Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Mr. Scott]

Lacking an interest in "movement" atheism is distinct from lacking an interest in atheism. That said, there are certainly people on the board for whom advocating atheism is fairly low on or not even on their list of priorities. Basically, most people identify as atheist, but not everyone is interested in "Atheism."

ceepolk was given mod privilege, insider status, and pundit respect on a forum called "Atheism Plus." It's not called "Social Justice Warriors Who Happen to be Atheists." She's listed 50 of her interests on one social media site, and Atheism is not one of them. If there's any evidence she actually is an Atheist, I haven't seen it.

She ought to be interested in the Atheism movement, because religion has been a purveyor of social injustice and has been used to justify persecution of women and brown people from before 1492.

Also, this suggests to me the reason she doesn't care about dripping poison into the Atheist movement. If she really feels fine with poisoning the Atheist movement, then everyone who cares about the health of the Atheist movement should oppose her and people who excuse her poisoning at every opportunity.

 

[qwints]

If she really feels fine with poisoning the Atheist movement, then everyone who cares about the health of the Atheist movement should oppose her and people who excuse her poisoning at every opportunity.

That's a little manichean, don't you think?

 

[brodski]

She ought to be interested in the Atheism movement, because religion has been a purveyor of social injustice and has been used to justify persecution of women and brown people from before 1492.

Religious social justice movements have also been some of the best organized and successful, and continue to be so. If your priority is social justice an explicitly anti-theist stance will mean alienating a lot of (well organized and effective) allies on some issues.

If, OTOH, an atheist who was interested in social justice wanted to contribute to a brand which demonstrated that you could have an explicitly atheist, effective and organized social justice movement- I could see the appeal to them of joining atheism plus even if they weren't that interested in tearing down all religion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

ceepolk was given mod privilege, insider status, and pundit respect on a forum called "Atheism Plus." It's not called "Social Justice Warriors Who Happen to be Atheists." She's listed 50 of her interests on one social media site, and Atheism is not one of them. If there's any evidence she actually is an Atheist, I haven't seen it.

Just she just grab the reigns when Jen Mcreight abandoned her creation?

 

[theprestige]

Religious social justice movements have also been some of the best organized and successful, and continue to be so. If your priority is social justice an explicitly anti-theist stance will mean alienating a lot of (well organized and effective) allies on some issues.

I'm pretty sure the A+ forums have no use for allies.

It's interesting. What they proposed was a skeptical community where people already well-educated in mainstream social justice thinking could take the discussion to the next level, unburdened by having to re-educate newcomers and privileged allies all the time.

As such, it would have been a benefit to the wider skeptical community, and to society as a whole. It would have been a kind of think-take, producing new social justice ideas that built on the work already done in that field. Skeptical and social justice organizations everywhere would have benefited from their work--their cutting-edge thinking, their novel solutions, their advancement of humanitarian causes by skeptical application of known-good social justice principles.

But that's not what happened. Instead, there can be no skeptical debate of social justice ideas. For 'plussers, it is not acceptable to test or challenge or advance the mainstream. Nor is there even any "mainstream", just whatever 301 truths the in-group has declared by fiat. Add to that the ongoing victim olympics, and a culture that values taking offense over making progress, and the whole thing is doomed.

 

[Mr. Scott]

That's a little manichean, don't you think?

No.

Interesting subject, though, Manichaeism^WP. Thanks for the reference!

I love this vital Atheist movement that took off in the 60s with Madalyn Murray O'Hair^WP, who one could call the Hitchens of her time. I hate to see it poisoned by a cloistered group of people who seem to be mentally ill. The enemies of Atheism are having a field day mining their bizarre remarks.

The 'plussers were not marginalized in the mainstream Atheist movement because of being in an unprivileged class, but because they were mediocre. I understand why they don't want to face that.

I can understand how people would want to make a safe place free of harassment from trolls. Awful people are out there and famous people will always be targets. It comes with the territory. I don't defend the trolls and harassers. They were, and still are, the seminal source of the poison seeping from A+.

FWIW, this is how one should handle Internet trolls:

Trigger laughter warning, and one or two naughty words:

 

[Foolmewunz]

No.


FWIW, this is how one should handle Internet trolls:

Trigger laughter warning, and one or two naughty words:

Back when Rebecca had a sense of humor and some semblance of balance (3 days before she found religion in an elevator), a cut from that video was the ringtone on her phone, if I'm not mistaken. How odd to go from idle worship (not idol worship) to trying to get people to boycott his works and condemn him for being a privileged old rich white guy.

 

[AdMan]

Back when Rebecca had a sense of humor and some semblance of balance (3 days before she found religion in an elevator), a cut from that video was the ringtone on her phone, if I'm not mistaken. How odd to go from idle worship (not idol worship) to trying to get people to boycott his works and condemn him for being a privileged old rich white guy.

As we say in marketing, she found her niche.

And yes, I suspect it's virtually all marketing.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hate to see it poisoned by a cloistered group of people who seem to be mentally ill.

The A-plussers do seem to be a rather emotionally fragile group. Shouldn't they try to heal themselves, before taking on the whole world?

 

[theprestige]

I can understand how people would want to make a safe place free of harassment from trolls.

The problem is, they cannot advance the cause from within their safe place.

The only way the 'plussers will ever make a difference is if they abandon the A+ forums and carry the debate into the wider skeptical community.

For this reason, I respect those who joined the A+ movement in the early days, and then distanced themselves from it. The founders who abandoned or disavowed the movement are more respectable than those who stayed at the A+ forums.

Ceepolk can't hold a candle to Rebecca Watson.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is, they cannot advance the cause from within their safe place.

The only way the 'plussers will ever make a difference is if they abandon the A+ forums and carry the debate into the wider skeptical community.

For this reason, I respect those who joined the A+ movement in the early days, and then distanced themselves from it. The founders who abandoned or disavowed the movement are more respectable than those who stayed at the A+ forums.

Ceepolk can't hold a candle to Rebecca Watson.

Good post. I agree with you.

 

[Wildy]

Wow, Atheism Plus Global Moderator ceepolk can be tracked down with google fairly easily, including her photo and LONG list of interests.

To be honest that doesn't surprise me.

Is this normal for Aplussers ... to have no interest in Atheism?

Stop normalsplaining and check your typicalist privilege.

I do!

In fact, in the OP for that thread, Eowyn submits a collection of excerpts from PZ, totaling a post at least as long as any of Mr. Samsa's contributions. Adding insult to injury, Eowyn also indicates that these excerpts are part of a much longer whole, and that members should read the entire thing.

So brevity isn't always a matter of courtesy and respect.

I think that comes down to the double standard between the special people of the sooper sekrit A+ forum and the normal people.

 

[theprestige]

I think that comes down to the double standard between the special people of the sooper sekrit A+ forum and the normal people.

I'll go even further. I think it comes down to the double standard between the special people that agree with ceepolk and the normal people.

I'll wager ceepolk hasn't even looked at the OP of that thread. All she had to know is that it was posted by Eowyn, and that Eowyn is one of the "special people". Then anyone who dissents from the OP is fair game.

ETA: Indeed, ceepolk can't look at the OP. It's too long. It would hurt her to have to read it. Thus the reliance on tribal relationships in place of actual critical thought. Ceepolk is incapable of actually judging things on their merits. Her intellectual survival depends on ingratiating herself into a tribe.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

More gold from A+! Sylvia Sybil claims that "stupid" is an "ableist" slur.

"Stupid" is ableist, because it says you can judge a person's worth by their (social construction of) of intelligence, and being compared to someone who doesn't score well on (their culture's measure of) intelligence is insulting. And yes, mentally disabled people are murdered, kicked out, and demonized for being "stupid".

emptyell comments:

Anybody is capable of acting stupidly regardless of how smart they are generally

Slyvia replies with:

See, setting up that contrast, where stupid is the opposite of smart, really doesn't reassure me. That is still reinforcing the idea that "stupid" is bad and "smart" is good.

 

[Nihilus]

Telling someone to check their privilege is basically telling them to think if they're commenting on a subject that lack personal experience in or to consider that their words might mean something different to someone with different personal experiences.

The use of "privilege" in this context is really just passive-aggressive "woe is me"-ism for any potentially imagined disproportion that could conceivably be linked to why the accuser feels less fortunate than the accused.

Genuine, objective calls to empathy are not doused in the sad solipsism that follows the "privilege" term when used.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ceepolk can't hold a candle to Rebecca Watson.

The sad thing is, this is actually true.

 

[kellyb]

I'm pretty sure the A+ forums have no use for allies.

It's interesting. What they proposed was a skeptical community where people already well-educated in mainstream social justice thinking could take the discussion to the next level, unburdened by having to re-educate newcomers and privileged allies all the time.

As such, it would have been a benefit to the wider skeptical community, and to society as a whole. It would have been a kind of think-take, producing new social justice ideas that built on the work already done in that field. Skeptical and social justice organizations everywhere would have benefited from their work--their cutting-edge thinking, their novel solutions, their advancement of humanitarian causes by skeptical application of known-good social justice principles.

But that's not what happened. Instead, there can be no skeptical debate of social justice ideas. For 'plussers, it is not acceptable to test or challenge or advance the mainstream. Nor is there even any "mainstream", just whatever 301 truths the in-group has declared by fiat. Add to that the ongoing victim olympics, and a culture that values taking offense over making progress, and the whole thing is doomed.

This is exactly it, IMO.

It's not so much that one is demonized for not being 301-level at the A+ forums - it's that having new ideas about where the 301 level discussion should go is off limits.

It's all very sad to me. The political right in today's political environment is reduced to rehashing Reagan-era slogans, and the left is just in a total state of disarray. The skeptical "we" on the left could hash out so much. But that's not what A+ is or does. And I really do think that's unfortunate.

 

[Mr. Scott]

More gold from A+! Sylvia Sybil claims that "stupid" is an "ableist" slur.

When a group elevates stupidity to the status of oppressed minority, it's time for the smart people to abandon ship. I think their engine room is on fire.

 

[Quinn]

More gold from A+! Sylvia Sybil claims that "stupid" is an "ableist" slur.

Welcome to A+ Land, where any word that has ever been used in an objectionable way by anyone is now to be avoided by everyone, on the off chance that someone might feel triggered or invalidated or oppressed by it.

To recap, for those who still don't Get It™:

"He did a stupid thing" is an oppressive, ableist smear that further marginalizes already disenfranchised people and helps perpetuate the privileged, patriarchal, intellectuonormative status quo.

However, "Good ****-ing riddance, you human urinal" is A-OK.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Welcome to A+ Land, where any word that has ever been used in an objectionable way by anyone is now to be avoided by everyone, on the off chance that someone might feel triggered or invalidated or oppressed by it.

To recap, for those who still don't Get It™:

"He did a stupid thing" is an oppressive, ableist smear that further marginalizes already disenfranchised people and helps perpetuate the privileged, patriarchal, intellectuonormative status quo.

However, "Good ****-ing riddance, you human urinal" is A-OK.

In a related thread, "Oppressive Vocabulary", they've gone from objecting to the use of Homosexual as a noun (arguments for which I can profess certain agreements with, but which has the hope of a snowball in hell of succeeding), to working on getting rid of "male" and "female".

I'm just dying to see their version of the OED by the time they're done. It might actually be able to be abridged to a pocket book size.