Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[chillzero]

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.

That's a very fair comment - I can see why you made it, thanks.

Indeed, I don't think Kochanski was talking about such rights - I extrapolated a bit and didn't separate that from my response to her. I just feel disappointed that she didn't feel able to speak up before that, for whatever reasons, and that by extension it is made to seem that one group exerts their opinion over others.

 

[Kochanski]

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.

Chill, I am sorry, as usual my use of words failed me and I did not convey all that I really meant. Words are not my strength. Wolfie has it partially right.

I am quite happy with there being a multitude of skeptics and feminists groups each with their own voice and approach, I usually view this as a good thing. Not everyone has the same views and with many groups it gives lots of different individuals the opportunity to find a comfortable community.

I do not expect any one group to speak for me and do not expect any of them to change to fit my views. I simply choose not to belong to them. I did not feel the need to say anything about skepchicks initially because of that. They have a right to be who they are. I do not fear them. I could if I wished post on their site my views and concerns, but I choose not to because I have seen the way they respond to views that do not jive with theirs. I am tough skinned enough not to get my feelings hurt if they respond as they have to many others, but I don't see the point in wasting my time doing it, when they are unlikely to listen and I really am not interested in being involved with them. They have however intimidated many individuals.

My biggest issue with them is that as the loudest and most visible group of women who are skeptics, their voices are being heard outside the skeptics community and I have been put in the position of having to tell people, that no I am not a skepchick and no they do not represent me or the views and positions of all skeptics who are women. They have done things that I find reprehensible. They have acted in ways that embarrass me. They seem to not care whether the publicity they get is positive or negative, any publicity will do.

One of my grandmother's favorite expressions was "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose". The skepchicks have hit the tip of my nose and I will be silent no more so that my views will be heard and so that others will be encouraged to speak.

I see many parallels between them and the atheism+ community, and not just because many of the same individuals are involved. I fear that if the atheism+ group heads in the same direction as the skepchicks, that once again my nose will be hit and I will be in the defensive position (never a good one to be in) of having to once again say that a group does not represent me, my views or my behavior or indeed the views of all atheists.

 

[chillzero]

Chill, I am sorry, as usual my use of words failed me and I did not convey all that I really meant. Words are not my strength. Wolfie has it partially right.

I think a lot of the fault was mine.

I do not expect any one group to speak for me and do not expect any of them to change to fit my views. I simply choose not to belong to them. I did not feel the need to say anything about skepchicks initially because of that. They have a right to be who they are. I do not fear them. I could if I wished post on their site my views and concerns, but I choose not to because I have seen the way they respond to views that do not jive with theirs. I am tough skinned enough not to get my feelings hurt if they respond as they have to many others, but I don't see the point in wasting my time doing it, when they are unlikely to listen and I really am not interested in being involved with them. They have however intimidated many individuals.

I see ... this may be where my understanding and experience has diverged.

My biggest issue with them is that as the loudest and most visible group of women who are skeptics, their voices are being heard outside the skeptics community and I have been put in the position of having to tell people, that no I am not a skepchick and no they do not represent me or the views and positions of all skeptics who are women. They have done things that I find reprehensible. They have acted in ways that embarrass me. They seem to not care whether the publicity they get is positive or negative, any publicity will do.

One of my grandmother's favorite expressions was "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose". The skepchicks have hit the tip of my nose and I will be silent no more so that my views will be heard and so that others will be encouraged to speak.

I see many parallels between them and the atheism+ community, and not just because many of the same individuals are involved. I fear that if the atheism+ group heads in the same direction as the skepchicks, that once again my nose will be hit and I will be in the defensive position (never a good one to be in) of having to once again say that a group does not represent me, my views or my behavior or indeed the views of all atheists.

Fair enough. I guess I feel that the fault there lies with the lack of critical thinking of others, that lumps all people together because of one particular common theme (skepticism, atheism, etc), but I fully understand that regardless of that, it is an issue for people within one or more of those groups.

I do agree about the parallels you draw here, though. There seem to be lines drawn in the sand, and I don't understand why I am being asked to stand on any side of them, or straddling them ... or whatever it is I am being asked to do... or even why those lines are being drawn in the first place.

One of the initial and main criticisms that atheism+ has held against other atheist groups and/or humanist groups and/or skeptic groups is that they are full of privileged white men. Yet that statement in itself seems to me to ignore the very existence of the people making the statement, and much of their usual audience!

 

[Kochanski]

I do agree about the parallels you draw here, though. There seem to be lines drawn in the sand, and I don't understand why I am being asked to stand on any side of them, or straddling them ... or whatever it is I am being asked to do... or even why those lines are being drawn in the first place.

One of the initial and main criticisms that atheism+ has held against other atheist groups and/or humanist groups and/or skeptic groups is that they are full of privileged white men. Yet that statement in itself seems to me to ignore the very existence of the people making the statement, and much of their usual audience!

I don't see a point in having to make a choice either. I do not see the world as binary, planet x is always an option

I am an atheist, but this does not define me, it is one aspect of a weird and wacky me. I have no interest in being involved with atheism+ but apparently this makes me against them? Not sure why.

I just know I don't want to get caught in a storm I did not create.

 

[zeggman]

Can I get a quick clarification?

Is it "skepchuds" or "skeptichuds"?

 

[chillzero]

(response to Kochanski)

 

[westprog]

One of the initial and main criticisms that atheism+ has held against other atheist groups and/or humanist groups and/or skeptic groups is that they are full of privileged white men. Yet that statement in itself seems to me to ignore the very existence of the people making the statement, and much of their usual audience!

I pointed out to Mr Collier that using terms redolent of sexual loathing might have the effect of putting off part of the wider community which he seeks to attract. He replied that the term in question has be redefined and co-opted by third wave feminism and hence nobody need worry about it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

One of the initial and main criticisms that atheism+ has held against other atheist groups and/or humanist groups and/or skeptic groups is that they are full of privileged white men. Yet that statement in itself seems to me to ignore the very existence of the people making the statement, and much of their usual audience!

I don't see a point in having to make a choice either. I do not see the world as binary, planet x is always an option

Can you women pipe down please? Us men are trying to have a serious conversation.

 

[dasmiller]

I don't see a point in having to make a choice either. I do not see the world as binary, planet x is always an option

+1!

"are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement . . . or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?"

"Planet X, sir"

(I think it's the perfect response, but I fear that nobody outside of the JREF forum would understand it)

ETA: "On Planet X, Atheism is a transfinite number"

 

[d4m10n]

Can I get a quick clarification?

Is it "skepchuds" or "skeptichuds"?

Definitely the latter. Excellent neologism.

Now if we can only find a test for the condition of being a skeptiCHUD which doesn't have an alarmingly high false positive rate.

 

[El_Spectre]

Fun with words

While we are making up names, I'd like to propose one for all the little subdivisions:

"Skepcliques"

 

[Wildy]

No no no, it should be 'Athiclique'.

But speaking of random words and that. There was a discussion here that was basically about 'GLBT' being sexist and against bisexual and transsexual people and that a different term should be used.

 

[Kochanski]

While we are making up names, I'd like to propose one for all the little subdivisions:

"Skepcliques"

I am still up for the Planet X option

 

[squealpiggy]

No no no, it should be 'Athiclique'.

But speaking of random words and that. There was a discussion here that was basically about 'GLBT' being sexist and against bisexual and transsexual people and that a different term should be used.

Gay men are on top of lesbians? YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

 

[squealpiggy]

In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.

To summarise the above linked post:

1. Atheists with social conscience already exist -> Secular humanism
2. I agree with all of the things that Greta/McReight are saying, hence I am a secular humanist
3. Richard Carrier sounded like a nutter

No difference to the observations made here.

 

[El_Spectre]

I am still up for the Planet X option

I am reminded of a favorite song of mine, which starts:

Don't try to make me a part of no plan
Take me or leave me alone
Freedom's a feeling that few understand
I got a life of my own....

 

[tsig]

Nailed it.

I'm seeing Deep Rifts here.

(wrings hands, runs around with hair on fire)


Here's a suggestion for all those who find certain sites on the internet unsettling:

Don't go there.

 

[tsig]

I joined the Atheism+ forums, and lasted two days. My first day, I saw a mod inform someone who expressed a dissenting opinion that while he's welcome to disagree, their forums are intended only for people who support their plans. The exact quote:I also started my own thread, raising several issues that hadn't been discussed much. It was done in a very polite manner, expressing support for the general principles of A+, and simply challenging them to take a broader perspective (ie. getting minorities more involved).

That thread was summarily closed after about one day. No rules broken, just a short notice that if I want to discuss those things, I must do so in one specific thread, and apparently should not raise those issues elsewhere.

I don't know how much the attitudes of the mods there reflect the attitudes of the "leaders" (if there are any yet) of A+...but it certainly seems that they are woefully unaware of what the terms "skepticism" and "critical thinking" mean...which is particularly sad given that both are stated goals/priorities of Atheism+

I'm waiting for Atheism Lite. Less filling, more flavor.

 

[El_Spectre]

I'm waiting for Atheism Lite.

"Hates Great!" "Less Filling!"

 

[Horatius]

I'm waiting for Atheism Lite. Less filling, more flavor.

I think that's just "being an atheist". Far too many of the people posting about all this A+/- business seem to forget that the vocal types are just a small part of the larger group of atheists.

Not everyone wants to be an activist.