The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

[somedumbguy]

SNIP
Look, the basic problem we pitters face is that the word "feminism", though it has a very broad meaning, is widely interpreted by the general public as what we generally call equity or equality feminism (meaning equal rights for men and women, equal opportunity etc.)
To complain about "feminism" negatively affecting atheism and skepticism and you are off to a bad start. You are forced to go into a long winded explanation of the type of radical feminism you mean, all the while the FTB crowd are saying "but we are not rad fems, we are just ordinary feminists!"
SNIP

A lot of people seem to be saying "let's not debate Peezus about it because he'll just lie."

WTF. That's the response to Vacula's A+ challenge all over again.

This is kind of frustrating in a way because it must look hypocritical, but people did try very hard to reason with the FTB crowd immediately post elevatorgate . There was a lot of head shaking and disbelief at how they were behaving. That's how the original Slymepit started, as a thread for people disgusted with what they were being subjected to by the baboons, and with the treatment given to Steff McGraw and others. Pitters' cynicism about PZ Myers is borne of experience. Your complaint would only hold water if Justin Vacula had shown any propensity for arguing in bad faith. Have you seen any indication of that?

Okay, here it is.

You can debate one or two feminists one specific statements they have made.

But you cannot debate any feminist in general on feminism in general. And here, cannot means "it is impossible" and cannot means "it's a trap". And the reason for that is NAFALT.

Yes, it is basically a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You cannot debate any feminist in general on feminism because for any issue X you wish to raise, they are not those feminists that do X. Those are other feminists, not true feminists, feminism doesn't do that. If feminism ever did X, it was long ago, and those feminists are gone or dying out or were even wrong. But today's feminism, the feminists you are debating don't do X.

This is true for all issues X.

It is a corollary to the Feminist Central Cockup. (FCCK).

The Feminist Central Cockup works like this.

(FCCK): Feminism stands for everything, feminism stands for nothing. This is an empirically determined cockup and it is from induction of the pattern,

For any issue X in the uncountable set of Feminist Issues That Are Important (FI), you can find feminists that believe X is empowering, and feminists that believe X is oppressive, and you can find feminists that believe X one day and ~X the next day.

So for any issue X, once you find feminists that disagree with X on you through statements you can document they have made, you can debate those feminists on issue X. You do run the danger that they have somewhere else stated ~X.

But for all issues X, you cannot in general debate any feminist on X. Because FI is uncountably infinite, the chance the feminist you will debate holds X beliefs for the beliefs you want to debate the ~X position on is vanishingly small.

The feminist will win the debate by throwing down the NAFALT trump.

You want to argue ~X, but they agree with ~X, and furthermore, no true feminist believes in ~X.

You think I am bullshitting you, but here is a canonical example: Heather McNamara, Zinnia Jones' partner, is here to tell you that

TRUE Radical Feminists are not transphobic

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones ... ansphobia/

Now, perhaps you were thinking rad fems are of course transphobic, and perhaps contemporary fems are not transphobic. WELL YOU LOSE. NOT ONLY ARE contemporary feminists not transphobic, but NOT EVEN TRUE RAD FEMS are transphobic.

Those that are, are not true rad fems.

To wind up this extra stupid long argument, I'll reiterate:

Due to the Feminist Central Cockup, in general, you cannot debate a feminist on feminism.

Corollary: you can debate specific feminists on specific statements they have made.
Corollary: you might be able to debate an intellectually honest feminist on feminism, if you have a good documented sense of feminist history. And good luck finding an intellectually honest feminist.

[somedumbguy]

SlymePit Caption contest.

Recaption this cartoon using PZ, Greg Laden, Rebecca Watson and Thimbledick, or any FTB or A+ blogger of your choice.

http://i.imgur.com/XX0jN.jpg

(originally from: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/0 ... E87FD0EA#1)

[BannedAid]

I was just reading Adam Lee's propaganda piece on Atheism+ from a few months back. I don't know how he typed some of this with a straight face:

The groundswell of enthusiasm for Atheism+ shows that the idea tapped into a widespread sentiment within the atheist community.

And then A+ died in its crib 2 months later.

The other major complaint is that A+ is fostering a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us attitude among its adherents. This, too, is easily disproved by perusing the A+ forums and discussion threads.

Alternatively, he could've suggested perusing Richard Carrier's infamous CHUD blog. Or PZ's "I want deep rifts" blog. Or the A+ forum post suggesting they all pack up and move to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Anywho... thought some of the rest of you might enjoy looking back with Adam Lee on those halcyon days when A+ was just getting warmed up to transcribe some youtube videos and conquer the world.

[rayshul]

Oy! The issue wasn't shoes, it was blowing $ching when you'd just done a fundraiser for medical expenses!

Anyway.

I noticed the change in the feminist tide to, and the sudden surge of people going yey rape culture is totes a thing. These were people who'd previously laughed at way out feminist crazies. Something horrible has happened. Maybe it's brainworms.

[dewi666]

Oy! The issue wasn't shoes, it was blowing $ching when you'd just done a fundraiser for medical expenses!

The shoes did not bloody well help her case though.

[surreptitious57]

I think the following quote, from PZ echo chamber, where a user is responding to someone mentioning Thunderf00t s latest video, says quite a bit about the low capacity for independent thought present at Pharyngula and other associated places :

I did not watch more than 5 seconds of that. The scare quotes told me all I need to know. Thanks

Wow, refusal to even hear the opposing viewpoint. Surely that strengthens your own ability to critically analyze and come to your own conclusions, right ?

You know, it is that sort of mindset that puzzles me. I have sat through entire speeches and lectures from all sorts of fools: race realists, actual misogynists arguing that Islam has a holy right to circumcise girls, creationists, 9 / 11 truthers, Obama birthers, chemtrail watchers, white separatists and fundamentalists of both Islam and Christianity, and never once did I find it to be a waste. Each time I listened to this sort of shit I learned something about rhetoric, about propaganda, about the fears of various peoples, about the origins of bad arguments and bad critical thinking and about new applications of skepticism. Just going oh, he is a bad person! I must take someone else s word and ignore so I do not have to think for myself would not have taught me a damn thing

You are bang on the money here, bitheretic and I agree with you a hundred per cent on this. Critical thinking - which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of both Freethought Blogs and Atheism Plus is the natural default position for any skeptic and for obvious reasons too. But they should in all honesty remove that from their advertising, for it is seriously lacking on those sites. One is never going to learn anything if the criteria for doing so is only to surround oneself with those one likes. Give me a room full of individuals who think nothing like me anyday. I would gladly sit down with Lucifer himself - were he to actually exisdt - and engage if I thought he had something interesting to depart and with no qualms either. A skeptic must never turn anyone away. Only when an idea has been falsified and absolutely so, too can it be disregarded but until then it demands respect. This is so basic it should not even have to be mentioned

[sacha]

is this what is called a "not-pology"?

totally different reasons.png

(28.65 KiB) Downloaded 326 times

[sacha]

what do I win for laughing at this?

hahaha!.png

(44.51 KiB) Downloaded 322 times

[DownThunder]

Troll score:

http://cdn02.cdnwp.celebuzz.com/wp-cont ... 00x450.jpg

[Sheogorath]

I think the following quote, from PZ echo chamber, where a user is responding to someone mentioning Thunderf00t s latest video, says quite a bit about the low capacity for independent thought present at Pharyngula and other associated places :

I did not watch more than 5 seconds of that. The scare quotes told me all I need to know. Thanks

Wow, refusal to even hear the opposing viewpoint. Surely that strengthens your own ability to critically analyze and come to your own conclusions, right ?

You know, it is that sort of mindset that puzzles me. I have sat through entire speeches and lectures from all sorts of fools: race realists, actual misogynists arguing that Islam has a holy right to circumcise girls, creationists, 9 / 11 truthers, Obama birthers, chemtrail watchers, white separatists and fundamentalists of both Islam and Christianity, and never once did I find it to be a waste. Each time I listened to this sort of shit I learned something about rhetoric, about propaganda, about the fears of various peoples, about the origins of bad arguments and bad critical thinking and about new applications of skepticism. Just going oh, he is a bad person! I must take someone else s word and ignore so I do not have to think for myself would not have taught me a damn thing

You are bang on the money here, bitheretic and I agree with you a hundred per cent on this. Critical thinking - which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of both Freethought Blogs and Atheism Plus is the natural default position for any skeptic and for obvious reasons too. But they should in all honesty remove that from their advertising, for it is seriously lacking on those sites. One is never going to learn anything if the criteria for doing so is only to surround oneself with those one likes. Give me a room full of individuals who think nothing like me anyday. I would gladly sit down with Lucifer himself - were he to actually exisdt - and engage if I thought he had something interesting to depart and with no qualms either. A skeptic must never turn anyone away. Only when an idea has been falsified and absolutely so, too can it be disregarded but until then it demands respect. This is so basic it should not even have to be mentioned

Principles so simple even a medieval god botherer could grasp them.

The philosopher Pierre Abelard wrote one of the first modern works on logic, Sic et Non (Yes and No) about 1130. Almost 900 years later, it's still relevant. Abelard laid down four basic principles of reasoning:

Use systematic doubt and question everything
Learn the difference between statements of rational proof and those merely of persuasion
Be precise in use of words, and expect precision of others
Watch for error, even in Holy Scripture

[Skep tickle]

This is addressed to surreptitious57; others may well find it TL;DR. (surreptitious57, you seem to be wagging your finger at "both sides" in the post I've chopped up below, though perhaps for different reasons; I've replied as if that's the case, but if I erred in my interpretation either just ignore, or set me straight!)

I have just signed it now. An excellent petition though it probably shall come to nothing but even so

Rocko's petition ends, "We ask that those in the groups named above [Skepchick.org and FtB], and those associated with them, return to the community’s roots of critical thinking and the respectful free exchange of ideas."

Those organizations aren't governments, nor do they have some particular power to grant a request, so this looks like the use of a petition as an attempt to exert moral authority. Do you agree, then, that rocko's petition expresses a view of moral or correct behavior that FtB/Skepchick participants needs to "return to"? (If not, why did you sign?)

I look forward to the day when atheists can come together and engage in critical thinking without all the other nonsense too. And both sides are guilty of this - no one has a monopoly on respect here. This is what is detracting from serious discussions on important issues.

Just because a number of people at FtB/Skepchick/A+ have essentially said "you're either with us or you're against us" doesn't mean there are 2 "sides" and a neat divide. There are several axes on which people differ in this situation, I think.

Willingness to examine one's stance or approach, and those of people one generally agrees with, seems more obviously lacking among people participating at FtB/Skepchick/A+. If you've noticed, here people appear to feel free to question or challenge one another's approaches or positions, even though there is also agreement expressed ("haha great photoshop" or "hey Al, great video!" kind of thing).

Presumably FtB/Skepchick/A+ see themselves as engaging in rigorous critical thinking, and think that people who disagree with them aren't. (For example, the accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" made against me by a mod at the Atheism+ forum, when I questioned the 3 claims in the petition to remove Justin Vacula, was apparently made with a straight face. Stephanie Zvan seems to think she is an awesomely sharp critical thinker; "I need better opponents", for example. Dillahunty's video rebuttal to Thunderf00t, for another, claiming massive dishonesty but then failing to show a single example of dishonesty.) This is just so crazy - so antithetical to critical thinking.

But you're also commenting on "respect". First, skeptical inquiry doesn't require respect, though the interaction may be nicer with it. Second, when one respects the approach one's discussion partner is taking it seem likely that respect for the person is likely to follow. When you hear lack of respect from people who have the critical thinking part down, I suspect it's usually because they've tried the rational approach, have gotten nowhere, and out of frustration use insults etc. Finally, don't discount the power of parody and humor to highlight hypocrisy; that's how Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert rake in the big ratings and big bucks.

It is rather antiquated thinking to deny one an opinion merely because they once referenced something you disagree with. The emotional exchanges are damaging any serious attempt at understanding and adopting an entrenched position appears to be de rigeur.

Yes. Do you have specific examples in mind from here? (I have my own several examples to believe you that it happens at FtB/Skepchick/A+ as a routine; I'm not aware of having developed an opinion because of something "they once referenced" that I "disagree with".

Disagreement seems to be viewed differently here (and in every other skeptic community I've been involved in) than at FtB/Skepchick/A+. There's a very difference in attitude toward people asking questions, presenting information, challenging assumptions, and so on.

This is what it has become and it is driving away many neutral observers who would otherwise be accepting of engaging with others and this is a sad indictment on the online community.

And...? People should roll over and accept the new overlords?

Frankly, if it drives people to engage more IRL, in their own communities, I can't see it as a net negative. ("Net" negative, heh.)

I'm not worried about people who identify as skeptics; AFAIK we're pretty tough (goes with the territory of not being so personally invested in your beliefs, AFAIK), and there's alot to be skeptical about in any arena of modern life. I do wonder a bit about tender new atheists who are just emerging from the cave of religion, and the effect it might have on them to try to find out more about atheism and inadvertently stumble into the middle of a war.

I am referencing the general tone here rather than particular individuals as that is not my modus operandi.

If you don't like the tone, you don't have to come here or to any site where you know these skirmishes are taking place. That's not a way of saying "go away", it's simply pointing out that that is, of course, a choice you can make.

You can also continue to chastise people here for their tone, words, and photoshopped pictures. In which case, I have a link to offer for reading - would have to go look for it, but it's a great piece on the use & role of the slime pit's no-holds-barred approach. (Which has, I think, softened in recent months, with an influx of new members; I for one miss Commander Tuvok's prior usual greeting when some new people would join: "Fuck off, wankers", I believe it was.)

I listen to anyone and everyone. For me it is not who you are, but what you say that is the determining factor. I do not take sides for that reason and regard myself as an independent thinker, though do not profess to have any great insights. Sometimes I get it right and sometimes I get it wrong. But I have seen those for whom always being right appears to be the natural default position and that is it - end of. This is about as far from skeptical thinking as one can get. I hope all the nonsense ceases to be at some forseeable point in the not too distant future, but I will alas, not be holding my breath on that one, sad to say. I will meanwhile in my own insignificant way, engage with all comers, as I have been doing so, and attack only their arguments and not them.

Um, okay. So you're Switzerland, congratulations. :D

Have you tried engaging people in discussion at Pharyngula or Skepchick or Atheism+, "attack[ing] only their arguments and not them"? If so, how did it go?

I do not demand or expect others to do likewise as I have zero moral authority to do so.

No, no, no. You SHOULD be able to demand & expect these things.

You said, near the start of your post, "I look forward to the day when atheists can come together and engage in critical thinking without all the other nonsense too." If you and one or more other people who agree they value critical thinking are in a discussion, you DO get to "demand or expect" that they attack the argument and not the person, that they not hold irrationally to a discredited position, and most of the other things YOU said above that you expect of yourself, and value.

This isn't exerting some baseless "moral authority", it's simply holding the discussion, and discussant, to the basic standards of critical thinking and skeptical inquiry. It's pointless to EXPECT critical thinking yet feel you can't CRITIQUE the other person's facts or argument.

But the divisiveness is not healthy for the community and that is an undeniable fact and if it did stop, it would be far better for it and absolutely so, too.

Does that count as a "great insight"? Are you right, or might you be wrong? (see your own comments above) ;)

I am pretty sick of it too, but find it hard to stop rubber-necking. And I'm not sure I'm willing to say it's clearly unhealthy for the community; it's uncomfortable, but might turn out to be a really useful shake-up + elucidation of pitfalls to avoid, including celebrity worship.

I do however urge everyone here to sign that petition for it cannot have enough signatures in my opinion, so please do so. Thank you

See my questions at the start regarding your reason for supporting this petition.

[Skep tickle]

Found that reference. It's Rational Ugandan from 7/2012, Letter to the Slime Pit, posted here for those who haven't read it before (particularly those who have concerns about some of the tone & language used in the 'pit).

For those who want the Cliff Notes version, here's a chunk from near the end that sums up the key points ("we", "us", "this thread" all refer to the Slime Pit):

[spoiler]

... We all speak for ourselves as individual adults, and I will not impose on anyone to alter their language, tone or prose on my behalf on these threads or on any other forum. You own your words. At best, simply respect the wishes of the person whose blog you’re infesting, for that person’s sake.

I fully appreciate that there are several among us who view this thread as a united front, and wish to see it reflect their own values with respect to tone as well as strategy. In my mind, however, this veers dangerously close to what’s going on at the other side. Before you know it you’re going to start policing each other. Be careful. Collectivism contains within it the seeds of religion.

If you’re that concerned about your image and how some of the comments here reflect on your credibility, my advice would be for you to leave the Slimepit and continue your commentary elsewhere, rather than to attempt to control what people say here. I don’t think it can end well, no matter how well-intentioned.

As far as BAD WERDZ go, in my opinion, it is the verbally abrasive faction within the Slimepit (i.e. those that present arguments but are also quite happy to invoke colourful language to convey their sentiments, usually out of retaliation – and in the case of Hoggle, intentionally to trip them up) that has done the bulk of the work of getting FTB worked up to the point of irredeemably undermining itself, resulting in a climate where more and more people are now open to hearing ‘our side’. And they have been at it for much longer, and more persistently, than we the strictly diplomatic faction of the Slimepit. In my opinion it is the former, more than the latter, that have kept FTB on their toes for the better part of the last one year. It is indeed odd that some among this lot are now succumbing to pressure to change their approach and tone. It’s their choice anyway, so it’s up to them how they wish to proceed henceforth – not that I think their proposed new approach will succeed.

I personally don’t think that this prolonged skirmish will be won by trying to advance cogent arguments for fence-sitters to consider, and playing nice. It’s going to be won by letting FTB continue to speak for itself, and letting them marginalize themselves in the process. I think they’re doing wonderfully so far.

To be clear, I’m not saying that cogent arguments are useless per se; I’m just saying that in the grand scheme of things, those cogent arguments are little more than decoration. Remember – you are dealing with ideologues here.

[/spoiler]

[Dick Strawkins]

I noticed the change in the feminist tide to, and the sudden surge of people going yey rape culture is totes a thing. These were people who'd previously laughed at way out feminist crazies. Something horrible has happened. Maybe it's brainworms.

I think that as soon as the question of sexual assault was raised, regarding the elevator incident or things that happened at other conferences, it almost inevitably led to a reluctance of outspoken skepticism.
While there are occasional false claims made by women, I think the general consensus is that incidences of genuine sexual assault are under reported.
It is therefore plausible that there is a higher incidence of harrassment/assault at atheist/skeptic conferences than had previously been known (remember, we were basically starting from zero.)
Of course this doesn't meant that it is certain, or even likely, that there are lots or even some unreported incidents. However, given the numbers of attendees at these events and the fact that alcohol is going to be available, it would seem strange to argue that NO incidents could have occurred - even if there is no reports of such cases.

I think this factor made people reluctant to jump in and demand evidence for the various wild claims (skeptical conferences are more dangerous for women than walking down the street?)
Unfortunately this pretty rapidly developed into a situation where the application of basic skepticism ("do you have any proof for that claim?") was standardly countered by accusations of misogyny, support of rape culture and the like.

If you remove the ability to ask "do you have any proof?" then you have essentially removed skepticism from the equation.
Once you do that, you open the door to all manner of grand unifying ideologies that cannot survive in a skeptical environment.

I am still not sure whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.
It has certainly been a lesson to me about atheism and skepticism. The FTB/Skepchicks/A+ side are essentially non-skeptical atheists.
Yes they may claim to be skeptics but so do the global warming skeptics.

I think Mykeru pointed out, a while back, that atheism is not the important point here, skepticism is, and I have to agree with him on this. If you are truly skeptical then atheism inevitably follows. On the other hand, if you are truly atheist you don't need to be a skeptic. The whole elevatorgate inspired schism revealed a large proportion of atheists that are not skeptical thinkers. I now think of atheism, not in terms of new and old atheists, or non-accomodationists versus accomodationists, but rather in terms of skeptical atheists versus non-skeptical atheists.

[Steersman]

Found that reference. It's Rational Ugandan from 7/2012, Letter to the Slime Pit, posted here for those who haven't read it before (particularly those who have concerns about some of the tone & language used in the 'pit).

For those who want the Cliff Notes version, here's a chunk from near the end that sums up the key points ("we", "us", "this thread" all refer to the Slime Pit):

[spoiler]

... We all speak for ourselves as individual adults, and I will not impose on anyone to alter their language, tone or prose on my behalf on these threads or on any other forum. You own your words. At best, simply respect the wishes of the person whose blog you’re infesting, for that person’s sake.

I fully appreciate that there are several among us who view this thread as a united front, and wish to see it reflect their own values with respect to tone as well as strategy. In my mind, however, this veers dangerously close to what’s going on at the other side. Before you know it you’re going to start policing each other. Be careful. Collectivism contains within it the seeds of religion.

If you’re that concerned about your image and how some of the comments here reflect on your credibility, my advice would be for you to leave the Slimepit and continue your commentary elsewhere, rather than to attempt to control what people say here. I don’t think it can end well, no matter how well-intentioned.

As far as BAD WERDZ go, in my opinion, it is the verbally abrasive faction within the Slimepit (i.e. those that present arguments but are also quite happy to invoke colourful language to convey their sentiments, usually out of retaliation – and in the case of Hoggle, intentionally to trip them up) that has done the bulk of the work of getting FTB worked up to the point of irredeemably undermining itself, resulting in a climate where more and more people are now open to hearing ‘our side’. And they have been at it for much longer, and more persistently, than we the strictly diplomatic faction of the Slimepit. In my opinion it is the former, more than the latter, that have kept FTB on their toes for the better part of the last one year. It is indeed odd that some among this lot are now succumbing to pressure to change their approach and tone. It’s their choice anyway, so it’s up to them how they wish to proceed henceforth – not that I think their proposed new approach will succeed.

I personally don’t think that this prolonged skirmish will be won by trying to advance cogent arguments for fence-sitters to consider, and playing nice. It’s going to be won by letting FTB continue to speak for itself, and letting them marginalize themselves in the process. I think they’re doing wonderfully so far.

To be clear, I’m not saying that cogent arguments are useless per se; I’m just saying that in the grand scheme of things, those cogent arguments are little more than decoration. Remember – you are dealing with ideologues here.

[/spoiler]

Nice bit of analysis in the previous post Skep tickle, with which I largely agree. Awfully easy to give up one master – religion, frequently – for another – atheism, typically – particularly when one hasn’t fully integrated the principles of skepticism and critical thinking. Reminds me of an aphorism of Bertand Russell:

Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.

And likewise some cogent observations from James Onen, although I’m quite skeptical about his conclusion:

To be clear, I’m not saying that cogent arguments are useless per se; I’m just saying that in the grand scheme of things, those cogent arguments are little more than decoration. Remember – you are dealing with ideologues here.

Unless one wants to start promoting “re-education centers” for those ideologues it seems that “cogent arguments” are quite a bit more than just “decoration”. While they might have limited influence on those ideologues, the “game” seems more a question of a battle for “the hearts and minds” of those on the fence, and those who haven’t yet drunk all of the Kool-Aid. And in which battle cogent arguments seem decisive - "the pen is mightier than the sword".

[comslave]

[spoiler]

Yet another, um, 'appropriate' ad from FTB, no doubt designed to appeal to their feminist deomographic:
http://i.imgur.com/rI9ej.png

I'm pretty sure that might be Google Ads monitoring your cookies.

You can tell us about your manga addiction, if you like.

[/spoiler]

The ads are not controlled by FTB but by cookies you have in your system. That's why I get Jeep ads.

I thought it was by key words from the text on the page.... but you could be right

Keywords on the page couldn't be tailored to your own personal interests. I get ads for Jeep part sites I've visited like 4wd.com all the time. That's totally due to my cookies.

[comslave]

"Feminism: The radical notion that women are people"

It's a quote that pops up in various Feminism101 pieces you'll find scattered around the net and is originally attributed to the British journalist Rebecca West.

This is the idea that PZ Myers and the FTB crowd claim WE are opposing.

That women are people.

You know what ?
I don't oppose the idea that women are people.
What's more, I will take a guess and say that NOBODY that posts here thinks that women are not people.

I'm a woman. I'm pretty sure I am people. I am also NOT a feminist, nor a MRA.
What's misogynistic about that?

Oh silly codelette, you've just "internalized misogynistic thought"! At least that was what I was told by the baboons when I pointed out that women in the video game industry disagreed with Anita Sarkizian(spelling ?). Patriarchy theory has an easy answer for everything! Wish we had a cool conspiracy theory :(

:lol:
Yeah, like once this "sister" was explaining to me how difficult was for women to get into STEM fields. I told her that it really wasn't for me (I knew since I was in elementary school that I wanted to be an engineer. I didn't know any engineer. I'm from the ghetto.). So, she turned around and told me that I was privileged...
They shift those goal posts so fast that I got dizzy.

I think the definition would have to be changed to keep in accordance with their current attitudes towards men:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people,
and that all men are monsters.

[Steersman]

[spoiler]

"Feminism: The radical notion that women are people"

It's a quote that pops up in various Feminism101 pieces you'll find scattered around the net and is originally attributed to the British journalist Rebecca West.

This is the idea that PZ Myers and the FTB crowd claim WE are opposing.

That women are people.

You know what ?
I don't oppose the idea that women are people.
What's more, I will take a guess and say that NOBODY that posts here thinks that women are not people.

I'm a woman. I'm pretty sure I am people. I am also NOT a feminist, nor a MRA.
What's misogynistic about that?

Oh silly codelette, you've just "internalized misogynistic thought"! At least that was what I was told by the baboons when I pointed out that women in the video game industry disagreed with Anita Sarkizian(spelling ?). Patriarchy theory has an easy answer for everything! Wish we had a cool conspiracy theory :(

:lol:
Yeah, like once this "sister" was explaining to me how difficult was for women to get into STEM fields. I told her that it really wasn't for me (I knew since I was in elementary school that I wanted to be an engineer. I didn't know any engineer. I'm from the ghetto.). So, she turned around and told me that I was privileged...
They shift those goal posts so fast that I got dizzy.

[/spoiler]

I think the definition would have to be changed to keep in accordance with their current attitudes towards men:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people,
and that all men are monsters.

Methinks that that qualifies as stereotyping and therefore sexism. That some feminists might feel that way is probably a tenable position – the website I Blame the Patriarchy probably being a case in point. But all of them?

You might want to take a look at the definition for stereotype and for sexism, and note the emphasis on and implications of the word “oversimplified” in the former:

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.

[sacha]

hmmm
Elyse is a Skepchick
http://imageshack.us/a/img717/9546/elyse16small.jpg

"Elyse MoFo Anders is the bad ass behind the Women Thinking, inc and the superhero in charge of the Hug Me! I'm Vaccinated campaign as well as a podcaster, writer, and slacktivist extraordinaire."

@dELYSEious
"Writer. Tweeter. Drinker. Speaker. Ass-kicker. World saver. Mofo. Activist. Cancer killer. Poo discussionista. This lady: http://hugmeimvaccinated.org"

16 hours ago:

signed.png

(27.95 KiB) Downloaded 292 times

3 months ago:

Vacula.png

(38.56 KiB) Downloaded 289 times

4 months ago:

comment.png

(57.38 KiB) Downloaded 293 times

http://www.change.org/en-AU/users/elysemofoanders <--------- hat tip Maria Maltseva

[Mr Danksworth]

hmmm
Elyse is a Skepchick
http://imageshack.us/a/img717/9546/elyse16small.jpg

"Elyse MoFo Anders is the bad ass behind the Women Thinking, inc and the superhero in charge of the Hug Me! I'm Vaccinated campaign as well as a podcaster, writer, and slacktivist extraordinaire."

@dELYSEious
"Writer. Tweeter. Drinker. Speaker. Ass-kicker. World saver. Mofo. Activist. Cancer killer. Poo discussionista. This lady: http://hugmeimvaccinated.org"

16 hours ago:

signed.png

3 months ago:

Vacula.png

4 months ago:

comment.png

http://www.change.org/en-AU/users/elysemofoanders <--------- hat tip Maria Maltseva

She a busy little slacktavist, ain't she? One can almost feel the smug, self congratulatory back patting.

[DownThunder]

[spoiler]

I'm a woman. I'm pretty sure I am people. I am also NOT a feminist, nor a MRA.
What's misogynistic about that?

Oh silly codelette, you've just "internalized misogynistic thought"! At least that was what I was told by the baboons when I pointed out that women in the video game industry disagreed with Anita Sarkizian(spelling ?). Patriarchy theory has an easy answer for everything! Wish we had a cool conspiracy theory :(

:lol:
Yeah, like once this "sister" was explaining to me how difficult was for women to get into STEM fields. I told her that it really wasn't for me (I knew since I was in elementary school that I wanted to be an engineer. I didn't know any engineer. I'm from the ghetto.). So, she turned around and told me that I was privileged...
They shift those goal posts so fast that I got dizzy.

[/spoiler]

I think the definition would have to be changed to keep in accordance with their current attitudes towards men:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people,
and that all men are monsters.

Methinks that that qualifies as stereotyping and therefore sexism. That some feminists might feel that way is probably a tenable position – the website I Blame the Patriarchy probably being a case in point. But all of them?

You might want to take a look at the definition for stereotype and for sexism, and note the emphasis on and implications of the word “oversimplified” in the former:

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.

Feminism isn't a sex or gender.

[comslave]

[spoiler]

Yet another, um, 'appropriate' ad from FTB, no doubt designed to appeal to their feminist deomographic:
http://i.imgur.com/rI9ej.png

I'm pretty sure that might be Google Ads monitoring your cookies.

You can tell us about your manga addiction, if you like.

[/spoiler]

The ads are not controlled by FTB but by cookies you have in your system. That's why I get Jeep ads.

I thought it was by key words from the text on the page.... but you could be right

At the risk of doc dropping myself, I work for the internet. One thing to understand about web sites these days is that when you visit a site, you're not really visiting one site, but several. Content is filled in by multiple providers using various technologies to fill in those spaces on the page. So I wouldn't give FTB grief for their ads, they aren't in control. Their ads are one thing I won't blame them for.

[sacha]

yes, she signed both petitions in regards to Watson:

indecisive.png

(36.21 KiB) Downloaded 284 times

[sacha]

Feminism isn't a sex or gender.

bravo

[Dick Strawkins]

yes, she signed both petitions in regards to Watson:

indecisive.png

I can't criticize her for that.
That just sounds like someone making a joke. There's so precious little sign of a sense of humor on their side that we should savor the few incidences we find. (And to be honest, the petition to remove Watson from Skeptics guide was terrible, both the idea and the execution, and deserved mocking.)

[Dick Strawkins]

So I wouldn't give FTB grief for their ads, they aren't in control. Their ads are one thing I won't blame them for.

Why not?

They do have control over the ads that appear on their sites.
They can choose to run without ads altogether or even run specific ads that they have chosen themselves, rather than sell the space to a generic ad provider where they have little or no say in which particular ads appear.

Obviously their business model is such that they need to sell space to google ads or whoever, but the various bloggers who sign up cannot claim innocence when people start laughing at the juxtoposition of ads for religious organizations, psychics, homeopaths or even sexist jailbait T-shirt companies, on the sites of supposed skeptics and feminists.

[Steersman]

[spoiler]

...
Oh silly codelette, you've just "internalized misogynistic thought"! At least that was what I was told by the baboons when I pointed out that women in the video game industry disagreed with Anita Sarkizian(spelling ?). Patriarchy theory has an easy answer for everything! Wish we had a cool conspiracy theory :(

:lol:
Yeah, like once this "sister" was explaining to me how difficult was for women to get into STEM fields. I told her that it really wasn't for me (I knew since I was in elementary school that I wanted to be an engineer. I didn't know any engineer. I'm from the ghetto.). So, she turned around and told me that I was privileged...
They shift those goal posts so fast that I got dizzy.

[/spoiler]

I think the definition would have to be changed to keep in accordance with their current attitudes towards men:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people,
and that all men are monsters.

Methinks that that qualifies as stereotyping and therefore sexism. That some feminists might feel that way is probably a tenable position – the website I Blame the Patriarchy probably being a case in point. But all of them?

You might want to take a look at the definition for stereotype and for sexism, and note the emphasis on and implications of the word “oversimplified” in the former:

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.

Feminism isn't a sex or gender.

Don't quite follow you there. The assertion was that "feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people" which seems tantamount to asserting, if not leveling the accusation, that all feminists subscribe to that view or principle - ergo, stereotyping, ergo, sexism.

[EdgePenguin]

Not sure how productive it is for both sides to keep launching attack petitions against the other. It already looks like its getting out of hand.

[Michael K Gray]

Principles so simple even a medieval god botherer could grasp them.

The philosopher Pierre Abelard wrote one of the first modern works on logic, Sic et Non (Yes and No) about 1130.

But Abelard literally had his dick cut off by thuggish prudes for his efforts.
An A+Theism approved move if ever I heard of one.

[DownThunder]

Don't quite follow you there. The assertion was that "feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people" which seems tantamount to asserting, if not leveling the accusation, that all feminists subscribe to that view or principle - ergo, stereotyping, ergo, sexism.

You're free to give your opinion on whether feminists are being stereotyped, fairly or unfairly, but feminism isnt a sex or gender therefore no more sexism than it is racism, ageism, cannibalism or gerbilism.

[surreptitious57]

I signed the petition because I agreed with what it was saying - indeed it totally reflected my own views - but I do not believe it shall amount to much because if all it takes to bring critical thinking into those three sites is that then it would have been done before now. Plus when I signed it there were less than seventy five signatures. Compare that to the traffic Paul Zachary Myers gets over at his site - over a hundred thousand - and you see what you are up against but one does what one can even if it comes to nothing

I have zero problem with the tone of this site or any other that I am on for that matter. I only moderate my own language, and not that of anyone else. You can be as extreme as you like for all I care, because the responsibility lies with you and not me. I am only responsible for my own words. The wonderful thing about this is that boundaries are precisely defined here. There is no grey area and that is what I like about it

I have engaged with the other side. I am a member of Atheism Plus though I no longer post there, due to a restriction on my self expression but I regularly reference it as a lurker. I fundamentally disagree with the lack of critical thinking over there, but it is a place more for the marginalised and less a debating chamber and I have to respect that now. Because when I am in their house, I have to abide by their rules

I do have the right to challenge anyone who makes a fallacious argument but I do not have the right to judge their character. I have a life time ban preventing me from doing so. This is purely a personal choice and does not extend to others so you can criticise me as much as you like, but I cannot reciprocate

You are probably right that it is wrong to portray the online atheist community as being split down the middle but certain sites do nonetheless spend a significant amount of time engaging in ideological warfare with each other - or at least that is the perception one has of them - and those sites are the four obvious ones. The rest seem to get on without all this palava and it would be great if the others did too. But I realise it will probably be quite a long time before that comes to pass, unfortunately - if it ever does

[TheMan]

[spoiler]

Yet another, um, 'appropriate' ad from FTB, no doubt designed to appeal to their feminist deomographic:
http://i.imgur.com/rI9ej.png

I'm pretty sure that might be Google Ads monitoring your cookies.

You can tell us about your manga addiction, if you like.

[/spoiler]

The ads are not controlled by FTB but by cookies you have in your system. That's why I get Jeep ads.

I thought it was by key words from the text on the page.... but you could be right

Keywords on the page couldn't be tailored to your own personal interests. I get ads for Jeep part sites I've visited like 4wd.com all the time. That's totally due to my cookies.

I had a quick look at the Adsense Google terms and it does indicate that it is cookie code related but I think it's the page you are visiting that deposits the cookie. I only thought what I did because I have never been shoe shopping online before and when visiting the Shoe post on FTB the ads were for women's shoes. It gave me the impression it was web-page-text related....but I now think the word "shoe" in the cookie when visiting the page somehow registered an interest in women's shoes and effected the ads displayed. I should have screen capped it at the time as it was an ad for fashion shoes at less than $40 USD.

[sacha]

yes, she signed both petitions in regards to Watson:

indecisive.png

I can't criticize her for that.
That just sounds like someone making a joke. There's so precious little sign of a sense of humor on their side that we should savor the few incidences we find. (And to be honest, the petition to remove Watson from Skeptics guide was terrible, both the idea and the execution, and deserved mocking.)

I think all these petitions are ridiculous.

I give her credit if it was humour.

My point was her strange indecision.
Both Watson SGU petitions, remove Vacula petition, and return to critical thinking for Skepchick and FfTB, when she's a skepchick. Was that humour as well?

[TheMan]

[spoiler]

Yet another, um, 'appropriate' ad from FTB, no doubt designed to appeal to their feminist deomographic:
http://i.imgur.com/rI9ej.png

I'm pretty sure that might be Google Ads monitoring your cookies.

You can tell us about your manga addiction, if you like.

[/spoiler]

The ads are not controlled by FTB but by cookies you have in your system. That's why I get Jeep ads.

I thought it was by key words from the text on the page.... but you could be right

At the risk of doc dropping myself, I work for the internet. One thing to understand about web sites these days is that when you visit a site, you're not really visiting one site, but several. Content is filled in by multiple providers using various technologies to fill in those spaces on the page. So I wouldn't give FTB grief for their ads, they aren't in control. Their ads are one thing I won't blame them for.

Yes...always understood that FTB were not in control of the ads.... I was speculating on what triggers the type of ad. I thought it was text on a page but now understand it to be text in a cookie.... so when sites like FTB put up a blog post titled something like "religion: the cause of all Evil" and I get the cookie %^7849373820## Religion_Cause_Evil_FTB_...adsense then somehow either reads that cookie...or generates a cookie with those keywords and up come all the shoe ads...of which 9/10 will be directed at women.

[TheMan]

ooops.... I meant Religious ads and directed at everyone

[clownshoe]

Compare that to the traffic Paul Zachary Myers gets over at his site - over a hundred thousand - and you see what you are up against but one does what one can even if it comes to nothing

Pharyngula has been on a constant downward trend since this nonsense started:
http://www.google.com.au/trends/explore#q=pharyngula
PZ becomes less popular every day, and he just keeps digging the hole deeper.

[Steersman]

Don't quite follow you there. The assertion was that "feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people" which seems tantamount to asserting, if not leveling the accusation, that all feminists subscribe to that view or principle - ergo, stereotyping, ergo, sexism.

You're free to give your opinion on whether feminists are being stereotyped, fairly or unfairly, but feminism isnt a sex or gender therefore no more sexism than it is racism, ageism, cannibalism or gerbilism.

No, of course, “feminism isn’t a sex or gender” and feminism by itself isn’t sexist – at least that I can see. But I wasn’t referring to feminism itself, but to the statement, the hypothesis, the assertion, that “Feminism is the radical notion that women are the only people,and that all men are monsters.”

Which is simply an untenable argument and position to hold – at best. And implicit in that statement is an assertion about the beliefs of all those to describe themselves as feminists which, again, is not at all supportable. Hence my claim that “that qualifies as stereotyping and therefore sexism”.

Methinks you should really take a close look at the definitions for sexism and stereotyping I provided. Here’s the one for sexism again:

2. sexism: Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Note the reference to stereotyping which is an oversimplification, an assertion that the characteristics of some segment of a population – both radfems, presumably, and men, in this case – are true for or applicable to the entire population.

Although I’ll concede that the stereotyping pertains to both the “women are the only people” statement, and to the “all men are monsters” one, while the sexism resides only in the latter. But one might also argue that that latter statement is a charge that the feminists so described by the definition provided are guilty of sexism.

[Michael K Gray]

...I am a member of Atheism Plus...
...but I do not have the right to judge their character.

Of course you fucking-well do have right!
You may elect not to voice your private judgment, but no-one can take that right to internal judgement from you, especially not yourself.
For that is being your own jackbooted Anti-Free-Thought-Police Stasi thug.

A mental state that A+Theism weirdos get their jollys by infecting others with this depressing guilt-meme.

[Michael K Gray]

It gave me the impression it was web-page-text related....but I now think the word "shoe" in the cookie when visiting the page somehow registered an interest in women's shoes and effected the ads displayed.

The ads are selected as a weighted combination of both cookies and page content and your previous browsing history.

[Michael K Gray]

My point was her strange indecision.

The duplicates are likely to be a mere simple mistake.
A finger-fumble.

Occam's Razor, and all that.

[Dick Strawkins]

yes, she signed both petitions in regards to Watson:

indecisive.png

I can't criticize her for that.
That just sounds like someone making a joke. There's so precious little sign of a sense of humor on their side that we should savor the few incidences we find. (And to be honest, the petition to remove Watson from Skeptics guide was terrible, both the idea and the execution, and deserved mocking.)

I think all these petitions are ridiculous.

I give her credit if it was humour.

My point was her strange indecision.
Both Watson SGU petitions, remove Vacula petition, and return to critical thinking for Skepchick and FfTB, when she's a skepchick. Was that humour as well?

I didn't read it as her being indecisive.
I read it as her paraphrasing the "remove Rebecca Watson as host of SGU" petition as being "Rebecca Watson is the worst thing in the world" - and her subsequent joke about her not being sure if this was the case - so she'd better sign the petition anyway.
It's not a great example of humor but it's Groucho Marx level compared to their normal standards.

[Michael K Gray]

A-rat-in-a-cage dictating another post to Siri on youtoob.
(Can't embed video as it has a "start time" in the command line)

[windy]

I had a quick look at the Adsense Google terms and it does indicate that it is cookie code related but I think it's the page you are visiting that deposits the cookie. I only thought what I did because I have never been shoe shopping online before and when visiting the Shoe post on FTB the ads were for women's shoes. It gave me the impression it was web-page-text related....but I now think the word "shoe" in the cookie when visiting the page somehow registered an interest in women's shoes and effected the ads displayed. I should have screen capped it at the time as it was an ad for fashion shoes at less than $40 USD.

I also get (non-US) shoe ads there since Greta's Shoestravaganza. PZ had a post in December where he complained about seeing ads for Concealed Carry magazine (!) Apparently the ads are not bringing in a lot of money and Ed has been "trying to compensate by throwing more ads at the site", that must be why they have all those annoying pop-ups lately.

[Bhurzum]

Keywords on the page couldn't be tailored to your own personal interests. I get ads for Jeep part sites I've visited like 4wd.com all the time. That's totally due to my cookies.

Aaah, that explains why I get ads for anal seepage medication, weapon grade vodka and assault rifles.

I might regret sharing this!

:oops:

[Michael K Gray]

Apparently the ads are not bringing in a lot of money and Ed has been "trying to compensate by throwing more ads at the site"...

Link?

[Ape+lust]

I also get (non-US) shoe ads there since Greta's Shoestravaganza. PZ had a post in December where he complained about seeing ads for Concealed Carry magazine (!) Apparently the ads are not bringing in a lot of money and Ed has been "trying to compensate by throwing more ads at the site", that must be why they have all those annoying pop-ups lately.

If they're spawning pop-ups that means they're also using ad services other than Google. Google doesn't allow those.

Sign of desperation. Pop-ups are a disregard for users that few will tolerate anymore.

[Ape+lust]

Apparently the ads are not bringing in a lot of money and Ed has been "trying to compensate by throwing more ads at the site"...

Link?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-515576

[franc]

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/MNAXq.jpg[/spoiler]

[AnonymousCowherd]

What would happen if the Slymepit announced it was a feminist* site?

*PZ Myers plagiarized definition. (Feminism is the radical notion that women are people"

I'll support that. Unless you prefer "Feminism Plus = Feminism + Skepticism"

[Michael K Gray]

Apparently the ads are not bringing in a lot of money and Ed has been "trying to compensate by throwing more ads at the site"...

Link?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-515576

Thanks heaps.
This is going straight to the pool room!

[Lurkion]

Hey, just found out that Surlyramics and Greta Christina's book are available at Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

Guess they haven't completely burnt the bridges?

(Surlyramics are here: http://store.richarddawkins.net/collect ... -science-1 - don't buy though!)

[UnbelieveSteve]

freethoughtblogs.com has 20008 traffic rank in world by alexa. freethoughtblogs.com is getting 54978 pageviews per day and making USD 164.93 daily.
Who knew?
http://i.imgur.com/iwvDJ.jpg

[Michael K Gray]

Hey, just found out that Surlyramics and Greta Christina's book are available at Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

Guess they haven't completely burnt the bridges?

(Surlyramics are here: http://store.richarddawkins.net/collect ... -science-1 - don't buy though!)

Caveat Emptor.
I bought GC's book, and considered it to be value for money. (Barely, but close enough).
If taste-free dingleberries actually like Amy's overpriced fossilised turds-on-a-string, then why shouldn't RDF make $ from pimping them?

[AnonymousCowherd]

What would be the chances of establishing a thread on the slymepit of pitters vs. the pharyngulites, the cage match??!!
Challenge Caine, Sally S, Anthony K, Illuminata to a debate hosted here.2

What do you think is already happening? We say whaever we like here, and they say whatever PZ lets them they like say over there. Each side is reading and responding to the other, so why spoil it by arguing in the one place?

[Michael K Gray]

freethoughtblogs.com has 20008 traffic rank in world by alexa. freethoughtblogs.com is getting 54978 pageviews per day and making USD 164.93 daily.

≅ US$60,000 per annum.
Split amongst "x?" bloggers (plus that stolen from Thunderfoot)

Not enough to make a living from, for any of them.

No wonder Greta has to resort to grifting for dosh.

And it declines by the hour, as FfTB scares away all but the most insane, juvenile, and sociopathic of viewers.
Eventually, all that will remain is a lone Julian, crying like a rabid dog in a deserted crumbling car-park at night.
Waking the neighbours with his manic howling, who throw milk bottles at him in a futile attempt to cure his rabies.


P.S.: PZ's book must be polished to perfection by now. He has had since after the publisher's 1957 deadline to hone it to a golden sheen.
I'd buy that too, when it comes out next week.
I need the entertainment.

[HoneyWagon]

I dunno. Doesn't mean anything, but it did make me laugh.

http://i.imgur.com/gkbMk.png

[aqi]

Seen this?

Rebecca has a list of female speakers to recommend to conference organizers.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... /#comments

Is that list going to be public and will it include Sara Mayhew, Sharon Hill, Barbara Drescher, Harriet Hall, Heidi Anderson, Abby Smith and the foermer skepchicks and never-were skepchicks?

[Ape+lust]

Zvan posted an excerpt from a pointless, atrociously written short story about a goddess who visits bloody retribution on "dickheads" and "douches", beginning with a YouTube commenter.

It's a WTF-worthy piece of crap, but it's really easy to see why Zvan likes it.

[AnonymousCowherd]

It's not the prettiest of colour selections, and there are far too many blues on the store page that shows them all, but here they are...Authentic Fake Jewellery!

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/00010-1.png

Is that a bagel?

[UnbelieveSteve]

freethoughtblogs.com has 20008 traffic rank in world by alexa. freethoughtblogs.com is getting 54978 pageviews per day and making USD 164.93 daily.

≅ US$60,000 per annum.
Split amongst "x?" bloggers (plus that stolen from Thunderfoot)

Not enough to make a living from, for any of them.

No wonder Greta has to resort to grifting for dosh.

And it declines by the hour, as FfTB scares away all but the most insane, juvenile, and sociopathic of viewers.
Eventually, all that will remain is a lone Julian, crying like a rabid dog in a deserted crumbling car-park at night.
Waking the neighbours with his manic howling, who throw milk bottles at him in a futile attempt to cure his rabies.


P.S.: PZ's book must be polished to perfection by now. He has had since after the publisher's 1957 deadline to hone it to a golden sheen.
I'd buy that too, when it comes out next week.
I need the entertainment.

Some perspective.
http://i.imgur.com/rygpq.jpg

[jjbinx007]

I was just reading Adam Lee's propaganda piece on Atheism+ from a few months back. I don't know how he typed some of this with a straight face:

The other major complaint is that A+ is fostering a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us attitude among its adherents. This, too, is easily disproved by perusing the A+ forums and discussion threads.

Adam Lee is either ignorant or lying. Which is it?

Some choice words from Richard Carrier:

“Don’t assume that because someone else did that, that it’s covered and you can give it a miss. No, we need to show numbers. 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.”

“Those who don’t, those who aren’t shamed by being exposed as liars or hypocrits, those who persist in being dishonest or inconsistent even when their dishonesty or inconsistency has been soundly proven, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.”

“I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.”

Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

To be fair, this is the same Richard Carrier who also wrote:

1. We believe in being reasonable.

2. We believe in being compassionate.

3. We believe in personal integrity.

:lol:

Also, here's what PZ himself has to say about the with-us-or-against-us culture of (a)Theism Plus:

[Atheism+] really isn’t a movement about exclusion, but about recognizing the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs. And if you don’t agree with any of that — and this is the only ‘divisive’ part — then you’re an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, “Asshole Atheists” and own it, proudly.

I don't want to accuse Adam Lee of being ignorant.

He's just a lying fuckwad.