Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[devnull]

I think "JAQing off" was coined by our very own Marquis De Carabas to desc ribe a certain kind of Conspiracy Theorist who would open a thread attempting a clumsy form of Socratic dialogue:

"Why did it take so long to scramble jet fighters on 9/11?"
"How many high-rise buildings collapsed from fire before the twin towers?"
When you call them out on the assumptions hidden in there, the CTer will reply with "I'm not making any asumptions, I'm Just Asking Questions..."

Im surprised they would use such a derogatory term. Hypocrites.

I mean, there is a not-insignificant percentage of our community who prefer self-love over copulating with another sentient being. In as much as they prefer "jacking off" and this has become part of their sexual identity, I think the term "JAQing off" is insensitive and oppressive - obviously those that use it are unaware of their privilege as hetero/homosexuals, and are happy to stomp on the self-respect of others in order to get a laugh.

Disgusting! These people should go sodomise themselves with a dead porcupine!!! Cupcake!!!




(FTB parody (c) Devnull 2012, No rights deserved).

 

[Axiom_Blade]

See, its safe, but if you disagree or have questions, you're an *******.

"Safe space" means that the A+ers are safe from people who would ridicule or disagree with them. It's that Us vs. Them paradigm again. "It's safe for us. Not safe for them."

 

[devnull]

"Safe space" means that the A+ers are safe from people who would ridicule or disagree with them. It's that Us vs. Them paradigm again. "It's safe for us. Not safe for them."

Yup, the ground upon which all good skepticism is based.

Not.

 

[chillzero]

Poisonous Zealot Myers weighs in on those critical of A+
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/04/the-anti-atheist-boobs-on-twitter/

He says it is just an agreement of beliefs - however, that's already covered by the term 'atheism', even if there are additional common areas, regarding civil rights, etc. He says it is not an organisation, and does not need leaders, etc.

However, it was raised on the premise that these people with common beliefs and social stances would organise to take stands and help make a difference in the worls. That needs leaders, or people to organise events, rallies, letter campaigns, etc.

Although he says he's not a 'member', it just adds to the continuing confusion about the exact nature of atheism + ; in terms of what they want, what they stand for, and how they aim to acheive it.

 

[Walter Ego]

What the hell is up with all the made up words with this crowd? "ciswhatever", "trans*whatever", mansplaining, and now this new one:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=721
"The fact is religion has been used by the kyriarchy to supress those in a minority for generations."

Kyriarchy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

In an ironic twist, just last week a coworker of mine introduced me to a term being bandied about by Conservatives - Oikophobia. The original term refers to an aversion to household surroundings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikophobia
But some Conservatives are using it to mean self-hating liberals who despise America and love Muslims or Mexicans or some such nonsense.

You need a glossary to read some of those blogs. CIS had me stumped. The real head-scratcher, which popped up in wake of Elevatorgate, was MRA which was slung around with the assumption you'd already know what it meant. (I'll let you guess.)

 

[Walter Ego]

[PZ] says it is just an agreement of beliefs - however, that's already covered by the term 'atheism', even if there are additional common areas, regarding civil rights, etc. He says it is not an organisation, and does not need leaders, etc.

However, it was raised on the premise that these people with common beliefs and social stances would organise to take stands and help make a difference in the worls. That needs leaders, or people to organise events, rallies, letter campaigns, etc.

Although he says he's not a 'member', it just adds to the continuing confusion about the exact nature of atheism + ; in terms of what they want, what they stand for, and how they aim to acheive it.

His stance also allows him plausible deniability if things get really ugly.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

What the hell is up with all the made up words with this crowd? "ciswhatever", "trans*whatever", mansplaining, and now this new one:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=721
"The fact is religion has been used by the kyriarchy to supress those in a minority for generations."

Kyriarchy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

Cisgendered/Transgendered is an interesting case of what appears to be an internet term that has since been adopted by gender studies academia. It dates to the 90s and is in wide use by transpeople and quite a few others as well. I'm unaware of any use outside that particular dichotomy.

Mansplaining is a slur more of the "urban slang" kind, with some radical feminist overtones. Kyriarchy is decidedly more obscure/technical feminist terminology. None of these to my knowledge are new to FTB or A+.

And as for MRA, well, we could be talking about the Massachusetts Rifle Association, but there are other possibilities

 

[Walter Ego]

Cisgendered/Transgendered is an interesting case of what appears to be an internet term that has since been adopted by gender studies academia. It dates to the 90s and is in wide use by transpeople and quite a few others as well. I'm unaware of any use outside that particular dichotomy.

My best friend in the late 90's was a transgendered person and I never heard her use the term. But then, most of her energy went into managing her rather difficult life rather than lecturing people on the internet.

And as for MRA, well, we could be talking about the Massachusetts Rifle Association...

Not even close.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

My best friend in the late 90's was a transgendered person and I never heard her use the term. But then, most of her energy went into managing her rather difficult life rather than lecturing people on the internet.

Curious. I only know two transgendered people at the moment; one of whom is where I learned the term. I will ask the other when I see her next, but I expect she will - she is a scarily well-versed person on a surprisingly wide range of topics.

 

[The Man]

He says it is just an agreement of beliefs - however, that's already covered by the term 'atheism', even if there are additional common areas, regarding civil rights, etc. He says it is not an organisation, and does not need leaders, etc.

However, it was raised on the premise that these people with common beliefs and social stances would organise to take stands and help make a difference in the worls. That needs leaders, or people to organise events, rallies, letter campaigns, etc.

Although he says he's not a 'member', it just adds to the continuing confusion about the exact nature of atheism + ; in terms of what they want, what they stand for, and how they aim to acheive it.

Remember no organization is the easiest (though least effective) way to organize.

Perhaps they are an anarcho-syndicalist commune…

What the hell is up with all the made up words with this crowd? "ciswhatever", "trans*whatever", mansplaining, and now this new one:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=721
"The fact is religion has been used by the kyriarchy to supress those in a minority for generations."

Kyriarchy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

…derived from the Greek words κύριος or kyrios (lord or master) and ἄρχω or archō (to lead, rule, govern)

‘lord or master’ ‘rules or governs’ why how perfectly redundant an indicative of absolutely no specifics on said ‘rule’ or ‘master’. Unlike say monarchy where a single lord or master rules or anarchy where no lord or master rules, so I guess anything short of just anarchy would be quite a kyriarchy for them.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Remember no organization is the easiest (though least effective) way to organize.

Exhibit A: Occupy Wall Street (a.k.a. the Occutards)

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Here's an article about sexism in geekdom and how it was handled on three different occasions (ReaderCon, TAM and DefCon). While it's difficult to be truly objective on such a loaded topic, it comes across as reasonably so to me. No idea of who the author is.

http://io9.com/5938698/the-great-geek-sexism-debate

 

[tsig]

Im gonna start the Atheism++ movement. It's just atheism, but you must love bacon.

Im assuming Ill have 100% inclusion rate.

Or perhaps Atheism++ could be like Atheism, but with object orientation.

That joke is for IT people. Everyone else, move along.


ETA: Let me just say that Atheism+ is the most stupid idea Ive heard in a long, long time...... I think that the fact that PZ et al cant see it must be evidence for mass head trauma of some kind. Im just waiting for the "sooo....... it ended up being a really bad idea" thread.

Atheism² is exponentially better than Atheism+.

 

[RebeccaBradley]

Here's an article about sexism in geekdom and how it was handled on three different occasions (ReaderCon, TAM and DefCon). While it's difficult to be truly objective on such a loaded topic, it comes across as reasonably so to me. No idea of who the author is.

http://io9.com/5938698/the-great-geek-sexism-debate

Actually, the segment on TAM did not come across as objective at all. For example, SurlyAmy's address being posted: this was part of an ongoing tussle where Amy accused a certain blogger of copyright infringement for using a picture of a SurlyRamic in his comments on the TAM kerfuffle; when he countered with a fair-use claim, he was accused of doing it only to get Amy's address; he countered that by showing that her address was already freely available online. Which it was. The entire year of Egate back'n'forth was boiled down to Skepchick being victimized for daring to demand safety and equality for women. Which it was not.

Sigh.

 

[brodski]

Actually, the segment on TAM did not come across as objective at all. For example, SurlyAmy's address being posted: this was part of an ongoing tussle where Amy accused a certain blogger of copyright infringement for using a picture of a SurlyRamic in his comments on the TAM kerfuffle; when he countered with a fair-use claim, he was accused of doing it only to get Amy's address; he countered that by showing that her address was already freely available online. Which it was. The entire year of Egate back'n'forth was boiled down to Skepchick being victimized for daring to demand safety and equality for women. Which it was not.

Sigh.

there were more basic errors, like calling TAM an atheist convention.

 

[westprog]

there were more basic errors, like calling TAM an atheist convention.

To put this incident in context, there has been a longstanding problem in the science fiction community with female representation at conferences. This is partly a result of a traditional belief among publishers and readers that women cannot write about science and space. Few women are published in the science fiction genre — and when they are, it is often as fantasy authors. Partly as a result of this imbalance, many science fiction cons feature all-male rosters of speakers. Over the past few years, authors have been taking a stand against this, and Paul Cornell is one of many popular authors who has warned that he will never speak on a panel that doesn't include women.

This is making massive assumptions. It also seems to be highly confused about the nature of science fiction. Fantasy is not a sub-genre of science fiction. Paul Cornell is a novelist and short-story writer, but he's possibly best known for his scripting on Dr Who and his comics work.

Actually, Paul Cornell's stand is a little more nuanced - he's said that if a panel doesn't include any women, he'll stand down in favour of a woman from the audience. Paul Cornell is a very genial, unconfrontational person, and whatever the merits of his approach, he's made it in a friendly way without abusing anybody. He's certainly not characterised anyone who disagrees with him as a d********* or an a$$$$$$.

 

[Piscivore]

Atheism² is exponentially better than Atheism+.

Atheism+ should have been Atheism^√2.

 

[tsig]

Atheism+ should have been Atheism^√2.

Atheism ^√-1?

 

[dasmiller]

Atheism ^√-1?

That would be iAtheism, which is a self-contradiction because Atheism explicitly rejects the notion that Steve Jobs was a god.

 

[qayak]

Here's an article about sexism in geekdom and how it was handled on three different occasions (ReaderCon, TAM and DefCon). While it's difficult to be truly objective on such a loaded topic, it comes across as reasonably so to me. No idea of who the author is.

http://io9.com/5938698/the-great-geek-sexism-debate

I only know the details of the TAM controversy so I can't speak to the others but the TAM one doesn't seem to be very objective. It appears to be a softening of rhetoric aimed at those who do not agree with Watson or SurlyAmy but not balanced in any way.

A glaring example is they point to Dawkins' 'offensive' words in his video about Elevatorgate but they don;t mention any of the disgusting things members of Skepchick and their supports say. No mention of anyone on the other side of the debate calling people "douchebags", "rapists," "misogynists," etc. If I hadn't read it on their blogs and websites, I wouldn't know about it but I would definitely be made to feel Dawkins was acting poorly because it says "prominent thinkers like Dawkins have effectively spoken out in favor of belittling people."

So, telling someone to get over it because you don't agree that the being asked to have coffee is harassment or threatening behaviour is worse than flat out calling any opponent vile names. Dawkins does not speak for TAM and yet TAM was targeted over his comments.

If you want to be objective, show the bad behaviour of both or ignore the bad behaviour of both.