Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

pH

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

No.

You guys have a huge head of hatred-steam built up here, but a lot of that is based on getting the facts wrong.

The "A+ crowd" (whatever that's supposed to be) does not have the block bot. Two specific people do (and they have nothing at all to do with A+).

It's possible that if you stopped making and believing a lot of wild inaccurate accusations, you wouldn't be quite so enraged at either Rebecca or "the A+ crowd".

So this thread doesn't exist on the a+ forums?
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3896&sid=2c4731cd24a956a23d4560ce92694634

and the global moderator of the a+ forums didn't post this in that thread?

Dear oolon;

YOU ARE A HERO OF THE REVOLUTION.

But in actuality my hatred just made all that up did it?

Sarky

This hatred-steam, is it as good as regular steam for, say, cleaning grout out of the shower?

pH

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23533566

BBC now getting a little squirrelly - suddenly there's "3 levels", but they still described it as 'a shared list of abusers' in their original program.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

This hatred-steam, is it as good as regular steam for, say, cleaning grout out of the shower?

Oh no, it's MUCH better. It HATES grout and, as such, will never give up!

Sarky

Is that what they call groutsplaining?

robindch

pH wrote: »

[...] my hatred [...]

A bit of added chill would go a long way to helping you make your point

robindch

Well, the atheist convention in Dublin, and elevatorgate itself, took place six years and two weeks ago. Hard to say what the long term fallout has been, but atheism plus is dead, PZ Myers is back to discussing cuttlefish and the insinuation made by a small number of people that the atheism movement was riven with uncontrollable sexism has died a long, slow death.

The atheist movement itself has moved on, but it seems to be a lesser, quieter movement than before, quite possibly now that that people have seen how even a relatively rational group of individuals can be effectively hijacked by a small number of divisive, political operators willing to play hardball identity politics.

Meanwhile, here's a photo from the convention back in 2011 of Rebecca Watson, in the days leading up to her uncorroborated allegation that somebody had suggested in an elevator, that she join him for a cup of coffee. No idea who that guy was, nor whether he even really existed, but if he did, I'm inclined to think he dodged a bullet that night.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have strongly suspected from the beginning he never existed. But I also somewhat suspected it might have been ME as I spent a lot of time with and around her at that convention, including her being one of the many speakers I made trips between the airport and the hotel for to collect them and deliver them to the hotel.

Given how much I had to drink that weekend, it is entirely possible I met her in the elevator and do not recall it

But more likely there was no one at all, and it simply never happened.

NinjaKirby

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have strongly suspected from the beginning he never existed. But I also somewhat suspected it might have been ME as I spent a lot of time with and around her at that convention, including her being one of the many speakers I made trips between the airport and the hotel for to collect them and deliver them to the hotel.

Given how much I had to drink that weekend, it is entirely possible I met her in the elevator and do not recall it

But more likely there was no one at all, and it simply never happened.

I like to imagine that it was just some random bloke with nothing to do with The Atheist Community or anything like that.

He just staggered into that elevator, asked for "coffee", and left without ever giving it a second thought.

Completely oblivious to the chain of events he had set in motion...

bipedalhumanoid

robindch wrote: »

Well, the atheist convention in Dublin, and elevatorgate itself, took place six years and two weeks ago. Hard to say what the long term fallout has been, but atheism plus is dead, PZ Myers is back to discussing cuttlefish and the insinuation made by a small number of people that the atheism movement was riven with uncontrollable sexism has died a long, slow death.

I soooo wish this was true. It is true in Ireland. Whether it's true in America depends on which organisation or personality you're talking about.

A+ as a brand is dead, of course, but the general concept, that social justice activism should be tied to atheist activism, is not.

The hot spot for this kind of thing now seems to be Australia. Don't laugh, I know Australia has a reputation for being uncouth and un-PC, and that's true of the general population, but the media and universities have been cringingly PC for a long time and in the last three years that's gone into overdrive.

SJW hysteria in Australia is showing no signs of slowing, as shown by the protests and banning of the movie the Red Pill in cinemas recently.

Since 2012 there has been an inter-sectional feminist at the helm of the Atheist Foundation of Australia. Go check out their facebook page and comment. You will quickly meet the ban-hammer if you accidentally say anything non-pc and if you say anything that goes against the feminist party line, you can expect to be told that you should leave because you won't fit in there. It's like FTB all over again and it is the most popular atheist group in Australia.

They've been posting articles decrying the straight white men of atheism recently and they are hosting the 2018 global atheist convention.

Take a look at the lineup: http://atheistconvention.org.au/speakers/

Greta Christina is there, and the latest addition is Clementine Ford, a hard-line feminist who I'm not aware has said anything at all about atheism. Her focus is on writing man-hating articles for the Australian mainstream media.

It's good to see Salmon Rushdie on the ticket, but I don't know too many people who are going to pay $360 to $490 plus flights and accommodation to travel to Melbourne to see him speak, even if they live in Australia.

Post Edit:
Have a look at some of these comments on the facebook group:
https://www.facebook.com/atheistfoundation/posts/10155191631925485

They are claiming 10% of comments made in this thread were rape and death threats targeting women, even though people commenting at the time don't seem to see any of them before they're deleted. Lightning fast they are, 24/7. When they provide evidence of these comments, all they seem to be able to come up with is this list of a very small number of comments that are not rape or death threats: https://www.facebook.com/atheistfoundation/photos/p.10155196754015485/10155196754015485/?type=3&theater

bipedalhumanoid

This was published today in the Sydney Morning Herald and promptly publicised by the Atheist Foundation of Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/view-from-the-street/why-do-public-atheists-have-to-behave-like-such-jerks-20170621-gwvg4s.html

Five years on, they're still not over Dear Muslima... and of course Sam Harris is smeared too.

feargale

Meanwhile, here's a photo from the convention back in 2011 of Rebecca Watson, in the days leading up to her uncorroborated allegation that somebody had suggested in an elevator, that she join him for a cup of coffee. No idea who that guy was, nor whether he even really existed, but if he did, I'm inclined to think he dodged a bullet that night.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have strongly suspected from the beginning he never existed. But I also somewhat suspected it might have been ME as I spent a lot of time with and around her at that convention, including her being one of the many speakers I made trips between the airport and the hotel for to collect them and deliver them to the hotel.

Given how much I had to drink that weekend, it is entirely possible I met her in the elevator and do not recall it

But more likely there was no one at all, and it simply never happened.

You'd be crazy not to become a Catholic. For that transgression you'd get away with three Hail Marys!

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Well, the atheist convention in Dublin, and elevatorgate itself, took place six years and two weeks ago. Hard to say what the long term fallout has been, but atheism plus is dead, PZ Myers is back to discussing cuttlefish and the insinuation made by a small number of people that the atheism movement was riven with uncontrollable sexism has died a long, slow death.

The atheist movement itself has moved on, but it seems to be a lesser, quieter movement than before . . .

Seems you spoke too soon, Robin.

NinjaKirby

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

A+ as a brand is dead, of course, but the general concept, that social justice activism should be tied to atheist activism, is not.

SJW hysteria in Australia is showing no signs of slowing, as shown by the protests and banning of the movie the Red Pill in cinemas recently.

It's kind of sad actually.

Whatever you think about religion there are religious people who do A LOT for charity and good causes in the name of their religion.

It would have been good to see Atheist groups doing similar and getting good publicity. Instead they seemed to turn on their own almost instantly.

That's the thing I don't really get about "SJWs". They all believe in good causes and even the concept of Social Justice is something I think most people believe in. Fighting for human rights, fighting for equality. These are good things.

The implementation though seems to be so awful and they seem to be completely unaware of how terrible they are.

I'd say people you've mentioned there like PZ Myers and Clementine Ford are actually just sophisticated bullies. They basically take a good cause and then use the fact that it's a good cause to bully other people into silence and take "power" for themselves.

So if we took the starting point that rape is bad and we should aim to lower the number of rapes committed to zero then that would be a pretty good goal. However, you might have someone proposing that if a woman is propositioned in an elevator and you personally don't see it as a big deal then you are contributing to rape culture. Well, you might strongly disagree with that point of view but since anything other than 100% agreement is forbidden you are now deemed a rape apologist.

If you took, for example, Barcelona and Real Madrid fans. If you are a Barcelona fan who takes issue with how the team is playing or how the club is managed then this does not normally rile people up to the extent that you would be branded a Real Madrid fan just because you do not have 100% approval of everything to do with Barcelona.

Yet, in these "SJW" circles that's exactly how things seem to work. You are either absolutely 100% fighting for social justice or you are an irredeemable Alt-right fascist troll. There is almost no room for criticism of your own side.

It's what happens when people try to form up on distinct "sides" of an issue. You end up with people who are more interested in fighting for the absolute victory of their side rather than finding a resolution.

You are either 100% on board or you are the absolute worst kind of person in the world.

That's going to be a big problem in any Atheist community as most people will have arrived at Atheism by questioning what they are taught, sometimes forced, to believe. They were asking people who have joined the community because they like to question everything to stop questioning things.

"You, liberal, intellectual, guy, who has a healthy interest in science and skepticism but finds feminism distasteful and would rather not hear about it? You are WORSE than rape threats" - Rebecca Watson

Qs

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

This was published today in the Sydney Morning Herald and promptly publicised by the Atheist Foundation of Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/view-from-the-street/why-do-public-atheists-have-to-behave-like-such-jerks-20170621-gwvg4s.html

Five years on, they're still not over Dear Muslima... and of course Sam Harris is smeared too.

Good article. Thanks for sharing.

Hotblack Desiato

NinjaKirby wrote: »

There is almost no room for criticism of your own side.

Same as most religions then.

Assholes be assholes with or without the help of religion.

Turtwig

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Yet, in these "SJW" circles that's exactly how things seem to work. You are either absolutely 100% fighting for social justice or you are an irredeemable Alt-right fascist troll. There is almost no room for criticism of your own side.

It's what happens when people try to form up on distinct "sides" of an issue. You end up with people who are more interested in fighting for the absolute victory of their side rather than finding a resolution.

You are either 100% on board or you are the absolute worst kind of person in the world.

This "polarisation" of discourse is actually a bit scary. There doesn't seem to be any practical solutions against it either.

Curly Judge

Turtwig wrote: »

This "polarisation" of discourse is actually a bit scary. There doesn't seem to be any practical solutions against it either.

People with simple solutions to complex problems are generally preferred to others with a more nuanced approach.
Margaret Thatcher referred to them as "Wets".

bipedalhumanoid

Curly Judge wrote: »

People with simple solutions to complex problems are generally preferred to others with a more nuanced approach.
Margaret Thatcher referred to them as "Wets".

I like that. Reminds me of this quote by H. L. Mencken:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong

bipedalhumanoid

NinjaKirby wrote: »

If you took, for example, Barcelona and Real Madrid fans. If you are a Barcelona fan who takes issue with how the team is playing or how the club is managed then this does not normally rile people up to the extent that you would be branded a Real Madrid fan just because you do not have 100% approval of everything to do with Barcelona.

Exactly. The way these gruops are run is very unprofessional too. Admins get involved in the bitching and sniping. I don't think the AFA are as bad as FTB were yet, but they're getting there.

I put out a post citing Irving Janis's symptoms of group think and pionted out examples of it in the dicussions happening in the group.

Irving Janis (1972 wrote: »

• Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
• Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
• Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
• Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
• Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
• Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
• Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
• Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Without any sense of irony or self-awareness an admin threatened to ban me from the group for posting it.

At FTB there wouldn't have been a threat, I would have been banned instantly.

From just standing up in the group and pointing out that people are not monsters for coming from a different political/ideological perspective than hard-line progressivism, I've been getting private meassages in support from people who are too scared to express these views themselves. There is your illusion of uninamity and self-censorship (6,7). The admins and others are acting as mind-guards, trying to police the views that are expressed by applying pressure (5, 8).

Dissenters are openly accused of sexism and the usual SJW accusations (4). 1,2,3 are all coming together in this conference where they are taking a huge risk by inviting uninteresting ideologically driven guests who have not said anything about or done anything for atheism in the past.

robindch

SJW activism defines language elitism, then rejects it with customary enthusiasm.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/grammar-snobbery/

smacl

robindch wrote: »

SJW activism defines language elitism, then rejects it with customary enthusiasm.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/grammar-snobbery/

OT, but that site crashes Chrome quite badly on my PC even with all plugins disabled. Bloody fembots!!!

recedite

robindch wrote: »

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/grammar-snobbery/

“Who wrote the dictionary, though?” We understand that a reference guide created by a white supremacist, heteropatriarchal system does nothing but uphold that status quo.

that book was writ just to make us homeys sound stoopid

robindch

smacl wrote: »

OT, but that site crashes Chrome quite badly on my PC even with all plugins disabled.

Works fine on Chrome for me.

Uh, does that mean that I'm more privileged than you?

bipedalhumanoid

Yeah, Rob. You need to check your priviliege.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Works fine on Chrome for me.

Uh, does that mean that I'm more privileged than you?

Worked this morning and I read the article, think I preferred it when Chrome was crashing on the first page