It’s humanism with intolerance of those we don’t tolerate because they are intolerable. Hope that makes it perfectly black and white, us vs THEM.

Assertion is not fact. I actually meet hundreds of atheists a year across two nations. I find almost all of them agree with me. I don’t know who you are hanging out with, but it isn’t the Atheism Movement that actually exists in the real world.

That’s all baloney. The atheist community is not stalled at all, it’s actually growing at a fast pace, FTB and Skepchick are now the most read blog networks online, A+ values are the norm across almost all atheist groups in real-space throughout the US and Canada (and even the Philippines and beyond), and every goal the A+ movement set is being realized. We basically won. Meanwhile, you can’t even be bothered to read the threads you comment on, and thus don’t even know what you are talking about.

More factless ranting.

What a sad little delusion you are trapped in.

Odd how? The SJW crowd loves to think as men as having meaningless opinions up to the point that it agrees whole-heartedly with them. I feared that you’d say ‘well, you’re a man, so it doesn’t matter what you think’ which is often a response I get, but wished to be honest.

“you don’t give me any reason to believe that you really think anything”

Try to sound more passive aggressive, please.

“You seem to be determined to argue, to pick a quarrel, and it is not clear whether even you know why.”

The reason is SJW parasites have yet again hijacked a popular movement of people and tried to turn everyone within it into easily offended gits or call everyone else who doesn’t think exactly like them rape apologizing, woman haters. They have to do this because they know they’re too toxic to start their own movement. Their toxicity eats away at everyone involved, so a movement for and by SJWs alone cannot exist. This is why they need an already existing host body.

See Occupy Wall Street and gaming.

One had an important goal, stop money from corrupting politics. It was taken over by over-privileged, quirky hipsters yelling ‘privilege!’ and drum circles, and they became a joke.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401092/october-31-2011/colbert-super-pac—occupy-wall-street-co-optportunity—stephen-on-location

The other had an SJW con-artist rise up, take money from suckers, and spend it on god knows what, only for those same suckers to find out that the person in question wasn’t really a fan of video games in the first place. That didn’t stop these suckers from supporting her though. Now this person with no real interest in video games, is helping to design a video game.

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/TheKodu/the-sarkeesian-the-dice-and-the-mirror–235992.phtml

Let me be clear, I don’t despise her for her arguments. I despise her for lying, she should have told the truth at the beginning. But telling the truth wouldn’t have suckered so many people in and gained her so much cash. She won’t say where the $160,000 went, considering she stole gameplay footage online and her video quality barely went up.

http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

“It reminds me of the Rebecca Watson debacle. So much of what was said was said for no rational reason whatever. Many people just had to quarrel because they were in some way offended: by which I mean that they felt a distinct dent in the ego, even though they had no right to do so.”

How dare they be offended! That’s SJW work. Of course, I know men don’t have the right to find offense in the assumption that asking for coffee means all men want in that situation is sex.

“This is pathetic. Unfortunately, it is highly dangerous, because it initiates a quarrel for no reason and insists on escalating the conflict once it has been established. Only because of the dear ego. What a horrible thing it is, really. Don’t you think so?”

Again, there’s no ego in play here. I’m anonymously commenting online, what ego do I have to perpetuate?

I know it’s horrible for someone to challenge atheism+. It’s a shame everybody doesn’t just bow down to it. That’s what block bots and mocking free speech with ‘freeze peach’ is for.

“But I suppose you’ll come back. Probably you can’t help it.”

I stopped responding to Richard because I knew how the further conversation was going to keep circulating. I’m letting him have his delusion that I’m running in fear from his mighty ‘intellectual artillery.’ You have yet to turn my words into something else; you make assumptions, yes, but that’s less frustrating. I thank you for that.

First, for the record, I’m not a woman.

As you say, Woll. However, I am increasingly aware that the default pronoun for millenia has always been “he”, and as this is a shocking thing I have unilaterally decided that whenever I deal with pseudonymous writers and lack clear reason to do otherwise I will use “she”, if only to see what the reaction might be.

I fear that will make my words null and void because ‘privilege’ but I don’t wish to talk under that misconception.

Don’t you think that’s a bit odd?

However, I’m not really concerned with what you think, because you don’t give me any reason to believe that you really think anything — or, if you do, you don’t know what it is. You seem to be determined to argue, to pick a quarrel, and it is not clear whether even you know why.

It reminds me of the Rebecca Watson debacle. So much of what was said was said for no rational reason whatever. Many people just had to quarrel because they were in some way offended: by which I mean that they felt a distinct dent in the ego, even though they had no right to do so.

This is pathetic. Unfortunately, it is highly dangerous, because it initiates a quarrel for no reason and insists on escalating the conflict once it has been established. Only because of the dear ego. What a horrible thing it is, really. Don’t you think so? But I suppose you’ll come back. Probably you can’t help it.

He has to change my words to try and turn me into a rape-supporting monster, when in reality I’m just against his absolutist thinking.

There is no absolutist thinking here. You found no evidence of any such thing.

I’m using premises based on reality (i.e. the people I actually condemned and asked others to). Yours are based on a delusion (i.e. the people you somehow delusionally believe I condemned and asked others to).

I showed that out.

And now you are trying desperately to avoid the resulting cognitive dissonance with this last long red herring argument that completely ignores what actually just happened here.

First, for the record, I’m not a woman. I fear that will make my words null and void because ‘privilege’ but I don’t wish to talk under that misconception.

“But it’s not true. The truth is that Woll’s words are nonsense to start with, and she doesn’t like it when someone examines her words and exposes their foolishness.”

Actually, it is true:

I said, “I don’t lump other innocent people into a group based on a few comments on Reddit and some guy in an elevator.”

He turned it into,

“Now you support joking about raping a teenage girl right in front of her? You are not against that?”

Another example:

“You’re denying US vs THEM thinking while simultaneously demonstrating US vs THEM thinking.”

into

“Wait. You mean us vs. people who send rape threats to women?

Are you actually defending people who send rape threats to women?”

He has to change my words to try and turn me into a rape-supporting monster, when in reality I’m just against his absolutist thinking. All ‘social justice warriors’ (at least the one’s I’ve dealt with) use this thinking, they’re so eager to turn all who object in the slightest way into rapists or homophobes.

He claimed, (paraphrased) “Oh, well I made it clear that I was thinking in these black and white absolutes, it’s your fault for not thinking exactly like me! Therefore, you’re a douche bag.” – http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/2412

Actual quote to show I’m not lying:

“So I improved that living document by inserting an irrationality vaccine: a rewrite of the concluding paragraph, thus…

‘In the meantime, are you an atheist? Do you identify as an atheist? Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.’

Of course, even the original statement should have been clear enough, since who would side with sexism and cruelty and irrationality? Lots of people, apparently. Many atheists declared themselves for Atheism Less in the comments. Then acted all surprised when I treated them like those who side with sexism and cruelty and irrationality. You reap what you sow, people.”

That and not even reading my posts before responding to me is making me run from talking to Richard Carrier. His debate tactic is to frustrate by ignoring your words and using straw-mans. As I said in my (last) response to Carrier, he won.

“Woll just has to argue, because that is the space she is in, and the fact that she keeps coming back to argue more, and has fewer points to make each time, convinces me that she is only arguing because she feels she must. It’s about ego, or about a misplaced feeling of obligation to some partially forgotten cause that did make sense at the time… Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how it looks to me. I see no point in obliging her to come back and back. It must be a real burden by now.”

I was desperately trying to get Richard to be reasonable, it was naive optimism. He’ll never stop trying to turn people into “C.H.U.D.’s” with his straw-man powers. Ego? I’m commenting anonymously online, what are you talking about?