• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread has the record for me writing carefully worded posts then deleting them right before posting out of fear they'll be intentionally misunderstood.

The A plusers are in so deep that even if they found out they were wrong about some little thing, they'd just dig in to save face.

Examples of their hypocrisy and magical thinking:

- Names herself "Skepchick" though "chick" has a sexist, objectifying connotation (hypocrisy).

- Poses nude for calendar, but protests being objectified as a sex object (hypocrisy).

- Claims "douche bag" is not sexist because douching is harmful (magical thinking).

- Claims those who call her "attention whore" are jealous of the attention, when actually they are annoyed by the shallowness of her attention-seeking gimmicks (magical thinking)

- Engaging in ad hom and false dichotomies to dismiss opposing views (logical fallacies)
 
Erm, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Rebecca Watson (who you seem to be referring to above) has anything to do with A+.
 
Erm, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Rebecca Watson (who you seem to be referring to above) has anything to do with A+.

I don't think she is one of the high priestesses, or is the person who is handing out membership cards, however she has publicly her support for the 'movement' such as it exists.
 
I don't think she is one of the high priestesses, or is the person who is handing out membership cards, however she has publicly her support for the 'movement' such as it exists.

I've only see PZ say she isn't while at the same time claiming the same, 'support but not a member' himself. I wonder why they are so reticent to fully sign up.
 
I've only see PZ say she isn't while at the same time claiming the same, 'support but not a member' himself. I wonder why they are so reticent to fully sign up.
They regard themselves as community leaders, and leaders don't follow other leaders because they think it would lower their status. They have more than just a little privilege issue, so to say.
 
Erm, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Rebecca Watson (who you seem to be referring to above) has anything to do with A+.

I learned a lot from the podcast "Atheism+?" (below). Rebecca is clearly supportive of them, and the whole thing seemed to snowball after elevatorgate.

I like how they complain that the atheist movement shouldn't consist of just old white men, then they get a comment about how they are 7 whites talking about diversity, at which point the participant who's face is not shown comments that he's not white. The reverse racism and sexism has me spooked, like a horse who sees a knife on the ground.

Next thing we'll have is atheist + meetings with only whites where non-whites don't feel comfortable and feel they have to make their own movement, and the schisms start multiplying, as they have with religions.

"Everyone wants the vanity of being a leader" (Louis, Mysterious Chemist)

 
I think it was a little cowardly of McCreight to back out when she had made here post. Of course she would recieve hate mails. I doubt she will come back to blogging, at least and atheism or skepticism or related subjects.

Remember Paul Kurtz's "neo-humanists"? It was a rift over accommodationism/confrontationalism where Kurtz denounced those "mean spirited" folks who do things differently from himself. It went to the news, has a manifesto yet today it is virtually forgotten, and irrelevant. I predict Atheism+ will make the same journey. It will be irrelevant before the the end of 2013 the latest.

Here is another observation. Can't disagree with the reasonableness of it actually:

So many skeptics that I know are taking another way. They’re still staying skeptics and they’re not shying away about outing their atheism or agnosticism, but they’re not joining any local and national skeptical and atheist groups. Instead, they’re doing science and communicating about what they do and big news in their area of expertise, applying all their skeptical news dissection skills when the news they’re covering calls for it. They research, they write, they educate, and their primary goal is to make people think and question. Maybe that’s what’s really important?
 
I like how they complain that the atheist movement shouldn't consist of just old white men, then they get a comment about how they are 7 whites talking about diversity, at which point the participant who's face is not shown comments that he's not white.

Why did they have only English-speaking people? I feel very intimidated that no Swedish-speaking person was at their panel.:D
 
The idea seems to be that what matters is not the degree of harassment, but the complexity of the policies put in place. As Readercon showed, having an over-rigid policy can be meaningless, and will often be counter-productive. Praising people for the policies they supposedly have in place is meaningless. It's the atmosphere that counts.

Here is the policy that was used at the Canadian Humanist conference. Since Rebecca attended, I supposed that she agreed with it. Take a breath....

-------------------------


Policy on Hostile Conduct/Harassment at Conferences

Purpose and Scope of Policy

Humanist Canada is an educational organization. As part of our educational mission, we hold conferences annually. To ensure that everyone attending our conferences is able to participate in them fully, we are committed to providing a safe and hospitable environment at our conferences. Accordingly, Humanist Canada prohibits intimidating, threatening, or harassing conduct during our conferences. This policy applies to speakers, staff, volunteers, and attendees.

Prohibited Conduct

In general, prohibited conduct includes any abusive conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with another person’s ability to enjoy and participate in the conference, including social events related to the conference.

Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, yelling at or threatening speakers or attendees, or any significantly disruptive conduct. By way of example, repeated interruption of a speaker by an attendee is prohibited.

Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, harassment based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other protected group status, as provided by local, provincial, or national law. By way of example, abusive conduct directed at someone because of their race is prohibited.

Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment. By way of example, unwelcome sexual attention, stalking, and physical contact such as pinching, grabbing, or groping are prohibited.

Critical examination of beliefs, including critical commentary on another person’s views, does not, by itself, constitute hostile conduct or harassment. One of the underlying rationales of this policy is to promote the free exchange of ideas, not to inhibit it.

Consequences of Hostile or Harassing Conduct

Humanist Canada has a zero-tolerance policy for hostile and harassing conduct. If a person engages in hostile or harassing conduct, appropriate remedial action will be taken, which may include, but is not limited to, expulsion from the conference. Threats of hostile conduct that are made prior to a conference may result in exclusion from the conference.

The exact remedy for hostile or harassing conduct will depend on an evaluation of all relevant circumstances, such as the severity of the conduct and prior violations by the person engaging in prohibited conduct.

When there is a reasonable basis for believing the conduct is illegal, appropriate law enforcement authorities will be notified.

Reporting Hostile or Harassing Conduct; Investigations

Persons who are the targets of, or witnesses to, hostile or harassing conduct should contact conference staff or any board member. Phone numbers for hotel/venue staff, local law enforcement, and local emergency medical personnel will be provided to conference attendees to facilitate prompt response to complaints and/or requests for assistance.

Reports of hostile or harassing conduct will be promptly addressed. On some occasions, where conference staff are witnesses to the prohibited conduct, immediate remedial action may be taken. Where a report of hostile or harassing conduct is made to conference staff after the conduct has occurred, reasonable measures will be taken to establish the facts. This will typically include discussion with witnesses, if any, and the person accused of engaging in the prohibited conduct. Inquiries into hostile or harassing conduct will be carried out as confidentially as possible given the circumstances.

Record-Keeping

Humanist Canada will make a written record of all complaints/incidents as soon as practicable. These records will be used in connection with implementing this policy. These records will be maintained in the Office of the President of Humanist Canada and will not be disclosed to individuals outside of the organization except as required by law.




--------------


I guess that what PZ and Rebecca wants to make sure that no harassment happen. I would not go to any conferences that are so dangerous that this kind of policy is needed.
 
Humans are humans, and some of us are idiots. The issue isn't preventing such things from happening--it's impossible. Just look at the number of trolls we get on this forum. The issue is how you deal with it. Personally, I feel that what happened in that elevator is something that should be handled on a personal level. And I'm not saying this in ignorance--similar things have happeend to me (homosexual men propositioning me at times when it was difficult to extract myself). "Thanks, I'm flattered, really, but I'm just not interested." Problem solved. If it persistes, or if the problem isn't solved (particularly if there's physical contact beyond a handshake or something), you talk to officials.

There is a certain amount of assumed risk involved in human interaction, and being propositioned is part of it. And it seems like the Canadian Humanist conference has the right idea: you're adults, act like it, and if you don't we're going to chuck you like yesterday's garbage.
 
Remember Paul Kurtz's "neo-humanists"? It was a rift over accommodationism/confrontationalism where Kurtz denounced those "mean spirited" folks who do things differently from himself. It went to the news, has a manifesto yet today it is virtually forgotten, and irrelevant. I predict Atheism+ will make the same journey. It will be irrelevant before the the end of 2013 the latest.

You're being way too generous. I'd argue that it is already irrelevant. It will certainly be all but dead by the end of the year.
 
I don't think she is one of the high priestesses, or is the person who is handing out membership cards, however she has publicly her support for the 'movement' such as it exists.

So she has voiced support for them. That doesn't mean you can logically portray a list of what you don't like about Rebecca personally as a list of "what's wrong with the A plusers". That's a non sequitur.
 
This bears repeating. Seems to me the A+ers want a world without any risks. "Trigger warnings"? Grow up.

You're referring to a rule they've come up with to govern their own interactions with each other.

An abuse survivors' support group I once participated in also had rules about "trigger warnings". I suppose you would've thought that ridiculous as well, or that the members should "grow up" or "just get over it" and whatnot; but if you're not a member of the group what's it to you how they decide to interact? For crying out loud.
 
You're referring to a rule they've come up with to govern their own interactions with each other.

An abuse survivors' support group I once participated in also had rules about "trigger warnings". I suppose you would've thought that ridiculous as well, or that the members should "grow up" or "just get over it" and whatnot; but if you're not a member of the group what's it to you how they decide to interact? For crying out loud.

Pretty big strawman, there.

A number of us are atheists (without the upper case A) and share many of their purported goals and might actually be potential members of that community. Your analogy doesn't do anything to further my interest in joining up and sharing some of my views on these same topics - them all being so fragile that they have to post BBC style warnings (if you haven't seen - the BBC Int'l now tells you that "the following clip contains flash photography") that a thread could possibly trigger an emotional reaction. Do they want to discuss issues and try to educate the likes of Larsen and The Atheist and my humble self as to why Atheism + is the way to the future? Or are they creating a halfway house?
 
You're referring to a rule they've come up with to govern their own interactions with each other.

An abuse survivors' support group I once participated in also had rules about "trigger warnings". I suppose you would've thought that ridiculous as well, or that the members should "grow up" or "just get over it" and whatnot; but if you're not a member of the group what's it to you how they decide to interact? For crying out loud.

I apologize for the "grow up", it wasn't the point I was trying to make. Atheism isn't an abuse survivors group. It doesn't have anything to do with abuse, or feminism, or any of these other things the A+ people are trying to co-opt for their "movement". I don't see how they are going to create the change they want to see in the world while at the same time trying to cocoon themselves from the possiblility of offense. Activism takes a thick skin and a resiliency of character those posters don't evidence.
 
I apologize for the "grow up", it wasn't the point I was trying to make. Atheism isn't an abuse survivors group. It doesn't have anything to do with abuse, or feminism, or any of these other things the A+ people are trying to co-opt for their "movement". I don't see how they are going to create the change they want to see in the world while at the same time trying to cocoon themselves from the possiblility of offense. Activism takes a thick skin and a resiliency of character those posters don't evidence.

I doubt if any of these people will get to the stage of activism in the real (i.e., non-internet) world. The real world for one thing may not validate their victimhood status. Better to stay inside the house hugging the computer only venturing out to your therapy group or to atheist conventions that have adopted a conduct code promising a "safe" environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom