Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And you know this to be true how? I'm increasingly of the impression that these are 4chan, etc. trolls who send this stuff for the lulz rather skeptics or atheists who are so upset with A+ that we're sending death and rape threats.

I think the most harmful, tear-inducing behavior 99.9% of atheists and skeptics would engage in would be wearing a t-shirt at TAM.

Agreed. These people are being played by trolls. Most of the rape threats likely come from 12 year old boys doing it to get a reaction. And it's working.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't think a comment like is trolling.

I suspect the A+ crowd thinks it is. Remember, there must be no disagreement with the manifesto.

 

[Walter Ego]

The irrepressible Franc Hoggle weighs in on Daddygate.

As the old German proverb goes, blood is thicker than water...

Case in point: Jen McCreight’s daddy thinks the world is being unfair and cruel to his precious princess that has, evidently, done so much for the rest of us and lets us know in word salad of appeal to pity and bare-knuckle machismo.

http://greylining.com/2012/09/15/dear-daddy-mccreight/

 

[The Big Dog]

Tit-for-tat; not interested in joining the puerile "who started it" contest.

Spit take.

It is funny, you type "joining the puerile "who started it' contest" right the **** after you typed this:

"It's unfairly out of context to point at the siege mentality of this brand-new group and it's brand-new forum."

Is it "puerile" to point out that was exactly their *********** intent? I guess so.

A+ apologists gonna apologize.

 

[Checkmite]

The irrepressible Franc Hoggle weighs in on Daddygate.

A lot of words to say "Jen's father has no right to be upset when people email him to call his daughter a slut".

 

[Checkmite]

Spit take.

It is funny, you type "joining the puerile "who started it' contest" right the **** after you typed this:

"It's unfairly out of context to point at the siege mentality of this brand-new group and it's brand-new forum."

Is it "puerile" to point out that was exactly their *********** intent? I guess so.

A+ apologists gonna apologize.

Calm down.

No matter who "started it", it was already there by the time atheism plus was invented. That was the original point you missed.

It took two to dance the tango; "they started it" doesn't gain anyone any higher ground.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The irrepressible Franc Hoggle weighs in on Daddygate.

 

[The Big Dog]

Calm down.

No matter who "started it", it was already there by the time atheism plus was invented. That was the original point you missed.

It took two to dance the tango; "they started it" doesn't gain anyone any higher ground.

No actually, my point was that was exactly the intention of the A+ knuckleheads.

Read Carriers' first piece. You is either with us or against us.

I am not talking about "who started it" I'm talking about the essence of their little movement.

I realize that this is a fine point, and perhaps you are having a problem appreciating it, hence your little "puerile" insult.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Agreed. These people are being played by trolls. Most of the rape threats likely come from 12 year old boys doing it to get a reaction. And it's working.

Yes, probably not from the "old white men" they complain so much about.

 

[rustypouch]

If that were up to us to decide. I'm guessing that the definition of "privilege" used by the mod who is deleting all those posts is one where white males can not experience anything negative.

I can't believe I went back there... and I think you're right, in that they seem to consider that life is perfect for white men, and any questioning or facts can be safely ignored, or are evidence of how terrible white men are.

But even agreeing with them is considered trolling. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=740&start=25#p11870

 

[Acleron]

I can't believe I went back there... and I think you're right, in that they seem to consider that life is perfect for white men, and any questioning or facts can be safely ignored, or are evidence of how terrible white men are.

But even agreeing with them is considered trolling. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=740&start=25#p11870

It's quite brain-deadening.

DarthSutekh wrote:
Because I am male I am treated as a potential rapist.


Not legitimate lack of privilege. It is because men are overwhelmingly the aggressors in violent crimes, and particularly in rapes, that women have to assume you COULD be a rapist until proven otherwise. That isn't a lack of privilege on your part.

So I suppose that when I argued against the police for targeting blacks in London because there was a high percentage of black crime I was wrong. But if I agreed with them I would be racist wouldn't I?

 

[Checkmite]

Read Carriers' first piece. You is either with us or against us.

OK. Got a link?

 

[Acleron]

OK. Got a link?

You might try this piece.

He very usefully includes a list of quotes from his friends who have also called anyone who disagrees with them A+++holes, d++++bags etc. Apparently he seems to believe that this supports his attitude.

 

[Checkmite]

Is that his first piece?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is that his first piece?

He links to it in the first paragraph.

"Those people are with us. Everyone else (who doesn’t cheer or approve of what we stand for) is against us."

CHEER!

lolz, what a horrible writer this guy is.

 

[Checkmite]

He very usefully includes a list of quotes from his friends who have also called anyone who disagrees with them A+++holes, d++++bags etc. Apparently he seems to believe that this supports his attitude.

Except that's not true. Reading the quotes it seems to me that the only one which makes a broad statement is the PZ quote. Every single one of the others addresses an individual or defined group of some size which does not include "everyone who disagrees with them".

In this post, the guy seems to define the points atheism plus in rather broad terms; he says they're against sexism, racism, and homophobia or whatnot; and he seems to absolve anyone who is against those things, not only those people who are members or agree with everything atheist plus says. He does seem to ignore the "don't be a dick" rule, that's true; but it also seems to be par for every hole of this particular course.

But whatever. It seems to me that if you don't like those people, there's no reason to get so upset about things they say which you shouldn't care about. It doesn't bother me that Christians think I'm going to hell; it doesn't bother me if atheist plus thinks I'm an "irrational douchebag" or whichever term they like to use.

As for the bit about "redefining atheism" - again, why should that bother you? You know what atheism is - who cares what they say it is? No need to go storming their embassy because they blasphemed the Holy A-Word.

 

[tsig]

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.

Tempest>teapot.

 

[Acleron]

Except that's not true. Reading the quotes it seems to me that the only one which makes a broad statement is the PZ quote. Every single one of the others addresses an individual or defined group of some size which does not include "everyone who disagrees with them".

In this post, the guy seems to define the points atheism plus in rather broad terms; he says they're against sexism, racism, and homophobia or whatnot; and he seems to absolve anyone who is against those things, not only those people who are members or agree with everything atheist plus says. He does seem to ignore the "don't be a dick" rule, that's true; but it also seems to be par for every hole of this particular course.

But whatever. It seems to me that if you don't like those people, there's no reason to get so upset about things they say which you shouldn't care about. It doesn't bother me that Christians think I'm going to hell; it doesn't bother me if atheist plus thinks I'm an "irrational douchebag" or whichever term they like to use.

As for the bit about "redefining atheism" - again, why should that bother you? You know what atheism is - who cares what they say it is? No need to go storming their embassy because they blasphemed the Holy A-Word.

You seem to be the one who is getting upset, I merely pointed out a suitable reference to show you the level of debate. Or in their cases, the level of non-debate, because if you disagree with them you are labelled as I indicated. How you can reach the conclusion that they don't after reading that list I cannot ascertain.

Why does it annoy me that they associated feminism, racism, etc with atheism? Because when I debate theists, mainly catholics, sooner or later the accusation comes of being a communist, socialist, leftist etc. My argument is that atheism is purely a non-belief, that some atheists may also support those causes is irrelevant. That argument has now been made harder.

I actually support the aims that atheism+ is supposed to stand for, but not the extremes of some of those aims. I also support free speech, this group tries to suppress it.

I also reserve the right to comment about their extremism, their suppression of free speech, their lack of skepticism and even the silly name calling they indulge in.

 

[westprog]

Tit-for-tat; not interested in joining the puerile "who started it" contest.

That's the point though, isn't it? This is a movement on a permanent war footing, in a battle with an enemy. Every discussion has people on the lookout for enemy spies. The privilege discussion referred to above has had people putting an alternative point of view dismissed as being trolls. Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are only intent on disruption and chaos. However, some of the points being made seem at least worth addressing. The obsession with keeping out enemies has made this impossible. There's an orthodox view of privilege and the patriarchy, and questioning it is not permitted. They seem to have made an entire movement oriented around the "who started it" contest.

 

[westprog]

So I suppose that when I argued against the police for targeting blacks in London because there was a high percentage of black crime I was wrong. But if I agreed with them I would be racist wouldn't I?

This is the whole area of anti-male prejudice summed up. Say that it is wrong for a man to enter a lift with a woman by herself because she's justifiably afraid of assault, and it sounds reasonable enough. If the man insists on getting in, he's being insensitive and should rethink. Change the scenario to a black man and a white woman, and suddenly the focus changes, and the fear becomes a racist stereotype.

It can be an interesting exercise to look at the negative statistics assembled against men, and to substitute "black men" in each place, and see if they seem to carry the same significance. Or take the statistics showing the disadvantage of black men, and then remove the "black" to see if they still apply.

It would seem to be part of the essence of a skeptical approach to examine one's assumptions in this way. A liberal prejudice can be as distorting, potentially, as being reactionary.