Based me-
Maupin on bookshelf
oh no
Plot twist: Only read once and never opened again.
What’s with Guns, Germs and Steel, what makes it shitty?
Badempanada has a fantastic video critiquing it.
I’ll watch it, I really just saw it one day on BookWyrm and that’s it, don’t know anything about it. Geez, you can’t even ask something you get a down vote.
Yeah, there’s always going to be someone thinking you’re asking in bad faith. I see it happening on Reddit way more often though.
What’s wrong with Dawkins?
If nothing else he’s a starting point of the neo-atheism to alt-right pipeline.
Ah? He was the one saying bullshit about trans people?
Ohh yeah of course! How could I forget about that! It’s pretty common for those neo-atheist types to be very sexist, anti-trans, and in their hate of “all religions” they’re specifically islamophobic.
The thing about Islamophobia, is that I actually read it as “I’m an actual racist, but I will say it’s religion, even if my own religion is as bad” or something like that…
But I never bought the thing about “neo-atheism”, it is some sort of “scientism” bullshit label made to deter criticism towards religions, and ashame the critics. Fuck, even in Spain it is forbidden to critic a religion without risking years in prison.
But yeah, even if I am really against most forms of religions and how they are considered even by atheists sugarcoating actual big problems, I am not into Dawkins nor reactionary assholes that they basically act as a carbon copy of precisely the people they try to cririque.
The worst of all cases, goes to Gustavo Buenismo, or catholic atheism, which is negating the supernatural yet still buying the catholic ideology.
It’s 100% racist, and not even thinly veiled. I guess you could label it as “scientism” or “rationalism.” People from the religious world often label Dawkins flavored atheism as a religion in and of itself, which I can agree with in many respects (I’m not religious either but they make strong arguments for the case).
Reactionary asshole is a pretty good way to sum up this crowd.
I think calling Dawkin’s beliefs scientism is an insult to actual scientism.
I mean, scientism is meant to insult people as “only trusting science”, and a bad synonym for “faithless”
How so?
I think @VictimOfReligion and I have covered the basics in our reply thread.
Full on imperialist and islamophobe.
- Hidden beneath a superficial rationalism, they provide a seemingly intellectual defense of imperialism, push islamophobia, and use it to create a smokescreen for the injustices of global capitalism. 2,3
