I've been following "The Atheist Experience" videos for some time now, and recently started following the associated blog, where as you'd guess, fans of the show comment back and forth with the show presenters and others involved.

Right away, I noticed something interesting in the the discussion of an article by show host Don Baker called "A Suicide Note I Empathize With" . To me, as an outsider to this group, many of the comments seemed oddly fallacious. I say oddly because the show constantly goes through critical thinking and references several logical fallacies in theist positions, and the comments themselves demonstrate critical thinking of the Catholic Church. Also oddly because it seems, from an anarchist point of view, so unnecessary to strawman this guy and his actions in order to criticize.

So I jumped in, and some comments are pending moderation. I'm sure you can guess who I am if you don't already know that pen name. It sticks out like a sore thumb in a pudding.

So, what do you understand about people's ability to think rationally if they are anarchist, atheist, etc.. and some other area of their life goes unexamined or is irrationally defended? Why is it that we have brilliant scientists who are also theists, or brilliant rhetoricians who are prejudiced morons, or anarchist homophobes, or libertarian christians, or any of these combinations of 'able to think clearly and decisively in this area, but not in this area'.

What is it that happens to people, or doesn't happen, that allows them to really root around in their beliefs and really seek the truth, and why in some areas and not others?

And, I think importantly, what causes people to become unaware of their own poor argumentation on these 'sensitive' areas while still being able to retain that capacity and skill in other areas? Hypocrisy, it seems to me, isn't so much about being an asshole as it is about what I would call the 'false self' taking over rationality and putting forward its hellish and transparent (to others, sometimes) 'arguments' that are clearly too bilinous to be anything but defensive shrapnel.

I'm still waiting for my last 3 comments to be posted to the article. We'll see.

Perhaps it's but yet another manifestation of what could be labeled dichotomy syndrome? dichotomy addiction? Aka in some circles as "team sport", with the appeal of "winning" for winning's sake-- being "a winner" (see being "an American"/[fill in YOUR "country"])?

I find a lot of "atheists" to be merely those who've chosen or picked a side so they can mentally/verbally* "beat"/beat up on a chosen opponent ("win"). *[here's to hoping when such choose their team in the State vs voluntary association reality, it stays mental/verbal!?]

It seems many put on the label atheist akin to how fans put on their team's jersey/colors/insignias-- with never a thought of actually taking the playing field, much less actually examining first-hand what that entails. You know, sit up in the bleachers, drink beer, and scream and yell at the opposition's players and equally die-hard fans aka "losers".

Btw, on the topic specific of the linked blog, dunno if there are any who listen(ed) to Marc Stevens' internet broadcast (The No State Project), but I think he brought up some good points to consider when seeking to theorize Stack's frame of mind. Which I mention because I have serious doubt that many if any of those commenting on that blog have ever dealt with the IRS as judge & jury-- much less to the extent Stack did. Perhaps the same blind eye plague that for the longest period, kept National Socialist 1930-40's Germans supporting their team/cause/country in spite of the SS "rumors"...?

Link not workin' Eye2i2.

Hey, thanks for the feedback and link eye2eye2. I like your simple metaphor take on it. It is like having the impulse to 'just win', rather than 'just find the truth'. I have never really thought about it like that but I think you're absolutely correct.

Lemme briefly label your insights with a few other terms to maybe draw out more of the process:

Paragraph 1: Black and White Thinking

Paragraph 2: Status-based false morality

Paragraph 3: Reflection on the need to belong to a group of admired peeps. "belonging over integrity".

Paragraph 4: The source of the discomfort which prompts the above mechanisms is hinted at here.

I'm really getting fascinated by the aspects of #4 that I do not yet understand. I'm sure I'm as susceptible to this process as others, so I postulate that I protect the mechanism (to switch off critical thinking and adopt a 'win-at-all-costs' false self) by keeping certain aspects of it hidden.

Thanks again. By the way, my last 3 posts on that blog are now up. I never even had to go back to the early comments to demonstrate what I was talking about. The response to my 'sticking a toe in' was sufficient for analysis, which I found apropos to the whole topic. Makes me smile.

No apologies necessary. Your comments make sense to me. I did the paragraph labeling thing as a mode of digesting what you had said, and did it 'out loud' so that it might be useful beyond the confines of my own skull.

*****Warning: WALL O TEXT follows*********

Quote:

I'll quote Christina M here: "It all starts with the family." I struck the "all" there simply because I find it too easily lends to a mental block/escape hatch, and perhaps more likely, is a bit of hyperbole/exaggeration, but the general idea I hold to be spot on.

I agree, it does start with the family, or to put it a little more broadly: It starts with the argument from authority being made to be accepted by a child. This, I hope, broadens it two ways: One, it is any non-enemy authority figure the child experiences contact with who can have this kind of influence, not just a parent. Two, it narrows the list of possible experiences of a child to the required mechanism in common with the kind of mind-damage we're really talking about. This broadens the utility of the statement "It starts with the family" to something more akin to a kind of forensic tool to do the digging with, rather than leaving it as a general idea somewhere on the shelf of good ideas.

The details of why I think the forced acceptance of arguments from authority is the sin qua non process in common with all experiences that lead to corrupted thinking is an article I'd like to write at some point. Like Christina on the "its the family" statement though, I doubt I'd be the first to make the case I would make. But it would be worth it to me to at least to the froo froo hypothesizing part of it. I'll wait till my unicorn comes in and I am getting paid for it to do the required research and actually make a solid case with supporting evidence.

It is ground we have been over here at LiMi time and again with Cult talk, Alice Miller discussions, DeFoo critique, and everything else, and I hope and imagine that each individual probably has gained some insight via these things. For me, I just wonder if there isn't a way to take these insights a step further and come up with a perhaps more comprehensive and quite probably more compassionate conclusion out of the compost heap.

What I experienced when I was 'slammed' for critiquing the atheists' subtle statist posturing was different than mere defensiveness. I did feel hurt by the snarky mischaracterizations of my position, but though hurt, I wasn't stung, if that makes sense. Rather, I had expected both the response and my feelings to be just about what they were, and was ready to roll with the punches with the point of furthering the discussion as it has to unfold.

An interesting thing that is from time to time discussed on The Atheist Experience video show is that for many atheists it is a long process before one gives up theism for good. Why?

I think this too relates to the problem of broken thinking and why it is broken: Fear. Yes, I said 'discomfort' earlier, because proximately this is the cause. It is really uncomfortable to challenge ideas you've held for the wrong reasons for a long time. But ultimately, the cause of broken thinking is Fear, rich and terrible Fear. So it is that ultimately it takes an inner heroism to 'do the work' of moving past and through that terrain.

Well, back to finding a "more comprehensive and quite probably more compassionate conclusion". Its one thing to 'win' an argument by employing better arguments, even in the most healthy way. But it is another thing to heal broken thinking. Quite rightly there is the cliche that "You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped", but I don't think that is the whole story.

Consistently, when I look back to pivotal moments in my own development I find that I had support for the changes I made. Experience, relationships, and perhaps most relevant here: Heroes. Examples of courage that baffled or otherwise held my attention in the past had sat dormant in my mind for years before becoming pillars of courage and inspiration in sudden leaps in the present.

So what I felt when arguing with the atheist about their statism was actually a kind of patience. If I'm honest with them and they don't want to hear it, maybe someday the conversation will come back to them in some 'aha' moment. I don't lose anything by the exchange. I'm not dependent on their reaction in any way. I think what I say is useful, for me, for them, and quite probably for the reader who happens across it, so I say it,. I take the opportunity to demonstrate that one doesn't have to be manipulated by arguments from authority. It isn't a goal to do that, but it's a consequence of being honest and unafraid in a particular milieu.

I suppose it could be a goal, but its just one of those things that seems like a silly goal. Clearly people are highly resistant to changing certain kinds of thinking in areas where they've suffered strong conditioning. But it doesn't hurt to take the opportunities we find to demonstrate courage, even little tiny internet courage like this.

I think the parts of the mind that get stuck behind arguments from authority are always in a state of stress due to other parts of the mind that are unhindered by great fear. The 'false self' doesn't want to die, doesn't want to be found out, but in some sense, knows it is false. When it is confronted directly and unashamedly (ie, with natural confidence and honesty), leaving no vulnerabilities to exploit (as that is it's way to escape), this event I think has some impact whether we know it or not.

The slow-to-form Atheist and the slow-to-form Anarchist, like the slow-to-reform slave owner, are changed through experience and reflection, just like everyone else. Its just that corrupt and damaged thinking needs greater and deeper healing to 'give up' and let go than say, learning how to type rather than write by hand. The threats that corrupt thinking defends are quite real to that part of the mind. As such, a response with the intention of helping this process should take this into consideration.

And fortunately I think the right response is also the simplest: Forthrightness and compassion. Doesn't make it always easy though. Not at all. After all, one has to do this for oneself first.

..........

Beyond 'what starts it' ---> 'bad authority', I think the pressing questions have to reach out and forward to trying to understand 'What do we do?'. The real answers are not simple, and certainly aren't anything as base as just being on the 'right side'. We already know what that is about!

I'm optimistic though, for each time I ask the question in a general sense of "So how do we mitigate the problem of the cycle of the Argument From Authority?" I am instantly reminded of all those people who reached out to me and who I currently see reaching out to others. Even if as a culture, or even a species, we never quite 'grow up' and clear away the damaging of young minds by crap like churches and bad parents and the state itself, each individual that is freed from their own ignorance is indeed freed. A = A, and somehow that can be enough.

** equally wall-o-text, thus alert **

Alex wrote:

I agree, it does start with the family, or to put it a little more broadly: It starts with the argument from authority being made to be accepted by a child. This, I hope, broadens it two ways: One, it is any non-enemy authority figure the child experiences contact with who can have this kind of influence, not just a parent. Two, it narrows the list of possible experiences of a child to the required mechanism in common with the kind of mind-damage we're really talking about. This broadens the utility of the statement "It starts with the family" to something more akin to a kind of forensic tool to do the digging with, rather than leaving it as a general idea somewhere on the shelf of good ideas.

While I easily enough can embrace the broadening, labeled as the argument from authority, I find myself resisting taking it there-- at least as to the "all" aspect. I hope I can convey why.

If I am deducing accurately where you are seeking to find value with this, i.e. a tool for disarming the defenses built upon fear/discomfort over the core impressionable years, I find keeping it pointing back to that inherently natural vulnerability vital, if not crucial. We're thus overwhelmingly innocent children per that vulnerability, so as adults it offers a quite natural "out" or emotional defusing. Does that register as potentially the more valuable tact?
Perhaps it's less an either/or matter and merely a sequence or steps matter?

I think it was NonE (?) and I that chatted one time on the AiLl forum about how amazing the parallels are to insulting one's parents and insulting one's Country. One being, that to take the voluntary association//anarchy argument to so many is akin to slapping their mama/calling their daddy a bast*rd! (and of course, the typical, if eventual, response: "But who'll build the roads=who'll provide for us and protect us?!?" --the very core fears of a child/"dependent" when thinking of living without parents?)

On another point, it seems intriguing to ponder just how much influence any "authority" could have on children who had parents that both lived and taught independence (walked the talk; and where the religious* cult(s), both church and state, limited the walk, even that was talked through with the children). *[my offered definition of religion: any belief based upon faith for which one will life and give their life; just as deities are -facts only be allowed- based upon fancies, typically written, of men, so are nations/states just as taken by faith]

And it's been posited before, how interesting, if not significant it potentially is, that kids are sent to the nationalist public schooling at younger and younger ages; parental transference ala transference of authority anyone?

I'm on record (the Limi one) already in giving my perspective on the potential of the cult of family/family as culty --and as well, that presently most are, with the degree being more the arguable aspect; especially considering the predominance of religions (per my definition).
But just in case, and seeing as how vital I hold it is, I offer it highly valuable to consider the dependence taught via the likes of the Familial pledge of allegiance: "Blood is thicker than water" (which provides what of practical value anyway? It sounds like a metaphor Stefban would use with his logic!?).
And as another who'll we'll leave noncredited has presented it: birth is a mere matter of biological chance (relative to parental association); of evolutionary happenstance; thus bio-family should be the bastion of mutual benefit and voluntary association --or-- the talked and walked state of mind, known as liberty to non-associate (aka naFOO .

And consider the classic American version of a Declaration Of Independence holds such, but relative to the familial aspect: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that [familial relationship] long established [as valuable] should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under [emotional or physical manipulation], it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such [family], and to provide new guards for their future [stability]."

In summary, I question whether moving away from the parenting/family lingo and replacing it with the argument from authority will be as valuable, as effective, in addressing individuals on this personal matter. Basically because it fogs and moves away from the innocence period factor. Or perhaps NonE is correct: I'm totally fogged!
I hope to at least be in some way an encouragement to you as to persisting in exploring and writing about/communicating this. It very well could be of the core essence of importance relative [sic] to genuine peace, both personally and socially.

Ok, well this time, I did find it a little harder to follow your words, but I do I think get the main drift.

There are several things on the table, but I'll just continue with where we're going here...

So it sounds to me like you're saying that: "When attempting to connect with someone over the source of their willful ignorance, its better to point simply and consistently to their family and it's influence on their thinking". Perhaps I overstated it, but that is what I get out of your last paragraph.

I think what I'm aiming for is not how to confront individuals on the source of their ignorance, but rather to understand this source as completely as I can so that I can confront individuals on less personal issues (metaphors for the personal no doubt, but less personal on the surface) with a broader view; A view that recognizes both how thinking is corrupted, and how it is eventually healed, or if that is too mushy a term, then how it is brought back in line with reality. Reality including both the wonderful capacities of critical thinking, empiricism, and the intimate inner relationship one has with their feelings themselves.

Quote:

relative [sic]

You funny guy you!

What follows is just some hypothesizing:

Quote:

I question whether moving away from the parenting/family lingo and replacing it with the argument from authority will be as valuable, as effective, in addressing individuals on this personal matter. Basically because it fogs and moves away from the innocence period factor. (my bold)

I would question that as well. Not because it fogs anything though. Stated in context:

imaginary conversation wrote:

"So, was there a priest or person you looked up to who told you you couldn't do that?"

, it isn't foggy. Its just including the likely sources of fear in the mix. Rather, I think there is no approach that is "valuable, as effective, in addressing individuals on this personal matter" unless it is in the context of lots of trust and intimacy. And even then it is questionable as to how effective this is unless initiated by the one being examined.

I've never found it useful to root around somebody's history for them; IE, against their wishes and when we're in conflict. Its one of the things that I don't admire about Molyneux. I think it is almost always unproductive, no matter how swimmingly things seem to go on the surface.

This is, I think, due to the nature of the defensive mind, the parts of the mind that cannot give up arguments from authority or other fallacies. If you ask someone you disagree with, point blank: "What were your experiences of X when you were a child?" they may or may not take the diversion from your active disagreement. If they agree to answer they may or may not become uncomfortable as they approach the sources of their troubled thinking. And etc.. we could break down the choices and reactions of such a conversation as it could manifest.

But almost none of the choices and their consequences, if we were to list them all, seem to me to be healthy or helpful, other than refusing to answer the question. It's crucial to realize that the question may be entirely what is required of the person to ask themselves in order to 'move on' from irrational inner roadblocks, but in the context of debating or disagreeing with a relative stranger, at their request, it can almost only be damaging.

I wish I felt motivated to outline why I think this is so, but I'm going to have to leave it at that for now.

*****Warning: WALL O TEXT follows********* REDUX ****

I wanted to slip back abit, in hopes of conveying a "kudos" to you for your:

Alex wrote:

*****Warning: WALL O TEXT follows*********

I'll seek to do that by quoting these excerpts, in hopes of it being made available again, ala it warrants repeating:

Quote:

I think this too relates to the problem of broken thinking and why it is broken: Fear. Yes, I said 'discomfort' earlier, because proximately this is the cause. It is really uncomfortable to challenge ideas you've held for the wrong reasons for a long time. But ultimately, the cause of broken thinking is Fear, rich and terrible Fear. So it is that ultimately it takes an inner heroism to 'do the work' of moving past and through that terrain. Well, back to finding a "more comprehensive and quite probably more compassionate conclusion". Its one thing to 'win' an argument by employing better arguments, even in the most healthy way. But it is another thing to heal broken thinking. Quite rightly there is the cliche that "You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped", but I don't think that is the whole story. ... I take the opportunity to demonstrate that one doesn't have to be manipulated by arguments from authority. It isn't a goal to do that, but it's a consequence of being honest and unafraid in a particular milieu. I suppose it could be a goal, but its just one of those things that seems like a silly goal. Clearly people are highly resistant to changing certain kinds of thinking in areas where they've suffered strong conditioning. But it doesn't hurt to take the opportunities we find to demonstrate courage, even little tiny internet courage like this. I think the parts of the mind that get stuck behind arguments from authority are always in a state of stress due to other parts of the mind that are unhindered by great fear. The 'false self' doesn't want to die, doesn't want to be found out, but in some sense, knows it is false. When it is confronted directly and unashamedly (ie, with natural confidence and honesty), leaving no vulnerabilities to exploit (as that is it's way to escape), this event I think has some impact whether we know it or not. The slow-to-form Atheist and the slow-to-form Anarchist, like the slow-to-reform slave owner, are changed through experience and reflection, just like everyone else. Its just that corrupt and damaged thinking needs greater and deeper healing to 'give up' and let go than say, learning how to type rather than write by hand. The threats that corrupt thinking defends are quite real to that part of the mind. As such, a response with the intention of helping this process should take this into consideration. And fortunately I think the right response is also the simplest: Forthrightness and compassion. Doesn't make it always easy though. Not at all. After all, one has to do this for oneself first. .......... Beyond 'what starts it' ---> 'bad authority', I think the pressing questions have to reach out and forward to trying to understand 'What do we do?'. The real answers are not simple, and certainly aren't anything as base as just being on the 'right side'. We already know what that is about! I'm optimistic though, for each time I ask the question in a general sense of "So how do we mitigate the problem of the cycle of the Argument From Authority?" I am instantly reminded of all those people who reached out to me and who I currently see reaching out to others. Even if as a culture, or even a species, we never quite 'grow up' and clear away the damaging of young minds by crap like churches and bad parents and the state itself, each individual that is freed from their own ignorance is indeed freed. A = A, and somehow that can be enough.

Kudos, indeed. Nicely formed & expressed.

I'm reminded of this quote paraphrased that I first heard via NonE:

Quote:

When the student is ready, the teacher appears; but until the student appears, there's no possibility of teaching no matter how ready the teacher.

Honestly, I'm still mulling this one over. While I find it is valuable, I'm not sure it's the whole nugget... perhaps there's something from agriculture/farming to be considered as well? [sidebar: see Sudbury Valley School's approach?]

Mmmm gah, I do find it hard to follow sometimes.

We disagree on something to do with the argument from authority (or appeal to authority) and the 'source' of difficulties in being truly rational. But I'm afraid I don't get what you're saying, other than that I've misunderstood you (regarding how this all prescribes action). Sorry!

Edit: PS, thanks for the Sudbury link. I'd never read directly from their page and there's some nice essays there!

Did I said that?

I'm not sure your pair of phrases align with my pair of aces, but being the generous sole that I am, I'll let others try and figger it out.

- NonE

I appreciate the kindness of your expression. Admittedly tho, the primary cause of your finding it hard is indeed moi.

I wonder if a beginning of of an exploration of the context might aid here? So:

We each are born totally dependent. I express this as being natural, and nature's order (mandate). Though at it's infancy [sic], using the word 'know' is perhaps a bit whimsical, but in the popular phrasing, this order is all we know --as toddler's at that stage. One of the earliest manifestations of this order, is an order (of sorts; at least from the perspective of the baby): if you wish to nurse, you have to allow me to move you, aka to the infant as discomfort. Another order might be that to not feel yucky, you have to allow Authority to wipe your poopy behind. Most if not all of such, from the infants perspective, is discomfort. But there's an authority to contend with. Is there an argument to contend with as well? hehehe

That primal/natural dependent and authority relationship is said to have a biological connect that is optimally with the biological parents (maternal being primarily the moreso).

Thus our first experience with discomfort, and eventually and ultimately fear(s), is optimally soothed by parents and arguably as well, that natural connection. In adoptive/foster situations, the parenting is non-genetic of course, but the primal aspects of solving our problems of discomfort and fear, naturally flow through parenting as authoritative.
Thus continues the authority factor. Visualize the toddler inching/metering towards the glowing fire. It gets the "No." Thus a desire meets an authority. It's first introduction, and typically, it's most influential. I propose it is vital to remember that this authority is quite natural and prudent, i.e. valuable. But of course to the inexperienced, us as the toddlers, it warrants "revolution" --or-- is it "rebellion"? I'd propose that the terminology here, revealing perspective, is equally important to take note of. To the toddler it's not rebellion. To the true authority, it obviously is.
To continue it out further, the toddler ignores the authoritative "No", eventually resulting in the first consequence: either a nasty burn or a hurt ego/discomfort (or red bottom, depending on the cult`ture).

Would you agree that upon the next occasion of a dangerous desire (one of a multitude) arising on the part of the inexperienced exploring it's independence, the parent saying "Remember, your daddy told you last time..." would be an argument from (appeal to) authority? And a valuable one, as we've laid it out thus far?

For clarification, by authoritative, I mean the sense of an authority as the one with experience aka in this case as the parent/older, an authority.
The next examination then being to consider perversion of authority and subsequent appeal to that authority (and where it most typically is occurring; hint: the same scenario as above). Following that is then my theory of parental transference --of authority perversion, and the next phase(s) of argument from that authority etc (e.g. the infamous: "Because I said so...").

Hope that helps? Lemme know if you feel we're communicating to this point...

ps on the ps: glad you enjoyed the Sudbury; that method sounds so right-on to me; mahn but to be able to erase and have do-over with that...

It's really hard to know things. Cogito ergo sum plus a good bit of metaphysics and "if... then," type a priori truths are about all you can really know for sure. Empirical knowledge and value judgements? fugghedaboutit

The article linked basically says: anyone who is Catholic (or not virulently anti-Catholic) is either moronic, hateful, lazy, evil, ignorant stupid etc. because the Catholic Church is pure unadulterated evil, offers nothing of value to its members, and does not, has never, and will never have any redeeming qualities.

Whoa there... the Catholic Church is the oldest and largest existing institution in the world with nearly 2k years of history isn't it? Surely it must have done something good during those years? Surely its more than one billion followers today can't all be evil idiots? Isn't Pat Buchanan a Catholic?

I don't know much about the Catholic Church, but I do know that I'd have to read at a few more thousand pages of both pro and anti-Catholic literature before I felt comfortable enough to make up my mind on whether or not it's a net negative or net positive.

Anyhow, the point is that so much information exists on the Catholic Church that one could certainly make a good pro or anti argument. Same with most important topics.

I made a thread about Robert Anton Wilson some time ago, and his "generalized agnosticism," (be an agnostic on literally everything). And while it's in some ways correct, it just doesn't work. We find it necessary to feel some degree of certainty about more than just basic metaphysics, tautologies and a priori statements. So have a negative opinion about the Catholic Church if that's what you're reason leads you to , but my reason leads me to believe that certainly many Catholic believers aren't just "going on autopilot," and abandoning logic by being Catholic; the reason being that with such a wealth of information existing on Catholicism, it would be a miracle for intelligent people not to have devised a decent and plausible reason for believing it.

Also, most homosexuals have annoying lisp voices worse than the 'ol nails on the chalkboard sound.

Well yes, TEM, the article is purely 'preaching to the choir' about the Catholic Church. The main arguments are made during the show, though not the particular episode this stems from. As such I completely agree, it is not much of an article from the 'this is what is wrong' standpoint, or any other argumentative point of view.

As such, I ignore that part. What interests me is the part about empathizing with the Austin Bomber. The article is titled as such, and though he only briefly discusses it before lambasting the CChurch, he 'goes out on a limb' to suggest that he can relate with the suicide note and feels empathy.

What is unusual about this is that the show and it's followers tend to be, as a group, Statists. So, how will the fans reconcile their goodly hero Don Baker saying that he has some fraternal feelings with this clearly anti-state actions?

They get nervous. That is the short story. A lot of Atheists in the USA are just run-of-the-mill nerds. Austin is a big college town, and is a hub of astrophysics. Lots of nerds sucking on the teet of government. But its also just a cultural thing around atheism. For a lot of people this is in their minds how they are 'making a stand for reason', and they look no further. Like any in-group (should we look at FDR?) they defend what they think are the common values of the group, even if they have nothing to do with atheism.

There were some recent episodes talking about how difficult it is to come out of two closets: Being gay, and being an atheist. Indeed, in the South or West of the USA I simply cannot imagine how that would go over. Well, actually the NE as well. The bluebloods aren't as liberal as they puport. This idea of a idea of a double minority is interesting in this context because of the preponderance of Statists among the atheists.

The article made for some nervousness: Wait, are you actually saying we can be honest about the state too? But I get my paycheck there...I dunno.