Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Stout]

The links are working for me albeit slowly. I checked them in preview as I always do after that embarrassing German leather porn incident a few years back.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The GMO thread is hilarious. cee thinks she has an awesome argument about pigs, which really is the exact opposite of the situation at hand, and Ellie is right there to circle the wagons and tell the offender off for tone-policing "us".

And then there are the newbies learning the odd rules about post editing or joining threads too late.

I noticed someone with the handle SkepticalVegan. I can't search for their posts anymore, but I will have popcorn ready when they try to start talking about it.

 

[Wildy]

What I find interesting with the GMO thread is that you can quite clearly see the relationship between civility and join date. MorgannaLeFey is pretty much arguing the same view as GaiusIuliusTaberna (who I thought left, but has apparently come back), but isn't being treated as a Monsanto-loving corporate fascist who hates a breed of Hatian pig.

 

[Jono]

Aye, interesting times over on A+. It would appear that skepticism and critical thinking are trying to rear their heads but are being beat back mercilessly by the A+ inner sanctum.

First up is the GMO thread where, after taking on a biochem major on the topic, poster EllieMurasaki realizes that she's outclassed and slams down the sexism card by confusing the word irrational with the word hysterical and claiming she's being silenced because she's a woman. EllieMurasaki is coming of the rails quite nicely, moderator potential in this one I do sense.

I noticed. And of course, Ceepolk n Co are free to bully, to throw glibs and ad-hominem insinuations on newcomers but if the latter drops the "I don't like your tone"-response (which was at least a fair response), something filthy his way spewed.

The stark irony is, while the mods and senior members at A+ are supposedly anti-bullying, they appear to become verbal gargoylean bullies themselves as if on a bitter and vengeful quest against the gargoyles of their own past (which is basically everybody who disagrees... and is white... and male). I suppose one unspoken goal of Ceepolk n Co are achieved by the above; reversed darwinism.

 

[tsig]

The links are working for me albeit slowly. I checked them in preview as I always do after that embarrassing German leather porn incident a few years back.

Working now.

 

[hodgy]

I go over there (A+) now and again for a bit of entertainment when I get fed up of watching mysterious sea creatures and elephants v lions on YouTube.

I was reading the GMO thread and it occurred to me that the content posted by the more volatile A+ ers might not be distinguishable from content posted as an elaborate and well-coordinated trolling. That even this thread over here could be victim of trolling by proxy as a result...

Sadly, I don't think that is actually the case - they really are like that.

 

[Humes fork]

Richard Carrier had the grace to introduce two new FtBloggers. One of the new bloggers, Ally Fogg, defintely rubbs me the wrong way, not sure why.

It seems to me these new blogs have nothing to do with science, skepticism, secularism or atheism. FtB seems to morph into a left-wing political blog network with an atheist slant. Why then keep the name "freethought"? That term has a certain history and association in people's mind, and that association is not advocacy for radical feminism.

Carrier and Myers... why do they do this to themselves?

 

[adamwho]

It seems to me these new blogs have nothing to do with science, skepticism, secularism or atheism. FtB seems to morph into a left-wing political blog network with an atheist slant. Why then keep the name "freethought"? That term has a certain history and association in people's mind, and that association is not advocacy for radical feminism.

Freethought is an incredibly abused term. In many peoples minds it seems to mean 'free thought' as in speculation free of all reality.

 

[Jono]

Freethought is an incredibly abused term. In many peoples minds it seems to mean 'free thought' as in speculation free of all reality.

Abused yes, especially when the given setting is moreso comparable to free-thought in Stalin's Soviet than contemporary western societies.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Trigger Warning: Inane anecdote follows. Those triggered by the self-serving snarky ramblings of cynical members, please put on your A+ TW Filter Glasses.


So I was setting up our coffee house this morning. For those of you not following the story, I'm running a barista style shop in Pattaya and our decorating scheme is a very dramatic Black and White. Everything - walls, tiles, trim, tables, chairs, plates, etc... is either black or white.

We normally mix the black chairs and white chairs in some sort of alternating scheme but my wife decided yesterday that making one of the two rows of tables all black chairs and the other all white chairs would be good luck. Or something like that - who am I to question the woo of a brown lady? A brown lady who trains in Muay Thai, to be more specific.

So as I'm setting up the outdoor cafe, I grabbed the first chair from a stack and put it on the left side (stage left) and then got the next one down and realized that while my back was turned, I didn't remember which color chair I had put out and thus didn't know where to place the next one (which was one of the white ones). Having pretty good eyesight, though, when I faced the outdoor patio, I noticed that the chair in place on the left was black, so rather than putting the white one next to it, I put it on the right column, to keep with the "theme". And on turning my back again to get another chair, I repeated to myself. "Black on the left, white on the right. Black left, white right. Black left, white right." Just so's I'd remember, as walking a couple of steps too many in 37 degree heat, carrying a iron/wicker chair is not desirable.

So grabbing the next chair (don't even remember what color) and repeating my little patter, "Black left, white right...." I was hit by APLS (Atheism Plus Lurker Syndrome) and realized it was probably my cis-privilege that had me put the chairs where they wound up because I subconsciously believe that "White is Right".

I banned myself.

Banning was too mild for what you did.

 

[AlBell]

Banning was too mild for what you did.

Couldn't find your tanto?

 

[The Man]

Irish people count as People of Colour on account of their often ruddy cheeks.

Don't forget us Irish with freckles, but since our “brown” is only here or there I guess we are only People of Colour here or there.

Stop marginalizing us multi-chromes by ignoring us just because we don’t fit into this white/brown binary colourarcy !!!!!

 

[AlBell]

The A hotbed for Atheism+ (= social justice).

http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_2_multiculti-university.html

by the early 1960s, UC was already exhibiting many of the problems that afflict it today. The bureaucracy had mushroomed, both at the flagship Berkeley campus and at the Office of the President, the central administrative unit that oversees the entire UC system. Nathan Glazer, who taught sociology at Berkeley at the time, wrote in Commentary in 1965: “Everyone—arriving faculty members, arriving deans, visiting authorities—is astonished by the size” of the two administrations. Glazer noted the emergence of a new professional class: full-time college administrators who specialized in student affairs, had never taught, and had little contact with the faculty. The result of this bureaucratic explosion reminded Glazer of the federal government: “Organization piled upon organization, reaching to a mysterious empyrean height.”

we can say that there are two Universities of California: UC One, a serious university system centered on the sciences (though with representatives throughout the disciplines) and still characterized by rigorous meritocratic standards; and UC Two, a profoundly unserious institution dedicated to the all-consuming crusade against phantom racism and sexism that goes by the name of “diversity.” Unlike Berkeley Two in Kerr’s Day, UC Two reaches to the topmost echelon of the university, where it poses a real threat to the integrity of its high-achieving counterpart.

It’s impossible to overstate the extent to which the diversity ideology has encroached upon UC’s collective psyche and mission. No administrator, no regent, no academic dean or chair can open his mouth for long without professing fealty to diversity. It is the one constant in every university endeavor; it impinges on hiring, distorts the curriculum, and sucks up vast amounts of faculty time and taxpayer resources. The university’s budget problems have not touched it. In September 2012, for instance, as the university system faced the threat of another $250 million in state funding cuts on top of the $1 billion lost since 2007, UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses. (A pricey but appropriately “diverse” female-owned executive search firm had found this latest diversity accretion.) In May 2011, UCLA named a professional bureaucrat with a master’s degree in student-affairs administration as its first assistant dean for “campus climate,” tasked with “maintaining the campus as a safe, welcoming, respectful place,” in the words of UCLA’s assistant vice chancellor and dean of students. In December 2010, UC San Francisco appointed its first vice chancellor of diversity and outreach—with a starting salary of $270,000—to create a “diverse and inclusive environment,” announced UC San Francisco chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann. Each of these new posts is wildly redundant with the armies of diversity functionaries already larding UC’s bloated bureaucracy.

UC Two’s worldview rests on the belief that certain racial and ethnic groups face ongoing bias, both in America and throughout the university. In 2010, UCLA encapsulated this conviction in a “Principle of Community” (one of eight) approved by the Chancellor’s Advisory Group on Diversity (since renamed the UCLA Council on Diversity and Inclusion, in the usual churn of rebranding to which such bodies are subject). Principle Eight reads: “We acknowledge that modern societies carry historical and divisive biases based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and religion, and we seek to promote awareness and understanding through education and research and to mediate and resolve conflicts that arise from these biases in our communities.”

The idea that a salient—if not the most salient—feature of “modern societies” is their “divisive biases” is ludicrously unhistorical. No culture has been more blandly indifferent than modern Western society to the individual and group characteristics that can still lead to death and warfare elsewhere. There is also no place that more actively celebrates the characteristics that still handicap people outside the West than the modern American campus. Yet when UC Two’s administrators and professors look around their domains, they see a landscape riven by the discrimination that it is their duty to extirpate.

You should get the idea, but read the article please. Enough to gag a maggot.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Richard Carrier had the grace to introduce two new FtBloggers. One of the new bloggers, Ally Fogg, defintely rubbs me the wrong way, not sure why.

It seems to me these new blogs have nothing to do with science, skepticism, secularism or atheism. FtB seems to morph into a left-wing political blog network with an atheist slant. Why then keep the name "freethought"? That term has a certain history and association in people's mind, and that association is not advocacy for radical feminism.

Carrier and Myers... why do they do this to themselves?

The second blogger seems quite rational about why Atheism+ appeals to her, and it is similar to how I felt about it in the beginning. However, she clearly has not taken the time to read many criticisms from her "responses" to A+ opposition:

I do not know what the hullabaloo is about Atheism+, why all the hate and tantrums? I understand that people fear change, people with power fear anything that would or could threaten their power base, and because atheists are people, they are not exempted from this fear of change.
People who enjoy power hardly want their privileged positions questioned. They fight the change makers, they cast aspersion on the oppositions’ characters, they fight tooth and nail to discredit the change and this is mostly what the fight against Atheism+ is all about. The sad thing is, many of those fighting the Atheism+ concept would hardly agree that they fight because they are afraid of change, nope; they would hide under so many notions to justify their stance against atheism+.
People love to have power over others; the ‘insignificant’ minorities are always the victims. Many so called progressives still use their residual patriarchal power, sometimes unconsciously, to lord it over others but they loathe it when they are confronted with this fact.

...

I think those fighting the Atheist+ tag should examine their real motive to understand what they are scared of.
Are they terrified that Atheism would be overrun by feminists, human rights activists or Atheists women demanding not to be called sluts in atheists groups and gatherings?
Are they frightened that Africans and persons of colour would demand not to be given the second class treatment in international Atheist groups and gatherings?
Are they troubled that Atheists living with disabilities would demand not to be ignored in atheist gatherings?
Are they scared that young atheists would start demanding that their voice be heard within the atheist movement?
What exactly are the anti-Atheist+ afraid of?

Linky.

And here is an abridged (hah) comment discussion. I tried to trim the bickering:

pitchguest
May 10, 2013 at 3:16 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Yemisi, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you genuinely want to know about the “hullabaloo” regarding Atheism Plus, then I suggest you research. Read Jennifer McCreight’s blog post about it, read the blogs writing about it; get the gist. Then do some more research just to be on the safe side. Asking “why all the hate and tantrums?” if you’re not really interested betrays a principle of scepticism.

Later when you’ve learned enough to be confident to know what the deal is, read the forum. The official Atheism Plus forum. Only when you have read the blog posts concerning A+, why it came about and the reactions (from *both* “sides”) to it, and then read the forum, only then do you start to form a consensus — and the reasons for much of the backlash.

One other thing before I leave: if you see the screen name oolon, avoid. He’s a known ****-stirrer and a troll, deliberately misinterpreting and obfuscating arguments to get a reaction out of people. He’s a bit like the argument sketch in that fashion, just contradicting people for the hell of it. My friendly advice to you. Take care now.

Response:

Yemisi Ilesanmi
May 10, 2013 at 4:40 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
@pitchguest- Benefit of the doubt? Oh, how benevolent of you! For a minute there, I thought you were a Christian who wanted to give me benefit of the doubt as my atheism might be due to some bad
Influence that could easily be taken care of under their superior guidance! lol! Still, the similarity is eerie!

Whatever gave you the impression that I had not done my research before making this post? How patronizing of you to even assume that I have no knowledge of the genesis of what I care enough to blog and even make a video about. I doubt if you would recognize your own patronizing tone even as I point it out to you.

If you had bothered to watch the video, you should have noticed that this post and the video were made 8 months ago. Yes, I followed the important bit of it all as it happened, and I have also been a member of the Atheist plus forum since inception.

I find it funny that you think you can come here to dish advice out, ask me to research things I already know without you thinking YOU NEED TO DO YOUR RESEARCH TO KNOW THINGS I MIGHT ALREADY KNOW. But no, it only seems OK to your patronizing self to expect that this newbie on FTB, who is a Nigerian black woman most probably knows nothing about what she is writing about. Sorry to wake you up from your messianic “let me give her a shining knight in armour nudge” slumber, but that ****** attitude is not welcome on my space.

And Oh, about your advice regarding another commenter on my blog, you see the thing is, I relate to people based on their comments on my posts. If they had not said anything that qualifies them as a troll, I need not take the word of someone who obviously have an axe to grind with them, as that unsolicited advice is obviously coming from a prejudiced mind. I can make my own judgments calls, thanks but no thanks.

And my friendly advice to you is, remember, great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small mind discuss people. It seems you are more interested in discussing people and events more than the ideas, I hate gossips, it is not an endearing trait.

They probably asked you to do research because your straw "objections" bear little resemblance to actual debate.

Response:

pitchguest
May 10, 2013 at 11:26 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Well, pardon me. I didn’t intend to come off as patronising. However, rather than me having an axe to grind, it seems it might be the other way around. Anyway, it appears I have my work cut out for me. Let’s get to it.

@pitchguest- Benefit of the doubt? Oh, how benevolent of you! For a minute there, I thought you were a Christian who wanted to give me benefit of the doubt as my atheism might be due to some bad
Influence that could easily be taken care of under their superior guidance! lol! Still, the similarity is eerie!

Whatever gave you the impression that I had not done my research before making this post? How patronizing of you to even assume that I have no knowledge of the genesis of what I care enough to blog and even make a video about. I doubt if you would recognize your own patronizing tone even as I point it out to you.

If you had bothered to watch the video, you should have noticed that this post and the video were made 8 months ago. Yes, I followed the important bit of it all as it happened, and I have also been a member of the Atheist plus forum since inception.

Heh, heh. The “benefit of the doubt” comment was indeed a way to excuse your ignorance on the matter, if it happens you were uninformed, but seeing as you weren’t and have even been a member on the forum from the start, then I have to ask why you even asked the question? Many people were upset at the divisive nature of A+, the posts that touted it as a new movement for everyone else to fall in line, the posts that touted it with an “us vs them” narrative, and the forum created as a “safe space” which turned out to be nothing but, so why would you even ask such a stupid question? Isn’t that just a deliberate excuse to poke people with sticks?

I find it funny that you think you can come here to dish advice out, ask me to research things I already know without you thinking YOU NEED TO DO YOUR RESEARCH TO KNOW THINGS I MIGHT ALREADY KNOW. But no, it only seems OK to your patronizing self to expect that this newbie on FTB, who is a Nigerian black woman most probably knows nothing about what she is writing about. Sorry to wake you up from your messianic “let me give her a shining knight in armour nudge” slumber, but that ****** attitude is not welcome on my space.

I offered you some advice to information I thought you lacked, not presuming to judge straight away, which is incidentally what giving you the benefit of the doubt means. It wasn’t meant to be rude. I’m not sure where this interpretation of me as a knight in shining armor comes from, or why you think you being a Nigerian black woman has anything to do with my opinions, but I can only assume you have your reasons.

Clearly I did it because your opening question, “why all the hate and tantrums?” hinted at ignorance of the subject, especially when you preface it with “I do not know what the hullabaloo is about Atheism+” then I just assumed you didn’t know -- which I hope you can forgive my temporary oversight. I’ll also admit I didn’t watch the video, another mistake on my part.

Response:

Yemisi Ilesanmi
May 11, 2013 at 1:48 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
@pitchguest: I could ask you right now why you are being so silly, but then I wouldn’t expect a coherent response from you. I could go ahead to educate you on why even a bit of assumption on your part that I was ignorant of the things that gave birth to Atheism plus and the events surrounding it, even though I have written and made video on it, is itself a very silly assumption, but I doubt if it would be worth the effort. Of course I could go ahead to ask you why even though you realized your assumption was wrong, you still chose to continue with your silliness, but I doubt if you would be honest enough to stop the silliness just because I pointed it out to you.

Even though I asked the question “What are anti atheists plus afraid of?”, I still went ahead in my post to address the fears, disagreements and tantrums thrown so far by the anti atheist plus folk. This should have clearly shown you that I have heard the fears, hate and aware of the tantrums thrown around and that I was basically using the video and post to address these fears. The fact that you think my question was stupid because to quote you-

pitchguest:

Heh, heh. The “benefit of the doubt” comment was indeed a way to excuse your ignorance on the matter, if it happens you were uninformed, but seeing as you weren’t and have even been a member on the forum from the start, then I have to ask why you even asked the question?

Does it mean as a member of a group, I cannot literally, figuratively or rhetorically ask why people who are anti the group are so afraid of the group or forum? Now, don’t pretend you can’t see the flaw in your comment.

Hmm, seems like the closest thing to an apology I will get for your assumption that I was ignorant of the very thing I was posting about, even though it still baffles me why you would make that assumption at reading the very first sentence when the rest of the post made it clear your assumption was wrong, yet you still felt you had to “give me the benefit of doubt of my possible ignorance”, Of course it’s a joke! I am not baffled as to why you made your assumption, it was just one of these sarcastic questions, you know, like “What are Anti Atheists plus afraid of?

With such a humbling request for forgiveness of your oversight, what else can I do but forgive. So, no worries you are forgiven, I’m just glad that at least we agreed that such assumption is offensive especially when it cannot be justified.

42

Yemisi Ilesanmi
May 11, 2013 at 6:01 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
pitchguest:

Are you always this defensive? What’s with the overly aggressive tone?

Oh my, but I haven’t wrote anything that I should feel defensive about, so why would my responses to your comments be defensive? What am I defending? My honour? My mum’s honour, as you kind of mentioned? (even though for the life of me, I don’t know what relevance that has to do with my post or comments)

Oh wait a minute, did you honestly think that I had a need to defend myself against your assumption that i was ignorant of the issue i wrote about? Oh my, very funny! Actually when someone arrogantly commits a blatant error, the discomfort is not mine; it is that of the person who arrogantly committed the error, in this case, you. Pointing you to the error you made in regard to my alleged ignorance on the subject under discussion is neither an act to defense of my intelligence, nor was it intended as a “look I am not as ignorant as you think” action. Wow, that would be like craving your approval, and the thought itself makes me burst out in convulsive laughter.

My response was basically to show you the areas you got very wrong and how patronizing your assumption was. Oh dear, it definitely was not a defensive action, but your thinking it could be defensive made me realized you actually thought I had to defend myself against your own error of judgment, how so typical. Truly I sometimes wish I could at least meet with some new genius putdowns, but that continuously seems like an elusive dream.

43

Yemisi Ilesanmi
May 11, 2013 at 6:05 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Pitchguest:

Actually, while we’re on the subject of tantrums, your responses to me and johngreg have been extremely aggressive in proportion to what we’ve said and your way of expressing yourself during these outburts could arguably be called tantrums. And forgive me, but also a lot of dislike in there, too, maybe even hate, who knows. Is this the same kind of “hate and tantrums” that you claim “anti-Atheism Plus” folks have?

Don’t flatter yourself, there was nothing in what you wrote that could have triggered such emotions from me, my emotions aren’t that cheap. In all honesty, I didn’t even feel any anger when reading your comment, the only thing it elicited from me was a resigned ‘Oh just another one of ‘those’”.

I guess I have seen so many of ‘those’ types that it would be difficult to get angry when another random guy assumes I know nothing of what I write about even before reading what I have to say, then proceeds to point me to his reservoir of knowledge, while charging in on his white horse to warn me of pending danger involving those he considered as trolls. Oh really, if I got angry every time someone does that, I would have no energy left. So really, anger had nothing to do with my responses to you. In fact sometimes I wish I could muster enough anger when things like that happen, but enough ******** online already sapped all that anger off me, just say I am jaded to online assholery.

As for tantrums, I only throw tantrums at people who are important enough in my life to elicit such strong emotions. Oh believe me, you don’t want to see me throw tantrums, and I can assure you I do not throw tantrums with a derisive smile on my face. And yes, I did have a derisive smile on my face when typing out my responses to you. Not that I am proud of that, just saying some emotions can’t be helped, and really, anger and tantrums are not the emotions your words elicited, all you got was a derisive smile, my bad.

Response:

72

pitchguest
May 12, 2013 at 12:59 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
It’s amusing that the people who actually post in this place frequently, including a fellow blogger, should ignore Yemisi’s rules on personal insults and discussing people, not ideas. What was that quote again?

And my friendly advice to you is, remember, great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small mind discuss people. It seems you are more interested in discussing people and events more than the ideas, I hate gossips, it is not an endearing trait.

Tsk tsk tsk. Now if you’re quite finished, I’m going to continue my conversation with Yemisi.

Actually that is because I am very baffled at all the hate and tantrums thrown around by Anti Atheist+ folks. Disagreements, fears or constructive criticisms do not baffle me. I have done my bit in my posts and videos on Atheism+ to address these expressed fears, concerns and suggestions. I have made my points on why I think these fears, disagreements and concerns are not valid, and people are free to disagree with that.

Yes, I’m sure there are and/or were a sleugh of “hate” and even “tantrums” against Atheism Plus, but it didn’t come from nowhere. When it first started out in August last year, it was just an arrogant blogger who wished to create a “third wave of atheism” because she felt the current atheist movement was, in her words, a “boy’s club” (unevidenced) and filled with, quote, “a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists.” (unevidenced)

But then it gained momentum -- people started talking about it more and more, people with influence like PZ Myers began taking it under their wing, speaking about it on conventions and conferences and it took a life on its own. An official forum was created to host as a “safe space” for atheists who’d been “wronged” by other atheists, Richard Carrier on this network started his mission to “evangelise” other atheists and said in no uncertain terms that “you’re either with us or against us.” A lot of people followed suit.

With this kind of reaction, many people got upset. I remember how I felt. So yeah, I can imagine a lot of hate and, yes, even “tantrums” (but I imagine the latter didn’t happen very often), but also disagreements and fear. My reaction to it was how misguided it seemed, and arrogant, how they thought they had the authority and wisdom to conclude that the current atheist movement was obsolete and how they needed to create a “third wave of atheism” to combat it. But most of all misguided. I’ll get to that later.

It is the hate and tantrums that baffles me. The name calling, the slur words and/or the cyber bullying just because I wanna play with Atheism with a pus but you insist I play with only atheism, reminds me so much of Christians throwing tantrums just because I don’t wanna play with their imaginary friends and skydaddy.

Let us look at the turn of events. Jen started out with saying that the current atheist movement needed refurbishment, and then other people followed by saying the same including even implying that if they don’t choose to join the new wave, considering what the new wave allegedly stood for, then they’re “against” the movement. That, to me, sounds more like religious dogma than the urging for people to not redefine atheism in their image.

I have atheist friends who do not use the atheist+ label, either because they don’t think they need it or because they don’t think they want to be so socially active or just because it is their choice not to. I do not go calling them names for making their own choice; they also do not call me unprintable names because I chose to use the Atheist+ tag to signify my goals. It does not stop us from being friends, and we definitely don’t go cyber bullying ourselves. This I also assume applies to those who have expressed their disagreements and moved on. Expressing a disagreement or not adopting the tag of another does not necessarily make you anti that group or person, it only means you disagree or just indifferent. When you leave the arena of pure disagreement and resort to bullying, online stalking, name-calling, obsessive behaviors towards that group and/or person, making derisive caricatures, invading the space of the other and the petty name calling, now that is not just expressing disagreements or fears, it has moved to hate and tantrums.

First of all, I have doubts regarding this “bullying, online stalking, name calling”, etc, that you have supposedly received for merely using the A+ label. I also have doubts if the treatment you received *were*, in fact, “bullying, online stalking, name calling,” etc. But since I have no proof to the contrary, I’ll take your word for it. As for why I don’t like the A+ label and think it’s misguided,

atheism, especially in the US, has had a bad rep and has tried to convince ignorant Christians (and so on) that atheism is just a descriptor for “a lack of belief in a god or gods” and that it doesn’t stand for anything, no creed to speak of, no dogma to adhere to, and here comes Atheism Plus™ to put a spoke in the wheels. When they speak of Stalin, of Pol Pot, of Mao Zedong, they say they were atheists and they did terrible things, and we say “so what?” They didn’t do what they did in the name of atheism, atheism isn’t an ideology or a religion. Now with Atheism Plus™, can we say the same thing? In the name of Atheism Plus™ and “social justice”, could we excuse the behaviour of someone who, say, decided to kill a lot of Muslims because many Muslims abuse their wives and subjugate women? Yeah, a hypothetical situation, and perhaps a little hyperbolic, but I hope you get my point.

Unfortunately so many anti Atheist + have moved to the hate and tantrums level. And yes, as someone with YouTube videos supporting Atheism+ , I have experienced these kind of obsessive behavior from Anti Atheist + folks. They just remind me of the childish behavior of religious believers who gets annoyed when I tell them I am not gonna play with their skydaddy. And that is a pity,

Do you know what you sound like? So many “anti Atheist +” (sic)? Again, remember how A+ got started.

And shouldn’t you at least admit to the “hate” and/or “tantrums” of the presumably many “pro Atheist +” as well, like for instance on the official A+ forum? Also I really wish you’d provide some proof for this level of “hate and tantrums” to people who say they merely choose to use that label.

Response:

86

Yemisi Ilesanmi
May 13, 2013 at 12:00 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
An official forum was created to host as a “safe space” for atheists who’d been “wronged” by other atheists, Richard Carrier on this network started his mission to “evangelise” other atheists and said in no uncertain terms that “you’re either with us or against us.” A lot of people followed suit.

And there you go blabbing on about events and people and also attempting to give me the STORY of how Atheism+ started as if I did not already told you I AM AWARE, but no, you must tell your story. You can, but not on my blog, OK? Focus on the REASONS I have given in my post for embracing Atheism plus, address the points I have raised to counter expressed disagreements with the name by anti A+, please just don’t go blabbing on to me about who did what in an attempt to justify hate or tantrums, OK?
pitchguest

With this kind of reaction, many people got upset. I remember how I felt. So yeah, I can imagine a lot of hate and, yes, even “tantrums” (but I imagine the latter didn’t happen very often),

Story, story , story… you got upset, so what? What value has that added to this post commentary? And how “often” must hate happen before you consider it a terrible thing? And that was a rhetorical question, no answer required..

87

Yemisi Ilesanmi
May 13, 2013 at 12:03 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
pitchguest

My reaction to it was how misguided it seemed, and arrogant, how they thought they had the authority and wisdom to conclude that the current atheist movement was obsolete and how they needed to create a “third wave of atheism” to combat it.

Poor pitchguest, it is all about you, isn’t it. It is about how they got you so upset you eventually failed to see any reason beyond the burning anger in your precious heart. Did it even ever occur to you and your lots that what you call atheist movement does not encompass every atheist on planet earth? I am a Nigerian, who has identified as an atheist for more than a decade, I do not see myself as belonging to this dear atheist movement that you are so eager to protect because someone called it obsolete. And I can tell you the few African atheists I know do not even know anything about your precious atheist movement, nor do they care. The assumption that atheists in America or wherever speak for the whole atheists on planet earth is not only ridiculous but very bigoted.

The fact is, I am an atheist, I will identify with atheist groups anywhere, as I have been doing, but I will definitely distance myself from atheists who are homophobic, racist, and sexist. I definitely don’t want to seat in the same conference room with them under the banner of atheism. I picket my government embassy and officials whenever they are in UK for official engagement because of their homophobic statements and support for a bill that seeks to put LGBTS in jail for 14 years. What makes you think I will be happy to seat in the same conference room with atheists who call me **** or faggot? The point is, if this atheist movement have such people as members, I am more than happy to distance myself from them and publicly too. No matter how that might hurt your feelings.

Response:

94

pitchguest
May 13, 2013 at 12:37 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Yemisi:

And there you go blabbing on about events and people and also attempting to give me the STORY of how Atheism+ started as if I did not already told you I AM AWARE, but no, you must tell your story. You can, but not on my blog, OK? Focus on the REASONS I have given in my post for embracing Atheism plus, address the points I have raised to counter expressed disagreements with the name by anti A+, please just don’t go blabbing on to me about who did what in an attempt to justify hate or tantrums, OK?

Because you keep saying you’re “baffled” this and “baffled” that, and you keep using the same words. “Hate.” “Tantrums.” That’s clearly not a balanced view on the issue. *My* history regarding it was how I felt reading Jennifer McCreight’s post and then the subsequent posts that followed, including the one by Richard Carrier. I certainly didn’t express “hate and tantrums.” I expressed (for lack of a better word) fear to the word atheism being redefined in their image when the word should be kept free from dogma or creed or common goals, and yes, a lot of disagreements. For this I was called a misogynist, a homophobe, a transphobe, a rape-enabler, and so on and so forth.

The genesis and evolution of the A+ forum is also a reason for why I have no confidence in the label. Do I need to say more? *This* is what the so-called “anti Atheist +” (sic) people object to and disagree! What I have just told you, and you full well know this. So can you please stop this bogus posturing?

Story, story , story… you got upset, so what? What value has that added to this post commentary? And how “often” must hate happen before you consider it a terrible thing? And that was a rhetorical question, no answer required..

Well, look, I can’t account for every idiot with opinions and I can’t very well say there haven’t been any “hate and tantrums” as you say, because I just don’t know! Denying it in my ignorance wouldn’t be particularly sceptical, now would it? And it wouldn’t be particularly sceptical of you, either, blaming me for its occurence simply because I neither confirmed or denied its existence. So get off my back, will you? And I didn’t say hate, I said tantrums, that I imagined didn’t happen very often.

95

pitchguest
May 13, 2013 at 1:07 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Yemisi:

Are you in anywhere justifying “hate” and tantrums against Atheism plus because according to you, it did not stem from nowhere? It might be OK in your universe, but it is not OK in mine, and that is why I steer clear from atheists who justify hate under whatever disguise.

Justifying it? I’m saying it didn’t come from a vaccuum. I’ve provided reasons for why this “hate” and/or “tantrums” may have come about. Why on earth that would translate into “justifying” it is beyond me. Why on earth you would also interpret my saying that in the *worst possible light* straight away, without even asking for a revision or a clarification first, is also frankly beyond my understanding. I thought we agreed to discuss this like adults?

There you go again personalizing issue. As someone who has been called arrogant and confrontational a lot of times mostly by misogynists and quite a few of them were also atheists, I thnk what you call arrogant might just be another term for an assertive, strong woman who just won’t keep shut. But whatever you describe as arrogant, I cannot see how that is adding any value to this discussion, I never asked for character endorsement of atheist plussers from you or anyone; let’s focus on the issues IN THIS POST, not your personal grievances.

This entire blog post have you lamenting the “hate and tantrums” by so-called “anti Atheist +” (sic) folks and in my response (if we shall ignore my initial reply but move on to the subsequent ones), since you were so kind to address this to the “anti Atheist +” folks and I suppose I would be one of them (even though I wouldn’t call myself “anti Atheist +”), I detailed exactly why I object to the label -- *my* personal grievance. If someone else “anti” were to come along and detail *their* objections, would you be as rude and aggressive to them as you have to me, even though you should rightly accept my (and their) input when you asked for it?

Also, let me get this straight. Someone who happens to be a woman acts extremely arrogant and concludes, without ANYONE ELSE’S OPINION, that the current atheist movement is from now on obsolete and requires a “third wave of atheism” to overtake it, because she feels (her opinion) that it’s just a “boy’s club” filled to the brim with privileged, old white men. But to call someone who happens to be a woman arrogant (an assertive, strong woman, whatever attributes she might inhabit) is asking her to keep shut? And what of “character endorsements?” In proportion to nothing, for my initial blunder in this thread you have called me almost every name under the sun. Is this a common form of communication in Nigeria? That in order to have a conversation, you should substitute courtesy with insults? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

100

pitchguest
May 13, 2013 at 2:05 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Poor pitchguest, it is all about you, isn’t it. It is about how they got you so upset you eventually failed to see any reason beyond the burning anger in your precious heart. Did it even ever occur to you and your lots that what you call atheist movement does not encompass every atheist on planet earth? I am a Nigerian, who has identified as an atheist for more than a decade, I do not see myself as belonging to this dear atheist movement that you are so eager to protect because someone called it obsolete. And I can tell you the few African atheists I know do not even know anything about your precious atheist movement, nor do they care. The assumption that atheists in America or wherever speak for the whole atheists on planet earth is not only ridiculous but very bigoted.

The concept of adult conversation has obviously gone straight out the window. No, it clearly isn’t — or wasn’t — all about me, as I believe I’ve told you now numerous times. I’m also not much for divination, something that you are not seemingly as averse to, mostly because I can’t read minds. I admit it’s somewhat amusing what you think my intentions are or what you think I must be thinking each time you reply to one of my posts, but gets a little tiresome when I remember you’re supposed to be a professional blogger.

By the way, if it’s your mission in life to let everyone know you’re an atheist black woman from Nigeria, I think I should let you know ahead of time that I don’t give a ****. (That was snark.) I won’t treat you any differently than I do any other person.

The fact is, I am an atheist, I will identify with atheist groups anywhere, as I have been doing, but I will definitely distance myself from atheists who are homophobic, racist, and sexist. I definitely don’t want to seat in the same conference room with them under the banner of atheism. I picket my government embassy and officials whenever they are in UK for official engagement because of their homophobic statements and support for a bill that seeks to put LGBTS in jail for 14 years. What makes you think I will be happy to seat in the same conference room with atheists who call me **** or faggot? The point is, if this atheist movement have such people as members, I am more than happy to distance myself from them and publicly too. No matter how that might hurt your feelings.

You don’t want to be associated in the same group? Guess what? Tough ****. Stalin was an atheist. Pol Pot, atheist. Mao Zedong, atheist. Those are our people. And yet they’re not. Because people have principles, different ideas, different morals and ethics, and those morals and ethics could include the complete disgust towards totalitarianism and genocide. Here’s another for you. Socialism. Definition of socialism is for means of production to befall the state for the benefit of the people. But instead for the promise of utopian societies, it was transformed into all manner of perversions. Now imagine if instead of good ideas, Atheism Plus would have plaintatively bad ideas? Maybe a new branch of A+? How much longer until they’re nothing but echochambers, littered with nothing but like-minded zealots?

tl;dr she is fit to be the second coming of ceepolk! The conversation faceplants in the second post and never recovers.

Now onto Ally, this is from his intro post about his atheism:

(from Kamaka) Are you an atheist?
Yes. It’s something that feels so natural and obvious to me that it barely warrants mentioning. I tend not to write about it because I never really know what to say. It always strikes me as an odd thing to get passionate about. I’m a rationalist, but I’ve long resigned myself to accepting that people believe in weird and whacky things, like god existing or homeopathy working or Coldplay making interesting music. So long as they don’t attempt to impose such weird beliefs on me, I see it as none of my business.
So I’m not a passionate atheist, but I am a passionate secularist and a passionate believer in human rights. When religious people claim dominion over women’s wombs, little boys’ foreskins, children’s schooling or political decision-making, then I will fight them tooth and nail.
But it is not really the religion / rationalism thing that brings me to FTB. I’m here because I try to apply the same principles of free thinking – ie questioning everything, accepting nothing on faith, demanding evidence etc – to gender politics. Political dogma can be just as irrational and damaging as religious dogma, IMO.

But through a quick skimming of his post he seems to be trying to settle gender equality and feminism together in a way I think many non-A+ people have been asking for.

 

[Stout]

tl;dr she is fit to be the second coming of ceepolk! The conversation faceplants in the second post and never recovers.

She could be. She's a heterophobe who considers herself superior to regular folk.

I see my bisexuality as a step above heterosexuality because my feelings or attractions for someone is not based on gender

She writes strange poetry where she admits to hitting her kid and compares the 2011 Japanese tsunami to mother natures orgasm.

She likes Family Guy, a bannable offense over at A+ but they'll overlook that.

But the A+ absurdity post of the day goes to Nogodsnomasters who's whine about the travails of living a lifestyle of the rich and famous doesn't allow enough time for housework. Hire someone...but be sure to pay them a living wage, we know you can afford it. From the complaining thread

Ugh, I need a pick-me-up

I was just in Florida for 2 weeks, then spent 2 days in London and now I'm off to France for 3 days. That's not the bad bit, I loooove travelling. It's the getting home and having mountains of laundry to do and unpacking and trying to keep food in or out of the house. And the cleaning! I always clean the house before I go on an extended holiday so it's not a mess when I get home but there's no time between all my short trips. I have a friend coming over to take care of the cats which means I have to clean the kitchen to the point where I'm not *too* embarrassed to let her see it... I'm feeling awfully swamped.
And you know I'm too tired to do anything the first few days I'm home so it just stacks up.
Bleurgh.

Mountains of laundry heh ? Well I guess she scored those plus sized clothes from a shop other than the one she was complaining that "doesn't care about her" because they no longer carry plus sizes.

 

[Empress]

That thread is full of the "hugs if you want them" and "hugs if they're welcome" posts that are so common at A+. You have some people that are so well-off that their biggest problem is having to do laundry after international travel, and other people that are apparently so damaged that cyber hugs can cause such severe emotional harm that they have to be offered conditionally. It amazes me that these people have the ability to open the door and walk out of their homes.

 

[brodski]

Richard Carrier had the grace to introduce two new FtBloggers. One of the new bloggers, Ally Fogg, defintely rubbs me the wrong way, not sure why.

It seems to me these new blogs have nothing to do with science, skepticism, secularism or atheism. FtB seems to morph into a left-wing political blog network with an atheist slant. Why then keep the name "freethought"? That term has a certain history and association in people's mind, and that association is not advocacy for radical feminism.

Carrier and Myers... why do they do this to themselves?

I've been readdy Ally Fogg for a long time, and I'm a bit of a fan- he may not be a scientist but he is a fan of evidence based politics and ripping apart bad stats used in social and political debates (even, or perhaps especially, if it's from the side he agrees with). Ally Fogg is certainly not an advocate of "radical feminism", which is partly why I think his experiences at FTB may be interesting.

 

[Lorentz]

tl;dr she is fit to be the second coming of ceepolk! The conversation faceplants in the second post and never recovers.

I think that's taking it too far. She did not ban her opponent and lock the thread with a closing insult, she did not accuse him/her of being too lengthy or unclear, or both at the same time, she did not interpret him/her to mean the exact opposite of what he/she was clearly saying.

Comparing someone to Ceepolk should not be done lightly. If we're not careful, such careless comparisons may inspire an addendum to Godwin's law.

 

[Jono]

I see my bisexuality as a step above heterosexuality because my feelings or attractions for someone is not based on gender

I've often heard bisexuals use variants of the above as if the attraction they experience for someone else is somehow less physical than it is for heterosexuals. As I see it, the attraction felt for someone is just as much based on gender for the former as it is for the latter, it's just that a bisexual's field-of-scope is not based on just one gender but two.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I see my bisexuality as a step above heterosexuality because my feelings or attractions for someone is not based on gender

I've often heard bisexuals use variants of the above as if the attraction they experience for someone else is somehow less physical than it is for heterosexuals. As I see it, the attraction felt for someone is just as much based on gender for the former as it is for the latter, it's just that a bisexual's field-of-scope is not based on just one gender but two.

Of the infinite variety of ways to say, "I'm better than you," this is definitely one of them.

Most germane to this thread, however, is, "my lack of privilege trumps your privilege." Also nice is, "my social justice position is more extreme than yours, so I win."