Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Obliq

pH wrote: »

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100228442/if-were-cracking-down-on-twitter-abuse-can-we-include-richard-dawkins-and-the-atheist-trolls/

At first I was ... not sure if serious ... but turns out he is.

tl;dr

Dawkins and anyone who undermines my faith should be banned from twitter ... well not really (unless they don't voluntary stfu ... then really)

I thought tl;dr as well, but this bit jumped out at me......."you're trying to convince me in 140 characters of sub-GCSE philosophical abuse that God doesn't exist".

It would have been easier just to abandon twitter than write this article on why twitter doesn't please you as a debating forum (ie.if you don't like your 140 character missives to be replied to in 140 characters).

UDP

pH wrote: »

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100228442/if-were-cracking-down-on-twitter-abuse-can-we-include-richard-dawkins-and-the-atheist-trolls/

At first I was ... not sure if serious ... but turns out he is.

tl;dr

Dawkins and anyone who undermines my faith should be banned from twitter ... well not really (unless they don't voluntary stfu ... then really)

Tim Stanley wrote:

you're trying to take away the faith that gets me up in the morning

What a horrible existence - needing faith just to get up in the morning. I hope Zeus is always there for him.

Hotblack Desiato

Jernal wrote: »

The sad thing is an article like that will just attract even more attention and unsavoury remarks. Creating a negative feedback loop where the author's opinion will appear to become increasingly validated to himself.

It works for John Waters...

Hotblack Desiato

pH wrote: »

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100228442/if-were-cracking-down-on-twitter-abuse-can-we-include-richard-dawkins-and-the-atheist-trolls/

At first I was ... not sure if serious ... but turns out he is.

Sigh...

The invention of social media – an unregulated, semi-anonymous public space – has handed us a chance to explore what is and isn't acceptable discourse in the Internet age. We're in the process of building a new online etiquette, and it could teach us some self-discipline.

There is NOTHING that happens on Twitter that wasn't happening 25 or 30 years ago on BBS and Usenet. Usenet was probably worse if anything, it is completely decentralised and unregulated after all. Yet many very strong and worthwhile communities grew in it. There was a lot of hateful dross too of course.

I thought he might at least try to present some sort of argument in his article, but it really was nothing more than a whinge. Waste of 5 mins I'm not going to get back

robindch

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Maybe it was just wondering about reasons. But I'm drawing on the previous samples of this thread that I've seen, which are all devoted to sneering at Rebecca and other women for objecting to harassment and abuse, so...I'm not able to be confident that that was the meaning.

I think the accusation of "sneering" is slightly unfair, since many posters here view Rebecca as exacerbating the problem of online abuse, rather than adopting a policy likely to reduce it. And neither do I think any significant number of posters here, if any, approve of harassment or abuse. As before, I think it's the response to it that many posters find unhelpful.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

1) Rebecca has reported the more violent threats to the police. So has Jen McCreight, for one. (Those are the two that I know have.)

Genuine questions - have the police done anything? Have the people who made the threats known or positively identified? If not, have the recipients appealed to the community from which the offenders are allegedly drawn to help identify them? What software measures have been put in place to cut down on the threats? And what other non-software-related measures have been adopted to cut down on what's going on?

I can't obviously speak for anywhere else, but here on boards, online threats are taken seriously and policies are built up which work, over the long term, to minimize their harmful effects - effective moderation including carding users, temporary and permanent login bans, and I believe IP address bans are a few of them. And if a policy is found to be ineffective or counter-productive, it's likely to be discarded and a replacement policy debated and put in place. And the entire community here on boards co-operates to enforce this -- it's something that boards.ie generally does rather well. One can't obviously control what happens on other sites, so is the best thing just to accept that, unpleasant and all as they are, and simply deny them the publicity they demand? And one can't obviously control what appears in one's inbox either, but perhaps setting up some "junk delivery" rules might cut down on it?

Like spam, idiots and abusive individuals are going to be around for the foreseeable future, so it seems to me that the best policy response is one that accepts that it's going to take place, and put in place whatever social and technical measures are likely to minimize it in the long term.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

2) The harassment I (for example) get is mostly sub-violent and not a police matter. Is the implication that if it's not violent and thus not a police matter, it's nothing? That I shouldn't object to it or document a small fraction of it or talk about it?

No - recipients are obviously free do as they wish with the online threats they receive. But as above, I would work to develop policies that are likely to cut down on the unpleasantness in the long term. And if that included something like not publicizing received threats (accepting that some sad, nasty individuals do get a kick out of seeing other people being privately or publicly upset), then I'd certainly be prepared to consider doing that too.

That video of Richard Dawkins reading out of some of the hate mail he received was quite funny and may well have embarrassed the idiots who sent them. Perhaps it would be worth finding out if it also cut down on the amount of abuse he receives? I would imagine it's far greater than what most people would receive, but he talks about it very little, no doubt realizing that giving them the "oxygen of publicity" is likely to increase the bile, not reduce it.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

3) Part of the issue is that Twitter and Facebook refuse to do anything about it. That's quite separate from whether or not the police do anything about it.

In the space of a week or so, Priado-Perez has created an effective online campaign demanding that twitter do something about online threats. Perhaps twitter might look at other online communities that have been able to deal with this kind of stuff and perhaps they might learn from them? In any case, I hope the campaign succeeds and that the right kind of software tools are put in place to help cut it down or out.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

4) Have you not noticed that the Priado-Perez abuse got a lot of media attention? That the fashion for verbally abusing women has been a growing issue for the last year or two, in large part because journalists like Helen Lewis and columnist/academics like Mary Beard have been drawing attention to it? That that could have a lot to do with why the police reacted so quickly in the Priado-Perez case?

Perhaps it did and perhaps it didn't. In either case, I think it's great that the police reacted as quickly as they did, I hope they've found the people who did it, and I hope they'll be prosecuted successfully.

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

5) It's the UK police who made an arrest in the Priado-Perez case. Rebecca is in the US. The laws are different in the two countries.

Yes, of course. But still, I'd have thought that after two and something years of harassment, that enough solid evidence could have been gathered by enough people to identify the perps, and hopefully, put them away. So I can't understand why this isn't, so far as I'm aware, something that the recipients have dedicated a lot of time to doing. Perhaps it's some kind of cultural thing? Or are there other reasons? I really don't know.

OpheliaBenson

I'd have thought that after two and something years of harassment, that enough solid evidence could have been gathered by enough people to identify the perps, and hopefully, put them away. So I can't understand why this isn't, so far as I'm aware, something that the recipients have dedicated a lot of time to doing. Perhaps it's some kind of cultural thing? Or are there other reasons? I really don't know.

Putting them away really isn't an option in the US for harassment. Recipients have dedicated a lot of time to trying things other than putting away.

One of the things we try is persuasion in various forms. I take it that's what you mean by "many posters here view Rebecca as exacerbating the problem of online abuse, rather than adopting a policy likely to reduce it"? Or do you mean something else?

I've seen a good many comments here that I consider much more likely to exacerbate online abuse than to mollify or reduce it.

Doctor DooM

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

I've seen a good many comments here that I consider much more likely to exacerbate online abuse than to mollify or reduce it.

Ophelia I understand you're a visitor here and have been in many corners of the internet, but believe me boards.ie is not a place that tolerates abuse.

I would bet if I messaged one of the admins about that statement right now they'd be demanding examples of it to look at.

I can honestly say I have never been on another site on the internet that does as good a job as here.

It's not my job on this forum to tell you to use the report post functionality but believe me when something genuinely abusive is said you won't have to because others will.

That said- is it so hard to believe we just don't agree with Rebecca for our own reasons? Like the one I gave above (I too reported it to our police btw, and although we never caught the culprit, I believe their assistance lead to the abuses halt).

OpheliaBenson

Doctor, I didn't say abuse, I said likely to exacerbate online abuse, echoing Robin's "many posters here view Rebecca as exacerbating the problem of online abuse." I've seen a lot of comments that I think (disagreeing with Robin here) amount to sneering at Rebecca, and given the amount and quality of sneering (and worse) she already gets, I think that kind of thing encourages even more of the same. But no, that itself is not necessarily abuse.

Mark Hamill

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Doctor, I didn't say abuse, I said likely to exacerbate online abuse, echoing Robin's "many posters here view Rebecca as exacerbating the problem of online abuse." I've seen a lot of comments that I think (disagreeing with Robin here) amount to sneering at Rebecca, and given the amount and quality of sneering (and worse) she already gets, I think that kind of thing encourages even more of the same. But no, that itself is not necessarily abuse.

Sneering constitutes abuse now?

Nodin

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sneering constitutes abuse now?

...indeed. And its not "abuse" of the internet variety that was and is the sticking point, as I recall, but the existence of long running sexual harassment etc at conferences and so on.

UDP

My problem with Ms Watson is not just that she is going about tackling online abuse the wrong way but she is also a hypocrite/attention seeker from what I can see causing more damage than help.

She is going about tackling online abuse the wrong way by mangling up the whole online abuse, sexual harassment, sexual objectism and feminism into one big issue when I don't think they are just one issue. Online abuse has always been there and online abusers will use whatever they perceive will work to get at someone. In the case of getting at a feminist abuse relating to them being a woman would be the best approach to take. For a priest calling them a pedophile could work. For a German calling them a Nazi could work.

Then the hypocrite/attention seeking side of her releases a nude calendar, gives out signed skepchick branded thongs and calls herself skepchick then slams people for what she sees as sexual objectism. She posts that she likes the occasional random advance from guys then slams a guy for asking her if she wants to have a coffee in her room - in a completely polite and accepting of her answer way (if any of this even happened).

The proof overall that she is a attention seeker is this:


She is doing a lot to cause damage to:

• feminism by coming off as a hypocrite/attention seeker/exaggerator when there are real issues to be tackled
• the issue of tackling sexual harassment and equality at events by exaggerating events to gain attention rather than dealing with real issues
• the atheist movement (if there is such a thing) by causing a fake issue to try and get a response from one of the bigger figures in atheism that she successfully achieved creating a weird split and pitting people against each other.
• the issue of tackling online abuse/trolls by mangling all these issues together is a bs way that distracts from the real issues and by bring a troll herself.

She appears to want attention rather than solve issues. This is really annoying for people that actually want to solve issues.

OpheliaBenson

Sneering constitutes abuse now?

Seriously? I said

I didn't say abuse, I said likely to exacerbate online abuse, echoing Robin's "many posters here view Rebecca as exacerbating the problem of online abuse."

I don't know how I can make it clearer. I'm not saying "abuse," I'm saying "likely to exacerbate abuse." There's a difference. Surely you can see the difference? And if you can't, why aren't you shouting at Robin for talking about abuse when he was actually talking about the likely exacerbation of abuse?

Mark Hamill

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Seriously? I said

I didn't say abuse, I said likely to exacerbate online abuse, echoing Robin's "many posters here view Rebecca as exacerbating the problem of online abuse."

You said that, but then you said:

I've seen a lot of comments that I think [snip] amount to sneering at Rebecca, [snip], I think that kind of thing encourages even more of the same

So sneering comments encourage more sneering comments. If sneering isn't abuse, then your claim that sneering comments exacerbate online abuse is unsupported. If sneering is abuse then why haven't you reported the posts you consider to be abusive?
What makes a sneering post exacerbate online abuse in such a way that the initial post cannot be acted against? Would Watsons tweet, quoted by UDP, not count as sneering against Dawkins? Does that mean that Watson is therefore exacerbating online abuse against him and anyone else she sneers at?

OpheliaBenson

Sigh. The second "snip" removes part of my argument. That's not playing fair.

pH

So the twitter abuse things takes another turn.

For a long time the A+ crowd have had a thing called a "block bot" which does the usual thing of mixing genuine nasty trolls and those who have had the temerity to disagree with them and label them all "abusers"

So BBC Newsnight takes all this at face value and broadcasts it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0UqtZMqxT8

(Trigger warning: Contains Rebecca Watson)

I mean it's hard to take seriously when a man and a woman compare a list of twitter abusers and finding some in common the woman concludes "the social problem is that men are raised to hate women" but I guess this is what passes for journalism and reporting at the beeb these days.

The interesting thing is the block bot's list of "abusers" contains many people who have never abused anyone on twitter - such as TV's Dr Christian Jessen who once tweeted something about the problem of false rape claims, ended up with much abuse himself, but as from the A+ perspective that false rape claims don't exist - he's a level 3 twitter abuser.

Given the UKs notorious libel laws, it seems many people now labeled by the BBC as abusers, who are merely those who have disagreed with rad feminists online may be considering legal action on the basis of the report.

Mark Hamill

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

Sigh. The second "snip" removes part of my argument. That's not playing fair.

The second snip is just "and given the amount and quality of sneering (and worse) she already gets". You didn't explained how sneering exacerbates abuse, so my questions still stand.

If sneering isn't abuse, how do they exacerbate abuse?
Would Watsons tweet, quoted by UDP, not count as sneering against Dawkins?
And given the amount of sneering (and worse) that Dawkins gets, does that mean that Watson is exacerbating online abuse against him and anyone else she sneers at?

And to return to something I missed in your previous post:

And if you can't, why aren't you shouting at Robin for talking about abuse when he was actually talking about the likely exacerbation of abuse?

Who is shouting?

Sarky

pH wrote: »

So the twitter abuse things takes another turn.

For a long time the A+ crowd have had a thing called a "block bot" which does the usual thing of mixing genuine nasty trolls and those who have had the temerity to disagree with them and label them all "abusers"

So BBC Newsnight takes all this at face value and broadcasts it.

Oh dear. If I weren't such a cynical and shoddy excuse for a human being I'd be really depressed by all this. As it is though, I'm making sure my popcorn is close at hand. It just keeps getting more and more... whatever the f*ck this whole sorry mess is.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

(Trigger warning: Contains Rebecca Watson)

That's become shorthand for stop reading to me at this stage.

OpheliaBenson

For a long time the A+ crowd have had a thing called a "block bot" which does the usual thing of mixing genuine nasty trolls and those who have had the temerity to disagree with them and label them all "abusers"

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".

Rev Hellfire

OpheliaBenson wrote: »

No.
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".

Then the Block bot people seem a bit confused since their site is titled "The Atheism+ Block Bot".

While reading from the FAQ I uncovered the following clue...

Who will be added to the block list?
The short answer is anyone that a blocker defines as block list worthy. The general rule is if you are the type that would find yourself banned on a blog on Freethoughtblogs.com, Skepchick.org or from the A+ forum then you will likely end up in the list…

Linky: http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2#3

Colour me confused.

edit: Actually reading it it doesn't say get banned from those forums smacks you onto the list, but hey there's still a circumstantial evidence.

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