Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Add me to the list of folks that have a problem with the name. I don't want people reading rhetoric that sounds like it came from a discussion circle at a Marxist, vegan, lesbian commune in up-state New York and associating it with all atheists.

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.

I saw on the Facebook anti-Atheism-plus group, that's she posted a blog entry, mainly to complain about how abused she's been despite taking a break from blogging.

 

[westprog]

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".

That's precisely the point. It's not that the people proselytising for A+ have said "These are the issues that we want to discuss, but if you want to stick to what interests you, fair enough." They've been very explicit in insisting that people who don't sign up for the A+ agenda, you're a D######## or an A$$$$$$. I haven't seen any of the A+ people accept that YMMV. If you don't think A+ is a good idea, you are a bad person.

While there's been a bit of point-scoring and picking at old scabs, that's what the criticism basically boils down to. The characterisation by A+ of everyone who doesn't accept their agenda without quibble.

 

[devnull]

Firstly, being a healthy white male hath its privileges. Nobody can deny that.

Secondly, nobody can deny that being a black, lesbian, disabled, transexual would not be without its challenges.

Should white males be made to feel bad for their privilege? No! The point is not to bring white male privileges down to the level of other groups, but to advance the privilege of other groups to that of the white male! One cannot "help" being a healthy white male any more than one can "help" being a black, lesbian, disabled transexual.

Moreover, sometimes the privilege is unavoidable. If I ran a cigar club for 60+ year old businessmen, Im not going to hire a black, lesbian, disabled transexual to hand out the cigars. That sucks, but it is what it is. People who are running businesses are not going to alienate their customers. There are many other examples where, quite simply, "it sucks to be you".

Privilege is what it is. Personally I am a white male, but I am not healthy. Generally, my white male privilege outweighs the negatives of being chronically ill. Sometimes it does not. When it does not, I do not look for people to blame. Sometimes people simply do not want to deal with chronic illness and prolonged absenses.

Lack of privilege is not a competition. It is something to be noted, identified, and consciously negated. If 40% of graduates with finance degrees are women, and you run a bank, and only 20% of your staff are women, there is most likely something wrong that needs to be addressed. It does not mean that the male employees of your bank are insensitive bastards who should be castrated and then raped with a dead porcupine.



However, the main issue here is that none of this, absolutely *none* of this, has anything at all to do with atheism. You cant just claim the name, shoehorn a bunch of pet-hates of yours into the mix, and expect not to be shouted down.

Yes, statistically there is a large cross-over between liberal views and atheism. No, it doesnt matter one bit.

If the A+ people were to see this post, they would likely say I am promoting a rape culture and "mansplaining". I leave it to you to judge the relative sanity levels of the positions.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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

No, it's a strawman. You know exactly what a strawman is and when you extrapolate a person's opinion on one topic, relate it to another which was not under discussion, and fill it in with your own anecdotal evidence to come to a conclusion that the person you're addressing is supporting something unrelated to what they said, what would you call it.

You said, "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." The raging clue is where you open with "I suppose you would've...."

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 know I addressed it to you, but I was thinking more of their group being interested in spreading their views or attracting participants or even adherents. Wouldn't one of those be the reason you'd start a forum rather than a lecture series? If they're not seeking members from the public and don't want to discuss things with people of differing viewpoints, then don't call it a "Forum" and don't open it to the general public.

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.

Well, that's a bit of a stretch, but I see your point albeit I'll say that Randi had proof from one librarian or another that his site was getting blocked for profanity, if I'm not mistaken - at least I'm pretty sure that's what he told us at the time. I don't see A+ getting anywhere near any grade school libraries - not in this lifetime (well, maybe one of my old neighborhood favorites, The Little Red School House), so their purpose is evidently to protect their fragile members from stumbling across posts that might trigger bad reactions or memories.

Really? An open ended discussion of pornography requires a TW because it's about pornography and may include violence or rape? Wouldn't the thread title tell you that? And these sensitive members who so nicely greeted Larsen and TA with "STFU" or "Get out of here", are bearing their souls in another thread, like an Esalen Institute encounter group at an AA meeting. "I'm a bad person because of my privilege because...." And that thread carries a "Trigger Warning: Oppression" tag. Oppression? Really? Really??!! WTF would you join a group like A+ for if you couldn't handle discussions of oppression - as related to privilege or not. It seems their entire raison d'etre should be to highlight oppression and find ways to deal with it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If any of you are actually signed up there, could you post a thread in "Education" asking what A+ thinks about the vicious, misogynistic attacks Sarah Palin is subected to on a daily basis.

 

[JFrankA]

This group was shown to me in Facebook a month or so ago. I looked at the FAQ and it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.

I mean, why can't I just be an atheist? My political views actually didn't change much when I went from Catholic to atheist, (the funny thing is I agree with a lot of what their political stance is) but it actually seems to me like they are trying to make atheism a relgion-ish anti-religion religion.

I don't want to join them. I hate to put it this way but it just feels wrong to do so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Hmm maybe we need this in the politics section...

 

[Verklagekasper]

Perhaps it's all just a misconception? Let's see:

Responding to common misconceptions about Atheism+

1. Atheism+ is just secular humanism! Just call it what it is!
2. Why does everyone have to agree with your particular dogma?
3. Person X supports A+ and said this really ****** thing, therefore A+ is evil!
4. You specifically want to exclude people, so you’re a hatemonger!
5. But you want to exclude old, white, men! That’s ageist, racist, and sexist!
6. Why do you get to decide who gets to be a part of the atheist movement?
7. But you’re hurting the atheist movement by causing a schism!
8. Why do you hate atheists who just want to talk about atheism?
9. You’ve started a cult!
10. Isn’t Atheism+ going to alienate atheists who are in the process of becoming allies/feminists/etc but aren’t quite there yet?

My "misconception" isn't covered by that, so let me put it this way.

You say (about point 4.) that "You can’t be inclusive to everyone. If you include misogynists, you exclude women – etc, etc. I choose to exclude the ********".
You don't tell how it's decided who is an *******, though. Luckily, PZ Myers and Richard Carrier explained it: Everyone not subscribing to the full package of your political views shall be regarded an "*******", somebody to be "denounced" and "ridiculed". You have not shown any concerns about the divisiveness of your male feminist co-bloggers, let alone have you disagreed with them. In fact, you have obviously adopted the habit of arguing by flinging insults.

So, all those "You exclude people" points on the list don't quite put it. You don't just want to exclude people not sharing your views from your private club (which would be legitimate). You declare them as being evil. You depict anyone not wanting to join your club as either being a misogynist or a "lesser atheist" (as your male watchdogs have put it, there's either "Atheism plus" or "Atheism less").

I won't even start on how close that is to religious dogma. Because what is truely bizarre isn't so much your views but the way you try to sell them. I'm not sure if you just fail to realize that displaying irrationality and self-importance is a bad way to recruit rational thinking people for a movement, or if you actually want a lot of people not joining your club so you can blog till the end of days about how they are ******** and misogynists.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Add me to the list of folks that have a problem with the name. I don't want people reading rhetoric that sounds like it came from a discussion circle at a Marxist, vegan, lesbian commune in up-state New York and associating it with all atheists.

What do you have against Marxist, vegan, lesbians? Do you hate America too? I bet you cheered when those planes hit the towers, didn't you?

Trigger Warning - Oppression and name calling: Hater.

 

[Mr. Scott]

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.

Point well taken. I've watched the podcast "Atheism+?" a second time, and none of the aplussers take Rebecca to task for her hypocrisy or magical thinking. Clearly, these four young white women arguing for diversity don't want a schism in their new movement, though given time, it may be inevitable.

 

[Wildy]

I saw on the Facebook anti-Atheism-plus group, that's she posted a blog entry, mainly to complain about how abused she's been despite taking a break from blogging.

There's an anti-Atheism-plus group?

 

[Humes fork]

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.

Oh yeah I was. I confused "irrelevant" with "dead".

I must say though, as silly as a+ is, those who write to McCreight's dad saying she is a slut are utter morons.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh yeah I was. I confused "irrelevant" with "dead".

I must say though, as silly as a+ is, those who write to McCreight's dad saying she is a slut are utter morons.

What's his address?

 

[Verklagekasper]

I must say though, as silly as a+ is, those who write to McCreight's dad saying she is a slut are utter morons.

Dad wrote before: "If someone has enough balls to call my daughter a slut to her face I would quickly introduce them to some accountability – a quick fist to the mouth".
Basically, he was asking for it.

 

[Piscivore]

I must say though, as silly as a+ is, those who write to McCreight's dad saying she is a slut are utter morons.

Seconded. Personal attacks like that are reprehensible and completely out of keeping with every tenent of skepticism.

No matter WHAT "they said first".

 

[Sciwoman]

Firstly, being a healthy white male hath its privileges. Nobody can deny that.

Secondly, nobody can deny that being a black, lesbian, disabled, transexual would not be without its challenges.

Should white males be made to feel bad for their privilege? No! The point is not to bring white male privileges down to the level of other groups, but to advance the privilege of other groups to that of the white male! One cannot "help" being a healthy white male any more than one can "help" being a black, lesbian, disabled transexual.

Moreover, sometimes the privilege is unavoidable. If I ran a cigar club for 60+ year old businessmen, Im not going to hire a black, lesbian, disabled transexual to hand out the cigars. That sucks, but it is what it is. People who are running businesses are not going to alienate their customers. There are many other examples where, quite simply, "it sucks to be you".

Privilege is what it is. Personally I am a white male, but I am not healthy. Generally, my white male privilege outweighs the negatives of being chronically ill. Sometimes it does not. When it does not, I do not look for people to blame. Sometimes people simply do not want to deal with chronic illness and prolonged absenses.

Lack of privilege is not a competition. It is something to be noted, identified, and consciously negated. If 40% of graduates with finance degrees are women, and you run a bank, and only 20% of your staff are women, there is most likely something wrong that needs to be addressed. It does not mean that the male employees of your bank are insensitive bastards who should be castrated and then raped with a dead porcupine.



However, the main issue here is that none of this, absolutely *none* of this, has anything at all to do with atheism. You cant just claim the name, shoehorn a bunch of pet-hates of yours into the mix, and expect not to be shouted down.

Yes, statistically there is a large cross-over between liberal views and atheism. No, it doesnt matter one bit.

If the A+ people were to see this post, they would likely say I am promoting a rape culture and "mansplaining". I leave it to you to judge the relative sanity levels of the positions.

devnull, I'm a middle-aged white woman and I've been thinking pretty much the same things.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Seconded. Personal attacks like that are reprehensible and completely out of keeping with every tenent of skepticism.

True, but we're not discussing skepticism. We're discussing atheism, and more specifically, atheism plus.

 

[Humes fork]

True, but we're not discussing skepticism. We're discussing atheism, and more specifically, atheism plus.

Well atheism is a skeptical conclusion.

 

[Piscivore]

True, but we're not discussing skepticism. We're discussing atheism, and more specifically, atheism plus.

I see what you did there.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well atheism is a skeptical conclusion.

Depends on how you got there.