Atheism+, wtf?!

yawha

Nodin wrote: »

Talking clearlyout of one side of the mouth would be good, if they could manage it.

Gets more like a religion as it goes on...theres a quote for every position.

Is it possible to hold any sort of values collectively with others without being "like a religion"?

Nodin

yawha wrote: »

Is it possible to hold any sort of values collectively with others without being "like a religion"?

Of course it is. However the vague nature of the o-so quotable FAQ does have that 'holy book' quality to it.

yawha

yawha wrote: »

Could you back that up? Or give examples?

Sure, there are certain things which are pretty much essential to agree on in order to support and partake in Atheism+. Is this not the same as every other ideology ever?

Is Zombrex opposed to Atheism+?
Do you think he was treated in a fair, open way?

Or was he shouted down for not agreeing?

yawha

So let me get this straight. You're saying that they should "clearly and categorically" state their goals, and when they do, it's like a religion because writing these things down is like writing a holy book...

decimatio

Kooli wrote:

The rest of the FAQ is very explicit that it doesn't tolerate and actively counters any types of bigotry including sexism and misogyny. That sounds like feminism to me. Do you think feminism means something else?

From what I've seen many members including some of the high priests are more than happy to promote at least two kinds of bigotry.

Sexism (against men) is prevalent and consistently ignored if not actually promoted. E.g "Men are damaged women"

Bigotry and lies against anything which goes against the political or ideological beliefs of the group. Just look at the nonsense PZ Myers comes out with against people such as Hitchens and Harris. Or the way anyone who criticises Watson on pretty much anything is treated.

Feminism generally necessitates a belief that women should have bodily autonomy.

Yes but some don't consider it an issue of bodily autonomy . A woman could well believe in equality of the sexes (who doesn't these days anyways?) And still believe, for whatever reason, that the fetus has a right to life or that the male partner has a say.

Now personally I don't. I think its 100% the womans choice. But there's nothing contradictory to feminism in believing otherwise. It not a black and white issue.

So yes, I read Wicknight's contributions (not past the first page, mind you), and I had the same response as most of the users on that page.

What? **** off and how dare you comment on abortion when you disagree with us?

Nodin

yawha wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You're saying that they should "clearly and categorically" state their goals, and when they do, it's like a religion because writing these things down is like writing a holy book...

No, I'm saying their "goals" are as clear as mud, and it resembles a "holy book" in that theres a quote there to justify whatever reading of it takes you.

yawha

King Mob wrote: »

Is Zombrex opposed to Atheism+?
Do you think he was treated in a fair, open way?

Or was he shouted down for not agreeing?

He did end up derailing a thread on a different issue, in fairness, and most of the backlash came from the following inflammatory comment:

Given that you were once a foetus you can consider yourself the primary issue in the abortion debate.

Which is a ridiculous, and clearly inflammatory in the context, statement to make, IMO.

I don't think he's opposed to all of it, but clearly did not understand that that kind of argument re: abortion, which puts the bodily autonomy of the women second, is considered offensive by those involved in Atheism+. The "does the fetus have a right to life" abortion debate, which ignores the woman's bodily autonomy, is almost exclusively the debate which is had elsewhere.

yawha

yawha wrote: »

He did end up derailing a thread on a different issue, in fairness, and most of the backlash came from the following inflammatory comment:


Which is a ridiculous, and clearly inflammatory in the context, statement to make, IMO.

I don't think he's opposed to all of it, but clearly did not understand that that kind of argument re: abortion, which puts the bodily autonomy of the women second, is considered offensive by those involved in Atheism+. The "does the fetus have a right to life" abortion debate, which ignores the woman's bodily autonomy, is almost exclusively the debate which is had elsewhere.

So he's not opposed to it, but because he disagrees with the majority view, he's fair game to abuse and shout down?
So you agree with my statement?

fitz0

decimatio wrote: »

Bigotry and lies against anything which goes against the political or ideological beliefs of the group. Just look at the nonsense PZ Myers comes out with against people such as Hitchens and Harris. Or the way anyone who criticises Watson on pretty much anything is treated.

Oh, if the Hitch was still with us it would be a sight to behold him verbally tear them limb from condescending limb.

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

To help organise and grow a movement with a reach beyond the realm of the keyboard?

Although sometimes entertaining, and sometimes excruciating, the vast majority of debates with opponents on internet forums mean absolutely nothing and change absolutely nothing. It's not exactly a travesty or big indication of cowardice to not want to engage in them, as opposed to using their discussion space to discuss the finer points of their ideology among themselves, and more meaningful ways to spread their message than back and forth quote dissection exchanges with anonymous strangers lasting weeks and achieving sfa.

Odd then that the "Organization, activism and charity" sub forum is the smallest out of the four principal sub-forums on the site. 10 times as many posts in either the A+ sub forum and the Q&A sub forum.

Zombrex

yawha wrote: »

Which is a ridiculous, and clearly inflammatory in the context, statement to make, IMO.

Yawha, people here disagree with you, you seem to be speaking from a minority position. Heck some people may have even found your posts offensive

Are we now justified in shouting abuse at you until you go away?

I'm not objecting that people disagreed with my position. I'm not objecting that people asked me what my position apparently simply to be offended by it.

I'm objected to the "I find that offensive so SHUT THE F**K UP AND F**K OFF" attitude that dominates the site while having in the founding principles that they are not divisive and not interested in silencing debate involving different view points.

Personally I would question how offended someone can actually be by the mere existence of an idea (late term abortions are not legal in most countries that have abortions, so do Atheism+ posters break down in tears and anger every time they read the UK abortion law or discuss the law in the UK?), but even if the person finds an idea offensive does it excuse this sort of behaviour?

decimatio

yawha wrote: »

I don't think he's opposed to all of it, but clearly did not understand that that kind of argument re: abortion, which puts the bodily autonomy of the women second, is considered offensive by those involved in Atheism+. The "does the fetus have a right to life" abortion debate, which ignores the woman's bodily autonomy, is almost exclusively the debate which is had elsewhere.

And here is the core of the problem.

People who claim to be rational claiming offense as a reason to get upset and not discuss an issue.

This is no longer scepticism, rational thinking, and it certainly isnt atheism. This is dogmatic fundamentalism, holding on to a position and protecting it from other views.

I (and many others) happen to share A+'s position on this. The difference is if someone wants to discuss it I'm not going to claim offense and tell them to shut up about it.

I don't claim offense and tell the religious to shut up nor anyone else who disagrees with me on anything, even issues which are quite clearly and demonstrably disproveable such as evolution vs creationism.

This is the difference and this is why I am against A+ and its founding members.

Its not about rational thought or intelligent discussion or debate. Its about promoting one view on issues, many of which are subjective at best.

Again, the best example I can give and the one which annoys me the most is PZ Myers extremist political views. To PZ his political position is sacred, unquestionable and he has shown he is willing to lie and stoop to any level to attack anyone who disagrees.

Contrast this with people like Hitchens, Harris, Hirsi Ali, even Dawkins and you'll see how real rational thinkers approach an issue.

The A+er's positions might well all be right, again that's not my problem with them. Its not their position, its the way they cling to said positions like unshakeable truths.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Odd then that the "Organization, activism and charity" sub forum is the smallest out of the four principal sub-forums on the site. 10 times as many posts in either the A+ sub forum and the Q&A sub forum.

That is the greatest shame about all this, how the STFU&FO attitude of the main forums drives away anyone actually interested doing something productive (ie me).

I know a gay guy who works for a Chrisitan charity. Many of the Christians find homosexual life style and the tolerance of homosexuality opposed to their morals. He finds many Christian attitudes to homosexuality contrary to his morals.

Amazingly given how the existence of idea offends people so much they still manage to build affordable housing together!! Shocking I know. Without screaming at each other "I'm offended by the mere existence of your idea SHUT THE F**K UP AND F**K OFF"

yawha

decimatio wrote: »

And here is the core of the problem.

People who claim to be rational claiming offense as a reason to get upset and not discuss an issue.

This is no longer scepticism, rational thinking, and it certainly isnt atheism. This is dogmatic fundamentalism, holding on to a position and protecting it from other views.

I (and many others) happen to share A+'s position on this. The difference is if someone wants to discuss it I'm not going to claim offense and tell them to shut up about it.

I don't claim offense and tell the religious to shut up nor anyone else who disagrees with me on anything, even issues which are quite clearly and demonstrably disproveable such as evolution vs creationism.

This is the difference and this is why I am against A+ and its founding members.

Its not about rational thought or intelligent discussion or debate. Its about promoting one view on issues, many of which are subjective at best.

Again, the best example I can give and the one which annoys me the most is PZ Myers extremist political views. To PZ his political position is sacred, unquestionable and he has shown he is willing to lie and stoop to any level to attack anyone who disagrees.

Contrast this with people like Hitchens, Harris, Hirsi Ali, even Dawkins and you'll see how real rational thinkers approach an issue.

The A+er's positions might well all be right, again that's not my problem with them. Its not their position, its the way they cling to said positions like unshakeable truths.

I view it more like these people have been round the block before, have constantly had their discussions derailed, and would rather discuss such issues without having to deal with a barrage of noise in the form of uneducated, unempathetic opinions? Is it really so bad to want a space to discuss issues with like minded people without having to explain basic ideas like privilege to every single dissenter that happens to come along?

yawha

yawha wrote: »

I view it more like these people have been round the block before, have constantly had their discussions derailed, and would rather discuss such issues without having to deal with a barrage of noise in the form of uneducated, unempathetic opinions? Is it really so bad to want a space to discuss issues with like minded people without having to explain basic ideas like privilege to every single dissenter that happens to come along?

And again, you are lumping people like Zombrex in with the people with "uneducated, unempathetic opinions."

And if that is the case they should stop pretending that they are still for open, free speech.

decimatio

yawha wrote: »

I view it more like these people have been round the block before, have constantly had their discussions derailed, and would rather discuss such issues without having to deal with a barrage of noise in the form of uneducated, unempathetic opinions? Is it really so bad to want a space to discuss issues with like minded people without having to explain basic ideas like privilege to every single dissenter that happens to come along?

1. And people like me or other sceptics or Hitchens, Ali, Harris etc haven't been round the block? And there's an enormous difference between noise and uneducated opinions to what zombrex did or many others do. If it were just abuse and noise then you'd have the shadow of a point.

If I were to go to A+ and join the discussion on abortion I doubt id have any problem been accepted because my views coincide with theirs. ( as best I can tell)

If I were to go to the same forum and join a discussion on something where my views differ, say the Iraq war for example, how would I be treated?

2. There's nothing wrong with having a space to discuss issues where only one line of thought is acceptable but say that's what the space is. Don't try and pretend to be open to discussion or scepticism or be a forum for debate when you are not.

They claim to be sceptical about everything when they clearly are not. My problem is not with their views but rather that they assert these views as the sceptical and rationally logical conclusions on these issues which is completely untrue.

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

I view it more like these people have been round the block before, have constantly had their discussions derailed, and would rather discuss such issues without having to deal with a barrage of noise in the form of uneducated, unempathetic opinions?

So this is a forum where they dont treat people with "kid gloves". Which means they curse at each other. But everyone has to have empathetic opinions? Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

yawha wrote: »

Is it really so bad to want a space to discuss issues with like minded people without having to explain basic ideas like privilege to every single dissenter that happens to come along?

Yes. What exactly are you discussing if everyone has the same opinion on each issue? How can you ever change anything if you wont even discuss something you clearly strongly believe with a dissenter, even in an online forum you control? What sort of real life change can you achieve if its not based on rational discourse to change minds?
Do you think atheism forums (on boards, or otherwise), would be better, safer places if they all only welcomed like minded people and abandoned explaining themselves to dissenters?

Rev Hellfire

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you think atheism forums (on boards, or otherwise), would be better, safer places if they all only welcomed like minded people and abandoned explaining themselves to dissenters?

But that thing, forums like "athiest"+ are simply echo chambers which can never effect proper social change. I'm happy to say I disagree with a lot of things on this forum (and others), but the difference between here and there is where I've disagreed and discussion has occurred, I have on occasion changed my stance though the debate.

Over there you'll simply be shouted down with abuse, because they're not interested in changing opinions but enforcing them. That's the difference.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But that thing, forums like "athiest"+ are simply echo chambers which can never effect proper social change. I'm happy to say I disagree with a lot of things on this forum (and others), but the difference between here and there is where I've disagreed and discussion has occurred, I have on occasion changed my stance though the debate.

Over there you'll simply be shouted down with abuse, because they're not interested in changing opinions but enforcing them. That's the difference.

I also find it rather ridiculous that some like myself, who by all accounts is a left wing pinko feminist socialist tree hugger is kicked out for not be true feminist enough.

If anything I find the notion that you have to be their type of feminist to be a feminist (but then I'm a man so I'm too privilaged to comment on the matter :rolleyes:)

The whole thing reminds me of the Tea Party in the states, who have high jacked the Republician party by simply screaming enough and denouncing people who 5 seconds ago were Republicans through and through for not being enough to their liking.

Feminist =/= Professional Offence Victim

Kooli

yawha wrote: »

I view it more like these people have been round the block before, have constantly had their discussions derailed, and would rather discuss such issues without having to deal with a barrage of noise in the form of uneducated, unempathetic opinions? Is it really so bad to want a space to discuss issues with like minded people without having to explain basic ideas like privilege to every single dissenter that happens to come along?

This is 100% the crux of it for me.

Everyone on those boards who doesn't have a basic understanding of social justice 101 just stands out like a sore thumb, and derails every thread they are on. They don't want to accept or listen to the fact that this conversation has moved on and is at a different level - every thread is being dragged back by requiring explanations of the most basic concepts of the movement.

And on this thread, it seems like ye are advocating for that to be OK and tolerated, but that would just make it the same as every other internet message board that they are trying to differentiate themselves from. And looking at the 'safe space' thread, it's completely clear that Wicknight has no idea what the term means, and actually believes he can offer his own definition of it! It's an actual term that exists, you can't just redefine it, so to me that just showed complete arrogance. This thread is the same. You may want to redefine 'safe space' as 'a place where the rules of good intellectual debate are adhered to and no one is rude', but that doesn't change the definition, and that's not what it means.

Doctor DooM

Kooli wrote: »

This is 100% the crux of it for me.

Everyone on those boards who doesn't have a basic understanding of social justice 101 just stands out like a sore thumb, and derails every thread they are on. They don't want to accept or listen to the fact that this conversation has moved on and is at a different level - every thread is being dragged back by requiring explanations of the most basic concepts of the movement.

And on this thread, it seems like ye are advocating for that to be OK and tolerated, but that would just make it the same as every other internet message board that they are trying to differentiate themselves from. And looking at the 'safe space' thread, it's completely clear that Wicknight has no idea what the term means, and actually believes he can offer his own definition of it! It's an actual term that exists, you can't just redefine it, so to me that just showed complete arrogance. This thread is the same. You may want to redefine 'safe space' as 'a place where the rules of good intellectual debate are adhered to and no one is rude', but that doesn't change the definition, and that's not what it means.

Why don't you bless us heathens with this definition then, and we can try to use our arrogant minds to try to understand how the level of naked (unmoderated) aggression shown towards another human being is acceptable.

doctoremma

Kooli wrote: »

Everyone on those boards who doesn't have a basic understanding the same opinion of social justice 101 just stands out like a sore thumb

Fixed.

I have a basic understanding of certain "social justice" issues and how I think they might be best approached. That does not mean my opinion has to concur with everyone else's. And when it doesn't, are accusations of ignorance and volleys of abuse justified?

Rev Hellfire

I look forward to been greeted with open arms when I start speaking about basic principles such as female privilege

Kooli

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Why don't you bless us heathens with this definition then, and we can try to use our arrogant minds to try to understand how the level of naked (unmoderated) aggression shown towards another human being is acceptable.

It's all there on the site. This is the whole point - if you want to know, and you have genuine questions, you can google it. You can look at the education section. You can read about it yourself.

If you don't have genuine questions, and your questions are just an effort to poke fun or poke holes or prove wrong or 'win', then I really don't think that site is for you, and that's kind of trolling (although you might think of it as 'educating')

Kooli

doctoremma wrote: »

Fixed.

I have a basic understanding of certain "social justice" issues and how I think they might be best approached. That does not mean my opinion has to concur with everyone else's. And when it doesn't, are accusations of ignorance and volleys of abuse justified?

Nope, I agree with you.
Everyone keeps insisting the problem is disagreement. It's not. I've only read a couple of threads in there, but I've seen plenty of people disagreeing.

But it's when people turn up in complete ignorance of certain fundamental principles, and either ignore them or insist the people on the thread educate them, it can get kind of tiring. And it would literally be constant if they allowed it. And even when they point it out, these people insist on staying on every thread, insisting people 'debate' them, refusing to read up a bit on ANYTHING, and speaking, often, from a position of unacknowledged privilege.

Doctor DooM

Kooli wrote: »

It's all there on the site. This is the whole point - if you want to know, and you have genuine questions, you can google it. You can look at the education section. You can read about it yourself.

If you don't have genuine questions, and your questions are just an effort to poke fun or poke holes or prove wrong or 'win', then I really don't think that site is for you, and that's kind of trolling (although you might think of it as 'educating')

Actually the point is I did google it and found about 10 different definitions, not the single sole one Zombrex is being beaten with. In fact, the most interesting piece I found was one discussing the actual definition of the term, as it seems to be in flux. So I'd like to know which one the people in THIS thread are using. If it is the A+ one, I will go and check that, and hopefully I will find why abusing someone like that is acceptable.

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

This is 100% the crux of it for me.

Everyone on those boards who doesn't have a basic understanding of social justice 101 just stands out like a sore thumb, and derails every thread they are on.

So Zombrex, and I since I disagree with them on some issues, and others don't have a basic understanding of social justice because we disagree with them ?

So anyone who has a different position on or opposes Myers politics, Watson's feminism, or A+ as a whole on issues such as abortion are simply not educated enough on social politics ?

Zombrex

Kooli wrote: »

This is 100% the crux of it for me.

Everyone on those boards who doesn't have a basic understanding of social justice 101 just stands out like a sore thumb, and derails every thread they are on. They don't want to accept or listen to the fact that this conversation has moved on and is at a different level - every thread is being dragged back by requiring explanations of the most basic concepts of the movement.

And on this thread, it seems like ye are advocating for that to be OK and tolerated, but that would just make it the same as every other internet message board that they are trying to differentiate themselves from. And looking at the 'safe space' thread, it's completely clear that Wicknight has no idea what the term means, and actually believes he can offer his own definition of it!

See this is the problem. Ignorance is a two way street.

You are correct that this is what "safe space" means in terms of the LGBT movements which promoted such safe spaces as gay bars and other areas where minority groups felt they could act like themselves without fear of harassment from those around them. These were literally safe spaces, physical spaces where people were physically shield from harassment or abuse.

That is NOT what the term "safe space" means in relation to the Internet and Internet discussions. Safe spaces have existed on the Internet since the time of bulletin boards and grew up in response to things like trolling and other abuses that were result of the anonymity of Internet discussion. They mean exactly what I described on Atheism+, heavy moderation and quick action at derailment.

This is why when people like the Skepchick crowd attempt to transfer their concept of safe space (which only works in the real world) into internet discussion it is such an unmitigated disaster. "Safe spaces" in its correct Internet usage have been working on the Internet since the Internet was 50 fat guys sitting around in their mums basements talking about how great it would be to have a girlfriend (ie long before feminism appeared on the Internet).

I don't co-opt feminist terms and attempt to use them incorrectly in feminist spaces. Likewise it would be good if some ignorant feminists who discovered the Internet a week ago don't co-opt my terms (ie someone who has used the internet for decades) and start using them inaccurately to promote a false sense of a space and then telling me I'm using the term wrong when it is in my areas of expertise.

The privileged old white males have already solved this problem, how to produce safe spaces in a virtual environment. We didn't do it for the sake of feminism, we did it so we could have meaningful discussion about which was the best Captain (Picard or Kirk), or whether Quake is better than Quake 2 (see history of Boards.ie), but the principles are the same.

If you want to create a phyiscal space that gay men can feel free to hold hands and kiss without being beaten up, you use the LGBT concept of a "safe space". If you want to create an Internet discussion forum where you can actually discuss stuff, you use the Internet concept of a "safe space". The two are not the same and one does not work in the other's realm.

As some of the posters on Atheism+ are so found of saying - don't assume you know everything and LISTEN first.

Kooli

decimatio wrote: »

So Zombrex, and I since I disagree with them on some issues, and others don't have a basic understanding of social justice because we disagree with them ?

So anyone who has a different position on or opposes Myers politics, Watson's feminism, or A+ as a whole on issues such as abortion are simply not educated enough on social politics ?

No, it's not about disagreement. At all. I'll explain what I mean but I respectfully suggest that if people are trying to understand this point (in good faith) that you read what I'm writing with an attempt to understand. That's different to reading it with an attempt to pick it apart, look for flaws or holes, looking for something you can throw back at me. Not too big an ask, I don't think.

It's not about disagreement. A basic understanding of social justice would require that any person in a conversation makes it very clear that they recognise the various privileges they possess (be it being straight, white, a man, whatever) and take these privileges into account at all times when discussing with an oppressed group.

So if there is a conversation going on about homophobia in an online space with a social justice ethos, I would have to be expressly and constantly aware of any privilege I bring to the table as a straight person, and any ways my privilege might play itself out in the conversation. So I would not enter that conversation as a straight person and 'explain' to the gay people present about why they are wrong about their opinions/approach/feelings or whatever. I would not try and 'explain' to them how I'm not actually homophobic ("and here's proof") when they tell me some of my actions or words are homophobic. I would not try to dominate or derail the conversation, in acknowledgement of the fact that most conversations in the public sphere are dominated by straight people, and this space has been delineated as something different. If I don't understand why they are annoyed with me, it is my responsibility to try to understand, and to educate myself. Not their responsibility to teach me (beyond an initial explanation). Because to continue to toot my horn and insist that people explain to me the very basics of this issue is making the conversation, again, about me, a straight person.

I may decide that this isn't the conversation I want to be a part of, because my views as a straight person are not taken as seriously as those of a gay person. So I can either stay and shout and scream and demand attention (by 'just asking questions'), trying to swing it around to the type of conversation I'm used to having, or I can respectfully leave (optional extra: try and figure out if there was anything in that situation I didn't understand because I'm not gay).

Same goes for white/non-white, upper-class/lower-class whatever. If you are a member of the privileged group, you need to keep an eye on certain things if you are in a safe space or minority space. That's it.

Kooli

Zombrex that is YOUR definition of a safe space. Is it OK for Atheism+ to have a different definition? (one that I am very familiar with and that is extremely common in social justice circles - also known as minority space)

Do you not see the irony in trying to enforce your own definition?