I googled "skepchicks drinking" and some of the first few images are from this website www.theotheratheists.net - it has like a mother load of skepchick funnies....Robert_S wrote:Where did you find those pics that fast?
Thinking Aloud wrote:There's definitely something up on the ceiling that keeps distracting her/them. I'm wondering what it is. Seems not to be distracting the blokes though.
Remember...shiny side out! http://zapatopi.net/afdb/Coito ergo sum wrote: 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.
This is actually a load of bullshit. If you go over there and concern troll you may get a hostile reaction on one or two blogs there but considering the constant stream of this kind of thing that some of them get I think a bit of a short fuse is understandable: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... nazi-slut/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.
Seriously...think about what it's like to deal with a constant stream of that kind of crap every day and ask yourself how much time you'd want to spend re-explaining feminism to every self important little twerp who turns up in comments to tell you you should be nicer to the menz...“GRETA CHRISTINA YOU FUCKIN HOE… I HOPE YOU GET RAPED YOU FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT… GO CHOKE ON A DICK AND DIE
Who are you to tell them what they can or can't do? Do you hold a patent on atheism? If you're not interested in joining a movement then don't fucking join, no one is putting a gun to your head.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.
They've come out and said it. They're calling it "our" movement (meaning their movement), claiming the right to banish others from it, and they are looking to replace the "New Atheists" with a "New New Atheist" (see the New Statesman article that says exactly that). It is not a conspiracy. They say it.A Hermit wrote:Remember...shiny side out! http://zapatopi.net/afdb/Coito ergo sum wrote: 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.
That's nonsense. What happens is, if you go over there and post a polite, but contrary, position, stating, for example, you don't agree that Surly Amy should get a policy that bans people from selling "fake jewelry" or that wearing "I am not a skepchick" t-shirts should be banned, either --- you get banned from Freethoughtblogs. Greta Christina did exactly that to me. I did not "troll" -- I merely chimed in and I did not call anyone names, I did not even say they were wrong -- I was careful to state "In my view..." and then provided reasoning. I was also told to fuck off. In fact, not only was I banned by here -- she had actually responded to my post telling me that if that was my view -- if I thought that the t-shirt was not harassment, etc. - then I was not welcome there. I posted one final response, indicating that I would honor her request and leave and not return. She said she would help me flounce, and stated I was banned.A Hermit wrote:This is actually a load of bullshit. If you go over there and concern troll you may get a hostile reaction on one or two blogs there but considering the constant stream of this kind of thing that some of them get I think a bit of a short fuse is understandable: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... nazi-slut/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.
Probably no worse than the death threats that Richard Dawkins gets. Everyone thought those were funny, though, cuz he's an old white guy....A Hermit wrote:
Seriously...think about what it's like to deal with a constant stream of that kind of crap every day and ask yourself how much time you want to spend re-explaining feminism to every self important little twerp who turns up in comments to tell you you should be nicer to the menz...“GRETA CHRISTINA YOU FUCKIN HOE… I HOPE YOU GET RAPED YOU FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT… GO CHOKE ON A DICK AND DIE
Only if you don't disagree or criticize. Go there and see. I have.A Hermit wrote:
It's certainly possible to disagree and criticize and have a grown up debate over there. Happens all the time.
Who am I? Who are they to tell ME and EVERYONE ELSE what they "can or can't do?" If they claim the right to assert their position on what everyone can and can't do, then I claim that same right.A Hermit wrote:Who are you to tell them what they can or can't do? Do you hold a patent on atheism? If you're not interested in joining a movement then don't fucking join, no one is putting a gun to your head.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.
For the same reason that Evangelical Christians piss people off. They're not content with having their own view, and their own community. They aren't satisfied until everyone else believes it too, and we can't get away from it, because they're shoving it in the faces of every atheist group out their.A Hermit wrote:
It's funny, I keep seeing two objections to the A+ idea; first is the complaint that it's DIVISIVE and all this DIVERSITY will DIVIDE atheism!!!1!!
The other is that it's somehow going to force all atheists into some grey, uniform Femi-StalinistNaziStaiTaliban mold!!!1!!!1!!!1!!1!1eleventy!1!!
When it fact all it is is a group of people agreeing with each other that they have a concern for social justice issues and approach such issues form the atheist/skeptic perspective...oh and that they aren't going to put up with people telling them to shut up or be raped...
Why this gets anyone's panties in such a twist is just a mystery to me....
Code: Select all
// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis
$str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);
There is one glaringly obvious contradiction in that logo, well two actually. The first is humanism. Humanism, as the name suggests, references equality for all humans, regardless. So how do the feminists of Atheism Plus find that compatible with their ideology? Why identify yourself as a feminist if you are a humanist? Surely the latter term is more preferable as it is all inclusive. But how all inclusive is the feminism of the feminists of Atheism Plus? The other contradiction is skepticism. Considering how Atheism Plus is insulating itself from the Atheist Movement as a whole and only refencing group think within it then how exactly is that skeptical?Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
Looks like A + theism to me - so they are incorporating theism within atheism.
I absolutely agree with this.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.
As long as they put a stop to the "with us or you're sub-human" attitude, then more power to them!JimC wrote:I absolutely agree with this.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.
However, a lot of the idea of an atheist "movement" has been a media beat-up from the beginning. Dawkins, Harris et al were not trying to create a movement, they were writing to explicate their version of atheism, and/or give religion a much needed boot in the arse. The media created the "New Atheist Movement" spin when the books became popular...
Atheism+ on the other hand is definitely and self-consciously wanting to be a "movement", and a very restrictive one at that...
The t in atheism is RIGHT THERE, waiting to be made into a plus sign.Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Looks like "A + theism" to me - so they are incorporating theism within atheism. Clever tactic. Lot of money to be made in theism.
I didn't know of her so I did a Google. Here she is:A Hermit wrote: ..., 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.
re the bit I've bolded .. How does anyone be the voice of non-belief in god/s?hadespussercats wrote:They are a new voice of atheism. They're just not the new voice of atheism.Thinking Aloud wrote: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'.hadespussercats wrote: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 necessarily care for Dawkins or Hitchens speaking for me, though they are enchantingly articulate (or were.)
I definitely don't care for that yahoo in charge of AA speaking for me. (See-- They're using a girder from the Trade Center like a Cross! Oh noes! America is ruined!)
This just seems silly. Find what you think is important, and put it out there. Maybe you'll get to be a voice of atheism, too.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
