In a post titled "The future will not be the past", PZ writes:
The future? Right now. There are a lot of people within atheism staring at the new kids in puzzlement and horror. They don’t have penises, their skin isn’t pasty white, their hair isn’t graying — what weird aliens are these? What do you mean, they don’t consider the constitutional separation of church and state the only cause worth fighting for? How dare they threaten to change my movement, the movement I have contributed so much to, the movement that is supposed to cater to my needs?
It would seem in PZ Myers' history of atheism in the United States, Ayn Rand and Madalyn Murray O'Hair had penises.
Further, it would seem Annie Laurie Gaylor and Anne Nicol Gaylor also have/had penises.
Julia Sweeney. Eugenie Scott. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. More penises.
It's one big sausage fest.
Everyone must have penises because PZ's leading questions would not make sense otherwise!
Nothing brings in the women like denigrating the accomplishments and involvement of women already in the group.
It makes "sense" when one considers how PZ Myers views himself - PZ Myers views himself in an "old guard" of atheism (presumably PZ Myers invented the concept of atheism in college in Indiana in the late 70's, early 80's).
It's essentially an "old boy's club" that is the "Four Horsemen" of philosophers and bestselling writers (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett) plus himself.
Similar to how a man lacking confidence may find solace in a big vehicle or bank account, PZ Myers finds himself an equalizer in being the only one of the "old boys" that is actually dynamic and "gets it" when it comes to the so-called changing face of the "movement".
Presumably PZ Myers needs to go to conferences with college-aged women to "introduce" them to skepticism and atheism because all the other old white guys are big Republican meanies.
The only thing PZ Myers is truly is a narcissist, hypocrite and a gigantic asshole.
Take a moment and read some Susan Jacoby.
Susan is about a decade older than PZ Myers - and perhaps more white. But she'll undoubtedly will shape secularism's future more than PZ Myers will.
Here is perhaps the best part of PZ's post:
I sympathize. Some of them don’t even idolize science, and they actually dare to criticize the actions taken in the name of science. Don’t they realize the movement must be entirely about science?
Oh, wait. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe there are other non-scientific goals that are also worth pursuing, and that doesn’t mean we have to abandon science — I can still be an advocate for it myself — but it does mean I don’t get to remake everyone into a clone of me.
On one hand, we could drive for fairness and equality through evidence based social policy.
On the other hand, fuck science! Politics is about feelings.
Right?
I will not sniff indignantly at that. If I want to promote my personal goals within atheism, that’s fine — but I will be most effective at that if I fit them within a complex and diverse framework, rather than trying to reshape every other individual within this movement into my likeness.
The great insanity here is:
- He's already entirely dismissive of the role of people not like him in the movement (remember, everyone has a penis!)
- It's an absolutely nonsensical and hypocritical political statement
PZ Myers' statements are more true to his opinions and make more sense if one appends "except for those fucking Libertarians" on the end of each sentence.
For example:
"I will be most effective at that if I fit them within a complex and diverse framework, rather than trying to reshape every other individual within this movement into my likeness. [Except for those fucking Libertarians, they can shut up and listen. They're fuckbrained assholes and CHUDs]"
Of course it doesn't necessarily begin and end with Libertarians. PZ Myers has a long list of "suppressive persons" that don't belong in his movement.
It's the usual massive failure from social justice warriors.
It sounds "inclusive" to armies of naive people, but it's merely a demented façade.
It sounds "inclusive" to armies of naive people, but it's merely a demented façade.
It fits a script.
- Create a problem that is difficult to refute or completely absurd
- "There are no minorities! There is a demographic shift happening!"
- "In the future, nobody will have a penis!"
- How would we know if secular communities are leading or trailing these changes? It's important to never even try to collect information.
- Even basic terms like defining what "in the movement" means is completely ignored. Presumably many of us are not "in the movement" because we don't attend conventions.
- Other old men in the "movement" are the reason "the community" is not tackling "the problem".
- Be clear that you have an action plan that is better and most importantly more kind than the other evil white dudebros
It might sound ridiculous to cast PZ Myers in this role if he didn't already outline his mentality in a speech.
Surely you've heard of the four horsemen. I'm not talking about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from the book of Revelation; I'm talking about Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, popularized as the four horsemen of the New Atheism. They are all widely read authors of popular books who have been largely responsible, I think, for vaulting atheism into the public consciousness in the last few years. It's a slightly unfortunate analogy though, and I don't quite know why they're running with it. One problem, of course, lies in matching up identities. I can sort of see Hitchens as War but the other three are going to have to divvy up Pestilence, Famine, and Death. And this is probably not the best image we want to get across about humanism and atheism.
Another problem with the Four Horsemen analogy is the number. As we all know, there are quite a few more vocal people who have been active in atheism and humanism and secularism in general than just the four. What about Victor Stenger or Pascal Boyer? Richard Carrier, Julia Sweeney, Dan Barker? Don't they get horses? And what about me? You know, I'm as atheist as those others and I'm probably "atheier" than some of them. (Although I do have to admit I haven't written a book yet. I'm on sabbatical this year to finish my book, so maybe I'll get a horse after all.)
So I'm going to very prematurely declare myself a fifth horseman. I picture myself, though, as a little guy on a very small pony trotting after the other four. However, I'm waving a great big banner that has the words, "The Internet" on it. That's me.
Ah yes, The Internet.
Here Myers declares himself a part of "The Internet" which is presumed to be something new, youthful and dynamic while his peers can be assumed to be describing it as "a series of tubes".
The general story is that PZ Myers somehow commands a group of scrappy young go-getters connected by his electronic clarion call. Myers is ostensibly on an upward trajectory and his efforts will define the movement in the future.
The truth of the situation is that Pharyngula and "FreeThoughtBlogs" do not represent a generational shift in the secular and skeptic communities.
Atheism+, Pharyngula and "FreeThoughtBlogs" are merely the embodiment of a narcissistic, judgmental and self-important subculture that secularism has always had.
It's clear, especially to the believers, that secularism has several assholes.
What do the assholes spend their day doing?
- Bombing polls on Pharyngula
- Tearing into their friends on Twitter
- Demanding "justice" in an online kangaroo court
- Staging self-important conferences about "conscience" as if they held all the keys to being a good person
- Waving dildos at people.
Atheism+ is the internet hate machine.