Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - #Humanism+

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 20, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

26:10

#Humanism+

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know, when I see a headline that says, Humanist Group launches initiatives for racial justice, women's equality and LGBTQ rights, I think, oh god, please don't let it be the American Humanist Association.
	Fuck.
	Okay, well, look, maybe, maybe they're not like, full on SJW.
	Maybe they're not like, oh fuck, it's humanism plus.
	Humanist philosophy and social justice advocacy go hand in hand.
	And if you don't think so, you're a racist, a sexist or a transphobe.
	To strengthen the humanist presence in social justice movements, today the American Humanist Association launched the Black Humanist Alliance, an adjunct organization that will promote racial justice and solidarity between black and humanist communities.
	In conjunction with the launch, the American Humanist Association is also relaunching its women's rights adjunct, the Feminist Humanist Alliance, and its LGBTQ adjunct, the LGBTQ Humanist Alliance.
	Now, I know what you're thinking.
	Isn't humanism meant to be a universal philosophy?
	Isn't it meant to be something that applies to all humans?
	It's just such a joke it's it's amazing because we what would be what would possibly be the rationale for any of this You guessed it.
	The secular movement is often misrepresented as an old boys club of straight white and well-to-do men.
	You know, a good rule of thumb to work out who the actual racists and sexists are is to keep an eye on the first person to bring up race and sex in a conversation, especially when they are complaining about someone else's race and sex.
	And no matter what their rationales, you know you are dealing with an old school bigot.
	So I thought I'd go on Twitter and ask them a perfectly reasonable question.
	Why does humanism go hand in hand with racist and sexist movements?
	Shouldn't it oppose these?
	They blocked me in seconds, which I'm not really surprised at, because it seems that the American Humanist Society has gone full SJW.
	So let's take a look at some of these adjunct sites.
	Let's have a look at the LGBTQ Humanist Alliance.
	Hello and welcome to the home of the LGBTQ Humanist Alliance, which they have given us a wonderful acronym of LGBTQHA.
	Brilliant.
	It's an extension of the American Humanist Association.
	We operate at the intersection of humanism and social justice to advocate humanist education, LGBTQ cultural competency and community outreach.
	The LGBTQ Humanist Alliance seeks to cultivate safe and affirming communities, promote humanist values and achieve full equality and social liberation of LGBTQ persons.
	Looking forward to those safe spaces.
	So let's have a look at the Black Humanist Alliance, which they've represented with a fucking fist.
	Using humanism as a life praxis, the BHA seeks to realize the need for a more intersectional and a more politicized scope of activism through encouraging social justice competency within secular spaces as well as by engaging in racial, gender, and restorative justice activism.
	Restorative justice?
	What's the other word for that?
	Now, you owe me some money.
	Okay, you owe me reparations.
	Oh yeah, that's it.
	Well, I can't say I'm too surprised.
	And let's have a look at the Feminist Humanist Alliance.
	The Feminist Humanist Alliance is a national network of women, gender, queer, and trans people committed to the principles of humanism and inclusive feminism.
	We strive for social progress through promoting critical consciousness and direct action.
	This platform functions at the intersection of humanist philosophy and inclusive feminism.
	We appreciate the fact that we don't lead single-issue lives and it's important to recognize the differences that make up each of our unique identities, experiences and worldviews.
	Therefore, focus on sexism, ableism, misogyny, class inequality, racism, trans antagonism, heteronormativity or homophobia, to the exclusion of evaluating how these oppressive institutions intersect is a disservice to our goal of realising social liberation for everyone.
	Holy hell, back to Tumblr with you.
	There is a natural tie between humanist thought and support for social justice.
	Is there?
	Would you like to tell me what that is?
	Oh no, you don't.
	You just go and say the FHA uses this understanding and compassion to develop a critical consciousness of various forms of bigotry, except the forms against white straight men.
	We believe that liberating minds, ours and the public, from casual biases and exclusionary attitudes is essential to broad social changes.
	So I take it you're going to be inviting a lot of Christians and Muslims into the American Humanist Association.
	Blackman!
	A Black Man!
	So the American Humanist Association has two websites.
	One is AmericanHumanist.org and the other one is thehumanist.com.
	So I thought I'd have a poke around and see what I could find.
	Humanism goes hand in hand with racial justice and Black Lives Matter.
	Does it?
	Does it really go hand in hand with a black supremacy movement that is demanding white people give them money arbitrarily?
	In theory, humanism is inclusive.
	Alright, well, I'll stop you there, Aristotle, because if you aren't aware, the things you do determine what you are.
	Therefore, if you don't act in an inclusive way, for example, I don't know, treating people the same regardless of their race, you won't be inclusive.
	In fact, if you support something like Black Lives Matter, it is deliberately exclusive and divisive.
	And one might be inclined to think it is directly opposed to the ideals of humanism.
	But anyway, a fundamental principle in humanism is that every human being should be protected and treated equally.
	This intrinsic value of humanism is at the core of all social justice movements.
	Yes, and social justice movements like Black Lives Matter are actually advocating people be treated differently because of their race.
	So I'm just going to level with you, American Humanist Association.
	I'm not very good at doublethink.
	I can't believe one thing and its opposite at the same time.
	Now I know this is probably because of my inferior white brain or something, but I'm just not built that way.
	I just can't do it.
	For example, when I see an article on thehumanist.com called, Ban cisgender white men from public bathrooms, a modest proposal, I mean there's a part of me that thinks, wow, that's so racist.
	And that part of me is my brain because I know what the definition of racism is.
	I mean, this was written by one Trav Mamone, a bisexual, gender-queer humanist blogger, who writes about the intersections of social justice and secular humanism.
	Huh, that's exactly what I was expecting.
	Someone who has upgraded their blog from Tumblr to thehumanist.com.
	And what's this first comment on the article?
	Yes, we still live in a patriarchy.
	I think it's beginning to experience its death throes though, and the hype from the rights will become louder as we approach equality.
	Women who are afraid of their own power will bulk.
	Men who are confident of their masculinity will support equality.
	And religion has not been and is not now the friend of women.
	Oh, so you think this is serious?
	Because according to the author of the article, apparently my sense of humor goes over some people's heads.
	Ha ha!
	Of course it was a joke.
	It was so obviously a joke that an SJW came along was like, yes, of course we're still living in a patriarchy.
	What about an article entitled The War on The War on Men?
	Do we think this is going to be empathetic towards men and understand that men have problems too?
	Or does the author already have this preconception in her mind of a giant fat cat smoking a cigar, swilling brandy and snorting cocaine off a hooker's ass?
	When I saw my friend Olivia had posted an article entitled The War on Men, I gave it a click, assuming it was satire.
	Oh yeah, men are the oppressor class, aren't they?
	I mean, how could how could there possibly be a war on men?
	All men everywhere are doing fantastic.
	War on men?
	Seems unlikely.
	The Center for American Progress reporting that the average woman working full-time still only earns 77% of what the average man earns, regardless of race and ethnicity, even though women are outpacing their male counterparts and obtaining college degrees.
	Yeah, you kind of just refuted yourself there, didn't you?
	Women are doing so well in college, but they're not making as much money.
	Must be the patriarchy.
	Must be.
	It can't be that women are just going into vocations that aren't very well paid.
	Can't be that.
	Can't be anything like that.
	I mean, the idiocy of calculating the average a woman earns and then the average a man earns, and then assuming this is a problem, is just beside the point.
	The writer goes on to assert that feminism is a big win for men, which of course it is, of course.
	I mean, this is all assumed.
	But it gets it totally wrong in claiming that it's because men can have sex at hello instead of the real win, which is something I like to call equality.
	Well, listen, if you're saying men have always had the whip hand over women, they've always been the top earners, they've always been the best at everything, they've always been able to cut women out of social life, public life, then equality isn't actually a big win for men, is it?
	I'm not saying that what you're saying is true, what you're saying is obviously nonsense, but in your own train of logic, equality would not be a big win.
	Therefore, feminism would obviously be inherently bad.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm an egalitarian, so I'm against supremacy movements in general, but this is the most interesting bit.
	Ready for the big reveal?
	This op-ed was written by a traitor.
	I mean woman.
	I can't for the life of me reconcile how a universalist philosophy like humanism can be justified in being segmented up into identity politics categories.
	So maybe this article about reimagining what it means to be a humanist feminist can help me, because I would have thought these things were mutually incompatible.
	The evolution of institutions is inevitable.
	Strategic planning for organisational change is critical to enhance potential for success.
	Okay, that's some nice corporate speak there, but we're not dealing with corporate interests.
	We're dealing with human interests.
	We're dealing with people.
	Why are you speaking as if you're a business, for Christ's sake?
	This is what's taking place within the American Humanist Association, as we add an important dimension to our membership and our work for justice and equality.
	Intersectionality.
	Yes, this is where it is being co-opted.
	This is where the sort of intersectional Marxist-inspired ideology is taking root and infiltrating and overcoming this organization.
	Within the AHA board, staff and volunteer leadership, there has been a revitalization of humanism's commitment to social justice advocacy.
	One of these changes is reflected in the adoption of the term alliance for a number of new projects.
	The term is welcoming and denotes a dedication to relationship building among humanists.
	Yes, in the most cold corporate way possible.
	Why can't you talk like people?
	There is a natural tie between humanist thought and support for social justice.
	Yet people keep saying this, and yet no one substantiates it.
	In this regard, consider the struggle to extend human rights to women.
	What struggle?
	It's in the West it's done.
	I mean, if you want to go over to like Saudi Arabia, totally with you.
	As women's roles have expanded beyond half-keeping and child-rearing, which is not the only roles women have had, but okay, more fathers have come to relish developing and applying the skills of parenting and homemaking and experiencing the associated joys of intimacy with their children.
	But that's not really true, is it?
	I mean, you're talking about the 1.4 million stay-at-home dads in the United States, which, I mean, I'm sure they're all very happy with.
	But you're leaving out the fact that 43% of US children don't live with their father, which is about 20 million children who only live with their mother.
	So if we're going to talk about the numbers like you are talking about, and if you are going to claim that feminism is responsible for this, then this enormous net loss of time spent with children by fathers is going to be laid at the feet of feminism.
	Because you've lied here.
	You've just made this up.
	You've looked at half of the information.
	You go, oh, 1.4 million fathers are staying home.
	Isn't this wonderful?
	Well, it might be wonderful, but 20 million children don't even get to live with their father.
	And you have erased their existence to propagate your ideology.
	That's what feminist humanism is so far.
	Let's carry on though.
	The feminist human alliance will use compassion to develop a critical consciousness of various forms of bigotry.
	Okay, I'm going to just overlook the phrase critical consciousness because that sounds like the sort of thing a Scientologist would say to me and I'm a bit worried that at some point you're going to measure my thetan levels.
	And I'm just going to point out that there's not very much compassion to condemning 20 million children to live without their fathers.
	Children need their fathers, we know this.
	Anyone who spends five minutes on Google can see the stats that are the result of fatherlessness and it's heartbreaking.
	But apparently it's imperative we incorporate this inclusivity into our mission and activism so that we can go beyond outward displays of diversity or making disenfranchised groups more visible to really hone in on gaining agency and the right to self-determination for everyone.
	What's stopping people from doing that now?
	I don't know what it is about the regressive left, but they can't help but turn into buzzfeed at every opportunity.
	Divergent actress says she isn't a feminist, but does she know what that means?
	Yes, I think she might.
	I think she's probably seen feminists in action and thinks, ho ho!
	No thank you.
	Shaylene Woodley recently stated in an interview with Time that she doesn't consider herself a feminist because I love men.
	Woodley goes on to say that she thinks that the idea of raise women's power, take the men away from the power is never going to work because you need a balance.
	Well Miss Woodley, I think I found your problem.
	Yeah, you better tell her what feminism really is.
	Feminism is a series of diverse but intersectional movements aimed at dismantling gender inequality in our society.
	Feminism is at its core a liberation movement which attempts to liberate everyone from oppressive patriarchal gender confines.
	This is on thehumanist.com.
	This is the American Humanist Association's website.
	They think women live in oppressive patriarchal gender confines.
	But you know what I find interesting about this is that humanism isn't about dismantling gender inequality.
	Humanism is in fact not about ensuring equality of outcome.
	Humanism is about ensuring equality of opportunity.
	And the interesting thing about equality of opportunity is that you don't end up with an equal outcome and that is the point.
	You end up getting what you earn.
	And like we already covered, women end up earning less than men and that is okay.
	It's alright.
	I mean, I earn less than other people, other men, other women.
	I earn less than them, and that's okay too.
	It's not and has never been about raising women's power and taking power away from men.
	Actually, yes, it is.
	That's what you want.
	You want to equalize it, and to do that, you're going to have to remove men from positions of power and put women in these positions of power purely on the basis of their gender.
	Feminism is about levelling the playing field, not promoting one gender over others.
	There's already a word for that, patriarchy.
	Yeah, actually, that is what feminism is.
	I mean, you already have the equality of opportunity that you need to get ahead in life.
	Now you have to do some hard work.
	Instead of doing hard work, feminists chose to do gender studies degrees.
	And now, the patriarchy isn't helping them earn lots of money.
	I just can't explain it.
	But this is truly the piece de resistance of this article.
	If you're a humanist, you should be a feminist.
	But I can't be a feminist because feminism wants equality of outcome.
	I am a humanist because I want equality of opportunity.
	I mean, what about this aren't you getting?
	So you might be thinking, wow, well, I mean, Humanism Plus is starting to sound exactly like Atheism Plus.
	In fact, anything that involves social justice takes on the sort of aspect of a cult.
	You know, the members proselytize it relentlessly.
	It has to be part of everything, and they can't just shut up and stop talking about it.
	Of course, the first thing that social justice warriors have to do with humanism is prevent it from being a universal movement, because if it is for every individual, then, well, what have they got?
	They've got nothing.
	So what they do is decide you're not the right kind of humanist.
	Three warning signs that village atheism is your new religion.
	Oh, this is going to be rich.
	I recently came across an open attempt to diss secular social justice activism.
	An open one.
	The temerity.
	In the interest of not igniting some kind of flame war, which is certainly not what social justice has ever wanted to do, I'll just say that the author's intent was clear, but the reasoning vacillated between simplistic and specious.
	I'm sure it was, but that is, like I said, kind of rich, coming from someone whose reasoning has yet to reach simplistic and specious.
	The aforementioned critique, while a forgettable blip on the radar, translation blocked, is symptomatic of an overarching problem that's festered within secular, both atheist and humanist, spaces since new atheism came into vogue.
	I call it village atheism, which is a term that just smacks of elitist classism, doesn't it?
	I coined the term to classify a self-contained community of socially unaware atheists who reside within and reinforce a feedback loop of ignorance.
	This subset of non-believers is overly wowed by the low bar it requires to recognise the inadequacy of the God hypothesis.
	Meanwhile, in many ways, they preserve or encourage a bounty of beliefs that are just as oppressive and pernicious.
	So are you saying that these people are oppressive and pernicious because of their beliefs?
	Personally, I would have thought it was someone's actions that were oppressive and pernicious, but then again, I've never tried anyone for thought crimes.
	The systemic and systematic prevalence of social inequalities are continuously exposed in studies explained by accessible, educational presentations, conveyed in the simplest of ways, or revealed through direct first-hand experience in everyday events.
	Yes, revealed to people.
	Okay, so you're a believer in standpoint theory, which frankly is a red flag in and of itself.
	But okay, let's have a look at these links then.
	What is systemic racism?
	Hmm, good question.
	Can you give me an example?
	Racial microaggressions in everyday life.
	Oh, that's terrible.
	I mean, that's the worst systemic racism I've ever heard.
	I mean, it's almost like talking about, oh, sexism and patriarchy.
	Of course.
	These are just cast iron facts.
	These are things that are true, that exist, that are a major problem that people are just denying.
	Probably because they're racist and sexist and shill for the patriarchy.
	So you might be thinking, wow, this sounds like the sort of article you'd find on everydayfeminism.com.
	it's written in exactly that format.
	For example, common features of village atheism include embracing the theory that extinguishing religion would be a magical panacea, somehow curing every social ill from racism to trans antagonism.
	I've never met anyone who holds that opinion.
	I didn't even know this was an opinion.
	Believing atheists are this nation's most oppressed and despised group.
	Well, I don't view everything through the lens of Marxist class oppression, so I don't think that anyone's really being oppressed, esteeming everything that comes out of Bill Maher's mouth and endorsing the disconnected, conservative-laden ramblings of Ayan Hirsiali.
	My god, right, okay.
	So not only is, you know, the liberal Jew not good enough as a liberal anymore, but it's also become very clear that he thinks humanism is anti-conservative.
	It's now a partisan political position.
	I really do think this speaks much more to the author's own bigotry than it does to any reality that village atheism might have.
	Referring to feminism as a cult while religiously assembling at the altar of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
	Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are not an ideology.
	They're people.
	Believe it or not, I have to say this.
	They are not a comprehensive worldview that thinks everything is dictated by a mystical, unidentifiable, oh, I don't know, we'll call it a patriarchy for now.
	And they don't hold little hugging safe space clubs in universities where they play with puppies and crayons and block every single piece of dissent they ever see.
	They aren't tearing through universities as a gang screeching, we've got nothing to lose but our chains, over and over and over.
	They aren't no platforming people because they say nasty things.
	They are not part of an in-group or out-group until you came along and made them one by calling them village atheism.
	A tendency to revel in the idea of logic and reason, except when it comes to applying these principles to matters that don't directly relate to a preoccupation with the shortcomings of supernatural claims.
	Wow, that's very interesting.
	I'm glad you mentioned it.
	If a harmful social hierarchy or social system isn't connected to the influence of religiosity, sacrosanct tools of critical thinking are left by the wayside to gather dust.
	Unbelievably self-refuting.
	Are you looking into a mirror?
	Are you honestly saying that you are approaching feminism with the hashtags believe women and listen and believe with your criticism and skeptical glasses on?
	Because I don't think you do.
	I don't think you have any goddamn self-awareness about this issue at all.
	And in fact, I'll show you why you don't.
	Village atheists also have a habit of trying to explain physical, social, cultural, or psychological phenomena through a single scope that exalts the methods of natural sciences above all other forms of human inquiry.
	You heard that correctly.
	He doesn't want to be part of the group that thinks that the method by which we objectively measure reality should be held at the highest regard.
	A consequence of this fetishizing of the often ill-defined might of logic and reason, which are in no way ill-defined, together with a narrow comprehension of science, is what's often called scientism.
	He's basically arguing for feels over reals.
	Yes, I think logic, science and reason should come first.
	They are the best tools we have to investigate reality accurately and actually be able to represent what we're seeing and he thinks that is religious thinking.
	I'm an atheist who appreciates empiricism and naturalistic explanations of phenomena.
	I just appreciate it.
	It's just, I have an appreciation of this, but you know, who uses the word scientism to refer to mindsets that either underappreciate, discount, or even denigrate the contributions of philosophy.
	The context provided by lived experiences and the significance of social sciences.
	Okay, well, there are many problems with the social sciences.
	I'm not saying they're all rubbish.
	I'm saying there are many problems with them, and they can be addressed, but they won't be.
	But you are, again, arguing for standpoint theory, and you are suggesting, and this is the main problem I have with this, with social justice, and with humanism plus.
	You are suggesting that philosophy comes first.
	This is your problem.
	You are like, well, I appreciate empiricism and naturalistic explanations and logical reason, they're a good idea, but first and foremost is my philosophy, which is what every religious zealot throughout the ages has ever said.
	Hence, scientism in this context describes attitudes that view the natural science as the only meaningful interpretation of life.
	No, you mongoloid.
	Science is the only objective way of establishing as fact what we know we're experiencing.
	Logic and reason are the only meaningful interpretations of that if you want to understand it.
	Otherwise you won't understand it.
	You'll know part of it from your subjective standpoint theory position, but you won't know the whole of it.
	You are saying you are okay with bias!
	That's what you're asking for.
	So there we have it.
	The American Humanist Association has become humanism plus.
	Humanism plus social justice, humanism plus exclusion, humanism plus blocking, humanism plus preaching down to people.
	Humanism plus calling you names if you disagree.

▲