I'm not sure how the Tulsa Texas scenario is relevant to the quote. Maybe you can clarify.
It has to do with a person disclaiming that they or their actions are not somehow supremacist. The statement that, "Jan is neither" sexist nor misogynist is not necessarily significantly different from the claim that what happened in Tulia wasn't racist. We can always pretend that, gosh, someoneone wasn't trying to be racist, but don't ask me about the funny thing that happened as I was walking to St. Ives.
What do you mean by that?
That you're still a
whipping idol↗.
Remember, Jan what is actually true does not necessarily matter to someone like Billvon or James R. You're here so that people can have someone to feel better than, and superior to. You're the person some folks think think they should get to abuse in order to make themselves feel better. Like you, I'm sure on some level they're good people, but the characters you and they prefer to play here don't always go that way.
Think of it this way, Jan: As long as some people have someone like you to complain about, they think they never actually have to get a clue or put any real effort into their hatred. You're an atheist's excuse, Jan; it's all you've ever been, around here. You're the idol unto which some folks around here will abase themselves in order to pretend they're fighting some good fight against evil.
Here, try this:
Imagine that. Being on a so-called science forum, advertised as "the intelligent community", yet you are unable to give even a half descent reason to justify your vacuous claims. Where is so-called intelligence?
¿Are you joking?
Seriously, that "intelligent community" thing was called off
years ago. The bit about respect for the scientific method being the defining aspect of this community was acknowledged an empty slogan of its moment a long time ago. This isn't a "science forum". And believe it or not, you're an example of the reasons why. And, trust me, there are many examples and many reasons, but among them you do have your role.
Take a larger look at the internet and social media, and the public discourse is just beginning to reckon with something nearly unimaginable because it would make people feel really, really stupid to acknowledge they got caught up in it. But as social media companies discuss the idea of fact-checking, one point that seems nearly unavoidable is a question of apparent disparate impact. In and of itself, sure, that is as iconic as it is ironic, but in this case the disparate impact is not because of the color of someone's skin, unless it is; it is not about someone's sex or gender, unless it is. Rather, it is a fulfillment of a generational complaint for the manner and vector of its application to behavior.
What happened is simply that fact-checking would have an appearance of taking it out on certain quarters in popular discourse, and the trend is known; political and political-philosophical discourse supporting traditionalist and rightist beliefs crumble under the burden of even modest scrutiny—"fact-checking" can start to look like communities taking it out on conservatives. The underlying relativism is much akin to what proverbial grumpy old men of my youth warned of liberalism and humanism.
It's an easy sympathy, and the thing is your witness has always been very relatvist; like I said two and a half years ago, your evangelism seems to be more about the feeling of being some kind of evangelist.
Haven't you ever noticed ...— and, I mean, sure, there's a longer question, then, of staying a course, but still: Haven't you ever noticed that the envy seems to be the point? It's one thing to talk about evidence and rational argument, scolding and scoffing at some obvious examples along the way; it is quite another to actually bring that sort of produce for one's own part. That latter is why.
I had a discussion about this, once, with an atheist I know. I suggested an apparent envy of satisfaction drove certain errors; he virtually conceded the point, deferring to the nature of revolutions. Nonetheless, I still think usurping the throne of prevailing fallacy, to become the new boss that is just as dull and brutish as the old boss, is no proper solution. And if he didn't have much to say about that, no, you wouldn't be surprised, Jan, but understand, please, that entertaining people like you around here is part of some people's excuse for behaving poorly.
But that guy is just one of the atheists I've known over time for whom the point seems more about taking satisfaction from needling and irking religious people.
(There came a point, last week in Arizona, when
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors↱ sent a letter to the President of the State Senate, denouncing the so-called "audit" of the 2020 election, and addressing the public relations disaster it had created. The thing is, the thirteen-page letter reads kind of like a barely-restrained internet post. This is not to discredit the letter itself, but, rather, the point observes a wretched state of things. The response of the Board of Supervisors to the State Senate is simply
brutal because that's how the answers happen to go, as that's how the inquiries ran. At the intersection of the Arizona State Senate and a presidential election, this was the best the dissent could come up with. And what a disaster they have inflicted. If there is a moral to the story, one can reasonably argue that it has something to do with the fact that this is what happens when society entertains that manner of conspiracist rhetoric as if it is valid and reliable.)
At Sciforums, I've encountered a couple of versions of atheists protesting the idea of actually—how do I put it?—actually relying on what they know. One version goes that theists around here aren't worthy of an atheist's effort; another version, honestly, doesn't make any sense, but, yeah, Jan, even you can figure out why they don't bring that produce to market.
So it's like an atheist who needs us to redefine the actual word religion, to dumb it down, that we might make it easier to validate his critique. And, sure, okay, but wasn't part of the problem that this whole "God" thing is irrational?
Which is why it's weird to watch people who ostensibly know so much literally make up fake religions and religious people to complain about instead of dealing with reality. And it's a very interesting notion that some of these atheists might insist on a much narrower definition of God than even you would abide. There was even a point not real long ago when one of these puffed up atheists screwed up so obviously that even you got a lick in, and in a way, that's significant: If Jan Ardena is scoring a point on this, they're doing it wrong.
And that's the thing, Jan, you're one of the excuses. You're an example of "religious people"; you're an example of how some people excuse themselves from being rational.
(Here's an analogy from out in the world, somewhere: Have you ever heard of the "dirtbag left"? It's a marketing idea that concedes a rightist pretense about how leftism is elitist, effete, and emotionally fragile, pretending you can trust these "dirtbag" leftists over here because they can badmouth women and Black people, and speak up for white men, just like everyday real people. So, one day one of them picks a twitfight with a Black guy who is a socialist, and part of the point is to be seen doing so: See, here's a "leftist" who can stand up to mainline political correctness. But what he did, in actuality, was take a known basket case, an actual Black separatist who formed his own socialist party after the local organization kicked him out for being a frothing racist, and hold that one up as an example of some projected mainline left, in order to be seen standing up to an imaginary leftist bogeyman and challenging the Black societal overlords. To the other, the dirtbag left still fancies itself some manner of leftism, so its main audience seems to be men who were disappointed to discover the Democratic Party isn't actually liberal, and disenchanted Alex Jones detritus. In the end, they tilt windmills because that's the only thing they know how to do.)
An atheist I know once wondered what someone ought to be obliged to know about religion, and left just at that, the answer is precisely nothing. However, if one intends to criticize, perhaps they ought to know something about the object of their criticism. If this turns out to be too much to ask, people like you become their excuse:
「But religious people …!」 or,
「What about the theists!」 With a caricature like you to rely on, Jan, some people will continue to burn sosobra because they just can't figure out how to do anything better, and in an environment like this one, there doesn't seem to be much impetus to evolve.
The intelligent community? A science site? No, Jan, those ideas were simply incompatible with our apparent priorities, and over the years you see the trade. It's why you never really needed to get a comprehensible point; you're canon fodder for anti-religious sentiment that, most days, cannot muster an argument beyond the point of God not existing. Beyond that, it's apparently unfair to expect them to be rational.
But you are an example of their excuse. Say what you will about right and wrong, but that's how it works.
