(Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[squealpiggy]

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

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

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

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.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

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.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

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.

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. <pseudo intellectual wittering snipped>

"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.

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

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 Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

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.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by westprog

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.

[RebeccaBradley]

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. ]

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

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 it’s what a lot of us have been saying all along. I really don’t care what label you attach to it — secular humanism, atheism+, ethical atheism — 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

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

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....

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

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.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

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.

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

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.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

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

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.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

That implies you cannot be a female misogynist.

False. It implies that you can't be welcoming to female misogynists.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by jt512

False. It implies that you can't be welcoming to female misogynists.

So they aren't trying to be welcoming to women. Got it.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

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.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

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

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

So they aren't trying to be welcoming to women. Got it.

Hok, that's just your white male privilege talking.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Acleron

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.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

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.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[lopeyschools]

Originally Posted by jt512

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!

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley

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...

>.>

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your privilege...

>.>

Heh. Hi Rusty!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by jt512

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

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!

[Merton]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

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.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley

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.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by westprog

Thank goodness this kind of division and feuding only happens among atheists. It would be awful if religious groups feuded like this.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

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.