Behold the potential third wave of atheism in the modern era under the nom de guerre of Atheism+. Misogyny by the old guard is one of the primary factors resulting in the seeds of this movement that has erupted within the blogosphere within the past two weeks.
--> Link Alpha. <--
--> Link Beta. <--
DISCLAIMER: I am an atheist in the general sense (), but mine takes on more of a zen approach versus some of those who prefer to be more politically charged in their position. I wanted a chance to point out to those who profess a sectarian faith that the atheist movement isn't without its own issues that religious groups have experienced over the millennia.
I'm not even sure what this Atheism+ is about. One article says it's a reaction against the atheism of Dawkins and I'm like...in what way?
Atheism PLUS being actively socially and politically liberal? Working towards things like womens rights, fighting for social justice, all sounds great. But...I guess I haven't met atheists who fall into any other category. I guess, like, distinguishing yourself from Ayn Rand is helpful.
I'm also just not a 'movement' guy.
meatrace is excommunicated, because Objectivists are people too.
Bad people.
Where did I say they weren't?
I just said it's useful to be able to distinguish myself from their ilk.And you can no longer excommunicate me since you already excommunicated yourself.
Then I excommunicate you for talking back in excommunication proceedings.
Why you trying to ruin this for me, man. Polititroll (or religiotroll) threads are what keep me going some days!
Also, your objection is out of order. Having excommunicated yourself you are in no position to object. Therefore I sentence you to three (3) fatal beatings to commence forthwith!
I'm not even sure what this Atheism+ is about. One article says it's a reaction against the atheism of Dawkins and I'm like...in what way?
Atheism PLUS being actively socially and politically liberal? Working towards things like womens rights, fighting for social justice, all sounds great. But...I guess I haven't met atheists who fall into any other category. I guess, like, distinguishing yourself from Ayn Rand is helpful.
I'm also just not a 'movement' guy.
It has its roots in the dreaded 'F-word' (i.e. feminism) and the perceived misogyny of the 'genteel' class of what one may consider certain groups to have an "old boys club" mentality. The best approach is to understand by reading it from ground zero where the inspiration struck.
Besides, some of you may have remembered the Boobquake movement back in 2010. There was a social movement behind why it occurred, but that sometimes get lost in the message when it was a perfect opportunity to simply watch jiggling breasts. As a self-professed hedonist, I enjoyed it with a sense of adulation/admiration while recognizing the irony.
P.S. AMiB, I'd like to go double or nothing on the excommunication. Big money, no whammies.
EDIT: Addendum - I'm aware of folks who are sectarian minded who feel that they're being derided and/or persecuted by the less religiously inclined, the irreligious, or the outright bastards trollops who lurk the deepest darkest crevices beneath the troll bridge of OTD. This is my gift to them.
May it fail gloriously. </satire implied>
Vive le Galt!
Down with Salt!
Yeah I read that "ground zero" post. Like, none of that stuff bothers me, but a lot of it isn't my fight.
On the feminism trip: I was raised by a single mother. She has a PhD. When my parents were together she was the breadwinner. She works as a science professional. I've never even had the notion that women couldn't do those things, or that they're less than equals. I've always considered myself a feminist.
When my female friends complain about the rampant sexism in gaming, or in their workplace, or at their school, I just kind of scratch my head. I must have missed it. I have never seen something that I would consider sexist towards a woman. No hyperbole.
So I have to conclude that either a)I'm somehow oblivious to these near constant infractions b)they always happen when I'm turned away or just left the room, like Michigan J. Frog c)they're just making it up or d)they're hypersensitive.
Earlier this evening I was out with my girlfriend, my dad, and his wife at a restaurant. The waitress called my dad 'hon' which didn't even register to me. Don't all waitresses do that? Then my stepmom asked "isn't that sexual harassment". I'm like... wut
From the other end, I think that a lot of people indulge in sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. on the internet BECAUSE it's taboo, not as a reflection of how they feel. Which, I understand, isn't a useful distinction to people on the receiving end, but it's useful to understand. I myself indulge in no end of un-PC talk around my good friends while rolling dice.
Until someone brings up mothers. Rolling a critical on the icosahedron? Fugget about it. No PC required. ;-)
Until someone brings up mothers. Rolling a critical on the icosahedron? Fugget about it. No PC required. ;-)
This is word salad to me. Can you explain what any of this means? (or share the potent psychoactive you're imbibing)
Blue Raspberry Lemonade Kool-Aid. You might be disappointed. Jones' Grape Flavor-Aid was unavailable, alas.
AMiB called you out for being an Objectivist. You objectified my mother.
That's triple excommunication, now.
Wow so if all the fat privileged overeducated old white males say we are down with the A+ thing can we join up, doesn't that mean that A+ becomes A because the majority of skeptics and atheists are fat privileged over educated old white males.
I feel sorry for them fat privileged over educated old white males, everybody be hating on them.... Oh s!#+ I am a FPoEOWM.
Science isn't interested in No Homers clubs. People are - I will go with science because people suck. If a persons science right but their attitude is s*&@ doesn't mean I am going to stick my fingers in my ears and go la la la when they are talking science. I might do it when they are talking personal beliefs and s+*~. I do the same for religion I ignore the bulshit and take away the be excellent to one-another message.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Science is not without its share of schisms.
Ah, irreducible complexity. Why complicate things?
And on that note:
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
|
From those articles it seems the creator is trying to take control of her identity. She's had some bad experiences with creepy dudes and no longer identifies as just an atheist anymore because creepy dudes spoiled that label.
I can dig it. I don't hold it against anyone if they want to get involved in politics etc.
I'm an atheist, and proud. Atheism + is okay by me. But it's so weird to use branding on what is essentially a non-thing. There's no binding belief to atheism. Just scepticism.
Science is not without its share of schisms.
Ah, irreducible complexity. Why complicate things?
And on that note:
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
PARTY ON! Urizen. Station dude.
Sexism is still an issue within the atheist community. Look at how something that shouldn't have been an issue exploded just last year, elevatorgate. If only Richard Dawkins knew when to stfu.
The guy was a dick about that situation. He could have preferably said nothing, or something like we should all respect all humans and treat them with the dignity they warrant.
That doesn't mean his science or his views on religion aren't worth listening to.
I am not really sure what this is about, I am an atheist though I do not really identify with a group or atheists in general. The very idea of atheists forming a group would be to counter religious movement since that is the only thing they have in common by those terms alone.
Anything more than that is not a schism in atheism rather a collection of people that requires people to embrace atheism to be part of that collective. Much like you have to be a muslim to be a part of Al-Qaida.
Much like Al-Qaida does a poor job representing Islam atheism+ does a poor job representing atheism.
just my opinion of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sexism is still an issue within the atheist community. Look at how something that shouldn't have been an issue exploded just last year...For the love of all that's good and reasonable, do not link Conservapedia. It is the worst.
If there's a factual error in the facts of the incident, feel free to point them out. I'm not a fan of the site either, but they had an relatively accurate and concise summary of the incident. So if your only problem is the domain name, stfu.
|
Dawkins isn't a very nice person, that's not really in dispute. I'm not sure, however, whether being an atheist, muslim or Moonie while being harrassed in a lift has any bearing on the experience, being a woman is surely the key thing. Any more than his not-very-niceness is relevant to his atheisim, or anyone else's. Atheism is what what you don't believe, it doesn't tell you about anything else, and it certainly doesn't come with a series of pre-packaged views on anything else (plenty of far-Left and far-Right atheist, for example). Which makes this atheism+ fairly redundant - the atheisim bit is irrelevant to the broader agenda, however worthy.
Atheism+ sounds like a post-modern, pro-affirmative action, pro-hate crime laws movement focused on social and economic justice. I wonder if there really is room for their atheism in their new cooking pot. I also wonder if they are willing to include post-modern theory in the "everything" they are sceptic about...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I declare that this is now the thread for excommunicating people.
I'm going to start by excommunicating Urizen, for starting this thread, Anklebiter, for proposing global revolution, and myself, for posting in this thread.
I am not an atheist. I am a Marxist-Leninist follower of Kali. It says so on my profile page.
But here's a link that I posted before.
I haven't read anything about Atheism+ or Elevatorgate, but I find it a bit odd that it was a male atheist asking out a female atheist that sparked the schism not, say, Christopher Hitchens's raging endorsement of Gulf War II.
Finally, atheism? Shiznit, son, you want to see sectarianism, you should check out Trotskyism.
And those are only the organizations that exist today. I bet if we tallied up every grouplet that claimed to be fighting for the Fourth International since 1933, that list would be five times as long.
Vive le Galt!
I think I'll side with the otters.
I'm not sure how much of a schism you can have in a herd of cats anyway
Dawkins isn't a very nice person, that's not really in dispute.
I'd like to know why you think that. I don't know the guy.
Does one website a schism make? Perhaps a slow news day does.
I don't see any statements of substantive difference in either of those links. It just looks like a bunch of trolls.
Non event. Not worth commenting.
A guy who happens to be an atheist also happens to be a misogynistic jerk (or not). Wow.
I'm Discordian.
And so are you, or if you prefer, you aren't.
In fact, I'm using my Eris-given right as a Discordian to excommunicate all of you right now, so long as you're okay with that.
And as an Erisian Mome, I'm hereby declaring that it is prohibited for Discordians to post in this thread, effective retroactively.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a factual error in the facts of the incident, feel free to point them out. I'm not a fan of the site either, but they had an relatively accurate and concise summary of the incident. So if your only problem is the domain name, stfu.Sexism is still an issue within the atheist community. Look at how something that shouldn't have been an issue exploded just last year...For the love of all that's good and reasonable, do not link Conservapedia. It is the worst.
I don't think that's a good reason for someone to stfu. I don't know about Elevatorgate, so I can't tell you the factual errors in the story. But I can tell you a site like Conservapedia (which I do know still includes several debunked or wholly made-up statistics on its main atheism page) has no credibility. Knowing that, I didn't bother to read the article. You might as well make an argument about the Trevor Martin case by linking to the Klan's website for all the interest Conservapedia has in telling the truth about a prominent atheist.
As far as the atheist+ movement is concerned, I'm not surprised, but I don't think it's going to gain a whole lot of steam. Like somebody already said, it's pretty much like herding cats in the first place, and I think the majority of us will see it as a No True Scotsman fallacy (That's just speculation on my part, of course) and have no problem identifying ourselves as atheists whether or not some sexist jerks call themselves the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From those articles it seems the creator is trying to take control of her identity. She's had some bad experiences with creepy dudes and no longer identifies as just an atheist anymore because creepy dudes spoiled that label.
I can dig it. I don't hold it against anyone if they want to get involved in politics etc.
I'm an atheist, and proud. Atheism + is okay by me. But it's so weird to use branding on what is essentially a non-thing. There's no binding belief to atheism. Just scepticism.
BTW, I read some of your #atheismplus tweets. Got some lulz out of me. :)
And as an Erisian Mome, I'm hereby declaring that it is prohibited for Discordians to post in this thread, effective retroactively.
Mome?
Dawkins isn't a very nice person, that's not really in dispute. I'm not sure, however, whether being an atheist, muslim or Moonie while being harrassed in a lift has any bearing on the experience, being a woman is surely the key thing. Any more than his not-very-niceness is relevant to his atheisim, or anyone else's. Atheism is what what you don't believe, it doesn't tell you about anything else, and it certainly doesn't come with a series of pre-packaged views on anything else (plenty of far-Left and far-Right atheist, for example). Which makes this atheism+ fairly redundant - the atheisim bit is irrelevant to the broader agenda, however worthy.
It's similar to thousands sectarian groups and sub-groups are essentially irrelevant. So are a lot of reddit /r subgroups, for that matter.
It seems to be in the nature for people to want to be able to fashion a community as an offshoot of the general one that seems more suitable to their preferences.
Some individuals have this impression that atheists fall under one general heading and there's one main message that unites all of them.
What I'm saying is that atheists as rambunctious and quarrelsome and divisive just fine amongst themselves.
Nothing new under the sun.
I'm aware that some of you may find A+ redundant. But then again, males have the advantage of not being on the receiving end of misogyny. A female may have a different perspective on this matter.
I have to agree that this isn't the sort of thing I'd expect to cause a schism. I'd expect it to come from atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who manage to not believe in a deity and still be narrow-minded, terrible people who use their beliefs, or lack thereof, to endorse bad things for other people.
Does one website a schism make? Perhaps a slow news day does.
I don't see any statements of substantive difference in either of those links. It just looks like a bunch of trolls.
Luther was a Catholic (Augustinian) monk that wrote a letter to Albert of Mainz on October 31, 1517 and by one account nailed it to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany.
It wasn't until 1518 when Luther had the contents of his theses translated to German so that the hoi polloi could read it apart from the Latin Vulgate. Within two weeks, with the aid of the printing press, the message spread across Germany. Within two months, Europe.
No one could have anticipated the Protestant Reformation the resulted from it. Least of all, Luther. His main issue had to do with the sale of indulgences. Not only that, it inspired the peasants to revolt against the aristocracy and moved the European landscape toward a post-feudal age and into the Industrial Revolution.
When 1521 was over, by not yielding his position as outlined in his theses, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X and branded an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.
I wonder what the ancestor of the Internet Troll would be like back in Luther's days.
But it's O.K. to be skeptical. It tends to be inherent nature to almost any individual that recognizes oneself as an atheist in whatever fashion comfortable to themselves.
Small ideas have to begin somewhere from their nascent stages.
Just ask Trotsky.
And as an Erisian Mome, I'm hereby declaring that it is prohibited for Discordians to post in this thread, effective retroactively.Mome?
It's another name for fool, which is applicably tongue-in-cheek appropriate when self-identifying as a Discordian.
Cut her some slack.
[quote Urizen]Luther was a Catholic (Augustinian) monk that wrote a letter to Albert of Mainz on October 31, 1517 and by one account nailed it to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany.
That wouldn't have been dramatic or even unusual back then. They tacked everything to the church door from meeting notices to cow sales.
Dotting to read when I'm not on my phone.
Does one website a schism make? Perhaps a slow news day does.
I don't see any statements of substantive difference in either of those links. It just looks like a bunch of trolls.
Luther was a Catholic (Augustinian) monk that wrote a letter to Albert of Mainz on October 31, 1517 and by one account nailed it to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany.
It wasn't until 1518 when Luther had the contents of his theses translated to German so that the hoi polloi could read it apart from the Latin Vulgate. Within two weeks, with the aid of the printing press, the message spread across Germany. Within two months, Europe.
No one could have anticipated the Protestant Reformation the resulted from it. Least of all, Luther. His main issue had to do with the sale of indulgences. Not only that, it inspired the peasants to revolt against the aristocracy and moved the European landscape toward a post-feudal age and into the Industrial Revolution.
When 1521 was over, by not yielding his position as outlined in his theses, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X and branded an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.
I wonder what the ancestor of the Internet Troll would be like back in Luther's days.
But it's O.K. to be skeptical. It tends to be inherent nature to almost any individual that recognizes oneself as an atheist in whatever fashion comfortable to themselves.
Small ideas have to begin somewhere from their nascent stages.
Just ask Trotsky.
I considered getting my Masters in Communications and doing my thesis as a response to your post. In the end, I decided against it.
Luther was a Catholic (Augustinian) monk that wrote a letter to Albert of Mainz on October 31, 1517 and by one account nailed it to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany.That wouldn't have been dramatic or even unusual back then. They tacked everything to the church door from meeting notices to cow sales.
Correct. For all intents and purposes, it was just another nailing of a notice on the church door like any other day during that era.
However, that one struck a nerve.
And became the agent of change.
I considered getting my Masters in Communications and doing my thesis as a response to your post. In the end, I decided against it.
You, sir, have achieved slack. Have an apple.
Hail Eris!
Vive le Galt!
Down with Salt!
If there's a factual error in the facts of the incident, feel free to point them out. I'm not a fan of the site either, but they had an relatively accurate and concise summary of the incident. So if your only problem is the domain name, stfu.Sexism is still an issue within the atheist community. Look at how something that shouldn't have been an issue exploded just last year...For the love of all that's good and reasonable, do not link Conservapedia. It is the worst.I don't think that's a good reason for someone to stfu. I don't know about Elevatorgate, so I can't tell you the factual errors in the story. But I can tell you a site like Conservapedia (which I do know still includes several debunked or wholly made-up statistics on its main atheism page) has no credibility. Knowing that, I didn't bother to read the article. You might as well make an argument about the Trevor Martin case by linking to the Klan's website for all the interest Conservapedia has in telling the truth about a prominent atheist.
As far as the atheist+ movement is concerned, I'm not surprised, but I don't think it's going to gain a whole lot of steam. Like somebody already said, it's pretty much like herding cats in the first place, and I think the majority of us will see it as a No True Scotsman fallacy (That's just speculation on my part, of course) and have no problem identifying ourselves as atheists whether or not some sexist jerks call themselves the same.
Cool, I am familiar with the event of Elevatorgate. I briefly skimmed the article and found it to be fairly accurate. It was also the most concise article on the first page of google hits. Now, please explain to me how accurate information that shows up on the first page of google hits shouldn't be used?
Seriously, "because it's on conservapedia" is a b*+&!!*@ answer and you know it. That's the equivalent of Aretas coming and saying that an article posted on Daily Kos is wrong purely because it's posted on Daily Kos.
Now we've wasted even more time talking about how accurate information is somehow "tainted" by being on a bad site. Get over it, you're making the conversation worse.