Slashdot Mirror
USPS Discriminates Against 'Atheist' Merchandise
fish waffle writes "Suspecting that their strongly branded 'Atheist' products may be treated differently by more religiously-oriented postal regions, Kickstarter success Atheist Shoes conducted an experiment. They sent 178 packages to 89 people in different parts of the U.S., each person receiving one package prominently branded as 'Atheist' merchandise, and one not. The results: packages with the atheist label were nearly 10 times more likely to be 'lost,' and took on average 3 days longer to show up when they did. Control experiments were also done in Europe and Germany — it's definitely a USPS problem."
What the hell is an atheist product? Practically everything is an atheist product.
is it an act of god if it's an act by a god warrior?
(technically I suppose it is, since everything is if you're into that kind of thinking).
makes those losing the packages pretty lousy christians though. USPS should run a sting on them.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Their experiment is not correllation/causation.
They have identified something which is painfully obvious. The samples in this experiment are large enough to prove that the atheist branding has affect on the delivery and that it only happens like this in the US.
This detail difference is a strong indicator as to the motivations behind what is going on. In short, "unprofessional behavior." With all the troubles the USPS is having, these professionals should be more concerned about delivering value in the service they provide. Instead, the political affiliations (religion is politics, don't kid yourself) of participants entrusted with delivery are affecting how well they do their jobs.
When they are at home or in their groups, let them say and think whatever they want. Let them march and protest and hold up signs expressing themselves. But when they are out there delivering things? Now they are interfering with commerce. Sorry, hommies, but government doesn't play dat.
Sorry, hommies, but government doesn't play dat.
I'm thinking that results of the experiment disagree with you.
I once did an internship for a company that shipped second hand business (=expensive) computer hardware on pallets.
Depending on which delivery service they used (I won't name the company), the products were either wrapped in clear foil or more expensive black foil.
Apparently, if they didn't wrap it in black foil, the chances of the pallet being lost increased significantly.
More on topic; as somebody pointed out on that shoe-company site; postal services are supposed to look for suspiciously marked packages. A package heavily marked "Atheist" might be considered a be a bit suspicious, especially in the US where the issue of religion seems to be a bit more polarized anyway. Screaming a (non-)religious opinion where non it expected does generally make one stand out from the crowd.
They should have included packages marked "Muslim", "Christian", "Neo-nazi" and "Non-religious", but I doubt the shoe-company would have ended up with the same amount of free advertising.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I noticed the same comment and it struck me as incredibly stupid.
USA post offices look for abnormal packages. Most drugs are sent in unusual packages so they are opened searched and resealed. If the tape said "GOD'S LAST STAND!" or "HAIL MARY!" you would have seen the same problem. One of those would have made for a better control.
I have my doubts about the drug thing. Why would people send their drugs in packages that look suspicious? Of course, if the post office only searches suspicious packages, all the drugs they'll find will be in suspicious packages, so mabye they feel like they are on the right track...
Now just because it is stupid, does not mean it can't be a real post office guideline.
Large samples? 1 non-branded and 9 branded articles went missing. That's not a huge number of cases to examine. The "3 days longer" statistic seems to be massively skewed by a single non-representative parcel that took 37 days later than its counterpart
I would suggest that you take a relevant course in statistics. It is pretty obvious that you are rambling and reasoning without any understanding of the topic.
And even if their statistics were correct
The linked report clearly states the statistical methods they used and the results. If you want to criticize, just point out the incorrect statistical test and why it is not suitable in this situation, or why their conclusions are wrong. If you can't do that, you have no basis saying that their statistics are incorrect.
all they have demonstrated is that branded parcels took longer than unbranded
No. They have demonstrated that Atheist branded parcels took longer than unbranded parcels.
It certainly is a lovely fantasy to believe that the US media would ever shine light on discrimination against atheists, but one should generally try to stay a bit more in touch with reality.
Most athiests are worse than christians about preaching their beliefs at any cost.
No. Most christians are. Or most insert least favourite ideology here.
It all boils down to confirmation bias. If a christian tells you he was in church on Sunday, you don't call it preaching. If an atheist tells you, he wasn't, it was preaching to you. If someone doesn't even mention where he was on Sunday, you just assume he's christian and not talking about his beliefs.
That assumes that each individual package was independent and random.
A single unlucky or freak event could affect multiple samples (for example if a sack holding 6 atheist packages gets lost or damaged).
To use a classic example. I could carry out a survey for people's favourite dog and have 99 out of 100 say poodle. If you assumed it to be truly random, the chances of that not indicating that American is a nation of poodle lovers is astronomical. However what if I then revealed that all these people had been asked in the same morning at the national poodle lovers convention? Would my survey still be nailed on? Even if I went to great lengths to randomly pick random attendees?
And now we wonder why the US is becoming eerily similar to Nazi Germany.
Because of christainity. III Reich was christian to the bone. And nazi murderers had "Gott mit Uns" on their belt buckles.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
"If someone doesn't even mention where he was on Sunday, you just assume he's christian and not talking about his beliefs."
Only if you are talking about Americans. Where I live, people go to church... when someone dies, maybe for weddings, but rarely, and sometimes for Xmas. If people don't tell where they went on Sunday... I have no idea what they did. Best guess would be: stayed at home (not necessarily their own home though) with hangover.
Two packages sent on the same day, and under normal conditions expected to arrive on the same day. Exactly which weather conditions and other natural causes are you thinking of that could make one of them arrive days later than the other?
One side of the road was slippery, so the half of the USPS van carrying of of the packages hit a tree, while the half of the same van carrying the other package continued?
The fact that the difference is significantly less than it was 200 years ago suggests that Christianity might not be entirely genetic.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I would believe it if it were done by an impartial third party with a good reputation for professional survey taking, such as J.D. Power & Associates.
Oh this one was done by Atheist Shoes themselves? Nevermind.
Logical fallacy, appeal to authority. If you have a particular problem with the statistical methods involved, which are described in the article, you should raise that issue. But your comment as it stands is utterly without merit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, atheists are far worse. A secular person tells me they were at church, I say to myself "and I care why?" But man, how atheists go on and on and on and on and on.... about how stupid it is to believe in god. At least the secular people mention it in passing and move on.
They don't always act that way. On either side of the camp. I know (and live with) atheists who really don't care what you choose to believe, as long as you're not foisting it on everybody around you. I also know of several Christian groups who see it as their calling to evangelize to the world. Hint: they have the word "evangelical" in their name....
In my own belief structure, teaching that kind of knowledge to somebody who hasn't come to you seeking it is one of the worst things you can do to a person. I will not state whether I believe in a god, many gods, or none at all, but perhaps that belief about evangelism is something we can all take to heart?
Your kids will be atheist because of the over bearing ignorant parents. Werent people more religious a generation ago?
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi
I object. Don't call atheism a type of religion.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Seriously? Christian fundamentalist freak out that 2/3 of their kids don't go to church after they leave home, the fraction of "nones" among young people keeps climbing, and books describing the virtues of atheism are on bestseller lists.
Sure, religious people tend to breed more, but just like with anti-gay sentiment, the moment those kids hit the real world (with all of those "other" ideas) they start questioning their beliefs, mostly become more moderate, and a bunch of them drop it all together.
The only point in time when you are stumbling on atheists being different than you is when an atheist actually tells you that he thinks differently than you. Some people are disturbed by this and then call the atheist obnoxious and noisy.
You sound like you're excusing the fundies' behavior and blaming the victim. If that's not your intent, reconsider how you communicate.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
You're overplaying the occult aspects, I think. The majority of the NSDAP platform was always about appealing to conservative Christian sentiment, a strategy that worked so well because of the cultural memory of the Holy Roman Empire. With the exception of Wewelsburg Castle, which was really more Himmler's fetish than Hitler's, most of the pagan cultural symbology employed by the Nazis was either already adopted by the Christians in the region, or could be interpreted as a means of further strengthening the German cultural identity. It's not that much different from the BNP invoking mediaeval English lore or Confederate separatists in the US invoking the KKK. Otherwise, it wouldn't have worked as well as it did.
It's probably also worth mentioning that Nietzsche's philosophies were (a) so misunderstood by popular culture that by the time Hitler used them it was in direct contradiction of some of his objectives, (b) mostly about self-actualisation and fulfilment, despite using 'Master' and 'Slave' terminology, and (c) only prone to mentioning paganism as a literary crutch, the same way we might casually reference Cupid when talking about Valentine's day. Nietzsche explicitly damns polytheism in The Gay Science, pointing out how convenient it is to blame any impulse on a god.
I get the feeling you watch a lot of the History Channel. Stop doing that.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
If I require evidence, then it's not really a belief is it? An agnostic would use the lack of evidence to say that they can't decide whether or not god(s) exist, whereas I think it's foolish to believe in invisible pink unicorns when there is zero evidence (also applies to god(s)).
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to fully dissect your argument as it just boils down to semantic trickery. Not believing in something is not the same as believing in not-something.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Actually, I think a fundamental tenet of agnosticism is not giving a fuck. There are a whole lot of belief systems out there, and just about any of them can be interpreted in a way that doesn't conflict with our currently understood observable view of the universe. Could some higher intelligence have set the machinations of the universe in motion? Sure why not, the universe exists after all - so there's some modicum of evidence. Does it mean I'm going to worship them and give thanks for my breakfast cereal? No, not really. Does it impact my life if somebody else wants to thank a hypothetical supreme being for gifting them their cheerios? Not in the least. Hell, I'll even join them if they're dining with me - thank you O Great General Mills for this feast upon which we dine - etcetc. It does me no harm, and provided they know where I stand on the matter it helps me keep good relationships.
You aren't going to turn somebody away from their beliefs by calling them foolish and marginalizing them. All you'll manage to do is keep them from working with you in areas where you could have had common ground.
On the bright side, I do love the irony of athiests letting themselves get drawn into a holy war...
+1 Disagree