tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post7247844599455503722..comments2023-09-02T04:30:46.604-07:00Comments on Musings of an intrigued nobody: One more post about Atheism Plus, then I'm going to try to leave it alone.SoggyMoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12357790920813258281noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-23985433577840870902013-01-09T12:25:13.123-08:002013-01-09T12:25:13.123-08:00Please endeavor to answer this.Please endeavor to answer this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13768168045352814069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-73997192687386639022012-09-02T19:10:09.733-07:002012-09-02T19:10:09.733-07:00Quite right to separate the message from the metho...Quite right to separate the message from the methods.mooglierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10709270738268194845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-64816341583621032792012-09-01T14:53:25.494-07:002012-09-01T14:53:25.494-07:00Heretic, I have absolutely 0 problem with respecti...Heretic, I have absolutely 0 problem with respecting personal boundaries of anyone. I have 0 desire to say "no you can't have that boundary". The following addresses other points. <br /><br />From your link about Schroedingers rapist:<br /><br />"But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is."<br /><br />I'll ignore she's claiming "women" (not "I") think about being attacked all the time.<br /><br />Firstly, men are more likely to be assaulted by a stranger (and in total) than women are. They are also more likely to be murdered, both by strangers and in total. In fact the only violence men are less likely to be subjected to is rape, and thats only if you don't count prisons. <br /><br />Men only face physical danger/worry about violence in war zones? What unrealistic, stereotyping, patronizing shit is this?<br /><br />Why should I be shocked at the idea of constantly worry about attacks if I'm more likely to be attacked? Shouldn't I be worrying even more (proportional to my risk)? Someone who thinks I don't worry about being attacked is either ignorant of my risks, or thinks my risks don't count so I shouldn't worry as much as women.<br /><br /> The only explanation I can think of is A) women are more fragile than men and therefore being attacked is multiple times more traumatic for them B)men's physical safety is less important than womens because they can defend themselves better.<br /><br />Both of these seem sexist notions. I'll happily listen to a non-sexist explanation. One without special pleading for group status would be nice.<br /><br />If this is actually about risk and safety, address the double standard. If its just about being uncomfortable, be genuine and say "this makes me uncomfortable" and not "this makes me uncomfortable because rape/danger". Comfort should never be confused with safety.<br /><br />Secondly if you think about being assaulted or murdered all the time you have an anxiety disorder, and you need CBT. I say this as someone who has had CBT for anxiety disorder(s). there is no evidence thinking about being attacked all the time makes you safer, you're just making your life worse and NO ONE should be encouraged to live like this. The fact more people aren't saying this and are simply saying "right on!" is deeply concerning and shows a strong ignorance or callousness around anxiety disorders, and a tacit encouragement of unwell people to stay fearful/anxious/unwell. Not treating her anxiety problem is a much greater risk to her health than potential rape. This person thinks they HAVE to worry about something all the time. If you know anxiety disorders you know this is never true.<br /><br />"The fifth and last point: Don’t rape."<br /><br />Don't you see how this attitude is incredibly condescending? The vast majority of men, let alone in the atheist movement have never and will never rape anyone. I also highly doubt anyone who does/has raped would be dissuaded by "don't rape", I'd love to see evidence they would.<br /><br />There's no empirical evidence I've seen presented that such "Don't rape" messages do anything to reduce incidence of rapes. Which indicates its more about emotional validation than actual harm reduction.<br /><br /> They (should) know that telling rapists not to rape isn't going to stop anyone. By definition rapists don't stop when you say "don't"/"stop". They're using "don't rape" as a means of implying anyone who disagrees with the rest of the comments disagrees with "don't rape". It's a clumsy and patronizing debating cudgel. That its referenced as persuasive rhetoric is worrying.<br /><br />Wrapping up, I haven't cited sources for convenience, but if you agree that if the stats are right my conclusions are right I will. However if you would disagree even if the stats are on my side I won't bother.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-87085174341029727262012-09-01T10:17:12.304-07:002012-09-01T10:17:12.304-07:00Captain Fluffy Duck is misrepresenting the complex...Captain Fluffy Duck is misrepresenting the complexity and nuance of the elevatorgate kerfuffle.<br /><br />To portray the whole incident as simply a reaction to Watsons original comment is disingenuous. IMO Watsons orginal comments were simply a spark that ignited more incendiary tinder.<br /><br />For example many people were criticizing Watson for her treatment of Stef McCraw (Watson called her out for "parroting misogynist thought" on stage at an event McCraw was in the audience for).<br /><br />Of course, Watsons actions there were at best questionable, and IMO fairly unpleasant. Much better to just say that everyone was pissed off cause she said "guys don't do that".<br /><br />Richard Dawkins comments, similarly are often portrayed as a response to Watsons original comments, but they were not. The "Dear Muslima" comment was in the comments discussion of Myers blog, where the elevator incident was being referenced in much more extreme terms, as a case of vile misogyny, and ideas like "Schroedingers rapist" were being bandied about.<br /><br />Of course, if you are honest and explain what Dawkins was replying to, it looks a lot less over the top than if you go round telling people Watson said "guys don't do that" and then Dawkins went on the "Dear Muslima" rant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-60615025820493570222012-09-01T09:49:47.183-07:002012-09-01T09:49:47.183-07:00Bravo for an incredibly incisive post.
It's n...Bravo for an incredibly incisive post.<br /><br />It's nice to see someone bring an analysis of social dynamics instead of just going for the more obvious comments.<br /><br />Thankfully the same things that would make A+ a problem if it became popular are exactly the same things that will stop it from ever being popular.<br /><br />Making accusations of misogyny against/excluding anyone who disagrees with your group has a handy cure built into the sickness, that pretty soon you're not going to have anyone left to shout at.<br /><br />I'm not actually convinced A+ is a bad thing. Well, for its stated goals it is, but for the health of wider atheist community(s), it might be a good idea if people who refuse to accept any dissent or skepticism against their sacred cows hide away in their own intellectually incestuous enclave.<br /><br />Something tells me however that they won't be satisfied with that, and that their idea of a "safe space" involves still attacking other atheists while hiding behind their "safe space".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-92224141160835147582012-09-01T01:41:22.831-07:002012-09-01T01:41:22.831-07:00WTF.... Having had no internet connection for a wh...WTF.... Having had no internet connection for a while I just spent the last hour trying to work out what this debate is all about. And I'm still a little bemused. The whole thing has now become so complex as to be inaccessible to anyone who isn't already heavily involved - and therefore, I doubt that anyone outside what appears to be a very, very small community cares.<br /><br />Frankly, I feel like bashing all your heads together. Both sides are making some good points, both sides are making negative assumptions about the other side, and both sides have sent this whole thing way out of proportion.<br /><br />Did any of you see the South Park featuring "Richard Dawkins"? My gf found it hilarious (she's sick of me ripping religion apart) and she especially loved the bit where the atheists were fighting a world war between themselves. I thought that was just daft but this argument just reminds me of that.The Curious Tinkererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12308797577507843732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-16313691653504058332012-08-31T13:37:59.617-07:002012-08-31T13:37:59.617-07:00(or the western industrialized world generally)(or the western industrialized world generally)Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-88378932364728453652012-08-31T13:16:40.191-07:002012-08-31T13:16:40.191-07:00"the very real struggle for women's emanc..."the very real struggle for women's emancipation"<br /><br />In the U.S., what you think this entails?Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-78511916467859493572012-08-31T08:49:15.823-07:002012-08-31T08:49:15.823-07:00You'll find no argument from me that Carrier i...You'll find no argument from me that Carrier is being an ass, particularly in his comments. If he were the center of A+ I wouldn't have anything to do with it.<br /><br />Happy travels.Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-64725312348362960672012-08-31T05:02:15.553-07:002012-08-31T05:02:15.553-07:00Heretic
I'm getting a little tired of this de...Heretic<br /><br />I'm getting a little tired of this debate now and feeling that I'm becoming increasingly repetitive so I'll sign off from this discussion with a final couple of observations regarding what you've said.<br /><br />>>And while we're talking about versions of feminism, your best arguments are being solicited for the sort libertarian tact that seems to be popular in these comments.<br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/08/29/legitimate-differences-of-opinion/<<<br /><br />I followed your link and found that rather than arguments being welcomed, reasonable and moderately expressed arguments were being met with the usual FtB vitriol and scorn such as:<br /><br />"I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT, YOU FILTHY STRAWMANNING ASSHOLE.....Do you have no fucking integrity? Can you not fucking read? Seriously–what the fucking fuck?!"<br /><br />Personally, I think I'd rather steer clear of your fellow travelers thank you very much.<br /><br />A final thought regarding divisiveness? Have a look at -http://thunderf00tdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/one-vote-for-douchbagger-then.jpg<br /><br />If A+ was being formed by people like you I'd be wishing it well - the way in which you express yourself does you credit and that you genuinely want to help make society better in a compassionate manner is clear - I just think you deserve better company.<br /><br /><br />Paul Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751624141556119498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-9233735081311449102012-08-30T20:53:59.261-07:002012-08-30T20:53:59.261-07:00I shall endeavor to answer this weekend. I really...I shall endeavor to answer this weekend. I really must go to bed now.Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-57446595963010199172012-08-30T20:49:26.881-07:002012-08-30T20:49:26.881-07:00"will alienate potential converts with a comp..."will alienate potential converts with a comparatively conservative mindset"<br /><br />Well, folks such as Dawkins and yourselves who support the idea of equality but are basically advocating the status quo are certainly still going to be present in sufficient numbers. Indeed, I would expect this to be the loudest and most dominant segment of atheism for some time to come; vanilla New Atheism isn't going anywhere.<br /><br />And for the overt douchebags who are considering atheism, there appears to be plenty of that, too. Maybe they could call it rapetheism or something. Snark aside, we span the spectrum of humanity. There's something for everyone here.<br /><br />"Atheists are already engaged in a whole range of social issues from feeding the homeless to supporting gay marriage. They do this because they are moral human beings not because they are atheists."<br /><br />Yes, I see what you're saying here. A few points:<br />1) As previously mentioned, this isn't just about advocacy but about creating atheist spaces that are safe for atheists that are marginalized in other ways.<br />2) I think there is a correlation between skepticism and social justice, because these movements are challenging popular conceptions and assumptions, intuitive worldviews, etc.<br />3) For straight, white men in particular I think atheism provides a unique opportunity to experience privilege from the marginalized side when dealing with theists who want to assert their Tyranny of the Majority. This realization can be a stepping stone to seeing privilege in other places, and particularly in themselves. Atheism and skepticism can make a good mirror (some polishing required ; )<br /><br />"divisive" I will leave to Greta:<br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/30/atheism-plus-and-some-thoughts-on-divisiveness/<br /><br />And while we're talking about versions of feminism, your best arguments are being solicited for the sort libertarian tact that seems to be popular in these comments.<br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/08/29/legitimate-differences-of-opinion/<br /><br />"I'm being tacitly labelled a dick," Yeah, well I don't really like all the labels that are being applied to me for supporting A+, either. I just believe in this. That doesn't make me McCarthy or something. (I really did wince at that, Lucy.)Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-87315347385315733862012-08-30T18:38:09.096-07:002012-08-30T18:38:09.096-07:00Atheism+ is atheism plus genitals. Genitals, of co...Atheism+ is atheism plus genitals. Genitals, of course, are the most important thing in the whole bloody world, and we ought to be consumed with interest in them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-8728310619835185852012-08-30T09:36:37.162-07:002012-08-30T09:36:37.162-07:00I was under the (apparently false) impression that...I was under the (apparently false) impression that the US v.s. THEM types were a minority. Well, maybe they are, but they're clearly vocal and belligerent.<br /><br />I'm sorry you've had to put up with that shit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-8727987189643467342012-08-30T07:10:04.530-07:002012-08-30T07:10:04.530-07:00I disagree. The status of the group making a claim...I disagree. The status of the group making a claim has no bearing on the truth value of the claim. <br /><br />But if you prefer, then let's change it to Schrodinger's brutal cop, all black people should be able to demand police officers change procedures to stop them because in the past some black people have been beaten up by police officers. Now we have a marginalized group talking, and it sounds equally silly to me.<br /><br />And if option 3 is so obvious, why wasn't it included in your first post?<br />I'm still not convinced, and I still think schrodinger's rapist is a bigoted sexist piece of BS. Altairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04449964424704628776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-58758326523369996692012-08-30T06:36:28.317-07:002012-08-30T06:36:28.317-07:00"THAT'S what feminists consider not being..."THAT'S what feminists consider not being friendly or sensitive, because they're used to having everything they said accepted without question"<br /><br />This is patently untrue. Ask any feminist if they're "used to having everything they said accepted without question."<br /><br />Your writing indicates a foundational misunderstanding of the nature of sexism and harassment. There's often no "clear and specific evidence showing mistreatment." If there were, this wouldn't be a problem. <br /><br />E.g. you may never see the hand that grabs your ass, and you certainly don't have a video recording of it. If a woman reports being goosed at a conference, responding with "Provide clear and specific evidence showing mistreatment or we will not take your claim seriously." is actually further harassment - the victim is put in an impossible position.<br /><br />"And mistreatment is not endemic to the feminist bloggers, Dawkins and other bloggers get hate mail with death threats very often."<br /><br />You're begging the question.<br /><br />"What I think the ..."<br /><br />See above. The demand for evidence that doesn't exist _due the very nature of the problem_ is irrational. Let me ask you a few questions:<br /><br />Do you think that victim-blaming exists?<br /><br />Do you think that privilege exists?<br /><br />"Apparently many feminists need to be reminded of the shocking notion that men are people too."<br /><br />You can find extremists in any movement, but the vast majority of feminists are well aware that 'men are people too.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-40523536071773328982012-08-30T01:31:33.757-07:002012-08-30T01:31:33.757-07:00@Heretic,
"I get it. I really do. I felt t...@Heretic,<br /><br /> "I get it. I really do. I felt the same way not very long ago. When I first read about ElevatorGate I thought "That's the whole complaint? WHO CARES?" Truly, I see your viewpoint."<br /><br /> Actually, my whole complaint is that while these wretched nonentities have been complaining they have firstly been ignoring the very real struggle for women's emancipation, and have been lying about and smearing far, far better people than they. For all their whinging about "privilege" it is they that are the pampered, spoiled, well-off brats who turn their back on those who are fighting real oppression. To the devil with the lot of them. Hugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14237434266749990632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-48000861636040870482012-08-29T22:46:14.189-07:002012-08-29T22:46:14.189-07:00Heretic
>>"the status is not quo"...Heretic<br /><br />>>"the status is not quo" is a lighthearted reference to Dr. Horrible, which is a bit of silliness that I recommend.<<<br /><br />Apologies, I obviously exposed my ignorance here, I'd never heard of Dr. Horrible before.<br /><br />>>There are vast numbers of potential unbelievers out there<<<br /><br />I agree, but I can't help thinking that bundling support for disbelief in gods up into a package with leading edge feminism, LGBT rights, pro-choice, positive discrimination etc will be too big a pill to swallow and will alienate potential converts with a comparatively conservative mindset from seeking support for the initial baby steps they may need to make on the long road to enlightenment.<br /><br />>>I think we could have atheism mixed with anything that there is a critical mass of people interested in.<<<br /><br />Atheists are already engaged in a whole range of social issues from feeding the homeless to supporting gay marriage. They do this because they are moral human beings not because they are atheists.<br /><br />>>When our numbers are large enough, there will be atheist everything, and when they are larger still, we'll stop even mentioning the atheist part<<<br /><br />I'm afraid I still can't understand why it needs to be mentioned in the first place other than as marketing idea from a small group of bloggers who have a better track record of divisive rather than inclusive behaviour.<br /><br />>>If that isn't your thing, dictionary atheism isn't going anywhere, so no big deal.<<<br /><br />Except it is a big deal when I'm being tacitly labelled a dick, douchebag or whatever for not wanting to be part of the FtB's new club.<br />Paul Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751624141556119498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-37990299306322337102012-08-29T19:21:05.157-07:002012-08-29T19:21:05.157-07:00"the status is not quo" is a lighthearte..."the status is not quo" is a lighthearted reference to Dr. Horrible, which is a bit of silliness that I recommend.<br /><br />Making the community more friendly to marginalized groups has two main purposes that I can see: <br /><br />1) Social justice is a morally good thing to be doing, and many of us want to be doing it. Much of our argument about religion is centered on moral outrage. Fighting for social justice comes from that same impetus. Skeptical thought is also relevant to it, because of the challenge of thought that is overcoming entrenched ideas about various social groups. (Are black people in America really just lazy? What do the data say about this?)<br />2) There are vast numbers of potential unbelievers out there, and presently their ratios in atheism do not reflect their ratios in society. This asks questions of us: why, and what can we do about it? An athiest community that is friendlier to these groups helps grow atheism.<br /><br />If that isn't your thing, dictionary atheism isn't going anywhere, so no big deal.<br /><br />I think we could have atheism mixed with anything that there is a critical mass of people interested in. If you want to start Atheist Roadside Services, be my guest. I won't join, but I'm not going to obstruct it, either. When our numbers are large enough, there will be atheist everything, and when they are larger still, we'll stop even mentioning the atheist part, because it won't be necessary anymore. Wouldn't that be nice...<br />Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-7580100812686659742012-08-29T18:51:48.677-07:002012-08-29T18:51:48.677-07:00Heretic:
"Atheim+: because the status is not...Heretic:<br /><br />"Atheim+: because the status is not quo."<br /><br />You might want to check what 'quo' means. As it is your little motto is just gibberish.<br /><br />I think you are also missing the point of ElevatorGate - ElevatorGate has less to do with a plea for male understanding of women's sensitivities and more to do with the ensuing frenzy that was generated when anyone with an alternative viewpoint was routinely demonized and alienated.<br /><br />When Richard Dawkins had the temerity to suggest that female genital mutilation (I think that was the example he gave?) may be a more serious issue than a guy making a pass at a woman in a hotel and was promptly on the receiving end of more vitriol than he'd probably got from any number of creationists I think it was pretty clear that ElevatorGate had gone way beyond Rebecca Watson feeling uncomfortable.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, what has non-acceptance of the existence of gods have to do with educating men in the sensitivities of women? <br /><br />Why not have Atheism plus Roadside Assistance for when your car breaks down?Paul Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751624141556119498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-30458412210114033452012-08-29T17:57:50.305-07:002012-08-29T17:57:50.305-07:00Critically, the white supremacists talking about S...Critically, the white supremacists talking about Schrodinger's Mugger would not be a marginalized group. That changes the scene entirely.<br /><br />It's possible to disagree, obviously. It's also possible that the person is really wrong, so there's still an Option 3. It's easy to mistake Option 1 for 3 though, so it's worth thinking carefully about what's been said if someone who is in a marginalized group raises a complaint with you.Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-4923570185117855112012-08-29T17:49:59.341-07:002012-08-29T17:49:59.341-07:00Altair:
"I happen to think that Watson word...Altair: <br /><br />"I happen to think that Watson worded even her initial mild message in a wrong way"<br /><br />I might agree with you but then again I'm an old white guy and apparently not eligible to have an opinion :-)<br />Paul Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751624141556119498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-73759176770703002732012-08-29T16:41:03.586-07:002012-08-29T16:41:03.586-07:00What about option 3, bite your lip, listen and the...What about option 3, bite your lip, listen and then decide you don't agree with their positions, and decide that you think that Schrodinger's rapist is a bigoted sexist piece of tripe that is easily dismantled by changing man to black person and rape to mug or assault?<br />If I were to a white supremacy site and talked about Schrodinger's black mugger, I would get a torrent of gushing comments of people who agree, but that doesn't make it right.<br /><br />You posit a false dichotomy between having a knee-jerk non rational reaction and accepting the other person is right and you're wrong. <br /><br />In my opinion, that's where you and A+ fail. If it were merely defined as a community of people who agree with certain views, I think most people would have no problem with it, but your options 1 and 2 are showing the mindset behind it, you either agree or you're having a knee-jerk reaction that says the other part is being hysterical over sensitive and therefore are being a bigot and misogynistic jerk.Altairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04449964424704628776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-87162448837747018022012-08-29T15:00:01.960-07:002012-08-29T15:00:01.960-07:00Comments here have expressed, essentially, that co...Comments here have expressed, essentially, that concern over something like ElevatorGate is frivolous. That it's the product of an over-sensitive brand of feminism that mostly just needs to STFU so we can all get back to being awesome atheists without having to hear them whine about the inconsequential.<br /><br />I get it. I really do. I felt the same way not very long ago. When I first read about ElevatorGate I thought "That's the whole complaint? WHO CARES?" Truly, I see your viewpoint.<br /><br />I believe I was mistaken, and I believe you (that's the general you directed at various commenters ) are mistaken too. I would like you to read this:<br />http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/<br /><br />If you're like me when I first read it, you're probably going to think that some of that is over-sensitive. "Who is this woman who thinks I can't even talk to a stranger to find out if maybe she finds me interesting? How is that supposed to work?"<br /><br />Now I would like you to scroll down, if you haven't already, and read the gushing comments from women who agree. <br /><br />Some of you who previously thought that this idea was ridiculous may now be pausing to consider whether these women simply have a different perspective than your own. You may be considering that your social privilege might have previously blinded you to a real problem, caused you to dismiss it. Or you may still think it's ridiculous.<br /><br />Here's the thing. The people who have these concerns (and others) and want to share them, and the people who are willing to take those concerns seriously - we want to shape a community where that kind of respect is commonplace, where it can be assumed. The assumption wouldn't be that no one would fuck up. Our privilege (we all have it in one form or another) virtually guarantees that we will fuck up, because it gives us a great big blind spot that prevents us from seeing how our actions hurt others. When this happens, someone is going to tell you that you've fucked up, and your gut reaction is going to be "What? I don't even see the problem with..."<br /><br />And now you have a choice. You can either:<br />1) Trust your intuitive response and tell this person to stop whining about inconsequential, over-sensitive hysterics. (Because if you can't see the problem, there must not be one.)<br /><br />2) Bite your lip. Listen to what is being said. Consider that you may have a blind spot here. Assume that this person's experience is as valid as yours. Make the effort to recognize your mistake, absorb the lesson, and change.<br /><br />Option 1 is what people naturally do. Option 2 is harder, but worthwhile. It results in personal growth, and in the development of a mutually respectful community.<br /><br />When advocating for Option 2, threads more or less invariably turn into this one, in which these concerns are minimized and mocked. That is why Atheism+ is being formed. That is also why A+ must be, to some extent, exclusive of people who do not agree with this approach. We cannot have a positive environment that works to be inclusive, and to support marginalized groups, if a sizable fraction of the community is constantly minimizing and mocking their concerns, and wants to argue incessantly that things are fine the way they are.<br /><br />ElevatorGate is a pretty good litmus test. If you can challenge your own worldview and come to a place where you can say "Ok, I can see why Rebecca Watson was coming from, and that 'Guys, don't do this.' was pretty good advice." then you would fit in well with Atheism+, if you so chose.<br /><br />If you think that she's being over-sensitive, then your attitudes are part of the problem that Atheism+ is trying to address. That isn't a jab at you. I get it. Privilege is no picnic to recognize and overcome, but until you do, you are literally the problem we are trying to address.<br /><br />Atheim+: because the status is not quo.<br /><br />Heretic with a Hearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941834577913791416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003200974688946575.post-18864652980993838842012-08-29T10:28:28.649-07:002012-08-29T10:28:28.649-07:00Blimey, I'm not sure. I don't think it...Blimey, I'm not sure. I don't think it's the "plus" specifically I object to, but it's possible it's a factor. I should note - again - that I was actually all for the idea when I first read Greta Christina's blog on the notion, and it has certainly acquired the "plus" by then.<br /><br />On balance, I don't think it matters what you call yourself; when you're setting yourself up as the moral arbiter of everybody because a FEW people have treated you badly, you're going to get backs up - you're effectively telling them without you to moderate their behaviour, you'd be off raping an pillaging in no time. When you respond to dissent, honest criticism and even sincere questions with rage, name-calling and shrieks of "misogynist!" (and especially if that's ALL you shriek about after setting yourself up as warriors again racism, homophobia, transphobia etc.) you make exactly the kind of unfair assumption you started out objecting to.SoggyMoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12357790920813258281noreply@blogger.com