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

[surreptitious57]

I feel like joining there would be like getting an ear tag for tracking.

I don't know if that feeling is reasonable. I don't think I have a particular presence in the atheist online world. I belong to three, and one defunct atheist forums. I have a private blog that I suppose could be called atheist .. I have an OUT campaign A in the sidebar that no one sees but me, since the blog is private.

On the other hand, I've been around, having opinions. People have heard of me. I got called out in particular during PZgate.

Maybe I could use an alias. I am curious about the goings-on, and sympathize with much of the politics. But .. I really don't like this We're watching you .. don't be naughty or you won't be on the good list policy they're forming.

Well I have gone and joned - the site that is, not the movement - and have been openly critical of the group think at both Skepchick and freethoughtblogs and they know I am from the other side, and I am still there. My spiritual home is Rat Skep so even if I do get banned, it does not matter. The demographic of new sites is always different to established ones, even if you recognise some old names. It is less dogmatic than I expected and I really did think I would be banned but so far no. I agree with what they stand for, but not necessarily with how they may go about it though. At the moment it is quite open, and if that continues, then so be it but one just has to take it one day at a time. It does feel strange being over there, nonetheless, in spite of the openness, because I am from the other side. But long as I can post there I will. But my home will always be over here at Rat Skep, here being the other side, by the way, which comprises both rationalia and Rat Skep. And as long as it exists and I have cognitive capability, then that will remain so. Now that doesn't mean I cannot leave, and check out other places, but I always come back, no matter what. Who would have thought a bunch of strangers could have that effect on one. Anyway, apologies for rambling. but you get the gist hopefully.

[Azathoth]

I think the best Blog Hog has managed on feminism is a short article about what an annoying whiny victim character she finds Sansa Stark to be.

What? Really? Sansa Stark? A fourteen year old girl who watched her prince charming kill her dog, her father, who was imprisoned and kept as a pawn and a toy by a sadistic mommy's boy, who was physically and mentally humiliated and almost raped is a whiny victim character? Yeah I guess she was lucky no one wore a "It's Grim up North" T-shirt to Joffrey's Name Day Tournament, that would have been a real reason to whine eh?

Sansa Stark is an annoying bitch. She just won't fucking die though

[Audley Strange]

I think the best Blog Hog has managed on feminism is a short article about what an annoying whiny victim character she finds Sansa Stark to be.

What? Really? Sansa Stark? A fourteen year old girl who watched her prince charming kill her dog, her father, who was imprisoned and kept as a pawn and a toy by a sadistic mommy's boy, who was physically and mentally humiliated and almost raped is a whiny victim character? Yeah I guess she was lucky no one wore a "It's Grim up North" T-shirt to Joffrey's Name Day Tournament, that would have been a real reason to whine eh?

Sansa Stark is an annoying bitch. She just won't fucking die though

The same could be said about many characters in fiction and people in real life. Like Harriet Harman or Julian Assange

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

IN Massimo Pigliucci's blog "On A+, with a comment about Richard Carrier’s intemperance", Carrier claims to have apologized, here:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... 0106246737

Richard CarrierAugust 30, 2012 12:37 PM

Just FYI, I have apologized, revised, clarified, or corrected much of this (although my intemperate language against rampant sexists and people mocking basic moral values I don't apologize for).

See:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2289/

And:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2412/

I am not convinced. Looks like a severe case of gaslighting and mansplaining to me.

My response:

Taqiyya MockingbirdSeptember 01, 2012 10:22 PM

Great TFL;DFR walls of disingenuous rationalizations and justifications are not apologies, and neither are crocodile-tear "apologies" that you bury deep behind them, Dr. Carrier.

If there actually was anything vaguely resembling a tattered semblance of an apology in either of those abortions you linked to, you would do well to post it alone or at least quote it standalone here. But I very much doubt you will do that, considering your continued strawmanning of anyone who has called you on your outrageous rhetoric and your blatantly fallacious false-dichotomy ultimatums as being "rampant sexists mocking basic moral values, psychopaths against reasonableness, compassion, and integrity, douchebags, retards, etc (ad nauseum)".

[FBM]

...My response:

Taqiyya MockingbirdSeptember 01, 2012 10:22 PM

Great TFL;DFR walls of disingenuous rationalizations and justifications are not apologies, and neither are crocodile-tear "apologies" that you bury deep behind them, Dr. Carrier.

If there actually was anything vaguely resembling a tattered semblance of an apology in either of those abortions you linked to, you would do well to post it alone or at least quote it standalone here. But I very much doubt you will do that, considering your continued strawmanning of anyone who has called you on your outrageous rhetoric and your blatantly fallacious false-dichotomy ultimatums as being "rampant sexists mocking basic moral values, psychopaths against reasonableness, compassion, and integrity, douchebags, retards, etc (ad nauseum)".

I have no idea what's going on in this thread. I just wanted to say that that was pretty facking eloquent.

[charlou]

Look at Dick Carrier's latest blog, in which he proclaims:

Here I will make it as simple as possible. I have added this new requirement on my booking page (and this is just my own personal speaking policy, I don’t expect anyone else to adopt it):


........
Note that I will not speak at events run by organizations that are unwilling to repudiate sexism, racism, and homophobia, or that do not endorse the values of reasonableness, compassion, and integrity. You do not have to make a public statement or policy on this. You don’t even have to specifically mention it. But I must feel comfortable that you are an organization that shares these values. And I will assume you are, unless I have reason not to. But if you consider my taking a stand on this to be divisive, don’t ask me to speak at your event (unless it is specifically to debate our moral differences in a reasonable manner). Otherwise I will work with any organization that approves of this value statement, even if it is not an atheist organization or is even an explicitly religious organization.

.......


This goes for individuals as well as organizations, although that will simply be a matter of which company I would prefer to have wherever I happen to be, and not a condition of speaking anywhere (since it’s a free country and I fully expect assholes and douchebags will inevitably be anywhere). It will also be a condition of who I condemn or disown on my own time and in my own venues. In short, if you reject this value statement, you are simply my ideological enemy, and I will give you no quarter. I’ll respect your legal and human rights, because I believe in that. But don’t be shocked if I am not friendly.

This includes if you mock or make fun of Atheism+ or belittle it with stupid dumb-ass shit like calling it Stalinism. That makes you an asshole. Point blank. Plain and simple. We are simply not going to let the Atheism movement become like chat roulette (a point well made in How Not to Build Inclusive Communities).

Taqiyya, thank you for posting that. Is this Carrier fellow well-respected for his work? I ask because, apart from anything else, he's a dreadful writer (if this is typical of his prose). I used to work as an editor, and my brain began to hurt halfway through his proclamation. It's terrible advertising for him as a supposed intellectual. Also, "stupid dumb-ass shit"? Really? I have no problem with rude language. Indeed, it can be quite effective (e.g. in many of Hitch's works). But here it's just juvenile.

Indeed. Seems to be oblivious to how ironic and revealing his attitude is.

[charlou]

Even if I were allowed passage, it sounds like I'd basically be inviting some semi-anonymous overseers (really, anyone from the forum) to monitor my behavior wherever I went on the web. One dirty joke of the wrong variety, one ill-timed quip, one moment of criticism, anywhere, and I'd be booted from the garden. No warning, no appeal.

No appeal.

Possibly more than that, too. Remember that they have proposed a rule that says, in effect, that anyone posting anything threatening, or attempting to gain illicit access to the forum (sockpuppeting, obviously, but also posting under anything but a) your real name or b) the pseudonym you use everywhere else on the net) - anyone who does these things forfeits all rights to privacy, and they can publish all your identifying information.

No, seriously. This is what they are proposing.

That likely qualifies as criminal cyberstalking if they do it, and it's certainly actionable. But then again you'd have to be an idiot to give them any actual personal information in the first place, so it's sort of caveat emptor.

What I don't understand is all the hoopla. They're a bunch of marginalized nutbar extremists. Let them have their forum and their trademark and just ignore them. There's what, a dozen of them at most? They're no more threat to atheism than the Westborough Baptist nutbars are a threat to the Catholic church.

If you quit acknowledging them, they'll soon fade into obscurity because they're radicals.

Yes .. They've become a charicature ... a self-satirical parody. It's just train-wreck stuff at this point.

[charlou]

However I find it annoying that Godwin is often used as a dismissal of an argument...

Seraph (now Hermit) is fond of pointing out that Godwin's Law is completely meaningless. You could replace the words "Nazis or Hitler" with anything and the Law would carry exactly the same meaning.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Yeah it's like pointing out that inevitably something will happen. Hmm. Yes.

Audley Strange's first law of Temporal Events. "Inevitably something will happen."

Yep ... by using an example from extreme reality, that is immediately recognisable and understood by all.

[HomerJay]

Someone has put Carrier's words to video (hat tip RatSkep again) in fact I saw one of integralmath's other vids a couple of days ago, the Am I Gay one, quite funny too.

[charlou]

Yeah, I love how they use the sexist term "don't be a dick" -- as if dicks are inherently bad. That's offensive.

The use of genital and sex words and phrases as insulting epithets is worthy of its own discussion. Would anyone be interested in a thread on that? Should it be in the general/philosophy subforum, or the Language, Culture & Anthropology subforum?

RiverF, I perched a ball at the top of a hill-- it's ready to roll when you or anyone else is!

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 53&t=39279

Ah, just found this post ... Will head over to it now ...

[charlou]

I feel like joining there would be like getting an ear tag for tracking.

I don't know if that feeling is reasonable. I don't think I have a particular presence in the atheist online world. I belong to three, and one defunct atheist forums. I have a private blog that I suppose could be called atheist .. I have an OUT campaign A in the sidebar that no one sees but me, since the blog is private.

On the other hand, I've been around, having opinions. People have heard of me. I got called out in particular during PZgate.

Maybe I could use an alias. I am curious about the goings-on, and sympathize with much of the politics. But .. I really don't like this We're watching you .. don't be naughty or you won't be on the good list policy they're forming.

Why join a site which dictates values and content, which disallows free discussion and dissent, which actively maintains division through policy and rhetoric, when everyone of us is free, regardless of opinion, to speak our minds here and on many other fora?

The insular, dictatorial nature of their little group is counter to intellectual and humanitarian social progress, stifling the very thing they should be encouraging and nurturing if the ideals they espouse are really as important to them as they profess.

[surreptitious57]

Why join a site which dictates values and content which disallows free discussion and dissent which actively maintains division through policy and rhetoric, when everyone of us is free, regardless of opinion, to speak our minds here?

Sometimes it is good to be tested, to be taken outside one's comfort zone. It is actually alright at the moment but things may of course change as time goes by. There is a bit of a crackdown on politically incorrect language but so far I have been allowed to say what I like. So better than what i expected. Also, unless one is actually on a site and participating, then it can be hard to get a feel for how it is. There is a difference after all between being an observer and being a participant now. It is always good to be on a new site, regardless, and face different opponents in cyber battle. But do not worry. Even if I end up being a permanent feature, my spiritual home will always be on this side. And anyway, a few from here are there too. I am not the only one. They have serious ambitions but I had to remind them that reality is as reality is. It does not change for anyone. So all respectable so far and no real drama to report which after all the agony of the last fifteen months is a welcome reprise, one must say, even if only temporarily so. Anyway, got to be grateful for small mercies, I suppose.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Look at Dick Carrier's latest blog, in which he proclaims:

Here I will make it as simple as possible. I have added this new requirement on my booking page (and this is just my own personal speaking policy, I don’t expect anyone else to adopt it):


........
Note that I will not speak at events run by organizations that are unwilling to repudiate sexism, racism, and homophobia, or that do not endorse the values of reasonableness, compassion, and integrity. You do not have to make a public statement or policy on this. You don’t even have to specifically mention it. But I must feel comfortable that you are an organization that shares these values. And I will assume you are, unless I have reason not to. But if you consider my taking a stand on this to be divisive, don’t ask me to speak at your event (unless it is specifically to debate our moral differences in a reasonable manner). Otherwise I will work with any organization that approves of this value statement, even if it is not an atheist organization or is even an explicitly religious organization.

.......


This goes for individuals as well as organizations, although that will simply be a matter of which company I would prefer to have wherever I happen to be, and not a condition of speaking anywhere (since it’s a free country and I fully expect assholes and douchebags will inevitably be anywhere). It will also be a condition of who I condemn or disown on my own time and in my own venues. In short, if you reject this value statement, you are simply my ideological enemy, and I will give you no quarter. I’ll respect your legal and human rights, because I believe in that. But don’t be shocked if I am not friendly.

This includes if you mock or make fun of Atheism+ or belittle it with stupid dumb-ass shit like calling it Stalinism. That makes you an asshole. Point blank. Plain and simple. We are simply not going to let the Atheism movement become like chat roulette (a point well made in How Not to Build Inclusive Communities).

Taqiyya, thank you for posting that. Is this Carrier fellow well-respected for his work? I ask because, apart from anything else, he's a dreadful writer (if this is typical of his prose). I used to work as an editor, and my brain began to hurt halfway through his proclamation. It's terrible advertising for him as a supposed intellectual. Also, "stupid dumb-ass shit"? Really? I have no problem with rude language. Indeed, it can be quite effective (e.g. in many of Hitch's works). But here it's just juvenile.

Indeed. Seems to be oblivious to how ironic and revealing his attitude is.

Orpheus, sorry I missed your post. I don't have any idea who or what he is supposed to be to the atheist movement. I simply ran into his manifesto as a byproduct of there being the AAA convention in Denver this week, and having gotten Sam Harris' email/blog on trolls naming. PZ as one and giing WTF and poking around. You might gather that I don't take ultimatums well.

I was embarassed for him when I read his manifesto. The opening mixed-metaphor line about "cutting out the dead wood and kicking the CHUDs back into the sewers", or whatever it was...I knew better than to write like that in fucking grade school. And that clown writes BOOKS, I tell you, BOOKS!

I would hate to be his editor.

[A Hermit]

..., 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.

I didn't know of her so I did a Google. Here she is:



I'd never reduce her to a boob joke, she's got one helluva fine rack! But I'd certainly motorboat the Hell outta those puppies.

O.k., Lak, we're going to have to take this from the top.

She is allowed to show all the cleavage she wants, but you are not permitted to enjoy it (unless she wants you to enjoy it) and you're not allowed to think about motorboating or other such activity (unless you clear it with her first, without coming out and asking her directly...). And, if you say anything out loud about her cleavage, without her wishing that you say something about her cleavage, then you are a sexual harasser and a misogynist. And, don't try to mansplain your way out of this.

You misunderstand. You're certainly entitled to appreciate her cleavage and all that, but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size she has every right to dismiss you as the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are.

Simple, really...

[hadespussercats]

I feel like joining there would be like getting an ear tag for tracking.

I don't know if that feeling is reasonable. I don't think I have a particular presence in the atheist online world. I belong to three, and one defunct atheist forums. I have a private blog that I suppose could be called atheist .. I have an OUT campaign A in the sidebar that no one sees but me, since the blog is private.

On the other hand, I've been around, having opinions. People have heard of me. I got called out in particular during PZgate.

Maybe I could use an alias. I am curious about the goings-on, and sympathize with much of the politics. But .. I really don't like this We're watching you .. don't be naughty or you won't be on the good list policy they're forming.

Why join a site which dictates values and content, which disallows free discussion and dissent, which actively maintains division through policy and rhetoric, when everyone of us is free, regardless of opinion, to speak our minds here and on many other fora?

The insular, dictatorial nature of their little group is counter to intellectual and humanitarian social progress, stifling the very thing they should be encouraging and nurturing if the ideals they espouse are really as important to them as they profess.

Word, pretty lady.