This is the post where Desperate Dan makes his excuses and leaves the Patheos network [Update – the Patheos blog remains, but this post seems to have gone – poor Dan has had to re-invent himself a few times]:
The Danthropology blog is moving on
Yet today, I am here to announce I have decided to leave the Patheos network. This is a decision I did not come to lightly, but one I feel is the right next step for my career.
…
With that, I began to feel my writing didn’t fit on Patheos and I felt I was forcing myself to cover religion and atheist based issues when I didn’t wholly want to. Instead of faking my way through a blog on a network I love, I felt it was time to move on.
All so sweet and nice. Until you read his other perspective, expressed here:
When did online atheism get into bed with the neo-nazi movement?
[Another post that’s vanished]
It’s astonishing to watch the evolution of the atheist community online, mainly Twitter, move from liberal to alt-right conservatism.
Dan, this is idiocy. We’ve been here before with P Z Myers. Look what happened then.
What’s going on with Dan?
The Three Stooges
We digress into a wider context in which typical bullies can dish it out but can’t take it. Here’s the clue:
How prominent atheists are telling American rape victims they have “privilege” because at least they are not being forced to marry their rapist?
Let’s summarise the significance of this …
Dan has been taking some stick for his Nazi punching ways, and he doesn’t like it.
Eiynah (Nice Mangos) has been quite nasty about a few people, has been called out on it, and doesn’t like it.
Aki Muthali has been her usual snappy self, and has been called out on it, and doesn’t like it.
And these three, in their various ways, have become highly critical of a bunch of other atheists … because these three can dish it out but can’t take it. They can criticise any atheist, big name or not, as freely as they wish, and I’ve not seen anyone of note say or imply they should not. But I have seen people disagreeing with their take on a number of issues. And what you do see is the Three Stooges going hyperbolic when they are criticised in turn.
Let’s make these things clear:
- It’s okay to criticise prominent atheists if you disagree with them.
- It’s okay to criticise their critics in turn if you disagrees with the criticisms.
- If you throw your toys out of the pram and start claiming there are conspiracies against you because the ‘fan boys’ of the big names won’t let anyone criticise them, then you’re being a snowflake. Get over yourself.
This grew out of the following:
Eiynah and Yasmine had a spat. Someone else questioned Eiynah’s authenticity (heaven forbid one’s history is actually questioned), and it blew up, with Eiynah being her usual reactionary self – she can dish out the criticism but doesn’t like it when it’s aimed at her. Eiynah is a sneaky troll: she tried to use Yasmine, Faisal and Ali to discredit and disown Dave Rubin; and has tried to get Jerry Coyne to denounce and discredit Gad Saad; she didn’t like it when Michael Sherlock made conciliatory noises – Eiynah didn’t like being associated with Yasmine … so blame Sherlock for even thinking reconciliation might be possible.
Aki Muthali, who shoots from the hip at anyone who speaks out of turn, jumped in on Eiynah’s side. Could that have anything to do with her history with Lalo Dagach? These things are hard to keep up with.
Then, Sherlock began to tweet about the plight of Dina Ali (#SaveDinaAli), and while his main thrust was in support of her, he pointed out how many western feminists fail to back Muslim and ex-Muslim women – this isn’t news, it’s been mentioned before, including by the Three Stooges.
Well, that was an opportunity for Aki to take a shot at Michael. And Michael made what amounts to a mean tweet. His point was valid, but not entirely appropriate.
And in that thread Dan makes his little contribution of hate for the ‘prominent’ atheists, following his run-in with Stephen Knight and others on his Nazi punching agenda.
Déjà vu?
Does this all look familiar? You bet it does. This is basically a re-run of an old movie: P Z Myers turning on New Atheists, supposedly on their misogynist agenda, with a bit of ‘ALL Muslims’ presumption read into tweets and posts. Myers began throwing unsupported accusations around willy-nilly – and this was already after a few preliminary splits in his brand of ‘atheist activism’ because, well, they eat their own, don’t they.
While going through this it’s worth bearing in mind what’s already been said about the Myers view of the ‘atheist community’.
Atheism isn’t a singular community. Atheism really is ‘dictionary atheism’, merely not believing in gods and stuff. It’s therefore open to anyone who doesn’t believe in gods, be they far right, alt-right, liberal, far left or aliens from the other side of the galaxy. Or, indeed, Dan Arel, who, for all his claims to wish for a better sort of atheist has not been short on vitriolic hatred towards believers.
Is Myers Morally and Intellectually Bankrupt? – Is Dan? Read on.
Dan’s Perspective
It’s astonishing to watch the evolution of the atheist community online, mainly Twitter, move from liberal to alt-right conservatism.
It’s not the case that the ‘atheist community’ has moved to the right. It may well be that atheists from the right have become more open … but no, that’s not what Dan is talking about.
So much so, I have struggled to find the words to express how disgusting it has become.
How it has gone past criticizing religion and has almost fully embraced the alt-right and neo-Nazi ideologies of politicians as long as they hold anti-Muslim views?
How prominent atheists are telling American rape victims they have “privilege” because at least they are not being forced to marry their rapist?
Yet, I’m tired about writing about these racist fools. They will just demand evidence that Hitler was a racist, dogpile detractors on Twitter and then beg for Patreon donations.
Fully embraced alt-right and neo-Nazi ideologies? Where? When? This is so utterly ridiculous even Dan’s friends must be face palming when they see this crap.
As anyone with half a brain might suspect, there’s a broad spectrum across ‘the right’, from right of centre libertarianism, through shades of conservatism, religious or atheist, on to the more conservative, and into the far right … but the thing is, these are not identities that are easy to pin down.
Someone can be religiously conservative, don’t drink, don’t do sex outside monogamous marriages, oppose abortion, and still be socially liberal in not requiring everyone else to conform to their beliefs, and might even support economic and political socialism. And, someone who is socially, economically and politically conservative, might be an atheist that wants a small government, individual responsibility and no significant social programs. This is not simply Nazis v anti-Nazis, whatever the binary limits of Dan’s tiny mind might be.
Telling American rape victims they have privilege? Not for being raped, but since there’s a hierarchy of oppression Sherlock’s tweet was simply more about mocking that, than aiming any abuse at a rape victim on the matter of being raped.
An insensitive tweet by Sherlock? Sure. But racist fool? Note how these are linked by implication here, yet are deniable. This is Dan’s shtick.
Further, note the disconnect here, between the points Dan is trying to string together.
Evidence of Hitler’s racism? Yes, we would demand evidence that Hitler is a racist, if he were accused of being one. What’s wrong with that exactly? I’ll tell you what’s wrong, in Dan’s eyes – presumption of guilty worthy of a punch is how Dan deals with Nazis …. but of course that presumes the said Nazi is a Nazi. Fortunately there is ample evidence that Hitler was a Nazi, and a racist.
Dog-piling? But what has Hitler got to do with dog-piling of detractors of the prominent atheists? And why does this dog-piling take place – if indeed it does? Could it be for the way the Three Stooges and others have been stalking these atheists, making entirely hyperbolic claims about them, misrepresenting them, … lying.
And the begging for Patreon accounts? Who’d do such a thing?
Dan Arel … Patreon account:
Eiynah … Patreon:
The hypocrisy is astonishing to behold.
That’s what the online atheist community is now. It’s a neo-nazi cesspool of money hungry bigots with mediocre podcasts, half-assed blogs, and a Twitter following they think makes them famous.
This is nothing more than an acrid smelly brain fart. Dan’s just trumpeting vile insults. He’s got nothing else. This is what he is reduced to.
But if you want a bigot? Dan. Money hungry? Dan. Mediocre half-assed blog? Look no further than Dan. Tell me, did he leave Patheos of his own free will, without the slightest nudge? “Just askin’?” (tribute to Cenk Uygur’s deniable ‘just askin’ and ‘just sayin’ questioning smear tactic).
Rape!
… the accused rapist Michael Shermer …
Whoa there cowboy Dan! Don’t get so desperate in a hurry, Dan. Look back at Myers. Read Nugent on that whole sorry claim by Myers. That little business about evidence? You’re going to need to back this up.
Oh, hang on, … “accused”. Ah, the get-out-of-libel ploy. So, who’s doing the accusing, Dan? You? I guess not. But if not, then is someone guilty merely by being accused? As you’ve been accusing people of being Nazis? Or perhaps, like Myers, you’re prepared to accept accusations of guilt as guilt. Warning! This is what happened when Myers tried that.
Seriously, Dan is a class-A fucking idiot. Has he learned nothing?
… out there blaming people of color for racism because they dare identity as a color that isn’t white …
Dan. These atheists you are targeting aren’t calling any POC a racist because that POC doesn’t identify as white. Some POC are being called racist for their racist views. It’s that simple.
This is because these atheists are more religious than the religions they fight against. Dawkins, Harris, Rubin, Maher, and Shermer are untouchable gods. Infallible.
This is right out of the Greenwald, Werleman, Uygur, Myers play book. I have NEVER seen any supporter of these atheists claim they are infallible. The supporters of these atheists do in fact disagree with them some times, but agree with a lot of what they say. What you do see are responses to BS from Dan and the other stooges that call THEM out on THEIR BS … and of course Dan and co don’t like it, have nothing left in their game but name calling.
My friends are running a campaign to #NormalizeAtheism and it’s a valiant effort and I fear it’s doomed to fail unless they can normalize non-racist voices quicker than these assholes are rising.
“My friends”? Which friends? Have you got any friends left? Have you seen the #NormalizeAtheism hashtag on Twitter? … surprise, there all about atheism and don’t make, support or even mention racism, because that’s a separate issue. Of course some atheists can be racists – atheism and racism are not co-dependent variables in human life – but not the named atheists Dan targets.
Here are some #NormalizeAtheism I don’t think Dan would approve of:
https://twitter.com/danarel/status/837465799656787969
Yes, Dan, you are an asshole on Twitter. Confirmed.
I love being openly atheist. … At the same time, as I see atheists follow a path towards right wing lunacy (online at least), makes me understand those who refuse to use the label openly. It’s being destroyed by the likes of Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, and their cronies who will defend them at all costs.
If Dan cared to look before becoming so desperate he’d see that many people that oppose Dan and defend Harris, Rubin and others do also disagree with them sometimes.
These are the same people who continue to deny that Richard Spencer is a Nazi and argue against any attempt to silence his spread of a genocidal ideology.
Who would want to be associated with that mess?
They do this only in the context of Dan labelling every man and his dog a Nazi. They are in no way supporting or defending Spencer’s racist separatist ideology, and many expressly say so … and any idiot other than Dan would know this. I suspect Dan knows this too … he just doesn’t seem to know that he knows it. Danialism! We are not mind readers, so we rely on what people say and do. So far Spencer has not given any support to genocide as far as I can tell, and the atheists targeted by Dan would oppose that too if he did.
This is a major reason I left the atheist/nonreligious channel at Patheos and broke out on my own.
All alone. Nobody listens to his Nazi punching incitement any more. It must be tough being Dan, a loon, … sorry, ‘alone’, I meant ‘alone’.
I didn’t lose my mind, as many of these nazi apologist want to claim, …
So YOU claim. Many others seem to see it differently. I’m not taking bets on when Dan claims he’s the second coming of Jesus … an atheist Jesus of course.
I instead was pushed to be more vocal as they continued to amplify voices that promote racism, hate, and bigotry.
I didn’t move away from movement atheism, movement atheism moved away from me.
What we have seen is people opposing the street violence that Dan subscribes to. And we’ve also seen Rubin actually talking to people of a wide political spectrum. And we’ve seen Sherlock criticising liberal regressive feminists for their support for the hijab toting Linda Sarsour while they ignore the plight of women forced to wear the hijab. And we’ve seen some personal spats as the Three Stooges throw tantrums.
Nowhere have I seen any of these targeted atheists support fascism, Nazism, racism, misogyny.
Dan has totally lost the plot. Some people are glass half full people. Dan is a dig the hole deeper person. Don’t be Desperate Dan.
Ramblings 