Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Checkmite]

Pretty big strawman, there.

It's not a "strawman", it's a recounting of my personal experience and application of concepts derived therefrom toward the current situation.

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?

As I am neither an atheist nor a member or active supporter of "atheism plus", it's no never mind to me whether any post of mine makes you more or less likely to join that group.

I suppose the situation with "trigger warnings" in that forum are similar to the situation with censorship of profanity in the JREF forum. There are many skeptics who could make a valuable contribution here but find the profanity prohibition prohibitive of their participation, so they don't join. Likewise, if you do not want to deal with adding a "trigger warning" to rape threads (or whatever the rule is there), then I would recommend you do not join the forum.

 

[Checkmite]

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".

But this isnt an "atheism group". It was my understanding that it was a group of atheists who, in addition to atheism, also advocate for certain other concepts, among which possibly rape awareness and so forth. I would suppose that if a person is interested in atheism but not these other things, then if they were interested I'm joining a group they would avoid the "atheist plus" group and gravitate more toward a regular just-atheism group. I mean if I like chess but can't stand Fischer rules, I'm not going to dwelve into and put down the Fischer rules-oriented group, I'm just going to join a regular chess club. Su?

 

[Piscivore]

But this isnt an "atheism group". It was my understanding that it was a group of atheists who, in addition to atheism, also advocate for certain other concepts, among which possibly rape awareness and so forth.

Well, then, they are misnaming themselves. If atheism isn't the important part they should be "Rape awareness/support+"

I would suppose that if a person is interested in atheism but not these other things, then if they were interested I'm joining a group they would avoid the "atheist plus" group and gravitate more toward a regular just-atheism group. I mean if I like chess but can't stand Fischer rules, I'm not going to dwelve into and put down the Fischer rules-oriented group, I'm just going to join a regular chess club. Su?

I'd buy that if they weren't being so judgemental about (or abusive to) other athiests that don't want to be part of their "club".

 

[WillyWonka]

But this isnt an "atheism group". It was my understanding that it was a group of atheists who, in addition to atheism, also advocate for certain other concepts, among which possibly rape awareness and so forth. I would suppose that if a person is interested in atheism but not these other things, then if they were interested I'm joining a group they would avoid the "atheist plus" group and gravitate more toward a regular just-atheism group. I mean if I like chess but can't stand Fischer rules, I'm not going to dwelve into and put down the Fischer rules-oriented group, I'm just going to join a regular chess club. Su?

I would agree with you but, what people found annoying was the usurpation of the term "atheist". No one outside people following this are aware of it. The Guardian article was talking of a schism in atheism which it wasn't. I would have been simpler and more honest to have called it "Secular feminism +" or whatever.

The other issue was that, as an atheist, if you did not agree with A+ philosophy, you were a douchebag, gender traitor, or other insulting name. Richard Carrier and PZ Myers made it very clear. Again, it got some people' nose out of joint.

 

[Piscivore]

I suppose the situation with "trigger warnings" in that forum are similar to the situation with censorship of profanity in the JREF forum. There are many skeptics who could make a valuable contribution here but find the profanity prohibition prohibitive of their participation, so they don't join. Likewise, if you do not want to deal with adding a "trigger warning" to rape threads (or whatever the rule is there), then I would recommend you do not join the forum.

I find them silly used in public fora. I've suffered trauma that I'm sensitive about, but I don't expect the world to accomodate that. Its one thing when it is used in a support forum or a therapy context, but atheism is closely allied to critical thinking and skepticism and trying to accommodate the extremes of every possible emotional sensitivity runs counter to that. Especially considering the wide gamut of situations those posters are reporting they're upset over- are trigger warnings for discussion of buttonhole placement next?

 

[Antiquehunter]

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.

You are reading an awful lot into what I wrote there, Checkmite. My response was simply to Professor Yaffle to demonstrate that RW had some connection to the A+ group.

My personal opinions about RW and the A+ 'movement' should not be inferred from a one sentence post, please.

 

[Checkmite]

You are reading an awful lot into what I wrote there, Checkmite. My response was simply to Professor Yaffle to demonstrate that RW had some connection to the A+ group.

My personal opinions about RW and the A+ 'movement' should not be inferred from a one sentence post, please.

I am reading solely what you wrote and no more:

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)

Your post seems to pretty unequivocally introduce your list as an argument against "the A plusers" and you use only plural pronouns, but once the list itself begins it's nothing but Rebecca: "her", "she", arguments that only she has directly made, no more "they". I apologize if the mistake here is in my reading rather than your writing.

 

[zeggman]

are trigger warnings for discussion of buttonhole placement next?

BUTTONHOLE PLACEMENT?!?!

Slowly I turned, and step, by step...

 

[Antiquehunter]

I didn't write whatever it was Mr. Scott wrote. My Forum name is Antiquehunter.

 

[Checkmite]

I find them silly used in public fora. I've suffered trauma that I'm sensitive about, but I don't expect the world to accomodate that. Its one thing when it is used in a support forum or a therapy context, but atheism is closely allied to critical thinking and skepticism and trying to accommodate the extremes of every possible emotional sensitivity runs counter to that. Especially considering the wide gamut of situations those posters are reporting they're upset over- are trigger warnings for discussion of buttonhole placement next?

It doesn't seem that they want "the world" to accommodate their sensitivities, but rather their own forum.

Within the context of the group I had experience with, the "trigger warning" was for the benefit of people who knew they were unable to handle certain subject matter - once they saw "trigger warning" they refrained from participating in that specific topic. The people who did participate didn't face any restrictions on what they said or discussed - that was the entire purpose and function of the "trigger warning"; to enable the extremely sensitive to accommodate themselves, and decidedly not at the "expense" of people who really wanted to discuss the issue (unless you would consider the initial adding of the words "trigger warning" to constitute some kind of undue hardship).

Of course, in the abuse group it was rather self-evident what topics required a "trigger warning"; perhaps it could be said that the matter is less clear in a forum geared toward "social justice from an atheist perspective" or whatever the tagline may be. But I would imagine that some guidelines on that very thing would be covered at the same place the "trigger warning" policy is brought up in the rules.

 

[Checkmite]

I didn't write whatever it was Mr. Scott wrote. My Forum name is Antiquehunter.

My bad. I post from a small mobile device and now and then I get names mixed up in various zany and embarrassing ways.

 

[Antiquehunter]

My bad. I post from a small mobile device and now and then I get names mixed up in various zany and embarrassing ways.

No worries, thank you for the clarification.

 

[Piscivore]

It doesn't seem that they want "the world" to accommodate their sensitivities, but rather their own forum.

That just reinforces the impression that they are not interested in changing the world, but creating a closed-door, insular, echo-chamber circle-jerk.

Of course, in the abuse group it was rather self-evident what topics required a "trigger warning"; perhaps it could be said that the matter is less clear in a forum geared toward "social justice from an atheist perspective" or whatever the tagline may be.

Exactly. There's no limit to what may need a "trigger warning" in a non-specific, non-support setting if we're to accomodate everyone's sensibilities. And by making a show of sensitivity to some issues they are opening the door for a whole host of distracting, intellectually paralyzing nonsense.

And of course, I've argued against the restrictions on profanity here too, and that's even less to do with critical thinking than this.

 

[Checkmite]

That just reinforces the impression that they are not interested in changing the world, but creating a closed-door, insular, echo-chamber circle-jerk.

I would say most groups, even those dedicated to "changing the world", have offices, headquarters and/or spaces that they call their own, and I'm willing to bet that most such groups who have such spaces set rules for those spaces; I don't believe it says anything about the seriousness or scope of such groups' stated ambitions.

Exactly. There's no limit to what may need a "trigger warning" in a non-specific, non-support setting if we're to accomodate everyone's sensibilities. And by making a show of sensitivity to some issues they are opening the door for a whole host of distracting, intellectually paralyzing nonsense.

And of course, I've argued against the restrictions on profanity here too, and that's even less to do with critical thinking than this.

I'm sure that like any other group that ever had their own forum, they'll define the limits for themselves in time.

What you haven't explained is why it matters to you. Surely you won't claim that you ever had any intent or interest in joining this group even before you found out about their forum and its sundry rules.

 

[squealpiggy]

This bears repeating. Seems to me the A+ers want a world without any risks. "Trigger warnings"? Grow up.

It was my understanding that "trigger warning" referred specifically to graphic description or recounting of traumatic events that may act as a trigger to a reliving of memories for former victims. So for example "trigger warning" followed by a description of a sexual assault would be a fair use of the term.

The phrase "trigger warning: oppression" followed by "Because I was gifted my parents were disappointed if I didn't excel" is beyond parody.

That forum is ripe for a trolling, I'm surprised it hasn't been hit already. Someone post the link on 4chan?

 

[ShadowSot]

Maybe it's being hit by Poes.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

ETA: Here's the link to the thread in question. TA is on familiar ground. The sloganeers are not.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=504&sid=795cd49dd857640cb9c92e60868a3e4d

Oh brother. It's crap like this that prevent me from taking any of these jokers seriously.

Okay, you seem to have wandered in here without doing your homework on Atheism+ in general or this forum in particular.

The Main forum is for people that already agree with the basic tenets of Atheism+ and want to move the conversation forward, rather than having to repeatedly rehash basic questions such as whether or not exploitation of women is misogynistic.

The Education forum is where you should go if you want to debate things that most of us have tentatively accepted as fact.

Please understand: you wouldn't walk into a chess master's club and demand that they teach you the basics of chess. That's not why they are there, and for that reason they would see your basic questioning as inconsiderate. The Main forum should be treated similarly. We're here to advance the discussion, not debate the basic foundations for the nth time.

- eta Chess? With all the made up phrases and definions for commonly understood phrases, it's more like Calvinball.

 

[rustypouch]

After lurking a bit more on the A+ forum, I'm done with them. They have nothing to offer me. As was mentioned earlier, I'm suspect over there because of things about myself I cannot control.

What put me over the edge was this:

Suicide is the biggest killer of young men. Arguably good riddance to the privileged

From this thread: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=605

I managed to work through the thread a bit more, and that comment got little more than "maybe you shouldn't say things like that." This bothers me immensely.

Perhaps someone should send in the /b/tards.

 

[squealpiggy]

After lurking a bit more on the A+ forum, I'm done with them. They have nothing to offer me. As was mentioned earlier, I'm suspect over there because of things about myself I cannot control.

What put me over the edge was this:



From this thread: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=605

I managed to work through the thread a bit more, and that comment got little more than "maybe you shouldn't say things like that." This bothers me immensely.

Perhaps someone should send in the /b/tards.

Yeah this was edited to show that the comment was withdrawn. Edited by a moderator. Which is bizarre.

Who would even think such a thing?

 

[Piscivore]

What you haven't explained is why it matters to you.

I'd buy that if they weren't being so judgemental about (or abusive to) other athiests that don't want to be part of their "club".

I'm an atheist, too. They're trying to claim the word for their own, make it mean something it doesn't and being proactively nasty to anyone and everyone that doesn't go along, all while whining about how abused they are.