Credit where it’s due »« You said it yourself, you’re a writer, not a diplomat

In the world

Update: Yes I know she didn’t write it herself. She still has it on her About page.

Jaclyn Glenn explains about herself on the About page of her website.

With her sharp wit, good looks, and smashing sense of humor, Jaclyn Glenn has quickly become the new “it” girl in the atheist community. Her hit Youtube channel, JaclynGlenn has rocketed passed 200,000 subscriptions in no time flat and millions have been entertained by her quirky view of the world.

Even Richard Dawkins is unable to avoid her charm, as the king of atheism counts himself as a fan. She’s hot, she’s smart, she’s funny, shes’s off the wall, and she’s definitely NOT CRAZY! What more could you ask for?

As an L.A native, Jaclyn appears often on TV shows and is a popular speaker at local campuses. She is one of the main female spokespeople in the world for the atheist community, and when she’s not busy kicking Ray Comfort in the balls with Logic, she’s usually busy laying the smackdown on Muslim extremists, anti-gay bigots, and anyone else with an ignorant outdated dogma that needs to be crushed.

Be sure to check out Jaclyn Glenn’s Youtube Channel for some of the best entertainment to be found on the tubes.

There’s a lot I could say about that, but I’ll just say this one thing. It’s not true that she is “one of the main female spokespeople in the world for the atheist community.” No. That’s not true at all. She may well be one of the most popular, but that’s not the same thing. She’s not a spokesperson at all, because she’s not good enough at it. She doesn’t reason carefully enough, she doesn’t write carefully enough, she doesn’t speak carefully enough. Also, she’s not “in the world” enough to be one of the main female spokespeople in the world for the atheist community. My friend Taslima Nasreen is one of those, for sure. But Jaclyn Glenn? No. Not yet.

Comments

  1. says

    Even Richard Dawkins is unable to avoid her charm, as the king of atheism counts himself as a fan. She’s hot, she’s smart, she’s funny, shes’s off the wall, and she’s definitely NOT CRAZY! What more could you ask for?

    I… Oh, dear.

  2. Blanche Quizno says

    The first term describing herself: “She’s hot.” That’s all that matters in the manlymanosphere, and she knows it. She realizes that the only thing that gives her any standing in a misogynist patriarchal culture is being hot – and throwing other women under the bus. She could be saying absolutely anything – it’s like they’re the dogs in this Far Side cartoon: http://studyprof.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/far-side-what-dogs-hear-243×300.jpg

  3. karmacat says

    I don’t think serious speakers and thinkers describe their world view as quirky. just saying

  4. Matt Penfold says

    I am surprised that she get her head into shot using a standard webcam. She would seem to be so arrogant and big headed that a super wide angle lens is required.

  5. estraven says

    If that isn’t the most self-serving, back-patting, look-at-me, kinda thing I’ve ever seen . . . She’s perky! She’s hot! She’s in thrall to the guys who boost her self-esteem! Wooo! I don’t know about you, but I’m impressed as hell!

  6. screechymonkey says

    So sad seeing all of you so-called “freethought” sheeple who just want to worship your cult leader PZ… when you should be worshipping the KING OF ATHEISM!

    All hail His Majesty, Richard, First of His Name, Leader of All Independent Thinkers, Defender of Oppressed YouTube Shouters! May his honey jars be forever safe from confiscation!

  7. says

    I’m going to use this as a template for my about the author blurb.

    “With his sharp wit, good looks, and smashing sense of humor, John McKay has become the new “it” boy in the mammoth community. His hit blog, Mammoth Tales has rocketed passed three subscriptions in no time flat and dozens have been entertained by his insightful view of the world.

    “Even PZ Myers is unable to avoid his charm, and he hates everyone. He’s hot, he’s smart, he’s funny, hes’s off the wall, and he’s definitely NOT (entirely) CRAZY! What more could you ask for?

    “The Anchorage resident frequently appears in coffee shops and sleazy bars and is a popular speaker with himself, when he’s alone, as he so often is. He is widely recognized as the world’s leading authority on historical mammotholgy, a field he invented and is the sole practitioner of.

    “Did I mention how cute I am he is?”

  8. says

    Richard Dawkins is the king of atheism? And here I thought we were an autonomous collective…..
    (Actually I kind of did. And do. At least, I ain’t joining no kingdom.)

  9. aziraphale says

    Is it just me, or is Richard Dawkins looking seriously worried in that picture?

  10. yazikus says

    The Anchorage resident frequently appears in coffee shops and sleazy bars and is a popular speaker with himself, when he’s alone, as he so often is.

    John McKay, that was where I officially snorted. Thanks for the laugh.

    As far as calling herself one of the leading female spokespeople in atheism… Wouldn’t a better choice have been something like “one of the bright new stars” …? It just seems insulting to activists who have been working for years to make atheism a place that is safe and welcoming to women (and still working on this), that she is claiming that title and mocking feminism at the same time.

  11. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Unknown Eric is the leading spokesperson in the world for Unknown Eric. His charm, wit, and grizzled good looks have made him the it guy of the moment. He’s tappin’ that zeitgeist, droppin’ those phat beats, and gleamin’ the cube (starring Christian Slater).

  12. tiko says

    Three things:

    It’s telling that in her list of attributes hot comes first.

    she’s usually busy laying the smackdown on Muslim extremists, anti-gay bigots, and anyone else with an ignorant outdated dogma that needs to be crushed.

    Not anti feminists apparently

    Did she actually write that herself, I mean i’m all for people being self confident but that’s crossed the line.

  13. Todd Sampson says

    According to her, and I have no reason to doubt her, she didn’t write the section being quoted.

  14. Kelsi says

    Actually Dusty from Cult of Dusty wrote her bio. Do some research before posting crap like this.

  15. screechymonkey says

    “one of the main female spokespeople” (emphasis added)

    Why the qualifier? Why, oh why, can’t we judge spokespeople by their… uh, spokespersonship… rather than their gender? Glenn is clearly asking for special treatment based on her gender! One of those dastardly “gender feminists,” instead of the nice equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers and…. uh… somebody else?

    Or even.. dare I say it? A RADICAL feminist! J’accuse, Jaclyn! J’accuse!

  16. says

    What makes me cringe most, and calls to mind applicants for The Bachelor or 1960s’ flight attendants, is how the qualities accentuated are stereotypically feminine. Her “hotness,” her pleasing charm,… Her humor, intelligence, and boldness are presented as nonthreatening (quirky, directed at suitable others, off the wall) to “you,” the male atheist consumer. She’s eager to assure you that she’s “not crazy,” which you would otherwise expect from a woman. And she’s approved and endorsed by a powerful man. She’s everything you want. In 2014.

  17. monad says

    I love that in comment threads here, posters have gone out of their way to make sure Glenn is not demeaned as popular for a pretty face, even though that’s half of what she is being billed as.

    It reminds me of a movie: the principled people keep being principled, even when it only gets thrown back at them, because that’s just what principled people do. Good on y’all.

  18. Uncle Ebeneezer says

    She really IS the Ann Coulter of atheism. Willing to sell out and insult her fellow women, presenting terrible straw-feminist arguments and vitriol to an adoring group of males who applaud her bravery/looks.

  19. Charles Pekerman says

    She didn’t write this. Nearly every time I see this blog referenced anywhere it is usually a poorly made critique of something Jaclyn has said and done with a clear misunderstanding of what she is trying to say, or this time a critique of something that she didn’t even say. What exactly is this post attempting to achieve?

  20. yazikus says

    Actually Dusty from Cult of Dusty wrote her bio. Do some research before posting crap like this.

    Kelsi, did you even read the post? It is irrelevant who wrote her bio- the critique is not with that, but with the content of the bio.

  21. yazikus says

    I love that in comment threads here, posters have gone out of their way to make sure Glenn is not demeaned as popular for a pretty face

    Seconding this.

  22. says

    According to her, and I have no reason to doubt her, she didn’t write the section being quoted.

    I don’t doubt it, either.* But she posted it (or approved its posting) as the “About” page of her web site.

    * I would be very surprised if it wasn’t written by a man.

  23. says

    Yup, I knew that when I wrote the post – homework/research not neglected. I said she “explains” herself on her About page – I meant by posting that description there and keeping it there, not by writing it. It’s a terrible thing to post on one’s own website – it’s toe-curling.

    Hence the parody bios above, for which much thanks.

  24. John Kauffman says

    Jaclyn didn’t sic trolls on you. All she did was tweet this blog entry because it’s kind of funny. Do you realize how petty you come off? Address an issue you disagree with or something of substance. Not everyone has ‘taken sides’.

  25. yazikus says

    I’m sure this is all some big mistake. I mean, we all know how she abhors drama and infighting, right?

  26. Anthony K says

    Aka she’s sicced her trolls at me. Without reaching out to me!

    Such drama. It’s like Jaclyn Glenn hasn’t been listening to atheism’s latest ‘It’ girl.

  27. Michael Castro says

    I really don’t understand all this shitting on Jaclyn– is this what happens when someone criticizes “atheism plus”? Atheism is not supposed to have any dogma or tenets to be followed. How is the future of atheism basically turning it into another religion with set beliefs? Even if I believed in all the things claimed to be represented by the movement– How is this a good thing? It’s already confusing enough for the general public to understand what Atheism is, turning it into a belief system with built-in dogma (instead of simply responding to a belief) seems very counter intuitive.

    And I generally like free thought blogs, but it really seems like lately its just become an outlet to feed childish drama. Why should I care what Jaclyn Glenn puts in her “About her” page?

    *Spoilers* It’s a marketing game.

    This entire post was just one big Ad Hominem attack about Jaclyn Glenn– Where are the counter arguments to her position concerning “Atheism Plus”? Even if she mentioned you in a video and you want to respond… you did so in your last post. Leave it be. There’s nothing worse than seeing a bunch of adults who claim to be logical and rational resort to gossiping like school girls about someone they don’t like.

  28. Stacy says

    @John Kauffmann #32

    Address an issue you disagree with or something of substance.

    Do you realize Ophelia has done that? Several times? And so has PZ Myers?

    Glenn has never to my knowledge addressed any of their substantive criticisms. She just said, in effect, “Ooh, they’re being divisive–I’ma be totally not divisive and go after them again!”

    And this particular post clearly does address an issue Ophelia disagrees with. Ophelia points out that Glenn’s self-aggrandizing (yes, even if she didn’t write it herself) little bio is incorrect. Glenn is not “one of the main female spokespeople in the world for the atheist community.”

    That is an absurd claim. And an offensive one, when you consider the women (like the above-mentioned Taslima Nasreen) who have been atheist spokespeople for years, sometimes at great risk to themselves: women who can think and argue clearly; women who have accomplished things.

    A self-promoter who deals in strawpeople and hypocritical criticisms of serious divisions that she herself exploits is not in that league. Nowhere near it.

  29. blondeintokyo says

    I first ran across a few of her videos about a year, a year and a half ago. I thought she was inarticulate, unorganised, and her videos mostly amateurish and her behaviour like that of a young teen. I thought, “Good! This is someone younger people can identify with, and as she matures and learns, she’ll be able to cover these topics with more depth and nuance.” I still think that about her. She is still inarticulate, doesn’t understand nuance, and doesn’t have enough knowledge of the topics she speaks about or the logical reasoning skills necessary to cover them in a new or interesting way. She’s basically just repeating things she’s heard others say, and hasn’t analysed them thoroughly enough to make any original or interesting observations. She has a LONG way to go before she’s even a “rising star”, in my opinion.

    And if she wrote that blurb herself, we can add “over confident and arrogant” to the list.

    It’s also annoying that anyone would call Dawkins the “king of atheists”. I enjoyed his books and his BBC TV programs, but his refusal to admit he was wrong about the “dear Muslima” comment, and his support for her ridiculous video regarding the “rifts” (it was so, so, bad both in content and acting) has seriously made me reconsider my prior admiration for him.

    Everyone is flawed; no one is always right, and the sooner Jacquelyn realises that She needs to be smart enough learn from others and humble enough to realise she is lacking in both polish and knowledge, and honest enough to admit when she’s wrong, the sooner she might actually be able to call herself a rising star.

  30. Blanche Quizno says

    @18 Kelsi, you’re right. It IS crap. No self-respecting person would allow himself or herself to be described in such shallow, trivializing terms. But the “bio” DOES give us a rather insightful picture of the person in question, wouldn’t you agree? Mama always said, “Crap is as crap does.” Or something.

  31. Antonio Cabrera says

    lol she actually is one of the main spokespeople. there’s a reason she is one of the most popular, and i don’t think i have to spell it out for you.
    also i’m sure she does great work, but i’ve never heard of your friend. Jaclynglenn is one of the main people who enlightened me on religion and atheism. That’s one of the things she does. She’s also generally great at what she does. why are you attacking her?

  32. Jax says

    Fact check please. Dusty Smith owns the website and wrote that bio.

    While he probably would have changed had she wanted him to (implying consent); it’s far less vain than her writing it herself.

    Also, she’s a fine atheistic commentator. I won’t lie; her looks plus intelligence are quite attractive. But there are plenty of hot YouTubers I don’t watch. Why do I watch Jaclyn? Her content. I mean, I also watch Dusty, and I’m a straight male, so obviously at least some people watch these channels for content.

  33. jenBPhillips says

    I don’t really think it’s important who wrote the thing. If it’s the one and only description of her to be found in the ‘About’ section of her website, it’s logical* to assume that she approved the content, regardless of whether she personally authored it. As such, it’s so horrifically, laughably hyperbolic, authorship seems like the least important thing about it. If someone wrote such grandiose twaddle about me for my website, I’d object. I’m very quick to correct people who overstate my credentials, but perhaps I would feel differently if I were a young vlogger trying to make a living, I dunno.

    The jealously claim is just baffling, though. Is she responding to the (perfectly valid) objection that claiming to be one of the “main female spokespeople in the world for the atheist community” might be a tad insulting to those who have been spokespeopling since before vlogging was even a thing?

    *judging by the t-shirt logos in Jaclyn’s online store, logic is a valuable commodity in her circles.

  34. says

    Nope, she really isn’t. There are more than 7 billion people in the world; the US has only 300-odd million of them. Also, there really are other atheist spokespeople who are women, who have more experience and knowledge and record of publication than Glenn. Quite a lot of them.

    That’s not a putdown. She hasn’t had time to do all that yet. It’s just silly to pronounce a novice one of the World Greats.

  35. says

    Atheism is not supposed to have any dogma or tenets to be followed

    Then you literally have no reason for following Jaclyn, caring what she says about atheism or anything else, much less caring enough to defend her on some stranger’s blog.

    There’s nothing about not believing in gods that says that you have to tell other people that there are no gods.

  36. says

    Oh is that what the jealousy thing is supposed to mean? She thinks I think I’m one of the main spokespeople?? God no!!! The idea is laughable.

    No, no, no, I’m thinking of women with genuine claims to be that – global activists, that kind of thing.

    Not me. Good grief. How absurd.

  37. Stacy says

    lol she actually is one of the main spokespeople

    No, she actually is not.

    Also, fans of Jaclyn Glenn? Tell her to stop claiming we’re “demonizing” her. Criticism is not demonization. Nobody on this side is calling her “a sack of shit in a [person] suit” as her pal “Amazing Atheist” called PZ.

    And tell her to please address the criticism that’s been leveled at her, and to do so honestly. Nobody is jealous of her. She’s being disingenuous.

  38. says

    It isn’t an insult to say that Jaclyn Glenn’s bio is dishonest and egotistical. That’s just a statement of fact. She’s a mildly and only recently popular vlogger with nothing particularly interesting or remotely original to say. For the folks who say that got something from her videos, I have news for you: whatever good ideas she’s presented came from better thinkers who presented them better. There’s NOTHING about her that’s new or revolutionary, nothing that would make her any sort of spokesperson at all, let alone a world leader at the game. Has she written anything original worth repeating, created anything worth supporting, or taken her redundant message outside of her house?

  39. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Michael @37:

    There’s nothing worse than seeing a bunch of adults who claim to be logical and rational resort to gossiping like school girls about someone they don’t like.

    !

    PS Welcome to the girlie-gossip group, Michael!

  40. jenBPhillips says

    Ok, Joe, while that may well be true (I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t watched more than a few minutes of one video), I would hope that, given the collective efforts to have *not just* old white guys saying things about atheism and skepticism, we could welcome (at least conceptually) the idea that young people from different backgrounds might be more receptive to Jaclyn’s style than to some of the other old standards?

    I personally find such videos tedious and awkward, but I’m old and out of touch, so I’m willing to concede that it might reach other people who are looking for answers and might be less inclined to read “Breaking the Spell”, or whatever.

    Again, I completely disagree with a lot of what she says AND how she says it, and I am becoming increasingly squicked out by the actions of her supporters, BUT, I don’t think it’s implicit that young people shouldn’t get involved and say freethinky things that others might have said before, in a different format, for a different audience.

  41. Michael Castro says

    @SallyStrange

    Wait wait… because I am saying “Atheism is not supposed to have any dogma or tenets to be followed” (which it’s not), I have no reason to follow Jaclyn’s vlogs about Atheism?

    You’re saying that I (an atheist) have no business following blogs/vlogs about atheism– because one of the primary differences between religion and atheism is that atheism has no beliefs, tenets or dogma attached? I don’t mean to sound rude, but do you understand what atheism is? It is NOT a belief that there are no gods, it is DISBELIEF in a god/gods. Why would I not follow blogs that relate to subjects I’m interested in?

    And I am barely even defending Jaclyn here– I am pointing out that these posts are useless if they only consist of ad hominem attacks that don’t counter Jaclyn’s arguments about Atheism Plus.

    “There’s nothing about not believing in gods that says that you have to tell other people that there are no gods.”

    Is this statement directed toward Jaclyn? I don’t understand your point. Are you saying atheists should just not talk about religion? Atheists are in the minority BECAUSE people are afraid to discuss religion– In fact this is why Free Thought Blogs is a good place for skeptics and atheists to voice their opinions. Atheists don’t have to do anything besides not believe the claim that a deity/deities exist. But it’s very important for Atheists to have their voices heard and encourage believers to think about exactly what they believe and why they believe it.

  42. jenBPhillips says

    And I am barely even defending Jaclyn here– I am pointing out that these posts are useless if they only consist of ad hominem attacks that don’t counter Jaclyn’s arguments about Atheism Plus.

    Sigh. I guess you don’t know what ad hominem means.
    Also, this is Ophelia’s blog–she can pretty much write about whatever the hell she wants to. You are free to not read it if it doesn’t interest you, are you not?

  43. says

    jenBPhillips,

    I think it is important to differentiate “age” from “unique viewpoint”. You yourself mention “young people from different backgrounds” and I’d say that THOSE PEOPLE could potentially have more to say that Jaclyn Glenn has displayed so far. Her style isn’t unique, and her viewpoint is just parroting the same things we’ve heard a million times before. There’s a big difference between “hearing new voices” and “hearing new people adopt the same old voices” right?

  44. Michael Castro says

    @jenBPhillips

    My bad, I actually didn’t realize free thought blogs basically redirects to different individual blogs rather than a website representing all of free thought blogs. That’s why I was confused by the multiple posts on the same subject.

    But in terms of her ad hominem attacks– I would say an entire post that criticizes someone’s reputation and character as opposed to criticizing their arguments about Atheism Plus… is a pretty clear example of ad hominem. How is it not?

  45. Stacy says

    But in terms of her ad hominem attacks– I would say an entire post that criticizes someone’s reputation and character

    Who did that?

    Have you read the post you’re responding to?

  46. yazikus says

    as opposed to criticizing their arguments about Atheism Plus

    Michael Castro,
    I’ve watched the vlogs- and I am wondering where you saw any actual arguments about Atheism Plus? Like substantive, specific arguments. Just comparing it to stale, germy popcorn & bad movies doesn’t give much to work with.

  47. jenBPhillips says

    Michael Castro:

    I would say an entire post that criticizes someone’s reputation and character as opposed to criticizing their arguments about Atheism Plus… is a pretty clear example of ad hominem. How is it not?

    If something about her character were being attacked as a means of invalidating her argument, that would be an ad hom. The substance of her argument has been dismantled in many other posts, here and elsewhere. There is also a parallel discussion about her conduct and associations unrelated to the substance of the arguments put forth in her videos. These latter instances, in and of themselves, don’t constitute ad homenim.

    Joe:

    I think it is important to differentiate “age” from “unique viewpoint”. You yourself mention “young people from different backgrounds” and I’d say that THOSE PEOPLE could potentially have more to say that Jaclyn Glenn has displayed so far. Her style isn’t unique, and her viewpoint is just parroting the same things we’ve heard a million times before.

    Her style and viewpoint aren’t unique. I completely agree. My point is that some newbie atheists/questioners might well find her website or videos and respond to her (and others like her) presentation more readily than they would to some of the old guard–if they ever found them at all.

    I personally would prefer other voices and other media, would prefer it if she provided references and further reading ideas* as she went, and certainly would prefer it if she didn’t sling shit on feminists in the movement. These are all things to criticize, no doubt. I just don’t think the fact that she is doing videos to reach a different demographic to the ones that you and I belong to should be a liability, that’s all.

    *In my very limited exposure, I’ve only heard her mention ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’. Eep.

  48. says

    Wait wait… because I am saying “Atheism is not supposed to have any dogma or tenets to be followed” (which it’s not), I have no reason to follow Jaclyn’s vlogs about Atheism?

    Well, yeah. Why would you follow someone talking about nothing but the lack of belief in gods? How boring! Except I do expect that Glenn does talk about things besides the lack of belief in gods–things like how it’s not good to hate gay people, I suppose? But that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, which, as you noted, has no tenets to follow. One can be an atheist and hate gays or one can be an atheist and be an advocate for gay rights. Either way, it really doesn’t matter, right? Because atheism has no tenets and no dogma.

    You’re saying that I (an atheist) have no business following blogs/vlogs about atheism– because one of the primary differences between religion and atheism is that atheism has no beliefs, tenets or dogma attached?

    You just repeated yourself. See above.

    I don’t mean to sound rude,

    Why? Is there something wrong with being rude? I’m rude occasionally, when it seems warranted.

    but do you understand what atheism is?

    Ooops, I guess you failed at not sounding rude. What a mismatch between intention and action! Better look into that.

    It is NOT a belief that there are no gods, it is DISBELIEF in a god/gods. Why would I not follow blogs that relate to subjects I’m interested in?

    Your disbelief in X is no more a subject than my lack of interest in country music is a musical genre. You should follow blogs about subjects that you’re interested in. But the lack of belief in gods is not, technically speaking, a subject. Things that get discussed on atheist blogs are usually not atheism, per se, but about things that follow on from that premise. For example: since there are no gods, the claim that it’s wrong to be gay on account of the gods disliking gay sex and gay families is unlikely to be true.

    And I am barely even defending Jaclyn here– I am pointing out that these posts are useless if they only consist of ad hominem attacks that don’t counter Jaclyn’s arguments about Atheism Plus.

    Glenn didn’t actually make any arguments about atheism plus. And you clearly don’t know what “ad hominem” actually means. Simply remarking that a person’s self-description is objectively wrong isn’t an ad hominem attack. And you are defending her–not sure why that might be a bad thing either. If you like her, you like her. Why not own it?

    “There’s nothing about not believing in gods that says that you have to tell other people that there are no gods.”

    Is this statement directed toward Jaclyn? I don’t understand your point. Are you saying atheists should just not talk about religion?

    No, that is what YOU are saying when you get all insistent and proclamatory about the fact that atheism is merely the absence of belief and as such has no dogma or tenets. You just don’t realize that you’re saying this because you’re not so good at thinking things all the way through.

    Atheists are in the minority BECAUSE people are afraid to discuss religion– In fact this is why Free Thought Blogs is a good place for skeptics and atheists to voice their opinions. Atheists don’t have to do anything besides not believe the claim that a deity/deities exist. But it’s very important for Atheists to have their voices heard and encourage believers to think about exactly what they believe and why they believe it.

    Since it’s true that atheism has no dogma or tenets, it’s completely unclear why it’s a bad thing that people are afraid to discuss religion, nor why it’s important that atheists and skeptics have a space to voice their opinions. Nor why it’s important to encourage believers to think about what exactly they believe and why they believe it. There’s nothing about not believing in gods that compels you to encourage people to do critical thinking, or to give voice to a suppressed minority position.

    That’s your position, not mine.

    My position is that since “atheism” as a concept exists only because the world I live in is so thoroughly god-soaked, not believing in gods has many urgent moral implications for how I act in the world. I recognize, however, that it’s not atheism itself that gives the moral urgency I’m talking about, but other values and starting premises, such as “human suffering is undesirable” and “fairness is a good thing” and “truth is better than falsehoods.” Thus, I don’t concern myself with whether or not atheism has dogma or tenets, because it’s pretty obvious that the world’s existing dogma and tenets give rise to, modify, and are modified by the recognition of the fact that there are no gods. Thus, I don’t waste anybody’s goddamn time by wanking on about the fucking obvious fact that the lack of belief in gods has very little import in and of itself.

    TL;DR: it’s trivially true that atheism has no dogma or tenets, but who fucking cares? People have tenets and dogma, including atheists, and those are things worth talking about.

  49. jenBPhillips says

    Ophelia:

    Oh is that what the jealousy thing is supposed to mean? She thinks I think I’m one of the main spokespeople??

    Sadly, not even anything that substantial–judging by the comments of Dusty’s followers, you are jealous because you’re not young and hot like she is. Sigh.

  50. says

    Michael Castro – Stacy has a point. I really didn’t criticize Glenn’s reputation and character. I criticized her videos; I said she’s not good enough at speaking to be one of the main atheist spokespeople in the world. That’s a narrow claim – and it’s not even all that insulting, because how many people are good enough to be that? It’s a high standard! And she’s only just started. Maybe in time she will be that good. I said she isn’t yet, that’s all.

  51. says

    jenBPhillips,

    I don’t think she’s trying to reach a new demographic. I think she’s trying to be popular by saying the same damned thing everyone else says to the same people who already agree with those ideas. I guess I could contrast her with Steve Shives on YouTube, who does multi-part, hours-long dissections of Christian apologetics books, and invites Christians to follow along if they own the books. She’s doing “they’re stupid and we’re awesome, here’s some strawmen arguments! And also fuck those feminists with more strawmen!” videos, and he’s doing “Here’s a step-by-step refutation of a legitimate Christian apologetics experts, with extended direct quotes and my commentary”

  52. jenBPhillips says

    I guess I could contrast her with Steve Shives on YouTube, who does multi-part, hours-long dissections of Christian apologetics books, and invites Christians to follow along if they own the books.

    And again, while that would appeal far more to me than her style, it’s not entry level material that’s likely to capture new atheists. As quality-filled as it may be, there are very few millenials who are going to plug in and sit through that right out of the gate.

    She’s doing “they’re stupid and we’re awesome, here’s some strawmen arguments! And also fuck those feminists with more straw men!”

    Is she doing that with all of her content? I’ll have to take your word for it, but my cursory understanding was that most of her videos were straight-up atheist.

    Again, although her particular style and content is certainly fair game for criticism, I object to the idea that she shouldn’t be allowed because she’s not original. She’s just starting out, right? She’s starting from a premise of being raised in a devoutly Catholic home and “finding” atheism as a young adult. Voices from that kind of background for her generation are not worthless.

  53. Michael Castro says

    @Stacy

    “She’s not a spokesperson at all, because she’s not good enough at it. She doesn’t reason carefully enough, she doesn’t write carefully enough, she doesn’t speak carefully enough. Also, she’s not “in the world” enough to be one of the main female spokespeople in the world for the atheist community.”

    How is this adding anything more to the Atheism Plus discussion? This is only criticizing the person arguing against Atheism Plus. I’m not even disagreeing with what Ophelia is saying about Jaclyn– I just don’t see how this is furthering the discussion. It is only criticizing how Jaclyn describes herself (whether or not she wrote the blurb). This does not seem productive when the whole backlash to the video is about Jaclyn’s views regarding Atheism Plus. If people do not believe Jaclyn’s views are accurate of the movement are accurate, I would genuinely like to hear the other side argued.

    @yazikus

    Jaclyn is clearly arguing against Richard Carrier’s “you’re either with us or against us” mentality when promoting the movement. This is why jaclyn calls it “divisive” and criticizes people who feel atheists need to agree on every aspect on “atheism plus” at risk of being shunned. The popcorn/movie club analogy is arguing– just because I am an atheist and am in favor of social justice and equality… why does atheism need to frankenstein-ed together with these social justice issues and made into a new version of atheism?

    Any of these points can be countered rather than mining her “about me” section of her website.

  54. says

    How is this adding anything more to the Atheism Plus discussion?

    Again, I have to ask: what A+ discussion? If you exclude the title of her next-to-last (I think, at this point) video, “Atheism+ and Pussies,” I know of nothing that Glenn has said directly on the subject of atheism plus (I know little of her oeuvre in general, so please let me know if she has). I suppose the be-wigged fool she was playing in that video was meant to stand as a sort of metaphor for atheism plus, but it’s not clear how or why or what she thought she was saying with it. Pretty shitty way to discuss atheism plus. Doesn’t seem like anyone is actually discussing that subject. Jaclyn Glenn’s poor understanding of feminism, on the other hand…

  55. says

    I have to admit, I’m glad that I joined the broader discussion of which this is a part back before the Slymepit even existed, so I understand/remember most of the details and evolutions that have occurred over the years. I feel kind of sorry for Glenn (and many of her supporters here) who are under the impression that her straw feminism that she attacks is reality in any way, or that Atheism+ is this awful bunch of haters who want to “derail” movement atheism. They seem to have been told things that fit with their general preconceptions and misunderstandings, and rather than sit back, listen, and learn, they are giving in to the impulse to open their mouths and confirm their status as fools.

    Jaclyn Glenn is just the latest in the the chain of fools, but one need not be forever a fool. I saw Ashley Miller reaching out to her in private via twitter; hopefully something useful comes of that. Unfortunately, there is a strong motivation in terms of positive self-esteem from fans & well known figures (like Dawkins) and possibly even a monetary one as well (youtube ads? Idk), so it might be hard for Glenn to back away from these public pronouncements, even if she does ever come to understand how mistaken they are. And that would be a shame.

  56. says

    I object to the idea that she shouldn’t be allowed because she’s not original

    Allowed to do what, by whom?

    Criticism =/= totalitarianism

  57. yazikus says

    and criticizes people who feel atheists need to agree on every aspect on “atheism plus” at risk of being shunned

    Okay, Michael Carlton, in good faith, which aspect of atheism plus do you think that Jaclyn disagrees with? Do you feel she clearly argued against any aspects in the aforementioned vlogs? And not just the ‘you are with us or against us’ attitude, but actual aspects of the movement?

    And as for shunning? Really? Who has been shunned for disagreeing with A+? Really it seems like the A+ proponents are the ones who were shunned.

    As for ‘mining’ her “about me” section… Reposting the whole thing and commenting on the aspect that she considers herself a ‘one of the leading female spokespersons’ for atheism ‘in the world’… Well, I think that if she wants to claim that she should be able to back it up.

  58. Michael Castro says

    @jenBPhillips

    I agree– I may have been mistaken, but this post being made shortly after Jaclyn’s response video was posted– I assumed this post was trying to add something to the Atheist Plus discussion. Therefore, by pointing out how Jaclyn is not an experienced speaker, writer, and thinker (in regards to reason), I didn’t see the relevance to her anti-atheist plus argument. For a good argument can still be presented by an inexperienced speaker/writer/thinker– and it should be able to stand on its own regardless of who it’s coming from.

  59. jenBPhillips says

    Allowed to do what, by whom?

    Criticism =/= totalitarianism

    WTF? Yes, I’m aware.

    “Shouldn’t be allowed” is a figure of speech that’s used fairly frequently around here. I’m all for criticism. I object to the specific criticism that she shouldn’t be *listened to* solely on the grounds that “whatever good ideas she’s presented came from better thinkers who presented them better. There’s NOTHING about her that’s new or revolutionary, nothing that would make her any sort of spokesperson at all, let alone a world leader at the game. Has she written anything original worth repeating, created anything worth supporting, or taken her redundant message outside of her house?”

  60. says

    Michael Castro @68:

    For a good argument can still be presented by an inexperienced speaker/writer

    This brings us back to: what good argument did Glenn present in her video? Ophelia pointed out some poor ones. I’ve yet to hear a compelling defense of something/anything “good”.

  61. jenBPhillips says

    I agree– I may have been mistaken, but this post being made shortly after Jaclyn’s response video was posted– I assumed this post was trying to add something to the Atheist Plus discussion.

    I respect you for admitting your mistake. FYI, there is a lot of history here. Jaclyn Glenn is a relatively new contributor to contentious discussions about sexism in the atheist/skeptic movement that have prevailed for the past three years.

  62. Michael Castro says

    @yazikus

    First off– the “you vs. us” objection is a pretty big criticism, so I’m not sure why we’re pretending like it’s not a valid argument. Even if I generally agreed with most of what the movement is about, why should I have to identify with a movement associated with atheism that has tenets I must follow, when that’s exactly why I don’t follow religions and am an atheist in the first place? It seems like a strange place to take the future of atheism. Jaclyn also has issues with the more radical feminist views in the movement, saying that she’s for gender equality, but doesn’t want to be a part of a movement that is voicing more extreme feminist objections in the name of social justice. This is what the first video that caused the uproar was about.

    Regardless of how clearly you feel these arguments/criticisms were explained– people must have understood what she was saying, otherwise why would people who disagree have caused such a backlash?

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207

    “So speak out wherever you see these two sides at loggerheads, and voice your affiliation, so it’s clear how many of us there are, against them. And this very much is an us vs. them situation. The compassionate vs. the vile. You can’t sit on the fence on this one. In a free society, apathy is an endorsement of villainy.”

    This certainly sounds like people who disagree with atheism plus will be shunned.

    And my only objection to mining Jaclyn’s “about me” is if this is supposed to discredit her objections to Atheism Plus. Otherwise, go for it– criticize how she promotes herself. To me, it just seemed that this post was somehow related to Jaclyn’s response video– to which I don’t see the relevance.

  63. Michael Castro says

    @MrFancyPants

    The point of that sentence was theoretical. I was saying that a good argument has nothing to do with a good writer/speaker. A good argument stands on its own. Writing that Jaclyn is an inexperienced speaker and writer should have no bearing on any arguments she makes.

    Even if you personally don’t think you heard any good arguments in her video, I was pointing out that this post was only discussing Jaclyn as a person and had nothing to do with anything she said about atheism plus.

  64. Michael Castro says

    @jenBPhillips

    Yeah that’s what it seems. I only recently have been catching up on the drama. I haven’t figured where I stand on what’s been happening just yet, but I’m looking for good interactions on Atheism Plus to decide. I really would like to see a face to face discussion between atheists for and against Atheism Plus. So far it seems like everyone is talking past one another on the issue.

  65. says

    Michael Castro @72:

    Even if I generally agreed with most of what the movement is about, why should I have to identify with a movement associated with atheism that has tenets I must follow, when that’s exactly why I don’t follow religions and am an atheist in the first place? It seems like a strange place to take the future of atheism.

    Any even semi-organized movement is going to have tenets that you are expected to agree with. Movement atheism has traditionally embraced skepticism towards mythological claims and superstition, for example. If you can’t be expected to be skeptical when faced with supernatural claims then you’re not going to make a very good (or welcome) atheist. You don’t have to identify as atheist if that bothers you.

    Atheism+ is simply a recognition that movements that bring people together need to treat all those people with some kind of uniform, basic respect, across not only gender and gender-identity but also racial boundaries. It’s not exactly revolutionary. This is a problem throughout society; it is not limited to movement atheism. Universal problems are universal (of course), so (of course) eventually those problems would manifest in the growing atheist movement, and they did several years ago in a big way.

    Most people are fair-minded, I’ve found. It should bother you that at conferences for atheists, so often the panels are largely white, and male. Wider representation leads to more inclusiveness and understanding. Ultimately, that’s the bulk of what Atheism+ is seeking. Obviously you don’t *have* to agree with that, but (imo) you take away from your own growth as a nonbeliever and human if you reject those ideas.

  66. PatrickG says

    @ Michael Castro:

    I’m still at work, but if you’d like I can dig up all sorts of people at FTB telling Carrier, at the time of his post, that his with-us-or-against-us post did not represent their position. Heck, you can find people disagreeing in the comments section of what you linked!

    While I certainly agree with his central point that people who are actively working against human rights should have no place in the atheist movement (because irony, if nothing else), he tied it to a specific endeavor in a way that opened opportunities for dishonest people to frame feminism/A+ as dogmatic and exclusionary.

    You know, kind of like what you’re doing. She wasn’t “clearly” attacking Carrier’s position, she was attacking all feminist atheists, at least by my reading (listening?) of her videos.

    In short, if Glenn wants to criticize Carrier for that post, sure, fine, go for it. Criticize him, specifically. To tar an entire community of people because of one blog post written quite a while ago now… well, that just smacks of deliberately stirring up DRAMA.

  67. yazikus says

    Michael Castro,
    Thanks for responding thoughtfully.

    I guess I don’t consider treating my fellow humans equally and trying to advocate for those that are disadvantaged (my interpretation of the A+ ethos) as ‘tenets’ that I would be forced to follow, I just see that as my chance to make the world a more equitable place. If joining a movement (or in reality, what resulted in a forum) chafes you, then by all means, don’t join, but otherwise I would hope that you are still working to advocate for equality. I wasn’t really around for the whole A+ beginning, and am not a member, but I do think that the idea is an honorable one.

    Jaclyn also has issues with the more radical feminist views in the movement, saying that she’s for gender equality, but doesn’t want to be a part of a movement that is voicing more extreme feminist objections in the name of social justice

    I wonder though, which ‘more radical feminist views’ she objects to, specifically? Because what people were criticizing her first video for was it’s lack of substance, it didn’t actually provide any of the views that she doesn’t agree with, because what she was characterizing was not actually representative of A+.

    Saying you are for ‘gender equality’ does not disagree with feminism, in almost any of its forms.

    And yes, Carrier may have had strong words, but really, has anyone been shunned except those who were promoting A+?

  68. says

    For the record: what, exactly, is an “extreme feminist objection” ? The only ones I know of are those put forward by TERFs, and most of us (and Atheism+ folks) reject those out of hand.

  69. Michael Castro says

    @MrFancyPants

    I agree that being a skeptic makes you a stronger atheist– but people can also not believe in a god(s) for many other reasons. Including reasons that aren’t very well thought out (i.e. “it just sounds dumb, of course I don’t believe in god”), but that doesn’t make them any less of an atheist. Sure, one day they may use the same weak reasoning that made them an atheist to convert to theism… and that will certainly be a cause of their lack of skeptical reasoning. But I do not agree that this makes them ‘not welcome’ as an atheist. Atheism is just the position on a single question “Do you believe in a deity/deities?”… how you arrive at atheism is irrelevent. Atheism is not about skepticism– but skepticism near 100% of the time leads to atheism.

    Going from Atheism to Atheism Plus is adding new beliefs that need to be held in order to be a part of the movement. And of course my values align with the equality and inclusiveness in the movement– I’m basically hesitant to join a movement where leaders such as Richard Carrier and Rebecca Watson have slightly more extreme views on how to achieve equality. And I really don’t like how most arguments for Atheism Plus seem to frame it that if you’re not part of the movement then you hate women/are a bigot/racist. It’s almost like a guilt tactic to sign up. I don’t see why this social justice movement can’t exist separate from Atheism. It makes as much sense to me as a social justice movement that also doesn’t believe in leprechauns. One is describing an advocate for equality, while the other is a position on a fantasy character. I guess, overall, my opinion on the movement is– why can’t it just be a meetup group? Why does it need to be attached to Atheism. I’m not entirely against the idea, I just don’t see the point yet.

  70. yazikus says

    I’m basically hesitant to join a movement where leaders such as Richard Carrier and Rebecca Watson have slightly more extreme views on how to achieve equality

    Would you mind clarifying which ‘slightly more extreme views on how to achieve equality’ Rebecca Watson has espoused? Other than the old ‘Guys, don’t do that’, which comes across as pretty milquetoast, and not that extreme.

  71. says

    I’m basically hesitant to join a movement where leaders such as Richard Carrier and Rebecca Watson have slightly more extreme views on how to achieve equality.

    To that point, one thing that we here at FtB (and I suspect in the wider Atheism+ crowd) is a disbelief in so-called “leaders”. There are people who were important in getting A+ off the ground, but there is nobody–and I do mean nobody–who is the “leader”. Richard Carrier doesn’t speak for me; in fact, I don’t read or follow him. He doesn’t speak for anyone but himself, to be honest. I certainly don’t expect you to adhere to whatever he might say. I’m curious, though: in what way is Rebecca Watson “extreme”, in your opinion? I find her to be a very mainstream and largely uncontroversial thinker when it comes to feminism.

    I really don’t like how most arguments for Atheism Plus seem to frame it that if you’re not part of the movement then you hate women/are a bigot/racist.

    Well, when you come to understand that the framing beliefs for A+ are inclusiveness for people of color, women, and transgendered folks, then if someone says “Atheism Plus is a bunch of pussies” then surely you can see how that would be considered misogynist & bigoted. It’s not a “guilt tactic” to say that bigoted speech is bigoted.

    I guess, overall, my opinion on the movement is– why can’t it just be a meetup group? Why does it need to be attached to Atheism.

    I tried to already answer this, so I’ll quote myself: “…movements that bring people together need to treat all those people with some kind of uniform, basic respect, across not only gender and gender-identity but also racial boundaries. It’s not exactly revolutionary. This is a problem throughout society; it is not limited to movement atheism. Universal problems are universal (of course), so (of course) eventually those problems would manifest in the growing atheist movement, and they did several years ago in a big way.”

    You may not feel excluded, and you may think that those who do should just form their own little clique (or meetup group). But that simply is not right or fair. It wasn’t fair when black people were granted “separate but equal” living spaces, and it’s not fair now when people of color, women, and trans-folks are implicitly excluded from taking part by a culture that considers white+male to be the normative experience.

  72. jenBPhillips says

    Hi Michael:

    I’m basically hesitant to join a movement where leaders such as Richard Carrier and Rebecca Watson have slightly more extreme views on how to achieve equality. And I really don’t like how most arguments for Atheism Plus seem to frame it that if you’re not part of the movement then you hate women/are a bigot/racist.

    Aside from the one post Richard Carrier made, which as PatrickG pointed out, was roundly criticized by lots of FTBers, what other arguments are you referring to? And what, precisely is extreme about the ideas that Rebecca Watson has put forth.

    Do me a favor–if you haven’t already seen it, read this: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/

    That post was the ‘germ plasm’ of A+. I’m linking to it because from what you’ve written here, I’m deducing that you are getting most of your information about A+ from people who don’t like the idea of it. Hopefully you will agree that a card carrying skeptic would be best served by going to the source material and making up his or her own mind. Even if you don’t agree with the tenets, I think you might be surprised by how ‘unextreme’ they actually are.

    Disclaimer: I do not identify as a “member” of Atheism Plus. I thought it was a good idea, but I’m really not a movement atheist, and I do my social justice thing independent of atheism. However, for people who *want* to establish a space within the movement that is safe and inclusive for nontraditional (i.e. non-white, non-male) atheists whose social justice activism is more closely linked to their atheist activism, it seems like a fine idea. I hasten to add that even though I am not part of the group, per se, I still align ideologically with those values much more so than with Dawkins, Penn, Shermer, et al.

  73. Bjarte Foshaug says

    She is one of the main female spokespeople in the world for the atheist community

    I’m just glad that I don’t belong to the atheist community™ for which she is a spokesperson…

  74. screechymonkey says

    Yes, I’d really like to know why people who are so upset by the idea of Atheism+ because they think it somehow misappropriates “their” atheism aren’t pissed off by people proclaiming themselves “atheist spokespeople.” Or
    “Global Secular Council thought leaders” or whatever.

  75. Tessa says

    JenBPhilips:

    I wonder though, which ‘more radical feminist views’ she objects to, specifically?

    and

    And what, precisely is extreme about the ideas that Rebecca Watson has put forth.

    THIS! Please Michael Castro come back and answer these.

    I also want to agree with MrFancyPants’s sentiment above regarding leaders. I really dislike anybody telling me who my leaders are. And I’ll become instantly sour to anybody proclaiming themself to be a leader. And this includes “thought leaders” *shiver*

    I might respect someone, and even agree with a lot of what they say… but what’s with this desire to impose some sort of hierarchy on people?

  76. PatrickG says

    It makes as much sense to me as a social justice movement that also doesn’t believe in leprechauns.

    Or, you know, a social justice movement that doesn’t believe atheists should be discriminated against. Shouldn’t join that either, I guess!

    Seriously. Your position has some logical issues.

  77. says

    I still have difficulty seeing any of the complaints about Atheism Plus as honest. I mean, I can see Avicenna’s. But that’s not one other people are making.
    Even that criticized post of Carrier’s was, in my opinion, pretty mild. Tamer than most of the ‘deeper rifts’ comments I’ve been seeing for a while both around here and on Twitter. The ‘us’ being people who are for reason and compassion and integrity, I believe it was, and the ‘them’ people who actually oppose that.

    Anyway, it certainly seems like Michael Castro dropped in on the wrong post for what he wants to argue. As others already pointed out, there were other posts directly criticizing the video.
    But I’m also one of those wondering just what arguments Jaclyn actually made, as well as what horrible things either Watson (not an A+ supporter that I’m aware of) or Carrier have made. I haven’t seen anything that’s not pretty mainstream humanism and/or feminism.

  78. says

    Natalie Reed was a huge critic of the “with us or against us” attitude, as well. I myself directly addressed in a thread I started on the A+ forums.

    I’m still aligned with A+, although I no longer use the label. However, my reason for not using the label is actually absurd when you think about… I don’t actually know what the label would be: A-Plusser? Plusser? Something else? That said, I think the values as outlined here are wonderful and I agree with all of them.

    We are…
    Atheists PLUS we care about social justice,
    Atheists PLUS we support women’s rights,
    Atheists PLUS we protest racism,
    Atheists PLUS we fight homophobia and transphobia,
    Atheists PLUS we use critical thinking and skepticism.

    Basically, I’m an atheist, but I’m also more than that. I care about issues effecting atheists, but I also care about more issues than that.

    I also consider my current Socialist/feminist worldview to be a consequence of my atheism. And frankly, I just refuse to align myself with people who don’t think we need social justice.

    Really, Michael and others, maybe y’all should read the A+ FAQ. Hopefully that’ll answer most of your questions.

  79. Z says

    Even that criticized post of Carrier’s was, in my opinion, pretty mild.

    AFAIK, he edited it after receiving flak, so you may have seen the edited version. Anyway, the point is that McCreight envisioned Atheism+ as a subgroup/splinter/child movement, while Carrier’s post indicated that he wanted a replacement/overtaking of the atheism movement. This fed into the paranoia of people who tend to see feminists trying to control them and impose some unspecified “dogma” on them. Hence comments like the one I saw a few days ago on this blog or somewhere else on FtB – that Atheism+ was “that crap McCreight wanted to shove down our throats”.

  80. Tessa says

    Z:

    AFAIK, he edited it after receiving flak, so you may have seen the edited version. Anyway, the point is that McCreight envisioned Atheism+ as a subgroup/splinter/child movement, while Carrier’s post indicated that he wanted a replacement/overtaking of the atheism movement. This fed into the paranoia of people who tend to see feminists trying to control them and impose some unspecified “dogma” on them. Hence comments like the one I saw a few days ago on this blog or somewhere else on FtB – that Atheism+ was “that crap McCreight wanted to shove down our throats”.

    It was the “When you let assholes be the public face of atheism, it’s no wonder we have a bad reputation” post on Pharyngula that hadthat comment you quoted. Funnily enough, that same commenter in that same comment said something that could be taken as very atheist plussish. But he meant it the exact opposite. It was:

    The ONLY political agenda atheism has or should have is protecting the rights of atheists.

    I agree totally with that once you remember that some of us atheists are women, or gay, or people of color etc… Shouldn’t those atheists have their rights protected too?

    Of course, he didn’t mean it like that.

    That wasn’t really relevant to this conversation, but I found it amusing.

  81. John Morales says

    Michael @79:

    I agree that being a skeptic makes you a stronger atheist– but people can also not believe in a god(s) for many other reasons. Including reasons that aren’t very well thought out (i.e. “it just sounds dumb, of course I don’t believe in god”), but that doesn’t make them any less of an atheist.

    Also including “I see the negative effects that religion has on society, so I became an atheist.”

  82. rorschach says

    I note Glenn sells “Hitchslap” t-shirts. The man must be spinning in his grave so fast you could run a small city from the heat generated. Her scrambled poorly presented poorly thought-out poorly researched word salad clips, hastily assembled to feed a crowd of shallow thinkers while displaying a classic case of Dunning-Kruger herself, are so far from anything Hitchens has ever produced in his worst hour with his worst ever hangover it is not even funny.

    And I also note that she can be seen posing proudly, with arms around the gentleman’s shoulders(you can find the photo easily), with Richard “Dear Muslima” Dawkins and Lawrence “she looked 19″ Krauss. The company you choose. And the things a chill girl has to do to be recognised by those old white males who still consider themselves the leaders of an already defunct and on its deserved deathbed movement.

  83. says

    @Michael Castro

    I am pointing out that these posts are useless if they only consist of ad hominem attacks that don’t counter Jaclyn’s arguments about Atheism Plus.

    As has been pointed out she made no arguments against or about A+. If your guess it was about Carrier is correct then again as pointed out it is a strawman. That post by him was immediately rejected by the majority. He has never been on the atheism plus forum and has come under very strong criticism by A+ for his “rape scenarios” post. So NO ONE I know on the forum would call him the “leader” of A+, not to mention they’d not call anyone a “leader” as it’s non-hierarchical. Obviously this is a difficult concept for you, what with your chronic fanboism. You demonstrate your abject ignorance of the thing you are criticising, much like your friend Glenn. Then this to drive the nail in…

    leaders such as Richard Carrier and Rebecca Watson

    Rebecca Watson, IS NOT AN A+ MEMBER FFS. She wrote one post on it basically saying “meh”, her right, although according to you by the tenets and dogma set down by our other “leader” Carrier we should have shunned her completely for that post. Her view was that we should focus on Secular Humanism and fixing Humanism but she wasn’t going to object to it if other people wanted to give it a go.

    Scanning up the thread I can maybe see two or three people who have posted at the forum and might call themselves A+, like I do. Ophelia does not identify as an A+’er afaik. In fact she has had her own battles with people on the forum criticising her. I’ve criticised some of her posts from time to time, I tend to be a little on the wishy washy liberal side when it comes to critique of Islam, although she’s spot on 99% of the time. Some A+ members may well have decided not to read Ophelia’s blog any more due to those disagreements. However you’ll note plenty here also standing up for her and reading her blog! Weird eh, almost like that “hivemind” characterisation of FTB and A+ “with us or against us” is a massive strawman spread by “critics” who have no valid criticism.

    I personally find it very disheartening that a new, popular, vlogger like Jaclyn would do so little actual research into such a contentious topic. That you would charge in here with just as much misconception and lack of understanding as well. This is a divisive topic, Jaclyn has sowed a whole lot more divisiveness and drama with her ill informed video. That she then decries “drama” and “divisiveness” is staggering hypocrisy. I hope the quality of her output improves, dramatically.

  84. says

    In true A+ form I’d like to point out I think the term “chill girl” is sexist, describing grown women as “girls” is not on. So I formally shun Rorshach and all their works for eternity!

    Or maybe I can break from the official “A+ dogma” and just settle for pointing this out and either having Rorschach and others agree and stop using it. Or disagree and carry on using it as a term of disparagement with me slightly non-plussed (ho ho!) but not sufficiently arsed to make a big deal out of it?

    [This just in: The official oligarch of A+, MyersPZCarrierWatsonSTALINNAZI!, has just informed me I too have been ex-communicated from atheismplus by failing to be sufficiently judgemental. Ca va et ca vient!]

  85. rorschach says

    I personally find it very disheartening that a new, popular, vlogger like Jaclyn would do so little actual research into such a contentious topic. That you would charge in here with just as much misconception and lack of understanding as well. This is a divisive topic, Jaclyn has sowed a whole lot more divisiveness and drama with her ill informed video.

    Clicks equal money, isn’t that how YT works? And I’m sure that tactic is working just fine for her right now. I think it is actually much more disheartening how very few of her subscribers seem to realise that her last 2 videos contain basically no valid argument, and are instead full of hypocrisy, contradictions and barely disguised appeals and clues to and for her club of male fans from the shallow part of the social justice decent human being prepared to study a subject before pontificating on it pool.

  86. rorschach says

    In true A+ form I’d like to point out I think the term “chill girl” is sexist

    I will except that and not use it again if that’s what people think. I used the term as we used it to describe Abbie Smith 3 or 4 years ago, because Glenn does remind me of her in many ways.

  87. says

    Her hit Youtube channel, JaclynGlenn has rocketed passed 200,000 subscriptions in no time flat

    I just thought I’d mention something – 200K sounds impressive, but in YouTube terms, it really isn’t. Also, it is more relevant how many people watch her videos. A lot of people subscribe to channels without watching the videos. A quick glance, shows me that her videos usually have around 70K views, which is a decent number, but not impressive.

    Compare it to YouTubers like Rosanna Pansino, who makes videos about making nerdy themed cakes and who usually get 1 million views (and has 2.5 million subscribers) or TotalBiscuit, who make videos about computer games and get 200K views (1.7 million subscribers).

    And isn’t Pharyngula still getting around 2.5 million hits per month?

  88. says

    I really do hope someone will explain at some point exactly WHAT these “more radical feminist views” and “more extreme feminist objections” actually ARE instead of just repeatedly and emptily invoking the adjectives.

    WHAT is so radical? WHAT is so extreme?

    Specifics please. Just saying “the radical extreme views” is not an answer. Just saying “Atheism plus” is not an answer. Just saying “feminism” is not an answer. Just saying “radical extreme Atheism plus feminism” is not an answer.

    WHAT, exactly, are you all talking about?

  89. deepak shetty says

    I think the about page was an attempt at humor that falls flat – rather than something that was meant to be read as literally true. Its meant to be a bombastic , hyperbolic description and I wouldnt read too much into it.

    There was a time we would all joke about Dawkins being the pope of atheism – which was funny , till we found out that some people literally believed that he inherited the Popes infallibility (without even speaking ex cathedra!). Thats why king of Atheism doesnt sound funny to us anymore..

  90. tonyinbatavia says

    That’s what I want to know. Seriously.

    I have become a strong feminist. I would love to keep myself in check by taking in and considering well thought-out essays and articles and blog posts (and even, eek!, videos) about feminism that present views that differ than mine. Might my feminist views be truly extreme? If so, I need to rethink my views. Might my feminist views actually cause damage? If so, I need to find ways to fix that.

    But none of this is that. This is all vapid and thoughtless and reactionary and senseless and blunderful. It appears to be nothing more than a fight to retain perceived power within a movement.

    So, I am with Ophelia in calling for specifics. What specifically is extreme? What specifically is doing damage? Who specifically is being damaged and in what ways? In what specific ways is anti-feminism preferable? In what specific ways is anti-feminism less extreme or radical?

    Oh, and remember: When providing specifics, straw is your enemy.

  91. A Hermit says

    “…when she’s not busy kicking Ray Comfort in the balls with Logic, she’s usually busy laying the smackdown on Muslim extremists, anti-gay bigots, and anyone else with an ignorant outdated dogma that needs to be crushed.”

    Well, Ray Comfort is old news and was never more than low hanging fruit to begin with so, meh. And if I want to see someone dealing with Muslim extremists I’ll look to folks Maryam Namazie and Taslima Nasrin; you knwo people who have actually faced down the mullahs. Same goes for the anti-gay bigots; there are plenty of LGBT activists who can tell me more about the issue than some privileged LA vlogger, not to mentjh=ion my own LGBTQ friends and relatives.

    And I’ve been an agnostic/atheist (PLUS a doubter a freethinker a humanist and yes a feminist) longer than Ms Glenn has been alive, so I don’t think I need to look to her for advice or leadership.

  92. Andrew Taylor says

    This article is total trash. You’re opinions can suck it. This website is awful with its software-circumventing pop-ups. You’re a bad person.

Trackbacks

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>