Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Acleron
You cannot be welcoming to people who do not argue with us and also be welcoming to people who argue with us. They choose only non-arguers.

Ah, I see how reasonable and inclusive they are.

Textbook straw man fallacy.

The New Atheism + by Richard Carrier

1. We believe in being reasonable. This means, first, that we believe in being logical and rational in forming beliefs and opinions. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument and, when shown that they have, does not admit it, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

So paraphrasing one of the new prophets is a strawman?

 

[lopeyschools]

I am a she, you misogynist pig!

ETA: And a non-white one for bonus points!

Alas, I let my privlege show! I apologize.

 

[The Big Dog]

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to people we accuse of being misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals we accuse of being opposed to inclusivity.

 

[Humes fork]

What's the whole point with atheism plus? It seems they use atheism as a vehicle for their political agenda more than anything else. Why simply not sign up for the political groups that already advocate their political positions?

I remember Internet atheism back in the days. It was Internet Infidels, Harris, Dawkins, Freethought Mecca, and mocking of religion as well as scholarly critiques of it from scientific, philosophical, moral, and historical points of view. That was fun. Very different from the FTB nonsense.

The atheist=liberal moniker is false. Libertarians are if I'm not mistaken one of the least religious political demographics. It would be absurd not to cooperate with them on issues like secularism.

Dillahunty is firmly in the Skepchick/FTB camp.

That's too bad.

 

[Acleron]

What's the whole point with atheism plus? It seems they use atheism as a vehicle for their political agenda more than anything else. Why simply not sign up for the political groups that already advocate their political positions?

I remember Internet atheism back in the days. It was Internet Infidels, Harris, Dawkins, Freethought Mecca, and mocking of religion as well as scholarly critiques of it from scientific, philosophical, moral, and historical points of view. That was fun. Very different from the FTB nonsense.

The atheist=liberal moniker is false. Libertarians are if I'm not mistaken one of the least religious political demographics. It would be absurd not to cooperate with them on issues like secularism.



That's too bad.

Yes, it was fun, enlightening to easily see others with views and experiences similar to my own and vastly educational.

What I particularly like about the writings of Dawkins is that whether he is writing on religion, atheism or evolution he always hopes to persuade the reader of his point of view. Atheism+ appears to want to tell you what you should accept. I've reacted badly to that attitude the whole of my life and I'm not going to change now.

 

[franklinveaux]

Really? You and I have been on different forums, then. Ever go to Xbox Live? Sure, women recieve more than their fair share, but men aren't exactly immune to it, nor is it rare by any means (I'd go so far as to say that it's the major form of communication, in fact). It's just that in our culture what counts as a rape threat when directed towards a woman counts as nothing more than harmless banter when thrown at men.

You know, I've been on the Internet since it was called the Arpanet, and before that, on bulletin board systems extending all the way back to CBBS Chicago. In that time, I've received countless death threats (including one that had a photograph of me attached to my street address, sent by a spammer named Art Schwartz), threats to burn down my house, and even, once, a threat against my cat.

But I've never been threatened with rape.

On the other hand, one of my girlfriends is a vocal atheist who receives rape threats almost on a daily basis.All she has to do is...well, is open her email inbox, really.

Now, I can't speak to the Xbox Live forums; I've never been there. Maybe the Xbox community simply breeds an exceptional strain of ********, I don't know. But if you're maintaining that men and women both receive such threats in roughly equal amounts, that absolutely isn't my experience.

And again, if we lived in a world where 17% or so of all the men who ever received death threats were murdered, well, we might be inclined to take them a bit more seriously, don't you think?

If you examine what's said, rather than the reaction to it, you'll find that jackasses are jackasses no matter their audience. It's our culture, not the speaker, that treats genders differently.

Like I said, that hasn't been my experience.

Maybe. In this context, so what? I don't mean that we shouldn't fight for more gender equality--rather, I mean that this is utterly beside the point. The point is that Atheism+ (or at least spokespeaple of the group) is arguing that all non-members are guilty of discrimination and sexism, merely by virtue of being non-members.

That certainly would be a strange claim to make. If someone made such a claim in front of me, I'd disagree with it quite strongly...that is, if I didn't simply laugh and walk away.

I haven't seen much about the Atheism + community, so I don't know if that is actually the claim they make or a straw man representation of it. If it is the claim they make, then it's ridiculous on the face of it--so ridiculous, in fact, that it's barely even worthy of a response.

That's really the heart of my view on gender and race equality. To make the races and genders equal you IGNORE THEM.

That works, except when it doesn't. If you live in a society whose structures and institutions provide an advantage to some groups and disadvantages other groups, ignoring it does not make it go away.

The problem with privilege is that it is invisible to the folks who have it.

So, re privilege, I'm left where I started. Sure, there is such a thing and it has real effects. And if I make an argument that is invalid because of my privilege, I would expect and invite a refutation that includes an explanation of what my privilege has caused me to get wrong. (Go ahead and talk about the privilege if you wish, but the actual reason I'm wrong will be of more interest to me.) On the other hand, saying I'm wrong because of my privilege, without such an argument, is fallacious.

Agreed without reservation.

The conversation about privilege and social advantage is necessary only as a starting point to a conversation, because of its tendency to be invisible to those who have it; "this affects me more than it affects you because you are blessed to belong to a group that doesn't have to deal with these particular issues" is often part of the 'actual reason that you're wrong' bit.

On the other hand, using it as a silencing tactic--"You are privileged and therefore what you say is invalid"--is beyond silly; it's actually detrimental.

Can we just clarify what you are saying:

1. Almost all (not a few, not some, not even many but almost all) women internet users who use an internet forum receive rape threats online?

2. A significant percentage of those women who receive online rape threats actually go on to be raped by their threatener? You are not clear on what number goes here as you quote an unrelated statistic - do you have a figure in mind, did you mean to imply 17%?

Ah, no that's not actually what I'm saying, though I see how you arrived there. Let me try to clarify:

1. Almost all women Internet users who regularly blog or write about emotionally charged, controversial topics--religion, abortion, atheism, and so on--are quite likely to receive rape threats at some point in their writing. The more prominent they are and the more controversial the topics they write about, the more often this happens.

2. A significant percentage of women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Not as a result of what they say online, or (necessarily) by the folks who threaten them online; it's simply a sad matter of course that women are sexually assaulted in numbers that, if it were any other crime, would be quite jaw-dropping.

The connection between the two is that many men seem to trivialize or dismiss the idea of posting rape threats online; if men had to deal with murder on at the rate that women had to deal with rape, it might be possible that men might deal with death threats as seriously as women take rape threats.

I happen to think that your description of privilege makes a certain amount of sense however when trying to educate myself on the issues I have discovered that there is no such thing as female privilege in any context. What you're discussing there is actually benevolent sexism http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress....ale-privilege/

I think, if I squint hard enough, I can kind of get where the author of that piece is trying to go with the notion of 'benevolent sexism,' but it also seems to me that the argument runs off the rails pretty quickly. It might be possible to argue that exemption from the draft is sexism rather than privilege, in that it is actually a constraint on women's freedom of action (women who WANT to serve in combat units aren't permitted to), but it's really, really, really hard to make a case that the legal system does not, in fact, privilege women.

The atheist=liberal moniker is false. Libertarians are if I'm not mistaken one of the least religious political demographics. It would be absurd not to cooperate with them on issues like secularism.

Well, kind of. In the US at least, social conservatives do tend overwhelmingly to be highly religious, and to claim a religious justification for their beliefs. Some of these people--including, it must be said, some people in political office--even go so far as to advocate for a theocratic government in the US. So it's tough to be atheist and also see eye-to-eye with those folks; particularly given that atheists are often used as generic 'evil people we are against' monsters in their rhetoric. See, for example, George H.R. Bush's famous comment on the notion that atheists should not be citizens.

There's more than one kind of 'liberal' and more than one kind of 'conservative.' In my experience, Libertarians don't fit neatly into the liberal OR conservative camps in US politics, as they tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

 

[westprog]

I think, if I squint hard enough, I can kind of get where the author of that piece is trying to go with the notion of 'benevolent sexism,' but it also seems to me that the argument runs off the rails pretty quickly. It might be possible to argue that exemption from the draft is sexism rather than privilege, in that it is actually a constraint on women's freedom of action (women who WANT to serve in combat units aren't permitted to), but it's really, really, really hard to make a case that the legal system does not, in fact, privilege women.

I think there's an underlying assumption that

• The system is run by the patriarchy
• The patriarchy are men
• Therefore the powerful assign privilege to those like themselves
• The men in charge will favour men over women
• When they don't, they are doing so really, in an exercise of power

However, even if we accept that the people running everything are rich old white men, it's quite obviously not true that they will set up society to favour poor young black men over their own wives and daughters. So when the draft is set up for 'nam, the young black men bear the brunt.

That's not to say that the young black men don't also benefit from male privilege. They still get the same advantages that apply to men in general. However, I don't see how the way the power structures capriciously favour one group in one way and another group in another can be reasonably divided into privilege on one side and benevolent sexism on the other. There is no monolithic male consensus.

The racial analysis that presupposes that because white people are in charge that they will structure society to favour white people has considerable merit, though it might be an oversimplification. However, in the case of gender discrimination that model simply doesn't apply. From 1914 to 1918 there were ditches dug across France, which were filled up with young men, who were then killed. That's not privilege.

 

[westprog]

Well, kind of. In the US at least, social conservatives do tend overwhelmingly to be highly religious, and to claim a religious justification for their beliefs. Some of these people--including, it must be said, some people in political office--even go so far as to advocate for a theocratic government in the US. So it's tough to be atheist and also see eye-to-eye with those folks; particularly given that atheists are often used as generic 'evil people we are against' monsters in their rhetoric. See, for example, George H.R. Bush's famous comment on the notion that atheists should not be citizens.

There's more than one kind of 'liberal' and more than one kind of 'conservative.' In my experience, Libertarians don't fit neatly into the liberal OR conservative camps in US politics, as they tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

This doesn't apply in other countries, however. In the UK, the churches are probably economically left of centre, insofar as they have a position. Tony Blair was a vaguely religious leader. Cameron somewhat less so.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.

So, how do they filter out these undesirables? Serious question. Is there a form you get that says stuff like "Are you a misogynist? Y/N"? Or, after you've shown your "true colors", they declare you a misogynist and excommunicate you?

(I guess what happened to Thunderf00t is a good indication of how this would be handled. After excommunication, they'd write nasty blog posts about you for weeks afterward!)

 

[WillyWonka]

This doesn't apply in other countries, however. In the UK, the churches are probably economically left of centre, insofar as they have a position. Tony Blair was a vaguely religious leader. Cameron somewhat less so.

In Canada, most churches are aligned with with unions and social organizations. The most leftist party is lead by Elizabeth May, an ordained church minister. Nobody cares what religion the prime minister is, or if he goes to church.

 

[westprog]

So, how do they filter out these undesirables? Serious question. Is there a form you get that says stuff like "Are you a misogynist? Y/N"? Or, after you've shown your "true colors", they declare you a misogynist and excommunicate you?

(I guess what happened to Thunderf00t is a good indication of how this would be handled. After excommunication, they'd write nasty blog posts about you for weeks afterward!)

The strategy seems to be for everyone to be wound up to such a hysterical pitch that the racism and misogyny comes seeping out.

 

[jt512]

Right, so in the Venn diagram, those in the overlapping area are:

a) Women
b) Pancakes

You see, you set up your post I originally responded to as if there were no overlap.

No, you just assumed that there was no overlap.

Your statement, "you can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists" fails if one is indeed a female misogynist and is not welcomed, because then the groups is clearly not choosing "women" as a class, just non-misogynists.

Your conclusion is wrong and your argument is silly, but I'll play along for another round. Clearly, if we exclude misogynists, then women who are not misogynists are welcomed, which does not contradict my original claim.

 

[Hokulele]

Your conclusion is wrong and your argument is silly, but I'll play along for another round. Clearly, if we exclude misogynists, then women who are not misogynists are welcomed, which does not contradict my original claim.

My bolding. That is exactly my point. That group isn't welcoming to women (your claim), they are welcoming to non-misogynists. The fact that they also happen to be women has nothing to do with their welcome.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My bolding. That is exactly my point. That group isn't welcoming to women (your claim), they are welcoming to non-misogynists. The fact that they also happen to be women has nothing to do with their welcome.

Plus the fact that they've redefined the term "misogynists" to mean anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the FTBullies. Which is pretty much why they're the laughing stock of Skepticism right now.

 

[rustypouch]

Plus the fact that they've redefined the term "misogynists" to mean anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the FTBullies. Which is pretty much why they're the laughing stock of Skepticism right now.

Yep. From what I've seen from them and FTB, often when someone mentions that things aren't perfect for men and there are some areas where they're lagging and could use some help, there's calls of misogyny and sarcastic 'think of teh poor menz' posts.

 

[dasmiller]

I'm in a model airplane club, and until recently, we had about 200 members and we'd welcome pretty much anyone.

But then we realized the truth about inclusiveness, and we knew that if we were going to grow the club, we'd have to be more selective.

We couldn't be welcoming to Democrats and also be welcoming to Republicans.

We couldn't be welcoming to Catholics and also be welcoming to Protestants.

We couldn't be welcoming to those who support abortion rights and also be welcoming to those who feel that abortion is murder.

We couldn't be welcoming to Big Ten fans and also be welcoming to Pac-10 fans.

And so on.

We've had to split the club, of course, because it turns out that 'inclusivity' requires a lot more uniformity than our club originally had.

At last count, the original 200 members had split into 143 clubs, though we suspect that a few of the larger clubs have been acting conciliatory in order to pump up their numbers (I'm looking at you, pro-Israel/anyone-in-the-ACC-except-Miami/Hiroshima-was-a-mistake/MSN/non-Vegetarian/anti-High-Speed-Rail/non-Birther/Nikon/Less-filling Valley Flyers. 5 members? Shyeah, right).

My particular club, which I consider to be the 'real' club, has 2 members, though Bob mentioned that he might be buying a Mustang, and you know what Ford's environmental record has been, so one more split may be needed.

So empowering, this inclusiveness! I can only imagine what we'll be able to accomplish now that we're not encumbered by the other 198 people.

Or the other 199, if Bob buys that Mustang.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I know there is a Christian saying that goes like this, but I don't know my divisions that well, so we will go with this version:

One day a priest goes on a stroll. While crossing a bridge, they notice a person clinging on for dear life. They rush up and grab their hand. The person exclaims "Oh, thank Buddha!"

"Ah, you are a Buddhist as well? Mahayana or Theravada?"

"Mahayana."

"Me as well!"

"Are you Japanese, or mainland?"

"Japanese."

"So am I! Are you Pure Land, or Zen?"

"Zen."

"Me too!"

"Are you Soto, or Rinzai?"

"Rinzai."

"Die scum!" And with that, the priest let them fall.

 

[bpesta22]

Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.

This seems to be the fallacy of excluded middle. Some (many?) reasonable feminists disagree with A+'s version of feminism. Does this therefore make them misogynist?

I think the whole reason some people are smacking heads on desks over A+ is that topics like feminism (much like politics) are nuanced / not black and white such that skeptical thinking alone dictates which of the many sides are correct. Worse, disagreement with their brand immediately makes you a douche-bag women hater. It's very fundie-like in my perception.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I wonder how he reconciles his preference for the term "douchebag" with his strident feminism, but not enough to read more of his stuff.

I remember reading somewhere (FtB?) that some feminists defend using the term "douchebag", because they consider douching unhealthy, and (perhaps more importantly) it's an insult that's always used against a certain type of man (never a woman). If you do a search for douchebag feminism, there are actually quite a few articles on this topic. I think this one is fairly representative:

Unlike a lot of other common insults...“douchebag” actually insults something that deserves to be insulted. Douching is terrible for women; it can lead to infection and irritation. Even teen magazines will tell you this! Douches exist only because women have been told that our bodies are unclean. Douches, and the bags that reportedly accompany them, are terrible, no-good products. Insulting douches doesn’t insult women — the existence of douches insults women.

 

[jt512]

My bolding. That is exactly my point. That group isn't welcoming to women (your claim), they are welcoming to non-misogynists. The fact that they also happen to be women has nothing to do with their welcome.

Please go take a class in formal logic.