He will be sentenced later »« What Amish life is really like, by an eyewitness

What happens within the movement

Stephanie has a good collection of items in her post Within the Movement - items that are more than just “trolls on the internet.”

    • If announcing a conference about the role of women in secularism on your organization’s site is met with charges of misandry or comments on a report of the conference have to be shut down, with the problems coming from registered users, that happens within the movement.
    • If a speaker and writer hosts a discussion for about a year that is devoted to tearing down those who call harassment an issue, posting personal information and lies, tracking everything said or tweeted in obsessive detail, that happens within the movement.
    • If an atheist organization’s leader declares publicly that what you received couldn’t have been a real threat and uses that organization’s podcast to grossly misrepresent what you did receive, that happens within the movement.

And that’s only some of it.

Comments

  1. Rodney Nelson says

    Are you suggesting that Ron Lindsay is incorrect when he claims the “movement” is misogyny free?

  2. says

    Every movement is difficult with the internet so prominently intertwined with every aspect of its operation.

    If a speaker and writer hosts a discussion for about a year that is devoted to tearing down those who call harassment an issue, posting personal information and lies, tracking everything said or tweeted in obsessive detail, that happens within the movement.

    No, that is unacceptable behavior by people that associate themselves with ‘the movement’ and they are subject to laws covering defamation.
    Also, what movement are you talking about?
    I’m an atheist and a skeptic, but these are not ‘movements.’
    Addressing issues in the community is not a ‘movement.’

    Yeah, now that I think about it, what movement?

  3. says

    Sigh, did you read the article? It is my position, exactly, and that is that other ‘movements’ have the A+ territory covered already, and while Ron agrees with the philosophy and intentions of A+, he calls into question the need for A+, and warns of it dividing the atheist community at a time when progress has been occurring in these areas already.

    In fact, you should read some non-american blogs. The ones I have read, and I just came back from the

    Philippine Atheist and agnostic Society

    Plus and divide

    As you can no doubt already see, the issue of Atheism Plus will be divisive to the atheist community. In fact, the proponents of the movement are aware of it, and welcome the division. However, who they want to be separated against must be clarified.

    Here is Ron, on where the movement belongs:

    Contributing to this type of divisiveness is not a good thing, because it’s fostering divisions that are unnecessary and can be avoided; it’s fostering divisions that will weaken the secular movement; it’s fostering divisions that will allow the religious dogmatists to require a new lease on life. We’re arguing about who’s the true feminist while state legislatures are drafting bills restricting abortions.

    We should not cut ourselves off from fellow secularists who agree with us on core principles such as a woman’s right to be in control of her reproductive choices, to enjoy economic, social, and political equality, and to be free from harassment and hostility. If there are secondary disagreements about how best to secure these rights, we should try to resolve them through dialogue, not denunciation.

    I know what a movement is, FFS. Like I showed in my two posts awaiting moderation, there is no definition for atheism and skepticism, anywhere, that embraces ‘movement’ other than promotion of issues that relate specifically to atheism.
    Will you quit yakking about shit I already know, and admit to supporting, already?

    Address the issues of divisiveness, and the fact that feminism, LGBT rights and recognition, and racism, ARE ALREADY REPRESENTED BY MANY SECULAR SOCIETIES.

    Do you get it? Can you? Can you admit that A+ might not be a foolproof idea, and that it promotes the impression worldwide of divisiveness in the American Atheist community? That it threatens to achieve that division, while at the same time, claiming to not want to alienate other atheists?

    Do you understand these concerns? It seems that you exclusively of the opinion that the idea of A+ is firmly established and accepted, or at least will be.

    You types are threatening to divide the most important society to many of us, and your recklessness to avoid addressing these concerns as valid and important, your stubbornness to consider anyone elses concerns as unimportant, is the very effin thing that so called ‘accepting’ A+ers insist they are not doing.

    You accept other atheists???? Who the eff do you think you are kidding? You are in a position of needing everyone’s acceptance of you, not elevating your importance to the position of primary status, which audaciously implies that we have to accept your invitation to coexist, as if you are the ones that are taken seriously and authoritatively?

    You are not taken very seriously by anyone but yourselves, so get over it. You undermine your own stated intentions by behaving like self important spoiled brats. The very name of Plus directly implies ‘superior.’

    Don’t you get it? What I consider a movement is not the effin issue, so quit the red herring BS.

  4. Oh brother says

    The self-pity Olympics are in full swing I see.

    If announcing a conference about the role of women in secularism on your organization’s site is met with charges of misandry or comments on a report of the conference have to be shut down, with the problems coming from registered users, that happens within the movement.

    Or be subjected to the most vulgar sexual abuse. Or you might have people call for your firing. Or you might have them write to your place of work and try to cause trouble for you there. Or you might find yourself attacked and humiliated from a public podium for an internet disagreement. Or you might find yourself smeared as a shoe-obsessed ditz who just wants to please the boys…

    Oh, whoops. Got my facts wrong there. Those are the things you lot did. They’re what you directed at anyone who disagreed with the self-pity fest that’s been going on for a year.

    And let no one forget that for all the whining about ‘privilege’, this all started because Dawkins was fed up seeing a phenomenally well-off brat whining about being offered coffee, all the while ignoring the cruelty and barbarism visited on their sisters under Islam every day.

    I’ll let you get back to your hankies and tubs of ice cream now.

  5. davidmc says

    MikMik, Icany speak for anyone eelse, but i dont need everyones acceptance, least of all a blatherskites.

    “However, who they want to be separated against must be clarified”
    Please comment on that blog, it may give them a clue.

  6. davidmc says

    “The self-pity Olympics are in full swing I see.”

    And yet you are the one whining here,”mwaaa you started it” and you are the one seemingly in need of a hanky. boo hoo

  7. chrislawson says

    Oh brother, I don’t use the term lightly, but you’re a damn liar.

    “…this all started because Dawkins was fed up seeing a phenomenally well-off brat whining about being offered coffee, all the while ignoring the cruelty and barbarism visited on their sisters under Islam every day.”

    If you knew anything about the facts of the matter, you would know full well that Ophelia, PZ, Skepchick, and just about everyone who has ever blogged on FtB has a history of criticising Islamic practices that make women’s lives miserable. But, you know, why learn anything about someone before slagging them off?

  8. Gen Fury says

    Oh bother, 5

    [1]Or be subjected to the most vulgar sexual abuse. [2]Or you might have people call for your firing. [3]Or you might have them write to your place of work and try to cause trouble for you there. [4]Or you might find yourself attacked and humiliated from a public podium for an internet disagreement. [5]Or you might find yourself smeared as a shoe-obsessed ditz who just wants to please the boys…

    Oh, whoops. Got my facts wrong there. Those are the things you lot did. [6]They’re what you directed at anyone who disagreed with the self-pity fest that’s been going on for a year.

    I don’t suppose you could be bothered to provide some form of corroboration for your accusations, particularly 1 and 2?

    As for [3], yes, Greg Laden did that to Abbie Smith. It was a scumbag move which I absolutely do not agree with, widely decried by many and not okay.

    Satisfied?

    [4] Stef McGraw, seriously? Are you still on that?

    Suppose for sake of argument that that is exactly what happened and you are not Eliding a fuckton of context – does that justify the abuse RW has received since then?

    [5] Again with the Elisions. Stop doing that, it makes you look dishonest.

    [6] No no no. They didn’t get criticized because they were on the “wrong” side, they were criticized because their “arguments” were ridiculous, which is what you’d expect. If I made a ridiculous excuse for an “argument”, I sure as shit would like to know about it.

    It’s like telling someone they have dog shit on their shoes. I’d rather hear “Jesus Christ you got dog shit on your shoe and it’s stinking up the fucking place” and investigate whether it’s true that I have dog shit on my shoe than have everyone be all quiet and giving each other significant *looks* and never inviting me over to their house again because I smear dog shit on their carpet.

    Seriously, you don’t get to present half-truths and outright lies as the One Holy Truth and create a new truth. That’s pretty… religious of you.

  9. says

    “The most vulgar sexual abuse”? Seriously? You think Abbie Smith is the one who was subjected to the most vulgar sexual abuse? You’ve got that backward. She dishes it out, and encourages others to dish it out, and as far as I’ve ever seen she doesn’t get any.

  10. Rodney Nelson says

    Yes, Atheism+ is divisive. There’s the people who want to combine their atheism with social justice and those who don’t. If you prefer your atheism to be pure and unsullied by meaningless trivia like social justice, the you won’t join A+.

    Reading Ron Lindsay’s post and his later comment, it appears to me that what he’s really worried about is a new organization competing with his for money and participation. His complaints about A+ are too self-serving, particularly his insistence that while he supports social justice, it shouldn’t override his organization’s secularist agenda.

    My other objection to Lindsay’s comments is he’s ignorant about what’s happening in atheism/skepticism these days. He knows what’s going on inside his self-described movement, but atheism/skepticism is more than organized secularism. He’s unaware of the rampant rape and death threats, the objectification of women, and the sheer outpouring of hatred the rest of us have seen since Rebecca Watson uttered “guys, don’t do that.” But that ignorance hasn’t stopped him from pontificating about A+. CFI stands for “Center for Inquiry.” Lindsay didn’t do enough inquiring before he displayed his ignorance for all to see.

  11. says

    because Dawkins was fed up seeing a phenomenally well-off brat whining about being offered coffee

    From the same liar who argued the other day that Abbie Smith had said only one “nasty” thing.

    I’ll let you get back to your hankies and tubs of ice cream now.

    Totes not misogynist, nope.

  12. says

    Speaking of elisions, why does no one ever mention that Greg wrote to Abbie’s PI about a matter of professionalism? Abbie was publicly slagging off Jen’s scientific work–attacking Jen professionally.

    Keeping the professional and the personal separate is exactly the kind of thing a PI works with a trainee on. If someone isn’t clear that using science to go after someone personally is a big no-no by the time they get their PhD, they could be in big trouble.

    Also, who tried to get anyone fired, except for maybe Sara (she’s now declining to answer questions on what she was asking CFI to do)?

  13. footface says

    Quiet, everyone. Oh brother is talking. Go on, dear. Tell us all about it. As many times as you need, to get it out of your system.

  14. Aratina Cage says

    @mikmik

    the fact that feminism, LGBT rights and recognition, and racism, ARE ALREADY REPRESENTED BY MANY SECULAR SOCIETIES.

    Have you read the post here at Butterflies & Wheels titled, “Has it already been repudiated?“? Because the recognition only seems to extend so far until it trounces uncomfortably on the free speech of misogynists at which point it is ignored or shrugged off.

  15. Aratina Cage says

    @footface

    Quiet, everyone. Oh brother is talking. Go on, dear. Tell us all about it. As many times as you need, to get it out of your system.

    Heehee! The problem is that they never do shut up about it, here or there. Which is why it seems so obsessive. As if we didn’t hear them loud and clear the first time someone complained how much they didn’t like so-and-so and how much of a [insert sexist slur of your choice here] that person is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>