use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
Help victims of the Aurora shootings
Help victims of the Sikh shootings
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
Entering a Rebecca Watson discussion in r/atheism (i.imgur.com)
submitted 7 months ago by totemist
[–]pitiesthefool 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago
It's like elevator gate all over again. I'm staying the f*ck out of it.
[–]LocalMadman 3 points4 points5 points 7 months ago
I'm fairly upset to see it posted in r/atheism after the idiocy of the "elevator incident".
Why can't we just ignore this idiot?
[–]michael333 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
HAHA! I just did exactly that!
[–]goodwolf 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago*
When there is a big difference in values, to the point that you don't find things offensive that other people do, it's not a winnable or even worthy argument to have.
I don't particularly want r/atheism to change. Sure there are assholes who say awful things, but they tend to be contained to their own sub-threads where I do not, if I do not want, have to see them, thanks to that little minus button. If that thread was chocka with threats of the girl getting raped, that would be something, but there's a big difference between that and empty rape-jokes made for their own sake.
350,000 followers, remember. I'm doubtful that we're worse than any other male-dominated group in society proportionally speaking. If the thread was chocka with threats of rape, that would really be something, but that would be something very different than making empty rape jokes made for their own sake. I can understand making those jokes in the context of a thread started by a 15yo girl would be inappropriate so I wonder what context making jokes about rape can be acceptable. Is it never, because then we're disagreeing on a fundamental level about whether humour about some things are necessarily crossing the line of decency or rather that all things should be on the table for humour.
I can't appreciate what it would've been like from the perspective of the girl who made that thread, but I struggle to appreciate that it might be as bad as it's being made out to be.
[–]JohnSmallBerries 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
I wonder under what circumstances, Rebecca would think rape jokes are acceptable, if at all. If they're never acceptable to her then we have a problem because I don't think there's anything that necessarily is out of the question to be humorous about.
I know a couple who lost their infant son a few days after he was born. Neither of them considers dead baby jokes to be acceptable, ever. This is a thing that I can easily understand, and if I were the sort of person to tell dead baby jokes, I would refrain from ever telling one in their presence. I would never even dream of telling dead baby jokes to them and then insisting that they're wrong for being offended. That would make me a complete fucking asshole.
Now, I don't know Rebecca Watson's personal history, so I don't know whether or not she has an intensely personal reason for being offended by rape jokes. She may, she may not; but that doesn't really matter. She has every right to say that they're unacceptable, just as you have every right to say that they're acceptable.
But if you "have a problem" with the fact that she expresses her opinion, then by what right do you express yours?
[–]Lethario 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
I think she is entitled to express and hold the opinion that rape jokes are never funny. I even agree with that opinion, although perhaps in the right context exceptions are in order. The issue I take with that post is that it condemns not only all of r/atheism, but all of reddit for the terrible behavior of a relatively small number of members. For all of the bad things posted to reddit, there are also good things. Insights, well mannered discussions, helpful advice, encouragement, and lets not forget the whole doctor's without borders thing. It isn't inappropriate to be disgusted by the comments about rape and sex themselves, but to use that disgust to justify the kind of hyperbole she did is brattish. Why couldn't she just call out the offenders themselves and leave out the slander against the whole of reddit? That is poor editorialization, which bothers me. It's like when a group of feminists are talking about a rape case and they conclude "men are evil." Or when some men get hit on at a bar and assume every woman wants to fuck them. In short, it is common (in the relatively archaic sense.)
That being said, the comments she pointed out were pretty sickening, and it is a shame that the poster of that thread was subjected to that kind of behavior.
tl;dr - i like to hear myself type
[–]JohnSmallBerries -1 points0 points1 point 7 months ago
The issue I take with that post is that it condemns not only all of r/atheism, but all of reddit for the terrible behavior of a relatively small number of members.
It didn't, though.
She said that "Reddit is infested with shitty, racist, sexist, bigoted people, to the point where it’s nearly guaranteed that some of those people will post in your special interest subreddit" - but saying that Reddit is infested with such people is not saying that everyone on Reddit fits that description. Indeed, the latter phrase explicitly indicates that not everyone on Reddit fits it (for if everyone on Reddit fit the description, it wouldn't merely be "some people" posting in "your special interest subreddit").
Nor does saying that "R/atheism is very large, and so it is jam packed with assholes" say that everyone in r/atheism is an asshole. Nowhere in her post does she condemn all of r/atheism, and in fact the majority of the post does indeed consist of "call[ing] out the offenders themselves".
Now, it's true that in one of the comments under her post, she does write "It’s a whole community of people who congratulate one another for being awful", and to that I do object, but (a) it's not the post itself; (b) the antecedent for "it" is undefined, so it's just ambiguous enough that she could either be talking about Reddit as a whole, r/atheism, or the group of assholes about whom she's complaining; and (c) quite a bit of the commentary I've seen today about her post seems to be doing its best to justify her criticisms.
For all of the bad things posted to reddit, there are also good things.
Yes, that's absolutely true. Yet how many posts do you see here on r/atheism that take the time to list all the good things Christianity has managed to accomplish, despite itself, before taking issue with some of its less savory aspects?
Oh, as do I. As do I.
[–]Lethario 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Honestly, I wasn't looking at her blog when I posted that, and I still am not looking at it, I was just going based off of my vague recollections of what it said. Probably a mistake. That being said, I take issue with her choice of words. Neither the phrase "Infested with", nor the phrase "jam packed with" makes me think the object is a minority. Indeed, it gives the impression that the majority is being described. Both leave room for a small group to not fit the description. Both phrases also lead a reader who doesn't know the website to view it negatively. I understand that this is a product, most likely, of the author's recent distaste. I don't, however, think that it is a professional way to write. There is too much hyperbole for my taste.
Either the author is aware of the effect her words have, and so is annoyingly manipulative, or unaware, and so is a poor writer.
Neither the phrase "Infested with", nor the phrase "jam packed with" makes me think the object is a minority.
Well, that's fine - neither phrase has a specific quantitative meaning, so it's quite understandable that different people would interpret them differently.
But it seems like any time a feminist issue raised in r/atheism hits the front page, it's swarmed by "Men's Rights Advocates" and other misogynists, so hyperbole or not, she does have a valid point. I've been here long enough to see it over and over again - and you've been here longer than I have, though I don't know how long you've been reading r/atheism.
And it wasn't even a feminist issue this time. It was merely a girl who posted a picture of herself and made a couple of off-color comments, and apparently that was enough to open the floodgates for some truly loathsome behavior.
I have read r/atheism since i started visiting reddit, and to quote beckett, "I get used to the muck as I go along." I have learned to ignore most of the trolls, and most just feel pity for them. You are right that there certainly are some misogynists on reddit, but i think that they are generally not the majority. When they win out it is shameful, but I like to think that is a rarity. Maybe I just ignore most of it. I just feel that the behavior being described is looked down upon, even if it isn't downvoted enough.
As to the issue in the original thread, i think that the problem is that the OP seemed okay with the lewd comments. As you said, she made off-color comments, and while that certainly shouldn't be an invitation for adults to make sexual advances towards a 15 year old, it does change the tone. I don't think it is right to make rape jokes to a teenage girl, don't get me wrong, but i think the community only accepted it because of her attitude.
As for the feminism thing, i see your point and offer a counter point. I feel like i see many threads reaching the front page about atrocities committed against women around the world in the name of religion, and more often than not the discussion is about how disgusting those practices are. Most recently I remember an article about the stoning of a woman in the middle east, and a little while ago another article about a woman whose nose was cut off. I don't remember many comments that were misogynist.
The men's rights thing is another, and I believe more sensitive issue. While it would be insane to argue that men and women have suffered equal amounts of social injustice, there are problems in the way society treats men and those problems should be addressed. Circumcision, often called the mutilation of mens genitals, is a popular rallying cry for "men's rights advocates". There may be good reason to be upset about that. The way we treat men's emotions is also quite horrid. I was personally beaten several times as a kid for crying, because "boys don't cry." I could go on, but i won't. I will say, though, that i hesitate to talk about men's rights, because most of its advocates are just using the topic as an excuse to justify rape and the further brutalization of women, or to discredit feminists. I don't want either of those things.
tl;dr- I'm getting tired and becoming more nonsensical by the minute.
I feel like i see many threads reaching the front page about atrocities committed against women around the world in the name of religion, and more often than not the discussion is about how disgusting those practices are.
That's a fair point. But threads about things that don't reach that level of atrocity - say, women expressing opinions about the way they're treated by guys at atheist conventions, or expressing disapproval of rape jokes - why, suddenly it's about women being whiny or trying to figuratively emasculate men simply by asking not to be treated with contempt.
I will say, though, that i hesitate to talk about men's rights, because most of its advocates are just using the topic as an excuse to justify rape and the further brutalization of women, or to discredit feminists. I don't want either of those things.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
I understand your point, and it is a shame that there are so many assholes out there. I think that perhaps it is a reflection of men disapproving of their changing social status. Since they cannot communicate these frustrations in their real lives, they vent them anonymously on the internet. This doesn't make their comments acceptable or right, but understanding that the bad things they say are just a reflection of their own fucked up neurosis helps me to ignore them.
The men's rights thing- My whole point is that while most of the "movement" consists of crazy cuntbags, there are some issues in societies treatment of men that should be addressed. One would hope these issues could be addressed alongside the perhaps more numerous issues with the treatment of women. Alas, people aren't happy unless they can figuratively rip out each other's throats.
[–]JohnSmallBerries 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I agree completely. I think part of the problem is that many people view life as a zero-sum game: if someone else is granted a right, they fear that a right will be taken away from them; and the only way for them to get what they want is to take something away from someone else.
Or perhaps they're just immature, antisocial shitbags who resent any suggestion that they treat others decently. I don't know.
[–]goodwolf 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
But here's the thing. They say there's a time and a place for everything. I don't think dead baby jokes are necessarily never ok, but that's perfectly consistent with suggesting that every context where those parents are present are in the category of "not appropriate". But on the other hand, what about me? My brother died as a baby. I make dead baby jokes.
The logic can pretty much extend to any joke. Imagine making a small penis joke not directed at anyone and then finding out indirectly that one of the people who were present lost their penis completely due to, I dunno, let's say frostbite.
My thoughts in my earlier post regarding Rebecca is that as far as I can tell, it's not as simple as saying "these jokes were acceptable" or "these jokes were not acceptable". And I argue that thinking one subject is out of bounds for humour (ie. sacred) necessarily makes most or all subjects scared for the same logic.
One thing I do disagree with about her post is that if you think about it, she's basically saying r/atheism needs to be significantly morally superior to other male-centric communities. She says at the end of her post that to her the ol' "but there are dicks in every group" is not an excuse. Why should r/atheism have higher moral standards than it does? Sure, we'd get something out of having higher moral standards in improving our PR; but we're not obligated to be anything other than human.
[–]JohnSmallBerries 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
But on the other hand, what about me? My brother died as a baby. I make dead baby jokes.
That's pretty much my point, though I see I didn't articulate it very well. You have the right to say that you find them acceptable. My friends have the right to say that they don't find them acceptable. Rebecca Watson has the right to say that she doesn't find rape jokes acceptable.
But once you say that you have a problem with people expressing their opinions, then what right do you have to express yours?
One thing I do disagree with about her post is that if you think about it, she's basically saying r/atheism needs to be significantly morally superior to other male-centric communities.
Okay, so why do you believe r/atheism should be a "male-centric community" instead of an "atheist-centric community"?
[–]goodwolf 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago*
I don't have a problem with her expressing her opinion, I disagree to some extent with what her opinion actually is.
I didn't say it should, I said it is. Talking about what the community should be is another discussion entirely that requires some extent of consensus.
I don't have a problem with her expressing her opinion,
Then I must have misinterpreted "If they're never acceptable to her then we have a problem", for which I apologize; but I see you've edited that text out, so I suppose it's a moot point now.
Talking about what the community should be is another discussion entirely that requires some extent of consensus.
No, changing the community should require some consensus. Talking about what it "should be" requires only opinions and a willingness to express them (and, optimally, a willingness to actually listen to and consider others' opinions).
I don't happen to think I know how things should change. I do think that requires community wide exchange.
"If they're never acceptable to her then we have a problem"
What I meant by that is that if she believes it, then we're not going to be able to reach and resolution if we had an argument.
Meaning you're just as entrenched in your position, and don't foresee any possibility of either one of you being persuaded or compromising?
[–]goodwolf 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
A fundamental disagreement based on mismatched values rather than reason or logic. That's to say if we disagreed about that idea, rational discourse isn't a tool we could use to reach an agreement.
It's like disagreeing about what flavour icecream is best, it's not an argument that works.
Perhaps, but if people aren't even open to the possibility of being persuaded to a different point of view, then obviously no change can occur.
And if both people in a discussion are equally intractable, then the blame for the lack of consensus or change can't be placed on one or the other of them, but upon both.
[–]studmuffffffin 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Who's that?
[–]H37man 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
What exactly is the problem. Is the girl with the book?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
No, no. It's the one with projection and insecurity issues.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]pitiesthefool 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]LocalMadman 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]michael333 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]goodwolf 5 points6 points7 points ago*
[–]JohnSmallBerries 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Lethario 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]JohnSmallBerries -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Lethario 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JohnSmallBerries 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Lethario 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JohnSmallBerries 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Lethario 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JohnSmallBerries 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]goodwolf 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]JohnSmallBerries 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]goodwolf 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]JohnSmallBerries 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]goodwolf 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]JohnSmallBerries 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]goodwolf 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JohnSmallBerries 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]studmuffffffin 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]H37man 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago