I mentioned these points in the undead thread, so I thought I'd discuss it here as well.
Overall, what are the major problems you have with the FTB/Skephchick/A+ crowd? I thought a threat that summarizes the issues might be useful. Here's a summary of thoughts I put together, based on my initial observations and what I put together from later discussions:
A destructive "callout culture". Not only is this counterproductive in resolving conflicts and harmful to interpersonal relationships and trust, but it contributes to an aggressive dogpiling "witch-hunt" environment. It's also self-destructive - former allies can become enemies or outcasts overnight as callout culture can be direceted inwards as well as outwards
Uncritical acceptance of radical feminist dogmas such as patriarchy theory, privilege, infantalization of women, victimhood wallowing, and biodenial (the view that gender is entirely socially constructed).
Related to the point above, a form of gynocentrism or "genderitis" as it's been called elsewhere. That is, the tendency to wear "gender goggles" when looking at social problems - the assumption that "gender power struggle" is behind social problems to the exclusion of other factors and nuances.
The abuse of words such as misogynist, harassment, and rape-apologist. Not only are they used as a smear tactic against dissent, but they are given misleadingly broadened definitions. This includes defining the word "feminism" broadly as "the view that women are people" and using it as a cudgel to misleadingly characterize dissent as "anti-woman".
A patronizing attitude towards women who disagree with their ideology. This includes rhetoric such as "listen to women!" with the implication that they speak for all women. In reality, it's "listen to [some] women!" Dissenting women are condescendingly dismissed as been duped by patriarchy and given dogmatic ideological labels like "chill girl", "gender traitor", "sister punisher" and "handmaidens of patriarchy".
An often neo-Victorian attitude towards sexuality. What most would consider harmless flirting, they would consider harassment or sexism. Even thinking about sexual attraction towards someone could be considered thoughtcrime.
A tribalistic, cult-like mentality that encourages groupthink, vilification of dissent, and othering. Dissent is automatically dismissed as misogyny, being anti-woman, hate, sexism, or harassment. Dissenters' statements or behaviours are interpreted in the worst possible light and attributed to sinister motivations (e.g. the "threat" narrative)
Equating internet troll culture with dissent. In other words, some obnoxious 15-year old in his parents' basement who tries to get a rise out people are placed in the same group as legitimate critics.
Use of postmodernist argumentation such as "kafkatrapping". Concepts such as "privilege" become like the doctrine of original sin. In other words, "you are part of the problem if you don't agree with my ideology" (*often heard as "you don't get it!" or "check your privilege!")
A commitment to a stuffy, overreacting, oversensitive political correctness philsophy that's counterproductive to free expression (i.e. "your rights end where my feelings begin!")
Frequent hypocritical behaviours. For example: "don't objectify me, but have our naked Skepchick calendar"; "we want a 'safe' space, but let's dogpile dissenters with vitriole and public shaming"; "we oppose hate, but fuck you you fucking fuck and go die in a fire!"; and "I value freedom of thought, and I like to smear dissenters and ban them", and others...
Anyone share the same thoughts? What are your issues with them?
Stretchycheese's list pretty much sums it up. I'd clashed with radfem/gen-fems in the past in political discussions, and what frustrates me the most is: 1) their insistence that everyone accept, a priori, their neologisms & po-mo constructs; and 2) their refusal to allow open discourse.
I do not have a beef with A+ or feminism in general but I do disagree with how they attempt to intermingle atheism and feminism. Atheism is not a movement, and at that it's not a political movement that affiliates itself with feminism or anything else. The majority of the members of atheism plus are overly sensitive to the point of not being genuine but to be sensationalists and self-proclaimed victims to get attention to there particular cause. From what I have read Atheism plus's top members who rule that roost on the A+forum and FTB sites are unapproachable when it comes to reason and logic, as instead of using reason and logic atheism plus standard MO for communication is a steady diatribe of blogs, comments, videos, lectures, that is against any form of criticism as it is a outlet for their pugilistic energies. To Atheism plus it simply doesn't matter that the criticism is legitimate or not, it's the fact that there is any criticisms at all as to why they are opposed to it.
It's not so far fetch to say some members of Atheism plus are doing this to make some money out of this and to make a living in a now new pointless and unneeded category.
This is just my thoughts as an observer looking outside in and who is not a atheists.
Almost forgot Ophelia Benson is LULZ funny. Just amazing how she continuously selfvictimises herself by seeking anything out that talks about her, then writes a giant blog about what everybody says about her. A bad case of narcissism maybe. It's like this old lady has never been on the internet before. Then again the internet may be her only form of communication aka her reality. It seems most Atheism plus members do this to again become the self-proclaimed victim. Q.Q
The Burger King wrote:Almost forgot Ophelia Benson is LULZ funny. Just amazing how she continuously selfvictimises herself by seeking anything out that talks about her, then writes a giant blog about what everybody says about her. A bad case of narcissism maybe. It's like this old lady has never been on the internet before. Then again the internet may be her only form of communication aka her reality. It seems most Atheism plus members do this to again become the self-proclaimed victim. Q.Q
She's been on the internet before. For. A. Long. Time.
One thing that annoys me regarding the Skepchick/FTB/A+ crowd is how they seem to be acting like a bunch of annoying idiots towards other people, especially those who don't agree with their views on any subject out there.
The behaviour of the Skepchick/FTB/A+ crowd reminds me of the kind of behaviour I used to see the Christians at my old high school engage in. Especially the 'it's our way or the highway' stuff.
Borked Heuristics!
So you made the bold claim that "humans are equal", meaning that the fundamental nature of humans is always the same, no matter how they differ individually. Maybe you have shortened it, because people should understand the point, given that the Human Rights aren't exactly contested in our midst. Well, well. Misogynists and racists think this. In reality, humans are not equal. Some are privileged, others are being oppressed and you just stated supremacist views. Check your privilege. Note that this does not apply to FTBloggers. PZ Myers, recognized as a teacher, biologist, humanist, scientist and social activist has helped humanity through his writings, lectures, and strolls. We already know beyond a shadow of doubt that he meant it the other, good kind of way. This extends to his circle of bloggers and regular commentariat, of course.
Harassment!
Your favorite FTBlogger has dedicated a piece to the well known misogynist Mas0nPloem, where s/he makes fun of his foibles and his idiot followers. The comment section bursts of thousands comments. One day you thought that the FTB Blogger's comment section itself is kind of funny and you hazard to write about it elsewhere. Not so fast! That's harassment. Why are you so obsessed with them? The odds are already stacked against the good people calling out misogyny and racism. If you criticise them you are supporting the Patriachy. The purpose of reason and logic should not be overrated, I'm sure with some practice you can ignore a few non-sequiturs. That's why FTBloggers & Allies are on the good team.
You wrote "idiot". That's ableist you moron!
Correction. I did write "idiot" in the paragraph above. My mistake. I deeply apologize for this insensitivity. I often have ableist and sexist thoughts, but we all have. Thanks to FTBloggers I see it now. They allowed me to correct myself and my behavior. I am a better person now. Those who show resistance, or disagreement are not ready yet and should be considered misogynists, ableist, rape-enablers, racists and sexists. And I made another mistake. I haven't listen enough. We all should listen, listen, listen. And read all of their thousands of well-thought out comments to learn which words are acceptable this week and which aren't.
Thank you, Aneris. :) I've been following the schism since elevatorgate, but mostly as a lurker. At the beginning, my first sense of something being amiss was when Watson characterized McGraw's more nuanced perspective as "parroting misogyny" or "anti-woman". i thought some sort of dogmatism was afoot. That was a red flag for future problems.
On the "your rights[to speak] end where mine begin" is simply not true. Free speech is the right to offend. On the internet, that freedom is especially firm. There is no barrier to protect you from people who will call out your bullshit.
Microaggression - the ability to perceive everything as a slight against them and then rally about it on the internet, while never having the fucking balls to say something to the person's face.
Vital Signs wrote:On the "your rights[to speak] end where mine begin" is simply not true. Free speech is the right to offend. On the internet, that freedom is especially firm. There is no barrier to protect you from people who will call out your bullshit.
From Glenn Greenwald:
“The whole point of the First Amendment is that one is free to express the most marginalized, repellent, provocative and offensive ideas. Those are the views that are always targeted for suppression…. If you’re someone who wants to vest the state with the power to punish the expression of certain views on the grounds that the view is so wrong and/or hurtful that its expression should not be permitted … then you’re someone who does not believe in free speech, by definition; what you believe is that one is free to express only those viewpoints which the majority of citizens (and the State) allow to be expressed.â€
