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

[Red Celt]

Based upon some of the writings, they might have been a bit more accurate if they called it Humanism- (aka Humanism minus old privileged white men).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Argh! No! That's almost as bad as Atheism+. Those people aren't humanists. Feminism+ would have been far more accurate... and offended far fewer people. But avoiding offence isn't what the creators of Atheism+ are about, eh?

[Thinking Aloud]

I think "feminatheism" has a nice ring to it. They should rebrand.

[colubridae]

Ya-de-ya

Stop trying to manufacture lies from what happened.

There were several attempts to advocate exposing peoples identity including attempts to set such action up in the A+ rules. Including monitoring other fora. Including setting up a website specifically for exposing online identities. I can’t be plainer. The evidence is there or it’s been removed by now. You should not have taken down these posts. The point is you can’t now claim things weren’t posted; because you remove posts, your content or claims can’t be trusted.


Your ‘leader’ PZ specifically quote-mined a tasteless, humorous joke from rationalia. He used this to roundly denounce all at rationalia as rape-enablers. Very few, if any, remonstrated with PZ over this. In fact the unmitigated hatred that followed was something to behold. Now that’s what I call quote-mining.


Pappa aplogised. That apology was rejected out of hand. That you accepted and advocated it’s acceptance is somewhat to your credit.
But very few accepted it, including PZ. And it’s not the first time PZ has rejected genuine apologies. Remember the ice-cream man.

You can’t now claim that your lonely meagre acceptance is representative of your fuckwitted A+/skepchick/FtB movement. This would be a lie! The overwhelming majority rejected his apology and continued their attacks.

That’s even assuming an apology was necessary, in case you are in any doubt I don’t think there was.
Skepchicks are annoying and I have a robust sense of humour; It doesn’t make me a rape-enabler, racist or homophobe, if you don’t like that, bite me.
Whatever you think of RW et al yourself, the list of their plain stupidity is endless. Time after time you’ve been given examples of their childish petulant behaviour. You still simply deny these examples. That’s your choice, but if you don’t start recognising these facts you just look foolish.

I dropped in here first over the rape joke thing and I actually found there was a good conversation about that going on, There are a lot of reasonable people here and I hate to see them being lied to about stuff like A+ (which I support) advovcating[sic]
releasing people's personal info or being out to bully people and "take over atheism" (as if that was possible.)

I quite agree I hate to see them lied to. Fortunately your lies have been revealed as such over and over again.

Everyone here is a reasonable person. That they have differing opinions to me is how the world works. I don’t try to suppress them. It’s not in my rule book to censor them. I do censure them when I feel strongly against what they say, but they have a right to say it. And nothing gets removed. Any stupidity they (or I) display is left for all to see.

I also object to people bullying someone who has worked so hard for the causes I support with the kind of vicious, violent, sexual crap that was getting dumped on Jen McCreight. I don't think she deserved to be treated that way and when I saw this thread I thought I'd put in my two cents in support of Jen.

Good for you. Who wouldn’t object. But stop trying to spin-doctor. Just because McCreight advocates what you consider to be worthy causes doesn’t guarantee her (or anyone else) immunity from criticism, especially when it’s plainly justified.

You have a problem with that?

Whether I have a problem or not is immaterial. The point is it’s in our rules to allow you to post here. It’s not on FtB, skepchik or A+. The arguments I post here are not allowed over ‘there’. Don’t waste your time suggesting I try it. It’s already been done and posts have already been removed.


If you want my opinion of PZ/Skepchick/A+ to change, have PZ, Carrier and RW come over here and apologise for their attacks. PZ is still a member.
If you can do that then I will apologise to them and you for misjudging them and you.
If they are the reasonable caring creatures you continue to imply, they would surely jump at the chance of building bridges.


That I support anti-racism, anti-sexism and anti-homophobia you may take as read.
Whether you believe me or not I don’t know. Your judgement of others is not your best feature. Your loyalty is your best feature, sadly you’ve misplaced it. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

I have no-more to say to you. Of course, under our rules you are at liberty to continue posting your falsehoods.

[DaveDodo007]

I think "feminatheism" has a nice ring to it. They should rebrand.

Don't fool yourself, they are not even feminist, women who have the audacity to not follow the party line are hounded mercessly, you name any prominent female who dissents and they have hounded them. Paula Kirby, Abbie Smith (who ftb tried to get sacked because Greg Laden ex ftb'er didn't like what she was saying.) These so called women's rights ftb are willing to destroy any female who doesn't agree with P Z Myers and chums version that all women are victims. P Z Myers and the cunts at ftb's don't care about anything but there own promotion and power play along with clicks(on blogs) equal money. Seriously fuck them, fuck them into the ground.

[Coito ergo sum]

That used to happen to me all the time and I hated it. But I'd hardly call it a "microaggression" (whatever the hell that's supposed to be).

I can't imagine you walking around with a frown.

I wasn't. I just wasn't smiling. I think it's a common come-on for some guys. Not my type of guys, though.

Who walks around smiling all the time? Hurts your cheek muscles after a while, it would! See? Already hurts...

Exactly. But more importantly, it's not something that's scarred my psyche for life because I gave it a pathology and gravity it didn't warrant.

This hits the nail on the head. Perfectly.

Is it rude to make such a comment to someone one doesn't know? Yes, of course, it can be rude.

But, calling it a "microaggression" is designed to bootstrap it into the ambit of "aggression." So, now something that may be intended as cute and flirty is an "aggression" if it is unwanted.

Lots of similar little come-ons can easily meet that same test for aggression. How about, say, sitting at a coffee shop, and making some comment to a woman sitting there as a conversation starter. Any "unwanted" introduction can be received as a "microaggression." Can't it? Heck, even "hello - what's your name?" could be a microaggression, if a woman is on the street walking to work, right?

[Clinton Huxley]

I see they are working on a system of red and green cards to use at meetings now, and also badges that the socially inept can wear, so they don't get red-carded by mistake. It's a fascinating new world.

[Bella Fortuna]

I see they are working on a system of red and green cards to use at meetings now, and also badges that the socially inept can wear, so they don't get red-carded by mistake. It's a fascinating new world.

I saw that last night. Speechless.

Trigger warning:

[Coito ergo sum]

The founders of Atheism+ say clearly that "divisiveness" is not their aim, but looking through the blogs and voluminous comments in the two weeks since A+ was mooted, trenches have been dug, beliefs stated, positions staked out and abuse thrown. A dissenting tweeter is "full of shit", while, according to one supporter, daring to disagree with Atheism+'s definition of progressive issues and not picking their side makes you an "asshole and a douchebag".

It took 700 years from Constantine renaming Byzantium in his own honour to papal legates circulating letters of anathema that split the Roman and Orthodox churches. Atheism, in its public, online life, has started exchanging internet anathemas – perhaps we should call them inathemas – in little more than a decade.

People are being told to wipe the spittle off their chins, take their heads out of their asses. The Life of Brian's lines about the various fronts for the liberation of Judea are being oft-recycled. 140 character brickbats are being thrown on Twitter under #atheismplus.

PZ Myers, soft-spoken in person but trenchant in print, said of A+ critics:

"It really isn't a movement about exclusion, but about recognising the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs. And if you don't agree with any of that – and this is the only 'divisive' part – then you're an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, 'Asshole Atheists", and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it. I just had a thought: maybe the anti-Atheist+ people are sad because they don't have a cool logo. So I made one for the Asshole Atheists:
A*
"

Fellow Freethought blogger Richard Carrier goes further. When one commentator suggests "atheism does not have the luxury of kicking people out of its movement", Carrier gives him a rare old quilting in most splendid prose:

"Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned."

How like Pope Leo's letter to the patriarch of Constaninople in 1053 accusing him of "many and intolerable presumptions, in which if – as heaven forbid – he persist, he will in no way retain our peaceful regard". Even at this most serious moment for the future of Christianity, the pope managed to resist the urge to call the patriarch immoral scum, an asshole and a douchebag.

One of the joys of atheism's outlets on the internet was that they were clever, deft, funny, tolerant and irreverent. It was certainly robust and not for the faint-hearted.

Those of us who do not wish to extend our atheism into someone else's definition of progressive politics may take rather unkindly to being described as immoral scum, useful but unsavoury body parts, and outdated contraceptive devices. In the week when American atheism made its appearance in the Economist's editorial pages, it seems to have been sowing the seeds of that most religious of events – a schism.

St Paul would be laughing his head off, had a Roman soldier not already deprived him of it. "See," he might now write after reading those modern epistles, the blogs, comments and tweets around the birth of Atheism+, "how these atheists love one another."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... spit-venom

[Coito ergo sum]

I see they are working on a system of red and green cards to use at meetings now, and also badges that the socially inept can wear, so they don't get red-carded by mistake. It's a fascinating new world.

I saw that last night. Speechless.

Trigger warning:

Any link for that? The red and green cards or badges sounds like it would be good for a laugh...

[Clinton Huxley]

I see they are working on a system of red and green cards to use at meetings now, and also badges that the socially inept can wear, so they don't get red-carded by mistake. It's a fascinating new world.

I saw that last night. Speechless.

Trigger warning:

I'm going to get one of the "socially inept" badges. It's like a "get out of jail" card.....

[Bella Fortuna]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=795

which links to the origin here http://singlevoice.net/redyellow-card-project/



Howzabout alerting security/management of the location, if not the police, if there is assault taking place? This is just bizarre.

[Clinton Huxley]

When you get three red cards, you are allowed to join Rationalia.

[Bella Fortuna]

UNO!

[Clinton Huxley]

Respect my boundaries!

[Bella Fortuna]

Respect my boundaries!

Sir, you are a boundary and a card.