Sick of the "schism"

robindch

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It is you and not I who is seeking (incorrectly) to redefine militancy as requiring a physical threat element. That is not the definition of the word, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Therefore, any such alignment as you suggest exists primarily in your head.

In theory, Cavehill, you're correct and the dictionary definitions back up your position fully. However, in reality, while the secondary meaning may be the meaning intended by many authors, the primary meaning is the one frequently understood by many readers. Also, the term is applied and used differently on the various sides of this debate, as the religious know very well. See the graphic below.

All things considered, it's a term that's best avoided by all unless you wish to imply violence or the threat of it.

Sarky

I have found my life improved immeasurably by simply not giving a crap about the whiny self-righteous gits. You can ignore them happily and still be atheist, or feminist, or whatever ideals they're trying to conflate these days. Anything particularly noteworthy ends up getting posted here in any event.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Anything particularly noteworthy cringeworthy ends up getting posted here in any event.

FYP!

condra

Sarky wrote: »

Anything particularly noteworthy ends up getting posted here in any event.

Totally agree. Dissent, debate and freedom of opinion are celebrated here on A&A on a level I've not witnessed on any other atheist forum.

I've been exploring some alternatives recently and the disease of groupthink seems rampant among many communities including, and somewhat disappointingly, Atheist Ireland.

Obliq

condra wrote: »

Totally agree. Dissent, debate and freedom of opinion are celebrated here on A&A on a level I've not witnessed on any other atheist forum.

I've been exploring some alternatives recently and the disease of groupthink seems rampant among many communities including, and somewhat disappointingly, Atheist Ireland.

Oh, I don't know. I've not met any more groupthink up there than here tbh. There's plenty of dissent, debate and freedom of opinion there as far as I can see. Here, the dissent gets squashed more quickly actually, and I'm very happy that the "freedom" to insult the head off of each other is moderated more effectively than on FB.

Jimoslimos

We need a fleg to get behind. That seems to work, doesn't it?

Obliq

Yes. Flegs are the business. I'll stand behind any old fleg, me.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Yes. Flegs are the business. I'll stand behind any old fleg, me.

Me fleg.

Obliq

LOVE pink pirate fleg. Want.

Hotblack Desiato

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Finally, I'd point out that what you or anyone else seek to define as inalienable rights amounts to nothing more than your own ideological perspective on the matter. There is no empiricism in this area.

UN universal declaration of human rights is a good place to start. Democracy cannot by itself protect minority rights.

condra

What would a religion founded by a woman look like?

Obliq

condra wrote: »

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/9/9a/Rebecca_Watson_shoulders.jpg

Why would you post that image in particular Condra? Are you making a point of some sort?

This, plus your earlier comment of "Fair chance men would be treated like dirt." - Gotta say it seems like your hurting petal. Hope you feel better soon.

swampgas

Obliq wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson

Obliq

swampgas wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson

I know who she is (not that I enjoy listening to her). I wondered why post that image in answer to the question.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because she had a large part in starting the atheism+ movement/cult?


although it wasn't watson that started it iirc, it was that boobquake woman

Obliq

Yeah....ok. I'm just fed up of the constant referencing to this "schizm" - there's a thread all of it's own for just that reason. I don't see why the woman (and associated arguments) is brought into every discussion - it gives the whole row that happened far too much credence.

See? We're having yet another conversation about A+, because Watson was referenced YET AGAIN.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well it's not exactly 100% unrelated. a bit tongue in cheek sure but those a+ people can be pretty fanatical and hilariously unreasonable, not unlike religious zealots.

anyway, i'm worried I might be mansplaining here so I'll check my privilege and bow out. I'm sir digby chicken caesar and I'm a potential rapist.

Obliq

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

anyway, i'm worried I might be mansplaining here so I'll check my privilege and bow out. I'm sir digby chicken caesar and I'm a potential rapist.

Ah, FFS. Why do I bother?

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Yeah....ok. I'm just fed up of the constant referencing to this "schizm" - there's a thread all of it's own for just that reason. I don't see why the woman (and associated arguments) is brought into every discussion - it gives the whole row that happened far too much credence.

See? We're having yet another conversation about A+, because Watson was referenced YET AGAIN.

Indeed. While I may not agree with skepchick or Mz Watson, I am concerned at what appears to be the gathering of pitchforks and lighting of torches - in short - a witchhunt - which makes me wonder would we see this overreaction and increasing vilification of an individual if it had been 'boobdude' and Mr Watson?

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. While I may not agree with skepchick or Mz Watson, I am concerned at what appears to be the gathering of pitchforks and lighting of torches - in short - a witchhunt - which makes me wonder would we see this overreaction and increasing vilification of an individual if it had been 'boobdude' and Mr Watson?

Very much doubt it. Perhaps we're (women) more used to not rising to take the bait when sexist crap is thrown at us. However, we do all have a good go at a Mr Waters, so the vilification isn't restricted to just the one nonsense-spouting individual at least.

Obliq

carlarua wrote: »

that was a potentially very interesting discussion going down the plughole.

Many religious women are scary in their fundamentalism.
What deity are women supposed to believe in ? Male, female of both ? I wouldn't think it would be necessarily a peaceful religion.

No, it's not going down the plughole when you put it like that. Yes, I agree with the bolded comment - just don't see why Watson et al has to be brought into everything. She's not the go to example of religious fundamentalist female-kind is she?

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Very much doubt it. Perhaps we're (women) more used to not rising to take the bait when sexist crap is thrown at us. However, we do all have a good go at a Mr Waters, so the vilification isn't restricted to just the one nonsense-spouting individual at least.

However - Mr Waters is a columnist on one of our major national newspapers and comments on a regular basis on issues which directly affect us as a nation and is, for many, a living embodiment of everything we find so distasteful about Irish society whereas Mz Watson is...an American blogger and podcaster who formed a splinter group within the Athiest 'community' and is subsequently brought up with increasing frequency across many threads on an Irish on-line forum for ridicule.

I have never seen Mz Watson namechecked outside of here - I have seen Mr Waters on my TV, suffered his opinion being openly disseminated in a national newspaper before I have even had my coffee and heard his whine coming out of my radio on a regular basis.

Obliq

This is true, unfortunately. And that picture of Waters the other day did me no favours either

Actually hadn't heard about Watson till I got to A&A. Unfortunately, she was brought up by some fella on Atheist Ireland the other day along with a big argument about Skepchick et al. Some men are extremely offended, seemingly, but haven't quite got the hang of letting go of this stuff, even when everyone agrees with them.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

[...] Mz Watson is [...] brought up with increasing frequency across many threads on an Irish on-line forum for ridicule [...]

Mz Watson's future appearances here in A+A will be limited to the A+ thread, and this thread may be merged in with it at some point too.

No point in unnecessary repeats.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Mz Watson's future appearances here in A+A will be limited to the A+ thread, and this thread may be merged in with it at some point too.

No point in unnecessary repeats.

Oh - there's more of it.
Shove the mouthy wimmenz away in the kitchen A+ thread.

LOOK EVERYONE - IT'S THE SEXISM INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!!!!




:pac:

robindch

^^^ Check your privs, dudelet or I'll whip out my mod-rod.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Check your privs, dudelet or I'll whip out my mod-rod.

Could you mansplain what that means?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Could you mansplain what that means?

I could, but you probably wouldn't understand.

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Check your privs, dudelet or I'll whip out my mod-rod.

Ha! Dudelet!!! mod-rod - even better!!

Tis all ye men want to talk about though - the mouthy wimminz :cool:

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I could, but you probably wouldn't understand.

But you are so amazeballs even I could understand if you mansplained it very very slowly.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But you are so amazeballs even I could understand if you mansplained it very very slowly.

Look, I already typed that last post as slow as I could and you didn't get it, amazeballs toted or not.

I rest my case, my rod and my staff lest I give thee comfort.

/thread

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Look, I already typed that last post as slow as I could and you didn't get it, amazeballs toted or not.

I rest my case, my rod and my staff lest I give thee comfort.

/thread

Would you like a sammich?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would you like a sammich?

Ham. Toasted. With beer. And me slippers.

I'll be inside watching the footie.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Ham. Toasted. With beer. And me slippers.

I'll be inside watching the footie.

No worries - I'll get started on the ground class right away. White or brown bread?

Your slippers are in the dog. Soz.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Your slippers are in the dog.

I'll wait til tomorrow then.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I'll wait til tomorrow then.

You really are amazeballs. :eek:

Cavehill Red

ninja900 wrote: »

UN universal declaration of human rights is a good place to start. Democracy cannot by itself protect minority rights.

I'm not suggesting that UN declarations are a bad thing. But ultimately they are no less human opinions than anything else. They aren't empirical.

condra

Obliq wrote: »

...Gotta say it seems like your hurting petal. Hope you feel better soon.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well it's not exactly 100% unrelated. a bit tongue in cheek sure but those a+ people can be pretty fanatical and hilariously unreasonable, not unlike religious zealots.

Yep, it was just a joke Obliq. I'm feeling vigorous, thanks. Sorry if I offended you petal.

Obliq

condra wrote: »

Yep, it was just a joke Obliq. I'm feeling vigorous, thanks. Sorry if I offended you petal.

:D Did that get moved to "THE SCHISM" ??!

sbsquarepants

condra wrote: »

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this whole kerfuffle in the "atheist community" in the last year or two.

There's your problem right there. The whole atheist community mentalty is extremely forced. It's like the european union - we aren't all one big happy family of europeans now, the majority of people still "feel" and think along nationalist lines, infact a large proportion even dispute their nationality!
As a defining characteristic for a "community" atheism is really piss poor. If all you have in common with another human being is that you are both atheists - then you have nothing in common with that person, hence the need to find other bonding characteristics like we're both feminist atheists, gay atheists, rock and roll loving atheists, or gay, rock and roll loving feminist atheists. It's only a matter of time before someone starts up atheists for jesus. It's ridiculous

Doctor DooM

Got to say I was one of the first people to have a good ol laugh at the A+ stuff, and guilty of bringing it up the odd time, but at this point I see many people beating many dead equines.

I do believe A+ is doomed to failure. I believe it's a online community being run to the whims of people who're determined to make it hospitable only to people they judge to be acceptable. They tout secular humanism but they practice everything but, and it will never work. The moderators don't seem to know how to manage a community. It's done, I think, and they don't even know it.

I do believe Watson should absolutely be ashamed of herself for equivocating the internet trollery she has faced (which I don't agree with, either) to the genuine horrific lives women all around the world still face. She belittles the cause she says she stands for and their struggles.

At this point though, I think she deserves to be starved of the publicity she so obviously craves and those of us who do expend energy working on whatever shared goals some of us have should go back to that. Elevator gate should have led to an interesting discussion, and perhaps a readjustment for some people as to how they behave in groups- perhaps- and that should have been that.

I don't see the need, for Thunderfoot's latest video (he'd be a fairly interweb-well-known atheist commentator, much like Watson herself). It's the same old argument and has stirred up the whole thing AGAIN, getting Matt Dillahunty involved too. The argument is now circular and you need to know when to walk away.

Obliq

Well said Doctor Doom. :cool: