Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Walter Ego said:
The difference (so far) is that, unlike the Objectivists, there is no charismatic authority figure leading the FTB collective. They give every indication, however, that they are ripe for the picking by any demagogue with the requisite leadership skills.
Click to expand...

Whether or not there ends up being a leader whose will is law remains to be seen. However, if such a leader arises, the official line will be that there is no leader. Nazis were followers of Hitler, but Stalin denounced the cult of personality.
 
jt512 said:
Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
Click to expand...

You cannot be welcoming to people who do not argue with us and also be welcoming to people who argue with us. They choose only non-arguers.

Ah, I see how reasonable and inclusive they are.
 
Acleron said:
You cannot be welcoming to people who do not argue with us and also be welcoming to people who argue with us. They choose only non-arguers.

Ah, I see how reasonable and inclusive they are.
Click to expand...


Textbook straw man fallacy.
 
jt512 said:
Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
Click to expand...

You've been imbibing the Kool-Aid and not reading this thread closely enough. ANY dissent or disagreement with the agenda of what Atheism should be as delivered from on high from the FTB commissars will get you labeled as a misogynist, homophobe, racist, CHUD. or whatever term of approbation is trendy at the moment by the FTB commentariat.

This is not Free Thought. It's authoritarianism.
 
Walter Ego said:
You've been imbibing the Kool-Aid and not reading this thread closely enough. ANY dissent or disagreement with the agenda of what Atheism should be as delivered from on high from the FTB commissars will get you labeled as a misogynist, homophobe, racist, CHUD. or whatever term of approbation is trendy at the moment by the FTB commentariat.

This is not Free Thought. It's authoritarianism.
Click to expand...


Only if it's true.
 
jt512 said:
Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
Click to expand...

The above sounds plausible, but in fact it's not correct. It's perfectly possible to be welcoming to women and misogynists. It's perfectly possible to welcome homophobes and gays. The error is in focusing in on belief rather than behaviour.

AFAIAA, there's nothing whatsoever to prevent racists, homophobes and misogynists joining JREF. However, there are rules which prevent them from harassing and abusing other people. It's not a perfect system - and certainly a fair bit of abuse slips through the cracks - but sooner or later the people who consistently attack others will be removed.

Atheism+ doesn't have a problem with abusive language. Indeed, abusive language, scapegoating, personalisation are highly prevalent. Will the use of such methods make their movement more open and welcoming? I dare say that when some women see sexists attacked, that will make them feel safer. Other women might see the unfettered use of the language of sexual violence and be repelled.

If atheism+ had concentrated on standards of behaviour, then they might well have achieved a near consensus. Instead, they focused on belief - the idea seemingly being that someone with the right views on sexism, racism and sexuality will be the kind of person who won't proposition women in a lift at four in the morning.

Of course, I have no dog in this fight. I can't tell atheism how to run its business, and I wouldn't if I could. However, I can view what's going on with a degree of dispassion.
 
jt512 said:
I can see you're having trouble with this terribly hard logic problem. Consider drawing a Venn diagram.

HTH
Click to expand...

I think he quite rightly pointed out you were incorrect.

Amend yourself to logic! Admit your fallacious reasoning and REPENT HERETIC!
 
jt512 said:
Only if it's true.
Click to expand...

The truth of my statement was demonstrated a page or two ago on this very thread. Perhaps you missed it.

Justin Vacula and Thunderf00t, neither of whom are misogynists or homophobes, were both steamrollered by the lock-stepping "free thinking" mob and their minions.

Hell, (didn't think I'd play this card) I'm a gay liberal atheist (albeit a white male one, sorry about that!) and I don't want any of these politically correct clowns speaking for me. Nor would I join them even if they were offering free pie and ice creme. To be excluded by them is an honor.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Only if it's true.
Click to expand...

It's observably true. For a glaring example, look at the way Ryan Grant Long was dogpiled and demonized for what was initially a pretty innocuous disagreement on some tiny detail of Elevatorgate - now he's virtually an FtB meme, in the form of the demon misogynist ****kicker. Indeed, DJ Grothe's initial crime in FtB eyes was defending Ryan to the extent of clarifying who actually said what. Now both Ryan and DJ (both gay, both feminists, both great guys) are defamed as misogynistic by the same faction that are setting themselves up as arbiters of right-thinking.
 
RebeccaBradley said:
It's observably true. For a glaring example, look at the way Ryan Grant Long was dogpiled and demonized for what was initially a pretty innocuous disagreement on some tiny detail of Elevatorgate - now he's virtually an FtB meme, in the form of the demon misogynist ****kicker. Indeed, DJ Grothe's initial crime in FtB eyes was defending Ryan to the extent of clarifying who actually said what. Now both Ryan and DJ (both gay, both feminists, both great guys) are defamed as misogynistic by the same faction that are setting themselves up as arbiters of right-thinking.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your privilege...

>.>
 
jt512 said:
Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
Click to expand...

Wow.

No.
 
jt512 said:
I can see you're having trouble with this terribly hard logic problem. Consider drawing a Venn diagram.

HTH
Click to expand...


Right, so in the Venn diagram, those in the overlapping area are:

a) Women
b) Pancakes

You see, you set up your post I originally responded to as if there were no overlap. Your statement, "you can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists" fails if one is indeed a female misogynist and is not welcomed, because then the groups is clearly not choosing "women" as a class, just non-misogynists. Hence, your statement is illogical and you should be shunned for poor reasoning.

Sure, shunning misogynists might make a group appealing to a larger number of women, but your specific dilemma is false.

lopeyschools said:
I think he quite rightly pointed out you were incorrect.

Amend yourself to logic! Admit your fallacious reasoning and REPENT HERETIC!
Click to expand...


I am a she, you misogynist pig! :p

ETA: And a non-white one for bonus points!
 
Last edited:
squealpiggy said:
Interestingly now PZ has posted a piece by Michael Nugent about "ethical atheism" saying that he doesn't care what you call it, it's all about sharing certain values.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/28/thats-another-good-name/
Click to expand...

Michael Nugent's blog on "Ethical Atheism" illustrates my issue with this new group well:

Michael Nugent said:
In real life, atheism means more than mere disbelief in gods, or belief that there are no gods. If you disbelieve in gods, it necessarily follows that you also disbelieve that we get our ideas of truth and morality from gods.
Click to expand...

So far, so good... but here's the rub: if we atheists don't get our ideas of truth and morality from gods, where do we get them? ... no answer? That's right! Atheism has no answer! So, all of this stuff:

Michael Nugent said:
This is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote reason, critical thinking and science; atheism over supernaturalism; natural compassion and ethics; inclusive, caring atheist groups; fair and just societies; secular government; and local, national and global solidarity.
Click to expand...

has nothing to do with atheism (except the direct mention of atheism). If you want to create a group that promotes social justice, then call yourselves "social justicers" or "naturalist liberals" or whatever; use a label describing who you are, not who you aren't. I understand that a lot of this has to do with branding and gathering to discuss secular issues, but if they want to expand the discussion topics to social justice issues, they ought to choose a name that reflects that aspect. If they don't want to expand the topic but just want a code of conduct for skeptic/atheist meet-ups, then just attend those gatherings that enforce behavioral restrictions. Or start your own monitored event(s).

As someone who has never identified as a skeptic, it seems like some folks are too wedded to anti-religious rhetoric to just pick a new label. And I actually agree with them: I'd rather belong to a group of people who respect different genders, races, nationalities, sexual orientations, etc. equally and argue for sociopolitical change. It's probably just my personal bias, but I believe that I belong to a group like this already.
 
RebeccaBradley said:
It's observably true. For a glaring example, look at the way Ryan Grant Long was dogpiled and demonized for what was initially a pretty innocuous disagreement on some tiny detail of Elevatorgate - now he's virtually an FtB meme, in the form of the demon misogynist ****kicker. Indeed, DJ Grothe's initial crime in FtB eyes was defending Ryan to the extent of clarifying who actually said what. Now both Ryan and DJ (both gay, both feminists, both great guys) are defamed as misogynistic by the same faction that are setting themselves up as arbiters of right-thinking.
Click to expand...

I tend to broadly agree, but I do find that this controversy seems to have spiralled due to a massive amount of bad decisions and offensive statements from a lot of people. So much of it appears to be X said this to Y and Z didn't object so he thinks the same.

Thank goodness this kind of division and feuding only happens among atheists. It would be awful if religious groups feuded like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom