't be atheists running around policing anyone who happens to NOT not-believe, just because they're the majority?
And by the way, in the general public, the more you shout a person out the more they cling to their beliefs. I could passionately decry everything that Christianity (for example) has done wrong and tell the person in front of me how horrible it is, and out of pure spite they will dig in their heels and call ME the asshole. Or I could keep my cool, explain my points, NOT look like the asshole, and maybe anyone observing will notice that and think twice about their own beliefs - because one non-believer proved themselves sane and logical. The point is made all the time in the skeptical community - you're out to convince the people around you, not necessarily the one you're arguing with, and the second you make your cause look like shit, that's the second that audience stops listening.
"Hate speech is an orwellian concept many people use frequently to condemn..." - Okay, when I said 'hate speech' what I mean was exactly what Paul is talking about - bullshit nitpicking, and a whole lot of shouting without actually accomplishing anything. If the person came up with a passionate argument, I completely agree that it should be addressed/engaged. I love passionate arguments. What I don't think makes a positive impact in this world in any sense is useless "I hate [insert usually random and pointless shit to complain about]." I see people like this all the time. I think I mentioned in my post that we SHOULD get angry about many things - the harmful actions religions have made people do in their name SHOULD be argued against and activism taken. I'm not saying sit idly by. But you must agree there's a difference between what I think you're trying to say, which is "we're not going to stand by while you do this anymore" and "I hate you because you do this" (which I think we can agree isn't constructive.)
"We are a society that values socially damaging and destructive individualism, not the individual. It's a trick of media plain and simple, and if you doubt that, try and assert your individualism in a way that isn't identifiable with a clique" - Yup, let's see... If I'm understanding this correctly, I think the experiences I went through in high school were quite enough. I mentioned the cliques because I WASN'T part of one and damn did it piss people off when they couldn't label me - it unsettles people. The point I was trying to make went with whether or not you call atheists a 'group', and if you do then you must realize that just like those groups back then, one or two bad faces can spoil the rest of the school/world for them. It's not right - we ought to recognize each person for the individual that they are, but the fact is that most of society doesn't. A few loud and obnoxious people calling themselves atheists going up to religious people and basically acting the same way my ex's ignorant Baptist family treated me makes it look to anyone else looking on that atheists are no different from those who follow invisible men.
How exactly do you define extremeism, and where do you draw the line? When I hear extremist, I think of terrorists. I think of people bombing places they feel don't fit into their version of society. I think of people who use unnecessary violence on the idea that it's the only way to get attention. Of course, this is only my opinion, but I'm sorry I don't feel like we're living in Brave New World. I have to be quite honest, the second you refer to that and 1984, I start to close off - it's too much like my paranoid, racist, delusional and bipolar father, who thinks the world has been blinded. Before you accuse, I'm not putting those labels on you! I just think it's unfair to say that we're living in a world where people have no idea what the hell is going on.
I do not define activism as someone trying to outgun another person. An activist to me is someone who comes up with a positive solution that, even if not implemented, gets people thinking. Extremist: 9/11 terrorists. Activists: those people who relentlessly pursue justice for their families through the courts after those bastard Catholic priests, using media coverage to make it so that these pedophiles can no longer hide even behind the money of the church.
Why do I think Paul had a point? Because when people from any religion, group, clique, etc sit around and talk about only how they hate something, day in and day out, it's the first step down that road to lynchings and the like. Sit a bunch of fundamentalists down and let them whip themselves up about how they 'hate fags'. Do you think atheists are above that? Who's to say in the future there won't be atheists running around policing anyone who happens to NOT not-believe, just because they're the majority?
And by the way, in the general public, the more you shout a person out the more they cling to their beliefs. I could passionately decry everything that Christianity (for example) has done wrong and tell the person in front of me how horrible it is, and out of pure spite they will dig in their heels and call ME the asshole. Or I could keep my cool, explain my points, NOT look like the asshole, and maybe anyone observing will notice that and think twice about their own beliefs - because one non-believer proved themselves sane and logical. The point is made all the time in the skeptical community - you're out to convince the people around you, not necessarily the one you're arguing with, and the second you make your cause look like shit, that's the second that audience stops listening.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
