"Atheism plus"?

orubiru

robindch wrote: »

There isn't really any such thing as the "atheist community" - nor is there a "skeptic community". Just people who hold atheist or skeptics beliefs, and who hold lots of other beliefs too.

I suppose you are right.

Qs

orubiru wrote: »

You forgot to mention Nazi and Alt-Right.

(Thunderfoot was against Bexit and against Trump as far as I know)

This is why Atheism Plus was a total failure.

The Atheist community could have easily focused on charity fundraisers, good PR and maybe a bit of playful mockery of religion.

Nah, let's call people things they are not because the Skeptic community definitely won't question it, right?

So you don't think he's either a misogynist or a racist? Or do you just not think he's alt-right or a nazi?

orubiru

Qs wrote: »

So you don't think he's either a misogynist or a racist? Or do you just not think he's alt-right or a nazi?

I'll be honest I haven't watched all of his videos. I like the ones where he debunks things solar roadways and the hyperloop.

I personally have not heard him say anything I would class as racism or misogyny but if you have something then fair enough.

I am fairly certain he is not Alt-Right or a Nazi.

I think he is unfair on Anita Sarkeesian to the point of almost seeming obsessed and I can't be bothered with that. He hates her and she most probably hates him and the internet drama makes them both a nice bit of cash.

I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that because he dislikes one particular woman then he must be a misogynist. Same for his criticisms of Feminism, Feminism does not necessarily reflect the views of all, or even most, women.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "misogynist"? Is Thunderfoot "a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women"?

Qs

I try to avoid watching him these days too as it clogs up my youtube recommends with him and other hateful reactionaries. I have seen enough though.

orubiru wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that because he dislikes one particular woman then he must be a misogynist.

Well there was Rebecca Watson too.

orubiru wrote: »

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "misogynist"? Is Thunderfoot "a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women"?

Well I'd say his views on rape fall very much into the category of misogyny. One could argue his views on gender essentialism qualify too. And then when you look at the viciousness and nature of some of his attacks on Sarkeesian they go way beyond reacting to her work and become very sexist among other things.

Side note, I think youtube atheists of all political beliefs get way too much credit for their take downs of Creationists. Its shooting fish in a barrel and yet so many of them resort to shouting and poor attempts at sarcasm.

At least he's not SOA, there is always that.

King Mob

orubiru wrote: »

What are you on about? MRA is Men's Rights Activist (or Advocate?).

MRA is common in short hand for the type of internet personality that vilifies feminism and feminists and other SJW types.

This is what I mean by the term what most people here understand it as.

If you don't like this term, then I apologise and suggest you take it up with the internet.

I have seen plenty of his videos and they do pander to that kind of audience, which on top of him focusing on nitpicking drama with other vloggers made me stop watching him.
Also his voice got grating after a while.

orubiru

Qs wrote: »

I try to avoid watching him these days too as it clogs up my youtube recommends with him and other hateful reactionaries. I have seen enough though.

Well there was Rebecca Watson too.

Well I'd say his views on rape fall very much into the category of misogyny. One could argue his views on gender essentialism qualify too. And then when you look at the viciousness and nature of some of his attacks on Sarkeesian they go way beyond reacting to her work and become very sexist among other things.

Side note, I think youtube atheists of all political beliefs get way too much credit for their take downs of Creationists. Its shooting fish in a barrel and yet so many of them resort to shouting and poor attempts at sarcasm.

At least he's not SOA, there is always that.

I feel though that Watson and Sarkeesian are individuals and so if Thunderfoot was ONLY targeting women then I'd be more open to persuasion that he is some kind of irrational woman hater. He has gone after men too though so we are kind of stuck with the fact that while he may indeed be a misogynist we simply cannot see any proof.

Also Watson and Sarkeesian are white women so we're stuck using different criteria to "Catch a Racist" than we are using to "Catch a Misogynist".

There's actually probably an issue there with trying to catch someone out rather then just looking at the arguments presented.

Again, it doesn't mean he isn't these things, I don't personally know the guy. We can say that we don't have sufficient evidence, I think.

These Youtubers do have private lives so who really knows what they are like when the camera or microphone is turned off?

I assume "SOA" is Sargon of Akkad and, again, I feel like there is more of a rush to label the guy where people could just take their time and form a measured opinion.

Let's be honest here, people who are Racist, Homophobic, Misogynist etc are not holding rational views and it's pretty easy to debunk them and point out the flaws in their arguments.

So there is a fundamental problem, I think, with throwing a label at someone in order to avoid listening to their point of view.

Have you ever watched Louis Theroux? In some of his documentaries he will expose the irrationality of white supremacists or christian extremists and it's plain to see on the camera. You know, the Westboro Baptist types and the swastika tattooed on their face types. They are very brazen with their prejudices and unapologetic about it.

There is nothing really about Sargon or Thunderfoot that implies they are openly Racist or Sexist etc which means that they are either quite good at hiding it or the labels people are putting on them are incorrect.

For example. Someone calling Sargon "Alt-Right" either doesn't understand Sargon or doesn't understand the alt-right or doesn't understand both.

Maybe a pretty good question is how well should you get to know someone before you put one of these labels on them? How confident should you be that the label is correct before you proceed with the application of that label?

orubiru

King Mob wrote: »

MRA is common in short hand for the type of internet personality that vilifies feminism and feminists and other SJW types.

This is what I mean by the term what most people here understand it as.

If you don't like this term, then I apologise and suggest you take it up with the internet.

So that's the extent of your argument, really?

"He's not an MRA but I'm calling him one anyway. Deal with it."

King Mob

orubiru wrote: »

So that's the extent of your argument, really?

"He's not an MRA but I'm calling him one anyway. Deal with it."

I'm not making an argument. I am not looking for an argument. I am simply explaining what I meant by my post. I misunderstood your question as a request for clarification rather than an attempt to pick a fight.

Thunderfoot went off the deep end and starting making videos railing against the evils of feminism and whining about internet drama. These types of videos are not my thing, so I stopped paying attention to him.
You can call that what you like.
I think "going full MRA" was a good short hand.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Thunderfoot went off the deep end and starting making videos railing against the evils of feminism and whining about internet drama. [...] I think "going full MRA" was a good short hand.

I'd have said that Thunderf00t was more of an anti-SJW than pro-MRA - or at least the original meaning of MRA and not the anti-SJW meaning with which it's used by SJW's.

Not that I'm too pushed one way or the other.

At a certain stage some years ago (and with the exception of Michael Nugent's excellent and much-needed, polite takedown of PZ Myers in 2015 or 2016) it seemed wisest to leave them all stew in each other's overheated juices.

Qs

orubiru wrote: »

I feel though that Watson and Sarkeesian are individuals and so if Thunderfoot was ONLY targeting women then I'd be more open to persuasion that he is some kind of irrational woman hater. He has gone after men too though so we are kind of stuck with the fact that while he may indeed be a misogynist we simply cannot see any proof.

Targetting some men (I'm not sure who he has targetted as much as those 2 BTW) is not proof that he is not a misogynist.

orubiru wrote: »

Also Watson and Sarkeesian are white women so we're stuck using different criteria to "Catch a Racist" than we are using to "Catch a Misogynist".

Being terrible to white women doesn't prove he isn't racist.

orubiru wrote: »

There's actually probably an issue there with trying to catch someone out rather then just looking at the arguments presented.

I have made my judgements about him based on his arguments. As I said above his views on rape and his gender essentialism are IMO misogyny.

orubiru wrote: »

Again, it doesn't mean he isn't these things, I don't personally know the guy. We can say that we don't have sufficient evidence, I think.

Just because you haven't watched enough of him to come to a conclusion doesn't mean others haven't.

orubiru wrote: »

These Youtubers do have private lives so who really knows what they are like when the camera or microphone is turned off?

Who cares what they are like off camera. We can see what they are putting out in the world.

orubiru wrote: »

I assume "SOA" is Sargon of Akkad and, again, I feel like there is more of a rush to label the guy where people could just take their time and form a measured opinion.

My opinion is measured. I have watched him and he is even worse than TF.

orubiru wrote: »

Let's be honest here, people who are Racist, Homophobic, Misogynist etc are not holding rational views and it's pretty easy to debunk them and point out the flaws in their arguments.

So there is a fundamental problem, I think, with throwing a label at someone in order to avoid listening to their point of view.

Have you ever watched Louis Theroux? In some of his documentaries he will expose the irrationality of white supremacists or christian extremists and it's plain to see on the camera. You know, the Westboro Baptist types and the swastika tattooed on their face types. They are very brazen with their prejudices and unapologetic about it.

This is a ridiculous line of argument. Most racists don't admit to being racist and probably don't even think they are racist.

orubiru wrote: »

There is nothing really about Sargon or Thunderfoot that implies they are openly Racist or Sexist etc which means that they are either quite good at hiding it or the labels people are putting on them are incorrect.

They have said numerous racist and sexist things. Watch there videos, there is plenty in them.

orubiru wrote: »

For example. Someone calling Sargon "Alt-Right" either doesn't understand Sargon or doesn't understand the alt-right or doesn't understand both.

You are the one who brought "alt-right" into this conversation. I called them racist and misogynist. SOA does agree with a lot of the alt-right platform though.

orubiru wrote: »

Maybe a pretty good question is how well should you get to know someone before you put one of these labels on them? How confident should you be that the label is correct before you proceed with the application of that label?

If someone puts out videos or social media posts offering their views on rape, immigration, gender roles, equal rights, police shootings, feminism, etc, etc and within those videos they expose views that are racist or sexist then yes I think its fair to call them racists and misogynists.

J C

robindch wrote: »

There isn't really any such thing as the "atheist community" - nor is there a "skeptic community". Just people who hold atheist or skeptics beliefs, and who hold lots of other beliefs too.

... you can say the same thing about a church community ... where you have people (nowadays often loosly) united on the dogmas of their faith ... but in every other way as diverse as they come.

However, their worldview, as informed by their faith, does make them quite cohesive on matters to do with their worldview ... and similarly, Atheists may well have all kinds of views, like you say ... but they will be quite cohesive about their worldview (and even about crticising other wordviews) precisely because their worldview is informed by their Atheism.

Anybody who spends 5 minutes on the A & A will see vary little argument over their worldview by Atheists ... even though they may have diverse opinions, across the spectrum, on many other things.

orubiru

Qs wrote: »

Targetting some men (I'm not sure who he has targetted as much as those 2 BTW) is not proof that he is not a misogynist.

Being terrible to white women doesn't prove he isn't racist.

I have made my judgements about him based on his arguments. As I said above his views on rape and his gender essentialism are IMO misogyny.

Yeah, and I can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I would point out to you here that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims.

For example, "most racists don't admit to being racist and probably don't even think they are racist". You are quite right. However, given that it's quite a serious thing to label someone "Racist", you should probably have some pretty solid evidence before making that claim.

A: You're a racist.
B: No I'm not.
A: See! That's exactly what a Racist would say!

Again, this highlights the problem with Atheism Plus. The expectation that people who generally demand evidence, and who will examine that evidence, will suddenly accept claims without any proof.

I find people who preach about Social Justice, Feminism in particular, can be extremely dogmatic and do not react well to critics or "non believers". This is fundamentally incompatible with Skepticism.

It really feels like many people are trying to push the idea that disagreement is somehow immoral and so the Skeptic who questions the tenets of Social Justice is branded and rejected without proper debate or discussion.

I tried to be reasonable and say that I don't know what these guys are like in their personal lives and I have not seen enough to prove that they are Racists and Misogynists. I am unlikely to ever think "well everyone is saying that guy is a racist so he must be".

I'll listen to the arguments and I'll make up my own mind. I will also be VERY suspicious of someone who makes claims without proof and then expects me to accept those claims because "trust me I know enough to know it's true".

So it's time for you to provide evidence for your claims. Let's see how strong your arguments are.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah the power of labels and peoples ongoing need to define themselves or others by them. It always leads to things like JC type posters making comments about how that label "informs their worldview" or other such nonsense.

For me I just know the EXACT opposite is true. I do not call myself a feminist because it is not what I am, and feminism does not inform my world view. I never call myself an atheist, because an atheist is not what I am, nor does atheism inform my world view.

Rather what others would identify as my atheism or feminism are informed BY my world view, and are the results of it. Not the other way around.

That is, I am someone who does not subscribe to claims that are made entirely devoid of substantiation. THAT is my world view and approach to life. Simple as. And GIVEN the quantity of evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to me........... suggesting our existence is the result of the actions of a non-human intentional and intelligent agent.......... is precisely ZERO......... it is my world view that leads me to that "atheism".

Similarly, aside from their obvious role in the reproductive process, I see no differences between men and women that are functionally relevant to anything at all. I see PEOPLE as individuals, not genders, each with their own individual strengths. As such the result of that world view is pretty much feminism, or at least feminism as it was meant to be which is the fight for equality between the genders so that women are treated no worse, but also no better, than men purely on the basis of their gender.

Feminism is not informing my world view, it is a result of it. Atheism does not inform my world view, it is a result of it. And both labels are labels I generally never ever use to describe myself, introduce myself, or identify myself.

Qs

orubiru wrote: »

So it's time for you to provide evidence for your claims. Let's see how strong your arguments are.

I've stated numerous times why I called thunderf00t a misogynist and you've ignored them and gone back to your argument about "labels", as if we shouldn't use language to describe things.

orubiru

Qs wrote: »

I've stated numerous times why I called thunderf00t a misogynist and you've ignored them and gone back to your argument about "labels", as if we shouldn't use language to describe things.

Have you? You've asserted that he is a misogynist but you haven't shown anything by way of evidence.

That probably seems daft at a first glance. Why demand evidence? At the same time though why call someone a misogynist if you can't back it up?

I am assuming we've just dropped the accusation of "Racist" at this point?

It's not a simple question of using language to describe things. Should we use incorrect or questionable language to describe things?

Let's not pretend here that we are simply using language to describe things. Yeah, if you say someone is "tall" then sure you are just describing them. You are using language that has connotations and when called out on it you are trying to squirm away.

PZ Myers accused Michael Nugent of "defending and providing a haven for rapists" and added that Nugent also "supports rapists" and is a "demented ****wit". This is just using language to describe things though, right?

No. It's unacceptable.

http://atheist.ie/2015/04/atheist-ireland-dissociates-from-pz-myers/

"He (PZ Myers) said that ‘the scum rose to the top of the atheist movement’, that it is ‘burdened by cretinous reactionaries’, that ‘sexist and misogynistic scumbags’ are ‘not a fringe phenomenon’, and that if you don’t agree with Atheism Plus, you are an ‘Asshole Atheist’. He agreed that science fetishism reproduces the ‘white supremacist logic of the New Atheist Movement.’ He said ‘I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement,’ which ‘has attracted way too many thuggish jerks, especially in the leadership’."

Just using language to describe things. Nothing to see here.

My argument about labels is valid. If you are going to use a label that has negative connotations to describe someone then you should be able to back that up when you are called out on it.

So it's time for you to provide evidence for your claims. Let's see how strong your arguments are.

robindch

Mod:

Folks, could we tone down the discussion a notch or two?

thanks.

- robin.

Qs

orubiru wrote: »

So it's time for you to provide evidence for your claims. Let's see how strong your arguments are.

I have said his views on rape and gender essentialism are misogyny. I am not going to go and find those videos for you. I don't have to prove anything to you, I am not trying to convert you to anything and I don't care if you agree with me.

orubiru

Qs wrote: »

I have said his views on rape and gender essentialism are misogyny. I am not going to go and find those videos for you. I don't have to prove anything to you, I am not trying to convert you to anything and I don't care if you agree with me.

Great. :rolleyes:

silverharp

Qs wrote: »

I have said his views on rape and gender essentialism are misogyny. I am not going to go and find those videos for you. I don't have to prove anything to you, I am not trying to convert you to anything and I don't care if you agree with me.

what did he say?

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

what did he say?

As far as I can tell he made a pretty clumsy statement about the Holocaust where the person he was talking to tried to catch him in a "gotcha" and he tried to get out of it by pointing out the technological advances made as an indirect result of the Nazis. I'm paraphrasing obviously but I'm not the one accusing him of being a Racist so the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

I think he also said some clumsy stuff about women taking precautions to protect themselves from assault. Comparing rapists to wasps or something stupid. I dunno. It WAS stupid. Again, not misogynist as such but if you (not you specifically) are desperate to reach for something...

At the end of the day if people are going to tell me that someone is a Racist or a Nazi or a Misogynist or whatever then I would consider those to be serious accusations that require proper evidence and explanation.

Furthermore, if Person A tells me that Person X is Terrible Thing Y and I go and look into it for myself and it turns out the claims are BS then my respect for Person A is affected by that.

I can't actually understand why people would risk their own credibility by going after certain Youtubers or Bloggers with wild accusations. PZ Myers is a great example.

silverharp

orubiru wrote: »

As far as I can tell he made a pretty clumsy statement about the Holocaust where the person he was talking to tried to catch him in a "gotcha" and he tried to get out of it by pointing out the technological advances made as an indirect result of the Nazis. I'm paraphrasing obviously but I'm not the one accusing him of being a Racist so the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

I think he also said some clumsy stuff about women taking precautions to protect themselves from assault. Comparing rapists to wasps or something stupid. I dunno. It WAS stupid. Again, not misogynist as such but if you (not you specifically) are desperate to reach for something...

At the end of the day if people are going to tell me that someone is a Racist or a Nazi or a Misogynist or whatever then I would consider those to be serious accusations that require proper evidence and explanation.

Furthermore, if Person A tells me that Person X is Terrible Thing Y and I go and look into it for myself and it turns out the claims are BS then my respect for Person A is affected by that.

I can't actually understand why people would risk their own credibility by going after certain Youtubers or Bloggers with wild accusations. PZ Myers is a great example.

it sounds like trying to misinterpret someone for your own gain. I notice Pewdepie is being pulled into such a battle at the moment, I think they "will need a bigger boat"

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

it sounds like trying to misinterpret someone for your own gain. I notice Pewdepie is being pulled into such a battle at the moment, I think they "will need a bigger boat"

I don't know if it's deliberate or if people maybe just go along with it because it's good to belong to a "team".

I assume the "left" and the "right" have the same tactics for getting people on their side and keeping them on that side.

I don't understand why it's not enough to just say "he's wrong" or "he isn't funny" and leave it at that.

No need to start spreading lies or misrepresenting people.

Qs

This is why I didn't bring you the evidence, it was obvious from your posts you would reject it anyway. Why waste my time arguing with people who've already made up their mind and wont change. If you watched his video about rape and you know his history of harassing women he doesn't like then how on earth can you decide he's not a misogynist? Who do you consider a misogynist?

pH

Qs wrote: »

This is why I didn't bring you the evidence, it was obvious from your posts you would reject it anyway. Why waste my time arguing with people who've already made up their mind and wont change. If you watched his video about rape and you know his history of harassing women he doesn't like then how on earth can you decide he's not a misogynist? Who do you consider a misogynist?

Yea in the same way that anyone who said anything mean about Maggie Thatcher is a misogynist.

Step 1: Define Harassing in the broadest way, not using a normal definition of the word. Basically being mean to, or critical of a couple of times in a public space is now 'harassing'.

Step 2: Decide because the person being 'harassed' is a woman the only reason this is being done is because the person doing it is a woman hating misogynist. Discount any similar examples of 'harassment' against men, the only reason you could be mean to a woman is because of misogyny.

Step 3: Display your own blatant sexism, that women are precious flowers, to be protected at all times from the rough an tumble of adversarial debate, maybe their poor minds aren't up to it? Or are they lacking the character of men?

robindch

Qs wrote: »

Who do you consider a misogynist?

Can't speak for pH, but I'd have said that a misogynist is somebody who denigrates or thinks less of a woman for the sole reason that she's female. Same as a misandrist is somebody who holds a lesser opinion of somebody for the sole reason that he's male. Or a sexist is somebody who thinks less of another human because they're one sex or the other. And a racist is somebody who does that on account of race.

For some reason, there isn't a word to describe somebody who thinks less of somebody else for the sole reason of religion. Heretic (thought crime) or blasphemer (activity-based crime) might fit the bill, but then again, every religious person must hold that belief to some extent about every other person who's not a member of their own chosen religion.

Cianmcliam

robindch wrote: »

For some reason, there isn't a word to describe somebody who thinks less of somebody else for the sole reason of religion. Heretic (thought crime) or blasphemer (activity-based crime) might fit the bill, but then again, every religious person must hold that belief to some extent about every other person who's not a member of their own chosen religion.

Sectarianism/Sectarian?

Qs

pH wrote: »

Yea in the same way that anyone who said anything mean about Maggie Thatcher is a misogynist.

Step 1: Define Harassing in the broadest way, not using a normal definition of the word. Basically being mean to, or critical of a couple of times in a public space is now 'harassing'.

Its not broad its ongoing ad hominem attacks on an individual. If he was just attacking her ideas it'd be fair game. He's not.

Step 2: Decide because the person being 'harassed' is a woman the only reason this is being done is because the person doing it is a woman hating misogynist. Discount any similar examples of 'harassment' against men, the only reason you could be mean to a woman is because of misogyny.

Nope. You take the broad scope of all thunderf00ts videos, social media, posts, etc and you can see a pattern.

Step 3: Display your own blatant sexism, that women are precious flowers, to be protected at all times from the rough an tumble of adversarial debate, maybe their poor minds aren't up to it? Or are they lacking the character of men?

So by not supporting attacks on women, or the idea that its their own fault when they get raped whats really happening is I'm not giving women due respect? :rolleyes:

Qs

robindch wrote: »

For some reason, there isn't a word to describe somebody who thinks less of somebody else for the sole reason of religion. Heretic (thought crime) or blasphemer (activity-based crime) might fit the bill, but then again, every religious person must hold that belief to some extent about every other person who's not a member of their own chosen religion.

Aren't they usually religion specific, Islamophobe, anti-Semitic, etc

silverharp

Qs wrote: »

Its not broad its ongoing ad hominem attacks on an individual. If he was just attacking her ideas it'd be fair game. He's not.



Nope. You take the broad scope of all thunderf00ts videos, social media, posts, etc and you can see a pattern.



So by not supporting attacks on women, or the idea that its their own fault when they get raped whats really happening is I'm not giving women due respect? :rolleyes:

I had a quick spin through TF's video list, he actually seems to be back to mostly science videos these days with the odd anti feminist video thrown in. I listened to about 2 minutes of the video that I think you are talking about and my initial reaction is that it seemed reasonable enough and certainly not some hate video against women. I would tell my own daughter what I think his message was going to be based on how it started.
Fake news is all the rage these days, my belief for now is that TF probably gets misrepresented either intentionally or not because he rattled the Tumblrinas cage a few years back and as we all know they are not the most rational bunch

robindch

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Sectarianism/Sectarian?

Qs wrote: »

Aren't they usually religion specific, Islamophobe, anti-Semitic, etc

Sectarianism and sectarian are close but they seem to be used to describe, for multi-sect religions, the hatred of members of one sect for members of another sect. For generalized hatred of members of one multi-sect religion towards another multi-sect religion, there seem to be only words which include the religion's name - there doesn't seem to be a general-purpose word which could describe what fundamentalist muslims feel towards christians, fundamentalist christians feel towards muslims, fundamentalist jews towards rastafarians and so on.

Seems an odd omission for something so common.

Bet the Germans have a word for it though.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Sectarianism and sectarian are close but they seem to be used to describe, for multi-sect religions, the hatred of members of one sect for members of another sect. For generalized hatred of members of one multi-sect religion towards another multi-sect religion, there seem to be only words which include the religion's name - there doesn't seem to be a general-purpose word which could describe what fundamentalist muslims feel towards christians, fundamentalist christians feel towards muslims, fundamentalist jews towards rastafarians and so on.

Seems an odd omission for something so common.

Bet the Germans have a word for it though.

there is a gap in the market alright, Ill check if there is a German term, they even have medical terms for afflictions that only Germans get, a very thorough people for sure :pac: