The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

[A Hermit]

What I was saying is that I don't see why people who have issues with A+ are targeting the fact that she stepped down from blogging.

Maybe because they're immature little twits who love to twist the knife...

All I was saying earlier is that if she loves writing for her blog as much as she says, why not keep writing and shut off comments? Stop reading emails?

As she says in her post a big part of blogging is the exchange of ideas with other people. Hard to do that when you can't allow any feedback because of the constant stream of abuse.

I've seen this term over at A+ (I guess it's popular, but I hadn't encountered it before)-- "sticking the Flounce"
Is she flouncing?

I think she's genuinely frustrated by being constantly reduced to a boob joke by a pack of drooling adolescents...and by the fact that people who should have her back instead choose to side with the bullies.

[Badger3k]

Don't worry about Jen...from a tweet, she's just taking a break to write a book. Breaking the cardinal rule of flounces, but the drama might drum up some business, if she is actually writing anything. The Russian Judge gives her a 2.0 for sticking the flounce. That's gonna hurt in the all-around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Taqiyya Mockingbird,

With reference to this post, this one and several others. Constantly referring to another member by an insulting version of their name amounts to harrassment which is not allowed under our play nice rule. Please desist.

[colubridae]

Don't worry about Jen...from a tweet, she's just taking a break to write a book. Breaking the cardinal rule of flounces, but the drama might drum up some business, if she is actually writing anything. The Russian Judge gives her a 2.0 for sticking the flounce. That's gonna hurt in the all-around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Then why doesn't she say that. Exactly why they are so objectionable. "I need time to write a book. I know I'll wear my heart on my sleeve. I'll show them how wrong they are by faking my flounce". How much is anything they say to be taken at face value.

Everything I’ve said so far is genuine. Everything I’ve said is predicated on facts. I’ve not done anything to hide my views. I straight up think that their position is pure tyranny. That they have some lofty aims, of course, every tyrant through history has started with high principles.

I have no beef with such aims. That the details differ on certain points should be the norm and allowed.

But that they call me a racist, sexist homophobe because I object to their ‘us/them’ tyranny is anathema. Disagreement is not allowed, it’s in their articles of faith. It’s their basic creed. It says so in their rules.

They have erected a religious cult with an immutable dogma. That they have no explicit deity is simple a camouflage.
What A+skep/ftb do is allowed, any opposition to be crushed even if it uses the same logic.
Pappa made a humorous tasteless joke. He apologised. The apology was peremptorily rejected and the sturmbahn proceeded to jackboot it’s way across rationalia. OTH ahermit now demands that dickcarrier’s notplogy be allowed to wash away any and all sins committed by the faithful. This is dogma at it’s most virulent.

[Robert_S]

Actually, my experience posting there was that they were quite open to dissent. So much so that they probably won't get shit done because the works will be clogged up with trolls. IMO, if they wanna be a player in any kind of progressive movement, they need to get a little bit quicker on the banhammer.

Not one of the Skepchicks came and pestered us here at Rationalia. Wossname over at FtB did do a bit of a Leeroy Jenkins and PZ Myers did make some sweepign statements about this place while standing up for his friends.

But Rationalia cannot really take the high ground on that joke issue. I was trying to explain to some people how Rationalia wasn't really all that sexist, rapey and hostile while several posters here were providing evidence to the contrary just for shits and giggles.

Oh, by the way everybody: Using sexist language, stereotypes and tropes to deride someone for allegedly overstating the amount of sexism in a community doesn't fucking work like you think it will.

[Audley Strange]

The local government here got complaints about graffiti on a large wall on a walkway. It was one of those big ugly swirly murals, so they painted the wall white.

Guess what happened?

This isn't about high grounds or trying to heal a rift. It's essentially a communal "fuck off" to a bunch of people who've manufactured controversy, acted like children and demanded we take them and their stupid politics seriously as if they are part of not believing in a God.


It's like atheism junior rather than plus. It's entirety is at best the mentality of a righteous spoiled adolescent railing their naive politics at mummy and daddy and then storming out the house in a huff when taken to task on it. They want the respect of adults and the protection of children. They want to lash out but be protected from bullies.

So they publically made a white wall they would be able to sit under and not get offended.

What did they expect?

[DaveDodo007]

Exactly this.

They come to the atheist, skeptical 'community' with their you're either with us or you are a sexist, racist douchebag schoolyard taunt and expect people to queue up to join them. They quite rightly got a resounding fuck off.

Well they have their own websites and blogs now and they can hold their own conferences and meeting which even the most paranoid and overly sensitive of them can feel 'safe.' They should go there and leave the rest of us adults alone because we are not buying their bullshit.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I have to laugh at PZ's logic, getting up in Denver and asking who is for this, for that, amd failing to grasp that every "yes!" is a nail in the coffin of their claims of rampant sexism, homo/transphobia, bigotry, etc in the athest movement.

[Audley Strange]

They were probably agreeing in the hopes he'd shut his fucking mouth.

[DaveDodo007]

Actually, my experience posting there was that they were quite open to dissent. So much so that they probably won't get shit done because the works will be clogged up with trolls. IMO, if they wanna be a player in any kind of progressive movement, they need to get a little bit quicker on the banhammer.

Not one of the Skepchicks came and pestered us here at Rationalia. Wossname over at FtB did do a bit of a Leeroy Jenkins and PZ Myers did make some sweepign statements about this place while standing up for his friends.

But Rationalia cannot really take the high ground on that joke issue. I was trying to explain to some people how Rationalia wasn't really all that sexist, rapey and hostile while several posters here were providing evidence to the contrary just for shits and giggles.

Oh, by the way everybody: Using sexist language, stereotypes and tropes to deride someone for allegedly overstating the amount of sexism in a community doesn't fucking work like you think it will.

Robert, stop being so naive, you are not dealing with rational people here, they are dogmatists with an agenda. It doesn't matter what anybody says as they will twist it, bend it out of shape and downright lie about it. Stop thinking that when you look at them you are looking in a mirror and seeing decency, integrity and honesty because that is not what they are. They are a bunch of fucking lying cunts and I wish they would just fuck off.

[hadespussercats]

What I was saying is that I don't see why people who have issues with A+ are targeting the fact that she stepped down from blogging.

Maybe because they're immature little twits who love to twist the knife...

All I was saying earlier is that if she loves writing for her blog as much as she says, why not keep writing and shut off comments? Stop reading emails?

As she says in her post a big part of blogging is the exchange of ideas with other people. Hard to do that when you can't allow any feedback because of the constant stream of abuse.

I've seen this term over at A+ (I guess it's popular, but I hadn't encountered it before)-- "sticking the Flounce"
Is she flouncing?

I think she's genuinely frustrated by being constantly reduced to a boob joke by a pack of drooling adolescents...and by the fact that people who should have her back instead choose to side with the bullies.

Well, as for blogging being an exchange of ideas-- that's true of any writing, isn't it? I mean, publish your thoughts, read what you choose, respond to what you read... all are exchanges of ideas. No nasty comment threads necessary. As a by the by, pretty much everyone who becomes a successful blogger gets nasty comments. I'm not saying that means she isn't responding as she ought (again, that's up to her)-- just pointing out that nasty comments are the nature of blogging, no matter what you blog about, once your readership passes a certain critical mass.

I'd read the tweet that she's writing a book, as well-- so, seems like she's continuing to write anyway.

I'd say that might make her commentary that she's leaving blogging somewhat against her will, in response to a barrage of nastiness, somewhat ingenuous-- except that there are many reasons why people make the choices they do. Maybe she decided that if she wasn't blogging, she might as well put the time to good use writing a book. Or maybe that went the other way, and she capitalized on the situation as a moment to castigate her enemies.

Who knows? It doesn't really matter. Well, except to her. And to immature twits on both sides of the fence.

[Bella Fortuna]

Wow... they'll even edit out the content of people's posts without their permission...

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... t=50#p6440

That just seems... wrong.

[Audley Strange]

What a shower of cunts.

Edited to add, not all of them clearly, just the cunts.

[Gerald McGrew]

A Hermit,

I believe I'm done with this conversation, which has been going in circles for some time now. I claimed that those who were complaining about the irrational behaviors (re: feminism) from the FtB/Skepckick/A+ folks could point to a series of incidents as justification for their views. You demanded I cite some of those examples, and I have. Now we're just playing the game where rather than admitting that I provided those examples, you're trying to explain them away while at the same time drag me into a flame war (I'm a troll who thinks RW deserves rape threats and is a liar, neither of which I said at all).

Whether or not you agree with some peoples' interpretation of those events is irrelevant to the fact that they happened and are well-documented. Thus, I have expressed my view and substantiated it with multiple examples.

When creationists demand I provide examples of transitional fossils or "new genetic information", I'm always more than happy to provide them. But once the discussion turns into them doing everything they can to explain them away and calling me names, I don't stick around.

[DaveDodo007]

A Hermit,

I believe I'm done with this conversation, which has been going in circles for some time now. I claimed that those who were complaining about the irrational behaviors (re: feminism) from the FtB/Skepckick/A+ folks could point to a series of incidents as justification for their views. You demanded I cite some of those examples, and I have. Now we're just playing the game where rather than admitting that I provided those examples, you're trying to explain them away while at the same time drag me into a flame war (I'm a troll who thinks RW deserves rape threats and is a liar, neither of which I said at all).

Whether or not you agree with some peoples' interpretation of those events is irrelevant to the fact that they happened and are well-documented. Thus, I have expressed my view and substantiated it with multiple examples.

When creationists demand I provide examples of transitional fossils or "new genetic information", I'm always more than happy to provide them. But once the discussion turns into them doing everything they can to explain them away and calling me names, I don't stick around.

Trust me, we all learned this the hard way. They are right and everyone else is wrong you just need to read their theology a bit more until you get it. I would rather argue with a creationist as I might plant a seed of doubt in their mind. With ideologues it is a complete waste of time.