There’s an atheist youtuber who goes by “Atheism-Is-Unstoppable” who was showcased in the viral video about white men who had questions for SJWs. His interactions with the audience were rather quaint, one of which being:
“Are you aware of the concept of linear time?”
Said as a means to decry SJW logic that things that happened in the past are reoccuring today, also to presume that things that happened in the past are long-gone and can be forgotten. I know one too many victims of domestic violence have heard that one before.
“Oh, it’s all in the past, Sheryl (no one of consequence)! I’m a different man now! Can’t you see that?”
And something about always being the superior voice of reason. Normally, I’m used to hearing such ingrate statements directed toward my intelligence from religious fundamentalists, but A-I-U (Assholes In Unison) is adamant about NOT being a fundamentalist. In fact, in the video I am going to analyze, he is saying “secularism” has no doctrine. I suppose we could take him to the dictionary definition of secularism to correct him, but I’ll simply use my powers of rational conjecture to respond to such erroneous claims, and therefore demonstrate the existence of secular fundamentalism.
To follow along with me, please click on this link.
A familiar tactic among all atheist youtubers that I’ve seen, on the reactionary side (of which Angry Infected Ulcer is part), is to paint the opposition in a very irrational light, before their point has even been demonstrated. So, in reading what I just wrote, I’ll try to give credit where it’s due. Atheism is Unstoppable is most likely a good person, that is misguided in his belief that secularism cannot be fundamentalistic. Then again, his reaction to being called a racist isn’t to apologize, but to demand the person withdraw their comment. Something he does in this video . When you are being racist, that’s a criticism of your opinion, not slander.
From 0:00 to 0:29
- I’ve never heard of Chris Hedges nor his interviewer, but the first person to speak is the interviewer, who interrogates Chris on the notion of New Atheism fundamentalism, because he seems to consider ISIS to be on equal moral grounds with the American government.
- I disagree that the American government is AS moral as ISIS, that would be a mistake to make, but let it be known that America has its history of rather extremist religious ideals, among which being how they used to treat homosexuals (and still do), black people (and still do), and atheists (among which Anonymity In Unicellularism is). AIU’s response to this widely documented fact however, is to presume that there is ZERO validity whatsoever about the claim.
From 0:29 to 1:30
- A series of ad hominem attacks and ad personam attacks as well… There’s nothing of substance to address here. He even uses Borat as an example of what he’s saying, although it moreso defeats his point, because Borat exemplifies middle-eastern fundamentalism in the segment that is shown here. Feels very Limbaughish.
From 1:39 to 4:30
- More ad hominems, actually. I was expecting a proper analysis of why what they’re saying is wrong, but the conclusion in his statement is “these people are all about fuck america”. A very ironic thing highlighted by Noam Chomsky in his book on Media Control, is it feeds this idea of nationalism – I mean patriotism – that Americans have about themselves. America is this big, righteous empire and all these “cultural marxists” (a well-known conspiracy theory about the jews wanting to destroy America from the inside) really want is to destroy it. Well, no. That’s sheer demagoguery and insane conjecture. The American U.S. Foreign Policy have been widely documented in the American Empire Project. You should give that a try.
- Amazingly enough, most of the ad hominem attacks aren’t directed AT the interviewee but the interviewer. It would seem our friend here has an unhealthy relationship with this woman. There’s a claim here about her working for Russia Today and a Venezuelan company, which I’ll say would provide good evidence that she might not be in line with American values of capitalism. Does that mean she is anti-American? No, of course not. America was built with liberal scholars at its head, alongside the French Revolutionaries.
From 4:47 to 5:19
- He has admitted that he has suggested that ISIS and U.S. Foreign Policies share similitudes, morally speaking. A-I-U’s response is… Flush anyone who agrees with this statement down the toilet. Well, that sure makes a good case for not being fundamentalist. I can see the rationality just pour out of this man’s cortex. Abandon all critical faculties, folks, America can NEVER do wrong internationally, because I say so!
- Also, A-I-U commits a very strong logical fallacy here, by twisting the words of the interviewer. Essentially, what they have said is that U.S. Foreign Policies are as moral as ISIS. The youtuber here suggests that they’re saying the whole United States is such. That is a fallacy of composition. I’m sure there’ll be more of those.
From 5:24 to 7:09 – Secularism IS a doctrine, that’s why there’s an “ism” as a suffix
- “I speak words!” as a response to “secular fundamentalism”. AIU’s contention here is that he believes words have to mean something to him (see: he has to understand them) before they are spoken. In his mind, secularism is doctrine free. I’ll admit having chuckled heartily to that one. Secularism IS a doctrine that stipulates all human beings should be equal regardless of creed, in front of the state. However, there are some secularists who use secularism to eradicate religion, as religions do about other religions! That is what you call secular fundamentalism. That is what this man is speaking of. By outright seeking to make every person a secularist, these people are preaching a gospel. One that AIU is repeating here. “We’re reasonable people, trust us! We just want folks who disagree with us flushed down toilets!” An islamic fundamentalist would have said: “Behead all those that disagree with the Prophet!”
- Fundamentalism is not exclusive to religion, by claiming it is, you are showing a position of secular fundamentalism: Namely, that all religious things are negative and all positive things are secular. Basically, if you can reverse every word you say with its religious opposite, you are being a fundamentalist. Your example of an ice cream lover is childish and misrepresenting. Although it seems to reflect well on your reasoning skills as an adult.
- Well, seeing AIU disregard Chomsky as an idiot surely serves to not like him one bit. Chomsky has made very good points, you dismissing him as an idiot (without substantive statement to come with that)doesn’t mean you’re right. Although of course, your fans will appreciate this jeering. If you will not look for the evidence for yourself, there’s not much helping you, when others do it for you.
From 7:09 to 8:03
- “State Love” means that secularists believe the state will fix all problems THEY have with religion. So if the state is made secular, then all religious people will slowly die off and become seculars. That’s not how reality works.
- Literally crying with laughter at 7:35, as AIU constructs a strawman argument that he immediately seeks to destroy, as if to comfort himself in his delusion. Not much to say here. Chris didn’t say anything he’s implying here.
- 7:45-48, “Why don’t you go live somewhere else?” – I think I must have heard this statement many times on the internet, and I’m Canadian. So I suppose we’ve come round and round with the neoreactionaries of Youtube Atheism and the old conservative republicans with their “Yur a speshul kinna stewped aren’cha?”. I mean, you claim they have zero credibility, yet you’re here wailing on about a supposed “Fuck America” stance, which you use as a big ol’ straw punching ball. Why not just make a rant video about anti-americans instead of attacking people who actually do research on the subject?
- 7:55 – Caving your argument on itself isn’t a good thing. When you realize you had no point to begin with, the best thing to do is to just abort. Good job there, but your prior arguments were still just rhetoric employed by the conservatives of old. Nothing really convincing except perhaps for your fans, which I’m sure you’re used to “preaching” to, right? Being a non-religious secular fundamentalist atheist?
- I’ll also add that you just said that Dawkins and Harris don’t preach state religion, yet you just once again claimed he has an anti-american stance, despite him having said nothing of the sort. That’s a very “pro-state” retort. Ad hominems are a great way to convince yourself that your opponents are wrong, but for a Canadian as myself, that’s hardly convincing. I don’t think you normally try very hard to debunk arguments, though.
From 8:15 to 8:20 – “Do you even lift, bro?” or “I went to the same university as you, therefore I have the same credibility, but probably more, because I’m right and you’re wrong!”
From 8:41 to 9:09
- A long diatribe about his delivery. That’s a full minute of nothing but ad hominems. (I’m rounding up)
From 9:16 to 9:41
- Well, we’ve got a wallpaper of a woman’s ass on the right now. Shows that Associate In Underhandedness doesn’t like to take people seriously, even when they’ve got proper credentials. Even going so far as to make funny voices, so as to make sure he has no reason to make counter-arguments. Admittedly, all that Chris is doing here is presenting his argument, yet, uh… I think I’ve seen AIU pause the video to make lonnnnng monologues about how much he hates this man’s appearance for way more than he’s spoken. I think he’s barely spoken a minute. This is clearly erudite material.
From 9:41 to 10:15
- Another diatribe and throwing ad hominems about. “These people just hate America!” That’s something you say when you know you’ve got nothing to retort. Like when people I speak with who think vaccines cause autism, and I tell them my kids got diagnosed before they were vaccined. They’ll be like: “Well, that’s just my opinion.” Same level of intellectual substantiation. I think you’d be less angry if you realized this method of analyzing people’s videos is completely ineffectual. (WaC experiences existential crisis as it reflects on that last sentence toward itself)
From 10:30-10:55 – Quite literally burst out laughing here
- I always love it when racists reveal themselves inadvertently. All of a sudden, this image of rational secularism has gone out of the window (well, it wasn’t really there in the beginning, but you get the idea): AIU has just comitted another logical fallacy of composition, by identifying islamic extremism with moderate muslims. “They’re barbaric because they’re barbaric!” Ahh, I see your powers of rational conjecture are hard at work here! No fundamentalism here, just simple facts. Muslims are barbarians because they’re simply barbarians. Haven’t you heard? Hitchens defended the Kurds, in Kosovo! Yes, a man said something that he later contradicted through his actions! We’ve never seen that done before! That’s uh, yet another fallacy of composition. If I say I don’t like ice cream today, to take your own childish example, and then later on in life, I am told to like ice cream. Will you quote me from years past to say that I said I don’t like ice cream and that it’s impossible for me to suddenly like it? If Hitchens DID sanctify violence against muslims, then he’s actually no better than the muslims themselves, and he IS practicing secular fundamentalism. That’s what fundamentalists do, they demonize the opposition so as to make killing them morally tolerable.
- That you cannot see this speaks to how badly you have turned in your critical faculties to the fundamentalists of the chuch of New Atheism. You call them barbaric and backwards. You do know Canada’s got plenty of muslims in its fold and in total, we’ve had two terrorist attacks since the beginning of ISIS’s rise to power. You know what we did as a reaction to this? We remained inclusive of muslims. We haven’t got any other terrorist attack since.
From 11:00 to 11:15
- “You’re saying we should treat them (muslims) the same way we treat girl scouts.” Oh, surely that’s what Chris said! I’m sure you aren’t putting words in his mouth and building yet another strawman! Yes, ISIS are terrible people, but for yet another fallacy of composition, what ISIS is doing is not representative of what muslims worldwide want to do. I mean, we’re singlehandedly repudiating at least one billion people here for the actions of ISIS. Do you not realize that this a lot of fucking people to just paint in one brush? Are you THAT certain that your powers of conjecture are that efficient, that you can look at just any muslim you cross on the street and say: Yep, he wants me dead?
From 11:30 to 12:52
- “You mean self-flagellation”, no he said “introspection”, which means being capable of critical thought. I think you have a problem with that, it seems.
- “We are the problem with the world.” – I don’t think he said that, I think all he’s saying is that America should do some introspection about who it considers to be terrorists and who it doesn’t. It’s widely documented that America likes to change its political views on who is and isn’t an ally on the turn of a dime. Saddam suffered from this policy twice, and the second, he was finally ejected from his throne. America had ties with him. He even went so far as to try to open diplomatic discourse before the first Gulf War (he had invaded neighboring Koweit), which America directly backhanded. There would be no negotiations. As a result, thousands died. You would say “Thousands more would have died if America hadn’t intervened!” Well, had Saddam been culled the way Iran was, probably not. Now you’ve got a government that is pro-US and a citizenship that is anti-american, in Iraq. They don’t like America, but they’ve become a client-state: All of its infrastructures are dependent on American enterprises. Oh sorry, you were trying to be a completely unreasonable intellectual, I’ll let you get back to that.
- “The world has always been horrible”, this is true, but that argument falls short for being historically accurate and completely misunderstanding geopolitics. What Chris is saying here is that with American meddling in international affairs (which is seen as the American way, and must not be questioned by “truly American” citizens – such goes the propaganda, at least the neoreactionary propaganda, as AIU likes to remind us) has made things worse, not better. But of course, it’s better to say that Muslims are just barbarians and this is just their culture. While yes, honor killings do happen in some circles of muslim culture, it doesn’t everywhere. Muslims, like most people on Earth, are diverse in their worldviews and interpretations of social cues. Learn to live with that – or don’t, I mean you’ve done a good job of being ignorant about other cultures all your life, it appears.
- Using the past to claim that what happened then isn’t the fault of America today is quite literally the worst point that’s been made thus far. I think you should probably spend more time reviewing your talking points before you put them on your video. Refer to my previous point about geopolitics and how American meddling has made things worse.
- I also like how you think these people who have gone to the same university as you don’t know these things. Like you’d expect them to watch your video and suddenly get a realization: “Oh shit, things have always been horrible, this man is right! Give him his Ph.D now!” Let me tell you something; if anything you said in your video was as ground breaking as to reveal the existence of cultural marxism, you WOULD get a honorary degree in sociology. You wanna know why no one has received such a honorary degree? Because cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory; it is not grounded in reality, it is a mere mirage that’s propagated by neoreactionaries who want to blame getting accused of racism on something other than their shitty personalities.
- 12:20 is AIU’s erection coming to life, and showing how much of a state fundamentalist he is. I’d have trouble seeing satire even if someone added the “America Fuck Yeah!” soundtrack in the back:”Sorry we’ve won all the wars” – actually, no. WW1 had American involvement, but it’s post-war propaganda that’s elevated a once peaceful American population to the level of belligerent freedom-seeking militaristic patriotism. America didn’t win the war, it helped win it. There’s a difference. Initially, Woodrow Wilson had been elected to avoid going to war. Yet, with the coming of the Creel Commission, no summit was too high for propaganda artists to make the people pro-war, all of a sudden. After that, everyone was of the opinion that America’s involvement had won the war. At least, for a generation. Before WW2, this had somewhat reversed, with people wanting to live in peace. Nobody wanted another bloodbath on the back of dead royalty or whatever other cause.
- This same propaganda was used to fuel pro-war sentiments toward Vietnam, Saddam, etc… When Bush used terms like “holy crusade”, he was using the state religion argument of spreading democracy out to the barbaric muslims, who needed none of it. The only people who try to paint this picture as greyer than it really is, are you and your fans.
- “Yes it makes mistakes but it also doesn’t make mistakes.” Wow! Pot meet kettle: You are on the same level of argumentation as fundamentalist Christians who explain everything that’s wrong with their beliefs with “God moves in mysterious ways!” I could literally cut brick with how sharply ironic this statement is, compared to what you said at the beginning of your video. There IS a doctrine for secularist fundamentalism, you are following it.
- “It does a lot of shit right all of the time.” Why yes, it sure does, but it does a lot more wrong lately than it does good, internationally. Barack Obama has tried to restore the less belligerent side of America back to life, but the Congress he had would not have any of it. Part of the reason why America does so many things wrong is it has no qualms with using macroeconomics to justify all sorts of neoreactionary ideas. Such as the ones you’ve spelled out in this video. “We’re not being racist, it’s just how the world is.” Give me a break. If you really believed all the things you said, you wouldn’t use such weak arguments. You had a president that was likely to make people start to have faith in America again, but with people like you attacking progressive ideas with such weakly constructed arguments – that still happen to convince your fanbase – and getting traction, it’s little wonder Trump is gaining traction himself. This sort of “Great America” delusion you live with is why Chris is speaking about Secularist Fundamentalism.
- Someone writing a lot of papers on a subject isn’t them being pointless, it’s them doing what they want to do for a living. You seem to dislike his work, sure, but you disliking it does not invalidate it. I’ll also add here that you’ve done a very poor job of debunking his work here, beyond saying he’s anti-american and boring. That’s not extremely compelling.
From 13:10-14:05 – More ad homs! Joy!
- I like it when self-proclaimed university graduates use childish antics as character assassination tactics. He’s making a very important point here, which you are obviously glossing over because you just don’t care.
- Oh yeah, he had a lisp here, so very important to point that out. I think if you wanted to use the UCLA and Berkely universities as a reason why you should be taken seriously, you’ve just invalidated that point.
From 15:00 to 15:20 – “Once more, onto the breach!”
- AIU demonstrates just how rational he is by sicking his fans onto the makers of this video, of which he has done zero debunking, save for being racist and needlessly patriotic. I mean, America’s won wars, so obviously it does shit right, right? “Rain fire”, that’s almost literally the same as wahabi muslim scholars telling their believers to go behead those who insult islam. You’re LITERALLY the same people. You cannot tolerate that someone insults America, so you send your equally unreasonable fans to go downvote a video you disagree with. That doesn’t seem to me like a person I’d want on a secular board. I’ll also mention that you just agreed with Christian right-wing conservatism here.
- And here, AIU shows another facet of his bias, by saying that Christians know what it is to be a muslim because they both share a faith that is similar. To a key, that’s the very FIRST thing in the entire video that you’ve said of substance. It took 15 minutes, but we arrived at the first point I can actually say has some kind of meat to its bone. It’s very true, both are abrahamic religions and share many traits, of which Islam is much more extremist, but you can find equally violent passages in the Bible as you do in the Qu’ran. Oh, forgot: Fallacy of composition.
From 16:10 to 16:56
- The irony, yet again here, is that you’re saying things fundamentalists of any ropes would say, and adding a burqa-wearing kanguru for effect. You’re shooting yourself in the foot and not realizing it.
- “We are better than them, Chris!” – Ah yes, you sure demonstrate that by acting so dishonestly toward a fellow intellectual. I can’t imagine how that debate would go. “I think that the U.S. Foreign policy…” – “STOP BEING ANTI AMERICAN!” – “But…” – “Jesus Christ, you bore me. Go have sex or something.” – “I didn’t even…” – “FUCK YOU, YOU CULTURAL MARXIST!”
- To reiterate what I just said here, AIU is exemplifying how fundamentalists treat fellow believers. Chris is most likely a secularist like AIU is, but he’s seeing signs of extremism even in that movement. A sociologist would agree that this is happening, considering how so many atheists who have read the great horsement of the atheist apocalypse react to any opinion that does not agree with these men, even academic papers! It’s not even “I doubt that what you say is true”, it literally jumps to: “You are the worst scum of the Earth and I wish you were killed.” Mr. Kanguru here would have no trouble identifying with brown shirts, who did the same thing with journalists who disagreed with Hitler. Yes, I invoked Godwin’s law, but considering how often AIU has pulled the morality card here, I had to at some point. This is textbook conservative reactionary talk from an American patriot.
- At one point here, AIU says that Chris Hedges is doing the apology of ISIS by saying people are being racist toward muslims. AIU’s response is to say that Islam is a death cult. Ah, yes… So many people being killed in Canada over islamic extremism. I just feel the terror. It’s like how these people can so easily deny things like rape culture, but then claim there’s a more endemic issue of religion in society, particularly of Islam, which threatens the fabric of the state. Oops, there goes that secular fundamentalism! Islam is a threat to the secular state, it must perish!
- Shaming people for playing the racist card is as efficient a wish as saying people should not be called anti-semitic for having anti-jew sentiments. Either be racist or not. The way you’ve painted muslims in your entire video, you are being racist. Your problem with being called one is your own, not anyone else’s.
From 17:07 to 17:35
- Yes, Chris hesitated on the words to say. That happens. Grow up. Doesn’t matter whether they cut it or not, the point of an interview sometimes is that we get everything that was said and in this case not. It’s not a problem with the video itself, it’s a problem with the interviewee. Lapses in speech aren’t an issue, so long as the message gets across. IF you can’t be an adult to the adults’ table, then go sit in the corner and watch your favorite SJW cringe compilation.
- Ad homs once more, about Chris writing books on U.S. Foreign Policy, which Annoyed Inbred Urchin reminds us can be summed up to “Fuck America!”. Because obviously, anyone who doesn’t like America is wrong, because reasons!
From 18:15 to 19:22
- Oh sure, you aren’t a secular fundamentalist, but you’re saying people without a God ARE superior to those who are. Let me rephrase that: Those who believe in Allah are superior to those who do not. Those who believe in Yahweh are superior to those who do not. Do you NOT see the reality as you speak it with your own mouth? This is fundamentalism at its core; and Chris just literally expressed that fact seconds ago! You do not bat an eye as you express this secularist supremacy in front of your audience!
- At 18:30, AIU is listing a bunch of things he basically believes nothing of, considering he doesn’t believe those who believe in religion have any idea what those things are. Also, considering he’s participated in the video of SJWs, as being basically all the social justice movements, namely those that want to end racism and sexism… He’s literally being hypocrite. These are values he does not share with the secularists.
- “Those values are superior and these values are worth fighting for!” – Literally the same thing fundamentalists say about their religion. The only reason you think you’re superior is because your belief is different than theirs and supposedly supported by science. Newsflash: that specific part of your belief isn’t.
- So for a whole minute again, ad hominems and nothing of substance to speak of. No, your moral values are not better because you have no God, they are better because you have come to the realization that women are human beings on your own, without the help of a deity. That’s a compelling argument! There are Christian feminists. Are you saying they somehow suck even though they recognize women’s rights? There are also muslim feminists, are they somehow not believing in God anymore because they also take to secular values? See, your argument falls short on all levels, because other people can have secular values, not just atheists.
- “Mirror image?! No Chris, we are the exact opposite!” I don’t think you’ve made a very convincing argument for that so far, and the video is ending. What’s there to say? Fundamentally speaking, you exhibit all the traits of a religiously indoctrinated theist. You are unable to resolve that your belief could be wrong, you are unable to resolve that the state which your belief originates in could be held accountable for certain crimes, and you are unable to resolve that someone might be right about all the things you revile. That’s essentially fundamentalism, and it’s no wonder Chris Hedges came to the conclusion that you and the conservative christians share commonalities.
From 19:25 to 20:24
- Ah, so you ARE for gay rights? Why are you calling what the gay rights movements stand for regressive? I’m having trouble understanding where you think you can situate yourself. Across this video you’ve done nothing but identify those who believe in God as being weak-minded individuals of whom you are their superior. You don’t like moral relativism? Too bad, that’s how you can get to understand the world. There are gay people who believe in God, therefore are they inferior to you? I mean, your double-talk here serves to highlight two things:
- Either you don’t realize that you’re being racist, and are saying these things with no prior knowledge of what muslims are like.
- Or you really want all theistic individuals to be eliminated from this Earth off the misguided notion that a belief in God is by extension an intellectual inferiority. If such were the case, I think we’d have this diagnosed in mental illnesses. No, a belief in God is a very human reaction to the fatality of life. Some people cope with working until they die, others have a hobby, others believe in deities. To each their own.
Yes, there are bad people out there who are muslims and will kill unbelievers like yourself, but to the point where you think there’s an “us and them” situation where Muslims are in the “them” category, and not just ISIS, I think you need to seriously re-evaluate where your so-called secularist values stand. Most people in the secularist areas of the world understand this, it should be about time you do too.
Your upstairs neighbor
P.S. Do try to keep it down when you’re doing your elections, they tend to take over our media.