Atheism+, wtf?!

Nodin

Well this all goes to prove two things (1) there is such a thing as political correctness (2) it can go mad.

Delirium

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Since Dillahuntageddon they've instituted a rule where new posters should be taken by moderators- and moderators alone- on good faith for a grace period.

After which you get banned for pretty much anything.

wouldn't that just encourage trolling?

Doctor DooM

koth wrote: »

wouldn't that just encourage trolling?

Actually the knee jerk reactions of some of the posters themselves is like catnip to trolls. Again from experience! It's the reaction trolls want.

I find it utterly bizarre that it took a public figure outing the silliness for them to realise that new people might have valid points. I also find it utterly bizarre that being nasty to new people is acceptable if you're not a moderator, in a place which is supposedly safe.

Zombrex

Its not about Atheism+ specifically, just the radical left, but it sums up quite nicely the problems with things like Atheism+

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/letter-dismal-allies-us-left

Doctor DooM

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2053&p=32424&hilit=christo930#p32424

You bad man Wicknight!

Galvasean

WTF is a 'splainer? Or 'Mansplaining' for that matter?

Also, anyone else find it funny that an atheist group uses a faith based system?

Sarky

I honestly have no f*cking idea what's going on there now.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

I honestly have no f*cking idea what's going on there now.

Actually, I think this sums it up quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7umq8jFZW4

Rev Hellfire

Seems to me that they use unfamiliar terms either wholly created or re-purposed to avoid any form of debate.

Don't understand the term or disagree with it well start reading fool, still disagree, well keep reading until you do agree, until then fook off.

Then again, at this stage the only reason people are watching them for is the ongoing implosion. Its almost like participating in observational astronomy

pauldla

Galvasean wrote: »

WTF is a 'splainer? Or 'Mansplaining' for that matter?

Also, anyone else find it funny that an atheist group uses a faith based system?

I've been wondering that too, so I got the team on it. One definition of 'splainer' is a forum user who employs humour and fun examples to describe or explain complex ideas. Mansplaining is 'to explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening' (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplain).

Obliq

Doctor DooM wrote: »

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2053&p=32424&hilit=christo930#p32424

You bad man Wicknight!

Wow, this "moderator" post sounds like a bunch of 3rd year girls has had a meeting to expel the least trendy one (who never gets the dress code right) because she's been trying to derail the gang by having friendships with uncool people. And she was more than likely mansplaining:eek: No disrespect meant to 3rd yr girls.

Newaglish

Jesus, they're awful!

pauldla

pauldla wrote: »

I've been wondering that too, so I got the team on it. One definition of 'splainer' is a forum user who employs humour and fun examples to describe or explain complex ideas. Mansplaining is 'to explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening' (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplain).

Very gender-specific.

Newaglish

For something called "Atheism+" I see very little discussion of God, religion, spirituality or anything along those lines. I don't get why they don't just call it Feminism+ and be done with it. Or Atheism-

Nodin

My inner mysogynist tells me they should call it "Angry Birds".....

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Nodin wrote: »

My inner mysogynist tells me they should call it "Angry Birds".....

angry birds and the potential rapists

sounds like a harry potter spinoff

Doctor DooM

Galvasean wrote: »

WTF is a 'splainer? Or 'Mansplaining' for that matter?

Also, anyone else find it funny that an atheist group uses a faith based system?

From the article linked, it seems to be someone who patronises, who has a penis. I have met patronising people of both sexes, in equal amounts, but how and ever.

Obliq wrote: »

Wow, this "moderator" post sounds like a bunch of 3rd year girls has had a meeting to expel the least trendy one (who never gets the dress code right) because she's been trying to derail the gang by having friendships with uncool people. And she was more than likely mansplaining:eek: No disrespect meant to 3rd yr girls.

If a fellow mod of mine made a post like that I'd ask them politely to take a week or so off Boards and go smell some flowers and pat some puppies. That's someone about to explode.

Newaglish

I saw someone with the signature "Men's Rights Activist (MRA) = misogyinist"

These people are crazy! And really offensive.

Doctor DooM

Newaglish wrote: »

I saw someone with the signature "Men's Rights Activist (MRA) = misogyinist"

I'd love to introduce that person to the man who broke down crying when he heard I was a child of a separated couple and asked me if I loved my father because he hadn't been allowed to see his kid for 6 years and was terrified he'd grow up not caring about him.

Obliq

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I'd love to introduce that person to the man who broke down crying when he heard I was a child of a separated couple and asked me if I loved my father because he hadn't been allowed to see his kid for 6 years and was terrified he'd grow up not caring about him.

Oh dear. Must be sensitive today, just shed a tear myself over that one. So, so common and SO harsh on men. GO MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS! Will march with men for their parental rights any day of the week.

So says me, co-parenting (relatively) happily with 2 different men.

Galvasean

Newaglish wrote: »

For something called "Atheism+" I see very little discussion of God, religion, spirituality or anything along those lines. I don't get why they don't just call it Feminism+ and be done with it. Or Atheism-

Atheism Sans Atheism?

Doctor DooM wrote: »

If a fellow mod of mine made a post like that I'd ask them politely to take a week or so off Boards and go smell some flowers and pat some puppies. That's someone about to explode.

And we will be here, popcorn in hand, watching...

ShooterSF

Ooo. My go. Comic Sans Atheism aka atheism without humour.

Nodin

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ooo. My go. Comic Sans Atheism aka atheism without humour.

Stamping out mansplaining = srs bizness.

robindch

Obliq wrote: »

Will march with men for their parental rights any day of the week.

That may involve marching with John Waters (just sayin')...

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

That may involve marching with John Waters (just sayin')...

Oh crap.

Galvasean

The enemy of the person who irritates me is someone else that irritates me?

Obliq

A lot of people irritate me, and I irritate myself frequently. I don't mind marching with John Waters so long as he doesn't try and actually speak to me....and now I'm going to bed.:pac:

Michael OBrien

Jellicoe wrote: »

'Atheist Ireland' is the Irish version of Atheist+, so what's the problem ?

Adding Ireland is different to a plus. Ireland is a location or nationality. 'Plus' means social, political or sexual beliefs are added.
While I personally don't care about A+ for myself, nor like PZ much as I have heard him being unreasonably rude to theists and atheists where it was not required to get the point across, I think its been blown out of proportion. I cannot see it going anywhere really, it will blur back to 'opinionated atheism' more than plus.

Its nice having a movement in Ireland for atheists (atheist Ireland), its nice to have somewhere to discuss issues RELATING to atheism, like the blasphemy laws or the problems with discrimination in public schools. I doubt any atheist wants blasphemy laws or to be discriminated against (or their children discriminated against.)

I never like Brights as it is inaccurate. Just because you are an atheist does not make you 'bright', or even reasonable. You have to EARN that status, not have it assumed, anymore than the jews can be called the 'chosen people' or Baptists can claim to be 'saved' by dunking themselves in water and saying magic words.
Its an expectation of adding more division to our community. The idea that others were 'Dims' was too close to a religious mentality of lableing non-brights inferior in a crude manner.

I understand that 'plus' is not meant to change atheism, but on reflection I really don't see the need for the movement at all to use atheism in their title. I did not appreciate New atheism or Atheism 2 or any of those labels either. It drags the lable, already emotionally charged with misunderstanding, through additional philosophical waters.

I prefer secular humanism as it deals with the positive beliefs in humanity, and is not stuck on non beliefs as its main focal point. It merely mentions that we look for our morals from this world, rather than an unknown next one. I also like that its more open in my opinion to moderation and progress than the other labels.

Nodin

A piece from the guardian, with great relevance.....

I'm the Seattle-based publisher of a network of lifestyle websites read by roughly one million people each month. Almost all of our readers are women, most of them are educated and many of them are quite politically liberal. Because of this large, diverse and progressive readership, we deal with community issues that perhaps wouldn't be such a problem on smaller sites. And lately, I've started to notice a disturbing trend.


Over the past couple of years, I've watched the rise of a new form of online performance art, where liberal internet commenters make public sport of flagging potentially problematic language as insensitive, and gleefully calling out authors as needing to "check their privilege" (admit their privileged position within society and its associated benefits).

As a publisher serving readers who identify as both progressive and marginalised (in many different, varying ways), this issue is hugely important to me – I'm protective of the quality of debate on my sites. As a progressive myself, it's also complex and challenging because while I very much share the political values of the folks who engage in this kind of thing, I'm not on board with the tactics – which essentially amount to liberal bullying, and are way worse than anything I see from the conservatives who swing by my publications

Increasingly, I've started recognising this kind of behaviour for what it is: privilege-checking as a form of internet sport. It's a kind of trolling, with all the politics I agree with, but motivations and execution that turns my stomach. It's well-intended (so well-intended), but when the motivations seem to be less about opening dialogue about the issues, and more about performance, righteousness, and intolerance toward those who don't agree with you … well, I'm not on board.

(my bold)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/online-bullying-ugly-sport-liberal-commenters

Sarky

You mean Atheism+ was just one gigantic troll?

Damn. Well played, Ms. Watson. Well played.