Atheist group changing its message

[rug]

Members of the Secular Student Alliance set up next to the Alpha Omicron Pi fraternity in the Sombrilla area of the University of Texas San Antonio main campus, Monday, Oct. 28, 2013. Some are former members of the Atheist Agenda, a group that drew controversy for their, "Smut for Smut" campaign in which student were asked to turn in religious books for pornography. At the Secular Student Alliance table are from left, Jesse Silva, 18, Jacob Schmidt, 20 and Charles Duncan, 24.

By Abe Levy : November 1, 2013 : Updated: November 1, 2013 10:02pm

Since 2005, in-your-face atheism had a platform at the University of Texas at San Antonio in a student organization known for its “Smut for Smut” campaign.

In the campus' free-speech area, Atheist Agenda exchanged free porn for Bibles, Korans and any religious book held dear.

The group's message was that religions are more damaging than Hustler magazine.

The yearly event was low-hanging fruit for news outlets nationwide and abroad. The irreverence sparked lively debate and occasional security. Evangelical Christian groups counter-demonstrated. Muslim students confronted. Not the most flattering publicity — by design.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/article/Atheist-group-changing-its-message-4947906.php

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

1. Porn for religious texs?

I wish I had thought of that, quite clever.

[rug]

2. It was just more tone deaf sexism.

Not a good message.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

3. It was, without a doubt.

I agree totally. Thereby the literary and social comparison between these competing forms of literature.

[rug]

4. You don't combat sexism with sexism.

[cleanhippie]

10. So you agree with their point that they are both smut?

The sexism in both is a given.

[rug]

11. Not in the least.

If you think the Bible is equivalent to a filmed blowjob and DP, you're farther back than I gave you credit for.

[cleanhippie]

12. But you just said it was "tone deaf sexism", and that "you dont fight sexism with sexism."

So the bible is sexist, but not smut?

[rug]

13. You're the one equating sexism to smut.

That's a pretty uniformed view of sexism.

[cleanhippie]

14. No, you are. They had a "smut for smut campaign" that you said was "fighting sexism with sexism."

Posts 1-4 are you and JimboBillyBubbaBob discussing just that, explicitly. These are your words, not mine.

[rug]

15. And your analogy of the Bible to pornography is just as juvenile as theirs.

They, on the other hand, have gained the maturity to reject that tactic.

[cleanhippie]

16. Its not my analogy, its theirs. And the 'bible is sexism' is all yours.

At least we agree that the bible is sexist.

Star Member rug (52,473 posts)
4. You don't combat sexism with sexism.

[rug]

17. So, you do not agree with them that the Bible is equivalent to pornography?

[cleanhippie]

18. I agree with you that it is as sexist as pornography.

[rug]

19. Is that a difficult question to answer?

After all, you said it's not your analogy.

Is it?

[cleanhippie]

20. I just answered you. I agree with you that it is as sexist as pornography.

It seems you didn't get the answer you wanted, but you did get an answer.

Even when I'm agreeing with you you are combative. Sheesh, give it a rest.

[rug]

21. No you didn't.

In fact, I didn't liken sexism to pornography at all. I said it's worse.

Ok, leave it unanswered. I understand why you won't.

[cleanhippie]

22. Yes, you most certainly did.

JimboBillyBubbaBob (684 posts)
1. Porn for religious texs?

I wish I had thought of that, quite clever.

Star Member rug (52,479 posts)
2. It was just more tone deaf sexism.

Not a good message.

JimboBillyBubbaBob (684 posts)
3. It was, without a doubt.

I agree totally. Thereby the literary and social comparison between these competing forms of literature.

Star Member rug (52,479 posts)
4. You don't combat sexism with sexism.

Keep trying to make this about me while you attempt to pull your foot out of your mouth.

[rug]

23. You left out two:

cleanhippie (15,158 posts)
10. So you agree with their point that they are both smut?
Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 06:37 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
The sexism in both is a given.

rug (52,479 posts)
11. Not in the least.
If you think the Bible is equivalent to a filmed blowjob and DP, you're farther back than I gave you credit for.

And you continue to evade the question. I'll take it you simply agree with the analogy and have chosen disingenuity over honesty.

[cleanhippie]

24. Again, I've answered your question twice already. This is the third time.

Star Member rug (52,480 posts)
17. So, you do not agree with them that the Bible is equivalent to pornography?

cleanhippie (15,159 posts)
18. I agree with you that it is as sexist as pornography.

So there it is, again. You can take it any way you want, that's what you do regardless.

I'll take it you simply agree with the analogy and have chosen disingenuity over honesty.

Don't look now, but you're projecting again.


Have a good night, rug.

[rug]

25. You evaded three times.

Yet the answer is clear. Fortunately the UT SSA can admit when they're wrong. An honest group.

On the likelihood you didn't actually read the article, I'll add their answer:

“We don't plan on doing (the smut-for-smut campaign) ever again,” said Jacob Schmidt, an officer with the newly formed group. “We encourage conversation, but we did it in the wrong way, just getting a rise out of people.

[cleanhippie]

26. Yes, the answer is clear. I agree with you that the bible is a sexist as pornography.

[rug]

27. Agreeing with something I did not say is odd.

And that's putting it gently.

[cleanhippie]

28. Denying one's own words that are there for all to see is more than odd, it's disturbed.

And thats putting it gently.

No worries, brother, we both know you will never come back and admit what you actually said, your training won't allow it. Add the fact that it's me that called you on it makes it that much more bitter, so I can understand the reluctance to be honest about your responses.

I'm sure your last-word compulsion will get the better of you, again, so I expect yet another subtle personal attack from you to try and make yourself feel better. Have a nice night, rug.

[rug]

29. "the bible is a sexist as pornography"

The only place I see those words is next to your name.

And you don't even realize the irony, the revealing irony, of what you just wrote:

I'm sure your last-word compulsion will get the better of you, again, so I expect yet another subtle personal attack from you to try and make yourself feel better.

Tsk.

[edhopper]

31. rug

you are running from your own words.
What did you mean when you said,"You don't fight sexism with sexism:?
hippies take on your meaning seems the logical one, then you say you didn't mean than but never clarify.

[rug]

33. Sexism is more, and worse, than pornography.

That is what I said.

The meaning is clear. You do not attempt to attack perceived misogyny by distributing pornography which, usually, degrades women,. It's stupid. A point which the SSA now recognizes but cleanhippie doesn't.

Your friend, and now apparently you, wishes to leave it at the level of pornography for the purpose of making a tired and juvenile point that the Bible equates to pornography.

At least the SSA now rejects that. Why don't you ask him if he does as well? Despite multiple opportunities, he's evaded answering.

[edhopper]

34. So you are saying that the percieved sexism of the Bible

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 03:57 PM - Edit history (1)

is theirs and not yours. And that they should not have attacked one form of sexism with another.

If so, you could have made that clearer, (you did not) rather than play games with hippie.

I am making no argument about pornography = the Bible, not sure where you see that?

Whether the sexism in the Bible is worse than the sexism in pornography or visa versa is something I haven't quantified.

[rug]

35. Why do you and cleanhippie feel the need to reformulate my words?

I am saying - and I said - two things:

I'll number them in case he reads this.

1) Pornography does not equate to the Bible.

2) You do not credibly rebut perceived misogyny and sexism by distributing pornography.

I'll add one exception for those who advocate this: If your paramount goal is to attack religious belief and if that goal dominates any other concern you have, including sexism, then by all means continue to try to convince thinking people that the Bible is the equivalent of pornography and feel free to hand out gang bang porn or any other porn you like. Just realize what an ass you'll be making of yourself while doing so.

[edhopper]

36. Sorry for trying to understand what you were saying

I guess you prefer to not be understood and to keep repeating "I didn't say that." when your posts are quoted.

On rephrases another's words and asks if that is what the other meant, when trying to getr a better grasp of what they mean.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. Just because the tactic they used was not wise, doesn't mean the Bible lacks in sexism or...

smut that is generally much worse than what is present in most pornography, at least in most pornography, all the players are alive at the end, most of the time.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. You're right, the bible is like a whole shelf full of snuff porn.

[rug]

47. Read the Beatitudes after you're done perusing your shelf.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Can't.

No porn in my house. I have children.

[cbayer]

6. As per the article, it really wasn't very clever at all.

It was counter-productive and these kids are smart enough to have reevaluated their approach.

Good for them.

[cbayer]

5. Excellent and I hope this truly represents a trend.

Hostile, agressive attitudes towards believers are counter productive and it's good to know that these young people can recognize that.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

7. OK

[msongs]

8. oh those poor "believers" have been hostile and agressive for 2000 years. they'll get over it nt

[cbayer]

9. Even more reason why secular groups should seek a different path.

[gcomeau]

30. Ahem...

"Somewhat irritated speech IS a different path. Let's not draw mind blowingly absurd false equivalencies between the kinds of "hostility" we're talking about here.

[cbayer]

32. Deal. There is a spectrum and generalizations from either direction really serve no purpose.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Sounds like they were on the receiving end of the hostile aggressive attitudes.

[goldent]

37. I think they found their vinegar wasn't attracting very many students.

[edhopper]

38. Maybe

but you can attract more flies with shit than either vinegar or honey.

[cbayer]

41. If it's flies that you want.

[goldent]

42. Not so sure, but of course here we are dealing with human students

I googled it and found

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1900/do-you-catch-more-flies-with-sugar-than-you-do-with-ah-fecal-matter

It says it is not so clear whether shit would win over honey, for flies.

For students, I'd say honey would have to be the out-and-out winner.

[edhopper]

43. depends on the shit

if it's good shit, a lot of students would partake.

BTW I wasn't trying to say anything, it's just my usual glib response to the honey/vinegar adage.

[dimbear]

39. This change reminds me of a group of rebels reorganizing into a political party.

That happens from time to time, sometimes they emerge as the majority.

[rug]

40. The Committees of Correspondence began by exchanging etchings of ankles.