everybody on ilx complains about reddit

mental age ain't nuthin' but a number

Need more general superstition/supernatural billboards:

Bigfoot? Could be. Lots of trees to hide behind out there.

I was playing GTA5 online this weekend and got put on a team during a deathmatch with two dudes wearing fedoras and suits.

Had to ask myself again," Ok, so now what are you doing with your life?"

lol our Joel's GTA Online posse wanted to fedora up and he politely suggested maybe they cd choose their own hats

http://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/1pu7gy/problems_behind_the_scenes_at_google_or_to_reddit/

http://i.imgur.com/SIGLQIa.jpg

The stigma against those hats is hilarious. Probably for the best as they look idiotic in 2013 but still

mahatma quoth

I don't think there's anyone that can pull it off anymore.

There must've been a moment in 1894 when a man showed up at a gathering with a beaverskin hat and got laughed at, all the while as he exclaimed, "but it was cool when Davy Crockett wore one!"

the gap between the intent to project sophisticated masculinity and the actual impression that it makes just gets wider and wider. i feel bad for fedoras more than anything.

http://i.imgur.com/NiGzOHq.gif

they'll come back round again, perhaps, when they're disassociated from callow white entitled youth

maybe

come to think of it, bowlers and toppers never really came back round except for douchebags

Are hats always bad?

yes

guys if we're going to be off-topic itt can we at least lol @ dawkins honey

the ship has sailed on me quoting this but I really wanted to because it's hilarious and OTM

also I could totally look good wearing a fedora but I choose not to because I know they've been co-opted by evil

Are hats always bad?

reddit morelike http://images.chron.com/blogs/askacat/hatcat.JPG

I posted pplains' neckbearded atheist on Twitter and he is pretty popular; I've gotten more retweets than when I congratulated some random Republican representative on being worse than the president of Iran.

have we verified if that quote was made in earnest by either the guy in the photo or anyone at all? it's really out there.

like, atheists will try to appropriate the language of oppression to gain sympathy no doubt, but to attempt to fully steal that language from actually oppressed groups represents a new phase or something

lol no it doesn't

as an admittedly privileged member of a minority group that is often oppressed, I cannot tell you the number of times over my life that some random white dude has tried to tell me that they were obviously more oppressed than me, ergo by extension they were more oppressed than every black person in America

the only difference is ppl now have the technology at their disposal to make this shit permanent until the global EMP hits

This is all that shows up in a Google search for 'I cry tears of hilarity'. That 4chan page won't open up and that's where I have my suspicions.

i guess so djp. i think there is a difference between saying "i am white and male but ______ some women and black people are better off than me why should i have to feel bad huh" and "i cry tears of hilarity in the faces of all minority groups". the former is trying to appeal to the logic minorities use to describe their own oppression while the latter pretends this logic has no historical origin, and is just taking it as a starting point to describe their own myopic, self-pitying worldview. it seems like a parody, i guess

there are for sure tons wites that hold said view but that macro def seems like a goof, the picture and all

a quality goof mind you

fwiw I am not saying the pic isn't a parody; I'm saying that I have had white ppl (usually dudes, drunk) tell me directly to my face that they are more oppressed than black ppl because I went to Harvard

drunk dudes have real problems saying "intersectionality" probly

tbf going to harvard is a pretty big detriment xp

where does a black harvard grad with a beemer fit in it is p confusing tho, do you ever feel like you are making it a little unnecessarily complicated mayne

it's a DJP world

oh shit i meant to post that john barnes article from the graniaud but rly who neesd the hassle

insherschexsionalishy

tbf, djp has in the past made me laugh tears of hilarity.

This thread is more evidence why I don't bother using the term "atheist". A more descriptive term for me is "skeptic", but even that is being similarly branded like it is a club. So I've settled with calling myself a skeptical person which covers everything well enough- because I don't have to ever categorize myself- either we're talking in depth about our beliefs or mine vs. yours and you'll learn everything about what I think at that point. Labeling with "atheism" is just going to get the entirety of whatever you happen to think that means mixed in with what I actually think before and after I get to explain myself unless I am lucky enough to isolate and explain each discrepancy.

I've simply chosen to live an unexamined life

Cuz Netflix

I like "secular sort of dude"

secularmingle.com

It's funny that saying "I'm an atheist" and "I don't believe in gods" can give much different impressions yet it takes the same amount of energy to say either. And since it doesn't make anything easier in conversation (or even if you'd just like to have the opinion printed on a mug) to call yourself an atheist, you're lumped in with the "atheist movement" with a very set of shared non-beliefs ("ism" doesn't help) just by using the word.

It isn't the fault of the word though, really. People make jokes that there isn't a word for a non-golfer or something, but when subscribing to a belief in gods is such an ingrained aspect of humanity for so long a word to describe the minority category is deserved. The word doesn't exist to describe a church of anti-divine authority activists.

I've considered myself an atheist since I was like 12, why stop now

Just like Christians, Muslims, et. al., there are atheists you can hang out with and there are atheists who doing it wrong.

just like there are people who can write in the English language and then there are people who me.

the thing about any belief (and even a "belief in non-belief" doesn't escape from this) is that once it is asserted it will automatically carry along other beliefs. we are all occupied with securing a coherent system of beliefs which agree with each other. this can be tricky of course since most of us will find, if pressed, that we are incoherent in some respects.

atheism is no different. if you say you dont believe in God you are implicitly endorsing a whole host of other beliefs. you've created a "belief system" and that system will have vulnerabilities.

now, i think there's a particular tradition of atheism which derives from TH Huxley, Robert Ingersoll and those types and has been revived by Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. This is primarily what people are targeting when they criticize atheism today.

you can, of course, say that your atheism doesn't belong to that tradition. I would say this about my own atheism (such as it is). you could be a buddhist atheist! or anything really.

but in my opinion you can't simply say "i don't believe" and leave it at that because that's a very quick way to adopt a whole lot of unexamined assumptions. your beliefs will organize themselves into systems with or without your consent. what bothers me about this "opt out" style of "passive atheism" (i've just coined that word) is that it's bad at examining its own implicit beliefs--whether or not i would agree with those beliefs or not.

reverse-img-srched the persecuted atheist pic

first hit?

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neckbeard‎

the thing about any belief (and even a "belief in non-belief" doesn't escape from this) is that once it is asserted it will automatically carry along other beliefs. we are all occupied with securing a coherent system of beliefs which agree with each other

except for when not

^ expand to fit yr whole post actually

i get the feeling this brand of atheism is like a fundamentalist or authoritarian atheism and can appeal to a certain type of person who has an uncertain or threatened status in society. not unlike the tea party or other movements like that.

when i "went atheist" at 14 i never got caught up in this shit. but the system of beliefs that followed were existential questions and all that hoo ha. i could give a rat's ass if anyone believes in god or not.

my own atheism went the Darwinist route before also becoming quite existentialist. sort of like my own personal mental journey from the mid 19th to mid 20th century.

one thing that annoys me the most about the "atheist movement" is that there's this sneering going on at the lesser mortals whose intellect is not powerful enough to grasp that god does not exist.