The internets have the shinies
Dec. 22nd, 2008 12:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessBrowsing through my ever increasing google reader, a link of a link lead me to this little gem
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
It's a exposition/rant from an atheist on why atheists are angry and why that anger is important. I'm not an atheist, but there is much food for thought and important information there.
But, in addition to being a genuinely good and well thought out piece, it contains some real gems, which i'm going to extract and hope the original author forgives me for the presumption:
And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because "Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that." As if that fucking matters. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize it because it's not how it happens to play out for them. It's like a white person responding to an African-American describing their experience of racism by saying, "But I'm not a racist." If you're not a racist, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and listen to the black people talk? And if you’re not bigoted against atheists and are sympathetic to us, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and let us tell you about what the world is like for us, without getting all defensive about how it's not your fault? When did this international conversation about atheism and religious oppression become all about you and your hurt feelings?
Yes. Just Yes. I have seen this so many times. You see an article about sexism and suddenly the discussion becomes about men pointing out that THEY'RE not like that and suddenly it's all about men. You see an article about racism and suddenly the topic is the hurt and upset white people who aren't like that. Part of the major stumbling blocks anyone from a privileged group (and yes, being male or white or straight or Christian IS privileged in most of our societies) faces is the shocking idea that something ISN'T ABOUT THEM
I recall a straight acquaintence getting huffy about gay bars. "Why do you get gay bars? There are no straight bars!" Yes. There are. EVERY bar in the country that ISN'T a gay bar is a straight bar. There isn't a "Men's Institue" because just about every organisation in the world not specifically for women is man's institution. There's a black history month because most of the rest of history is so damned white washed its dazzling in direct light.
It's not all about you (you being the privileged group which most certainly contains me as well). And an article about sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever is not about YOU. A place where the oppressed can go and be themselves is not about YOU. Most of the rest of the world is about you, these little corners not being about you are not going to break you.
Anger is Necesary. Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war movement today, you name it... all of them have had, as a major driving force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness...... It is not up to believers to tell atheists that we're going too far with the anger and need to calm down. Any more than it's up to white people to say it to black people, or men to say it to women, or straights to say it to queers. When it comes from believers, it's not helpful. It's patronizing. It comes across as another attempt to defang us and shut us up. And it's just going to make us angrier.
Anger. How often is that used against the oppressed? "Why are you so angry?" "Don't be so angry!" "You're being uppity." "You're a bitch." "Your anger puts people off." Our anger is seen as some kind of flaw, or sin when it is an asset. Anger is the fire that makes you get up and do something. Anger is the tide that forces us forwards, that makes us yell "enough," that stops us tolerate the shit, that stops us taking the easy way out.
And if the anger so offends people - have they never considered that maybe we have a damned good REASON to be angry? When the right wingers are clucking over the gays picketing churches or the commentator nearly spitting venom into the mic or large shouting demonstrations and marches or anger, seething books do they never think "these people are pissed, what have I done to them?" Don't belittle our anger by asking us to calm down, to be moderate - don't imply we don't have a damned good reason to be angry.
And when believers tell passionate, angry atheists that extremism is never right and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, they're making a big, big mistake
The middle ground - again this applies to every fight to be treated decently that every oppressed minority has faced. Be reasonable. Meet them half way. Don't be an extremist.
Well, the opposite position is me and mine don't exist. Me and mine don't have basic human rights - and it's been the same for women, for ethnic minorities, for minority religions - every political struggle for an oppressed has had 2 sides
1: X doesn't deserve full human rights
3: X deserves the same human rights as everyone else.
So where's 2? Where's the middle ground we should be fighting for? Where's the "moderate" position us extremists at 3 should be fighting for? Do we get some human rights? Most human rights but a few are just too special for us? Human rights on paper but everyone's still going to treat us like shit? Human rights but they're not enfirced? What IS the moderate ground between "I'm a normal person" and "I'm unworthy scum?" and why should I be aiming for it?
I could go on for horus really, it's a gem of a rant and has some really good food for thought in it. Every point could have me writing a long rant of my own
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
It's a exposition/rant from an atheist on why atheists are angry and why that anger is important. I'm not an atheist, but there is much food for thought and important information there.
But, in addition to being a genuinely good and well thought out piece, it contains some real gems, which i'm going to extract and hope the original author forgives me for the presumption:
And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because "Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that." As if that fucking matters. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize it because it's not how it happens to play out for them. It's like a white person responding to an African-American describing their experience of racism by saying, "But I'm not a racist." If you're not a racist, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and listen to the black people talk? And if you’re not bigoted against atheists and are sympathetic to us, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and let us tell you about what the world is like for us, without getting all defensive about how it's not your fault? When did this international conversation about atheism and religious oppression become all about you and your hurt feelings?
Yes. Just Yes. I have seen this so many times. You see an article about sexism and suddenly the discussion becomes about men pointing out that THEY'RE not like that and suddenly it's all about men. You see an article about racism and suddenly the topic is the hurt and upset white people who aren't like that. Part of the major stumbling blocks anyone from a privileged group (and yes, being male or white or straight or Christian IS privileged in most of our societies) faces is the shocking idea that something ISN'T ABOUT THEM
I recall a straight acquaintence getting huffy about gay bars. "Why do you get gay bars? There are no straight bars!" Yes. There are. EVERY bar in the country that ISN'T a gay bar is a straight bar. There isn't a "Men's Institue" because just about every organisation in the world not specifically for women is man's institution. There's a black history month because most of the rest of history is so damned white washed its dazzling in direct light.
It's not all about you (you being the privileged group which most certainly contains me as well). And an article about sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever is not about YOU. A place where the oppressed can go and be themselves is not about YOU. Most of the rest of the world is about you, these little corners not being about you are not going to break you.
Anger is Necesary. Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war movement today, you name it... all of them have had, as a major driving force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness...... It is not up to believers to tell atheists that we're going too far with the anger and need to calm down. Any more than it's up to white people to say it to black people, or men to say it to women, or straights to say it to queers. When it comes from believers, it's not helpful. It's patronizing. It comes across as another attempt to defang us and shut us up. And it's just going to make us angrier.
Anger. How often is that used against the oppressed? "Why are you so angry?" "Don't be so angry!" "You're being uppity." "You're a bitch." "Your anger puts people off." Our anger is seen as some kind of flaw, or sin when it is an asset. Anger is the fire that makes you get up and do something. Anger is the tide that forces us forwards, that makes us yell "enough," that stops us tolerate the shit, that stops us taking the easy way out.
And if the anger so offends people - have they never considered that maybe we have a damned good REASON to be angry? When the right wingers are clucking over the gays picketing churches or the commentator nearly spitting venom into the mic or large shouting demonstrations and marches or anger, seething books do they never think "these people are pissed, what have I done to them?" Don't belittle our anger by asking us to calm down, to be moderate - don't imply we don't have a damned good reason to be angry.
And when believers tell passionate, angry atheists that extremism is never right and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, they're making a big, big mistake
The middle ground - again this applies to every fight to be treated decently that every oppressed minority has faced. Be reasonable. Meet them half way. Don't be an extremist.
Well, the opposite position is me and mine don't exist. Me and mine don't have basic human rights - and it's been the same for women, for ethnic minorities, for minority religions - every political struggle for an oppressed has had 2 sides
1: X doesn't deserve full human rights
3: X deserves the same human rights as everyone else.
So where's 2? Where's the middle ground we should be fighting for? Where's the "moderate" position us extremists at 3 should be fighting for? Do we get some human rights? Most human rights but a few are just too special for us? Human rights on paper but everyone's still going to treat us like shit? Human rights but they're not enfirced? What IS the moderate ground between "I'm a normal person" and "I'm unworthy scum?" and why should I be aiming for it?
I could go on for horus really, it's a gem of a rant and has some really good food for thought in it. Every point could have me writing a long rant of my own
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 01:20 pm (UTC)For instance, your situation: in general I agree that you deserve to have the same rights I have regarding marriage, child rearing and everything that goes with it, combined finances, and just walking down the street holding hands with your Beloved without getting rocks or ugly words thrown at you. In particular, I don't necessarily know why the way a waiter behaves toward you is pissing you off and/or is inappropriate.
How do I ask without pushing a rant button? How do I try to understand, and ask you to explain, without going straight to you directing all the hostility you feel at me? How do I ask so that your answer has maximum signal-to-noise ratio?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 02:51 am (UTC)Most people will take genuine good will and work with it. And if they don't - well just because someone is a member of "insert oppressed group" doesn't mean they aren't an arsehole as well.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 04:15 pm (UTC)I often think we British atheists are far too polite and civilliasd about it. The Americans get very caught up with the evolution/creationism issue, but for me the bigger issue here in Britain is the Anglican bisops sitting in the House of Lords - particularly since they were kept on after the reforms a few years ago as the so-called 'voice of moral authority'.
Your own points are excellent, as always. I especially liked your points about 'the middle ground' argument. I've never seen it put so elegantly before.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 02:53 am (UTC)I am not even remotely happy about the Bishops in the HoL. These so called "moral authorities" are, by doctrinal requirement it seems, opposed to rights that are protected by law and dedicated to pushing agendas that are against everything we are - and they're held as "moral authorities"?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 04:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 10:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 04:57 pm (UTC)but. can i vent? *does so* i'm just...annoyed. i love how they get to pwn the oppressed status while simultaneously alienating all their potential allies, by flaunting the attitude that everyone is either "religious" or "atheist" and by religious they mean "some form of christianity." if any other religion is mentioned at all, it's just to mock and go on about as being incomprehensible and also hopelessly stupid and a crutch humanity doesn't need, and HORROR. and y'know what? fuck that and fuck them--that makes ME angry. should we get into a pissing contest about whose anger is more justified? 'cause i'm betting my anger could eat theirs, shit it out, leave it on their front porches, set it on fire and ring the doorbell before it leaves.
it would also probably help if 9 out of 10 shows of anger stopped coming off as the same sort of oppressed that a baby pagan is as they squawk "no more the burning times!" --except all religion oppresses them and every evil done in the name of every and any religion somehow directly effects them in endlessly new and horrific ways. how is that somehow less fucking annoying than everything good happening in the name of someone's big bad sky daddy? (and trust me, i find that really fucking annoying too.)
now, to clarify: NONE OF THIS ACTUALLY MAKES IT OKAY TO OPPRESS ANYONE AND I'M NOT TELLING ANYONE TO STOP BEING ANGRY ABOUT THE STUPID. but yeah, ATHEIST RAGE!!!eleventy111!! pointed directly at me will probably get a response that will come off as condescending if the other person is LUCKY, and that is simply because of the nature of dawkins-style atheism (someone PLEASE bring back the old school atheists and nihilists. at least they were capable of holding good conversations!)
this probably makes me a bad person, by the christian morality they supposedly don't follow. but that's okay, 'cause i'm not a christian! i'm a whole other sort of stupid, ignorant, science-hating person that believes in a totally different set of invisible friends and family entirely, and thus deserving of any and all ridicule they may choose to fling my way like so much feces out of a monkey's ass.
next up: angry oppressed otherkin scientologists.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 05:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 05:17 pm (UTC)i'm merely stating why pointing that anger at people like me isn't going to get the reaction they want on that score, and why it ISN'T the same thing as race relations or sexual orientation in this country. no i'm not going to own my part in the continual oppression of atheists, or whatever it is this person wants, just because they're mad at something the anglicans did.
read the comment below mine. i agree with that one completely. straw men, ftw. religious or no, we're mostly fighting the same battles, and that nice tidy bridge between race relations and/or gender preferences, not so strong or so simple as that person would love for us to believe.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 05:40 pm (UTC)And, if you want to talk about straw men, just look at your own second paragraph:
flaunting the attitude that everyone is either "religious" or "atheist" and by religious they mean "some form of christianity." if any other religion is mentioned at all, it's just to mock and go on about as being incomprehensible and also hopelessly stupid and a crutch humanity doesn't need
However I'm not going to get into a slanging match in Sparky's journal. You're more than welcome to continue this discussion in mine if you're so inclined.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 06:33 pm (UTC)altho i will confess--i'm thinking that a secondary major bug up my ass this morning is that it's been starting to become a peeve when everyone on the planet feels free to waltz right in, help themselves to civil rights/race relations issues and self-inserts for dramatic purposes. i'm not the one that gets to hold the measuring stick for oppression, but it does get a bit wearing to see it constantly being put in to play every time someone is unhappy with their inability to discuss their differences with someone else. i think presentation is fair and valid thing to bitch about, perfectly decent messages have been lost in the delivery before. it may not even be that her particular rant is unjustified in it's borrowing (i would have to read it again, after a bit more distance), but it's been everywhere lately. straws. camels. back.
i'd take you up on your offer if i honestly disagreed with you, but i don't habitually tell people to stop being angry or that their angry is unjustified; frankly, i was brought up that that's just plain wrong, if nothing else. the rant was a tangent; mostly a reaction based on an audience-specific perceived improper use of metaphor cluebats, so i'm thinking it wouldn't be necessary, really? i mean, unless we're both that bored. slinging arrows over it seems a waste of energy.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 09:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 02:58 am (UTC)I do feel atheists do get a lot of grief and a lot from mainstream religious groups (not just the extremists). I do, also, think that they have a reason for anger. I do, in addition, think that the grief they take and their anger are not so large or harsh or extreme as that faced/felt by some other oppressed groups.
Anger is a powerful guiding force, unfortunately, it can also be misguided and it is most certainly a poor communicator. I think with some atheists (and other groups - pagan and gay groups have the same) the anger comes across more as generally directed aggression. Anger on the leash works better.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 05:07 pm (UTC)'But I'm not like that' or 'there's a need for compromise' are perfectly reasonable responses from a believer (or straight) to someone who angrily says 'All believers do X / All straights hate gays' or 'religion is inherently evil and we should get rid of it'. As interesting as your thoughts are here, I think that the original poster took a quote, moved it into the most unreasonable context and made something of a strawman of it, and you're moving on from that. What you're saying is fine, but I feel like what you're reacting to has been mischaracterized somewhere along the line.
What IS the moderate ground between "I'm a normal person" and "I'm unworthy scum?" and why should I be aiming for it?
The middle ground between 'you're a normal person' and 'I'm a normal person' is 'We're both normal people'.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 05:11 pm (UTC)* I'm angry about people who say 'the believers who do hateful things have their beliefs wrong', because who made THEM the ones who are right?
* I'm angry about having to correct people about their own faiths, which I've been forced to know more about than they do
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 03:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 03:04 am (UTC)All in all the article itself (though I quite like it in and of itself) I liked mainly not for what it was saying but for the little seeds of thought it planted in my own mind. And one thing was the compromise issue - yes it wasn't exactly in the original rant, but the original piece fired the neurone that lead to my thought on the matter - because I have heard the "why don't you compromise" argument and it annoys me because I don't see how there is a position of compromise when the opponent's position is so inimical to you.
The middle ground between 'you're a normal person' and 'I'm a normal person' is 'We're both normal people'.
But that's not really middle ground - that's my ground. That's me not giving any ground at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 05:26 pm (UTC)And if the anger so offends people - have they never considered that maybe we have a damned good REASON to be angry? When the right wingers are clucking over the gays picketing churches or the commentator nearly spitting venom into the mic or large shouting demonstrations and marches or anger, seething books do they never think "these people are pissed, what have I done to them?" Don't belittle our anger by asking us to calm down, to be moderate - don't imply we don't have a damned good reason to be angry.
I /think/ you'll agree, though, that justified anger can be expressed in ways that make the situation worse. Refusal to silently and passively accept injustice is necessary in order to overcome it, and anger can provide the inspiration to fuel that. But how you feel about it and what sorts of actions you take in response to it are two different questions, and it should be possible to criticize the second without criticizing the first...to say 'I think that doing X is hurting your cause' without questioning the justice of the cause or the anger behind it.
Now, realistically, public and obvious anger is probably required from at least a subset of any oppressed group in order to accomplish change. A reasoned, calm but steadfast position on the part of some other part of the group is also more or less required. That's the pattern you see in pretty much every civil rights movement. It's often been said (and I hope this doesn't send the conversation on a tangent) that neither Malcolm X nor MLK could have accomplished as much if the other hadn't existed.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 03:11 am (UTC)Anger needs to be controlled. Tightly controlled
BUT anger is powerful and it is useful and it is necessary. If people weren't angry then social movements wouldn't happen and they wouldn't change. And I think people should not treat justified anger as something to dismiss or ignore or belittle - yes they're angry and there's a REASON for it. Anger doens't have to be frothing rage, but it has to be the passionate driving force.
In some ways I've had and heard "angry" used as an insult or mode of dismissal. Like because we're angry we don't have to be listened to because we're not sensible or rational or.. well I'm not even sure what the rationale is. BUt the anger is supposed to be an accusation or a disqualifying factor.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 05:30 pm (UTC)I had a huge long thing written up here, but I suspect you would not listen to what I had to say in it right now.
I just... please, do not confuse anger and hatred. Be angry, yes, you have ever right to, but I am so heartsick with hatred right now. The world is drowning in hatred, I can't even bear to read about it any more.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 03:26 am (UTC)I think a lot of anger is turning to hatred and it's something that has to be avoided. It's hard when people hate you and hurt you so much and so constantly, not to want to lash out and lash back but we must always hold back from that - anger is a powering force, a driving force but not the directing force. It's only useful if controlled, not if it controls.
Hatred wears at me constantly, it depresses me so utterly and sometimes makes life more bleak than I can say. But it never seems to go away, unfortunately.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 03:42 am (UTC)I don't remember exactly how I had things written out but... it amounts to saying that I didn't ask to be "privileged" any more than you asked to be gay, and it's pretty hard for me to hear people ranting on about how angry they are at whites or straights or Christians or whoever the target is today. Hearing some of the things that are being said about Mormons right now... I honestly would fear for my life to confess to my religion in some groups. You may know how that feels. It's not a good feeling. My "privileges" don't make me hurt or fear any less when somebody calls for harm against me, and I wish that people could see that making threats and calling names and spreading hatefulness and violence isn't going to help their cause, because it alienates the ones like me, who are on the "other side" but who do vote for gay rights. And sometimes the line between anger and hate is so fine... It's so easy to start talking about what ought to be done to the people you're angry at, and sometimes... well, sometimes I can't help but feel that those aren't empty threats, that given the chance some of those gays going on about how awful Mormons are would actually hurt me, given the chance, even though I didn't vote on the damned thing at all. And of course now I've made it all about me. *sigh* But how do I discuss this without talking about my personal feelings? I feel betrayed that people in my own church would do something that goes so much against what the church teaches, if they'd just sit down and listen to it, but I feel hurt just as much by the people who turned pickets into riots, and threatened the lives of people I know and care about, because of how they voted.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-22 11:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-23 03:27 am (UTC)It's one of those articles where the original post isn't even entirely what I'm thinking iof, because every sentence plants a seed in my mind for my own posts
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-25 03:48 pm (UTC)Original: X doesn't deserve human rights, everyone else does.
Reverse: X deserves human rights, nobody else does.
Middle: X deserves human rights, everyone else does too OR X doesn't deserve human rights, nobody else does either
So in a similar vein
Original: Gays don't deserve to marry, all straight couples do
Reverse: Gays deserve to marry, no straight couples do
Middle: Gays deserve to marry, all straight couples do too OR Gays don't deserve to marry, no straight couples do either.
There are only really two boolean possibilities for these arguments, group X as positive or negative and group Y as positive or negative, so to find the middle ground you would change one of the boolean values. So unless they seriously want to suggest banning marriage outright, the middle ground is allow both