Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[westprog]

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.

The supposed reasonable remarks at the end - try substituting "Jew" in place of "Christian". Or "Italian". Or "Arab". Suddenly they don't sound as reasonable. "Of course I don't mean that all <group X> are like that, just the ones I'm saying do that kind of thing." Note the reference to "misogynists and accommodationist ****wads". Isn't that a brilliant bit of conflating? You might think that chatting to your Christian neighbour is reasonable enough, but in fact, it lines you up with "rape and death threats".

It's a deliberate use of the extreme behaviour as a way to smear the largest possible number of people.

 

[squealpiggy]

PZ Myers and that one girl's dad are treated like they speak for the atheism plus because atheism plus hasn't been denouncing their statements. If we apply that same logic to the trolls, what do we have? I think I remember reading some suggestions by skeptics in this very thread that it would be a good idea to incite 4chan to attack the atheism plus forum. So what are they supposed to think?

Quick question, you've repeated it numerous times, I'm just wondering if you genuinely believe your assertion that PZ Myers is not a part of A+?

 

[squealpiggy]

PZ posted this cartoon on his blog:

http://ataraxiatheatre.com/comics/2012-09-12-meanwhile-in-the-blogosphere.png

It shows a gathering of atheists talking about critical thinking. The next panel shows a blue haired young female atheist saying "Hey and maybe we can do something about sexism and racism as well!" to be met with outrageous anger by the (male white) compatriots as blue-hair says "So much for critical thinking".

There's a panel missing somewhere. Like the one where blue-hair's friend says "Yes and anyone who doesn't think so is a d-bag who should be made a pariah!"

 

[Hokulele]

Like PZ, this man is not part of atheist plus, so why is atheist plus accountable for letting or not letting his comments "slide"? Why this insistence on holding them responsible for everything that everyone else besides them is saying?

Persons - allegedly reasonable, non-insulting levelheaded non-atheist-plus persons, mind - sought this man out to call his daughter a slut in order to get some reaction. Reaction gotten. Blame atheism plus for the reaction?

Because Atheism+ claims to care about sexism and to want to do something about it. Here was a golden opportunity for them to practice what they preach, and they missed it, as far as I know. Before I get into the details, let me make a few things clear:

- The person who sent the slut message is a "foul blot on Western civilization", to semi-quote P.G. Wodehouse.

- Jen's dad had every right to be upset. He was justified in his anger.

- I do not follow Twitter at all, but apparently Jen stated that she was uncomfortable with his response. Kudos to her!

Now, with these points made, if A+ really wanted to change the world, this could have been a perfect educational opportunity. From what I know of feminism, Jen's dad was perfectly justified in being outraged, but how he chose to express that outrage was completely and utterly wrong. This is not an attack on him. This is simply me stating that his words came across as implying that Jen was incapable of responding appropriately on her own, and stating outright that physical violence is a reasonable solution.

Ideally, he would read comments by people telling him why his words made them uncomfortable, and his learning how his behavior looks from the outside, and potentially changing how he reacts to idiots in the future.

That was my first and only point in this particular tangent.

 

[Piscivore]

PZ posted this cartoon on his blog:

http://ataraxiatheatre.com/comics/2012-09-12-meanwhile-in-the-blogosphere.png

It shows a gathering of atheists talking about critical thinking.

Um, no it doesn't. It shows a bunch of anti-theists making sweeping, prejudicial generalizations and irrational, unsupportable claims. "So much for critical thinking" indeed- I don't know why blue-hair expected to find it in that bunch in the first place.

 

[westprog]

I think I remember reading some suggestions by skeptics in this very thread that it would be a good idea to incite 4chan to attack the atheism plus forum.

I don't remember this. I couldn't find a reference. Not saying you're wrong, but given the way that this goes, there needs to be certainty.

 

[qayak]

Now, with these points made, if A+ really wanted to change the world, this could have been a perfect educational opportunity. From what I know of feminism, Jen's dad was perfectly justified in being outraged, but how he chose to express that outrage was completely and utterly wrong. This is not an attack on him. This is simply me stating that his words came across as implying that Jen was incapable of responding appropriately on her own, and stating outright that physical violence is a reasonable solution.
Ideally, he would read comments by people telling him why his words made them uncomfortable, and his learning how his behavior looks from the outside, and potentially changing how he reacts to idiots in the future.

That was my first and only point in this particular tangent.

Not sure I agree. As a parent, my response to an attack on my child, any attack, has no bearing on their gender or on their ability to respond themselves and feminism doesn't enter into it. You attack my kid, I will respond in a way I feel is appropriate to the circumstances.

As to the threat of physical violence, I haven't got an issue with it, or with actual physical violence. Sometimes it is the best response, sometimes it is all a person has.

 

[Walter Ego]

I think I remember reading some suggestions by skeptics in this very thread that it would be a good idea to incite 4chan to attack the atheism plus forum.

Try using the search function instead of your unreliable memory. The statement was made in jest.

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

I don't think squealpiggy was saying it was a "good idea" or that someone should actually do it.

 

[squealpiggy]

Try using the search function instead of your unreliable memory. The statement was made in jest.



I don't think squealpiggy was saying it was a "good idea" or that someone should actually do it.

If we could only get it a bit more mainstream it might make for a South Park episode.

 

[westprog]

Um, no it doesn't. It shows a bunch of anti-theists making sweeping, prejudicial generalizations and irrational, unsupportable claims. "So much for critical thinking" indeed- I don't know why blue-hair expected to find it in that bunch in the first place.

However, I suspect that PZM would find the sentiments expressed in the first panel entirely to his taste. Which makes the whole thing quite ironic.

 

[Sledge]

Stay classy Sledge.

I think "class" was the first victim of this whole affair. No one's coming out of it looking good.

 

[The Big Dog]

Um, no it doesn't. It shows a bunch of anti-theists making sweeping, prejudicial generalizations and irrational, unsupportable claims. "So much for critical thinking" indeed- I don't know why blue-hair expected to find it in that bunch in the first place.

I was going to post something, but I'll just say: this.

I am baffled by that comic. It makes everyone look like idiots.

I assume Jack Chick drew that.

 

[Quinn]

Until an hour or so ago I was only vaguely aware that the phrase "atheism +" had become a thing. I just clicked on this thread and read (skimmed) the whole thing, as well as some of the relevant threads on the A+ site.

Conclusion: Atheists still really suck at functioning in groups.

 

[westprog]

I was going to post something, but I'll just say: this.

I am baffled by that comic. It makes everyone look like idiots.

I assume Jack Chick drew that.

To paraphrase:

"Let's form a group to jeer at people we think aren't as smart as us."

"Actually, I don't think that point of view can be entirely justified by..."

"Accomodationist!"

"Heh. Good one. Now about sexism and racism. I have this list of opinions you should all subscribe to."

How was that ever going to end up?

 

[chillzero]

Not sure I agree. As a parent, my response to an attack on my child, any attack, has no bearing on their gender or on their ability to respond themselves and feminism doesn't enter into it. You attack my kid, I will respond in a way I feel is appropriate to the circumstances.

As to the threat of physical violence, I haven't got an issue with it, or with actual physical violence. Sometimes it is the best response, sometimes it is all a person has.

I agree with Hokulele. My dad always let me fight my own battles - when it was within my ability to do so. Particularly when it was my actions that got me into the battle in the first place. I do the same for my daughter.

This reminds me a little of an incident years ago, when I was arguing with a neighbour (elderly gentleman) about shared responsibilites on the property. It got a bit heated, voices were raised, but I was holding my ground and things started to calm down as he began to see my perspective, although he didn't agree with it. My (now ex) husband came to the door, pulled me aside and started pushing the other man about - for upsetting his wife. Apart from the massive inappropriateness of the violence (the man was shaken, but not hurt) it was incredibly disrespectful to me as well. He basically undermined me and decided that I couldn't handle the matter myself, and that some good manly testosterone was what was needed - to 'protect' his property - nothing to do with the actual argument that was being had.

 

[devnull]

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.

Nah, that's not how privilege works.

There *is* a level of privilege that comes with being a white male. Very obviously so. It is much easier to get a loan, get employment, secure a rental etc.

This doesnt mean that white males cannot have bad stuff happen, or that their lives are easy, or that theyre automatically bad guys. For example, if you're a gay white male, you may experience times of privilege, and times of discrimination because you are gay. Being gay doesnt cancel out the privilege you may experience as a white male.

I do agree however that "being a white male means I am automatically assumed to be privileged" is a legitimate problem, is not "trolling", and did not deserve to be removed.

Obviously the forum is a great example of groupthink. Again, Im just waiting for PZ to one day post how it was all a bad idea and (of course) he knew that all along. PZ is never wrong

 

[chillzero]

Nah, that's not how privilege works.

There *is* a level of privilege that comes with being a white male. Very obviously so. It is much easier to get a loan, get employment, secure a rental etc.

Even if the white guy is someone like this:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100514235151/simpsons/images/d/dd/Cletus.png
?

This doesnt mean that white males cannot have bad stuff happen, or that their lives are easy, or that theyre automatically bad guys. For example, if you're a gay white male, you may experience times of privilege, and times of discrimination because you are gay. Being gay doesnt cancel out the privilege you may experience as a white male.

I do agree however that "being a white male means I am automatically assumed to be privileged" is a legitimate problem, is not "trolling", and did not deserve to be removed.

Obviously the forum is a great example of groupthink. Again, Im just waiting for PZ to one day post how it was all a bad idea and (of course) he knew that all along. PZ is never wrong

Agreed.

 

[Wildy]

Nah, that's not how privilege works.

There *is* a level of privilege that comes with being a white male. Very obviously so. It is much easier to get a loan, get employment, secure a rental etc.

I think you missed my point which was that the mod deleting those posts holds a definition of "privilege" that is different to what it actually is.

Being gay doesnt cancel out the privilege you may experience as a white male.

I do agree however that "being a white male means I am automatically assumed to be privileged" is a legitimate problem, is not "trolling", and did not deserve to be removed.

That raises an interesting question. What would happen if a gay, white male was to post in that thread and include that statement along with a bunch of statements about being gay?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Even if the white guy is someone like this:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100514235151/simpsons/images/d/dd/Cletus.png
?

He's yellow.

 

[Mr. Scott]

He basically undermined me and decided that I couldn't handle the matter myself, and that some good manly testosterone was what was needed - to 'protect' his property - nothing to do with the actual argument that was being had.

My word for this is "babooning" which means being driven by base instincts that motivate us to seek and maintain status -- instincts we have in common with the other great apes and many other social creatures. What makes humans different is our elegant rationalizations, which allow us to, for example, abuse moderator privilege to suppress dissenting opinions.