Dan Arel, an atheist who advocates punching Nazis, and who has accused me of “normalizing white nationalism” (see here and here). is becoming a C. J. W*rl*m*n clone, constantly excoriating atheists for our supposed bigotry. This is how far people will go when they’ve drunk the Kool-Aid of Regressive Leftism:
https://twitter.com/danarel/status/864205621482012674
You can see more in his Twi**er feed, but it’s not worth my time to show more. Pity: the man has sunk to uttering the craziest canards about “mainstream atheism”. I can’t even think of ONE “mainstream atheist” who could be accused of white nationalist bigotry.
When in doubt, it’s always safe to call those you don’t like “white supremacists.”
I ‘think’ that “white nationalist bigotry that has made up the mainstream voices of atheism” is just a very roundabout way to say ‘Sam Harris’.
Pretty much. And to a slightly lesser extent, Richard Dawkins. When it comes to ridiculous smears, Harris usually gets torture loving, neo-con, white supremacist…while Dawkins usually gets misogynist, neo-con, white supremacist. The “neo-con” part cracks me up. These people seem very intent on rendering all words meaningless.
Also, he may be including Dave Rubin, who has become a Trump apologist and actually does pander to white nationalists, but I wouldn’t call him a “mainstream voice of atheism.” Ditto for Gad Saad.
“Dave Rubin, who has become a Trump apologist and actually does pander to white nationalists”
Neither of which is true. You picked a curious place to peddle your regressive slander, considering Professor Coyne was on The Rubin Report not long ago.
One thing I’d love to curb, is this liberal application of the term “regressive”.
It was a useful word when Maajid coined it, that has lost all meaning through broad over-use.
Rubin has had a few good guests on, including our very own PCC. He’s also had a lengthy procession of truly repugnant individuals who Rubin is happy to call friends and sagely nod along with, so long as they can have a hearty chuckle about those darn “regressives” at some point in the interview.
He also assiduously avoids bringing on guests who will passionately or assertively challenge his own echo chamber.
Someone on his show was critical of Trump recently….and Rubin didn’t challenge them.
He also didn’t challenge Margaret Cho when she was talking about “whitewashing” and cultural appropriation.
I’ve never seen Rubin “challenge” his guests, whether they are from the left or right, but I have noticed the regressive left accusing him of “not challenging” guests from the right, while ignoring the fact he does not “challenge” his guests on the left, either.
They are hypocrites.
He’s *still* on the Trump train. Tonight. After the past 24 hours. He recently tweeted: “Breaking: Sources tell me anonymous sources are almost always made up.” He panders to the Alt-Right because that’s where the bulk of his income is coming from. It’s much more overt on Twitter than on the show. He used to be reasonable, but now he just keeps embarrassing himself with tweets like that.
I’ve seen Rubin reach out and request interviews from liberals and regressives – many either have him blocked, or ignored him.
Not his fault too many of them are chicke-s**t. This is on a show where they won’t even get challenged.
Yeah, I’m going to have side with Paco here. I was following Rubin for a bit until I realized that I was only doing it for his guests. Left to his own devices, some of the commentary, especially on Twitter devolved into attacks on perceived boogiemen and grandstanding. Reminded me too much of high profile atheists that went from talking about logical fallacies to attacking feminists.
Is it OK to attack feminist logical fallacies?
What is wrong with attacking feminists – especially the ones wrapped up in third-wave feminism, and post-modern Marxist dogma? Are they like Islamists, immune to criticism?
They NEED to be criticised. I’ve had enough of their privileged, coddled protection. View them the same you view right wing Christian fundamentalists, or ardent Communists, or ravenous neo-con capitalists.
Dogma must always be challenged by progressive liberals.
He has “lectured” at “Prager Univesity”. If Jerry can assert that associating with Templeton is unethical, I can assert associating with Dennis Prager is unethical.
Gad Saad is of Lebanese Jewish ancestry, I very much doubt he’s sympathetic to white supremacists. He has no sympathy for the left and likes Trump, but he’s no supporter of ethno-states.
Liking Trump has got to be a deal-breaker. Come on!
I’m not saying I agree with Saad. I think Trump is a con man, a buffoon and very much similar to Silvio Berlusconi.
However just because I disagree with someone it doesn’t make them chummy with white supremacists or nazis, though.
Not all people who like Donald Trump are nazis/white supremacists. SOME of them, like Richard Spencer, sure. But not all of them, and Trump himself isn’t a white supremacist or a nazi, just a scammer who’s too narcissistic and egotistical to get even his scams right.
I dislike the use of “nazis” and “white supremacists” to characterize people who AREN’T nazis and white supremacists, even they’re horrible people like Donald Trump.
Words like “Nazi” or “white supremacist” have a precise meaning, and should be used only to define people who hold the precise beliefs of nazism or of superiority of whites (like, again Spencer).
That’s the problem the Regressive left have: deal breakers come really easy, with no attempt to understand why someone might make a choice.
We ‘apologists for white supremacists’ also give support to Muslims struggling to overcome the problems of Islam, Christians opposed to homophobic tendencies in the religion.
I thought we were about good v bad ideas no matter where they come from, not the identity politics that demonises and continues to spread the smears.
The Regressives are so quick to demonise those that don’t tow the party line they are even known for ‘eating their own’.
Rubin’s show is essentially a means to listen to other people that might have some things in common, without specifically pinning them to the wall on issues of disagreement. And, he regularly acknowledges up fron that there will be points of diagreement, but specifically puts them aside in order to have a conversation. It’s not a difficult concept.
You can get targeted attacks elsewhere, if you don’t like Rubin.
Maybe he’s not “sympathetic” to them, but both he and Rubin pull their punches when criticizing the right. I have little doubt that in both cases it has more to do with self-promotion and trying to build and maintain a large audience than it does with their own deeply held personal beliefs. Although in Rubin’s case I’m starting to believe that there are intellectual shortcomings which hinder his insight.
Saad concentrates his attacks on the left because that is where the PoMo stink infecting his professional world originates. He’s not a political commentator, so why should he attack the Right when the issues he is concerned about come from the other direction?
Correct.
This is the point I’ve tried to make to many people.
The right are widely opposed by the MSM, the online media, academia, etc. Criticism against the right is very much normalised. Criticism of regressives on the left is severely lacking, and it is these regressives who have a lot of power. Being a liberal, it is the regressive left trying to attack my freedom of expression adn freedom of speech. It is the regressive left trying to push post-modernism and other anti-science dogma into areas that I am involved with.
We know what the right are up to, and its important we keep our eyes on them. However, liberals and progressives, and those who value science, really need to stand up and oppose the far left as well. We need loud voices in the centre and in liberals circles to stand up to these bullies.
We must RESIST.
Once again, Dan Arel has lost the plot.
And what’s with the new shirtless look? Has he been pumping iron to make punching Nazis easier?
I stopped reading him a long time ago because his arguments didn’t make sense. It looks like he’s continued to go downhill. Looks like it was a good decision to keep away.
What new shirtless look?
Look at his avatar on the tweet.
He is wearing a shirt, Heather. Enlarge the picture to “spot the shirt.”
I wasn’t tempted to enlarge. My bad. I can see there’s a collar now. (I’m on a very small screen at the moment. )
Maybe you’ve got Vlad the Impaler on the mind.
Oh, brilliant. Nice photoshopping.
cr
I could do without that too! It’s a bit flattering to Trump. Better than those statues too.
At least they got it accurately. Trump would ride bitch.
Actually, I got the exact same impression from that thumbnail pic as heather did.
cr
I don’t usually go in for ad hominem attacks, but I’m starting to feel that in the case of Dan Arel I could make an exception!
I have a theory — which is mine — that the election of Trump has driven sections of the US left insane.
(This theory is slightly hampered by the fact that PZ and others went insane before Trump’s election, but still.)
Yes, I agree with your theory, which is yours. Huffington Post has certainly gone insane!
When the going gets weird, the weird go crazy.
That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.
– Trevor Goodchild
I think PZ got in early to avoid the rush.
LOL
I think it -being insane- started well before Trump. Trump just gathered some, quite some, more adherents to insanity.
Admittedly, it needs some mental rigour not to go insane about the Trump presidency. But then mental rigour was never a forte of the struthious left.
I’ve certainly seen the unchallenged assertion in many circles, that somehow the nation became fundamentally “different” the night of the election, and all established rules of how to ethically & effectively fight back got thrown in the dumpster.
I remember some crazies on the left during the Bush years, but for the most part the left got by behaving as the only adults in the room and the end result was retaking the House, Senate, and Presidency.
It’s really that easy. If your opposition are behaving like big children, don’t try to compete with them to behave like bigger children. Be an adult and voters will respect you for it.
+1. *exactly*
As I’ve said on this blog before, I came of political age during the Bush years. I was in high school when he was elected, and for those eight years in office, I was convinced the left was the party of seriousness, civil rights for all, and anti-war.
Turns out it was all a ruse. Both sides act like children once they get power (“these are my toys! You can’t have them!”, and now the left is acting like children when they don’t get power.
The way to defeat the rising right-wing sentiment isn’t to continue going regressive, it’s to excise the regressive cancer and return to the roots of the left: fighting for the working people (even if they’re white males! Even them. They’re actually people who go through hardship too) and being the adults in the room.
Instead, it seems the Democrats are determined to cater to the worst elements of their base, and to let those elements represent them to the rest of the country, all while continually bowing in deference to our corporate overlords.
The term ‘bigot’, which originally meant ‘deep irrational hatred’ (not simply dislike or disapproval) has been expanded (especially by the left) into ‘anything we dislike’. This is the natural result of trying to commandeer language for political purposes.
Very interesting article by Daniel Greenfield on he two conflicting axes of the Democratic party:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2017/05/anti-social-left-vs-anti-economic-left.html
an additional thought:
In the world of newspeak, I, as well as, probably many others here are ‘bigots’.
Given the current politically twisted definition, I will wear that label.
Oh, just about all of us here are (in their eyes) bigots, racists, white supremacists, misogynists, rape apologists/advocates, MRAs, PUAs, transphobic, Islamophobic, and any other term they use against their political enemies.
Thanks for the article link. I will definitely give it a read 🙂
I think Bernie Sanders, who criticised identity politics, is the candidate the Dems need to win in 2020. Either him or someone like him if Sanders is too old.
And yet, the regressives call him a white supremacist (that’s right, a man who did more than all of them combined for black civil rights, is a white supremacist), all for questioning identity politics-based political maneuvering.
political polarisation encourages more polarisation. Arel, Werleman, Greenwald, Myers et al are the bottom of the barrel and seem to operate in a rationality free zone. See Godless Spellchecker site for Werleman’s form denigrating Arabs in tweets before he became an Islamist sympathsiser Also on GS snapshots of tweets from Werleman when he lived in Indonesia boasting about having sex with his Indonesian maid or denigrating her for supposed laziness.
That theory puts the crazies on the left in a sympathetic light. Maybe if I lived closer to Trump, or saw more of him, that would drive me insane.
Didn’t he close his Twitter account recently? Is he back already? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yes he protected it for a couple of days after he made the statement that he always believes rape victims. So some YouTuber claimed the he raped her with the hashtag #DanArelrapedme
Dan was flummoxed to be caught with his answer begging the question. Dan handles logical fallacies the way Wily E. Coyote handles bundles of TNT.
Was wondering why his blog is sponsored by the Acme Co.
Dan Arel isn’t mistaken or misinterpreting the evidence. He is very straightforwardly lying. He has earned all due disrespect.
At this point, I have to assume Dan’s problem is simply that he’s become incredibly hardened and entrenched in his stated opinions, because he’s received an avalanche of criticism and abuse for them. That kind of thing tends to make people dig in.
I’m not convinced Dan has actually spent five minutes acquainting himself with most of the “mainstream” atheists he has criticized, and more likely is acquainted through what OTHER people have said and written about them (aka “The Ben Affleck Effect”).
I’ve seen multiple occasions where his inconsistencies and blatant inaccuracies have been directly pointed out to him, and he’s just completely non-responsive. He moves on to the next smear, like it never happened.
I was perusing a number of atheist sites to visit, stumbled upon one (I don’t remember who the blogger was) that said ‘if you even use the words politically correct, you’re out’.
I moved on quickly from there.
I imagine the reason I’m such a white nationalist is because I have a low opinion of Islam, therefore, BAD!
If I respected Islam, then I’d be a hijabi wearing atheist and worthy of respect.
Now I want so see a photoshop job of a green poison frog wearing a hijab.
To be fair, there has been an accumulation of truly garbage people under the “banner” of atheism, just look at the various chans and subreddits and youtubers (actually don’t). I can almost guarantee that a large part of Trump’s alt-right support base is also proudly atheist, along with many odious libertarians. Hell, if there was a way to actually prove it one way or another, I’d put money on Trump himself being an atheist.
Just goes to show that atheism alone is hardly a unifying concept, shared moral values is where it’s at.
If those were the people Dan called out, I’d be fine with it, because I agree – they do exist. I’ve unsubbed a few atheist channels on YouTube, precisely because they started to drift into territory I found to be ridiculous.
But that isn’t what he’s saying. He specifically uses the term “mainstream atheists”. We all know the handful of people he’s undoubtedly referring to when he says that.
Yes, I think that’s clear; Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, and so on–all having Klan robes in their closets.
Correct.
He’s using these buzz terms in the same way online agitator trolls such as W*r**m**, Talib Kweli, Andy Kindler, and a few others use them.
The really funny thing is, that Dan Arel complained to “@twitter, @jack, @support” when the #danarelrapedme meme took off….all the time while he lies and slanders genuine progressive liberals as “Nazis” and “white supremacists”.
Not only is he a liar, he is a malicious liar, like most lairs on the regressive, Marxist left.
PS – He’s a big mate of that wacky Marxist professor at Drexel, George “genocide” Cicciarello-Maher.
People have called both Bernie Sanders and Jerry Coyne (the author of this blog, hi!) “white supremacists”.
Sane people, on the other hand, understand that the likelihood of people of Jewish ancestry being “white supremacists” is pretty much the same of black people being Great Wizards of the KKK.
Maybe people get called “white supremacists” purely because “literally Hitler” has become passe through over-use, never mind the old favourites” “racist”, “bigot”, and “Islamophobe”.
Inflation. What comes next? “Exterminationist” I suppose.
There was a black man who rose to be some sort of kleagle or klaxon or beagle or whatever they call them. Then he went public, causing much hilarity.
Sounds like the premise for a Dave Chappelle bit.
One day it’s the Christians who are white supremacists, next day it’s the atheists. I bet the only guiltless group is the Muslims.
You’ll notice most of the regressive “you’re a white supremacist” crowd, are defensive of, or supporters of, Linda Sarsour, while they hate progressive Muslims, and especially ex-Muslims.
And supporters of racial segregation, not mixing cultures, marrying within your racial group, and so many other things that they have in common with the farther of the far right. Horseshoe theory truly is real.
Natural selection in operation. The more outrageous the Tweet, the more likely it will be noticed.
Mainstream voices of Atheism? The likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Myriam Namazie, Ayaan Hirshi Ali, Sarah Haider, Daniel Dennett, Peter Boghossian, and of course our host?
Well, with some serious distortion of what he actually says, due to his thought experiments that clearly go beyond the comprehension of his critics, Sam Harris can be falsely construed to be a white bigot, but for the others I cannot imagine how to get there. (Well in fact I can: Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and our host are -were in case of the Hitch- ageing white males, and hence by definition white supremacists, but that would include Arel -and the despicable W*rl*m*n- too then)
Arel really talks BS.
And I forgot Hemant Metha, another typical atheist White Supremacist,
That’s it!
“White supremacist”: a white male who doesn’t apologise for being a white male.
As oppose to a white male who continually goes around apologising for his privilege.
Although a white, particularly if ageing or dead, male is a white supremacist bigot by definition, it is not really exclusive.
A black woman criticising Islam can also be categorised as such (yes, really unbelievably, Ayaan has been called a white supremacist!).
Of course, to regressives one should always champion the voices of other races, LGBT people and women – so long as they agree with the largely straight white male regressives.
If a black feminist blogger gives a speech at CPAC where she expresses support for fiscal conservatism, she is to be driven out.
If a Muslim calls for reforms within Islam to bring it more in line with modern human rights – he is to be driven out.
If a black Somali woman criticises the left for siding with people who stabbed a death threat to her into her friend’s chest, she is driven out.
And when you look at modern support for segregation, on the right you have dog whistles, on the left you have direct arguments for it in the form of “cultural appropriation”.
In other words one of the biggest arguments for Apartheid – a system with was named in English “Separate Development” – is still alive and in use by the left.
Regressives like Arel are very happy to say they are fighting racism, homophobia, sexism and suchlike – but only so long as members of other races, sexual orientations and genders are willing to be “fought for” in a way that doesn’t give any hint of non-whites having any real power.
Because without power there is no blame or vice versa, and thus if you can construct your political ideology to give all blame for all things to straight white males, you have effectively constructed your political ideology to give all power to straight white males.
You cannot take the powerful and pleasing role of the protector of identities, without maintaining the validity of those identities and thus the oppression the people who have them face.
This is why identity politics has become synonymous with identifying problems and looking for who to blame for them, rather than trying to actually find some sort of solution to them.
Racism exists, racism is bad, and it will continue to exist in part because rather than trying to solve the economic imbalances faced by black people for example, we have articles about how offensive fusion food is.
And of course you have the new definition of racism (Prejudice+power) which automatically assumes that if you’re not a straight white male you suddenly have no power whatsoever.
It is an infantilisation of non-whites, and the non-western supported largely by western white academics who want to appear enlightened but in reality are no different to the patronising protectors of “the savage” who existed in the Victorian era.
Regressives see themselves as champions of the oppressed, but in all honesty, they’re more like jail wardens.
They constantly play themselves up as liberators – but liberation is first and foremost the right to disagree, and when someone exercises that right?
Well then you hear about how okay it is to pepper spray elderly women wearing Trump hats.
And suddenly it isn’t bad to harass people who said something wrong on Twitter.
Yeah, if it were based on looks Dan would be a sub-commander, at least, of a major White Supremacist organization.
To people like Dan Arel, anyone who opposes anything he believes is a white supremacist. Dan and people like him believe they are “on the right side of history,” that everything they do is for the good of the “oppressed,” (unless, of course, one of those people from the groups they deem oppressed disagrees with them, in which case you’ll see incredible viciousness directed at said person), and therefore, by simple logic, anyone who opposes them must be a white supremacist. I think it really is that simple.
Just remember, as an atheist you may only criticize white religions, otherwise it’s racist. Look out, Odin, we’re coming for you!
Dear Dr Brydon, I disagree: Islam is -as much as Christianity and Judaism- a ‘white’ religion, but cannot be criticised.
Indeed in certain circles it’s easier to find support for criticism of Santeria or Voodoo (practiced mostly by black people) for example on grounds of justification animal cruelty, than for criticism of islam.
Some people have turned islam into a weird fad/fashion statement/fetish, especially when it comes to the veil (just look at those who put on the veil at the “Women’s March”, led by Saudi shill Linda Sarsour). Which is especially absurd for people who call themselves feminists.
Despite urban myths, I have never heard of a Voodoo practitioner actually attacking a critic of his religion, so it is far safer to criticize Voodoo than Islam.
I think Voodoo practitioners “attack” their enemies by sticking pins in dolls. (Would that all religions were so limited in their retribution efforts.)
Yes, I wouldn’t mind at all if Islamic fundamentalists beat their foreheads into the ground 5 times per day asking Allah to punish infidels!
Animal sacrifice, as practiced in Santeria, is constitutionally protected under the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment. See .
here
How about human sacrifice?
And if not, why not?
It seems to me the legal issues would be precisely the same. If the law decrees that killing animals unnecessarily is illegal (for reasons of cruelty or otherwise), just as the law decrees that killing people is illegal (for similar equally arbitrary reasons). If one can be overridden by the First Amendment, why not the other?
cr
Please don’t give them ideas!
We have a mainstream? I had no idea!
That man is not in a good place, just look at his Twitter feed.
One oddity though; he still seems to only have good things to say about David Silverman, who used to court all sorts of “heresy” such as having a booth (or just personal presence?) at CPAC. Arel apparently still considers Silverman a personal friend; anyone else doing such outreach to “Nazis” he would’ve long ago deemed a punchable Nazi themselves.
It will be very interesting to see which people in the atheist still regard Dan Arel as a friend or ally. He’s a mendacious liar. His meltdown reminds of CJ Werleman’s disgrace (interestingly, many of Werleman’s socks ‘n’ fleas are now retweeting Arel like crazy). Regressives such as Steve Shives, and serial liars such as Aki Muthali, are supportive of him. That tells you everything.
Stephen Knight (Godless Spellchecker) has exposed Dan Arel’s lies and hypocrisy on numerous occasions.
Don’t ever forget that Dan Arel has also endorsed violence against women. Don’t ever forget he called a Jewish person who lost family at Auschwitz “a Nazi”.
Those, like Dan Arel, who bully, abuse, and slur progressive liberals and Jewish people as “Nazis” deserve no mercy. We must continue to expose this lickspittle until he has learnt his lesson. Thanks Jerry for speaking out against this nasty POS. Other atheist, liberal bloggers should do the same.
Apologies for not redecating the unnameable W****m**. I don’t post here often, and forgot the rule.
Funny you mention Aki Muthali, because she had a crazy meltdown too. She used to post all kinds of anti-regressive, anti-SJW stuff, but something clicked in her and she suddenly became sympathetic to the regressive-types and started calling everyone Nazis and white supremacists.
Indeed.
The election of Darumpf caused some “liberals” to reveal themselves as anti-liberal, regressive, liars.
PZ was exposed many years ago, but it took a little longer to root out the most of the others…
OT, but the NYT has got its hands on at least one of the memos in the detailed paper trail James Comey kept of his meetings and conversations with the Donald.
Trump is toast.
Don’t count on it. They say they have not seen the memo. So we are back to anonymous sources. Like the golden shower fakery.
I say we need more than anonymous unproven claims. A congressional inquiry, with subpoena powers.
Jim Comey kept contemporaneous detailed memoranda of all his conversations and meeting with Trump. He no doubt gave copies for safekeeping to trustworthy colleagues inside and outside the Justice Department. Those memoranda show Trump trying to interfere with the FBI’s investigation into the ties Trump and his campaign have with Russia.
Congressional Republicans have no personal loyalty to Trump (and precious little party allegiance, since Trump isn’t even a real Republican). They’ve been sticking by him so far solely because they recognize it’s the only way to pass the legislative agenda they’ve been waiting a dozen years to enact.
The GOP has already begun backing away from Trump as we speak. Trump will have a hard time surviving Comey’s testimony before the intelligence committees, especially if it’s given in public session. White House staff will start abandoning ship (and, perhaps, seeking immunity). You think any of them are willing to be the next Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, or Dean?
He’s not even a neo-Marxist – Cultural Marxist – he’s you’re standard Marxist Leninist. He gave a five stars out of five stars in his review of “The Communist Manifesto”. Who gives a rats ass off to whatever he thinks?
I like to call these people Lysenkoists as well. If scientific evidence doesn’t fit their worldview, they just claim science is a white supremacist construct and the idea of empirical truth is just a way for the patriarchy to marginalize other voices, and then create their own subset of “science” with their own journals to pump out complete BS to help them believe. If we actually followed their “science,” we’d end up with the same results Russia’s farmers (and, by extension, population at large) ended up with when Lysenkoism came along.
What is a “mainstream” atheist anyway?
With Science and reason so dominated by bigoted racist thinking we’d better just return to the ignorance and culturally appropriate witchdoctory of religious tribalism. Because there is no bigotry there.