STFU (shut the fuck up). Strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.
If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.
for my own records a copy of a post I just put on the CBC's website, here in it's uncensored form:
STFU - strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.
If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.
Parents should not STFU. If you don't like being reminded about your lack-of-children state by a passive-aggressive attack on them via STFU-ing them, then de-friend.
Maybe it's a New York thing, but STFU isn't a particularly funny phrase. An attack on parenthood, even an attack *supposedly* couched in humor, is still an attack. Basically the STFU site is transmitting a message to all parents that they should not share the joys & pains of being a parent.
Parents shouldn't STFU. Just the opposite.
Y-E-S, to your question "Should those who don't want to see parental posts filter or unfriend instead of passing judgement?"
If your some childless leftie who's annoyed by parental updates, unfriend the people, instead of complaining about them. Or STFU. The site owner used the acronym first, and Jian fawningly interviewed them. But let's remember what those letters mean. Jarring, & shocking really. Not funny Jian.
Crass, narcissistic, & mean spirited. A de facto "lack of life" cult - brought to you by the same cultural hole that bought us overpopulation hysteria, & ultra-lefties having no children as a result.
As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:
Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero
I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:
"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..." "...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."
Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.
Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.
There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.
Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.
After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:
---quote begins
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.
---quote ends
So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.
Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular advocacy
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things through).
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:
>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable. Because we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the room. We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac. Mtg.!!) when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker. The serving of alcohol is another
>reason. Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue
----end of quote
And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:
----quote beings
Howdy,
I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.
2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.
3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.
4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.
So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.
It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.
I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.
I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.
I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.
Real people who show up are the most important.
I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.
A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.
A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.
A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.
We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.
So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.
Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.
I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.
A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.
"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of
alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no
children are allowed except for nursing infants..."
B. Working to ensure that kids are welcome within the relevant groups I may be a part of, and perhaps starting groups or events of my own as needed.
C. Unitarian Universalism churches i.) requiring that children go away during their main meetings, ii.) being apologists for Mohamed & Islam, and iii.) having taboos against being critical of wacky New Age / Pagan type ideas (the freedom to believe - in bullshit). Believing bullshit is a time waster, whether you believe in Jesus, Thor, Zeus, or in homeopathy, the wacky woo woo of Depak Chopra, crystals, or in The Secret.
-------------------
(2.) First video:
(4.) Second video:
(1.) Original open letter:
An open letter to atheist & ex-Mormon groups, on the issue of whether children are welcome at your events or not: [I did receive a further response from a relevant atheist group - click here to read my reply.]
Speaking frankly, I have no use for events which aren't "kid friendly." Family isn't a dirty word. Funny how people can embrace "Pride" and then jump straight on to having "kids around" as an "exception" rather than a rule. Where's the pride parade for straight people with kids? Maybe we deserve one too.
I never really thought about this issue until I had a kid myself. Pretty much the only "events" I *might* consider attending without my kid are these:
1. A gay bar I have been to before, with my gay nephew - if he happens to come to town and decides to pay a visit to my house & asks me to go there for a short visit to the bar & I decide to say yes.
2. The very occasional (officially rated as, & not merely "unrated") NC-17 film that is economically viable enough to actually be shown, and that's worth watching - a perhaps once every 20 year occurrence.
Other than that, from ex-Mormon meetings to atheist ones to church meetings, if my kid isn't welcome to sit beside me while I'm present, then neither am I. My family is more important than your little meetings - speaking frankly...
"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of
alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no
children are allowed except for nursing infants..."
...as quoted from an exmormon conference website. But more recently I've encountered a similar de facto prohibition on admitting that I have a child in connection with an atheist semi-annual party at which elections were to be voted on. Well, I guess I won't be running in that election, right? I've got a kid after all, and the crazy meeting where they'll be doing the voting doesn't seem to be kid friendly. What's up with that?
Let me say here as a side note that the organizers of these various groups do work very hard, and deserve a lot of credit for helping a lot of people. But, on the other hand, my son takes precedence over even these otherwise hard working people. It's just that they don't (yet) realize what it means to be fully inclusive.
If you wish to be inclusive of "gay issues" then you also need to be inclusive of "straight ones," and of people who, yes, have children. And, from what I've been told, gay and bi people sometimes have kids also.
Does the right wing get to hijack and use-solely the word "family?" I don't think so. But the "left" doesn't either.
I'm not really into the self-hatred of the left or the right. Yes, family is a good thing and it should be supported and promoted. And social groups which are supporting people recovering from religion & people who're finding new ways to live after leaving religion should take into account that humans actually engage in sexual reproduction...
I don't leave home without my genitals attached - as Mormons would have preferred. And, I should not be required to leave home without my new son - or to keep him hidden away just for the privilege of socializing with fellows who are supposedly on a similar life path.
Children sometimes make a bit of noise. Yes, I'm willing to take them out temporarily if they're screaming. But the occasional child-originated outburst should be well tolerated in any group which is supposedly trying to be "welcoming" and "inclusive."
Also, I agree that there is a need for singles events & singles type dances in atheist & ex-mormon groups. That's fine. But, as for alcohol, remember that alcohol is also served at pubs, and pubs do not exclude children.
So anyway unless your event is somehow exactly the same as the singular gay bar my nephew may or may not ever invite me to visit again, or is similar to a loud dive-bar (a largely unhealthy atmosphere for anyone which I suggest you not try to emulate regardless), don't expect me to hide my children away... Occasional "singles" events may be ok, which are designed for single people to meet each other. But sometimes single people have kids also.
postscript: After leaving Mormonism I searched for new groups to associate with. The groups mentioned above represent at least three I've tried so far. Nothing is absolutely cut & dry and I realize that anyone can start a group. But this is just something I've noticed after a.) leaving Mormonism, and now b.) having a kid.
In the old days the exmo conferences were more laid back. But I was shocked to see the more recent restrictions on kids - strange. The Unitarians can only tolerate kids at their meetings for the first few minutes. Why? What if I don't want my kid to be shuffled away to some other room, and what if I think all the kids should stay with their parents?
Also separately UUism is I've found not really friendly to Enlightenment values, since they embrace the "freedom to believe - in bullshit" via embracing paganism/fluff-a-muff-crazy-unfounded-views and they have a taboo against being critical of views which are otherwise crazy.
Well, anyway, I do have suspicions on exactly why things are the way they are. Discrimination against people who have kids - yes, it exists, apparently. And apparently those of us with kids have to fight for our rights to "come out" as straight people with kids as well... ===============================
I received a more cogent response from the president of Atheists of Utah regarding my concerns in this & the previous blog post. Here is what I have posted in reply:
---quote begins
Greetings,
<clip>
>I couldn't find any such post on any of our
>online presence locations. I saw you post this at
>several locations, but no "copy" of your blog post.
There was an original copy which I then deleted once it was copied in total to my blog, and then a link to the post was posted for convenience & consolidation.
The original queries which caused the original first concerns were posted in the announcement for the party itself. Regarding the discouragement of the attendance of children, as far as I could tell at least one board member and another attendee recommended (in rather strong terms) that children not attend - in the specific announcement area for the meeting. Then I heard nothing from anyone else, and no further feedback until now.
<clip>
The wheelbarrow is perhaps indicative of the target audience for the meeting in question. I had forgotten about Joel starting the wheelbarrow thing - perhaps once the meetings were moved to Richard T.’s house. Back when they were still at Joel’s house I don’t think such a thing was occurring. Clearly there’s a need to attract college age fratsters to atheist meetings (seriously & not in jest). They have a lot of dynamic energy worth tapping into.
Regarding music we never heard back whether there would be music at this particular party. But for us it’s a moot point at this point.
<clip>
>Most of the members in the group have children of various ages.
>There are only a few of the more than 150 of our gatherings where the exclusion
>of children is explicitly stated.
In the wake of my previous chats with people about these issues I came away with the impression that it was only the “ice cream socials” which were really welcoming for children.
<clip>
>It is always stated explicitly in the event description
>if it is recommended that children do not attend. For all other events,
>children are implicitly welcome.
Regarding group and committee suggestions, I’ll consider which options would be most fruitful. There’s certainly room to grow in either direction.
Well, in this case I don’t wish to impede anyone’s ability to have a raging good time with fellow youngsters without the perceived impediments or impositions the presence of a child may pose, since it was rather strongly previously made clear to me by others in the related forums that for the event in question that children not attend.
I realize the main announcement didn’t explicitly exclude kids, but like I say later conversations, which weren't merely completely unofficial (to my perception) made it clear to me that it would be unusual and not advisable to bring kids to this particular event.
Like I say there is a need for such events which are young-person-party-animal-wild-man-and-woman focused, so by all means have fun at the party - all those people who want to hook up with some hot atheist chick or dude. Just remember what may happen if you do:
I’ll see about amending my text & video blogs appropriately in response, now that I’ve finally received a more official response. I’m glad that you were finally able to get back. In this case I still believe the party in question is really more of one intended for young people to get more than a bit tipsy so that they can more effectively meet each other. And I shall take the advice of others and keep our son home. He’s too young for a baby sitter.
At the very least we’ll work on announcing events which may be of value to those with youngsters... Here’s some related ideas I found: http://www.meetup.com/cfi-sfn/
So by all means attend & have fun. We'll just stay home with our young kid - that's all...
Our kid is too young for a baby sitter. But to tell you the truth I wasn't just concerned about this group. There's another group which does have a more explicit "no kids" policy which is quite a bummer. So the conversation here was kind of a tipping point, for what it's worth.
Copy of a post made in an Atheists of Utah forum today. Posted here in part to keep track of my own thoughts & writings... Note that I did receive further feedback. See this newer post with key addendum notes and videos.
---------------- quote begins
Group suggestions:
Regarding the summer solstice party, it sounds as if it's really primarily a members-only singles event where children are not welcome (and by default, people who have infant children are not welcome either). I agree there's a need for there to be atheist singles groups. The Unitarians certainly aren't stepping up (& their church really isn't atheist, Enlightenment-values, and science & skepticism friendly). And in past years there was pretty much no options other than bar hopping & random chance. Now there's the Internet though & more opportunities to start groups.
As for this group, for the future may I suggest:
1. Having meetings/parties that don't have a membership requirement - but allow for donations via a donation box at the party.
2. Having parties that are pot lock, and simple.
3. Having parties that allow for alcohol to be brought, but not to raffle off a "wheelbarrow of booze" at such parties. We could also raffle off a "wheelbarrow of cigarettes," or a "wheelbarrow of hydrogenated oil" - with similar outcomes & value.
4. Having parties which do not have amplified music.
5. Having parties which do not explicitly or implicitly exclude people who happen to have engaged in sexual reproduction (eg: they have children).
I'm aware that anyone can host a party or start a group. "Official parties & events" should be more inclusive though, if your goal is to be inclusive. And I know that running an atheist group or any group requires a lot of work, and a partially-unfair personal investment of funds.
So without question there's a need for events focused on the need for single people to meet, and for dances which serve to meet that need, and so on, outside of the context of religious groups. I would just suggest being rather explicit about how events are labeled, so as to avoid confusion.
"This party is for single people who don't have young children, or for married people who don't have children or who only have older children - children who can be kept at home away from our party or event." Please add that label up front to events if it turns out that a given event deserves such a label.
There are inherent problems with an increased organizational structure being created. But I'd like to thank Zac, Joel, and Richard for their past work with creating groups and organizing things at various venues, restaurants, cafes, and houses. And Harald and Qian Qian. Our new son probably would not be here if it weren't for all these factors being present, and people who worked to organize atheist meetings in the past.
As for group dynamics & politics: I've seen the evolution of various groups, related to atheism and not. I know where I personally stand within the "movement" - pretty much with the left leaning anti-authoritarians, with occasional alliances with right leaning anti-authoritarians where necessary and fruitful... There is definitely an evolution that takes place with groups, depending on personality type and who happens to show up. Perhaps it's time for more such evolution now (making a note to myself also)...
Silverman doesn't speak for all atheists. Atheism is not a religion per se, and we aren't required to join hands with everyone who may be classified as an atheist.
Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman.
And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.
I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.
There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...
''...the authors argue that what we
call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a
newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is,
including cases
where the newborn is not disabled..."
While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:
So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?
It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.
“For nearly a century, the moral relativism of science has given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only universal framework for moral wisdom. As a result, the most powerful societies on early spend their time debating issues like gay marriage when they should be focused on problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, energy security, climate change, poverty, and failing schools.”
"...the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion -- that great engine of ignorance and bigotry -- a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary -- because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried."
-------------------------
1-8-12 addendum:
Video commentary added:
And another blog post:
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
