The Pompous Theist November 24, 2010

The Pompous Theist

You may have seen the “Privilege Denying Dude” Internet meme that features a random white guy saying white guy things:

It spawned all sorts of clones (Commenters are saying this was not the original version of the meme — the sentiment is the same, though), some of which are more entertaining than others. I’m a fan of High Expectations Asian Father:

And now, an atheist named Lindsay is contributing to the meme with Pompous Theist featuring a random smug Christian:

I’m amused 🙂

If you have your own suggestion about what Pompous Theist should say next, feel free to submit your thoughts here or in the comments.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • HumanistDad

    I have a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe

    But arrogant Atheists piss me off.

  • Anonymous
  • Claudia

    God created the entire Universe just for us.

    Atheists are so egocentric.

  • The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. You’re just interpreting it wrong.

    The Christians who committed atrocities? They weren’t real Christians.

    or… They were misled.

    Atheists are just angry with God because he didn’t do what they wanted him to do.

  • TychaBrahe

    Except by it’s posting dates, High Expectations Asian Father has been around for quite a while. The oldest posts were reblogged from other sites 8 months ago.

  • Iason Ouabache

    I ain’t no monkey
    God made us from dirt

  • I do believe, in fact, that the proto-meme in this case was good old Advice Dog. Ah, I wonder if Professor Dawkins is aware of the uses to which his coinage has been put on these internets, and how he might feel about the worst of them.

  • Iason Ouabache

    Sesoron: According to Know Your Meme the image macro meme was started in 2008 with Advice Puppy. Like just about everything else on the internet, it began on 4chan.

  • I’m humble and proud of it… and so is God.

    P.S. HumanistDad and Claudia, good ones!

  • Jon Acuff just did a piece about the Jesus Juke. Hit the hashtag #JesusJuke and no doubt you’d find a whole mess of great phrases for the Pompous Theist.

    I’m hoping someone comes out with a Jesus Juke t-shirt for Christmas, as I definitely want one.

  • Privilege Denying Dude had a tumblr, but they made him delete it for copyright reasons (or some such bullshit).

  • Jesus loves you for who you are.

    He wants you to change though.

  • jen

    Well, there was the one I saw the other day in response to the “where were you when you heard about Kennedy” discussion:

    “I was in school. I prayed. That was allowed back then.”

  • Jesus is love…
    and you’ll burn in Hell for not believing in him.

  • Jonas

    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you”

    As an ectopic pregnancy – That too.

  • margaret

    Atheist, God will let bad things happen to you because you lack faith.

    Christian, God will let bad things happen to you to test your faith.

  • anon

    No, theses are all clones of advice Dog.
    Sorry Hemant, but you really need to research it correctly before you post

  • Screechy

    There are no ‘Former Christians’.

    If you’re not Christian now, you never were one.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    “I ought to kill the next atheist who says they can be moral without God.”

  • Hurrble Burble

    I’ll pray for you

    But you’re still going to hell

  • Atheists shouldn’t be allowed in our country… Christians are persecuted

  • bernerbits

    I prefer the philosoraptor.

    Hemant, your Privilege Denying Dude images are broken.

  • God would never allow murder, rape, and slavery!

    That’s the OLD Testament.

  • I think Reginald’s should win even though I’m finding the whole thing obnoxious.

  • Lin

    My God is perfect.

    He hates all the same things I do.

    * * *

    Jesus took the punishment for our sins.

    You atheists just don’t want to be held accountable for your actions.

    * * *

    God loves you. He loved you before you were born.
    Now hurry up and love him back before he spits you into the lake of fire.

  • cypressgreen

    God has a plan for your life.
    Unless use use free will and mess it up.

  • cypressgreen

    God’s love for you is eternal.
    Even if he sends you to Hell.

  • cypressgreen

    We should post the 10 Commandments in school.
    My church’s version, of course.

  • M Jacobs

    It’s okay that you don’t believe in God.

    You’ll still be saved because you’re married to me.

    (Something I heard more than once. I’m now divorced.)

  • Stealing this from somewhere I can’t recall:

    “Love Jesus”

    “Or he will fucking kill you!”

  • Dymara

    Had to laugh at the butthurt anonymous poster. Yes, clearly things have gone TOO FAR when people start making fun of white men! OH NOES SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET, PEOPLE ARE MAKING FUN OF ME!

  • jesus is real! because everyone in the ancient middle east had blue eyes and blonde hair.

    god is love: he just hates the jews slaughtered in the Holocaust, all those people who died in slavery, millions and millions of poor children who starve to death every generation…

    i love jesus because he told me that i should give control of my uterus to old white men to whom i’m not married nor having sex with.

    Hell: i’m so glad fuckers like Gandhi and Plato are burning there now!

  • Ray Harrington

    Who would just blindly accept something just because it’s in a book? That’s why I don’t believe in evolution.

  • God is just, which is why he has to hold people accountable for their sin.

  • Carlie

    Who would just blindly accept something just because it’s in a book? That’s why I don’t believe in evolution.

    Good that it’s not just found in books, then. Do you put your money where your mouth is and only use penicillin for infections and refuse to get a flu shot every year?

  • Eddie

    @Ray: What do you mean don’t “believe”?

    Do you think it is just in books? Highly ignorant. I’d like your explanation for the new species of peppered moth. Adapted to cities.

    I’m not a high proponent, I do think we should be able to come up with other hypotheses and test them to become a theory. People say ‘it’s just a theory’ but a theory is a tested hypothesis. “God” never made it to theory.

    Even then, when you say evolution that’s more of an all encompassing term. A lot of things evolve. The constitution of the UK is an evolving constitution.

  • Inthewater


    I have a feeling you missed the humor in Ray Harrington’s comment.

  • Inthewater

    Or, maybe I just thought it was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I am off the mark.

  • Nordog

    “Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.”

  • KPL


    You’re not the only one who thought Ray Harrington’s comment was a sarcastic one.

  • RG

    I don’t need evidence in God, I have faith.

    Evolution? There isn’t enough evidence.

  • RG

    God gives you freewill.

    If you don’t believe me, you’ll burn for eternity.

  • RG

    I can’t wait to go to heaven and see Jesus!

    But, I don’t want to die!!

  • RG

    Jesus said to forget the rules in the old testament.

    But, homosexuality is still an abomination.

    Ok, so I’m 0 for 4, at least I tried.

  • Parse

    In honor of Robert in the Billboards comments:
    “I don’t hate gay people
    God just tells me to act like I do”

  • Brian Macker


    “You may have seen the “Privilege Denying Dude” Internet meme that features a random white guy saying white guy things”

    So you think “white guy things” include making statements like “I’m not a racist because Halle Berry is hot” and the idea that no white works hard for their money and got it all from trust funds.

    You’ve got a pretty low opinion of whites.

  • Carlie

    Might need to recalibrate my sarcasm meter. I’ve been arguing with idiots lately who kind of broke it.

    You’ve got a pretty low opinion of whites.

    I think I read this one right, though. The point, you no has it.

  • Brian Macker

    That’s the two he had posted as “white guy things.” Those aren’t my things. Actually, I like watermelon and fried chicken, if that’s where this blogs going. I don’t particularly find either humorous.

  • SecularLez

    I love Tumblr which is precisely why I don’t tell a lot of people about it. That is all.

  • Peter Mahoney

    Why did God have himself brutally tortured and killed?
    So that He could forgive you for being the human way He made you to be.

  • Ray Harrington

    KPL and InTheWater are correct. It was totally sarcastic! I thought that’s what we were doing, yes? Perhaps my joke was TOO on the mark for Carlie and Eddie. Cheers everyone!

  • HitodamaKyrie

    Dymara Says:

    “Had to laugh at the butthurt anonymous poster. Yes, clearly things have gone TOO FAR when people start making fun of white men! OH NOES SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET, PEOPLE ARE MAKING FUN OF ME!”

    What are you talking about? He posted that because of the meme itself. The Advice Dog and it’s spinoffs are a meme gone rampant. Now there is a counter-meme against it. Lurk moar.

  • Brian Macker

    You know Carlie, I don’t appreciate being held to an impossible to meet double standard, like was done by “Alom Shaha” in “I’m a Non-White Atheist; Hear Me Roar” This “White Privilege” guy amounts to the same thing.

    In Alom’s case, the standard is such that I’m never going to be looked upon as a moral equal until some brown skinned guy grows some balls and stands up to his, not my, culture. It’s not my fault if brown skinned people shun and kill those who try to associate with the other.

    This whole concept of “White Privilege” is pretty much the same thing. It’s an impossible and ridiculous standard that cannot be met. It’s a double standard. It’s also a standard designed to make the holder of the belief feel “holier than thou”, that is, morally superior. It’s also an illogical standard.

    I don’t think you should complain when I hold Alom and Hemant to the same standards that they seem to be setting for others. These standard is also self contradictory so those holding it end up guilty themselves. I’m putting their feet to their own fire.

    This “Privileged White Dude” stuff is based on the politically correct concept of “White Privilege”.

    For now, until I hear otherwise from you, I’m going to assume you were holding me to this standard, while not holding Hemant to it, and that’s why you called me an “idiot”. Very presumptuous of you to do that, BTW, regardless of the reason. Regardless of whether that is the reason there are others than need to read this including Hemant.

    On the other thread us, we whites who object to the concept of “White Privilege” were called “… ignorant of … reality …” and “really in need of”, “… don’t recognize …” the fact of “White Privilege”.

    This whole white privilege hypothesis is based on both collectivist reasoning and equivocation. Therefore it is false.

    1) It’s collectivist because it assumes that if some whites are privileged (like those who got into Harvard because their daddy did) that all whites are. [Conveniently ignoring the fact that some blacks have the same privilege of having daddy’s who went there, and will get the same preferential treatment. … and I do understand the historic implications of this causing fewer blacks to get this privilege, but it’s not one ALL whites get.] Nor is collective guilt valid, if someone wants to go that route. I’m not guilty because Harvard set up a system that will tend to propagate past discrimination, nor am I guilt if unions do so. Especially since I’m against these things altogether.

    Both those arguments make the collectivist fallacy (as do a lot of other arguments the left makes).

    “White Privilege” holds to collectivist thinking in many other ways but I leave it up to the reader to figure that out.

    2a) It’s equivocating (another fallacy so look it up) because it confuses two meanings of the phrase “white privilege”.

    First there is white privilege, the theory, which is a post modernist (a philosophy derived from Marxist nonsense) politically correct hypothesis about the how the world works. A hypothesis which is loaded with all sorts of false claims.

    Second there is the meaning that refers to the fact that there still exist privileges somewhere in the world that all whites get in some societies, somewhere. [of course there are “non-white privileges” in this sense all over the world too, conveniently forgotten to portray whites as greater moral deviants, a racist belief.]

    Most whites are aware of what privilege is and that US slavery and Jim Crow laws were about white privilege. What many of them are ignorant of is “White Privilege” the Marxist derived false hypothesis.

    I will be quoting and capitalizing the references to hypothesis from now on. I will calling it theory although I don’t think it rises to that level of honor of a scientific theory. I’m using the more colloquial meaning of theory, so don’t equivocate on that in your mind. It’s really just a false hypothesis, and perhaps worse a morally evil rationalization.

    You can’t honestly berate someone about being ignorant about white privilege when in reality you are trying affirm the correctness of “White Privilege Theory”. Sure they may be ignorant of crazy theories but that doesn’t mean the are oblivious to real true rule based discrimination, aka preference. In fact they even probably heard of “White Privilege Theory” and explicitly reject it because it is in fact false.

    2b) It’s also equivocating because it confuses the meaning of the word “privilege” with other words. Not so much a confusion but a complete redefinition of the word. Privilege has a meaning and the way they use the word, well, that’s not it.

    We ‘ignorants’ were provided with two articles on the subject. One by “Reuix”, titled “Privilege, Power, and Difference” and written by Allan G. Johnson. This article is one that even the most mildest application of critical reasoning would decimate, but let me do a tiny bit of analysis on the second, provided by “cat”, titled “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”.

    The former consists of a list of items that are supposed to be privileges. Let me remind the reader of what a privilege is, and why it is bad.

    There are several ways the word is defined in the dictionary but lets ignore the definitions were privileges are good things. For example, natural rights are called “privileges” by some people but they are good things. They are good because they aren’t double standards, and thus not special rights.

    I think the reason that some people call them privileges is because they want to denigrate natural rights as arbitrary things granted by the government, but that is a different discussion.

    Other kinds of good privileges are gotten by trade, for instance the privilege to swim in a private pool because you paid the dues, as opposed to those who didn’t pay (not those excluded because of race). This is earned because you work for the thing you traded for this privilege. It isn’t an unearned privilege. Let’s stick with the definitions that make privileges bad rules/granted rights.

    What do all the bad kinds of privilege share in common. Well they consist of double standards. They are rules or granted rights that give special treatment to one person or group that should also be granted to the out group if they were being treated equally.

    The are also unearned, but that is subsumed by double standards. An unearned privilege is a double standard privilege. It might even be that these are matching sets because double standard privileges are always unearned as far as I know.

    If we examine this supposed list of privileges we find that not a single one of them are privileges. Many are just false statements. Most of them even when true statements are also non-sequesters in determining any injustice in the world.

    Let’s look at the first one on the list:

    “1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.”

    First, is this true? Well for me it’s not, unless you count the time I spend sleeping or with my family, but if you count that it’s true for everybody. You can certainly decide not to marry someone outside your race and your family is very likely to be of your race. If you are sleeping alone you are always with your own race, and if with someone you get to choose that too.

    How about the rest of my day. Partially it’s spent on the road commuting and in the US it’s very hard not to encounter somebody of a different race on the road, much harder in fact them many brown skinned countries like Mexico. My dad lives in Mexico and is called “the gringo”. Why? Because white guys are rare where he is. Does this mean the Mexicans are “privileged”? Of course not.

    I personally cannot arrange my life so as not to be around other racist at work, as is true of most whites. If you say, quit your job, and find another place, well then I’d have to move to a small company and rely on statistical flukes to temporarily avoid other races. Otherwise, I’d have to pick a occupation which avoids contact with the public altogether and is not group based. Do I have to explain further why I can just avoid? I hope not.

    However, any of these things are a choices that black racists can make for them self. Yes, I injected racist because this is only of value to a racist.

    Note that Thomas Sowell, the economist has shown that racists have to pay for their racism. You should be able to see that racism has costs in a free society (which is not true in the kind of society leftist wish to set up. In a collectivist society you can shift the costs of racism to others.) Which is one reason why Sowell and I are against collectivism. It helps racists.

    Yes, this first criteria on the list is the kind of complaint I’d expect of a racist. I could see a white supremacist getting all upset about this if his company transferred him to a overseas location. I can imagine the plantain owners of the old south bitching around the table while being served by blacks, “Ya know, I really like my job, but the only downside to being a slave owner is being around all the niggers”.

    This supposed criteria for determining who’s privileged turns the definition on it’s head. If we are to believe and use it then the quite out numbered white slavers can claim a lack of privilege, and the black slaves who far outnumber them are the privileged ones.

    Why? Because, despite being completely controlled, the slaves can arrange to spend most of their time around blacks. They sleep, eat, and even work out in the fields with blacks. Especially, if the master has set up one black as a sort of slave foreman. In fact, if they were completely submissive then the master wouldn’t even need to come by to whip them.

    Similarly the second criteria isn’t very good at identifying a slave master as privileged. Here it is:

    “2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.”

    Weren’t southern whites trained to mistrust blacks, and didn’t they have to spend time with blacks?

    On this second criteria since I was not trained to distrust other races it doesn’t apply to me, unless you count the second clause, in which case it’s because the non-whites were trained to distrust whites. Who’s fault is that?

    Ironic that an East Indian would complain about not getting a special invitation and that people defending this demand for privilege would accuse those complaining of wanting white privilege. This was all because he was uncomfortable with whites, which shows that at least someone is using this ridiculous second criteria to identify a “problem” with whites, and even if he wasn’t aware of it. No, Alom, you’ve got the problem, not me.

    Of course “White Privilege Theory” is going to reject this argument by claiming that I’m in “denial”. Thus it is unfalsifiable from the illogical perspective of the true believer.

    That quote by “Rieux” stressed this idea. It went on about “Usually their first response is to find a way to get themselves off the hook, and… there are all kinds of ways to do that.” and “DENY AND MINIMIZE”.

    You’d have to be an “idiot” to think that someone who disagrees with you is not going to deny what you have to say. You can’t include that as a criteria for determining whether their argument is wrong. To put it politely, that is intellectually dishonest, although I don’t feel the need to be polite with those who call me “ignorant” and an “idiot” on no factual basis.

    I’m certainly ignorant of some things, but that’s no crime. It only because wrong if I pontificate on something I am truly ignorant about. Which isn’t the case here, or most anywhere. I’m careful not to do that.

    If you examine “White Privilege Theory” without making mistakes of reasoning (fallacies like equivocation), then it becomes quite apparent that the people advocating this “Theory” are seeking special rights.

    How ironic too that given the true meaning of privilege it is the person advocating the hypothesis of white privilege that is seeking special treatment, aka privileged treatment.

    Also ironic that the text that one of the complains of white privilege theory makes is that whites imagine that they know the experiences of blacks and then claim to speak for them, this entire list is purporting to speak to the experiences of all whites, and to speak for them. I’ve noticed that a lot of white liberals are born with silver spoons in their mouths and think that’s how every white person lives. No we don’t all live off trust funds.

    This whole idea that if one white person buys into PC that means it’s valid while if a black person rightly sees the inherent double standard and racism in political correctness and is therefore and Uncle Tom, is itself a double standard. Which is not surprising because people who believe this stuff have already bought into double standards. Thus a highly intelligent and rational black like Thomas Sowell is looked down upon as some moral outcast. While quite crazy and irrational idiots like Allan G. Johnson are held up as moral templars and their books exaulted like they were deep and meaningful unseen truths.

    They aren’t truths. They are self deceptions that are meant to make the holders feel morally superior, whether they are black or white. Whites getting out of the collective guilty (a form of original sin) by announcing their sins at the public confession box.

    It think the appeal of this to be obvious for blacks. They get to denigrate the accomplishments of others to make themselves feel good about the failures of others in their group, like a 70% out of wedlock birth rate [something welfare was suppose to make better not worse. Worse as predicted by those more scientifically inclined.]

    Those non-whites who are taking the other side of this argument. Please don’t imagine that I have no empathy, I do. I’d feel sorry for myself if I moved to India. Don’t imagine I can’t get what it’s like to be a minority, I’ve experienced it. It’s just that your expectations as expressed by Alom, and “White Privilege Theory” are childish, illogical, and ridiculous.

    In fact, I feel sorry for myself here in the US. I’m certainly a minority and when I talk with other atheists I realize a very small minority. Then again I’m not asking for any privileges.

    If you were wondering why I put quotes around the other commenters handles, that was to remind you that they are not using their real names. This is an indication that they do not believe their arguments worthy of ownership, and are not willing to take the consequences of their mistakes. If I make a spelling, grammar, or other error, you can be sure they will grasp upon my errors to try to make me look like a fool. Likewise any other type of error.

    “They” will also call me an “idiot” Ms. “Carlie”.

    People who do such things are setting up a double standard, a non-level playing field. You should respect me for not getting more irritated with “them”, and just calling them names, like they do.

    I find such behavior reprehensible and I do remember and do hold grudges, as is perfectly reasonable. For example, PZ Myers revels in having set up such a situation and allows unmoderated abuse by anonymous trolls, and in fact piling on himself. I’ve been banned there and for no good reason other than his pride being hurt when I got the better of him via argumentation. Just like I’m doing here.

    I’m getting the signs that I’ll soon be banned here too. Although they may be false signs.

    If I thought I had anything in common with these other atheists, that I shared their behaviors, and felt I needed their community, then I’d be ashamed of myself. I’m more self motivated and independent than that.

    Consider yourself insulted and proven to be what you claim of others.

    Don’t ever again jump to conclusions about what I’m thinking. I think several levels deeper than most people.

  • I challenge people to make pompous theist macros using words that people have actually said. For example, G.H.W. Bush’s:

    Atheists aren’t Americans.

    This is one nation under God.

    I think I’ll make that one right now.

  • cypressgreen

    @ “Brian Macker”

    If you were wondering why I put quotes around the other commenters handles, that was to remind you that they are not using their real names. This is an indication that they do not believe their arguments worthy of ownership, and are not willing to take the consequences of their mistakes.

    I believe you are not thinking at the deeper levels you lay claim to.
    The first rule of the net is do not believe everything you read.

    How does anyone know if your name really IS “Brian Macker?” Declaring something to be your name does not insure that you are telling the truth. Maybe your name is really John Getty, or Susan Miller. How the heck do I know? More importantly, does it matter where your ideas are concerned? Of course not.

    I “own” my arguments, whether I’m Cypress or Jenny. (or is my name Barbara? hmmm…NO it’s Janice…oh shit…) So don’t get all smart mouthed about how you are being more honest than others because you (allegedly) use your given name.

    The second rule of the net is cover your ass.

    It’s no one’s business but mine who I am off the web. It would be ill advised and reckless of me to post my full name, hometown and place of work. My kid’s name and school? No way. The world is full of wackos ready to shoot people for the $1.50 in change at the bottom of your pocket. I got messaged death threats for posting on the Facebook Draw Mohammad Day page. At least I had the sense to have all the privacy lock downs in place before I did that, and I sure wan’t gonna feed them any more info than my name.
    The world is also full of employers who don’t like seeing naked photos of their employees on line. Or web pages asking if they should have an abortion or not. Or anything like that.

    It is responsible behavior to protect yourself and your family.

    Please consider this before judging others for their use of names.
    Sincerely, “Cypress.” I think.

  • Rollingforest

    Of the ones I looked at, the “privilege denying dude” seems to mainly make asshole sexual comments which will only infuriate the girl. His privilege is getting turned down for sex? Seems like a pretty lame privilege to me.

  • I made one that goes
    “God is like gravity”
    “Not believing it doesn’t make it less real”

    it’s based on a proselytizing Christian I met on Xbox Live. I told him I was Atheist and just starts on this rant saying that if you jump off a building, it won’t matter whether or not you believe in gravity, because it’s a ‘fundamental fact’ just like God.

  • Brian Macker

    “Cypressgreen” you don’t think I’ve heard such ridiculous arguments before? I didn’t even have to imagine that someone would come up with such ridiculous claims, they make them all the time. So no deep thinking required to

    You attacked the weak part of my comment (not argument), my boasting, because you though that would discredit me, and therefore you could avoid dealing with the strong part of my argument. A sign that you couldn’t handle the argument itself. So I’ll assume you either agree with the main thrust, failed to think of any counter argument, or are mistaken in thinking your response would address it.

    You aren’t thinking very deeply about this new topic. I don’t want to cover the whole range of discussion we’d have to get into on this but will address it a little bit.

    I’ll deal with what you think is a strong part of your argument, this sentence:

    “How does anyone know if your name really IS ‘Brian Macker?'”

    You put it first so I assume you thought it was a killer point.

    Here’s my response:

    How does anyone know I am Brian Macker in the real world? Do you hand out pictures of your kids, your address, and all sorts of other personal information to people on the street who happen to tell you their name is Brian Macker?

    Here’s a simple lesson for you about thinking, when making comparisons do so with a level playing field. Marxists make this mistake. So to all Marxists. If you compare Capitalism to Marxism, then compare real world examples of both, or idealized versions of both. Don’t compare idealized versions of Marxism to real world versions of Capitalism.

    You are not thinking very deeply about identity. There are differences between the internet and face to face, but you haven’t even done the shallow thinking of the similarities. You’ve merely listened to the paranoid ravings about how your kids will be snatched if someone knows your address.

    You probably won’t let your kids go out on halloween when they are old enough because of what “they” say about that too. There is not documented case of a random halloween poisoning. Yet, I don’t know how often I’ve heard that.

    Exactly, how many times has a commenter lured an adult to hand over pictures of their kids based on a disagreement in the comments section?

    What do you think triggered my talking about the issue of real names? Do you think it was the use of the word “idiot”. If someone is going to act like a jerk then they should own it, so we can know you are. Like, PZ Myers does.

    I respect Myers for at least that much, owning his jerky behavior. The reason I don’t take him seriously on the topics he disagrees with me on is that he is clearly ignorant and not willing to actually debate them. So he shouldn’t pontificate on the because he comes off like an ignoramus. He knows squat about economic, politics, and has not examined directly the arguments that climate panic skeptics make. He’s afraid to face them too.

    Most people would understand why at some point I’m going to dismiss someone who’s core argument is “you idiot” for no good reason. My first step is to point out that they are anonymous and therefore lack credibility in ownership.

    Still at the end of the day I’m bearing responsibility for my arguments (an any bad behavior I exhibit) and they aren’t.

    No, I’m not going to pull the trigger on you till you start implying I’m a racist, idiot, or whatever.

    Now if you want me to explain to you about how you can know identities then we can get into that. YOu want a little more evidence in that direction, then do some google searching. Is there any reasonable reason why you should doubt me?

  • Oh dear. Someone needs to look up “stereotype” and “sarcasm”. Pompous Theist, Privilege Denying Dude, High Expectations Asian Father and, dare I say it, angry atheist are all stereotypes. Mocking the stereotype, while being something of a straw man argument, is a tool of humour. If you’re a white dude, an Asian father, a theist or any other target of stereotyping then acknowledge that it isn’t an attack on you but a poke at the stereotype.

  • Brian Macker


    Unfortunately PDD isn’t about mocking stereotypes. In fact it has the opposite effect if these are perceived as “white guy things”. In fact, the stated purpose was to make fun of white males for denying “White Privilege Theory”. So the target never was mocking stereotypes about white males.

    Since, as I’ve shown, “White Privilege Theory” is all about impossible standards set up to paint all whites as moral inferiors, this is all about denigrating via stereotypes, not mocking them.

    The fact that they teach this nonsense in college seriously makes it only more offensive.

    Imagine if it was “God Denying Woman”. Imagine that they taught in college that God told us that the woman’s place was in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, and that “Those who deny this truth wish to do so because they are evil”. Imagine that it taught that only females were guilty when accidental pregnancies occur. Imagine if they further compounded this nonsense by calling it science and backing it with bogus studies that didn’t control for confounding variables. Imagine it had lists that included obvious truths like: 1) “If you go to a bar you can likely have a sexual encounter with the opposite sex on command”. 2) “You can do whatever crime you want without fear of god”, etc.

    Not hard to imagine or see this for what it really is now. This is just as bad as the garbage on 4chan it was modeled after.

    Another thing, humor is sometimes valid and sometimes not. So it isn’t a window on the truth. There are racist stereotype jokes that I’m sure you know about and understand. Well, stereotypes aren’t the only method to arrive a false and even racist conclusions. One for instance can use the straw man fallacy in your joke.

    As a specific example of the straw man fallacy used in this way we see PDD saying, “The Real Problem Here … Is Racism Against White People”. No one, makes that argument exactly that way. It’s only funny for those who are ignorant of what the true arguments are, and those who don’t understand them because they’ve been given straw man versions without the backing studies, and believe the white male hate inherent in black studies, whiteness studies, and women’s studies courses.

    Racism against whites and misandry are part of the problem, and yes, even in causing problems for both blacks and women. If whites are looked down upon and getting an education looked upon as a “white thing” then do you think that’s going to have bad results? I do. If marriage is looked upon as some white male conspiracy to keep women down, or something that white people do, then that is going to have bad effects.

    Racism has much less power in the workplace than X studies people believe, and the things that give racism power, government infringement of free markets, and unions, are exactly the things the supposed “non-racists” are trying to use to “fix” things.

    I suggest that those who believe otherwise read some Thomas Sowell on racial issues. He’s actually trying to understand the problems in order to be able to fix them.

    … and yes, you could put his picture up with the snark “The Real Problem here is … racism against white people” to mock his arguments via the straw man, but it wouldn’t have as much bite because he’s black.

    I don’t understand how an atheist who came to their non-belief via skepticism can even sit through these obvious racist portrayals of history, and reasoning given in the humanities these day.

    The reality is that whites did not invent slavery, racism, or colonialism. All existed long before the modern period and were all practiced on Europeans throughout deep history. Might makes right was pretty much the rule between tribes, nations, and ethnic groups before the modern day.

    One of the very first places (and peoples) to ban slavery (not just fail to practice but to actively work against it on principle) was the whites of the northeastern American colonies. They were working against a British practice.

    I could go on, but the short of it is that it was majority white countries that ended up not inventing slavery but “ending” slavery. [Ending in quotes because Muslims still practice it openly with government sanction in Africa, and it is still done illegally in the US but is prosecuted when discovered.]

    So instead of X studies programs blaming whites for slavery [by only showing one side of the story] they should be telling how the principles of natural rights lead to the freeing of slaves world wide. Those need not be a “white” principles, and in fact aren’t.

    … and no should not be denigrated because the founding fathers have no credibility because Thomas Jefferson was a slaver, and “raped” a black woman. That too is a one sided characterization of history, that gets the story completely backwards.

    I don’t believe in collectivism, so therefor I certainly don’t believe I get any credit for ending slavery, and that is not the point. The point is that these people were motivated by certain philosophical positions I share, and it is those positions that deserve credit. I chose them specifically because they deserve that credit.

    On the other side the purpose of misrepresenting history, is to both denigrate what is good philosophy, and an entire race of people as evil.

    This is why ignoramuses like Michelle Obama who spent their time in racist churches, and humanities courses make statements like “– for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”

    Lies (both direct, and half truths, and of omission) meant to denigrate a race, are racism.

    Probably the first lady was not only influenced by the lies about whites, but the lies about the US, and captitalism in general fomented by people like Noah Chomsky. It’s disturbing that liars like this guy get so much traction. Especially when the are pro-genocide, just so long as it’s communists doing the killing. As with his stance on Cambodia, and his genocide denials.

    The left rewrites history to suite their narraive. History is messy because since organizations consist of many individuals they can act inconsistently. For example the Democrat party was the pro-slavery party, voted in smaller numbers for civil rigths, and was full of KKK members, and yet is popular with blacks. The democrats oversaw the creation and dropping of the atom bomb yet attracts all the peace activists.

    The socialists were full of eugenics enthusiast, while at the same time those who were for free markets were against this. Yet in the leftists revisionist history it is guys like Herbert Spencer who are portrayed and wanting to have people die in the streets in books like “War Against the Weak – Amrica’s Crusade to Create a Super Race.” by Edwin Black. In fact, Herbert Spencer was one of the good guys, and not a “Social Darwinist” while many socialist in fact were very much into eugenics, socialists like George Bernard Shaw.

    Yep, Myers was totally ignorant of Shaw’s positions. Well he’ll be very disappointed if he looks further. You’d think that the fact that Hitler was a socialist would give him a clue.

    The reality is that this is merely the Alansky method of accusing your opponent of being guilty of what you yourself are.

    Lie, after lie, after lie, taught to my children by force with my tax money. It’s outrageous.

    … and then to accuse me of being guilty of racism, degeneracy, hatred of the poor, etc. based on these lies is a crime compounded.

    This is why I find policial, historical, and socialist ignoramuses like PZ Myers so irritating. They are too ignorant to know that they are fighting for ideologies that have fought for slavery, genocide, and harming the poor, all the while fighting against ideologies that have worked against bad things. He does so based on warped interpretations of history, and current social events.

  • Brian Macker

    I suggest you look up some of the background on Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. That organization won’t seem to be founding on granting rights once you are in the know. More like founded on eugenics.

  • Religion Pigeon is the best religious meme

  • Broken links for the first 2 images?

error: Content is protected !!