Atheism+, wtf?!

Zombrex · 25-09-2012 02:20PM

Kooli wrote: »

Zombrex that is YOUR definition of a safe space. Is it OK for Atheism+ to have a different definition? (one that I am very familiar with and that is extremely common in social justice circles - also known as minority space)

Do you not see the irony in trying to enforce your own definition?

I'm not trying to enforce it. How the heck do I enforce Atheism+ to do anything?

I told this this is "my" definition of a safe space, ie the one that has been used on the Internet for decades and the one that works on the Internet.

If Atheism+ want to make up their own version of this term and start using it on the Internet to mean something different to how it has traditionally been used they are free to do so. This is going to confuse people and give people the wrong impression as to what space they are trying to create, but frankly I think confusing and dividing people is not a major concern of Atheism+.

But don't tell me I'm using the term wrong because you are too ignorant to understand the history of Internet discussion forums. If you were setting up a gay bar you might have a point, but you aren't, you are setting up an Internet discussion forum and in the lexicon of Internet discussion forms that is not what safe space means.

This is like the nonsense of people saying I can't call myself an agnostic atheist because agnostic means you haven't made your mind up about God. Er, no it doesn't dumb ass read up on how agnostic is used in sceptical scientific circles (ie the original usage of the word) and then get back to me telling me I'm using the term wrong.

decimatio · 25-09-2012 02:52PM

Kooli wrote: »

It's not about disagreement. A basic understanding of social justice would require that any person in a conversation makes it very clear that they recognise the various privileges they possess (be it being straight, white, a man, whatever) and take these privileges into account at all times when discussing with an oppressed group.

Privilege differs between countries, cultures, areas, and even individuals.

Men are privileged in some areas, women in others, and in other areas it makes no difference.

Some races are privileged in some countries and are disadvantaged in others, and in many it's almost irrelevant.

So I would not enter that conversation as a straight person and 'explain' to the gay people present about why they are wrong about their opinions/approach/feelings or whatever. I would not try and 'explain' to them how I'm not actually homophobic ("and here's proof") when they tell me some of my actions or words are homophobic. I would not try to dominate or derail the conversation, in acknowledgement of the fact that most conversations in the public sphere are dominated by straight people, and this space has been delineated as something different.

What utter nonsense.

Anyone has the right to voice their opinion on any issue and no one has any special right to have their opinion heard more than anyone else.

I will disagree / agree with a homosexual, someone of the opposite sex, or someone of a different race on any issue the same way I disagree or agree with anyone, by using my mind and thinking about the issue.

Your argument is illogical and nonsensical.

I have met some incredibly racist members of minority races, are their opinions on racism of a higher value than mine ?

I've met homophobic gay men who have had Jesus pushed on them for too long. Is my opinion on homosexuality inferior to theirs ?

I have met feminists who are extremely misandrist. Is their opinion on gender equality superior to mine ?

If I don't understand why they are annoyed with me, it is my responsibility to try to understand, and to educate myself.

Oh really ? Well listen and a story I will tell. This actually happened.

Recently I was involved in a conversation with a group of Asians and the subject turned to race. Some of the Asians involved started talking about IQ test results and academic performances of different races and promptly concluded that people of African descent are intellectually inferior to Caucasions and Asians.

I disagreed. Now some of them were annoyed with me. Is it now my responsibility to go and try to understand and educate myself ?

Kooli · 25-09-2012 02:58PM

Zombrex wrote: »

If Atheism+ want to make up their own version of this term and start using it on the Internet to mean something different to how it has traditionally been used they are free to do so. This is going to confuse people and give people the wrong impression as to what space they are trying to create, but frankly I think confusing and dividing people is not a major concern of Atheism+.

But don't tell me I'm using the term wrong because you are too ignorant to understand the history of Internet discussion forums. If you were setting up a gay bar you might have a point, but you aren't, you are setting up an Internet discussion forum and in the lexicon of Internet discussion forms that is not what safe space means.

They are not the first to use the term 'safe space' in this way. They did not make it up. I was not confused by it. I was confused by your attempts to derail it to mean something different. They are coming at it from a social justice perspective, which you don't know as much about as they do. That's not a criticism, just fact.

If two people have different opinions on what a term means (and both definitions potentially have a history and context, neither person plucked the definition out of the air), is it that controversial to suggest that the people who own the group are the ones who get to decide?

Rev Hellfire · 25-09-2012 03:03PM

Kooli wrote: »

That's not a criticism, just fact.

That's a fact which has yet to be proven, fact.

Kooli · 25-09-2012 03:11PM

decimatio wrote: »

Privilege differs between countries, cultures, areas, and even individuals.

Men are privileged in some areas, women in others, and in other areas it makes no difference.

Some races are privileged in some countries and are disadvantaged in others, and in many it's almost irrelevant.

What utter nonsense.

Anyone has the right to voice their opinion on any issue and no one has any special right to have their opinion heard more than anyone else.

I will disagree / agree with a homosexual, someone of the opposite sex, or someone of a different race on any issue the same way I disagree or agree with anyone, by using my mind and thinking about the issue.

Your argument is illogical and nonsensical.

I have met some incredibly racist members of minority races, are their opinions on racism of a higher value than mine ?

I've met homophobic gay men who have had Jesus pushed on them for too long. Is my opinion on homosexuality inferior to theirs ?

I have met feminists who are extremely misandrist. Is their opinion on gender equality superior to mine ?

Oh really ? Well listen and a story I will tell. This actually happened.

Recently I was involved in a conversation with a group of Asians and the subject turned to race. Some of the Asians involved started talking about IQ test results and academic performances of different races and promptly concluded that people of African descent are intellectually inferior to Caucasions and Asians.

I disagreed. Now some of them were annoyed with me. Is it now my responsibility to go and try to understand and educate myself ?

We disagree on the fundamental definitions of privilege and what it means, so everything that flows from that is going to be a disagreement.

Privilege does not differ between individuals, at least not the definition I'm using. Because privilege is a systemic, institutional issue. It's not an individual issue. It's not about one person's experience or one specific example. It's about wider issues - whose voices are privileged across a culture. Whose experiences are dominant. Whose identity is seen as the 'default' identity. It may differ across cultures or countries, but for the most part it doesn't. There is no culture or country I can think of where the dominant voice or identity is female/gay/disabled or black (unless the country doesn't have any white people).

I really enjoyed your story about the Asian people being racist, but I'm not sure I see the point of it. They weren't talking about their own experiences of racism against them. They were being racist. I've never claimed that black people can't be racist, or women sexist, or gay men homophobic. In fact I have expressed very specifically in this thread that they can. So I don't know what point I've made you were trying to disprove.

You are of course free to disagree with who is gay/black/a woman on anything you like. But if the thing you are disagreeing with them on is actually to do with their experience of being gay/black/a woman then you don't get to be the authority any more, regardless of how many times you use the words 'logic' or 'rationality'.

There's an obsession on here with who is 'right' or 'wrong', as if that's what I'm saying. Nowhere in my post did I say that being white/straight/male makes you necessarily wrong or makes the person from the minority/oppressed group necessarily right. Nowhere.
It is just guidelines about who gets to speak and how, and most importantly how to listen.

Is listening (properly listening) seen as somehow giving in? Admitting to being wrong? Weakness?
I don't get this complete obsession with being right. I really don't.

Doctor DooM · 25-09-2012 03:59PM

Kooli wrote: »

Is listening (properly listening) seen as somehow giving in? Admitting to being wrong? Weakness?
I don't get this complete obsession with being right. I really don't.

The actual problem as I see it currently with A+ is when you listen, disagree, and then get abused for it. I've run many, many communities online and that one simply cannot work functionally any more than youtube does as a community if that's how it will be run. I am, of course, basing this off what I've seen here, but wrong or not how Zombrex was treated was pretty atrocious, and if unchecked will damage the place.

I've seen virtually all the people you're talking to happily admit when they've been wrong, btw.

Can you really not see why the truth is important on forums in which scepticism is valued?

Nodin · 25-09-2012 04:15PM

Kooli wrote: »

............

There's an obsession on here with who is 'right' or 'wrong', as if that's what I'm saying. Nowhere in my post did I say that being white/straight/male makes you necessarily wrong or makes the person from the minority/oppressed group necessarily right. Nowhere.
It is just guidelines about who gets to speak and how, and most importantly how to listen.

Is listening (properly listening) seen as somehow giving in? Admitting to being wrong? Weakness?
I don't get this complete obsession with being right. I really don't.

And of course theres no "obsession" with being right on Atheism+, just being right on the party line.

decimatio · 25-09-2012 04:41PM

Kooli wrote: »

We disagree on the fundamental definitions of privilege and what it means, so everything that flows from that is going to be a disagreement.

Your definition, if I understood it correctly, is not just wrong in my opinion but demonstratably wrong.

Because privilege is a systemic, institutional issue. It's not an individual issue. It's not about one person's experience or one specific example. It's about wider issues - whose voices are privileged across a culture. Whose experiences are dominant. Whose identity is seen as the 'default' identity. It may differ across cultures or countries, but for the most part it doesn't.

For the most part it doesn't ? Have you ever heard of Asia, India, or Africa ?

It differs quite a lot in the Western world nevermind taking in the rest of the planet. Privilege in the US is very different from the situation in Ireland for example.

There is no culture or country I can think of where the dominant voice or identity is female/gay/disabled or black (unless the country doesn't have any white people).

So you've never heard of South Africa ? Zimbabwe ?

Your comment re female is nonsensical because the dominant 'identity' anywhere is not a gender.

I really enjoyed your story about the Asian people being racist, but I'm not sure I see the point of it. They weren't talking about their own experiences of racism against them. They were being racist.

As luck would have it I was also party to that kind of discussion many times. But I somehow think I'd be wasting my time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've never claimed that black people can't be racist, or women sexist, or gay men homophobic. In fact I have expressed very specifically in this thread that they can. So I don't know what point I've made you were trying to disprove.

No, you just claimed that people with 'privilege' shouldn't disagree with people without it on issues of racism, sexism, bigotry etc.

You are of course free to disagree with who is gay/black/a woman on anything you like. But if the thing you are disagreeing with them on is actually to do with their experience of being gay/black/a woman then you don't get to be the authority any more, regardless of how many times you use the words 'logic' or 'rationality'.

Oh is that right ?

Last year a (black) friend of mine from the US was on a subway in Asia with me when a middle aged man talked to him. The man was asking him to go sit down and be quiet. My friend didn't speak the local lingo, I do. The beginning of the sentence started 'Na-ga ..' ((you) out) which wasn't exactly polite in the first place but which my friend misinterpreted as 'Nigga'. To this day he insists the man called him '******' and relates the story frequently.

But of course, I must be wrong because that was his experience of being a black man. Right ?

Kooli · 25-09-2012 04:54PM

decimatio wrote: »

For the most part it doesn't ? Have you ever heard of Asia, India, or Africa ?

So you've never heard of South Africa ? Zimbabwe ?

South Africa and Zimbabwe have gender and racial equality? Wow!

And I'm afraid your wrong, the default in most countries does have a gender, which is male.
By default I mean that the male experience is seen as the 'normal' experience, and the woman's is other.
The dominant voice in politics, the media and other homes of power in the country is male.
The stories told in books, movies and television centre around a male character. If they don't, they are a 'woman's' show/movie/book.
Men's voices are treated as having more authority. Women's are routinely silenced, minimised or dismissed.
If people are talking about a 'human', it's usually assumed to be a man unless otherwise specified.

That's what I mean. I'm sure you'll be ready with your individual specific examples to contradict the above, or maybe you'll recognise that on the whole, the dominant voice in most cultures is male. The voices I hear speaking with authority on most subjects is male.

Kooli · 25-09-2012 05:09PM

I might leave this as my final post on the matter (I've said that before...!) because it's turned into the nitpicking tit-for-tat crap that boards is famous for, and I'm not particularly interested in for a discussion like this.

All I can say is that the social justice movement has certain beliefs and underlying assumptions and practices. These are not welcome in the normal atheist circles (as evidenced by the 2000 posts in this thread and the other one).
So atheism+ is for people who DO wish to abide by these practices and communication styles, and for those who DO value certain beliefs about how society works. Generally (but not always), that is going to attract people who are a member of one or more oppressed groups. Generally (but not always), it is going to be hard to understand for someone who is not a member of any oppressed group.

The fact that we have about 2000 posts trying to argue against this move on this forum alone, and the fact that so many people (from the privileged groups) have followed people over into their own forum to try and argue against them and shout them down just makes you look like a dicktit, to be honest. And I'm not sure what the goal is - to drag them back to the main atheist forums? To show them up as being wrong/irrational? (and if so, to what end?) Or to prove to them how right they were to move? (if so, well done!) Or to make sure they don't have a space free of privileged people trying to shut them up? (again, why?)

They are rhetorical questions by the way. Feel free to answer them, but I won't be back for a while. This kind of stuff makes me angry. ("ohmagerd the lady is angry so she must be totally irrational and unless she speaks in a less angry manner we shouldn't listen to her, emotions have no place in debate blah blah blah I get it"). That's why Atheism+ is where I'm heading to!

Zombrex · 25-09-2012 05:18PM

Kooli wrote: »

They are not the first to use the term 'safe space' in this way. They did not make it up. I was not confused by it. I was confused by your attempts to derail it to mean something different.

That is because you are ignorant of the term in the context of the Internet. That is my whole point.

You are David Cameron thinking that "lol" means lots of love (which it does in the context of old school letter writing) when put in a text message (where it doesn't).

Feminists moving into the online space taking old terminology and expecting that they mean the same thing are as out of touch as Cameron's little mistake.

Kooli wrote: »

They are coming at it from a social justice perspective, which you don't know as much about as they do. That's not a criticism, just fact.

That is the whole point, they are no longer in context that "safe space" originated. They are now in a space I know a heck of a lot more about than they do.

The points are (again)

1. They are using the term wrong. This is not in of itself particularly significant, it is again David Cameron thinking "lol" means lots of love, ie someone unfamiliar with being online using terminology from a different space or era.

2. The concept they are trying to import onto the online space are disparate. They don't cross over. Creating a feminist safe space in a gay bar or primary school is nothing like creating a safe space for an internet discussion.

3. It won't work. The Internet community have spent decades developing rules and methods for facilitating workable discussion, this is what a "safe space" means in this context. Atheism+ seem ignorant of the vast majority of this. They are taking rules that only apply in physical spaces, and applying them to a virtual space where everything is different. Hell they don't even seem to know what half the phpBB features that are there to facilitate such a thing are for.

Now AGAIN I'm not censoring them. I don't know if anyone is, but I am most certainly not. I'm saying nothing more than "You're doing it wrong"

They can by all means do it wrong, I really don't care all that much. I do get annoyed when people who clearly don't know what they are talking about tell me I'm wrong.

en.wikipedia.org+wiki+Leif...+celebrating+Leif+erikson+_7887e513d45f563de9832db912515eab.jpg

en.wikipedia.org+wiki+Leif...+celebrating+Leif+erikson+_7887e513d45f563de9832db912515eab.jpg

Kooli wrote: »

If two people have different opinions on what a term means (and both definitions potentially have a history and context, neither person plucked the definition out of the air), is it that controversial to suggest that the people who own the group are the ones who get to decide?

Language is a form of communication. You are communicating and idea

When Cameron txted "lol" he was accidently communicating laughing out loud. That was down to his own ignorance. What Cameron should have done (and probably did do for all I know) was say "Oh right, yeah you see I was coming from letter writing context where it means lots of love, didn't realize that in the txt/internet world it means that"

What he could, but probably shouldn't, have said was "Its my f**king phone I'll decide what I mean STFU&FO!!!"

He can say that, but then everyone else can say he is being silly, can't they.

yawha · 25-09-2012 06:11PM

You're suggesting that "the internet" has gotten safe spaces right?

I am amused.

Nodin · 25-09-2012 06:29PM

Kooli wrote: »

I might leave this as my final post on the matter (I've said that before...!) because it's turned into the nitpicking tit-for-tat crap that boards is famous for, and I'm not particularly interested in for a discussion like this.

..........

Jaysus, a shower of skeptics getting picky over the facts. Ye couldn't make it up.....

Yes, I remember now. You like a "different kind of discussion" where people state what they're feeling and don't have to face questions on it. Thats not "discussion", that's some form of therapy.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 25-09-2012 06:42PM

Atheism+ sounds a bit like old style Marxism.

Zombrex · 25-09-2012 08:40PM

yawha wrote: »

You're suggesting that "the internet" has gotten safe spaces right?

I am amused.

I know you are that is because you don't seem to know what you are talking about and I do.

Amazingly though I'm able to explain to you what I'm talking about rather than simply telling you STFU&FO.

yawha · 25-09-2012 09:23PM

Well, I've been using the internet and discussion fora for 10+ years. I was not aware of an internet-specific definition of "safe space" that was completely different to a real world safe space.

What I am aware of is that the vast majority of internet fora are overwhelmingly dominated by straight, white males. This is not to say that they are always blatantly or intentionally discriminatory places, but the narratives and perspectives which are presented and discussed are predominantly from that point of view. Therefore, my logical conclusion of what an internet safe space should be is one which places an emphasis on the voices and perspectives of different groups, and minimizes emphasis on the dominant voices in 90% of the rest of the internet.

As for them telling you to STFU&FO as opposed to being more polite about it, the general argument is that they don't owe it to you to be nice. You, however, owe it to them to become familiar with social justice concepts and attitudes to issues from their perspective before you enter their space. Disparaging them for not being nice to you is what's known as a Tone Argument.

equivariant · 25-09-2012 09:47PM

yawha wrote: »

As for them telling you to STFU&FO as opposed to being more polite about it, the general argument is that they don't owe it to you to be nice.

Yes they do.

If the working assumption is that everyone is a troll unless they bend over backwards to adopt their language and ideology then the space they have created is of no value.

It seems clear that atheism+ is destined to die away pretty quickly. There does not seem to be anything there that was not already evident on skepchick and/or FTB.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2012 10:32PM

yawha wrote: »

You're suggesting that "the internet" has gotten safe spaces right?

I am amused.

Is boards not a safe space?

Zombrex · 25-09-2012 10:33PM

yawha wrote: »

Well, I've been using the internet and discussion fora for 10+ years. I was not aware of an internet-specific definition of "safe space" that was completely different to a real world safe space.

What I am aware of is that the vast majority of internet fora are overwhelmingly dominated by straight, white males.

Straight white males who argue over fecking everything with each other. You think the Internet was a bastion of agreement and tolerance until gay black women started using it?

"Straight white males" have been developing systems to allow internet discussion to function since long before you started using the Internet.

yawha wrote: »

Therefore, my logical conclusion of what an internet safe space should be is one which places an emphasis on the voices and perspectives of different groups, and minimizes emphasis on the dominant voices in 90% of the rest of the internet.

Which again is what "Straight white males" have been developing on the Internet for a lot longer than 10+ years.

Again do you think straight white males don't tell other straight white males they are going to rape them on the internet, that this just happened when women started using the internet. And that other straight white males who found this behaviour despicable never worked on systems to shield users from this sort of hatred?

yawha wrote: »

As for them telling you to STFU&FO as opposed to being more polite about it, the general argument is that they don't owe it to you to be nice.

It is not about being nice, it is about being told to go away. Being told to go away politely would be as bad for the existence of diverse ideas as STFU&FO.

yawha wrote: »

You, however, owe it to them to become familiar with social justice concepts and attitudes to issues from their perspective before you enter their space. Disparaging them for not being nice to you is what's known as a Tone Argument.

No that isn't what a tone argument is, but again I'm not surprised you don't understand that concept either.

A tone argument is saying you cannot understand a point that is put to you unless it is put to you in a nice way. I understood exactly what STFU&FO meant. :rolleyes:

robindch · 25-09-2012 10:56PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Straight white males who argue over fecking everything with each other.

Hadn't realized that Massimo Pigliucci and Jerry Coyne had a Watson/Dawkins-style falling out:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ie/2011/12/jerry-coyne-loses-his-cool-dawkins-his.html

Maybe they need a "safe space"/"echo chamber" too?

Nodin · 25-09-2012 11:10PM

robindch wrote: »

Hadn't realized that Massimo Pigliucci and Jerry Coyne had a Watson/Dawkins-style falling out:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ie/2011/12/jerry-coyne-loses-his-cool-dawkins-his.html

Maybe they need a "safe space"/"echo chamber" too?

And a drum to pass between them.

decimatio · 25-09-2012 11:24PM

Kooli wrote: »

South Africa and Zimbabwe have gender and racial equality? Wow!

You said there was no country you could think of where blacks were the dominant voice or identity. I pointed out South Africa as an example, a country where blacks are not only the dominant voice and identity but where there is widespread and partly institutionalised discrimination against 'whites', a group you consider to be privileged.

And I'm afraid your wrong, the default in most countries does have a gender, which is male.
By default I mean that the male experience is seen as the 'normal' experience, and the woman's is other.

I have no idea what your talking about here. When I think of different countries I think of people of that nationality whom I've met first and foremost.

The stories told in books, movies and television centre around a male character. If they don't, they are a 'woman's' show/movie/book.

Something tells me that if I give you a list of examples to the contrary that the goalposts will have moved. But just for the sake of it, a handful of my personal favourites, Nikita, Resident Evil, more books than I could name and a huge number of video games have a female as the central character.

Men's voices are treated as having more authority.

Where? By who? When?

That's what I mean. I'm sure you'll be ready with your individual specific examples to contradict the above, or maybe you'll recognise that on the whole, the dominant voice in most cultures is male.

Yes it probably is. And?

decimatio · 25-09-2012 11:40PM

Kooli wrote: »

I might leave this as my final post on the matter (I've said that before...!) because it's turned into the nitpicking tit-for-tat crap that boards is famous for, and I'm not particularly interested in for a discussion like this.

You mean the discussion we were having where everyone is allowed voice their opinion as long as they do so in a civilised manner?

All I can say is that the social justice movement has certain beliefs and underlying assumptions and practices.

So my views on social justice are what? Wrong?

By what you've being saying someone like a rape victim or a sexual asault victim should be an authority on rape is that right?

So Richard Dawkins opinion on the matter should be authorative over Rebecca Watsons no?

yawha · 26-09-2012 12:52AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is boards not a safe space?

What? No. Boards is not a safe space. However, certain fora are safe spaces to a certain extent.

Mark Hamill · 26-09-2012 08:57AM

yawha wrote: »

What? No. Boards is not a safe space. However, certain fora are safe spaces to a certain extent.

In what way is it not a safe space? Is A&A a safe space?

Genghiz Cohen · 26-09-2012 05:00PM

Call me slow to the party ( I really didn't care about all this for a long time, but decided to educate myself a little).

But this all started when a woman was chatted up in an elevator?

A woman who is against her sexualisation at conferences, and then has provocative photos like this (easy lads, and ladies I suppose) and a spot in a pin-up calendar.

And somehow, this is a big deal?
Or, is it only a big deal because the people who want it to be a big deal shout very loudly that it is, in fact, a big deal?

robindch · 26-09-2012 05:35PM

^^^ just on that, Watson has just called on everybody to stop making "not-quite-nudie" calendars because it helped encourage the view that women "were seen first as sexual objects".

http://skepchick.org/2012/09/please-stop-making-calendars/

Without any obvious sense of irony, Watson appears at the top of the page, er, "not-quite-nudie"

yawha · 26-09-2012 06:00PM

Huh? Did you read the article? She explains why she did it back then (7 years ago) and why she discourages the idea now, dispelling any possible irony.

Nudity being empowering vs. sexualising/demeaning is a complex and interesting topic. Surely that is fairly obvious? Surely it's extremely disingenuous to suggest that because she once partook in a nude photo shoot because she believed it to be empowering, that she cannot comment at all about the sexualization of women? (At best, that's a Tu Quoque fallacy)

Also, I think it wasn't so much Elevatorgate as the response to it, and it wasn't what started this, but the straw that broke the camel's back.

robindch · 26-09-2012 06:23PM

yawha wrote: »

Surely it's extremely disingenuous to suggest that because she once partook in a nude photo shoot because she believed it to be empowering, that she cannot comment at all about the sexualization of women?

She can't comment about it? No, on the contrary, as Watson has produced a semi-nude calender, I think she's well-placed to discuss the topic. And I think she makes a worthwhile point about the sexualization of women and I'm happy that she's come around to my own view, which is that, all things considered, nudie-calendars don't really do much for most people or most causes. I trust she won't be selling personally-signed skeptic-themed string knickers/thongs any more either for similar reasons.

What I don't understand is why she heads an article talking about the unhelpful sexualization of women with an image that sexualizes her. Nor, for that matter, do I understand why she feels the need to include a limited range of fairly earth prose in an article in which she says the most important reason she's now talking down something is because it's "in no way edgy, interesting, or clever". Having cakes and eating them springs to mind on both counts.

yawha · 26-09-2012 06:31PM

Well, the picture is already out there in the wild, and it's relevant to the article.

She's also human and has gradually began to learn the implications of these sorts of things in various contexts. This kind of thing is really hard.

Atheism+, wtf?!

Comments