Atheism plus

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
rasetsu
la belle fleur de la géhenne
Posts: 2794
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: "Worlds sundered, cheap."
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by rasetsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:10 pm

https://skepticon.org/keeping-skepticon ... be-banned/
Skepticon.org wrote: Keeping Skepticon Safe: Richard Carrier to be Banned

by Lauren Lane | Jun 20, 2016 | 0 comments

In light of the recent revelations of sexual harassment, unwelcome attention, and/or unwanted behavior from more than one prominent atheist, Skepticon would like to renew our vow to keep our attendees, speakers, volunteers, vendors, organizers, and anyone else involved in Skepticon safe at our events.

The accusations specifically against Richard Carrier are, sadly, not so surprising to the Skepticon organizers. While he was a featured speaker for many years, we stopped inviting him to speak partly because of his repeated boundary-pushing behavior, including towards someone involved in Skepticon. What has been made clear by the recent discussions is that our attendees’ well being and comfort is put at an unacceptable risk by Carrier’s presence, and so we are officially prohibiting Richard Carrier from attending any future Skepticons.

We support the accusers.

It is unfortunate there are people in this world who believe they can violate others’ boundaries without consequence. Skepticon does not want those people at our events.

(continued)
Summarizing the Current Allegations Against Richard Carrier
Image

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 23701
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:41 am

J'accuse Carrier. J'accuse.
Image
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:27 pm

Alright - now, when Richard Carrier first came out as the "intellectual artillery" of the Atheism Plus movement, he was an insufferable tool. He was big on "banning" other people from the "movement" because they didn't tow the "Atheism Plus Social Justice" horseshit line. He's not even all that intellectual, based on his badly written articles.

That being said, I can't believe what we've (as a movement) have become, and the Skepticon decision to "ban" him from their conference is ridiculous.

Point one --
At an afterparty at a pub after a sponsored event that had an event policy against making sexual advances, after having engaged in fascinating and intense conversation with a woman for hours, I badly misread her fascination with the subject as flirtatious interest in me, and I told her that I’d like to make a pass at her. She was confused and taken aback by that, was definitely not interested, and I immediately realized I’d crossed a line with her. I was worried I had made her uncomfortable. I immediately apologized. She continued on her own interest to engage me in excellent conversation for several hours more and everything turned out well, but still. I should not have said that to her.
There is a policy against making "sexual advances" in a public place - a pub -- at an "after party" (i.e., not the conference itself, but a public place event AFTER the event itself), and it's a "party." And, what does he do? What's his crime? Talking to a woman for hours, and asking telling her he'd "like" to make a pass at her -- he didn't make the pass - he'd "like" to make the pass. She said no, and he said o.k., and they proceeded to talk for a long time more with no hard feelings.

If that's against the rules of a conference - then keep your social justice fuckwittery and your conference.

They say -
We now know this was a student event and the rule he was breaking was “Speakers must refrain from initiating any and all sexual behavior with students with respect to Speakers Bureau events.”
So fucking what? What was she a schoolkid? No. She was a student in the sense of a grown woman attending fucking university. A "speaker" is not in a position of power or authority over an attendee at Skepticon, and Skepticon has no fucking business telling grown adults who the fuck to "initiate any and all sexual behavior with." Who are these people? Christian fundamentalists?
Nothing in this rule makes this okay if you think the student is interested in you. Nothing in this rule makes this okay if they don’t run away afterward. This is true despite Carrier’s mentioning both of these as though they were mitigating circumstances.
Holy fuck - hey - nothing in this rule makes it NOT o.k. to tell a woman at a pub that you're talking to for hours that you're interested in her or want to make a pass at her. People are allowed to ask other people for dates or hookups at fucking pubs, even if the answer turns out to be "no, I'm not interested." Carrier's acts - as described -- are "o.k." because all he did was talk to a grown woman in a public "pub" and since he was interested in her, he told her so. She said no, and he accepted that. There is no mention of him touching her, or persistently badgering her. She said no, and he said o.k. Some dopey rule of the conference that purports to outlaw "all sexual behavior" between adults where one adult is a speaker at the conference does not make Carrier's actions "not o.k." He didn't even ENGAGE in sexual behavior with the grown woman - he simply said he wanted to make a pass at her.

Then they say -
As of last week, we also have this public accusation of him violating the policy with another student. She says he hit on her and nonconsensually touched her arm and leg.
Oh, really - he "hit on" a grown woman? Now people can't hit on other people? Fuck - I've had women hit on me -- touch my arm, touch my leg -- no woman ever asked my permission to touch my fucking arm. God damn, these puritans are really becoming insane.

This is the kind of thing that is taking over -- to those who sarcastically refer to this as some irrelevant band of a few people who are being blown out of proportion -- I mean this is Skepticon, one of the biggest skeptics and atheist conventions out there. And, this social justice BS is taking over here too, and its starting to infect groups like American Atheists, and the American Humanist Association. These people are succeeding in poisoning the atheist and secular movement.
Note that if you click through, you’ll see an allegation that Camp Quest allowed Carrier to work for them after knowing that the SSA took action.
Oh - my -- word -- CampQuest -- allowed a guy who hit on women at pubs to work for them, based purely on hearsay allegations? What the fuck? I mean - Carrier probably would be hitting on the grammar school children at CampQuest! If you hit on a grown woman in a pub, you can't be around children. That's. Final.
I’ve spoken to a Skepticon organizer. The pattern there is similar, except that the expressions of sexual interest were repeated, though more deniably after they weren’t reciprocated. I’ve also spoken with two other people who don’t wish to come forward publicly. Both have been on the receiving end of Carrier’s unwanted interest. In both cases, he met their polite deferral of his interest with more blunt expressions of interest. There are also very troubling aspects of how Carrier spoke of these people to others. I won’t go into that in detail because it has the potential to identify them.
LOL - how can we make someone expressing interest in another person seem dangerous. I know! Call it "unwanted interest." Dude --anytime one person expresses interest in another person, they are potentially expressing "unwanted" interest. There is no telling what the other person's interest level is, until one "expresses" the interest. You can get a good idea, but you can't be certain. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITHtalkBEING INTERESTED IN ANOTHER ADULT. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EXPRESSING THAT INTEREST. THAT IS NOT HARASSMENT. THAT IS NOT DANGEROUS. And, human interaction allows for someone to continue to be interested in another person, even though that interest is not reciprocated. Did Carrier harass anyone? Did he stalk them? Did he threaten (express or implied)? What the fuck is going on here?
Whether I’m looking at all five of these accusations or only the three public ones, my reaction is the same. The most charitable thing I can find to say about Carrier’s behavior is that he is oblivious to sexual disinterest in him and unwilling to stop initiating sexual contact despite that.
Oh, yes, indeed, how "charitable" of you -- Carrier is probably not a guy who a lot of people have a lot of "sexual interest" in. So, that means he ought not be permitted to talk to women and express his interest in them, because if they aren't interested in him, he shouldn't even ask.
I don’t know why anyone would look at his recent blog post on this and think it won’t happen again the moment the opportunity presents itself.
Indeed -- indeed - the danger is self-evident. A grown man may very likely talk to a grown woman at a pub for hours, and then he (or she) might express interest in the other in a romantic or sexual way. That sheer horror may happen to adults again at an after-party at a pub. The shock among the atheist community must be seismic. Women, of course, are devastated by the realization that they are in absolute danger of hearing words that express interest in them from men (and women, trans, etc.) in public pubs while alcohol is being consumed at an "after party." it's so 20th century to think that is acceptable behavior.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 23701
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:33 pm

For the deeply troubled A+ community it's probably best if nobody ever makes a pass at anyone, anywhere, in any circumstances, ever. Now we can all rest easy in our beds.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 49822
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:11 pm

Forty Two wrote:Alright - now, when Richard Carrier first came out as the "intellectual artillery" of the Atheism Plus movement, he was an insufferable tool. He was big on "banning" other people from the "movement" because they didn't tow the "Atheism Plus Social Justice" horseshit line. He's not even all that intellectual, based on his badly written articles.

That being said, I can't believe what we've (as a movement) have become, and the Skepticon decision to "ban" him from their conference is ridiculous.
None of those nutbags represent me. Nor most of us, I'd imagine.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:16 pm

However, they are managing to infect all the major atheist and skeptic organizations with their nonsense.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 49822
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:18 pm

Forty Two wrote: There is a policy against making "sexual advances" in a public place - a pub -- at an "after party" (i.e., not the conference itself, but a public place event AFTER the event itself), and it's a "party." And, what does he do? What's his crime? Talking to a woman for hours, and asking telling her he'd "like" to make a pass at her -- he didn't make the pass - he'd "like" to make the pass.
Not that I'm defending the crazy world of skepticon, but asking to make a pass IS making a pass.
Then they say -
As of last week, we also have this public accusation of him violating the policy with another student. She says he hit on her and nonconsensually touched her arm and leg.
Oh, really - he "hit on" a grown woman? Now people can't hit on other people? Fuck - I've had women hit on me -- touch my arm, touch my leg -- no woman ever asked my permission to touch my fucking arm. God damn, these puritans are really becoming insane.
Yeah, I found this bit pretty funny. "nonconsensually touch[ing] her arm"?? :lol: FFS, humans are social animals. Touching someone's arm isn't a fucking threat of any kind. I can't wait till Chimpanzees get more wider "human" status and these nutbags start trying to dictate to chimps how they can and can't act in natural social situations.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:32 pm

eRv wrote:
Forty Two wrote: There is a policy against making "sexual advances" in a public place - a pub -- at an "after party" (i.e., not the conference itself, but a public place event AFTER the event itself), and it's a "party." And, what does he do? What's his crime? Talking to a woman for hours, and asking telling her he'd "like" to make a pass at her -- he didn't make the pass - he'd "like" to make the pass.
Not that I'm defending the crazy world of skepticon, but asking to make a pass IS making a pass.
Arguably, yes. But, there is nothing wrong with grown men and women making passes at each other in pubs! That's what pubs are partially for - men and women to get together and flirt or make an advance. This equation of ANY sexual or romantic communication with the harassment policies at these places is really ridiculous. They say on the one hand that all they want is a sensible harassment policy, and then they include in harassment ANY unwanted advance. FFS, if you're in a hotel bar or a pub and talk socially with another person, and you find yourself interested, there is nothing wrong with expressing that interest. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the other person rejecting that interest either, but expressing interest and having the other person reject it is not "harassment."
eRv wrote:
Then they say -
As of last week, we also have this public accusation of him violating the policy with another student. She says he hit on her and nonconsensually touched her arm and leg.
Oh, really - he "hit on" a grown woman? Now people can't hit on other people? Fuck - I've had women hit on me -- touch my arm, touch my leg -- no woman ever asked my permission to touch my fucking arm. God damn, these puritans are really becoming insane.
Yeah, I found this bit pretty funny. "nonconsensually touch[ing] her arm"?? :lol: FFS, humans are social animals. Touching someone's arm isn't a fucking threat of any kind. I can't wait till Chimpanzees get more wider "human" status and these nutbags start trying to dictate to chimps how they can and can't act in natural social situations.
Exactly -- just about every woman I've ever romantically interacted with has done "the touch" in some way if she's interested. They touch a man's tie, if he's wearing one. They touch a shoulder, hand, arm -- it's a fucking body language signal. If you're sitting next to a woman at a bar, laughing, talking, etc., and she likes you, she will very often touch you in that way. It doesn't mean she wants to fuck you right then, of course - it means she fucking likes you. Christ. These people are such douchebags!
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 11799
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Scot Dutchy » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:41 pm

Atheism is not a movement.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:43 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Atheism is not a movement.
What we term it is irrelevant. These groups, involving the advancement of atheism, skepticism and freethinking in general, alone or in concert, are being infected by this brand of "social justice" bullshit.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2296
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:45 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Atheism is not a movement.
What we term it is irrelevant. These groups, involving the advancement of atheism, skepticism and freethinking in general, alone or in concert, are being infected by this brand of "social justice" bullshit.
I agree with Scot Duchy that atheism per se is not a movement. However, there is a "freethinking/atheist" movement that, as an atheist, I've never really considered to be speaking for me.

"No tolerance" policies like this usually are an overreaction, in my opinion, and I think this silliness is an overreaction to what seems to have been some somewhat predatory behavior by a few putative celebrities at past events. The ostracism of Carrier is just another example of the tendency we've seen in the past in which the oppression olympics types eat their own.

Though I agree with most of your rant, I've always looked askance at the "movement" atheists, so I'm not particularly bothered that they're now apparently adopting a version of the Atheism Plus model, which has already proven to be self destructive.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 17091
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by laklak » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:04 pm

So how should one indicate one's willingness to engage in a consensual sexual relationship with another?

I like to gradually and carefully introduce the topic. Something like "I just LOVE your shoes, wanna fuck?" is a good icebreaker. Alternatively, once can gently take the other's hand and place it on one's trouser bulge, saying, perhaps, "oooo baby that's good. If you're in a more lighthearted mood you could try the "Ever kiss a bunny between his ears?" route. If all else fails, go for roofies.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:14 pm

laklak wrote:So how should one indicate one's willingness to engage in a consensual sexual relationship with another?
The unstated rule is that a man can't, unless he's right in his estimation that a woman is willing to receive that communication. He proceeds at his own peril. Women can do what they want, because they are marginalized and oppressed. That's the progressive way.
laklak wrote: I like to gradually and carefully introduce the topic. Something like "I just LOVE your shoes, wanna fuck?" is a good icebreaker. Alternatively, once can gently take the other's hand and place it on one's trouser bulge, saying, perhaps, "oooo baby that's good. If you're in a more lighthearted mood you could try the "Ever kiss a bunny between his ears?" route. If all else fails, go for roofies.
That's it. You're banned.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 23701
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:44 pm

Forty Two wrote:However, they are managing to infect all the major atheist and skeptic organizations with their nonsense.
Citation required.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 49822
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Atheism plus

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:12 pm

laklak wrote:So how should one indicate one's willingness to engage in a consensual sexual relationship with another?

I like to gradually and carefully introduce the topic. Something like "I just LOVE your shoes, wanna fuck?" is a good icebreaker. Alternatively, once can gently take the other's hand and place it on one's trouser bulge, saying, perhaps, "oooo baby that's good. If you're in a more lighthearted mood you could try the "Ever kiss a bunny between his ears?" route. If all else fails, go for roofies.
:funny:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest