Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
paulhutch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, so Myers didn't say a gay man he despises is a fairy. He just compared the gay man he despises to a famous fairy. Got it. ;)
 
Antiquehunter said:
Until things calm down a bit, I don't think that fanning the flames will be very productive.
Click to expand...
Well.....Sometimes you have to destroy to create. A forest fire is massively destructive--but new trees grow in the wake of such fires, and in fact some species cannot grow unless they're put to the flame. It can sometimes be useful to rock the boat as hard as possible, just to see who's left on it when the boat stops trying to sink.

The combination of viral attack and bad whiskey is responsible for the over-use of metaphor....
 
Walter Ego said:
Oh, so Myers didn't say a gay man he despises is a fairy. He just compared the gay man he despises to a famous fairy. Got it. ;)
Click to expand...

His actual words:


PZ

He then claims that I called Stedman a “tinkerbelle”, a belittling term for a “fairy”. Again, and this is completely predictable with Justicar, I did not. I was talking about how in interfaith efforts “it doesn’t matter what BS you believe, as long as you really, really believe”, and suggested that they promote “tinkerbellism”. I was not talking about Stedman at all. It was a reference that had nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with fairy tales.
Click to expand...
 
Dinwar said:
Well.....Sometimes you have to destroy to create. A forest fire is massively destructive--but new trees grow in the wake of such fires, and in fact some species cannot grow unless they're put to the flame. It can sometimes be useful to rock the boat as hard as possible, just to see who's left on it when the boat stops trying to sink.

The combination of viral attack and bad whiskey is responsible for the over-use of metaphor....
Click to expand...

I do not quite agree. While it is true that sometimes you must destroy to create, you have to present an acceptable alternative and you need support from a large group of people. I am not quite sure what is presented as alternative by A+ and few thousands of people, many outside the U.S., does not make a movement.

Like many other radical movements, it will have a following in academia and on some blogs. The movement does not have a "soul"; we know what they are against, but we do not know what they are for.
 
WillyWonka said:
I do not quite agree. While it is true that sometimes you must destroy to create, you have to present an acceptable alternative and you need support from a large group of people. I am not quite sure what is presented as alternative by A+ and few thousands of people, many outside the U.S., does not make a movement.
Click to expand...

Agreed whole-heartedly. I'm on the anti-Atheism+ side. I'm of the opinion that we should make them look so ridiculous that no one ever tries such a stupid trick again. Atheism+ is the thing I think we need to get rid of, not the rest of atheism.

The movement does not have a "soul"; we know what they are against, but we do not know what they are for.
Click to expand...
Ayn Rand once said "It's useless to be AGAINST something if you're not FOR something", or the equivalent. It's rather ironic to see someone expressing such a similar opinion on a forum that takes such a dim view of Objectivism. :)
 
Walter Ego said:
Oh, so Myers didn't say a gay man he despises is a fairy.
Click to expand...

Correct

Walter Ego said:
He just compared the gay man he despises to a famous fairy. Got it. ;)
Click to expand...

Wrong, PZ never made any such comment.

To make it easy for you to check the claims here are the links from Justicar's video that he based his claims upon.
Uncle Mary: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/14/dr-dan-golaszewski-is-a-quack/
Tinkerbell: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/19/what-is-this-interfaith-nonsen/

They are two paragraph blog posts and clearly in neither of them does PZ even remotely say what Justicar claims. It is perfectly clear that Justicar made up two big lies and counted on people not checking the evidence he provided for his claims. For most of the people commenting on YouTube, and for you, it obviously worked just as Justicar expected.
 
paulhutch said:
Wrong, PZ never made any such comment.

To make it easy for you to check the claims here are the links from Justicar's video that he based his claims upon.
Uncle Mary: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/14/dr-dan-golaszewski-is-a-quack/
Tinkerbell: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/19/what-is-this-interfaith-nonsen/
Click to expand...


Oh, I see. Myers didn't directly accuse Chris Stedman, a gay man he despises, of promoting "tinkerbellism." He indirectly accused him of promoting "tinkerbellism."

It was all about fairy tales, not fairies. Got it. ;)
 
This just in - Jen McCreight spits the dummy, chucks the toys out of the sandbox and gives herself a timeout. http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/

I've been hanging around in #atheismplus in the twattiverse for the past couple of days, and have chimed in a few times - and there has been NOTHING that was PERSONAL, attacking, or using ANY of the language Jen says got thrown her way. Now - maybe it was in other channels, maybe it was personally directed to her that I couldn't see. Maybe I'm a really bad Twitter user.

A) I am responsible only for my own actions. I didn't say anything hateful, or use any word stronger than a-hole or d-bag - which were levelled at me in the beginning. So it ain't me.

B) If you make yourself a public figure, then haters gonna hate. Unfortunately in the world of internet semi-anonymity, that can get pretty scary.

I am very sorry that the things she says happened to her happened - and I'm disheartened that the abuse apparently came from people who don't believe in some of the same stuff I don't believe in.

All smells like attention whoring to me.

Didn't I say I was going to sit on the sidelines...???
 
Walter Ego said:
Oh, I see. Myers didn't directly accuse Chris Stedman, a gay man he despises, of promoting "tinkerbellism." He indirectly accused him of promoting "tinkerbellism."

It was all about fairy tales, not fairies. Got it. ;)
Click to expand...


That video (and I watched the whole thing; did you?) does not suggest that Myers hates Stedman. Disagrees strongly with him? Sure. Hates him? I'm afraid not. Furthermore, your insinuation that Myers hates Stedman because he is gay is dishonest and shameful.

Myers clearly indicated that "tinkerbellism" refers to faith, and your insinuation that it was a reference to homosexuality is equally dishonest and shameful.

Give me one good reason (about yourself), backed up by actual evidence, that you shouldn't be the first person whose comments on this website I block.

Jay
 
Last edited:
Beat you to it. You've been there for some time in fact. (For reasons I can't remember right now, perhaps because you're boring).

This message is hidden because jt512 is on your ignore list.
Click to expand...

Gee, too bad PZ "Tinkerbell" Myers isn't in charge here then you could have me banned. :D
 
Antiquehunter said:
This just in - Jen McCreight spits the dummy, chucks the toys out of the sandbox and gives herself a timeout. http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/

I've been hanging around in #atheismplus in the twattiverse for the past couple of days, and have chimed in a few times - and there has been NOTHING that was PERSONAL, attacking, or using ANY of the language Jen says got thrown her way. Now - maybe it was in other channels, maybe it was personally directed to her that I couldn't see. Maybe I'm a really bad Twitter user.

A) I am responsible only for my own actions. I didn't say anything hateful, or use any word stronger than a-hole or d-bag - which were levelled at me in the beginning. So it ain't me.

B) If you make yourself a public figure, then haters gonna hate. Unfortunately in the world of internet semi-anonymity, that can get pretty scary.

I am very sorry that the things she says happened to her happened - and I'm disheartened that the abuse apparently came from people who don't believe in some of the same stuff I don't believe in.

All smells like attention whoring to me.

Didn't I say I was going to sit on the sidelines...???
Click to expand...

Didn't you mention you were gay? Shirley you are familiar with drama queens.

(Can I call you Shirley?)
 
Last edited:
Antiquehunter said:
This just in - Jen McCreight spits the dummy, chucks the toys out of the sandbox and gives herself a timeout. http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/

I've been hanging around in #atheismplus in the twattiverse for the past couple of days, and have chimed in a few times - and there has been NOTHING that was PERSONAL, attacking, or using ANY of the language Jen says got thrown her way. Now - maybe it was in other channels, maybe it was personally directed to her that I couldn't see. Maybe I'm a really bad Twitter user.

A) I am responsible only for my own actions. I didn't say anything hateful, or use any word stronger than a-hole or d-bag - which were levelled at me in the beginning. So it ain't me.

B) If you make yourself a public figure, then haters gonna hate. Unfortunately in the world of internet semi-anonymity, that can get pretty scary.

I am very sorry that the things she says happened to her happened - and I'm disheartened that the abuse apparently came from people who don't believe in some of the same stuff I don't believe in.

All smells like attention whoring to me.

Didn't I say I was going to sit on the sidelines...???
Click to expand...

Hmm.
This looks like another example of a psychological phenomenon that blogging and internet posting in general has spawned.
When you talk to friends, even if they disagree with you, they are apt to keep the argument polite and to avoid confrontation.
Express strong opinions among strangers - and a vast group of strangers at that- and you will get some rough responses.
If you can't handle that, you are going to have problems.

We have lost posters on this forum who felt frightened, intimidated or upset by other posters, even ones well within the MA restraints.

Seems to be a problem women suffer more than men, though that may be a misapprehension on my part.

I am occasionally upset by responses to my posts, but my upset is minor. But I've never been exposed to the sort of stuff McCreight describes. If I was, I would probably quit too.

Sad , if internet anonymity permits a natural selection of brazen ********* over thinner skinned personalities.
One might be tempted to say "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen", but perhaps it's fairer to suggest to the more sensitive that they try to cultivate a greater degree of emotional distancing from responses they find offensive.

If someone calls me an idiot and points out why, I at least learn something.
If he calls me an (expletive deleted etc etc idiot) then I already learned something- namely that he's a vocabulary starved twit and I annoyed him. Which I'm very likely to go right on doing.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
Hmm.
This looks like another example of a psychological phenomenon that blogging and internet posting in general has spawned.
When you talk to friends, even if they disagree with you, they are apt to keep the argument polite and to avoid confrontation.
Express strong opinions among strangers - and a vast group of strangers at that- and you will get some rough responses.
If you can't handle that, you are going to have problems.

We have lost posters on this forum who felt frightened, intimidated or upset by other posters, even ones well within the MA restraints.

Seems to be a problem women suffer more than men, though that may be a misapprehension on my part.

I am occasionally upset by responses to my posts, but my upset is minor. But I've never been exposed to the sort of stuff McCreight describes. If I was, I would probably quit too.

Sad , if internet anonymity permits a natural selection of brazen ********* over thinner skinned personalities.
One might be tempted to say "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen", but perhaps it's fairer to suggest to the more sensitive that they try to cultivate a greater degree of emotional distancing from responses they find offensive.

If someone calls me an idiot and points out why, I at least learn something.
If he calls me an (expletive deleted etc etc idiot) then I already learned something- namely that he's a vocabulary starved twit and I annoyed him. Which I'm very likely to go right on doing.
Click to expand...

The ability of people to be obnoxious is certainly exacerbated by the anonymity of the internet and should be opposed when possible. It is a shame that McCreight has withdrawn because of it and I hope she returns.

But what did this group expect? People who supported this notion stated quite clearly that anyone who wasn't agreeing with their agenda was an A+++hole or a D++++b++. Did they expect zero resistance to this classification, did they expect everyone except themselves to be sweetness and light about it?

OK Carrier appears to have been retired from the discussion and PZ is now claiming he only supports the notion and is not active in it.

had some fun yesterday poking a stick at the anti-atheist+ mob on twitter. It was actually revealing: it became increasingly obvious that the people who really, really hate atheism+ are authoritarians who simply cannot imagine an egalitarian movement — even when they are already part of one. There was so much projection going on I was wondering how such low-wattage bulbs could be pretentious enough to think they could cast light on anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some support there for rational debate.

I agree with the stated bullet points of A+ and anybody who wants to be active in those areas has plenty of organisations and groups that they could join. But there are other social and skeptical areas that I consider to have equal if not greater importance. I do not object in anyway to people who want to support say action against sexist behaviour but I do object to those people calling me names because I have different aims. I also object to the co-opting of the word atheist because it is both inaccurate in that there is nothing in being an atheist that means you must support their aims and it lays me open to direct and unanswerable attack when I debate theists.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Hmm.
This looks like another example of a psychological phenomenon that blogging and internet posting in general has spawned.
When you talk to friends, even if they disagree with you, they are apt to keep the argument polite and to avoid confrontation.
Express strong opinions among strangers - and a vast group of strangers at that- and you will get some rough responses.
If you can't handle that, you are going to have problems.

We have lost posters on this forum who felt frightened, intimidated or upset by other posters, even ones well within the MA restraints.

Seems to be a problem women suffer more than men, though that may be a misapprehension on my part.

I am occasionally upset by responses to my posts, but my upset is minor. But I've never been exposed to the sort of stuff McCreight describes. If I was, I would probably quit too.
Click to expand...

There is also, it seems to me, a related but separate phenomenon where there may be one or two antagonistic responses to someone, with most of the responses neutral or in favour of the OP, but the person attacked perceives that everyone is against them, and attributes the views of one or two outspoken individuals to the group as a whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom