I originally posted the following as a comment on someone else’s blog. But it stand alone quite nicely.
In today’s society (here in the west) women are not held down. In fact, they are given special advantage. Most violence is against men.. But officials are contemplating a “violence against women act” because the only violence they care about is that against women. A woman can be attacking a man with a knife or a gun. And that’s considered okay. But if he dares to defend himself, he goes straight to jail. Most college graduates are women. Many times, less is expected of them to get their grades and their degrees. But somehow it’s “not enough.” Is the mere fact that some males are still allowed to attend college “oppressing women”?
Our society has always placed women’s needs drives, interests, and safety above those of men. Look at the discussion on “reproductive rights.” People insist that a woman needs “choices” if she decides she doesn’t want to handle the financial burden of being a mother. As for the man (you did know that there were two people involved, right?) it “too bad; he made his choice when he decided to have sex.” Workplace deaths are over 90 percent male and the only concern is how to protect women from the problem.
Misandry is hard for people to see because it is so prevalent. You don’t notice anything unusual. It’s just the way it is. It’s the water the fish swim in. Misogyny exists. But it is easily recognized because it is so out of the norm. Racism in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s wasn’t recognized as such. It was just the norm. We see that racism clearly today because it is no longer the norm. We do not see misandry because it is so prevalent. We don’t even think about it.
I don’t often check for spam manually. But I’ve gone into settings and set it so that it doesn’t automatically delete posts it marks as spam (any more.) I’m not sure how WordPress has been deciding spam. But since I haven’t seen any new comments in months, I’m wondering if it isn’t just marking everything as spam. I’m going to have to check that a little more regularly.
How did he come to this conclusion. Well, he says his god “revealed it to [him] in such a way that WE can be certain.” I’m not particularly impressed. But then, I think he has “painted himself into a corner” so to speak. He has no evidence for his god. Now, for a personal belief, that might not be a problem. But he wants others to join his belief (and send him money.) He needs some real evidence to accomplish that. (He can teach his dogma to his children. But they can’t send him any money at this time.) He doesn’t have any evidence. He relies exclusively on Presuppositional Baloney. He is unable to argue against anything I say, and has no recourse except to say that his god says I can’t think straight.
A few people celebrate other holidays, which is the primary reason why a lot of people and businesses will say “happy holidays.” Unsurprisingly, there are several hateful christians who strenuously object to this. (To those who might be confused, I do not say that all christians are hateful. Indeed, many are not. But there are those who are. And they denounce the saying of “happy holidays” and are quite adamant about putting the “christ” back in “christmas.”) At any rate, they want to restore a devotion to Jesus that was never really there. That’s right. It was never there.
The Roman catholic church noticed that villagers celebrated holidays by various names around the time of the hibernal solstice. As they wanted to ease the conversion to christianity, they invented a christian holiday that they called christmas. Interestingly, over the course of history, various christian groups have denounced christmas as a catholic heresy. The puritans banned it. They said it was unbiblical. And they were right. It is unbiblical. Of course, that doesn’t mean much; but it is true.
Dogma can come in many forms. Most people expect to find it in religions. But I find that many people can be dogmatic and not even realize it. People can say something with which I disagree and be dogmatic, People can say something with which I agree and be dogmatic. People can say something with which I disagree and not be dogmatic. And people can say something with which I agree and not be dogmatic. Being dogmatic doesn’t even (necessarily) mean one is wrong. I write this post to help people recognize and avoid dogma.
The main thing to understand about dogma is that it is not based on actual facts or reasoning. It expects to be accepted without thought or question. And it is not tolerant of dissent. All of its tactics are predictable based on these features. Different dogmas may use different tactics based on what is most likely to be successful. Indeed, the same dogma may use the same tactic at different times. But the main thing to look for is an expectation of belief without thought or question.
One common technique is to call people smart if they agree and stupid if they do not. A lot of smart people have believed a lot of wrong things and a lot of stupid people have believed a lot of right things. What you believe does not make you smart and it does not make you stupid. Anytime you encounter anyone claiming it does, you can be sure that you are faced with dogma.
Another tactic that you often find with dogma is a tendency to mock or ridicule anyone who dissents. Rational viewpoints do not require that dissenters be mocked. Mockery and ridicule are a “don’t listen” tactic. They are most often found when the dogma’s supporters know the facts are against them — though this isn’t a guarantee.
A tactic occasionally seen is telling someone he is not qualified to judge. The dogma doesn’t question the qualifications of those who agree. This is a silencing tactic and is often accompanied by a wild-goose chase as a “requirement to continue.” Well, if you expect me to believe something, and especially if you want me to change my behavior based on it. I am qualified to judge it.
An extreme tactic is to outlaw the expression of dissent. This has occasionally been seen throughout history. It happens when the powers-that-be are sufficiently dogmatic.
Also found is the declaration that dissenters are “deniers.” This carries the implication that the dissenters “really believe” but are denying the truth for some purpose of their own. Dan on “debunking atheists” uses this one a lot. The fact is that there will be people who legitimately disagree with you. If you have to denounce them as “deniers,” there is something wrong with your position.
Now, the above is probably not exhaustive. If I think of some other tactics used by dogmas, I might present those at a later time. And, it should be remembered, dogmas like to pretend they are something more respectable. And sometimes they gain respectable people among their adherents. But their tactics and their intolerance for dissent will always expose them as the dogmas they are.
Okay, for those interested, you can check out stormbringer005.blogspot.com. Please, don’t go there directly from my site. I prefer to let him forget I even exist.
How do I know he has created a sock puppet? Why, it’s very simple. Norman doesn’t like people trying to confirm his stories with someone else. So he always blurs out the names of those who will not cooperate with his stories. Or, at the very least, he will blur out a portion of the name so you cannot find the originator.
Look at his post about the guy who came onto his forum “Question Evolution Project” and called it a waste of his time. He claims that this fellow made some “attacks.” But he would have produced them with glee, had they actually existed. But what I want you to note is that anything that might let you get in touch with the originator of the comment is blurred out You can’t get a non-Norman perspective. This is the way he operates.
Now look at the “atheist” who states that Norman used his admin privilege to ban someone and who “admits” to “stalking” Norman. Do you see any blurring? No, he didn’t bother. He didn’t have to because that’s his own account. He probably didn’t even think that anyone would put the pieces together.
If you examine his recent posts, you will find something else amusing. He says to prove that he was the admin on the particular thread “question evolution project” and did the banning. Leaving aside the fact that most wrongly accused assert their innocence rather than saying “prove it,” he goes on to admit being the admin in a more recent post. He shows a screen shot of an administrator post and notes that it is his. I am only too familiar with the fact that ha will ban anyone who exposes his (rather blatant) lies from any forum he controls. And he tries to stick to forums he can control that way.
Yes I quoted words back at her that I do not accept here. However, they were her words and are, sadly, necessary for the context. At any rate, her main post should not be too hard to find — for anyone who is interested.