Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Walter Ego]

Maybe Jen hasn't quite made the ingroup-outgroup distinction between the enlightened atheism+ crowd and the atheists who are sending her hate mail.

Why do you assume it's atheists who are sending her the hate mail? Do they sign the letters "an atheist?" Some of them are doubtless atheists but many are probably garden variety internet trolls who picked her because she's obviously vulnerable and an easy target.

It was the Skepchick/FTB politburo that introduced the poisonous (and unproven) meme that all this harassment's was coming "from atheists."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Blocked by more Atheism+ers for merely stating that nothing on #atheism plus constitutes a threat against Jen. They're the ones telling me to F-off. Inclusiveness FTW.

How dare you question dogma?

 

[westprog]

There's a video of Dawkins somewhere reading hate mail in front of a crackling fire.

Maybe Jen hasn't quite made the ingroup-outgroup distinction between the enlightened atheism+ crowd and the atheists who are sending her hate mail. It always hurts a bit more to be abused/betrayed by people on "your side". Where Dawkins can laugh off empty threats and idle curses from those deluded theists, I suspect it's harder, even for someone who's drawn a new line in the sand, to laugh off venom from one's (until quite recently) own.

It's interesting that she set up a provocative attack on a fundamentalist Muslim cleric and it didn't seem to bother her much.

Frankl divided people into "decent" and "indecent". Everyone spends some time in both groups, and it's easier to stomach hate mail when one can legitimately say that it's coming from someone who's given himself permission to be indecent. The 99 things upon which you and he might agree become sort of irrelevant at that point.

One of the unpleasant aspects of A+ is the way that questioning any aspect of it leads to being lumped in with the perverts sending hate mail. I don't think she's keen on that aspect, but that's what she's been coopted into.

 

[Walter Ego]

If you wanted to encapsulate PZ Myers to someone you'd never met, you'd probably find the highlighted text quite a good description. He's clearly no problem at all in insulting, denigrating and belittling people who hold the "wrong" views, and he's set the tone for a good bit of New Atheism. That it might end up turned on itself was never that unlikely.

Myers has always been animated by animosity. It's his driving force. This was less noticeable in his days on Science Blogs as his targets were theists and republicans and his natural audience mostly agreed with him. When he went over to FTB and began to turn his seething hatred on anyone, including his fellow atheists, who disagreed with him in the slightest on any topic, people began to wise up. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[RebeccaBradley]

Why do you assume it's atheists who are sending her the hate mail? Do they sign the letters "an atheist?" Some of them are doubtless atheists but many are probably garden variety internet trolls who picked her because she's obviously vulnerable and an easy target.

It was the Skepchick/FTB politburo that introduced the poisonous (and unproven) meme that all this harassment's was coming "from atheists."

I think this is true, and a crucial point. It became pretty clear to me around Christmas, when Rebecca Watson did her "I hate atheists" rant after a pretty teenage girl posted her picture on the reddit atheist page holding a Dawkins book, and was flooded with obscene rape comments. RW seized on this as further evidence of the misogynist rot at the heart of the "atheist community" - but it looked to me and many others like a troll gang-bang. And I'd put the same construction on the so-called numerous rape threats and death threats claimed by RW and others.

But FtB and Skepchick, and now A+, conflate that kind of loathsome trollish behaviour with honest dissent by non-trolls and people who don't buy into their grim zero-tolerance agenda. So Blag Hag Jen's latest troll attack gets blamed on the critics of FtB, and the A-plussers' perception of the "haters" that surround them is reinforced. And so it goes.

So whodunnit really? There could be lots of suspects. Jen's a gamer, spent last weekend at a gamers convention, so maybe it was a gamer. Or it could have been a religious activist sowing discord. Or an A+ supporter manufacturing drama. Or a garden-variety troll at play, as Walter pointed out. Or it could indeed have been an atheist on the other side of the great and growing schism. But the latter is the A-plussers' default assumption, and they assume as well that it reflects the behaviour of all "other" atheists.

 

[Humes fork]

I think the aplusers are worse than that "temple for atheism" guy.

In a way, this... drama reminds me of when Paul Kurtz launched his "neo-humanist" manifesto, which included slurs against "new atheists" and how it leads to Stalinism. But that time, pretty much everyone sided with the traditional secular humanists.

The basic point is that it a useless enterprise to invent new labels for atheists (this is what was wrong with the brights). The word "atheist" is a fine word, and as Dawkins said, it should be used because of its stigma in certain circles. An atheist I am, and as an atheist I will die unless evidence is shown for God's existence.

 

[westprog]

I think this is true, and a crucial point. It became pretty clear to me around Christmas, when Rebecca Watson did her "I hate atheists" rant after a pretty teenage girl posted her picture on the reddit atheist page holding a Dawkins book, and was flooded with obscene rape comments. RW seized on this as further evidence of the misogynist rot at the heart of the "atheist community" - but it looked to me and many others like a troll gang-bang. And I'd put the same construction on the so-called numerous rape threats and death threats claimed by RW and others.

But FtB and Skepchick, and now A+, conflate that kind of loathsome trollish behaviour with honest dissent by non-trolls and people who don't buy into their grim zero-tolerance agenda. So Blag Hag Jen's latest troll attack gets blamed on the critics of FtB, and the A-plussers' perception of the "haters" that surround them is reinforced. And so it goes.

So whodunnit really? There could be lots of suspects. Jen's a gamer, spent last weekend at a gamers convention, so maybe it was a gamer. Or it could have been a religious activist sowing discord. Or an A+ supporter manufacturing drama. Or a garden-variety troll at play, as Walter pointed out. Or it could indeed have been an atheist on the other side of the great and growing schism. But the latter is the A-plussers' default assumption, and they assume as well that it reflects the behaviour of all "other" atheists.

The assumption in nearly all the replies to the retirement post was that there was one, united enemy - supporting all the bad things, opposing all the good, and fully complicit in all the hate mail and harassment.

There seem to be a wide range of responses. There's out and out vile personal attacks. There's unwise or unhappily phrased remarks, which are seized on and requoted. There are exchanges of insults. Demands for proof are treated as personal attacks. And so it goes.

 

[Mr. Scott]

1) Atheists plus we care about social justice,
2) Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
3) Atheists plus we protest racism,
4) Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
5) Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

An analogy:

Christians shouldn't just worship Christ. You are not a TRUE Christian unless you:

1) Allow God to be the ultimate judge of others, not man.
2) Treat women as inferiors as The Bible commands.
3) Abuse other races because they were cursed by God generations ago.
4) Presume homosexuality and all sexual perversions are the work of The Devil and must be stamped out.
5) Rely on faith and submission to authority instead of thinking for yourself.

It's about making a little kingdom of your own flavor of Christianity (or atheism), for which you can be the leader. The desire to be an alpha and control others is strong in our species.

I can understand their wish to divide good atheists from bad atheists, and I can foresee A+ meetings that play out like witch hunts or "we are better than them" Klan rallies. We play right into our opposition's hands by splintering and attacking each other -- we'd be doing the "divide" for them to make us an easier conquer.

FWIW I am against sexual harassment

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Scrolling through comments on Jason Thibault's blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/09/01/atheism-plus-is-just-like-a-religion/
and saw this in response to a question about the source of :

Because like it or not (and this is partly to nohellbelowus), there is a perception of this community — both from within and without — that those loudmouths, those disproportionately volumed trolls and actual misogynists and actual antifeminists — make up the bulk of the movement. Just try espousing feminist values online sometime and you’ll see exactly how many random people attack you. Not because you attacked them, but because you spoke up.

So, premise - haters make up the bulk of the movement.
Evidence - speak up and see how many random people attack you.

Am I missing the logical connection between these two?

 

[Walter Ego]

So, premise - haters make up the bulk of the movement.
Evidence - speak up and see how many random people attack you.

Am I missing the logical connection between these two?

You're forgetting that logic and reason are at the very bottom of Jen's list of things A plussers are for.

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.

The well-poisoning campaign of the Skepchic/FTB politburo, which has been going on for over a year now in the wake of Elevatorgate, has proven remarkably effective. The received wisdom is now that the "bulk" of the atheist/skeptic movement consists of "haters," i.e., misogynists and rape apologists, the "proof" of which is those "random" attacks. If you venture a contrary opinion, you are yourself one of the "haters."

As a life-long atheist and skeptic, I'm going to keep critical thinking and skepticism at the top of my list, thank you very much. If this gets me branded as a "hater" by a group of gullible idiots, so be it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I found this on Facebook last night and while I don't think it's entirely fair to Rebecca re: Elevatorgate, it's pretty damn funny.

 

[Horatius]

I found this on Facebook last night and while I don't think it's entirely fair to Rebecca re: Elevatorgate, it's pretty damn funny.

It's actually not at all fair, with regards to that, or her wedding at TAM.

 

[squealpiggy]

I agree, I'm no fan of Rebecca Watson (I just don't find her writing to be terribly interesting, sorry) but I don't think that picture is necessary.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Because like it or not (and this is partly to nohellbelowus), there is a perception of this community — both from within and without — that those loudmouths, those disproportionately volumed trolls and actual misogynists and actual antifeminists — make up the bulk of the movement. Just try espousing feminist values online sometime and you’ll see exactly how many random people attack you. Not because you attacked them, but because you spoke up.

So, premise - haters make up the bulk of the movement.
Evidence - speak up and see how many random people attack you.

Am I missing the logical connection between these two?

Not quite. Premise: There is a perception that haters make up the bulk of the movement.
(Evidence: plenty of posts about how people were turned off joining atheist/skeptic organizations)
The reason behind this perception is due to the attacks.

It may be that haters are in the minority. But as long as their bile isn't challenged - not just by the self-identified feminists, but by the vast majority - the perception will be that such hate will be shrugged off as normal. Which is what we're largely seeing.

 

[Walter Ego]

It may be that haters are in the minority. But as long as their bile isn't challenged - not just by the self-identified feminists, but by the vast majority - the perception will be that such hate will be shrugged off as normal. Which is what we're largely seeing.

You realize (or do you?) that any disagreement with the A+ politburo is lumped in with the "hate." Or do you believe that all this "hate" is coming from self-identified atheists?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's actually not at all fair, with regards to that, or her wedding at TAM.

I'm sorry, but I disagree on the wedding. I wasn't there, but it just had that attention whoring taint on it.

I agree, I'm no fan of Rebecca Watson (I just don't find her writing to be terribly interesting, sorry) but I don't think that picture is necessary.

I was reticient to post it here because it is quite flamatory and noted my reservations about Elevatorgate, but couldn't resist the call of levity. Apparently others don't agree and I take both your chastizments to heart.

eta - if it weren't for the edit time constraints I would delete it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not quite. Premise: There is a perception that haters make up the bulk of the movement.
(Evidence: plenty of posts about how people were turned off joining atheist/skeptic organizations)
The reason behind this perception is due to the attacks.

Point taken about perception, though with the caveat that said perception was created and fostered by FtBers so I don't see why it should be taken seriously.

And where are these "posts about how people were turned off joining atheist/skeptic organizations"? Were they on Skepchick/FtB? If so, I again wouldn't take them seriously since they're eminating from an echo chamber.

It may be that haters are in the minority. But as long as their bile isn't challenged - not just by the self-identified feminists, but by the vast majority - the perception will be that such hate will be shrugged off as normal. Which is what we're largely seeing.

I think, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, is the identity of the haters is still in question. Those actual critical thinkers who disagree with some or all of the premises of the group-think personality cult "leaders" of Atheism+, Skepchick and FtB are hardly haters nor spewing "bile".

And who is this "we" you speak of? I'm not seeing it, much less largely.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Point taken about perception, though with the caveat that said perception was created and fostered by FtBers so I don't see why it should be taken seriously.

And where are these "posts about how people were turned off joining atheist/skeptic organizations"? Were they on Skepchick/FtB? If so, I again wouldn't take them seriously since they're eminating from an echo chamber.

No. I've seen such comments far before FtB ever got off the ground, going back years. Mostly on the lines of "I looked into joining an atheist group, but it was so unpleasantly sexist that I went away". I could dig for them, but frankly I have better things to do at this time.

And even if they're posted on FtB, so what? If someone is perceiving the atheist societies as a hostile environment, aren't they far more likely to post in a blog that's sympathetic to such experiences than, say, here? Not everyone has a thick enough hide to raise such concerns in a place where they would be doubted from the start.

I think, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, is the identity of the haters is still in question. Those actual critical thinkers who disagree with some or all of the premises of the group-think personality cult "leaders" of Atheism+, Skepchick and FtB are hardly haters nor spewing "bile".

And who is this "we" you speak of? I'm not seeing it, much less largely.

Well, who then? I direct you to the latest post by Rebecca Watson, which lists specific examples of flames received by her. Would you argue that these represent people with legitimate disagreements, or people who merely want her to STFU?
http://skepchick.org/2012/09/misandry-a-how-to/

I'm also not sure what legitimate disagreements exist at this time - I'm seeing a lot of accusations of groupthink, a lot of quibbling about the label. What else?

As for sweeping under the carpet, this is mostly an issue for conventions. I haven't kept track of developments in local groups enough to comment (it's been months since I even had time to go to Sceptics in the pub). Most con organisers seem to be on the ball, but if you want a specific example, the comments by JD Groethe of late have all the hallmarks of someone trying to pretend the problem doesn't exist. Hopefully this whole kerfuffle will serve to put attention to the problem, put policies in place and indeed make cons more welcoming to a larger population once everyone calms down.

I'm not saying every single issue raised is necessarily relevant, but there are enough of them to indicate a problem that needs to be dealt with. Basically, once it becomes clear that the people in charge will back those who raise concerns about someone's conduct, we can all go back to heckling psychics or whatever your pet amusement is.

 

[Horatius]

I'm sorry, but I disagree on the wedding. I wasn't there, but it just had that attention whoring taint on it.

It may have been attention whoring, but it's wholly incorrect to say that she "interrupted TAM" for it, unless you care to explain how using part of the time slot assigned to the SGU live podcast recording, with the cooperation of all the members of the SGU, counts as "interrupting". It wasn't an interruption, it was a scheduled part of TAM.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I am delighted, uproariously amused, and deeply honored to let everyone know that the hottest topic on the Atheism+ message board's "Main Forum" section is the appropriateness of the phrase "JAQing off".

I'm touched, really.