Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really don't like that Atheism+ gets compared to the Brights. The Brights may have failed, but their attempt was at uniting the disparate labels - skeptics, atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers and so on. It was an effort at unity for disparate but overlapping (and sometimes synonymous) groups and labels. Atheism+ is about kicking people out. It's about the declaring those not belonging to them as douchebags. Yes, really.
 
Atheism+ is about kicking people out. It's about the declaring those not belonging to them as douchebags. Yes, really.

Those comments are a gold mine. I really love the logic in this one:

Richard Carrier said:
This is the sequence of events:

I explain Atheism+ means being an atheist who is against sexism and racism and endorses the values of reasonableness, compassion, and integrity.

I conclude by asking “are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?”

Tom states they pick option B.

I point out that this makes them a douchebag.

Identify where at any point I am wrong.
 
@Humes Fork - my allusion to the 'Brights' movement was simply that it was a branding/labelling effort that failed, and I hope this '+' nonsense dies a quick death as well. (Although I fear it will not.) I wasn't implying that the 'Brights' movement (I was one of those for a while, begrudgingly) was as dark or insidious as this baloney.
 
Atheism+ will probably be around for awhile. I don't see it becoming a significant figurehead or anything. Just another group in what has become a sea of atheist groups.
 
Those comments are a gold mine. I really love the logic in this one:

Richard Carrier said:
This is the sequence of events:

I explain Atheism+ means being an atheist who is against sexism and racism and endorses the values of reasonableness, compassion, and integrity.

I conclude by asking “are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?”
Tom states they pick option B.

I point out that this makes them a douchebag.

Identify where at any point I am wrong.

:eye-poppi

"Identify where at any point I am wrong"? Seriously?


Yeah, like that false dilemma (aka ignoratio planet X) was very difficult to spot... :rolleyes:

This reminds me of politics. Well, it's politics.
 
:eye-poppi

"Identify where at any point I am wrong"? Seriously?


Yeah, like that false dilemma (aka ignoratio planet X) was very difficult to spot... :rolleyes:

This reminds me of politics. Well, it's politics.

This would be my dilemma - I'm against sexism and for integrity and compassion - but on the other hand, I'm racist and unreasonable. I'd like to stick with Atheism less for the irrationality, but I'm a bit put off by the sexism and cruelty. Oh, and I'm not an atheist.
 
If you're interested there is a transcript of the recent discussion between PZ, McReight, Watson, Brownian and a couple of others.

https://a-plus-scribe.com/doku.php?id=transcriptions:aug_26_pz_myers

I still check Pharyngula regularly, I just avoid posts about politics and gender.

Just finished reading it. These are the parts that caught my eye, they are not the complete text but I haven't tried to quote-mine, if anybody thinks I have, please say so.

PZ sets the scene with the first words of the conversation
Talk about the evils of skepticism and atheism – a weird thing for me to say – and we’ll talk about the good things about atheism and skepticism too.

Next non-phatic text from PZ
Okay, well, we actually initially were going to talk about the problems with skepticism – that’s a suggestion that Brownian and Louis gave to me – and then this atheism+ thing blew up all of a sudden so we’re kind of adding it on there, but why don’t we start with Brownian. You can tell us what you were thinking when you were complaining about skepticism. How could you complain about the skeptics' movement?

Pretty negative so far

Louis
So I don't really feel like ceding ground to the misogynists. I don't really feel like ceding ground to the homophobes and the racists, and the privileged white dudes who think that, you know, being skeptical of Nessie is somehow good, good enough.

And so now you have to be up to their skeptical standards to be good enough.

Jen McCreight
And it's just, the whole culture just seems ridiculous. That there is this brigade of atheists that say what you can and can't talk about. It's like,we're not forcing you to talk about this if you don't care, but we can't even have a safe place to do it on our own. So honestly right now I'm pretty cynical about the whole thing. I don't know, like,what else I can do to have a community where I can talk about this thing. I don't know if I want to keep putting my time and effort and tears into this atheist movement if I can't even talk about topics that interest me because a swarm of people are going to come down and silence me!

So they want to do it on their own, but choose a public arena open to anyone to do it in.

Rebecca
And Jen, you know, you're right in that you won't ever be able to get away from them in a way that will leave you completely protected from the ********. The best you can do is, you know, if you're running a forum, is just to, very strict moderation, who gets in, who gets to stay. You know, utilize the 'block' button on Twitter, utilize the FBI when necessary. You know, no matter what label you apply to yourself and no matter what subculture you get involved in, I think you're going to find either, you know, either these people coming from within, or without.

I find that quite sensible, could almost be copied from the moderation rules on this forum.

PZ
Yes, we're the people who think that social justice is an important part of atheism, just as many other people have said that science is an important part of atheism.
But there is nothing in atheism that says you have to believe in social justice or be a scientist, that comes from other considerations and theists can support social justice as well as be scientists.

Jen McCreight
I don't know, maybe. And then I just give up. I don't know, it just drives me crazy! If we want to go start this thing, and talk about a particular topic, you are free not to participate. And, you know, let the best idea win, in the grand scheme of ideas. If we flourish because we actually accept diversity and realize that it's something you need to care about if you want your movement to grow, then that's fine. If you want to not care about diversity, fine! See how you do, years from now, when you're known as the group of people who only want old white men, and we actually accept everyone into our ranks. It just boggles my mind that people are so angry about it. Just so, so anti-diversity!

I think they will have to modify their ideas if they want to attract diversity. I'm old and white and male so I'm certainly not included. And I wonder if PZ realises in a few years he will be an old white man.

Rebecca
Well you know but it's important to remember that there are also women who have hung out in these communities who have never experienced, who would say that they've never experienced sexism. That's not to say I'm implying that they're lying, more that I think that there are a lot of things that are part of a misogynist culture or milieu that would go by unnoticed by most women. They went unnoticed by me for most of my twenties. I just thought that was the way life is, I get my ass slapped every now and again and everybody's happy.
So there you have it. If you haven't suffered mysogyny or worse from atheists/skeptics then it's your fault for not noticing. If you exclude all those who didn't notice then you can claim that everyone suffers and the problem is absolutely rampant.

PZ reads out a comment from a viewer
It is kind of stupid. But it really gets to a point that I think is worth talking about. That – why are people so angry about Atheism+? And it says “You absolutely disgust me, the notion that I don’t support diversity, care about tolerance, because I don’t want to be part of your clique. That is why people are angry”. This is from ollie501.

Now the replies from the panel
Louis: I don’t think that.
PZ Myers: Do you see –
Rebecca Watson: It sounds like a bit of projection there.
Louis: I don’t think it. Thank you, goodnight.
PZ Myers: Yeah.
Ian Brown: It’s a little – so if you don’t join the atheism movement, does that automatically mean you believe in god? What the **** is wrong with these people. If I sign up right now, I don’t all of a sudden revert back to Catholicism.
They don't see any problem.

Another comment complained that the panel was all white (not true, one was hidden)
Jen replies
I’m saying I just want to exclude people who are actually misogynistic, and if you think that I’m grouping you into that group, and that’s why you’re mad, that’s your problem. For some reason you think you belong with the misogynists, I’m not saying you do.

This seems very confused thinking or perhaps is misdirection. The outside view is that if you disagree with the leaders you are excluded and are then labelled as a misogynist and douchebag. This has been repeated by several of them and reflects the experience of members here on their forum so this doesn't count as a withdrawal of their policy. Speaking of which, Carrier's name or comments were never mentioned, it appears he is being written out of the revised history of A+.
 
I think I just got banned at FTB for posing a question to Richard Carrier. I can't get back onto the site. Dunno if banned, or browser burp.
 
This seems very confused thinking or perhaps is misdirection. The outside view is that if you disagree with the leaders you are excluded and are then labelled as a misogynist and douchebag. This has been repeated by several of them and reflects the experience of members here on their forum so this doesn't count as a withdrawal of their policy. Speaking of which, Carrier's name or comments were never mentioned, it appears he is being written out of the revised history of A+.

But.. But without Carrier, who will provide the artillery support?
 
This would be my dilemma - I'm against sexism and for integrity and compassion - but on the other hand, I'm racist and unreasonable. I'd like to stick with Atheism less for the irrationality, but I'm a bit put off by the sexism and cruelty. Oh, and I'm not an atheist.

Actually, from following a few of these threads, someone posted that you don't have to be an atheist to follow A+theism. Apparently you can be religious and they'll be happy to have you - this may even have been something Carrier said (or perhaps was misinterpreted). I haven't seen it myself, and my meds were making me loopy last night, but that is what I remember. I could be completely wrong, since I have no idea where I heard it, so caveat emptor.
 
That didn't even make sense for him (ol' Dick Carrier, that is) - Carrier's provide air support, they don't have the big guns to give arty support.

His very name pegs him as a misogynist so it's off the island for him.
 
:eye-poppi

"Identify where at any point I am wrong"? Seriously?


Yeah, like that false dilemma (aka ignoratio planet X) was very difficult to spot... :rolleyes:

This reminds me of politics. Well, it's politics.

So, his mission statement for the A+ cause is irrational, yet the mission statement suggests A+ can use reason to decide who is in or out, or what defines a true feminist, or how to know when things are diverse enough / mission accomplished!?

His post was sophomoric. The bullet list of platitudes A+ features are also no-brainers--kind of like being against acne. Where are the deep thinkers?

I object to A+ partly because outsiders' will judge atheists in general by the quality of A+'s thoughts and acts (A+ers and nons will surely be lumped together by people not familiar with all this). Doesn't seem fair. I had the same critique of "science"blogs (where the now FTBers used to practice science there without a license).

In general, when did blogging about atheism become sufficient to make one a leader of "the atheist movement"?
 
I really don't like that Atheism+ gets compared to the Brights. The Brights may have failed, but their attempt was at uniting the disparate labels - skeptics, atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers and so on. It was an effort at unity for disparate but overlapping (and sometimes synonymous) groups and labels. Atheism+ is about kicking people out. It's about the declaring those not belonging to them as douchebags. Yes, really.

Carrier's response to criticisms comparing his ravings to cults or to authoritarians are tedious:

"Tell me where Stalin/Cults/Nazis/Lizard people care about sexism and you'll be right..."

No, it isn't the caring about human rights issues that bothers people. It's the whole "You're with us or against us" that's the problem. Very few people want to be in your club. It is unfair of you to then declare that those people are misogynists/homophobes/Stalin.

It's not you, it's me. No, wait, I got that totally the wrong way round.
 
:eye-poppi

"Identify where at any point I am wrong"? Seriously?


Yeah, like that false dilemma (aka ignoratio planet X) was very difficult to spot... :rolleyes:

This reminds me of politics. Well, it's politics.

He's changed that dilemma now in a way that means that it's slightly different but exactly the same.

I think I just got banned at FTB for posing a question to Richard Carrier. I can't get back onto the site. Dunno if banned, or browser burp.

Probably a browser burp. Unless you've managed to annoy everyone one that site with your question so they banned you from all the blogs.
 
I think that Acleron made a very nice analysis of what is going on (post 468). Thanks

It shows that they (A+) are defining there movement as we speak, but what is becoming clear is that they are not interested in promoting it but instead they want an exclusive club where they could discuss their views without interference. I am quite fine with this as it may actually help the rest of the Atheist community to deal with actual issues instead to be dragged in all of the dramas that these individuals create.
 
I'm seeing Deep Rifts here.

(wrings hands, runs around with hair on fire)


Here's a suggestion for all those who find certain sites on the internet unsettling:

Don't go there.

Yes. And this ties in with the What I Really Think About Believers thread
An old lady called the police and complained that she could see her male next door neighbour sunbathing in his garden in the nude. A policeman turned up, looked through all her windows and said, ''You can't see his garden from any of your windows''. She replied, ''Yes, you can if you go up to the attic, stand on the table and look through the little window.''
 
I think that Acleron made a very nice analysis of what is going on (post 468). Thanks

It shows that they (A+) are defining there movement as we speak, but what is becoming clear is that they are not interested in promoting it but instead they want an exclusive club where they could discuss their views without interference. I am quite fine with this as it may actually help the rest of the Atheist community to deal with actual issues instead to be dragged in all of the dramas that these individuals create.

Now, if only we could close the door on the roach motel and keep them inside. ;P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom