Atheism+, wtf?!

Solair

Maybe it's like Google+
You get to organise all your friends in cool circles and share photos, images, your location, and every aspect of your life with a giant corporation.

Kooli

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Certainly. Lets take feminism and disability advocacy both seek equality, which in many cases can come from a lack of education and/or cultural norms.

Those people who promote disability awareness through education by raising awareness of equality and combating misguided cultural norms, in my view also assist the feminist agenda.

This is because an individual who is made more open to the rights of the disabled through education can use that same understanding when examining the issue of discrimination against for women.

imho etc etc.

OK yes completely agree. Intersectionality and all that.

Nodin

Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime.

Ahahahaha. Yeah, "safe" in the 'words can't kill you'/'head down and mouth shut' way.
http://atheismplus.com/

kooli wrote:

I'm actually baffled that you would think it's OK to enter a forum identified as a feminist space and tell the women there that theire views should have no special consideration when it comes to their own bodies.

I'm baffled as to where you got the notion that it was a "forum identified as a feminist space".

Atheism Plus does not attempt to conflate atheism with feminism or any other ideology.

http://atheismplus.com/?page_id=127

Kooli

Just because it doesn't conflate feminism with atheism doesn't mean it's not identified as a feminist space. I would take that opening statement to mean that sexism isn't welcome. That to me makes it feminist.
They are also explicit in the FAQ that it exists to counter all types of bigotry including misogyny and sexism. That to me makes it feminist. It's pretty explicit.

If they don't conflate feminism with atheism, they are just saying that they don't believe feminism and atheism are the same thing. Pretty obvious, I would have thought, but I guess that's what people are accusing them of.

Rev Hellfire

Kooli wrote: »

Just because it doesn't conflate feminism with atheism doesn't mean it's not identified as a feminist space. I would take that opening statement to mean that sexism isn't welcome. That to me makes it feminist.
They are also explicit in the FAQ that it exists to counter all types of bigotry including misogyny and sexism. That to me makes it feminist. It's pretty explicit.

Does that include misandry?

Nodin

Kooli wrote: »

Just because it doesn't conflate feminism with atheism doesn't mean it's not identified as a feminist space. I would take that opening statement to mean that sexism isn't welcome. ....

I'll be mad and say that identifying it as a "feminist space" would require them to explicitly say "this is a feminist space".

Nor, funny enough, do I think "feminist space" would automatically equate to a demand for group think and toeing a very precise party line.

Kooli

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Does that include misandry?

I'm not sure, to be honest. I don't think so.

Social justice tends to construct itself along lines of privilege. So it is about groups that are underprivileged or systematically discriminated against.
This would include women, disabled, LGBT, lower class, non-white etc.
Safe spaces are about priviliging the voice of the underprivileged. So it is not the job of the oppressed group (under social justice definitions) to protect the privileged group or give equal time to problems experienced by men in a safe space specifically delineated for giving voice to oppressed or silenced groups.

That doesn't mean that members of this group necessarily think misandry is OK. It's more that they don't want to be repeatedly dragged into 'well what about the men?' arguments (or what about black people/straight people etc.) any time they try to talk about injustice they personally experience.

They are coming from the default premise that certain groups experience discrimination and oppression systematically more than other groups. I'm not sure if you agree with that starting point, but if you do I would think it naturally follows that in a safe space they are not going to prioritise the voices of the privileged groups. (which are privileged everywhere else - that's why they left)

Nodin

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure, to be (......)everywhere else - that's why they left)

Well if they're going to have a "safe space", wouldn't it behove them to lay out that very expliclity and visibly, both in terms of it being so and what that entails? Because thus far, they don't even acknowledge it's a "feminist space".

Kooli

Nodin wrote: »

I'll be mad and say that identifying it as a "feminist space" would require them to explicitly say "this is a feminist space".

Nor, funny enough, do I think "feminist space" would automatically equate to a demand for group think and toeing a very precise party line.

I do think that's pretty mad actually. I would think it's fairly clear from their FAQ.

I also don't think feminist space automatically equates to a demand for group think or a precise party line. All it's demanding is a feminist outlook (duh) and a lack of bigotry, sexism, racism etc. Is that controversial?

If you don't want to look at things with that outlook, why would you be on that page?? Just to argue? Prove them 'wrong'? Play devil's advocate? How would they get a chance to get on with the actual discussions they are there to have if at every turn they are confronted with sexists, misogynists, homophobes, whoever, and they are forced to engage? Forced to teach them the very basic tenets of social justice even though the conversation they are trying to have has advanced far beyond 'social justice 101'? Forced to educate the people who are trying to derail a conversation rather than just have their own conversation?
I certainly wouldn't bother with that. And as I've said before, most successful blogs and forums have had to be very, very strict on posting guidelines for that very reason.

Nodin

Kooli wrote: »

I do think that's pretty mad actually. I would think it's fairly clear from their FAQ..

The FAQ that says

Atheism Plus does not attempt to conflate atheism with feminism or any other ideology.

?

Kooli wrote: »

I also don't think feminist space automatically equates to a demand for group think or a precise party line. All it's demanding is a feminist outlook (duh) and a lack of bigotry, sexism, racism etc. Is that controversial?..

Not at all. It's just that the place that you term a "feminist space" (Atheism+) seems to demand what I laid out in practice, as one of our posters has found out.

Kooli wrote: »

If you don't want to look at things with that outlook, why would you be on that page?? Just to argue? Prove them 'wrong'? Play devil's advocate? How would they get a chance to get on with the actual discussions they are there to have if at every turn they are confronted with sexists, misogynists, homophobes, whoever, and they are forced to engage? Forced to teach them the very basic tenets of social justice even though the conversation they are trying to have has advanced far beyond 'social justice 101'? Forced to educate the people who are trying to derail a conversation rather than just have their own conversation?
I certainly wouldn't bother with that. And as I've said before, most successful blogs and forums have had to be very, very strict on posting guidelines for that very reason.

Did you actually read Zombrex post on that site? Because it bears little relation to what you're on about there.

And again, if its to be a forum where no deviation from the party line is to be tolerated, it's the done thing to spell that out clearly.

Kooli

I've already responded to all that.
That sentence you keep quoting from the FAQ (that they don't conflate atheism and feminism) does not contradict the idea of Atheism+ as a feminist space (as well as a safe space for other forms of social justice). At all. So I don't know why you keep quoting it. They are just saying they don't equate the two. They are actively promoting both without stating that they are the same thing. Do you think it means something else?

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?

Feminism generally necessitates a belief that women should have bodily autonomy. (I'm sure it's technically possible for a feminist to be pro-life but I've yet to see it, and I'd find it hard to understand how they reconcile those beliefs). 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.

Nodin

Kooli wrote: »

I've already responded (.......)how they reconcile those beliefs). 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.

So, to sum up, you do equate "feminist space" with group think, approve of the fact that they de facto run a "closed shop" on precisely defined lines despite attempting to deny it in the FAQ.

Doubtless they'll all have a lovely time passing the drum to each other, until the absence of any dissent leads to infighting, as much to combat the boredom as anything else.

Kooli

Nodin wrote: »

So, to sum up, you do equate "feminist space" with group think, approve of the fact that they de facto run a "closed shop" on precisely defined lines despite attempting to deny it in the FAQ.

Doubtless they'll all have a lovely time passing the drum to each other, until the absence of any dissent leads to infighting, as much to combat the boredom as anything else.

Nope. A feminist space is one that privileges the voices of women and doesn't tolerate sexism or misogyny.
Is this really how you discuss things? Ask questions, don't listen to the answers and then sarcastically 'sum up' what the person said as exactly what you thought they were saying at the start, even when they tried to correct you?


There can be dissent without sexism, believe it or not....
I frequent a lot of feminist sites, and when they are well-moderated, and the sexist trolls aren't given space, I'm actually more likely to stick around and get involved. So in my experience, quite the opposite happens. But I know that won't have any impact whatsoever on your hypothesis!!

yawha

It's not about an authoritarian policy where anyone who doesn't toe the party line is excluded, it's more that they want to have intellectual discussions about social justice issues without having to explain principles of social justice 101 to anyone who happens to enter a discussion and isn't aware of them.

Do you really think these people haven't heard all those abortion arguments before? Women's bodily autonomy is so often ignored in these debates, when it is actually the most important point (I would think self evidently), and instead the debate is about when life begins etc.

The whole point of a safe space like this is to avoid having to educate those who have not read up on any of a group's principles before coming in and commenting in a discussion. The vast majority of internet forums will allow a debate on abortion along the lines of what Zombrex was posting. Why should they have to accommodate him? It's not like he's presenting anything novel or revolutionary.

Nodin

Kooli wrote: »

Nope. A feminist space is one that privileges the voices of women and doesn't tolerate sexism or misogyny.

"privilege" seems to extends to certain views as well. I'd no idea women were of one mind. Obviously I've been associating with the dodgy sort who were thrown out of the hive.

Kooli wrote: »

There can be dissent without sexism, believe it or not....
I frequent a lot of feminist sites, and when they are well-moderated, and the sexist trolls aren't given space, I'm actually more likely to stick around and get involved. So in my experience, quite the opposite happens. But I know that won't have any impact whatsoever on your hypothesis!!

From what I've seen of "atheism +" thus far, any deviation from the group think is met with from the beginning "fuck you" and descends from thereon in.

Akrasia

Nodin wrote: »

Kooli wrote: »

Nope. A feminist space is one that privileges the voices of women and doesn't tolerate sexism or misogyny.

"privilege" seems to extends to certain views as well. I'd no idea women were of one mind. Obviously I've been associating with the dodgy sort who were thrown out of the hive.

Kooli wrote: »

There can be dissent without sexism, believe it or not....
I frequent a lot of feminist sites, and when they are well-moderated, and the sexist trolls aren't given space, I'm actually more likely to stick around and get involved. So in my experience, quite the opposite happens. But I know that won't have any impact whatsoever on your hypothesis!!

From what I've seen of "atheism +" thus far, any deviation from the group think is met with from the beginning "f[SIZE="2"]uc[/SIZE]k you" and descends from thereon in.

I for one welcome our new atheist+ overlords

yawha

Nodin wrote: »

From what I've seen of "atheism +" thus far, any deviation from the group think is met with from the beginning "fuck you" and descends from thereon in.

Not really. Enforcing certain standards of discussion, and having an expectation that contributors are well versed in contemporary social justice theory, is not the same thing as groupthink.

And hell, there's even an Information and Answers forum if people want to learn these principles. They can disagree with them, and in that case Atheism+ is not for them, but I don't see why anyone should be able to go into one of their primary forums, express any view they like, and expect to be treated with the utmost respect. This is basically the entire point of setting up a movement like this.

Nodin

yawha wrote: »

Not really. Enforcing certain standards of discussion,.......

When did they start doing that?

yawha

?

It's a safe space. Having certain standards of conduct and discussion is built into the definition.

Nodin

yawha wrote: »

?

It's a safe space. Having certain standards of conduct and discussion is built into the definition.

Yep, "safe space" allright.

Go fuck yourself you smug, smarmy, stupid asshole.

Oopsie, did I just 'derail' the conversation? OH NOEZ!

yawha

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, "safe space" allright.

Um, safe space doesn't mean treat everyone with kid gloves, it means a space away from dominating, privileged points of view. A space where people who feel marginalized and those who support them do not constantly have to debate and educate those who do not understand their issues.

If you haven't read up on modern social justice ideas and concepts, then don't go into a forum dedicated to discussing modern social justice issues. If you want to learn more, they provide a Questions and Answers forum. If you've read up on the concepts, understand them, and still disagree, then fair enough, it's not for you and you don't have to post there.

Mark Hamill

yawha wrote: »

Um, safe space doesn't mean treat everyone with kid gloves, it means a space away from dominating, privileged points of view. A space where people who feel marginalized and those who support them do not constantly have to debate and educate those who do not understand their issues.

If you haven't read up on modern social justice ideas and concepts, then don't go into a forum dedicated to discussing modern social justice issues. If you want to learn more, they provide a Questions and Answers forum. If you've read up on the concepts, understand them, and still disagree, then fair enough, it's not for you and you don't have to post there.

So this place is for a load of people who are all in agreement to just talk about how they are all in agreement? To never try and educate anyone who might not get it? Whats the point? Yes its terrible that marginalised people have to keep defending themselves, but nothing ever is going to change if they don't defend themselves, and convince others in privilege to defend them to. Retreat to their own places of privilege and marginalised everyone else is childish and petty .

Also, why is that "not treating everyone with kid gloves" means cursing and name calling to those in the minority? To me, the mature way to not treat someone like a kid is to not be afraid to challenge their ideas, no matter how strongly held they are. I have to ask, is boards.ie not a safe place?

Nodin

yawha wrote: »

Um, safe space doesn't mean treat everyone with kid gloves, .......

...just those in tune with the party line, it would seem.

robindch

yawha wrote: »

It's a safe space. Having certain standards of conduct and discussion is built into the definition.

Having looked briefly at the thread which Zombrex/Wicknight kindly linked to and picked a few others at random, as well as bearing in mind that Jen McCreight, apparently the site's founder, had claimed she quit because of the hate (by which I assume a lack of safety), I disagree.

I see no decent standards of debate upheld, little sign of any moderation in general and name-calling and offensive language seem to be widely tolerated. To pick two things from the white noise on offer there, the Educational Forum Rules thread's coercive use of the term "education" to mean "acquiring agreeable opinions" is splendidly Orwellian. While referring to "just asking questions" as jacking off is, well, a tasteless piece of wordplay which may have sounded fine down the pub, but in a public forum, does not suggest that there's much more here than a dismal dialog of the deaf.

I can't see all this ending very well unless changes are made.

yawha

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So this place is for a load of people who are all in agreement to just talk about how they are all in agreement? To never try and educate anyone who might not get it? Whats the point?

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.

Nodin

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.

...which begs the question why they don't clearly and categorically state that it's for the party faithful from the get-go.

yawha

Does A+ represent the official atheist position on social justice?
No. Not all atheists are interested in advocating for social justice. Many atheists choose instead to focus on other worthy endeavors such as science education, skepticism in medicine, or the separation of church and state. Many atheists do not consider their atheism particularly important, nor do they necessarily connect their atheism to any other positions they do or do not hold. And even among those atheists who are interested in promoting social justice, not all agree that the issues focused on by Atheism Plus are the most important ones or that the supporters of Atheism Plus are addressing these issues the right way. There are as many perspectives on social justice, its meaning, its import, the current state of its various aspects, and how best to promote it (if at all) as there are people. All are welcome to start, support, oppose, or ignore groups like Atheism Plus. However, supporters of Atheism Plus are not obligated to provide a forum for their opposition.

http://atheismplus.com/?page_id=127

I'm not sure what more you want, really...

yawha

yawha wrote: »

http://atheismplus.com/?page_id=127

I'm not sure what more you want, really...

But opposition seems to mean anyone who dares to not agree 100%.

Nodin

yawha wrote: »

http://atheismplus.com/?page_id=127

I'm not sure what more you want, really...

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.

There is no dogma, just a general consensus among participants that the particular social justice issues it focuses on are important to them.

yawha

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?