The Bizarre Nature of Liberal Thinking

crazy-thoughtsSeriously, I could make this a series.  I know I’ve talked about it before a couple of  times, but it continues to amaze me how liberals can get things so utterly and completely wrong.  I know it shouldn’t, after all, I talk to theists who are just as clueless, no matter how many times you point out the errors in their thinking, which leads me to think there is a lot more in common between theists and liberals than they’d like to think.

Anyhow, this came up over on The Atheist Revolution, in a post called Atheism, Race and Social Justice, where vjack responded to Sikivu Hutchinson’s article Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about, that was posted in the Washington Post a while  back.  Wow, is that enough bouncing around for you?

Anyhow, the gist of the post is the same old tired social justice nonsense that floats around the heavily liberal atheism “movement” that says that because the most visible leadership of the atheism “movement” is white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, and wealthy, we can’t forget wealthy, because that’s a horrible thing for liberals because it means these people are actually successful in the real world, because of all of that, there has to be some kind of grand conspiracy to keep women and gays and black people and transgendered people, essentially anyone who isn’t white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual and that all-important wealthy, down.  And if that’s not a heck of a run-on sentence, I don’t know what is.  This all brings us back around to what, as I’ve argued before, is one of the central tenets of liberalism, equality of outcome.

Essentially, that means that if people within a particular group are not represented in their racial, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and other factors, precisely as they appear in society as a whole, something is desperately wrong and the social justice warriors have to spring to the rescue!  There has to be someone to blame and it’s almost always those aforementioned white, cisgendered, heterosexual wealthy men.  Those are the boogiemen of the liberals, in fact, if you were to switch out the race or the gender of those in charge of a movement, such that it was no longer white men, the liberals have nothing to say about it.  You know, if we pointed out that, in professional basketball, black men, which make up 13% of the U.S. population, but are more than 75% of players in the NBA, liberals wouldn’t scream racism.  Racism only applies to white men, apparently. They might, if you catch them on a good day, complain that there are no women in the NBA, but they’d still blame white men for that travesty.  Yeah, they are hypocritical that way.

So when I reminded them of a story I covered a while back about black atheist groups, and in particularly a story about the National Day of Solidarity for Black Non-Believers, that didn’t get a peep.  The fact that there are specifically black atheist organizations out there that exist primarily for black members, doesn’t bother them. That’s not racist.  It’s the national atheist organizations that do not mention race at all, they are not American White Atheists or the Center for White Inquiry, nor do they deny blacks or women or gays membership anywhere in their by-laws, but these groups all have to be racist because they happen to be run by white guys!  Evidence? Who needs evidence?  It’s a liberal assertion, they take it on blind faith because the makeup of the atheist “movement” isn’t exactly what they wish it was.

And why isn’t it?  That’s certainly a fair question and one that deserves to be addressed, not necessarily so it can be changed, but so it can be understood.  Certainly, there isn’t a single reason, like the machinations of the Bavarian Illuminati, to control the Bilderbergers in a grand scheme to make atheism a movement of primarily white men.  That’s just stupid.  To do this, we have to look at individual groups to see what might influence that group to act as it acts with regard to their religious beliefs.  Let’s look at blacks since that’s what started this whole mess.  The demographics matter.  According to studies, 88% of blacks in the U.S. are religious, with 45% of them being Baptists.  In fact, according to Pew Research, black people top the religiosity charts in America, more black people identify as strongly religious than any other racial group.  Therefore, we should expect that blacks would be under-represented in any non-religious group, simply because they tend to be over-represented in religious adherence.  This is a cultural factor.  White guys aren’t holding guns to their heads and making them be religious. This is personal choice and we can understand it as a cultural thing, not a conspiracy thing.  Likewise, women tend to be more religious than men do.  I suspect this is also cultural, but there may be a psychological component as well.  According to George H. Gallup Jr., “A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation.”  Why?  Well, according to Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, “Studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills.” It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just reality.  Whether liberals like this reality or not is irrelevant.  Based on the biology and the sociology, we would expect to have more white males involved in atheism.

But we have to remember that liberalism isn’t about the data, it isn’t about the facts, it’s about the emotion.  It’s about feeling good about the conclusions that you come to.  It’s easier for liberals who by and large hate the majority anyhow, and I will admit there are some good reasons historically for doing so, to simply keep blaming their favorite whipping boy for everything that goes wrong in their lives.  It all has to be the fault of the white guys.  It doesn’t matter if there’s any actual evidence that they’ve done anything wrong, the fact that they exist is all that matters.

So how about a last bit of data that the liberals will ignore.  63% of Americans are non-Hispanic whites.  They hold the majority in 49 out of 50 states.  Worldwide, males outnumber females by a certain small percentage, between 1-7%.  Only 3.08% of Americans identify as LGBT, according to a 2011 study by the Williams Institute. Between 2-5% of Americans identify as transgender, or at least as identifying with the other gender.  Therefore, numerically, in any organization at all, even ignoring what I said above, the most common individual who might be part of any group is a white, cisgender, straight guy!  It’s mathematical!  And the wealth? The only people who are going to be able to spend a great deal of time and energy on a social movement like this are those who have money to do so! It’s no surprise that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, the four horsemen of the “New Atheist movement” were all successful and skilled writers, professors and speakers before they ever got involved.  The fact that they all happen to be white men, again, is based on demographics, not conspiracy.

It’s really sad that I have to keep explaining this to liberals.  I know they won’t listen this time any more than they did in the past because, as I said, the facts don’t matter, only the emotional high they get from their beliefs, just like the religious do.  They want to champion the underdog, even when the so-called underdog needs no champion.  Most of these liberals who are whining the loudest are, themselves, white, male, straight and well enough off to be able to spend time pounding on the keyboard for extended periods of time.  They are upset in other people’s behalf, not because anyone else needs their outrage, but because it makes them feel better about themselves.

And that kind of sums up liberalism in a nutshell.

17 thoughts on “The Bizarre Nature of Liberal Thinking


  2. "…one of the central tenets of liberalism, equality of outcome."

    This is not one of the central tenets of liberalism. That you think it is reveals that you hold a strawman version of modern liberalism in that clunker you call a brain. I challenge you to cite a credible source that describes the tenets of modern liberalism where equality of outcome is one of the core tenets. Just because you believe this to be so does not make it true.

    1. I don't know where you got this bizarre idea that nobody can have or express an opinion without a peer-reviewed study being involved but it's laughable. You're just not paying attention, which is no surprise because most liberals don't have that capacity. Where do you think liberal boondoggles like affirmative action come from? A call for the equality of outcome! In fact, all liberal quota-based thinking comes directly from that position. Just because there isn't an approved study, published in a peer-reviewed journal, that finds approved liberal ideologues using that specific phrase doesn't mean a thing. Try thinking for yourself for once. It would be a welcome change.

      1. So your view that equality of outcome is a core tenet of liberalism is an opinion, not a statement of fact? Good to know. Because your opinions aren't worth any more than the shit that comes out your asshole.

        I never said, nor implied, that an opinion must be accompanied by or supported by a peer-reviewed study. That is all your invention. Liberalism by the way is not a science nor any type of subject which is or would be subject to peer-review.

        Affirmative action was not a policy to seek equality of outcome. It was a policy designed to level the playing field so that blacks would have equality of opportunity, something they did not have. What is your basis for calling affirmative action a boondoggle? It may not have fully achieved its objective, but it certainly got blacks closer to equality of opportunity than they were before its use.

        And what is the basis of your opinion that most liberals don't have the capacity to pay attention? Just like you to attempt to insult my intellectual abilities. I have no doubt that my attention span and my intellectual abilities are at the very least equal to your own. I have paid attention for months now to the uninformed drivel that you mistake for intelligent remarks.

        And again, just because you hold the opinion that equality of outcome is a core tenet of liberalism does not make the opinion accurate. You have failed to provide any compelling argument to establish that your opinion, which is a strawman caricature of liberalism, has any basis in truth or reality.

        What is your basis for your conclusion that I am not thinking for myself? What is your proof or evidence for this assertion? Is it simply because I am a liberal? Prove to me that you are thinking for yourself and not just parroting conservative talking points you memorized from someone or somewhere else. I suppose that if I were to abandon my liberalism and become a conservative then you would consider me a person who is thinking for himself. You seem to have concocted this really stupid idea in your head that liberals can't possibly be rational. There is a cognitive bias at play in your thinking, as well as at least one logical fallacy. You're such a bright thinker. Figure out what they are.

  3. "The fact that there are specifically black atheist organizations out there that exist primarily for black members, doesn’t bother them. That’s not racist…"

    No, it is not racist unless whites and others are specifically prohibited from participating, which in the example you cited they were not.

      1. No, I understand it prefectly well. It is apparent that you don't know what it is. But we can keep going back and forth on this one. So tell me what you think it is.

        Here is one dictionary definition:

        "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
        • prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief

        In what way does the National Day of Solidarity for Black Non-believers and the Black Atheist groups fit this definition? By your reasoning the League of Women Voters, for example, is a bigoted organization because it focuses on women, even though it does not limit itself to participation by women, just as the Black atheist groups do not bar whites from participating.

  4. "The fact that there are specifically black atheist organizations out there that exist primarily for black members, doesn’t bother them. That’s not racist."

    It doesn't bother us because it is not racist. These organizations do not bar whites, hispanics, asians, etc. from joining.

    " It’s the national atheist organizations that do not mention race at all, they are not American White Atheists or the Center for White Inquiry, nor do they deny blacks or women or gays membership anywhere in their by-laws, but these groups all have to be racist because they happen to be run by white guys! "

    The black atheist groups do not bar whites from becoming members. The National Day of Solidarity for Black Non-believers was not an event which prohibited whites, women, gays, hispanics, asians, nor any other demographic group or minority of color from participating or attending. Yes, the target audience for this event was black atheists. But this does not make the event a racist event anymore than if you called for a National Day of Solidarity for White Non-believers would, unless you specifically prohibited blacks, hispanics, asians or other minorities of color from attending and participating.

    And who within the liberal atheist community has called the organization American Atheists or Center for Inquiry a racist organization? If this has happened it is not the majority position among liberal atheists or liberals in general. You again are creating a strawman. Call out those person specifically and by name who are doing this, if indeed there are any. But stop simply saying that liberals are doing this. You are intentionally implying that all liberals think this or that the majority of them do. This is not true. Or at least you have failed to provide evidence that it is true.

  5. "Based on the biology and the sociology, we would expect to have more white males involved in atheism."

    No one is disputing this. Nor have any of the liberals in the atheist community said that atheism in general or atheist organizations are racist because there are fewer blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. in the atheist community than is found in the general population. This is not what is being criticized by the liberal atheists of whom you refer in this post. What is being criticized, if anything, is the lack of minorities in leadership roles within the organizations that represent the atheist community.

    1. No, that's not what groups like Atheism+ have argued, they are upset because there aren't enough blacks for their tastes in the movement, leadership positions or not. And let's be honest, there are no leaders in atheism, no one was elected to speak for the whole of atheists or to represent them. The argument from the liberal side has always been the quantity of black atheists or the quantity of female atheists (funny that they never bring up Asian atheists, which seems to be an even greater minority but I don't think I've ever heard mentioned). It's a quota, pure and simple. Of course, they aren't willing to look at the situation realistically or rationally, they don't care about the data that I've presented or the factors I've discussed, it gets in the way of their grand liberal plan and equal outcome thinking.

      That's not a good thing or anything to be proud of.

      1. I haven't paid much attention to the Atheism+ crowd, so I can't speak in any informed way as to what members of this group have or have not said. But I am not going to accept without verification your comment that "they are upset because there aren't enough blacks for their tastes in the movement, leadership positions or not." Given the bias and animus you hold toward these people, you will need to provide at least one link to a source where I can read that someone in this group has actually said this. I have no good reason to believe that what you say about this group is true.

        This said, however, Atheism+ does not represent all atheists. And they certainly do not represent all liberals.

        It is true that there are no leaders in atheism as a movement or community. But then read what I said carefully. I never said there were. I said there are leaders of atheist organizations. What has been criticized is the near absence of minorities in the leadership positions in these organizations. What has been criticized has been the pattern, until recently, of nearly all white males as speakers at atheist and freethought conferences. This has begun to change and more women and blacks are being invited to speak at these events, likely because of the criticisms with which you are taking issue.

        What the hell is wrong with wanting to bring more blacks, hispanics, asians and women into the atheist community? This is the liberal atheist plan. No one is accusing American Atheists, Center for Inquiry or any other such groups of racism. But it is true that all these organizations do need to make more of an effort to attract people from these minority communities. The facts that you presented about the number of black believers is irrelevant to this objective. We should be putting at least as much effort and resources into convincing blacks, hispanics, asians, and other minorities to abandon religion as we do within the larger white community.

        The liberal atheists are not out to achieve some particular quota. I don't know where you have gotten this mistaken idea. Until you provide a coherent and compelling argument that this is true, your claim is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion, no better than an opinion. And opinions in most cases, this one included, are no better than the shit that comes out of a person's asshole.

  6. "But we have to remember that liberalism isn’t about the data, it isn’t about the facts, it’s about the emotion."

    More of the straw in your strawman.

  7. "…liberals who by and large hate the majority anyhow…"

    Just who makes up this majority to which you refer? It certainly isn't Conservatives. If you are speaking of the majority within the atheist/freethought community then it is the liberals themselves. The larger share of the atheist community are liberals, not conservatives. We liberals don't hate the majority since within the atheist community we are the majority.

    If you are speaking of the population in general, again you are wrong. There is no political ideology that holds a majority position. According to a 2012 Pew Research Survey, Democrats outnumber Republicans 38% to 25%, with 33% identifying as independents ( Since liberals identify mostly with the Democratic party, they would be the closest thing to the majority in the population at large. We don't hate ourselves, as much as you might like to think we do.

    Liberals are not the monolithic group you seem to think they are. Your understanding of political viewpoints within our culture is very shallow and displays an astonishing level of ignorance for someone who thinks himself well enough informed to comment about political viewpoints in this nation. You reveal a lack of understanding of the nuanced nature of political views held by Americans. I suggest you read the recent Pew Foundation report, Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology ( Educate yourself before you continue to make the poorly informed, bordering on stupid, comments you keep making about liberals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)