Please read the entire essay that follows, and thank you for your time:
I would like to remind anyone who had the power to stop my ban in December 2014 but didn’t, you have my ban on your conscience. Mr. David Young thought that he is better than me, that he had a right to ban and censor. The Hebdo terrorists also thought they had a right to censor. (“you didn’t get killed” and I keep saying, it’s not a violence issue but a free speech issue that involves violence. Millions die by violence every day and nobody gives a shit. It’s about free speech, and that’s the common ground.)
Is the HK Atheists group really Mr. Young’s group where he allows himself to have totalitarian control? If so, maybe he shouldn’t be in charge. or maybe it should be renamed to David’s Atheists so as to avoid confusion (in fact that is quite catchy). Or maybe he could change his mind and demonstrate that he can be trusted with authority over his corner in the marketplace of ideas.
I live in HK, and I am an atheist. I’d say that qualifies me, regardless of whether I can bother to attend your meetings it takes me a 3 hour round trip and $40 just to reach HK Islands, the likes of Mr. Young who do not share my stance on free speech, who also supports pseudo feminist ideals, is not worth my money and time (interestingly I don’t make the same effort to silence him at the push of a button, I wonder why).
I would ask you to re-read what I wrote and to consider context, but then my post was deleted so you can’t. (incidentally, I also posted in the same thread that one of the reasons atheism might be less prevalent amongst blacks is because it’s a “white thing” any black people please back me up on this because in their minds I’m ignorant for saying this even though I was paraphrasing from actual African Americans)
But any rational person would have seen that I wasn’t intending to demean women. In response to the question why do women like religions like Christianity that are abusive to women, I said “nothing appeals to the domesticated clit more than christianity” Women who are domesticated see men as their protector, is it so difficult to make the connection that women could be sexually aroused by loving patriarchal boyfriend Jesus, especially when they’re sexually repressed by their religion, and Christianity just so happens to offer them “release” in the form of a touchy feely sky prince who is all about love and stuff, CHRISTIANITY EVEN FLATLY STATES MARRYING AND “metaphorically” BEING JESUS’S WIFE! Do you not see how that can be considered mommy porn? Of course they won’t admit it, except by orgasmically thanking god during prayer, that I consider a dead giveaway that either they have the hots for jesus, or they think they should have the hots for jesus. p.s. males do the orgasmic praying thing too which is imo really gay, but in context the conversation was about women, plus men aren’t abused by religion as much although circumcision is shitty.
If I had said “nothing appeals to the woman hating violent piece of shit pedophile rapist prick more than Islam” would I have been banned the same way? For “subjugating men”? For what was essentially a “hate speech” crime? Islam allows men marrying and fucking very young girls, Islam also is blatantly advocating violence towards certain women, its as much an observation as the posts I was banned for, so I wonder. But no. If I made that post it would have been an anti-religion post, not an anti-male post, no male in the group would have felt demeaned by the use of “prick”, even if the prick in question was just as sexually repressed and thirsty as the aforementioned clit.
If anything, I was demeaning people who would call me ignorant because they wouldn’t respect my speech enough to give it the consideration it deserves. Because I think some women like abusive religions because they are sexually attracted to it, therefore I am justifying, somehow. This is the exact same argument idiots make about Darwinism: That because I believe survival of the fittest is natural, that must somehow mean I think that the weak and disabled should be murdered. Because I believe black poverty and lack of black education causes black crimes, that somehow I’m a racist. I even explained clearly that I wasn’t making a generalizing statement about all women, all I meant was just to (partially) explain the specific type of women who would find the idea of Jesus and God, even abusive ones that strangle their reproductive rights, attractive.
They didn’t give enough shit to think “hey, maybe this guy isn’t a chauvinist, he’s just trying to describe his hypothesis for why women (appear to) love an oppressive patriarchal authority so much.”
So I used some colorful language (oooh domesticated clit, I used the clit word, how improper!), so what? I was insta-banned so the group could be made more welcoming for some chick who wanted “progressive and intellectual” but was too blinded by her college level gender studies pretentiousness to recognize it. Simple minded pricks who automatically equate language they find offensive to ignorance, I used “sexist words” so that somehow makes my argument invalid. “It’s wrong because the language you used is ‘unacademic’” (paraphrasing) is about the most unacademic thing you can say.
Mr Young fb messages me: “Re: Hong Kong Atheists. I’m banning from posting until we meet face to face. If you want to rejoin the group you’ll have to come to an event and speak to me – David Young. I’m going to review your posts and we can discuss them face to face if you want to continue to participate. Otherwise, please find another group to participate.
If you’d like to find out more about our events, you can check back to the page and look under “events.” We have one every month. The events are public and so is the page. You can still read posts and follow events but you can’t post again until we speak.”
But what he doesn’t know is that I am also demeaning to people who think it is appropriate to ban a 6 month member because of perceived intentions, without a reasonable chance to defend myself. Email? Nope. Facebook chat? Nope. I guess he wants the advantages of live intimidation. I have a bit of speech impediment, I can’t keep my cool in a live confrontation, so that makes Mr. Young an asshole for trying to put me in a compromised position, and he should go ban himself by his logic. (then again I don’t have a vagina so its all okay.)
But, I don’t have to prove myself to any judgmental prick in some elaborate move of “venturing into the real world” to prove I’m not a bot, scroll back through the 6 months before December: Was I a spammer? Was I a troll? Was I ever off topic?
If you supported my ban, but you support Hebdo, then you’re a hypocrite. In fact, hate speech laws are hypocritical especially to people who tout free speech and free thinking in general: Hitchens recognized that, so does Jerry Coyne, and countless other free thinkers.
If it was a gaming forum or a product site I would’ve understood the need to maintain a brand image and to keep off topics such as politics from getting out of hand. A gaming forum I visit for example has clear rules prohibiting inflammatory discussions unrelated to gaming eg. politics, and I respect that, because it’s a gaming forum and people want to have fun.
But an internet group is supposed to be an avenue for discussion where people exchange serious ideas, thus free speech, even speech that makes people uncomfortable, should apply, even sometimes at the expense of welcoming and fun.
What kind of brand image does Hong Kong Atheists want to maintain? Maybe a brand image that doesn’t respect the marketplace of ideas? Why does it need a brand image at all, instead of just being real and true to itself?
Then again I did get a warning once before when a debate got “heated” (euphemism for posts were getting long, and insults were made even though actual points still persisted as well) and David Young basically said “Live debate or stfu”.
Gender issues are on topic. If you found my assertions to be wrong, the correct thing to do was to counter it with a counter argument. Refer me to a snopes.com page. Explain WHY, and don’t follow that with a ban.
Only censorship cunts ban, and there are hundreds of links that explain why free speech is right and censorship eg. banning is wrong.
So here’s my challenge to the Hong Kong Atheists facebook group: Either rename yourself to David’s Atheists, or Hong Kong Atheists -1 so people don’t mistake your title for being descriptive, or unban me. Or the third option, ignore this all together, maybe comment it a bit within your closed community about how I’m a bitter troll. But it won’t be the end of it.
Of course, you’ll say: Why does it even matter? Like David Young says, “Otherwise, please find another group to participate.” This is Murrica, you don’t like it then geet the fuck out, so why don’t I just go do that?
Quite simply, I don’t want the face of Hong Kong Atheism to be limited to SJW affiliates (Rebecca Watson made an Hong Kong Atheists “Skeptics at the Pub” event) and internet-led by someone who is perfectly fine with tenants of ‘hate speech laws are cool if it “protects” women’ and “guilty until proven innocent” (especially with the evidence of my hate speech taken down) and “I run this page so I decide”, just classic free thought ideals do you agree?
Hong Kong Atheists is the first result I found when I searched for a forum of people in Hong Kong who had more geographical relevance, and I don’t want this to be the representation of it. There aren’t separate Hong Kong atheist groups, 9/10 of the search results for HK Atheists is this one group (hk skeptics, hk atheists, etc). Sure I’ve enjoyed my participation in the Trans-Intellectuals (no, its about transhumanism and not transsexuals so you can go back to hating me now) which is a more or less atheist group for futurism and cool futuristic stuff created by rapper Greydon Square, but Hong Kong Atheists is in Hong Kong. And it’s about the present, and its geographically relevant. It’s the first thing anyone interested in Atheism will find about Hong Kong in a google search. And it’s also the only atheist community in Hong Kong.
It’s not a group about feminism, so don’t go banning people under pseudofeminist SJW ideals such as “censorship solves problems”. See, unlike you, I don’t agree with that and wouldn’t ban people for any reason.
If you think free speech caused a suicide, then find a convincing reason for the victims to not kill themselves. Strengthen their resolve. Make them a community.
Sure, speech bullies, but not as much as violence bullies. I got called names back in school, but I also had people disrespecting my property rights. I had people literally pushing me into dangerous situations. Guess which one hurt me the most. Hint: not the name calling. The clever comebacks don’t quite work when there’s some fist repeatedly pounding your face. If schools (and society in general) implemented some proper security and actually protected its people, I bet the bullying victim suicide rate would drop wayyy down. Suicide is caused by hopelessness, and being impervious to hate CRIMES has a tendency to provide hope. Afterwards if you can still work up the courage to kill yourself I’d say go for it. The world’s not worth living in for another few centuries.
If you find something obscene or offensive, ask yourself why you find that offensive, and then question your answer, and question that answer.
If you feel threatened, call the cops. If it’s really a credible threat, then a simple ban isn’t going to stop you from getting stabbed and shot, because that’s not how speech and causation works.
If your feelings are hurt, make them stronger. If your fragile feelings actually mattered to you then you wouldn’t put them in a easily hostile environment at all, just as if I cared about being alive I wouldn’t select a 2 ton weight for my first attempt at body building. If your feelings are still hurt, either protect or rehabilitate yourself. This whole oversensitivity thing is abnormal, and especially unhealthy as it supports victim mentality that nobody, not christians, not atheists, not reactionary revolutionaries, not even victims should fall under. This “i have special snowflake problems therefore I’m holier than thou” or the more prevalent “he/she has special snowflake problems therefore I’m holier than thou”.
I always question all of my assumptions at least once to produce an actual answer that I can present whenever and if ever I get questioned on it. For example, in an argument someone may say “but then why is killing even wrong”, instead of replying “it just is, you’re banned lol” like some anti-intellectual fucktard, I will actually go into details and explain and try to persuade.
David Young said that I was trying to subjugate women. Why and how does me saying “nothing appeals more to domesticated clit than Christianity” subjugate women? Lucky for him, I have an answer. Because when I posted what I did, a woman was offended (offend = subjugate) and we all know that your unoffended feelings and “supporting” a new female group member is more important than having a… male group member and… free speech… and.. actual reason… got it.
And maybe power corrupts. After all, I only receive a comment on my blog every few days. Maybe if I had more, I would change my mind and start banning the shit out of people. Like I said, I couldn’t just silence David Young to the entire online Hong Kong Atheist Community at a push of a button as he did to me.
But as a rational person, I know that my mind is susceptible to persuasion, and it would take some serious persuasion to stop me from ever supporting the ultimate goal of total free speech. I also hope that your mind allows for persuasion as well (even though you apparently didn’t give a fuck about the defenses I posted in the facebook chat, instead only repeating about the face to face).
David, I know we had our differences, you calling me ignorant (see that hurt me because you never explained why) and me calling you an anti-intellectual fucktard just now (because arguments from your authority and the decision to ban when offended is anti-intellectual. And fucktard to subjugate you because you thought you could subjugate me into a subjugating face to face discussion. Are you subjugated yet?). If you’re as rational as you claim to be, you know the correct recourse. It may seem like it given my 2000+ word essay, but my participation in the group’s online front is not the end of the world. But if you don’t, it could be the end of your world. Then again a lot of Hongkies (as are people in general) don’t seem to understand freedom (and the importance of free speech) very well, so maybe not.
p.s. I know I said in my last chat reply that “If I can’t exercise free speech in this group, then very well – I will happily oblige, and go exercise my free speech where all forms of it is tolerated. But – like I said, what a pity.” But I change my mind a lot, and I sometimes wanna discuss things with this group. Also I figure if you don’t make this change then the Hong Kong Atheists group is NOT Free Speech Compatible and this blog post can serve as a deterrent to anyone thinking of joining your group. Either way.
(Here’s another piece of genius from the guy from March 2015, emphasis and comments in brackets mine:
To all who post here. You are not permitted to make comments on this Fb page that I personally find awkward, distasteful or offensive without substantiating your position [I had 12 hours to defend myself before I was requested to explain myself IN PERSON at his fucking club in the pub]. This is not a completely open form [Yes but it’s in bad taste to remove any on topic comment when it’s clearly not spam]. It’s a page I started for discussing skeptical concepts in a rational and structured manner [eg. proclaiming yourself intelligencia and trashing differing expressions you do not understand, eg. colorful metaphors and black culture]. Anyone making a comment that I feel is outside the boundaries will be challenged and given ample time to reply [12 hours before my ban, I WAS ASLEEP THE MAJORITY OF THAT TIME, and time to reply means dragging your physical ass to an event TWO HOURS AWAY just to dispute an internet ban NO THANK YOU, CUNT]. Be prepared to make an argument and not just express your opinion. Your misunderstanding of what constitutes an argument is no defense for not making one. [And your misunderstanding of subjugation is no defense for you abusing your position of power and as a skilled speaker in attempting to subjugate me in a live conversation when I clearly lack his speaking skills].
The idea that anyone should be able to make comments without censorship is a sentiment of western philosophy and it’s not shared by me. [then why aren’t you publicly speaking out against religion in Singapore or muslim south east Asia? oh wait.] I run this page and I take no offense to being told I’m a tyrant. The evidence speaks otherwise. [then I would say you have a problem interpreting evidence]
Whether you agree with my leadership style or methods is not relevant to your participation. Should you choose to challenge them, I’m always open for a good debate. [oh right, any debate that lasts more than 2 hours or 20 replies is considered a “bad” debate despite real arguments being put forward, but all you care about is your “harmony” and your fucking events] All you need to do is make an argument supporting why I should allow anyone to say anything they like on this page and why I should not censor people who make comments that are a clear expression of opinion. I would relish that conversation. [except it has to be in person because I am a techno-phobic asshole who thinks anyone who disagrees with me using digital words is incapable of rational arguments]
And please don’t suggest such foolish work-arounds as “others are free to ignore my comments.” If everyone ignored the ignorant comments, especially me, that would imply tacit endorsement. [oh wow because there is no other argument for free speech. No, how about “others are free to dispute my comments and engage in a conversation BUT NOT CENSORSHIP”]
Simply put, think about what you are going to say before you say it. [especially take care to tiptoe around my remote victim complex]
And here’s a picture of an appropriately dressed dog.
[he has a picture of a dog here. cutesy but doesn’t make him any less of a cunt.]