Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Stout]

When did I say you did? I was addressing a specific claim about a specific thread, where one of the critics very blatantly and intentionally mischaracterized an A+ thread to make them look bad. You are ignoring that that just happened, and instead putting words in my mouth and bombarding me with ridiculous nonsense.

I have to agree, Setar did have a point there, right up until the time he compared accident victims with crime victims solely to make those accident victims sound more like the crime victims because Setar is much more likely to be an accident victim like the kind he specified in his OP.

It just doesn't have the cachet, saying you were in an accident as it does telling people you got run down deliberately by a car.

Now I don't know about where you live but around here, we don't have a significant percentage of drivers out hunting pedestrians,either turning them into road pizza, or just casually nudging them with their bumpers.

Crime vs Accident, sexual assault vs getting run down as a pedestrian. I don't think you'll find anyone defending the idea that not dressing like a ninja and darting out in front of cars is an even remotely good idea.

 

[Foolmewunz]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SAWCSM

Had to look it up myself.

Bwahaha! Check out (and VOTE UP) definition number 2. Which one of you did that?

Definition 2 now has an additional 45 "up" votes since I first noticed it. Oh, and you can vote definition 1 "down", but that would probably be mean (tee hee!).

 

[Stout]

If you're into voting on urban dictionary, there's always this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheism+plus

Every time you clear your cookies, you get to vote again.

 

[RandFan]

If you're into voting on urban dictionary, there's always this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheism+plus

Every time you clear your cookies, you get to vote again.

From the link. 2nd entry.

"We are...
Atheists PLUS we care about social justice,
Atheists PLUS we support women’s rights,
Atheists PLUS we protest racism,
Atheists PLUS we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists PLUS we use critical thinking and skepticism."

They left out Atheist PLUS we use rhetorical device as a way to poison the well. Have you checked your privilege today?

 

[jhunter1163]

7558 downvotes? Really?

"We are...
Atheists PLUS we care about social justice,
Atheists PLUS we support women’s rights,
Atheists PLUS we protest racism,
Atheists PLUS we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists PLUS we use critical thinking and skepticism."

 

[adamwho]

7558 downvotes? Really?

"We are...
Atheists PLUS we care about social justice,
Atheists PLUS we support women’s rights,
Atheists PLUS we protest racism,
Atheists PLUS we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists PLUS we use critical thinking and skepticism."

Some of us REALLY dislike those who have hijacked perfectly good intentions with the monstrosity that is atheism+.

As I mentioned before, these atheism+ people will have to do some serious apologizing before they are accepted back into to atheist/skeptic movement. Many many people who you don't hear about on blogs, forums and websites have a serious grudge against these people which will last for YEARS.


BTW: FtB

 

[recursive prophet]

7558 downvotes? Really?

Really, J. But this entry got even more yes votes, lol.

8154 up, 1877 down
A bunch of frauds. Despite having atheist in its name it really isn't atheism at all. Their goal is to subvert atheism with the religion of feminist indoctrination and bitch about non existent misogyny.

To these people any legitimate questioning of feminists and female privilege is grounds for calling anyone a misogynist. Atheism Plus is really nothing more then an attempt at co-opting the meaning of atheism.
Atheism Plus is nothing more than dogmatic feminists trying to commandeer the atheist movement. This will set back Atheism for decades if these usurpers gain popularity.

 

[CaptainManacles]

If you were addressing a specific claim it was not quoted, cited, linked to or referenced in any way.

Yes it was. My original post quoted a specific claim that I was disputing, and the link to the relevant thread has been posted. Some of this is my fault, I was posting as I was leaving work so I was in a hurry and wasn't clear, my last statement that everyone seems so interested in was more of a "this is pretty typical in my experience" rather than "those other specific claims in this thread are also bs"

But my original point was also ignored, derailed, strawmanned, and now everyone seems intent on analyzing to death one exasperated comment I made 4 degrees of separation away from it's proper context. Since this is essentially what I'm accusing you of doing to A+, bravo for making my point.

But there also seems to be a bad assumption being made that I'm here to defend A+. I'm not part of their thing and I don't care that much. I saw a bad argument and I pointed it out. If you want to make a case for why I'm wrong, fine, but if you just want to sit around and argue over who cited what improperly, I don't have that kind of time. If you're saying A+ people make a lot of other arguments that are really bad, I probably believe you? What happened now with Matt Dillahunty?

 

[CaptainManacles]

alright, I read the Matt Dillahunty thing, that's fascinating

 

[Foolmewunz]

alright, I read the Matt Dillahunty thing, that's fascinating

The thing is... there are about 150 posts a day over there. That's a small number, but we're not objecting to all of them, just the ones where as the supposed representatives of Atheists Who Care About Social Justice, they are misrepresenting US, people who've been and done both, for decades in some cases.

Their idiosyncratic and anecdote based interpretation of every issue boils down to Aspergers + not Atheism +. It's interesting how people with mental health issues are not even mentioned in the original standards, but that's the group that's hijacked the forums and the moderation. You can find that in the discussions of their sooper sekret invitation only forum, in the discussion on vegetarians, in the discussion with diogenes, and on and on and on.

Aspergers (d.b.a. Level 5 High Level Functional Autism soon, I believe) in many cases there is even self-diagnosed.

"Hey, I'm rude and couldn't care less about what anyone thinks, so I must have Aspergers (syndrome, disorder, whatever)!"
"Uh, no. You're just a jerk!"
"**** you. See, that proves I have Aspergers."

And call me an ableist ("Okay, you're an ableist!"), but somehow a forum that prides itself on caring about people* being run by a group whose defining characteristic is the inability to empathize and follow subtleties in conversation is, shall we say, less than ideal.

*From their ridiculous Word Cloud which I can no longer locate. It's the most prominent word on there, by far. And they don't care about people - they care about "certain people".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But he specifically said, "if the woman felt harassed then she was" and clearly it was a comment that said he's bought into camp Rebecca hook line and sinker.

You should have told him/event staff that you felt harassed by that statement.

 

[squealpiggy]

Yes it was. My original post quoted a specific claim that I was disputing, and the link to the relevant thread has been posted. Some of this is my fault, I was posting as I was leaving work so I was in a hurry and wasn't clear, my last statement that everyone seems so interested in was more of a "this is pretty typical in my experience" rather than "those other specific claims in this thread are also bs"

I was following the thread and I didn't see the reference or link, if this is my fault I apologise.

 

[AlBell]

I was following the thread and I didn't see the reference or link, if this is my fault I apologise.

Same for me. Captain, you mentioned 'being in a hurry'; did you neglect to actually provide a link?

 

[The Greater Fool]

If you're into voting on urban dictionary, there's always this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheism+plus

Every time you clear your cookies, you get to vote again.

From the 2nd definition, which the bottom 2/3 is a quote from Jen McCreight, I rather like this part:

"Atheism Plus is essentially an answer to the "now what" question that focuses on treating prejudice as woo." (Emphasis mine).

 

[kbonn]

If you were addressing a specific claim it was not quoted, cited, linked to or referenced in any way.

Yes it was. My original post quoted a specific claim that I was disputing, and the link to the relevant thread has been posted. Some of this is my fault, I was posting as I was leaving work so I was in a hurry and wasn't clear, my last statement that everyone seems so interested in was more of a "this is pretty typical in my experience" rather than "those other specific claims in this thread are also bs"

But my original point was also ignored, derailed, strawmanned, and now everyone seems intent on analyzing to death one exasperated comment I made 4 degrees of separation away from it's proper context. Since this is essentially what I'm accusing you of doing to A+, bravo for making my point.

But there also seems to be a bad assumption being made that I'm here to defend A+. I'm not part of their thing and I don't care that much. I saw a bad argument and I pointed it out. If you want to make a case for why I'm wrong, fine, but if you just want to sit around and argue over who cited what improperly, I don't have that kind of time. If you're saying A+ people make a lot of other arguments that are really bad, I probably believe you? What happened now with Matt Dillahunty?

I see no links to any specific examples, asking you to provide that isn't an argument, its a requirement for an argument.

Just start over. Link to the specific case where you think A+ is being misrepresented or straw-manned. This isn't a race, and if it turns out it was me, I'd like to know so I can correct it.

The way you started, you just came off as someone who wants them(A+) to be the good guys, and sometimes they are. The sad thing is, many times they are not only not the good guys, but are actively the bad guys, and they can't see it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm not getting involved in the fight about A+ on the whole. It's complicated and way too much effort to even bother with.

That said, anyone who states that putting your Autistic child into therapy so that they can better cope with the world is not only a bad thing but also abuse? They're absolutely insane.

There's a campaign in the UK that for the past few years has been running the occasional televised adverts telling people that those with mental illnesses are normal people and should be treated like normal people, not viewed as some scary monster that could attack at any time or as a curious exhibit at a human zoo. This attitude is exactly the correct attitude to have, because Joe Bloggs your friend doesn't magically become a different person because he now has (or has now been diagnosed with) a mental illness. However here seems to be a growing idea that the factual statement "Joe is a human being and there's nothing wrong with treating him like one" = "There's nothing wrong with Joe". No, sorry that isn't the case. It isn't Joe's fault he's got the mental illness he has, but it's still something that should be treated.

I have spoken before at length on this forum about my paranoia issues, and how I used to believe that some of the students from my school had installed a video camera in my bedroom and watched me to make fun of me. It became almost crippling to how I reacted in the safety of my own bedroom, and it turned me into an absolute backbiting monster for years because I thought that hey, these people are laughing behind my back and selling me out so why not do the same to them? I was a wreck, ruining my friendships and pointing to the inevitable collapse and saying that see, I was right about them not being my friends! My life was hell, and although I got little therapy and recovered pretty much on my own (with the help of very understanding Uni friends) I realised even at the time that I needed help.

Am I saying Autism is the same as paranoia issues? No, of course not. But I have seen Grimalkin saying things that basically boil down to "I'm seriously paranoid...but everyone should bend over backwards to accommodate that and I don't need any therapy because I'm a special little snowflake."

No. No that's crap. Should people be respectful? Yes. Should they be accommodating? To a certain extent. The world doesn't revolve around you and your mental illness should not be left untreated. It isn't able-ism to make sick people better and it isn't able-ism to help those with social disorders cope better in society. It benefits the individual and it benefits society. Infantalising them by claiming that they need to make no effort to get on in society hurts everyone involved and just oozes condescending douchebaggery from every pore. If you have a mental illness for dog's sake get it treated. If you have a social or emotional problem for dog's sake get help and adapt to your surroundings and teach those around you to be respectful, helpful and understanding, don't expect everyone to prostrate themselves before you just because you are different.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Except there is a not so small chunk that doesn't think that, and quite often the rest of society seems willing to jump aboard their mischaracterizations and straw men when reasonable demands are made. A woman asks to not have her breasts grabbed, some douchenozzle reacts with "oh, so you're saying sex is bad!" , and a mob forms to hang the man-hating she-beast. Almost no one in the mob would ever otherwise support sexual assault, but the net effect is the same

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Diogenes]

...Should people be respectful? Yes. Should they be accommodating? To a certain extent. The world doesn't revolve around you and your mental illness should not be left untreated. It isn't able-ism to make sick people better and it isn't able-ism to help those with social disorders cope better in society. It benefits the individual and it benefits society. Infantalising them by claiming that they need to make no effort to get on in society hurts everyone involved and just oozes condescending douchebaggery from every pore. If you have a mental illness for dog's sake get it treated. If you have a social or emotional problem for dog's sake get help and adapt to your surroundings and teach those around you to be respectful, helpful and understanding, don't expect everyone to prostrate themselves before you just because you are different.

This is exactly where I had hoped such a discussion would resolve. The people seeking to enable otherwise in themselves or others are harming everyone else in their quest for unreasonable accommodation, in my opinion.

I don't work in mental health so feel free to correct if I'm getting something wrong here. I would also extend this to people with apparent delusional systems where they can't self-identify as human and, as enabled otherkin, have a community that supports their self-identification as cat-fairies or whatever. There are the people that claim to have fully-formed "headmates" that appear to be voluntary or wishful "multiple personalities". If they're happy and functional with their delusion then I've no say in it, of course, but when they want special accommodation from everyone else based on this state through a "social justice" platform it seems to me to diminish or dilute the importance of more real inequality.

 

[Humes fork]

I don't see Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers hanging out much these days. Dawkins seems to have switched him for Lawrence Krauss. Coincidence or a result of atheism plus?

Some of us REALLY dislike those who have hijacked perfectly good intentions with the monstrosity that is atheism+.

As I mentioned before, these atheism+ people will have to do some serious apologizing before they are accepted back into to atheist/skeptic movement. Many many people who you don't hear about on blogs, forums and websites have a serious grudge against these people which will last for YEARS.


BTW: FtB

I doubt they will ever apologize.

I don't know, but I get the impression that many atheist plussers are primarily left-wing/feminist activists who happen to be atheists. With a few notable exceptions, they don't seem particularly well-versed in science (or interested in becoming so) and lacking any inclination to teach people how to think critically.

 

[Mr. Scott]

From the 2nd definition, which the bottom 2/3 is a quote from Jen McCreight, I rather like this part:

"Atheism Plus is essentially an answer to the "now what" question that focuses on treating prejudice as woo." (Emphasis mine).

I object to that redefining of the word "woo." It should not be a catch-all term for anything you disagree with. It was coined to refer to magical explanations for things like psychokinesis, telepathy, homeopathy, etc. and it should not be expanded to refer to partisan politics of human relations.

I really don't like Aplussers' attack on the dictionary. They are in Humpty Dumpty fallicy land.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

(Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass)