Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
WOW. The sarcasm, snark, and sheer stupidity in that thread is astounding.
Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism atheism plus
- Status
WOW. The sarcasm, snark, and sheer stupidity in that thread is astounding.
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2010
- Messages
- 397
Just checked out their forum. I think they have replaced the space bar with a key that types the word "privilege."
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,097
rustypouch
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,745
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Damnit, Hokulele, don't you know you're not supposed to be reasonable in these discussions?
Shows the lack of self-criticism of that group perfectly. Many atheists and skeptics take the loudest and most obnoxious of their opponents and declare them the face of the movement, or focus their attacks on that group of people (it's one reason I stopped reading Pharyngula--Dr. Myers does this constantly). When the same thing is done to them, it's all because we're a bunch of sexist pigs. It couldn't POSSIBLY a consistent application of the principles they themselves utilize!
It never fails to amaze me that the loudest opponents of discrimination seem to always be the most guilty. Many people opposing racism express flagrantly racist views and advocate blatantly racist policies. Many feminists are so focused on bashing males that they ignore working for women's rights. Many people working to help those with disabilities focus on their disabilities (by that I mean, for example, I was once told that I could never criticize a guy who was being a complete jerk to me, because the guy was a parapalegic--to which I responded, to paraphrase, that I don't care how many limbs he can use the guy was being a jerk). The Atheism+ croud are so focused on attacking mysogenists that they can't see how sexist they're being.
(I don't mean that EVERYONE working to solve a social issue is guilty of that issue--I know feminists that aren't sexist, for example. I just mean that it's a very real danger, one that far too may people are guilty of and which I have very little symapthy for.)
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
Here's my general prediction about Atheism+ over the next few weeks/months.
A) Lacking any clear leadership, or even established methodology of choosing leaders, numerous different people will emerge as "leaders", each with their own vision of "Atheism+", each denouncing other self-proclaimed leaders as "fakes" or "unqualified".
B) Any reasonable, rational voices will be drowned out by more extreme voices, further adding to the confusion.
C) Within a few months, Atheism+ will have become relegated to the pile of "good ideas that failed for lack of adequate leadership and organization". We'll continue to hear bits and pieces about it, as it becomes more marginalized and dominated by more extreme voices, but will become largely irrelevant to the overall "atheist movement" (and may even end up proving detrimental to it).
My personal opinion as to why this will happen...lack of clear leadership and ownership right from the beginning. It's rapidly becoming a hodge-podge of different people with different agendas, all seeking to claim ownership of the Atheism+ movement, all seeking to grasp the initial popularity of what was a good concept, in order to support whatever their own pet agenda happens to be.
A) Lacking any clear leadership, or even established methodology of choosing leaders, numerous different people will emerge as "leaders", each with their own vision of "Atheism+", each denouncing other self-proclaimed leaders as "fakes" or "unqualified".
B) Any reasonable, rational voices will be drowned out by more extreme voices, further adding to the confusion.
C) Within a few months, Atheism+ will have become relegated to the pile of "good ideas that failed for lack of adequate leadership and organization". We'll continue to hear bits and pieces about it, as it becomes more marginalized and dominated by more extreme voices, but will become largely irrelevant to the overall "atheist movement" (and may even end up proving detrimental to it).
My personal opinion as to why this will happen...lack of clear leadership and ownership right from the beginning. It's rapidly becoming a hodge-podge of different people with different agendas, all seeking to claim ownership of the Atheism+ movement, all seeking to grasp the initial popularity of what was a good concept, in order to support whatever their own pet agenda happens to be.
Last edited:
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,468
http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd
I read some of the blogs on FTB. I'm not opposed to them in general but there are specific points on which I will disagree. I don't bother to comment because the responses are always the same but the peanut gallery in the comments section is not the reason I visit.
Here's a quote from the A+ forum:
This is the problem with "us vs them". "Us" always thinks they are the good guys and "Them" are always unconscionably evil.
One more time: Just because you don't want to be involved in Atheism+ does not mean that you make rape jokes!
The only time when Us vs Them makes objective sense is when watching football. Sheesh.
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
Shows the lack of self-criticism of that group perfectly. Many atheists and skeptics take the loudest and most obnoxious of their opponents and declare them the face of the movement, or focus their attacks on that group of people (it's one reason I stopped reading Pharyngula--Dr. Myers does this constantly). When the same thing is done to them, it's all because we're a bunch of sexist pigs. It couldn't POSSIBLY a consistent application of the principles they themselves utilize!
It never fails to amaze me that the loudest opponents of discrimination seem to always be the most guilty. Many people opposing racism express flagrantly racist views and advocate blatantly racist policies. Many feminists are so focused on bashing males that they ignore working for women's rights. Many people working to help those with disabilities focus on their disabilities (by that I mean, for example, I was once told that I could never criticize a guy who was being a complete jerk to me, because the guy was a parapalegic--to which I responded, to paraphrase, that I don't care how many limbs he can use the guy was being a jerk). The Atheism+ croud are so focused on attacking mysogenists that they can't see how sexist they're being.
(I don't mean that EVERYONE working to solve a social issue is guilty of that issue--I know feminists that aren't sexist, for example. I just mean that it's a very real danger, one that far too may people are guilty of and which I have very little symapthy for.)
I've been reading this thread and following the antics (mainly from that ol' evil slyme pit, but also rationalia and the blogs, twitter, etc), and I'm probably an enemy of the state even though I rarely post over at FTB and never at Skepchick....so I'm not going to waste time trying to make an account there. But if anyone is there, could someone reply to the idiot who asked why people think Carrier speaks for A+ - could it be because he said he came up with the idea and speaks for it? I mean, it's right in Carrier's first rant, if they read it (assuming he hasn't deleted or edited it that is).
Damn - George Carlin would not be allowed in, and I think Tim Minchin has made similar jokes, so I guess they'll boot him if he came around. Same for quite a lot of comedians. I really think they have no concept of humor.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
There's an old joke that goes like this...
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!
Temecula
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
- Messages
- 177
Spent about 15 seconds trying to find an upvote/thumbs up type button for this comment.
A balanced appraisal saying much the same thing as many of the posters here. I'm guessing you didn't actually read it yourself.
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
Hi Kochanski!
I was not at this TAM, but as you know I was at TAM5.5, where I was asked to do a photo for the Skepchick calendar. After much thought I eventually agreed, because although I had reservations about the whole thing, I figured there are different flavours of skepticism, and feminism, and while it may or may not be for me there seemed little harm in supporting it.
I am sorry to see phrases like "politely kept to ourselves because we didn't want interfere with other women who seemed to enjoy the skepchick thing" and more particularly "wishing we said something years ago because of all the things they do that embarrass and mortify us". You know that no woman, or group of women speaks for every other woman, right? The skepchicks have the right to their approach the same as others have the right to approach it differently.
(Perhaps my contribution made you believe I was one of those "women who seemed to enjoy the skepchick thing"?)
It is the same thing here - no skeptic, or atheist speaks for all others, not Dawkins, not De Bouttain, not Stephen Fry or Tim Minchin. I dislike that De Bouttain appears to be be trying to speak for all atheists on occasion (often because those spoken positions are not ones I hold), but he says some things I agree with, and yet I also agree with much of what Dawkins says.
I've said it elsewhere, one of the things I find most amusing (in a sad way) about religion is the continual schism and breaking up of churches, splitting and splitters and divides among institutions claiming to be based on (often universal) love and tolerance. I think I always thought atheism, and perhaps skepticism, should be above that, given that they are not doctrines or agendas - just a conclusion (atheism) and a methodology (skepticism). However it seems to me over recent years that this is what some people are trying to do - itemise, label and regulate these thought processes.
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
chillzero, I think you're taking Kochanski's comments rather grossly out of context. I'm not seeing where she's saying the skepchicks don't have the right to their approach...but rather that others should not feel intimidated or embarrassed to express their own concerns or disagreements with the Skepchicks.
Harriet's shirt expressed a sentiment that Kochanski had wanted to express, but been afraid or embarrassed to. She's now saying that she wishes she'd spoken up earlier, rather than being silent.
This has nothing at all to do with the 'rights' of the Skepchicks to do things their way...but it does speak potentially to the danger of a group that is so convinced that they are right, and so willing to attack those who disagree, that others feel intimidated to speak up. The Skepchicks have the right to do things their way...but others have an equal right to disagree with them, or question those methods.
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
I posted to Facebook - "I publicly disavow Atheism +".
It sure as hell has the hallmarks of how a cult starts.
Careful, you're letting your center-right views be known. If they get around too much you'll become one of ThemTM.
Antiquehunter
Degenerate Gambler
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,088
I haven't read this entire thread, but the last page seems to sum up my opinions nicely.
Since it appears I need to decide if I'm 'in' or 'out' of 'Atheism+' - I'm out, based on what I'm seeing. Its not for me. I'm a nice guy (I think) and am generally concerned with human rights (not capitalized). I am not necessarily a feminist, but nor am I a douchebag.
I am more interested in trying to advance atheism/secular thought than any nebulous 'change the world with atheism' sort of higher calling. Especially not a higher calling that has such strict 'in or out' decisions, and such censorship on their fora.
MAYBE it will evolve into something I can wrap my head around. I hope though, that it dies a quick death a la 'Brights'.
I wonder what Christopher Hitchens (pbuh) would say about all this?
Sigh. Like Chillzero, I think we do better as a community all together, embracing the diversity of thoughts and ideas that more radical feminist thinkers bring to the group, rather than splintering into little fringe groups. Atheism+ alleges they want to bring diversity to the 'movement', and at the same time sets up membership barriers that are the internet version of ethnic cleansing.
Since it appears I need to decide if I'm 'in' or 'out' of 'Atheism+' - I'm out, based on what I'm seeing. Its not for me. I'm a nice guy (I think) and am generally concerned with human rights (not capitalized). I am not necessarily a feminist, but nor am I a douchebag.
I am more interested in trying to advance atheism/secular thought than any nebulous 'change the world with atheism' sort of higher calling. Especially not a higher calling that has such strict 'in or out' decisions, and such censorship on their fora.
MAYBE it will evolve into something I can wrap my head around. I hope though, that it dies a quick death a la 'Brights'.
I wonder what Christopher Hitchens (pbuh) would say about all this?
Sigh. Like Chillzero, I think we do better as a community all together, embracing the diversity of thoughts and ideas that more radical feminist thinkers bring to the group, rather than splintering into little fringe groups. Atheism+ alleges they want to bring diversity to the 'movement', and at the same time sets up membership barriers that are the internet version of ethnic cleansing.
Temecula
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
- Messages
- 177
I've done similarly. It's a good idea to get out ahead of this thing and distance myself from it, as it will no doubt become a humiliating skidmark on the underwear of atheist visibility.
- Status