This was quoted by another elsewhere, so I’ve posted it here so others may read it. Some context may be lost.
” Regading your two statements,
“But the snarking thread is the perfect example of how they completely misread comments and then make them into something [with which] they can take issue…”
“Not necessarily that they mindfully create these mischaracterizations of us and our beliefs/lives/etc but that they have an end (wanting to save us/condemn us) and they need to find the catalyst.”
“I’m of the atheist variety of “Red Pill,” and post D/s. As a result, I move in several atheist liberal circles. After some two-plus years deeply involved with the local atheists, I’ve concluded that the “snark” you witness is more often motivated by COMPLETE COMPREHENSION OF RED PILL and not anything resembling ignorance. Such people “get it” right down to their bones, but they are opposed because it challenges their ability to take from others according to whatever base desires presently motivate them. A woman who bleeds her ex-husband for alimony and child support and games the legal system by keeping a man “around” but eschewing a legal commitment isn’t ignorant. She’s knows exactly what she’s doing. Men like Hugo Schwyzer aren’t clueless, or even self-deceived; they know the score minute-to-minute and are taking care to cheat their way into their personal success at the expense of others.
“I have taken to assuming that most local atheists I meet are “the enemy,” or, in rare cases, feminist witches (male or female) feigning atheist opinions, and I’m allowing only a little mental room to ascertain whether such persons I meet are the rare exception. I recommend you do likewise among the “trolls” and others you encounter.”