Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Badger3k]

Richard Carrier has now weighed in, with what amounts to an Atheism+ manifesto: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/

He makes it abundantly clear that, if you are not willing to declare yourself an Atheist+ forthwith and unreservedly, you are a sexist, racist scumbag lacking in all reason, compassion and integrity. Though he does advocate giving such sorry excuses for humanity (ordinary atheists like me) one chance to repent our sins, telling his A+ readers to "...be empathic enough to assume at first that someone being an ignorant dufus is really just ignorant and misinformed, and not a douchebag; give them at least one shot at being educable, before kicking them into the sewers to wallow with their peeps."

The implication is, of course, that he and his A+ colleagues are the infallible arbiters of reason, compassion, and integrity.

Hmph.

Irony, from quote #57, including the link to Carrier's piece. Comment 58 also has some points in it. There are also comments on Carrier's piece that include someone saying "no thanks" and Carrier saying something like "one vote for douchbaggery" or something similar.

PZ is a little more sleazy and behind the scenes, usually, but his twitter feed is loaded with comments like that. He has a recent one saying that someone else can't define atheism for him, yet that's just what PZ has done (in his dictionary atheist post) and continues to do. The irony really is strong with that one.

He (PZ) gave a speech and I guess he has a blog post up crowing about it, but he asked the crowd a bunch of things (like supporting science education, environmentalism - whatever that might mean - and such things as feminism, gay marriage, etc. Not sure what they all have to do with not believing in gods - there is a leap of logic there somewhere. But seriously, other than those who live in internet burrows and do not interact with the real world much, who thinks people would say otherwise? Granted, I'd prefer to separate the secular issues from my disbelief, since they are only tangentially connected, and go with the broader "humanism" and "equality for all" instead of the narrow goals he spouted off, but as people say here (and everywhere, apparently), it's the tactics and behavior of these people that have many against their little clique.

 

[Walter Ego]

Irony, from quote #57, including the link to Carrier's piece. Comment 58 also has some points in it. There are also comments on Carrier's piece that include someone saying "no thanks" and Carrier saying something like "one vote for douchbaggery" or something similar.

PZ is a little more sleazy...

PZ also called a gay atheist he had a disagreement with a "tinkerbell."

PZ Myers Hates Fags.

 

[Irony]

Irony, from quote #57, including the link to Carrier's piece. Comment 58 also has some points in it. There are also comments on Carrier's piece that include someone saying "no thanks" and Carrier saying something like "one vote for douchbaggery" or something similar.

PZ is a little more sleazy and behind the scenes, usually, but his twitter feed is loaded with comments like that. He has a recent one saying that someone else can't define atheism for him, yet that's just what PZ has done (in his dictionary atheist post) and continues to do. The irony really is strong with that one.

He (PZ) gave a speech and I guess he has a blog post up crowing about it, but he asked the crowd a bunch of things (like supporting science education, environmentalism - whatever that might mean - and such things as feminism, gay marriage, etc. Not sure what they all have to do with not believing in gods - there is a leap of logic there somewhere. But seriously, other than those who live in internet burrows and do not interact with the real world much, who thinks people would say otherwise? Granted, I'd prefer to separate the secular issues from my disbelief, since they are only tangentially connected, and go with the broader "humanism" and "equality for all" instead of the narrow goals he spouted off, but as people say here (and everywhere, apparently), it's the tactics and behavior of these people that have many against their little clique.

I read post you linked to and the post in question. It's overly confrontational, polemic, and ripe for criticism, but the criticisms you stated are again just imaginings of what he "must have" meant rather than what he said.

He said atheists can be categorized into pro-social issues and anti-social issues. That argument falls prey to the excluded median fallacy, and pointing that out is valid criticism. Saying that he stated that anyone not in their group falls in the latter category is an interpretation of his argument, not his actual argument.

He says what he expects his group to be and what behaviors should get one excluded. This is trivial, all groups have rules. Arguing that the qualifications for membership have flaws is perfectly reasonable. Saying that the mere existence of rules of membership implies that he intends some sort of draconian cull of the larger community is flat-out laughable.

I don't mean to imply your "side" is worse (or for that matter even equivalent) to theirs. I'm just saying the silly rhetoric and wild accusations along the lines of what I hear from the average political ad do not help me to take you seriously.

 

[Acleron]

PZ also called a gay atheist he had a disagreement with a "tinkerbell."

PZ Myers Hates Fags.

...

I respect people who are disrespectful to me.

I wonder what he does to people who he doesn't respect.

 

[Irony]

PZ also called a gay atheist he had a disagreement with a "tinkerbell."

PZ Myers Hates Fags.

First words, "One of the supreme difficulties in establishing oneself as some sort of moral master or ethical genius is..."

I don't care if PZ is a raging misogynist or a hypocrite. It makes zero difference to me as my sum knowledge of him amounts to reading his blog once in a blue moon and finding it kind of "meh". What it does do is lower my opinion of you, who would use such an obviously biased rant as though it actually aided your argument.

 

[Badger3k]

I read post you linked to and the post in question. It's overly confrontational, polemic, and ripe for criticism, but the criticisms you stated are again just imaginings of what he "must have" meant rather than what he said.

He said atheists can be categorized into pro-social issues and anti-social issues. That argument falls prey to the excluded median fallacy, and pointing that out is valid criticism. Saying that he stated that anyone not in their group falls in the latter category is an interpretation of his argument, not his actual argument.

He says what he expects his group to be and what behaviors should get one excluded. This is trivial, all groups have rules. Arguing that the qualifications for membership have flaws is perfectly reasonable. Saying that the mere existence of rules of membership implies that he intends some sort of draconian cull of the larger community is flat-out laughable.

I don't mean to imply your "side" is worse (or for that matter even equivalent) to theirs. I'm just saying the silly rhetoric and wild accusations along the lines of what I hear from the average political ad do not help me to take you seriously.

Obviously we're going to have to disagree. If you can read that and come up with something completely different than what others think, reading the exact same words, then it's a problem between our interpretation and your interpretation, not the words as written. Please don't assume that we are doing something you're not - you are just going the opposite way. That should be bleeding obvious to anyone - there is no plain reading of anything without interpretation, which usually includes all the knowledge of the subject's words and deeds over the long time period (or short, for some) that we have known them. I've followed Carrier from his school/IIDB days, read his work, his books, etc. Watching this meltdown of his is a serious WTF? If you lack that, and are more generous towards people, then I'm sure your interpretation will make them seem nicer. To me, there are quite a few lines that say exactly what the original poster says they do - I'm not willing to write it off like you seem to be, based on my interpretation of what you wrote.

The problem with the FTBullies group is their behavior and the attacks towards others. If you haven't been following the whole thing over the last couple of years, it's easy to be lost. If you have watched people you once respected turn into real unskeptical ********, then it's a bit depressing. It really has become like reading some teenagers diary, yet these are grown people, who are trying to take over more prominent roles, and try to make others accede to their wishes. Personally, I don't think it will work, but it is fun (in the poke a sore tooth or watch a train wreck kind of way) to snark on them.

 

[Irony]

Obviously we're going to have to disagree. If you can read that and come up with something completely different than what others think, reading the exact same words, then it's a problem between our interpretation and your interpretation, not the words as written. Please don't assume that we are doing something you're not - you are just going the opposite way. That should be bleeding obvious to anyone - there is no plain reading of anything without interpretation, which usually includes all the knowledge of the subject's words and deeds over the long time period (or short, for some) that we have known them. I've followed Carrier from his school/IIDB days, read his work, his books, etc. Watching this meltdown of his is a serious WTF? If you lack that, and are more generous towards people, then I'm sure your interpretation will make them seem nicer. To me, there are quite a few lines that say exactly what the original poster says they do - I'm not willing to write it off like you seem to be, based on my interpretation of what you wrote.

The problem with the FTBullies group is their behavior and the attacks towards others. If you haven't been following the whole thing over the last couple of years, it's easy to be lost. If you have watched people you once respected turn into real unskeptical ********, then it's a bit depressing. It really has become like reading some teenagers diary, yet these are grown people, who are trying to take over more prominent roles, and try to make others accede to their wishes. Personally, I don't think it will work, but it is fun (in the poke a sore tooth or watch a train wreck kind of way) to snark on them.

See, that's the thing. You're right to some degree. I don't have the history with these people, but that doesn't really matter as I'm not discussing their behavior, but the behavior of the posters right here.

I don't know the history of this issue, but my interpretation isn't going the "other direction" my interpretation is based off of what is written. See, I hear the same arguments you use from people I know who think Obama is the anti-Christ (not metaphorically, literally), and that he's secretly Muslim, and from Kenya, and has a plan to destroy the U.S., so forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of it here. Maybe your right, maybe these people are a cabal devoted to the takeover of the sceptical community, and excommunication of everyone who doesn't toe the party lines, and death panels, etc. but I kind of doubt it.

It would not harm some of the more...I'm going to be charitable and say "strident" posters here to attack the issues and not the people, but all I see is attacks against the people to the point where the actual issues are going undiscussed. You may be watching bloggers turn into "real unskeptical ********", I'm sitting here watching posters on this forum do the exact same thing.

 

[squealpiggy]

If that is "literally" their argument, then you can provide a source for when they've made it, correct?

If not then that's your interpretation of their argument.

From what I've seen they've been quick to use the misogyny card against some of their opponents, pointing that out is fair criticism. I've also seen quotes from their leaders suggesting that they take a "with us or against us" stance, that's more than fair to criticize. I have not seen one of their leaders actually state that every single non-member is "an *******, a mean spirited scumbag who should be made a pariah and drummed out of the movement for supporting rape and hating gays". If you have a source on this I would love to see it. I mean that genuinely.

Ah I see you're looking for one person to have said this exact phrase. Which is a strawman version of what I was arguing. Richard Carrier and PZ Myers taken together have both conflated non-membership with opposition to progressive values and proceeded to attack on that basis.

I conclude by asking “are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?”

Bad people, douchebags, and persistent deniers of rationality need to be shamed and marginalized.

P.S. And yes, really. It is us vs. them: the new New Atheists vs. the sexists, racists, and uncaring and irrational douchebags.

And of course

It’s just those uppity, aggressive, rude feminist women that they think need to be raped into submission.

And that’s you, guy. And it’s all those other anti-feminists who turn apoplectic with fury whenever the issue of treating women as diverse human beings with personalities and intellectual interests and ambitious goals beyond worshipping your penis is brought up.

Maybe they haven't been using the a-hole word, but they have been using the term "douchebag" a lot. And that is literally the argument coming from some, if not most, of the voices promoting A+: You're either with us or you're a rape apologist etc.

 

[WillyWonka]

My view is that by allowing the discourse to degenerate to insults and bullying, FtB and Skepchick have lowered the respect of their leaders, mostly RW and PZM. There is ways to disagree and debate without going to name calling. Elevatorgate is a good example of a subject which should have been great subject for debate, but instead, became quickly a "you are a misogynist if you do not agree with me".

James Randi, a man that I greatly admire, has not to my knowledge gone into name calling, but instead, used his debating skills and his knowledge against all his nemesis, such as Uri Geller.

 

[westprog]

You criticize them for calling non-members names, and yet I've seen the word FTBullies thrown around here quite a lot. Pot. Kettle. etc.

I've already commented on the fact that this dispute hasn't brought any great credit to many of the people involved. The name-calling has not been limited to any one side.

However, I've no dog in this fight, as I've said before, so I'm interested in it in a fairly dispassionate way, particularly in how a movement designed, supposedly, to encourage a wider range of people to join up should end up having a public face designed to make most normal people run a mile.

 

[Walter Ego]

Maybe they haven't been using the a-hole word...

Yes, they have. I quoted PZ Myers in post #533.

It really isn't a movement about exclusion, but about recognising the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs. And if you don't agree with any of that – and this is the only 'divisive' part – then you're an a-hole. I suggest you form your own label, 'A-hole Atheists", and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it. I just had a thought: maybe the anti-Atheist+ people are sad because they don't have a cool logo. So I made one for the A-hole Atheists: A*.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/27/following-up-on-last-nights-atheism-discussion/

 

[Irony]

I've already commented on the fact that this dispute hasn't brought any great credit to many of the people involved. The name-calling has not been limited to any one side.

However, I've no dog in this fight, as I've said before, so I'm interested in it in a fairly dispassionate way, particularly in how a movement designed, supposedly, to encourage a wider range of people to join up should end up having a public face designed to make most normal people run a mile.

Yeah, I suppose I'll back off now and let the two sides continue to bring themselves down.

On the actual subject of this new...whatever, I see two likely outcomes. 1) It fades into obscurity, 2) It spectacularly self-immolates. If the second happens I'll bring the marshmallows.

 

[westprog]

I think the major problem is that apparently neither side is able to bridge the gap that currently seems to be widening daily. I'm not sure if either side still has that as a goal. If not that would be sad. (Yes, I've seen both Antiquehunter's and Wolfman's efforts, I'm not saying you aren't trying. I think that is/was very laudable.)

There seem to be some very vocal people on either side that eager to mark the other side as somehow not truly skeptical. That may well be true, but I don't think that labeling alone solves anything. Nor do I think will "they'll just go away after a while" is going to work in any way.

I also don't quite understand what I perceive as a certain furor towards them. Or not in its entirety to be precise.
I can understand that kochanski for example is vexed because you have the feeling that they pretended to speak in the name of all women in the skeptical/atheist movement. I can understand that, I'd feel similar I suppose.
A lot of the anger in their direction seems to stem from their mixing of demands for social justice and their rather outspoken brand of feminism with skepticism. I've read comments that ranged from "No true feminism" to "no true skepticism because feminism is woo". I think those comments are interesting but not necessarily limited to the A+ discussion. Especially as feminism in general has been a hot topic on this very board. It's hard for me at least to say whether that is the result of the specific behaviour of the people over at FtB or a general backlash against the skeptic/atheism/skepticism combo. It really part of this, part of that.

Then there are the comments of the "in it for pageviews/in it for money". How do those people that lob those comments about know that? It seems to me like that borders on the ad hominem. Just as you are sincere in your opinions you may as well extend the same benefit of doubt to the other side, even if you do not share their opinions. Because else we end up with black and white thinking and I can't really think of any time where that was beneficial.

And on a personal note: I rather enjoy Reasonable Doubt who also happen to be on FTB. Does that make me one of THEM?

I think that there are several different levels to this discussion. It's clear that a number of people posting here, and on Atheism+, have a lot of history. The sad thing about this whole situation is the level of escalation. So much of the criticism seems to be at second or third hand - not related to what people have done but related to what they failed to disavow, or for talking to people who had offended in some way, or for condemning something but insufficiently.

The main criticism of A+ would be (from the point of view of a complete outsider) that they seem to wish to crystallise these quarrels and misunderstandings and create a movement around it. The atmosphere within the movement seems to have become toxic and hysterical for this reason. There's a discussion which I happened upon (and I'm afraid I don't have the link) where someone was proposing providing transcripts for the deaf. Someone else pointed out that there might be copyright issues. Almost as soon as a disagreement arose - in this case only of emphasis - the personal attacks, bans and hysteria turned up to 11 right away. This didn't involve any of the people from outside who had grudges. This was something that seems to be built in. This was an in-house A+ thread which went mean and nasty for no apparent reason at all.

 

[Walter Ego]

More Homophobic Douchebaggery From FTB!

From Jason Thibeault (Lousy Canuck) writing on Freethought Blogs on June 4, 2012 (click on thumbnail to enlarge).

Nice, huh? DJ Grothe, the president of JREF, is an out-of-closet gay man (as is Randi, btw). No hypocrisy here, people! Move along.

(More on this incident here.)

 

[Antiquehunter]

@WalterEgo - as a gay man myself, I actually chuckled at your post above. I'm not sure I would call it 'homophobic'. I wonder how DJ received the comment? It was a cheap shot to be sure, but it was kind of a funny one. I don't think I would get upset if someone said that about me - perhaps I am thicker of skin than some.

In any event, I've decided to adopt a more 'sit back and watch' the Atheism+ stuff for awhile. I'm saddened by the whole thing, but I don't really see an effective way to make a difference at this stage. Until things calm down a bit, I don't think that fanning the flames will be very productive.

 

[Brainache]

I've just skimmed this thread and all I can do is shake my head. Who the hell do these people think they are?

The Free Thought-Police?

 

[paulhutch]

PZ also called a gay atheist he had a disagreement with a "tinkerbell."

PZ Myers Hates Fags.

Yesterday I looked at the references Justicar had for his claims and couldn't find anything remotely like what he's claiming. Didn't have time to dig into it more but today I see that my initial look was correct, PZ never said those things.

PZ's post pointing out Justicar's total dishonesty.

 

[Dinwar]

Something similar happened in Objectivism earlier this year--something called CheckingPremises.org set itself up as a way to tell the REAL Objectivists from the shams. Never mind the rather flagrant dishonesty (I'm a fan of one of the people who's work they attacked [in fact, last I checked she was the ONLY person CP.org attacked....], so was able to see specific false accusations for myself), they were the gatekeepers to logic and reason!

Here's what I think: I think that people devote a lot of time and energy to these causes, and have a genuine desire to not see them harmed. That said, as movements expand you go from the core of devouted members (not saying that the members are DEVOUT, merely DEVOTED--they're the ones that find the cause the most compelling and important in the group) to a much broader audience, ranging from those who agree whole-heartedly to those who kinda sorta agree and are just going along because, meh, why not. Some people, in those situations, see the newcomers as threats. The group originally was built around a single cause, but over time additional, non-essential ideas always get added on (there's no reason that atheists should be feminists, after all--they're two entirely separate issues). Some people view those who don't agree with all of those additional issues as disagreeing with the core issues. Then, someone gets the brilliant idea that they need to clean house--they need to get rid of those internal threats, because they're hampering forward momentum for the group!

Here's the thing, though: any social movement can only move forward by attracting those who aren't all interested enough to put a great deal of effort into it. You need to add PEOPLE, in other words--and that's always going to be messy. There's always going to be disagreements. And you don't change a culture by ignoring those disagreements--you change it by focusing on the core issue at the heart of why you banded together in the first place, and letting those non-essential issues slide. Not that they're not important--obviously sexual equality is, for example--but that they're not the goal of this particular group. Effective social change only occurs when you can get a diverse group of people to agree that X needs to change, and that requires actually focusing on X.

 

[westprog]

Yesterday I looked at the references Justicar had for his claims and couldn't find anything remotely like what he's claiming. Didn't have time to dig into it more but today I see that my initial look was correct, PZ never said those things.

PZ's post pointing out Justicar's total dishonesty.

This kind of mixing it up is par for the course, which it's as well to just stay out of the arguments. Phrases will be misinterpreted, motives will be assumed, the worst is always meant. It's hard to feel sorry for people who jump head-first into the mud and scream "He splashed me!"

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm trying to figure out what not believing in fairies in the sky has to do with gay rights.