Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[zooterkin]

I am delighted, uproariously amused, and deeply honored to let everyone know that the hottest topic on the Atheism+ message board's "Main Forum" section is the appropriateness of the phrase "JAQing off".

I'm touched, really.

When will they get around to "juicing the piglet"?

 

[tsig]

Myers has always been animated by animosity. It's his driving force. This was less noticeable in his days on Science Blogs as his targets were theists and republicans and his natural audience mostly agreed with him. When he went over to FTB and began to turn his seething hatred on anyone, including his fellow atheists, who disagreed with him in the slightest on any topic, people began to wise up. The emperor has no clothes.

You're forgetting that logic and reason are at the very bottom of Jen's list of things A plussers are for.



The well-poisoning campaign of the Skepchic/FTB politburo, which has been going on for over a year now in the wake of Elevatorgate, has proven remarkably effective. The received wisdom is now that the "bulk" of the atheist/skeptic movement consists of "haters," i.e., misogynists and rape apologists, the "proof" of which is those "random" attacks. If you venture a contrary opinion, you are yourself one of the "haters."

As a life-long atheist and skeptic, I'm going to keep critical thinking and skepticism at the top of my list, thank you very much. If this gets me branded as a "hater" by a group of gullible idiots, so be it.

You realize (or do you?) that any disagreement with the A+ politburo is lumped in with the "hate." Or do you believe that all this "hate" is coming from self-identified atheists?

Well there's certainly a lot of "hate" in your posts.

 

[monoman]

I am delighted, uproariously amused, and deeply honored to let everyone know that the hottest topic on the Atheism+ message board's "Main Forum" section is the appropriateness of the phrase "JAQing off".

I'm touched, really.

I noticed that the mods of the site were fond of the phrase and wondered how you'd take the mixture of pride and puke.

If they want A Plussers to stop using the term then all they need to do is inform them that it originated from a Bigfoot obsessed, sexy harassment loving, libertarian*.

*JREF member

 

[westprog]

I agree, I'm no fan of Rebecca Watson (I just don't find her writing to be terribly interesting, sorry) but I don't think that picture is necessary.

It's exactly what the problem is. The endless picking over motives and actions is what's crippling A+, and it's toxic to any group or any movement. There's something of a nasty taste about calling people whores and douchebags.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I noticed that the mods of the site were fond of the phrase and wondered how you'd take the mixture of pride and puke.

I'm mostly proud of the little guy. JAQing off is just one week shy of its sixth birthday, and look how far it's come.

 

[monoman]

I'm mostly proud of the little guy. JAQing off is just one week shy of its sixth birthday, and look how far it's come.

True, but after the initial elation you can be left with a profound feeling of guilt and emptiness.

 

[westprog]

No. I've seen such comments far before FtB ever got off the ground, going back years. Mostly on the lines of "I looked into joining an atheist group, but it was so unpleasantly sexist that I went away". I could dig for them, but frankly I have better things to do at this time.

And even if they're posted on FtB, so what? If someone is perceiving the atheist societies as a hostile environment, aren't they far more likely to post in a blog that's sympathetic to such experiences than, say, here? Not everyone has a thick enough hide to raise such concerns in a place where they would be doubted from the start.

Personally, I would prefer to post somewhere where abuse was discouraged and at least theoretically prohibited, rather than somewhere where it was encouraged, provided it was directed at the supposed proper target.

Another advantage of an online forum is that if someone doesn't want to be subject to sexist and racist abuse, they can avoid it simply by not specifying who they are. That's almost the default on this forum.

Well, who then? I direct you to the latest post by Rebecca Watson, which lists specific examples of flames received by her. Would you argue that these represent people with legitimate disagreements, or people who merely want her to STFU?
http://skepchick.org/2012/09/misandry-a-how-to/

There are a mixture of messages there. Most of the ones she's quoted are suggestions as to rape and suicide. They are clearly extremely unpleasant. However, there's no indication as to who is making the remarks.

It's because of the extreme remarks like that that it's really necessary to be dispassionate and objective in argument. Posts calling someone an "attention whore" will be lumped in with posts calling someone just a whore, or needing to be raped. A lot of what's gone on has been well short of this, and people made remarks that tended to blur the difference between abuse and disagreement.

I'm also not sure what legitimate disagreements exist at this time - I'm seeing a lot of accusations of groupthink, a lot of quibbling about the label. What else?

The one outstanding complaint against A+ has been that they have claimed that anyone not supporting them is, basically, evil. This has been repeated over and over. It's also been a strategy to take posts such as those referenced above, and to assign the sentiments expressed to anyone who has any kind of disagreement with the A+ supporters.

As for sweeping under the carpet, this is mostly an issue for conventions. I haven't kept track of developments in local groups enough to comment (it's been months since I even had time to go to Sceptics in the pub). Most con organisers seem to be on the ball, but if you want a specific example, the comments by JD Groethe of late have all the hallmarks of someone trying to pretend the problem doesn't exist. Hopefully this whole kerfuffle will serve to put attention to the problem, put policies in place and indeed make cons more welcoming to a larger population once everyone calms down.

I don't want to get too deeply involved in what should possibly be private grief, but there seemed to be an unwillingness to assume that people might act in good faith, and a wish to quote mine for any remarks that might be interpreted as being insensitive.

I'm not saying every single issue raised is necessarily relevant, but there are enough of them to indicate a problem that needs to be dealt with. Basically, once it becomes clear that the people in charge will back those who raise concerns about someone's conduct, we can all go back to heckling psychics or whatever your pet amusement is.

The problem I see with A+ is that it is a long way from providing a safe space where people can discuss issues of mutual interest. Anyone reading the discussions will find that one false step can lead to being picked on and abused. Pick a discussion at random, and you'll find references to a whole bunch of people who've supposedly done something horrible, in various different ways.

Imagine that you're an atheist interested in equality and social justice, and you're walking past a room and you overhear people talking. Supposedly they're discussing the same issues that interest you, but all you can hear is a list of names you don't know and the terrible things they did or said at some stage in the past. It would be like joining a book club where they spend five minutes talking about the book, and the rest of the time gossiping.

 

[Walter Ego]

I am delighted, uproariously amused, and deeply honored to let everyone know that the hottest topic on the Atheism+ message board's "Main Forum" section is the appropriateness of the phrase "JAQing off".

I'm touched, really.

That is amusing in a droll sort of way.

I understand how tempting it is to notice a common motif in the rhetoric of an Enemy, coin a name for that motif, and then use that name as though it on its own served as a magic word for banishing the Enemy and dispelling its arguments or insinuations. But in this case we already have names for the instances of "JAQing Off" that are problematic...

So "the enemy" has been identified and now ranks a proper noun. Does he/she/it have any other names or are we just supposed to know who he/she/it is? Would asking for clarification be considered "JAQing Off?"

Another problem with the "JAQing Off" meme is that its pejorative character depends on a slur against masturbation, and specifically against male masturbation. If someone started criticizing a certain rhetorical device using a slur that's a homophone for female masturbation (or for anal sex, or for any other stigmatized sex-act), we would rightly object to it.

Could someone explain that one for me within the limits of Rule 10?

 

[zooterkin]

Most con organisers seem to be on the ball, but if you want a specific example, the comments by JD Groethe of late have all the hallmarks of someone trying to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

D.J. Grothe. From personal experience (I was one of the volunteers at TAM this year, as I've mentioned before), he is certainly not doing that. My impression of what he was doing was avoiding getting into a situation that he couldn't win, of going down the route of having a harassment policy that listed all the unacceptable acts they could think of, and still being castigated for missing one.
So, instead of an itemised policy, there was a general statement about behaviour, and the volunteers and TAMbassadors were keeping an eye open for any problems and notifying the harassment counsellor if anything was seen.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Another problem with the "JAQing Off" meme is that its pejorative character depends on a slur against masturbation, and specifically against male masturbation. If someone started criticizing a certain rhetorical device using a slur that's a homophone for female masturbation (or for anal sex, or for any other stigmatized sex-act), we would rightly object to it.

Wow. These people actually spend time thinking about this?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think this is true, and a crucial point. It became pretty clear to me around Christmas, when Rebecca Watson did her "I hate atheists" rant after a pretty teenage girl posted her picture on the reddit atheist page holding a Dawkins book, and was flooded with obscene rape comments. RW seized on this as further evidence of the misogynist rot at the heart of the "atheist community" - but it looked to me and many others like a troll gang-bang. And I'd put the same construction on the so-called numerous rape threats and death threats claimed by RW and others.

But FtB and Skepchick, and now A+, conflate that kind of loathsome trollish behaviour with honest dissent by non-trolls and people who don't buy into their grim zero-tolerance agenda. So Blag Hag Jen's latest troll attack gets blamed on the critics of FtB, and the A-plussers' perception of the "haters" that surround them is reinforced. And so it goes.

So whodunnit really? There could be lots of suspects. Jen's a gamer, spent last weekend at a gamers convention, so maybe it was a gamer. Or it could have been a religious activist sowing discord. Or an A+ supporter manufacturing drama. Or a garden-variety troll at play, as Walter pointed out. Or it could indeed have been an atheist on the other side of the great and growing schism. But the latter is the A-plussers' default assumption, and they assume as well that it reflects the behaviour of all "other" atheists.

Bingo.

 

[Acleron]

That is amusing in a droll sort of way.

So "the enemy" has been identified and now ranks a proper noun. Does he/she/it have any other names or are we just supposed to know who he/she/it is? Would asking for clarification be considered "JAQing Off?"

No, but you would automatically be an Enemy

Could someone explain that one for me within the limits of Rule 10?

[/QUOTE]

No

 

[westprog]

D.J. Grothe. From personal experience (I was one of the volunteers at TAM this year, as I've mentioned before), he is certainly not doing that. My impression of what he was doing was avoiding getting into a situation that he couldn't win, of going down the route of having a harassment policy that listed all the unacceptable acts they could think of, and still being castigated for missing one.
So, instead of an itemised policy, there was a general statement about behaviour, and the volunteers and TAMbassadors were keeping an eye open for any problems and notifying the harassment counsellor if anything was seen.

I was talking to a conference organiser about this very issue. He was aware of the potential problems, but basically said the above - it's not possible to have a policy that addresses all possible ways that adults in a hotel will interact. To say that is not to minimise any given experience. I think that sometimes all that's possible to do is to try to show some empathy and listen. There seem to be people throwing petrol on the flames, and innocent victims caught in the crossfire.

 

[Brainache]

...

Another problem with the "JAQing Off" meme is that its pejorative character depends on a slur against masturbation, and specifically against male masturbation. If someone started criticizing a certain rhetorical device using a slur that's a homophone for female masturbation (or for anal sex, or for any other stigmatized sex-act), we would rightly object to it.

Could someone explain that one for me within the limits of Rule 10?

Tossing The Pink Word Salad?

 

[Ocelot]

Another problem with the "JAQing Off" meme is that its pejorative character depends on a slur against masturbation, and specifically against male masturbation. If someone started criticizing a certain rhetorical device using a slur that's a homophone for female masturbation (or for anal sex, or for any other stigmatized sex-act), we would rightly object to it.

Wow. These people actually spend time thinking about this?

They're getting their knickers in a twist and making a right old frigmarole out of it too.

 

[Antiquehunter]

They're getting their knickers in a twist and making a right old frigmarole out of it too.

I'll just sit back, watching in amusement, while petting this bunny.

 

[Brainache]

I'll just sit back, watching in amusement, while petting this bunny.

And strumming the banjo?

 

[bpesta22]

Tossing The Pink Word Salad?

I thought it was "clicking the mouse" but I don't get out much no mores.

 

[squealpiggy]

They don't actually seem to know what JAQing off means.

"The idea behind taking issue with "question asking" in the more serious public fora (forums? Pedants, get at me on this one. =P) stems from the fact that, if we are entering into debates with other people, we should all be well versed enough where we shouldn't be asking the same questions over and over again. "

People JAQing off are doing so in order to dismiss proper arguments without actually venturing a counter-argument of their own. Not entering a debate ill prepared to continue.

The OP's complaint about the connotations of "JAQing off" miss the point of the term too. It's true that "its pejorative character depends on a slur against masturbation, and specifically against male masturbation" rolleyes but that's the whole point/ JAQing off has a masturbatory quality to it. It is performed entirely for the benefit of the JAQer, not for the appreciation of the audience.

 

[Myriad]

A good blog post here: http://musingsbysoggymog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/urgh-bloody-atheism-plus.html

The problem I'm having understanding what Atheism+ is all about stems from what I currently see as a deep inconsistency in what they're saying about themselves.

They claim to be activists for their cause, the next wave of atheism ready to stake their claims for social progress -- which means, presumably, that they want to go out and make changes. They've talked specifically about changing the supposed perception of the general atheist and skeptic community as a hotbed of misogyny and racism. So, for instance, they might want to urge the JREF to change their policies in some way toward that end, such as instituting zero tolerance for racist or sexist posts on this forum.

And here's the thing: that's exactly the kind of thing that, as activists, they should be planning to do. If they don't want to do it here, it should only be because they have more important targets in mind. (Hey, if they want to even try to get the Southern Baptists or the Catholic Church or the world's extremist Muslims to change their misogynistic attitudes and policies, I'll be cheering, and if their plans are realistic -- something quite a bit better than "step 1, eliminate all religion..." -- I'll be helping however I can. But they're the ones who continue to talk mostly about the atheist, skeptic, and humanist communities as their sphere of interest, so presumably their sights are not set that much higher.)

And yet, any speculation on the kind of change they might propose for this forum or comparable venues, or discussion of why others would oppose such changes, are currently labeled "conspiracy theories" and responded to with plaintive wails of "all we want is to have our own space where we're left alone, why are you against that?"

So, are they activists or aren't they? Do they want (r)evolution, or seclusion? Should I hear them roar, or ignore them more?

Can't tell yet. Until I (and others) can, they're in a holding pattern, and using up fuel faster than they realize.

-----------

That said, some of the recent responses on this thread seem to be (yet another layer of) overreaction on the opposing side. That doesn't help anyone.

Respectfully,
Myriad