Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Wow. These people actually spend time thinking about this? :boggled:
Click to expand...
Some of them spend A LOT of time thinking about it. One of them has spent so much time parsing "morally appropriate" insults that you could probably write a compiler for them, except that the rules are inconsistent and contradictory.

I think it boils down to "when I insult you, it's virtuous; when you insult me, it's vile."
 
Myriad said:
The problem I'm having understanding what Atheism+ is all about stems from what I currently see as a deep inconsistency in what they're saying about themselves.
Click to expand...

From their point of view, there is no inconsistency. The atheism community is fraught with misogynists, and the leaders of A+ decided to create a misogynists-free group. From there, they would spread their ideas to like-minded individuals and organizations by, for example asking them to have extensive harassment policies, and if they refuse, it would therefore mean that these organizations support harassment of women.

I think that if they had called their group the "Secular Feminists for Social Justice", it would had been easier to understand what they wanted to do.
 
Myriad said:
So, are they activists or aren't they? Do they want (r)evolution, or seclusion? Should I hear them roar, or ignore them more?
Click to expand...

Actually, they're slacktivists, blog bloviators, keyboard warriors, speakers to the choirs at atheist and skeptic confabs, stagers of stunts like boobquake, sticking it to "the man" from their fortresses of white middle-class privilege.

I plan on keeping them under observation mainly for the entertainment value.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
Actually, they're slacktivists, blog bloviators, keyboard warriors, speakers to the choirs at atheist and skeptic confabs, stagers of stunts like boobquake, sticking it to "the man" from their fortresses of white middle-class privilege.

I plan on keeping them under observation mainly for the entertainment value.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how well it fits, but I just can't stop thinking of them as "hipster atheists". Don't know why, maybe because I don't know any hipsters (luckily) but they seem as shallow as the other groups of older days (like yuppies, etc).

eta: I agree with the entertainment value. I think they've really shot themselves in the feet now. If they had just said "this is what we believe, join us if you want, if not, that's cool" - no problems. But telling everyone else is wrong if you don't want to join the club....lulzworthy.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
Yet one of the A+ admins had just banned CFLarsen for "JAQing off".

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3564#p3564

Heehee!
Click to expand...

I think that's a real shame. Claus can be very annoying when he refuses to back down on something he has gotten wrong, however, he asks good questions, and people tend ot get irritated when they don't have clear answers. I was prey to it myself when I first came here believing in woo.

I think the questions he was asking (that I read so far) were perfectly legitimate, and I like how they were worded. It's a disgrace to that website that instead of engaging in discussion about the answers they firstly kept telling him they had already been answered (they had not, because the 'answer' was "we don't know yet", or else person A contradicted person B) and have now cut him off. It's like Pilots for Truth or Loose Change forums all over again in that respect - not good company for a 'skeptics' site to be keeping.

If they are honest at all, they should collate his questions and discuss them among the central team that is driving this movement, and come up with some decent mission satements, policies and FAQs based on them.
 
chillzero said:
If they are honest at all, they should collate his questions and discuss them among the central team that is driving this movement, and come up with some decent mission satements, policies and FAQs based on them.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but I see one problem right at the start of your post.
 
Last edited:
Badger3k said:
I'm not sure how well it fits, but I just can't stop thinking of them as "hipster atheists". Don't know why, maybe because I don't know any hipsters (luckily) but they seem as shallow as the other groups of older days (like yuppies, etc).
Click to expand...

"Hipster" has come to be a catch-all term for anybody who looks or acts different, who you don't happen to like; just as "yuppies" were anybody who looked reasonably wealthy, who you didn't happen to like. No one self-identifies as a "hipster", any more than anyone self-identified as a "yuppie".

eta: I agree with the entertainment value. I think they've really shot themselves in the feet now. If they had just said "this is what we believe, join us if you want, if not, that's cool" - no problems. But telling everyone else is wrong if you don't want to join the club....lulzworthy.
Click to expand...

In theory, they DO say "this is what we believe, join us if you want, if not, that's cool". (Richard Carrier notwithstanding.) Unfortunately, in practice, a lot of A+ers love to look down their noses at "dictionary atheists" (as they call us).
 
Axiom_Blade said:
...
In theory, they DO say "this is what we believe, join us if you want, if not, that's cool". (Richard Carrier notwithstanding.) Unfortunately, in practice, a lot of A+ers love to look down their noses at "dictionary atheists" (as they call us).
Click to expand...

I take people at face value from what they say in the absence of evidence. But Carrier and PZ stated clearly that you have to take the whole A+ credo or you are a .....

Since then, the evidence has just confirmed it. Even asking questions is now construed as somehow wrong and worthy of banning.

Nearly all their conversation appears to revolve around feminism. So why didn't they call themselves Feminist+. They will still have annoyed some people but not quite so many.
 
[delurk]

I've followed this debacle from the beginning, and I'm of the opinion that really no one on either side of the debate has covered themselves in glory. Still, it has been an amusing flame war though.

[/delurk]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom