JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags atheism , Atheism Plus

Closed Thread
Old 27th August 2012, 09:22 PM   #241
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,340
The thing is that the overreaching principles put forward with this whole Atheism+ thingy are nothing controversial or objectionable. The issue is in the framing, which is completely illogical.

I can see the argument for disassociating yourself from someone who, for example, does not support LGBT rights. But what people like Carrier and Myers appear to be saying is that if you are not all for Atheism+ then ipso facto you do not support LGBT rights.

That's the issue I have with it, and if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick (as I confidently predict I will be accused of) then the problem lies in the message, not in the receiver.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 09:59 PM   #242
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
The thing is that the overreaching principles put forward with this whole Atheism+ thingy are nothing controversial or objectionable. The issue is in the framing, which is completely illogical.

I can see the argument for disassociating yourself from someone who, for example, does not support LGBT rights.
That is exactly the argument that the Atheist+'ers are making. Exactly.

Quote:
But what people like Carrier and Myers appear to be saying is that if you are not all for Atheism+ then ipso facto you do not support LGBT rights.
No. They are saying that if you do not support LGBT rights, **** off. Even if you happen to be an atheist, we don't want to have anything to do with you, because (a) in the long run you will be harmful to atheism, and (b) when it comes right down to it, we just don't like you.

Jay

Last edited by jt512; 27th August 2012 at 10:07 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 10:32 PM   #243
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,340
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
That is exactly the argument that the Atheist+'ers are making. Exactly.



No. They are saying that if you do not support LGBT rights, **** off. Even if you happen to be an atheist, we don't want to have anything to do with you, because (a) in the long run you will be harmful to atheism, and (b) when it comes right down to it, we just don't like you.

Jay
But that isn't what the message is. The message isn't "if you don't share our values then piss off", the message is "if you aren't in our club then you don't share our values (with all that this entails)".

It comes down once again to the dismissal of any dissent as being a product of privilege/hatred/stupidity as opposed to simply being disagreement.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 10:46 PM   #244
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
The thing is that the overreaching principles put forward with this whole Atheism+ thingy are nothing controversial or objectionable. The issue is in the framing, which is completely illogical.

I can see the argument for disassociating yourself from someone who, for example, does not support LGBT rights. But what people like Carrier and Myers appear to be saying is that if you are not all for Atheism+ then ipso facto you do not support LGBT rights.

That's the issue I have with it, and if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick (as I confidently predict I will be accused of) then the problem lies in the message, not in the receiver.
It's not at all a misinterpretation. This kind of thing goes back at least to the French Revolution, where the slightest disatisfaction with the lunacy meant that you were opposed to Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The pattern is always the same - with us or against us - we're for this, if you're not for us, you're against this. No more time for talking. This question has been settled.

There's simply no question that people who show doubts about the movement are being lumped in with racists and misogynists.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 10:50 PM   #245
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
But that isn't what the message is. The message isn't "if you don't share our values then piss off", the message is "if you aren't in our club then you don't share our values (with all that this entails)".

It comes down once again to the dismissal of any dissent as being a product of privilege/hatred/stupidity as opposed to simply being disagreement.
It also means that if you query any particular course of action as being unhelpful or unwise, you are classified with the people who want opposite outcomes. It's like Bolsheviks vs. Mensheviks, or Freud vs. Jung, or the splits in the Montessori movement.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 11:08 PM   #246
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats. It's rare in the extreme that women who say something controversial on an Internet forum don't.

Part of the sneaky thing about privilege is that it tends to be invisible to folks who have it. It is easy for men to shrug and say "Well, that's just trolls being trolls" when women receive rape threats, because men don't live in a world where the odds are in the double digits that they will be raped. It's common for Internet trolls to issue death threats, but we shrug them off because it's so astonishingly rare that anyone follows through on one. If we lived in a world where 17% or so of people who'd ever received a death threat were actually murdered, we might have a different attitude about it..
This quote astonishes me. It's either totally and utterly wrong or I have been living in a dream world for 36 years.

Can we just clarify what you are saying:

1. Almost all (not a few, not some, not even many but almost all) women internet users who use an internet forum receive rape threats online?

2. A significant percentage of those women who receive online rape threats actually go on to be raped by their threatener? You are not clear on what number goes here as you quote an unrelated statistic - do you have a figure in mind, did you mean to imply 17%?

Can you show me how you arrived at these conclusions? I find them difficult to believe on face value.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 02:56 AM   #247
Ocelot
Illuminator
 
Ocelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,156
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. <pseudo intellectual wittering snipped>
RANT! "Oooh but women have privilege in custody battles" Stop whining fool and shut up. We know you're a misogynist. We don't like your type here. Your type call women ***** and threaten to rape them.

If you could be bothered to crawl out of your cave and talk to anyone other than your man child friends you'd know that this issue has been thoroughly dealt with and dismissed for the moronic turd that it is (and MRA's all are!)


...is a response I fear would be acceptable to some of the Atheism Plus crew. Unfortunately it does little to educate and inform. Goodness knows this is hardly the only clique that responds to (apparently misinformed) questioning with anger, frustration and hostility, but it's the first time I seen a skeptical community codify its attitudes to an out-group with such hostility as Jason Thibeault and co. seem keen on. And what's more the out-group overlaps broadly with the wider skeptical-fellowship. Tu quoque is no defence here. I'll happily acknowledge that the feminists deal with some pretty nasty trolls. I used to work with a guy who in is spare time ran an MRA organisation. Once when I asked his motivation, the answer wasn't any tragic wrongs he'd witnessed or been subjected to. He simply said, "I just do it to wind them up." So the angry responses, the shunning. That would give him two little happy dances. The first for making the feminists lose their cool. That's the feedback that motivates him but the second, that's because a response where the person loses their cool is less likely to address the question with any sort of logical or convincing counter argument. To the lurkers it looks like the feminist lost that point. Such fire only plays well with the already converted.

I happen to think that your description of privilege makes a certain amount of sense however when trying to educate myself on the issues I have discovered that there is no such thing as female privilege in any context. What you're discussing there is actually benevolent sexism http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress....ale-privilege/

I'm not quite sure what the difference it and why this isn't special pleading, mere semantics and quite insulting to those who choose a lifestyle in line with traditional female stereotypes but if I find and answer that satisfies I'll be glad to read it.
__________________
EDL = English Disco Lovers
Ocelot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 07:49 AM   #248
Kochanski
Master Poster
 
Kochanski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anonymous Unimportant Place (not a secret Scorpion training facility for Shosuro ninjas)
Posts: 2,853
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats. It's rare in the extreme that women who say something controversial on an Internet forum don't.

Part of the sneaky thing about privilege is that it tends to be invisible to folks who have it. It is easy for men to shrug and say "Well, that's just trolls being trolls" when women receive rape threats, because men don't live in a world where the odds are in the double digits that they will be raped. It's common for Internet trolls to issue death threats, but we shrug them off because it's so astonishingly rare that anyone follows through on one. If we lived in a world where 17% or so of people who'd ever received a death threat were actually murdered, we might have a different attitude about it.
Gee, can't say I have ever received rape threats and I do say controversial things, I am female and have been online in forums with largely male populations for quite a bit of time.

I am sure it happens, but I have not experienced it. I do tend to ignore people when they start ranting and raving and saying stupid things. I don't put them on ignore I just don't pay any mind to those comments.
__________________
The faith of a skeptic is always in doubt
Ninja weasel courtesy of http://www.cheeseweasel.net
LI Who - It's about Time
http://longislanddoctorwho.com/
Kochanski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 07:53 AM   #249
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,664
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
But that isn't what the message is. The message isn't "if you don't share our values then piss off", the message is "if you aren't in our club then you don't share our values (with all that this entails)".

It comes down once again to the dismissal of any dissent as being a product of privilege/hatred/stupidity as opposed to simply being disagreement.
They're trying to make atheism more inclusive by excluding everyone who doesn't agree with them.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 08:02 AM   #250
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Augusta, Ga.
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
This kind of thing goes back at least to the French Revolution, where the slightest disatisfaction with the lunacy meant that you were opposed to Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The pattern is always the same - with us or against us - we're for this, if you're not for us, you're against this. No more time for talking. This question has been settled.

We've seen this before in secular cults.

Michael Shermer:

Quote:
For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics.

Richard Carrier:

Quote:
We believe in being reasonable. This means, first, that we believe in being logical and rational in forming beliefs and opinions. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument and, when shown that they have, does not admit it, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

The difference (so far) is that, unlike the Objectivists, there is no charismatic authority figure leading the FTB collective. They give every indication, however, that they are ripe for the picking by any demagogue with the requisite leadership skills.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 28th August 2012 at 08:20 AM.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 08:24 AM   #251
RebeccaBradley
Critical Thinker
 
RebeccaBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ootischenia
Posts: 447
Podcast

The irrepressible Justin Vacula has just blogged about a podcast he took part in, discussing A+ with Brian Allen, Lee Moore, and Reap Paden on the A-News Podcast (of the Apartment J Entertainment network):

http://www.skepticblogs.com/justinva...-atheism-plus/

It uses pretty strong language, and is mostly hilarious.

[BTW, Justin is now blogging on the brand new Not-The-FtB-Network, Skeptic Blogs, set up by FtB-refugee John Loftus to try getting past the "deep rifts" of the privilege-junkies and get on with some actual atheism, skepticism, and humanism. I'm admittedly biased, as I have joined the network myself, but I think it looks pretty damn good. My blog is:

http://www.skepticblogs.com/lateraltruth/

And here endeth the advert. ]
RebeccaBradley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 08:29 AM   #252
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,340
Originally Posted by Kochanski View Post
Gee, can't say I have ever received rape threats and I do say controversial things, I am female and have been online in forums with largely male populations for quite a bit of time.

I am sure it happens, but I have not experienced it. I do tend to ignore people when they start ranting and raving and saying stupid things. I don't put them on ignore I just don't pay any mind to those comments.
Yes but you're just a gender-traitor hoping for a pat on the head from the patriarchy

Interestingly now PZ has posted a piece by Michael Nugent about "ethical atheism" saying that he doesn't care what you call it, it's all about sharing certain values.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...her-good-name/

Quote:
I like it, and itís what a lot of us have been saying all along. I really donít care what label you attach to it ó secular humanism, atheism+, ethical atheism ó as long as you support the values behind it.
That's how I feel on the subject. But Jen McReight said that secular humanists were all old white men
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 08:32 AM   #253
RebeccaBradley
Critical Thinker
 
RebeccaBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ootischenia
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
The difference (so far) is that, unlike the Objectivists, there is no charismatic authority figure leading the FTB collective. They give every indication, however, that they are ripe for the picking by any demagogue with the requisite leadership skills.
Oh, that's PZ Myers himself. It started even before his move from Science Blogs, and really took root after FtB was set up. But I wonder if Richard Carrier sees himself as within reach of the sceptre....
RebeccaBradley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 08:34 AM   #254
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,664
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
Yes but you're just a gender-traitor hoping for a pat on the head from the patriarchy

Interestingly now PZ has posted a piece by Michael Nugent about "ethical atheism" saying that he doesn't care what you call it, it's all about sharing certain values.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...her-good-name/



That's how I feel on the subject. But Jen McReight said that secular humanists were all old white men
Sounds like the FTBullies can't even form a coherent message.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 08:37 AM   #255
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,893
Originally Posted by Kochanski View Post
Gee, can't say I have ever received rape threats and I do say controversial things, I am female and have been online in forums with largely male populations for quite a bit of time.

I am sure it happens, but I have not experienced it. I do tend to ignore people when they start ranting and raving and saying stupid things. I don't put them on ignore I just don't pay any mind to those comments.

Ditto, and I have never personally seen public rape threats towards other women, even in a fairly feisty on-line gaming forum I post to where my gender is known. I don't adverstise it, but I don't hide it either, nor do I hide my opinion on being a, ahem, "mature" female and dealing with the gaming community.

Granted, I know such threats and comments do happen, but I am not sure just how prevalent they are, and which specific feminist views spark them.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 08:47 AM   #256
Kochanski
Master Poster
 
Kochanski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anonymous Unimportant Place (not a secret Scorpion training facility for Shosuro ninjas)
Posts: 2,853
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
Yes but you're just a gender-traitor hoping for a pat on the head from the patriarchy
Now, if any of them ever said that to me, I would get a serious belly laugh out of it and they would get an earful (or page fully as the case may be) from me.
__________________
The faith of a skeptic is always in doubt
Ninja weasel courtesy of http://www.cheeseweasel.net
LI Who - It's about Time
http://longislanddoctorwho.com/
Kochanski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 09:39 AM   #257
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 4,183
Originally Posted by Kochanski View Post
Gee, can't say I have ever received rape threats and I do say controversial things, I am female and have been online in forums with largely male populations for quite a bit of time.
This may be partly a function of the environments established by the fora. For a hypothetical example, any forum that considers "Shove a porcupine up your ***, you ******* ******" to be normal, reasonable discourse might be (inadvertently, of course) subtly encouraging violent rhetoric from its detractors.

Not that I know of any such place.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Last edited by dasmiller; 28th August 2012 at 09:41 AM.
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 09:39 AM   #258
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Sounds like the FTBullies can't even form a coherent message.

Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
They're trying to make atheism more inclusive by excluding everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 09:43 AM   #259
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,893
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

That implies you cannot be a female misogynist.

Quote:
You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

That implies you cannot be an Asian racist.

Quote:
You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

That implies you cannot be a gay homophobe (*cough* Larry Craig *cough*).

Quote:
And so on.

Indeed.

Quote:
So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.

As opposed to directly engaging them, in an engaging way. Blech. No thanks.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 09:46 AM   #260
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
That implies you cannot be a female misogynist.
False. It implies that you can't be welcoming to female misogynists.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 09:47 AM   #261
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,893
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
False. It implies that you can't be welcoming to female misogynists.

So they aren't trying to be welcoming to women. Got it.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 09:52 AM   #262
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
The difference (so far) is that, unlike the Objectivists, there is no charismatic authority figure leading the FTB collective. They give every indication, however, that they are ripe for the picking by any demagogue with the requisite leadership skills.
Whether or not there ends up being a leader whose will is law remains to be seen. However, if such a leader arises, the official line will be that there is no leader. Nazis were followers of Hitler, but Stalin denounced the cult of personality.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 09:59 AM   #263
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
You cannot be welcoming to people who do not argue with us and also be welcoming to people who argue with us. They choose only non-arguers.

Ah, I see how reasonable and inclusive they are.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:01 AM   #264
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
So they aren't trying to be welcoming to women. Got it.

I can see you're having trouble with this terribly hard logic problem. Consider drawing a Venn diagram.

HTH
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:01 AM   #265
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,500
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
So they aren't trying to be welcoming to women. Got it.
Hok, that's just your white male privilege talking.
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:06 AM   #266
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
You cannot be welcoming to people who do not argue with us and also be welcoming to people who argue with us. They choose only non-arguers.

Ah, I see how reasonable and inclusive they are.

Textbook straw man fallacy.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:09 AM   #267
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Augusta, Ga.
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
You've been imbibing the Kool-Aid and not reading this thread closely enough. ANY dissent or disagreement with the agenda of what Atheism should be as delivered from on high from the FTB commissars will get you labeled as a misogynist, homophobe, racist, CHUD. or whatever term of approbation is trendy at the moment by the FTB commentariat.

This is not Free Thought. It's authoritarianism.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:11 AM   #268
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
You've been imbibing the Kool-Aid and not reading this thread closely enough. ANY dissent or disagreement with the agenda of what Atheism should be as delivered from on high from the FTB commissars will get you labeled as a misogynist, homophobe, racist, CHUD. or whatever term of approbation is trendy at the moment by the FTB commentariat.

This is not Free Thought. It's authoritarianism.

Only if it's true.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:13 AM   #269
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
The above sounds plausible, but in fact it's not correct. It's perfectly possible to be welcoming to women and misogynists. It's perfectly possible to welcome homophobes and gays. The error is in focusing in on belief rather than behaviour.

AFAIAA, there's nothing whatsoever to prevent racists, homophobes and misogynists joining JREF. However, there are rules which prevent them from harassing and abusing other people. It's not a perfect system - and certainly a fair bit of abuse slips through the cracks - but sooner or later the people who consistently attack others will be removed.

Atheism+ doesn't have a problem with abusive language. Indeed, abusive language, scapegoating, personalisation are highly prevalent. Will the use of such methods make their movement more open and welcoming? I dare say that when some women see sexists attacked, that will make them feel safer. Other women might see the unfettered use of the language of sexual violence and be repelled.

If atheism+ had concentrated on standards of behaviour, then they might well have achieved a near consensus. Instead, they focused on belief - the idea seemingly being that someone with the right views on sexism, racism and sexuality will be the kind of person who won't proposition women in a lift at four in the morning.

Of course, I have no dog in this fight. I can't tell atheism how to run its business, and I wouldn't if I could. However, I can view what's going on with a degree of dispassion.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:16 AM   #270
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
 
lopeyschools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: West Coast - BC
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I can see you're having trouble with this terribly hard logic problem. Consider drawing a Venn diagram.

HTH
I think he quite rightly pointed out you were incorrect.

Amend yourself to logic! Admit your fallacious reasoning and REPENT HERETIC!
lopeyschools is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:43 AM   #271
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Augusta, Ga.
Posts: 2,605
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Only if it's true.
The truth of my statement was demonstrated a page or two ago on this very thread. Perhaps you missed it.

Justin Vacula and Thunderf00t, neither of whom are misogynists or homophobes, were both steamrollered by the lock-stepping "free thinking" mob and their minions.

Hell, (didn't think I'd play this card) I'm a gay liberal atheist (albeit a white male one, sorry about that!) and I don't want any of these politically correct clowns speaking for me. Nor would I join them even if they were offering free pie and ice creme. To be excluded by them is an honor.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 28th August 2012 at 10:48 AM.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:54 AM   #272
RebeccaBradley
Critical Thinker
 
RebeccaBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ootischenia
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Only if it's true.
It's observably true. For a glaring example, look at the way Ryan Grant Long was dogpiled and demonized for what was initially a pretty innocuous disagreement on some tiny detail of Elevatorgate - now he's virtually an FtB meme, in the form of the demon misogynist ****kicker. Indeed, DJ Grothe's initial crime in FtB eyes was defending Ryan to the extent of clarifying who actually said what. Now both Ryan and DJ (both gay, both feminists, both great guys) are defamed as misogynistic by the same faction that are setting themselves up as arbiters of right-thinking.
RebeccaBradley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 10:58 AM   #273
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belfort
Posts: 5,669
Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley View Post
It's observably true. For a glaring example, look at the way Ryan Grant Long was dogpiled and demonized for what was initially a pretty innocuous disagreement on some tiny detail of Elevatorgate - now he's virtually an FtB meme, in the form of the demon misogynist ****kicker. Indeed, DJ Grothe's initial crime in FtB eyes was defending Ryan to the extent of clarifying who actually said what. Now both Ryan and DJ (both gay, both feminists, both great guys) are defamed as misogynistic by the same faction that are setting themselves up as arbiters of right-thinking.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your privilege...

>.>
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 11:00 AM   #274
RebeccaBradley
Critical Thinker
 
RebeccaBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ootischenia
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your privilege...

>.>
Heh. Hi Rusty!
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
The Lateral Truth: Writings of a Mild-Mannered Apostate
http://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/
RebeccaBradley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 11:04 AM   #275
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,664
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
Wow.

No.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 11:08 AM   #276
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,893
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I can see you're having trouble with this terribly hard logic problem. Consider drawing a Venn diagram.

HTH

Right, so in the Venn diagram, those in the overlapping area are:

a) Women
b) Pancakes

You see, you set up your post I originally responded to as if there were no overlap. Your statement, "you can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists" fails if one is indeed a female misogynist and is not welcomed, because then the groups is clearly not choosing "women" as a class, just non-misogynists. Hence, your statement is illogical and you should be shunned for poor reasoning.

Sure, shunning misogynists might make a group appealing to a larger number of women, but your specific dilemma is false.

Originally Posted by lopeyschools View Post
I think he quite rightly pointed out you were incorrect.

Amend yourself to logic! Admit your fallacious reasoning and REPENT HERETIC!

I am a she, you misogynist pig!

ETA: And a non-white one for bonus points!
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey

Last edited by Hokulele; 28th August 2012 at 11:09 AM.
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 11:09 AM   #277
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
Interestingly now PZ has posted a piece by Michael Nugent about "ethical atheism" saying that he doesn't care what you call it, it's all about sharing certain values.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...her-good-name/
Michael Nugent's blog on "Ethical Atheism" illustrates my issue with this new group well:

Originally Posted by Michael Nugent
In real life, atheism means more than mere disbelief in gods, or belief that there are no gods. If you disbelieve in gods, it necessarily follows that you also disbelieve that we get our ideas of truth and morality from gods.
So far, so good... but here's the rub: if we atheists don't get our ideas of truth and morality from gods, where do we get them? ... no answer? That's right! Atheism has no answer! So, all of this stuff:

Originally Posted by Michael Nugent
This is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote reason, critical thinking and science; atheism over supernaturalism; natural compassion and ethics; inclusive, caring atheist groups; fair and just societies; secular government; and local, national and global solidarity.
has nothing to do with atheism (except the direct mention of atheism). If you want to create a group that promotes social justice, then call yourselves "social justicers" or "naturalist liberals" or whatever; use a label describing who you are, not who you aren't. I understand that a lot of this has to do with branding and gathering to discuss secular issues, but if they want to expand the discussion topics to social justice issues, they ought to choose a name that reflects that aspect. If they don't want to expand the topic but just want a code of conduct for skeptic/atheist meet-ups, then just attend those gatherings that enforce behavioral restrictions. Or start your own monitored event(s).

As someone who has never identified as a skeptic, it seems like some folks are too wedded to anti-religious rhetoric to just pick a new label. And I actually agree with them: I'd rather belong to a group of people who respect different genders, races, nationalities, sexual orientations, etc. equally and argue for sociopolitical change. It's probably just my personal bias, but I believe that I belong to a group like this already.
__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
Merton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 11:10 AM   #278
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley View Post
It's observably true. For a glaring example, look at the way Ryan Grant Long was dogpiled and demonized for what was initially a pretty innocuous disagreement on some tiny detail of Elevatorgate - now he's virtually an FtB meme, in the form of the demon misogynist ****kicker. Indeed, DJ Grothe's initial crime in FtB eyes was defending Ryan to the extent of clarifying who actually said what. Now both Ryan and DJ (both gay, both feminists, both great guys) are defamed as misogynistic by the same faction that are setting themselves up as arbiters of right-thinking.
I tend to broadly agree, but I do find that this controversy seems to have spiralled due to a massive amount of bad decisions and offensive statements from a lot of people. So much of it appears to be X said this to Y and Z didn't object so he thinks the same.

Thank goodness this kind of division and feuding only happens among atheists. It would be awful if religious groups feuded like this.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 11:11 AM   #279
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,893
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
Thank goodness this kind of division and feuding only happens among atheists. It would be awful if religious groups feuded like this.

__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2012, 11:21 AM   #280
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
 
Piscivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home is wherever I'm with you
Posts: 27,101
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
I am a she, you misogynist pig!

ETA: And a non-white one for bonus points!
If you were gay and in a wheelcahir, I think the Atheist+ people would be obligated to make you their Pope, or Grand Poohbah or whatever.
__________________
There is no freedom as sweet as knowing you are terrible and accepting it.

"...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen
Piscivore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.