Dumbest article you've ready

[Thaluikhain]

well you hardly know my stance on feminism yet you perceive it as an attack on feminism

There happens to be various threads started recently, where someone posts an attack on a feminist in order to attack feminism as a whole.

Now, if your thread isn't anything to do with that, it's just a coincidence that you've posted something that looks very similar at about the same time, then I apologise, I've misjudged you and lumped you i with the others.

i understand that in the past when humanism was drawn up, it was most likely based around white culture, but is that really humanism, when humanism is the concept of equal rights for ALL, its like saying a your a white supremacist yet you absolutely hate white people or an atheist who says they believe in zeus or thor

Is that not "No True Scotsman" at play there? Yes, humanists should be beyond that, but that's not to say that they are.

The writers of the US Declaration of Independence included the words "All men are created equal", and yet they owned black people as slaves.

Who determines if someone is humanist or not? It's clear from the article that the author believes it's something people self-identify as. Now, if you disagree, that there's an independent way of measuring someone's humanism, then all the author of that article is saying is that many people claiming to be humanists are people that would fail your test, and there are problems because of it.

actually i've done a tad bit more looking up and to be honest i can see why people who label themselves as feminist would feel threatened by humanism

it seems as if people who identify themselves as a feminist but then move on to humanism (aka equal right for all instead of rights for women) then its somehow a statement that they have abandoned all rights for women or they do not agree with what previous feminism got for womens rights

Why move on from feminism?

There is a strange (though common) assumption that someone who is a feminist cannot be anything else. There is absolutely no reason why someone can't support equal rights for all, while being a feminist as part of that. I'd cite Melissa McEwan as a prominent example, but she's hardly alone in this.

 

[SanguiniusMagnificum]

Something Ann Coulter wrote about football. I forget what exactly.

Everything Ann Coulter has ever written can be called the dumbest article written. Out of context she almost seems like a female Stephen Colbert with how crazy the things she says and writes are, except the difference between the two is she's actually serious.

I'm actually starting to think that Ann Coulter is some kind of double quadruple sleeper agent that's actually working for a good cause. Kind of like Revolver Ocelot, only more Republican.

 

[Riotguards]

There happens to be various threads started recently, where someone posts an attack on a feminist in order to attack feminism as a whole.

Now, if your thread isn't anything to do with that, it's just a coincidence that you've posted something that looks very similar at about the same time, then I apologise, I've misjudged you and lumped you i with the others.

i'm not sure on your example, are you saying that they said "look at this feminist, this is why feminism is stupid", if so then you would be right but i don't remember saying anything of the sort

and my intentions were definitely not to attack anyone's beliefs (well maybe the person who wrote the article)

Is that not "No True Scotsman" at play there? Yes, humanists should be beyond that, but that's not to say that they are.

The writers of the US Declaration of Independence included the words "All men are created equal", and yet they owned black people as slaves.

Who determines if someone is humanist or not? It's clear from the article that the author believes it's something people self-identify as. Now, if you disagree, that there's an independent way of measuring someone's humanism, then all the author of that article is saying is that many people claiming to be humanists are people that would fail your test, and there are problems because of it.

perhaps a bit of the "No True Scotsman" was at play but its still a valid argument, the core concept of humanism is equality, i would call myself an Egalitarianism but i feel it is more akin to all living things are equal (i.e. animals are not equal to humans and i'd be a hypocrite since i eat meat, i know it doesn't say it but its still something that i feel from Egalitarianism since it doesn't refer to humans beings)

and since Humanism and Egalitarianism are essentially the same (except one has no animals) then i don't see how equal rights for all can be lumped in with the same group who owned slaves

Humanism only has one requirement, do you believe all people are equal and deserve equal rights, if you say no then you aren't a Humanist

Why move on from feminism?

There is a strange (though common) assumption that someone who is a feminist cannot be anything else. There is absolutely no reason why someone can't support equal rights for all, while being a feminist as part of that. I'd cite Melissa McEwan as a prominent example, but she's hardly alone in this.

i'm not really saying that you cannot support equal rights while being a feminist but the difference between humanist and feminist is in my own opinion declaring yourself a feminist (or MRA and other groups) is a deceleration that some people do not deserve equal rights, if humanism is equality for all then saying your a feminist means you do not really support that view point and thus you feel some humans are less than others

humanism is really just saying your a feminist, MRA, LGBT, etc, etc, etc

the only difference is i support equal rights and feminism is not

 

[Thaluikhain]

Humanism only has one requirement, do you believe all people are equal and deserve equal rights, if you say no then you aren't a Humanist

The problem is though, that's very easy to say.

Most people would say that they are for equal rights for everyone, but in practice their view of everyone can often be a bit limited. A lot of people quietly overlook other people's issues, not because they overtly think those people are less, but because "the time isn't right", or that they are "dividing the issue". There's often a lot of cognitive dissonance at play.

That's what I meant by "all men are created equal". The people who said that presumably genuinely meant it...only they didn't practice it when it came to it.

i'm not really saying that you cannot support equal rights while being a feminist but the difference between humanist and feminist is in my own opinion declaring yourself a feminist (or MRA and other groups) is a deceleration that some people do not deserve equal rights, if humanism is equality for all then saying your a feminist means you do not really support that view point and thus you feel some humans are less than others

You'd be hard pressed to find a feminist that agrees with that. Well, about MRAs, but not about themselves.

humanism is really just saying your a feminist, MRA, LGBT, etc, etc, etc

I my opinion, it should[footnote]Again, not MRAs, as they are a reactionary group opposed to women's rights[/footnote], but it's not necessarily the way it works.

Going back to the Declaration of Independence again, having said "all men", that should have included black men. There'd be no reason to say "including black men"...but it would have been very different if they did.

Similarly, saying "humanist"...well, that should mean all humans, but can exclude all sorts of people. Specifying that you are a feminist at least means that you're not excluding women.

 

[Riotguards]

The problem is though, that's very easy to say.

Most people would say that they are for equal rights for everyone, but in practice their view of everyone can often be a bit limited. A lot of people quietly overlook other people's issues, not because they overtly think those people are less, but because "the time isn't right", or that they are "dividing the issue". There's often a lot of cognitive dissonance at play.

That's what I meant by "all men are created equal". The people who said that presumably genuinely meant it...only they didn't practice it when it came to it.

not sure what your point is, just because you don't interact or partake, its not like the view of humanism means you have to defend someone in a fight or partake in every debate or vote against inequality because its just impossible to keep up

a good example would be if it was a vote on whether the goverment can bulldoze your house if your a different nationality than the country you live in (i.e. British living in China) a humanist would say this is not right because it discriminates

you can't call yourself a humanist if you think one nationality can walk on another nation or any other human rights violation

You'd be hard pressed to find a feminist that agrees with that. Well, about MRAs, but not about themselves.

the very act of declaring yourself a feminist or MRA, etc is to declare that you find some humans lesser than others, thats why we have Egalitarianism or Humanism

I my opinion, it should[footnote]Again, not MRAs, as they are a reactionary group opposed to women's rights[/footnote], but it's not necessarily the way it works.

Going back to the Declaration of Independence again, having said "all men", that should have included black men. There'd be no reason to say "including black men"...but it would have been very different if they did.

Similarly, saying "humanist"...well, that should mean all humans, but can exclude all sorts of people. Specifying that you are a feminist at least means that you're not excluding women.

what the hell are you even talking about

i understand the whole deceleration fiasco but lets be honest, they weren't all good people but what they put forth is still good and ultimately brought people to equally treat people as humans instead of objects, unless of course by that logic the constitution is discredited because Abraham Lincoln had slaves and believed black people were lesser than white people

but the entire point of Humanism is that

A) all humans are equal

if you throw out A) then you don't have humanism or Egalitarianism

by the way, you do realise by declaring yourself a humanist you are pretty much more vulnerable to the fact you can be labelled a hypocrite if they were to support one rights over another

 

[Me55enger]

In a related theme to this topic, anyone on Twitter may want to consider following the Pub Landlord-cum-comedian Al Murray.

He has a #NotNews theme where folk from anywhere offer him examples of news that just isn't worth it.

 

[Mechamorph]

Humanism only has one requirement, do you believe all people are equal and deserve equal rights, if you say no then you aren't a Humanist

The problem is though, that's very easy to say.

Most people would say that they are for equal rights for everyone, but in practice their view of everyone can often be a bit limited. A lot of people quietly overlook other people's issues, not because they overtly think those people are less, but because "the time isn't right", or that they are "dividing the issue". There's often a lot of cognitive dissonance at play.

While that is true, the failings of the individuals following a cause does not necessarily invalidate it. Sure every cause will have some stupid people spouting nonsense. Some will even appropriate this for their own ends. Others will try to live up to these ideals but fail. To be fallible is to be human, something as simple as the notion that "every human is created equal and deserves equal rights" may never be true throughout the Earth in any age but its still a goal worth striving for.

As for the feminism threads......@_@ Living in Asia I am acutely aware that there are women denied the right to vote, to choose their own husbands, to achieve education, to acquire a living wage, not to be sold off to a husband, not to be raped when walking on the streets, to be able to walk on the street without being accompanied by male relatives, not to be attacked by vigilantes when spotted with a male not related to her and not to be immolated to death upon the demise of her husband among other things. We'd sure like some of those rich, Caucasian feminists making their voices heard around these parts and while there are some that try, as yet ther voice is faint but we can still hope.

 

[Thaluikhain]

not sure what your point is, just because you don't interact or partake, its not like the view of humanism means you have to defend someone in a fight or partake in every debate or vote against inequality because its just impossible to keep up

a good example would be if it was a vote on whether the goverment can bulldoze your house if your a different nationality than the country you live in (i.e. British living in China) a humanist would say this is not right because it discriminates

you can't call yourself a humanist if you think one nationality can walk on another nation or any other human rights violation

Unfortunately, you can. There's always some excuse why "just this once", it's necessary to do something. Now, with something as simple as deciding whether or not you can bulldoze the houses of foreigners, that's an easy one. But what if, say, the issue was allocating funding to deal with problem affecting certain groups? It would be easy to continually deny funding to specific groups without coming out and saying you think or them as less, or even recognising this as a motive in yourself.

A quote I often post:

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

- Letter from Birmingham Jail, MLK

Martin Luther King Jr was talking about people who were nominally concerned with equality, but who would find some excuse or other to try and prevent it happening.

the very act of declaring yourself a feminist or MRA, etc is to declare that you find some humans lesser than others, thats why we have Egalitarianism or Humanism

That's totally untrue. Being a feminist does not in any way mean you do or do not believe some humans are lesser or greater than others. It means you support the rights of women. It doesn't say anything about what you feel about other groups.

Now, "My feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit" as Flavia Dzodan says, but there are many feminists that are, and many who are not, concerned with such things.

(Again, correct about the MRAs)

what the hell are you even talking about

i understand the whole deceleration fiasco but lets be honest, they weren't all good people but what they put forth is still good and ultimately brought people to equally treat people as humans instead of objects, unless of course by that logic the constitution is discredited because Abraham Lincoln had slaves and believed black people were lesser than white people

I was just using them as an example. They did not believe that all men were equal, but it seems that they might have believed that they believed it.

You have lots of racist people prefacing things with "I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic, but" and truly believing that they aren't.

but the entire point of Humanism is that

A) all humans are equal

if you throw out A) then you don't have humanism or Egalitarianism

Certainly...but what if you don't throw it out? What if you just happen to have biases or prejudices that get in the way of that, whether or not you know about it?

While that is true, the failings of the individuals following a cause does not necessarily invalidate it. Sure every cause will have some stupid people spouting nonsense. Some will even appropriate this for their own ends. Others will try to live up to these ideals but fail. To be fallible is to be human, something as simple as the notion that "every human is created equal and deserves equal rights" may never be true throughout the Earth in any age but its still a goal worth striving for.

Certainly true. However, the cause is made up of individuals. When you have a large proportion of them showing the same problems, then there's a cause for concern.

More or less every cause will tend to share from the same list of these problems. That doesn't mean their goal is a bad one, or that real progress won't be made, but it is something to keep an eye on.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I don't know if the site's still operational, but an atheist group started a mock Evangelical community web site, about a decade back. The "Landover Baptist Community" was basically a collection of stuff that was so backwards, so hilariously offensive and so retarded you just *had* to see through it and realize the entire thing was an ongoing joke at the expense of Fred Phelps types or those on the more hateful end of the Born-Again movement.

One of the articles was a super-serious piece on how the then-recent "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" was code for erect Hobbit penises. The article inferred that if someone could make that fairly insane deduction, then the entire LOTR franchise had to be a hotbed of depravity that seriously couldn't have been conceived outside of Satan's hollow.

It's just so incredibly brain-dead that you can't help but chuckle, and realize that the entire site is an awesome jeer being thrown at the Fundie whistleblowers in North America.

 

[AkaDad]

Humanism only has one requirement, do you believe all people are equal and deserve equal rights, if you say no then you aren't a Humanist

The problem is though, that's very easy to say.

Most people would say that they are for equal rights for everyone, but in practice their view of everyone can often be a bit limited. A lot of people quietly overlook other people's issues, not because they overtly think those people are less, but because "the time isn't right", or that they are "dividing the issue". There's often a lot of cognitive dissonance at play.

While that is true, the failings of the individuals following a cause does not necessarily invalidate it. Sure every cause will have some stupid people spouting nonsense. Some will even appropriate this for their own ends. Others will try to live up to these ideals but fail. To be fallible is to be human, something as simple as the notion that "every human is created equal and deserves equal rights" may never be true throughout the Earth in any age but its still a goal worth striving for.

As for the feminism threads......@_@ Living in Asia I am acutely aware that there are women denied the right to vote, to choose their own husbands, to achieve education, to acquire a living wage, not to be sold off to a husband, not to be raped when walking on the streets, to be able to walk on the street without being accompanied by male relatives, not to be attacked by vigilantes when spotted with a male not related to her and not to be immolated to death upon the demise of her husband among other things. We'd sure like some of those rich, Caucasian feminists making their voices heard around these parts and while there are some that try, as yet ther voice is faint but we can still hope.

Do you believe American feminists don't care about women around the world?

I did a Google search of American feminists + Asia and got 533,000 results.

 

[Queen Michael]

Something Ann Coulter wrote about football. I forget what exactly.

Everything Ann Coulter has ever written can be called the dumbest article written.

Don't forget about everything she's ever going to write.

 

[Cronenberg1]

The article is not arguing that humanism is misogynistic. The article is only criticizing people who think that feminism opposed to humanism. Feminism and humanism can exist in the same space. It baffles me that people think feminism means ignoring humanistic problems in favor of female centered ones. There is nothing about being a feminist that prevents you from also being a humanist.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Something Ann Coulter wrote about football. I forget what exactly.

Everything Ann Coulter has ever written can be called the dumbest article written. Out of context she almost seems like a female Stephen Colbert with how crazy the things she says and writes are, except the difference between the two is she's actually serious.

I'm actually starting to think that Ann Coulter is some kind of double quadruple sleeper agent that's actually working for a good cause. Kind of like Revolver Ocelot, only more Republican.

Indeed, I've had the same thought. I was reading that soccer article, but when she started going on about how giving someone a red-card is punishing the physical can-do attitude that made countries like America great, my sarcasm radar started going off.

If Facebook does introduce that stupid 'satire' tag, I wouldn't be surprised to see her get flagged.

 

[Mechamorph]

As for the feminism threads......@_@ Living in Asia I am acutely aware that there are women denied the right to vote, to choose their own husbands, to achieve education, to acquire a living wage, not to be sold off to a husband, not to be raped when walking on the streets, to be able to walk on the street without being accompanied by male relatives, not to be attacked by vigilantes when spotted with a male not related to her and not to be immolated to death upon the demise of her husband among other things. We'd sure like some of those rich, Caucasian feminists making their voices heard around these parts and while there are some that try, as yet ther voice is faint but we can still hope.

Do you believe American feminists don't care about women around the world?

I did a Google search of American feminists + Asia and got 533,000 results.

I know they do. And the situation is still this bad. I'd hate to imagine if there were no support altogether. My point is that there really are *a lot* of women deprived of their rights and basic human dignity. Also a Google search is not exactly the best yardstick of any effectual campaign in the real world (does not help that when I tried, I got the first page full of Asian-American feminists), its easy to be a keyboard warrior and I certainly hold respect for those who do have the conviction to help in any means they can. Admittedly some of the drama online does make local activists sigh sometimes. A good example is what one local feminist activist's reaction to a certain Kickstarter video project. She rolled her eyes and muttered that there were a lot more pressing problems than critique and harangue.

Also why exactly does "Caucasian feminist" necessarily refer to Americans and not Canadians, Europeans and those living in Oceania? Do they not deserve your indignation on their behalf as well?

 

[mysecondlife]

I came across an article called something like "Why girls don't like Game of Thrones" only to list reasons that are mostly not gender exclusive.

I mean come on, even guys would find brothers and sisters having sex each other pretty gross.

EDIT: Judging by scanning through most of the posts above, I think I got off pretty lucky here.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I came across an article called something like "Why girls don't like Game of Thrones" only to list reasons that are mostly not gender exclusive.

I mean come on, even guys would find brothers and sisters having sex each other pretty gross.

Well...technically it's not wrong, though.

 

[mysecondlife]

I came across an article called something like "Why girls don't like Game of Thrones" only to list reasons that are mostly not gender exclusive.

I mean come on, even guys would find brothers and sisters having sex each other pretty gross.

Well...technically it's not wrong, though.

The article was is still pretty dumb.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Ann Coulter wrote about football anything.

There, that's more like the Ann Coulter I know. I was going to write about Ann Coulter anyway.

i don't think i need to tell you that the definition of humanist is equality so how this person managed to reach the conclusion that humanist = male empowerment and supports "patriarchal" view

i think any intelligent feminist would agree that humanist is simply equality for all and no discrimination between anyone (i.e. women getting far too lenient sentences on crimes vs men getting high pay positions because they are male)


well enough of that, lets hear what you've read!

OT: I was pretty sure that "humanism" was letting humans think by themselves rationally rather than relying on faith or religion since it says so in pretty much every dictionary that I've ever read. Then again, people do tend to use neutral words these days.

However, I'm not here to bash you with words or definitions. I'm here to tell you about the pinnacle of stupidity that is buzzfeed. Have you ever wondered what happened to those people in high school who believed that they were unique little pixels in life? You just need to read a few buzzfeed "articles" and you'll never ask yourself the question again.

 

[Thaluikhain]

However, I'm not here to bash you with words or definitions. I'm here to tell you about the pinnacle of stupidity that is buzzfeed. Have you ever wondered what happened to those people in high school who believed that they were unique little pixels in life? You just need to read a few buzzfeed "articles" and you'll never ask yourself the question again.

Oh, good choice, yeah.

Strangely mesmerising in a way, though.