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

[hadespussercats]

All right, I've read the first and last pages of this gigantic thread, and will make a stab at the rest, but right now I'd just like to know:

Who cares what the Blag Hag gang (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to call themselves?

If atheism isn't a movement (you said yourself, CES, that you didn't think it was-- and I agree), then what do we care about splitters? Or people using the word wrong?

I don't believe in them or their word choice. In fact, I believe in them maybe less than I believe in god.

So...

[Robert_S]

All right, I've read the first and last pages of this gigantic thread, and will make a stab at the rest, but right now I'd just like to know:

Who cares what the Blag Hag gang (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to call themselves?

If atheism isn't a movement (you said yourself, CES, that you didn't think it was-- and I agree), then what do we care about splitters? Or people using the word wrong?

I don't believe in them or their word choice. In fact, I believe in them maybe less than I believe in god.

So...

But, but, but, but they're WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!

[hadespussercats]

All right, I've read the first and last pages of this gigantic thread, and will make a stab at the rest, but right now I'd just like to know:

Who cares what the Blag Hag gang (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to call themselves?

If atheism isn't a movement (you said yourself, CES, that you didn't think it was-- and I agree), then what do we care about splitters? Or people using the word wrong?

I don't believe in them or their word choice. In fact, I believe in them maybe less than I believe in god.

So...

But, but, but, but they're WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!

AAAaaaaaaahhh. All right then. Carry on!

[surreptitious57]

It's a very good article, Rob. Sad that there aren't a few more of that mind over there. And over here for that matter.

Yes, absolutely true. I never tire of saying attack ideas by all means and vigourously so, but do not attack individuals. It does not matter who they are, or what they are, or how great the provocation is or anything else for that matter. Just focus on the argument and only the argument and nothing else. This is not something that really should have to be mentioned to those who use logic and reason to determine what is true and / or acceptable now, but it appears that it does, however.

And yes, we have it all over too. We have it here, we have it at Rat Skep, we have it at freethoughtblogs, we have it at Skepchick and anywhere else caught up in this and it really is unnecessary. It seems that drama is now the natural default position and this will remain the state of play unless or until there is some major shift in attitude from all sides. And that is not going to happen anytime soon. We seem to be fighting each other now and pointlessly so too. I look forward to the day when all this ceases, but alas, I will not be holding my breath. Hell will freeze over . . .

[A Hermit]

So I was sitting last night pondering what all this was about because it still seems so bizarre. Then I recalled that essentially they want to provide a "safe place" free from criticism and ridicule...

And right there we can see how completely you've missed the point.

It's not about safety from criticism, it's about paying attention to the great work someone like Jen McCreight, for example, does instead of reducing her to a boob joke at every opportunity.

It's about taking people seriously, treating them with respect and listening to what they actually say...instead of looking for some reason to mock them just because it makes you feel clever.

[Ayaan]

Yeah, because them telling everyone that 'you're either with us or against us" and calling them 'douchbags' for not jumping on the bandwagon immediately just absolutely drips with respect for those outside their circle.

[surreptitious57]

So I was sitting last night pondering what all this was about because it still seems so bizarre. Then I recalled that essentially they want to provide a safe place free from criticism and ridicule...

And right there we can see how completely you've missed the point.

It's not about safety from criticism, it's about paying attention to the great work someone like Jen McCreight for example, does instead of reducing her to a boob joke at every opportunity.

It's about taking people seriously, treating them with respect and listening to what they actually say...instead of looking for some reason to mock them just because it makes you feel clever.

Actually you are wrong about safety from criticism for that is the modus operandi of Atheism Plus and the reason it was established in the first place.That will not succeed because you cannot hope to make the world a better place while simultaneously insulating yourself from it too.

I agree about treating everyone with respect and that really should not have to be explained to anyone. However over at Skepchick and freethoughblogs, the group think is not conducive to open and transparent debate, Now all sites have group think to a greater or lesser extent including this one, but over there it really stifles debate, and anyone with an alternative view is not considered of too highly, just becasue of that and that only. This is doubly ironic not just because it renders the very names Skepchick and freethoughblogs oxymoronic but also because skeptical thinking is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of the aforementioned Atheism Plus. It is not skeptical thinking, if you refuse to engage those who have a different view to you.

There is indeed much mocking from all sides, but I personally do not go in for that even though it is very popular. I just focus on the argument and not who is making it as I do not do personality. So I agree with you about the derision of Jen and anyone else for that matter too, such as Rebecca or Ophelia or Ash or Amy. There is no excuse for that but as I mentioned in my previous, drama seems to be the natural default position now. Attacking for the sake of attacking. Character assassination for the sake of character assassination. No good and completely unnecessary. From wherever it originates. Wishing for a more positive debate within the skeptic community. However, if wishes were horses . . .

[Jaygray]

It's about taking people seriously, treating them with respect and listening to what they actually say...instead of looking for some reason to mock them just because it makes you feel clever.

Presumably the above will be applied to Dr. Harriet Hall at the first opportunity?

[Coito ergo sum]

All right, I've read the first and last pages of this gigantic thread, and will make a stab at the rest, but right now I'd just like to know:

Who cares what the Blag Hag gang (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to call themselves?

If atheism isn't a movement (you said yourself, CES, that you didn't think it was-- and I agree), then what do we care about splitters? Or people using the word wrong?

I don't believe in them or their word choice. In fact, I believe in them maybe less than I believe in god.

So...

Well, a couple of reasons:

The Myers/Freethoughtblogs/Skepchick contingent is pretty influential in the atheist/skeptic community/demographic. By succeeding in their efforts they will effectively, de facto, gain control over the major organizations that we all know, JREF and TAM, American Atheists, etc. Make no mistake, that is their goal.

In order to achieve this, they are drawing lines. If you play ball with them, and become one of the good guys, then all is well. If you don't, you are not only holding a different view and to be debated. You are to be banished -- you "disgust" them -- you have no place in atheism/skepticism. You are a misogynist, enabler, mansplainer, gaslighter, and all sorts of other things. Just the namecalling isn't the real problem -- it's that they will try to effect their foes in real life -- harassing them, making them a "pariah", "running them out of the movement," etc.

I don't think atheism should be a movement, other than a demographic of people who openly don't believe in gods and who are vocal enough to one degree or another to explain why. They want to turn it into that, plus a political movement. I'd prefer they did not do that.

[Thinking Aloud]

All right, I've read the first and last pages of this gigantic thread, and will make a stab at the rest, but right now I'd just like to know:

Who cares what the Blag Hag gang (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to call themselves?

If atheism isn't a movement (you said yourself, CES, that you didn't think it was-- and I agree), then what do we care about splitters? Or people using the word wrong?

The other reason to at least pay attention is that, right now when someone from "the media" wants a token atheist for a discussion, they call upon Dawkins, or Harris, (and wish they could call Hitchens) or the guys from AA or FFRF. At some point they're going to want fresh faces, and if you google "atheism" and find page after page of "Atheism Plus" and "Skepchicks" you're going to assume that you've found a new 'voice of atheism'.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, that, too, is part of it. I mentioned the other day that they appear to be looking to marginalize Dawkins and Harris as part of the "old guard," and I pointed out that they tried to sully Harris' name by really going after him by strawmanning his writings on torture and nuclear war. They really get personal with this stuff. They don't just debate the issue, they try to knife the person making the argument that "disgusts" them. To me, it seems pretty obvious that Myers has his sights on the throne currently occupied by Dawkins, who is considered the most prominent and outspoken atheist. Taking all that's been happening over the last several months, it seems pretty obvious to me that Myers is licking his chops at the prospect of taking over that role.

[Audley Strange]

So I was sitting last night pondering what all this was about because it still seems so bizarre. Then I recalled that essentially they want to provide a "safe place" free from criticism and ridicule...

And right there we can see how completely you've missed the point.

It's not about safety from criticism, it's about paying attention to the great work someone like Jen McCreight, for example, does instead of reducing her to a boob joke at every opportunity.

It's about taking people seriously, treating them with respect and listening to what they actually say...instead of looking for some reason to mock them just because it makes you feel clever.

Some questions.

Who is this "we" you refer to?

What "great work" has Jen McCreight ever done, exactly?

Why should I take them seriously and treat them with respect, when I disagree vehemently with what they say and with the contemptible and outrageously alarmist rhetoric that has been perpetually emitted by them?

Why should I take someone seriously who thinks a pass in an elevator is harrassment or that someone that gets butthurt by a t-shirt is evidence of misogyny within the Atheism movement?

Why should I respect people who are so blinkered to their own hypocrisy that they think it is okay to sexualise and objectify themselves for self promotion and yet complain that they have been sexualised and objectified?

Why should I not mock someone who thinks "males are brain damaged females?" Why should I not ridicule people who think Feminism 101 should be seriously considered and get upset when challenged while still demanding they are skeptics? Why should I listen to people who evade any questions regarding their motives, ethics, behaviour or stupidity by maligning the person or groups criticising them, AT ALL COSTS?

And how seriously am I meant to take middle class white pseudo-academic net whiners who genuinely think that middle class white people are the old wave and so this new movement led by them will be different.

How Am I supposed to think Richard Carrier is anything but a fucking idiot after his fire and brimstone rant.

It's really quite simple you know, if they stopped acting like such fucking whining spoilt cunts, most people would stop reacting to them as if they were fucking whining spoilt cunts. The premise of this entire thing was unreasonable. "Accept what I say about misogyny and rape culture without evidence, asking for evidence is itself proof that you are a misogynist and rape apologist."

So no, fuck giving people respect and taking them seriously when they don't fucking deserve it. No one does that, especially not the Inner Party of Ape Lust.

[rainbow]

Yeah, because them telling everyone that 'you're either with us or against us" and calling them 'douchbags' for not jumping on the bandwagon immediately just absolutely drips with respect for those outside their circle.

Ok, but be real. Why should we give any respect to someone who doesn't think freely?

[Jaygray]

I'm not an overwhelming Thunderf00t fan per se, but he has waded into the debate with this blog entry:

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/ ... -agreement

Interesting blog post, and of course the comments are a joy to behold (for those so inclined).

Enjoy. Or not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Atheist Revolution weighs in .... http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/08/i-am- ... dogma.html