You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 04:29:49 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Elliquian Atheists  (Read 35528 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #875 on: April 05, 2013, 01:40:54 PM »
I would go with "it's a pity the perceived threat to atheism isn't misogynist coward douchebags who meet women's attempts to raise concerns about harassment at conventions with a campaign of threats of violence up to & including rape & murder, rather than mean feminist meanies who are being mean because they hate fun".

But I guess that's just me.

I'd love to see where this actually took place, as I haven't found any instances of threats of rape at a convention, or harassment of any type, only online harassment. Which, lets be clear, is not okay, but making it out to be a threat to an entire movement is a bit dramatic.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #876 on: April 05, 2013, 01:52:39 PM »
Please show me where I said all women are feminazi's.

Firstly, I never used the word "all." You inserted that into my statement.  You did, however, call women "feminazis" and that is what I responded to.  Until women make the same amount of money that men do, until we have equal representation in government, you should probably stick to "feminists" because the word "feminazis" is degrading to those of us who have been paid less than men for the same job and are upset about it.


"I think the point here is that, at least the way I see it (don't quote me on this - I'm not exactly very involved or knowledgable on the topics outside the big Dongle thing recently) that a huge majority of the Skepchick movement is addressing a problem which doesn't exist and is therefore, ironically, further spreading the idea that this non-problem is a problem. Not only is it advertising to the religious community that Atheists are apparently exactly what they thought we are (Oh, look! Now they're Atheists, and they can't stop all the rape and murder I said that Atheists commit! I knew morals came from God!), but it then further scares people thinking of attending because they're not under the impression that rape and assault against women at conferances are a common occurance."

Your reasoning here seems all over the map.  First you say that the problem doesn't exist.  And then you admit that there is enough evidence there that the religious community can latch on to it and use it to accuse atheists of lacking in morals.  Which of course we all know that they do.  But really, which is it?  Is it a non-problem that doesn't exist, or is it a wide-spread phenomenon that has the danger of threatening the atheist community and their reputation?

'I find your ideas on the Page 'o Hate a little unreasonable, personally; it reminds me far too much of arguements used to denounce anyone who has an opinion which classes with the religion. "Well, you're wrong, and here's why you're wrong, as documented by the Catholic Church. Disagreement and your own thoughts on how rational these are is not your opinion, it just means that you're wrong, and here's why you're wrong. You're not a Catholic, you're not allowed an opinion on if Catholicism is true or not."'

I don't follow this... I put the page of hate up because it showed what is happening in the atheist community, because it illustrated the entire 'need for feminism and activism' in the atheist community.  I don't understand what that has to do with your argument at all. 


"Similarly with Youtube videos. Lots of skepchick videos I've seen claim the sheer amounts of Youtube harassment they've had, but none of this offense is ever shown. Most of the videos are heavily censored to stop people adding their opinions or even hurling offense, if that was what they wanted to do."
.

Soooo, I put up an entire thread of hate directed at THE skepchick.... and yet 'none of this offense is ever shown'... What do you need to see to believe that people are getting rape and murder threats? Do you consider death threats to be offensive?  I do. Do you want me to link up the petition that was made to try to get Rebecca thrown off of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe?  Because that happened...  She commented that she didn't feel comfortable being hit on in an elevator by a drunk at 3 am... That's all she did...  And the (mostly) male response was to try to silence her.  Fortunately the men of the Skeptics Guide all said, pretty much, 'screw that'... (paraphrasing there)


"No, I have no problem with feminism."
"To put it much more bluntly, social thugs and feminazi's have hijacked the conventions, and it could do real harm to Atheism in America."
"What I AM against is the use of deceptive wording and emotional pleas to divide a movement, create an 'us or them' mentality, censor free speech and generally demonize open discussion."

First off, if you have no problem with feminism, please stop using the word 'feminazis'.  It is basically a use of an emotional plea to divide a movement.
Second off, your supposed 'social thugs' are really just women, who are fed up with being treated as second class citizens.  In order to make change, one has to sometimes be outspoken and ask for things. Women pretty much want to be treated equally, and they aren't.  If you are scared of a division in atheism, perhaps you should go after the men who treat women like crap.  Perhaps you should go after the men who make us feel like we aren't welcome, and that we might be in danger if we try to participate. 

And if you really don't like the idea of censoring free speech and demonizing open discussion.... See the aforementioned petition to have the one and only female member of the Skeptic's guide removed from the podcast.  It's one of the most popular skeptical productions around, and the ONLY person to have that happen was the single female.  Because she made one comment on her blog, and not on the show.  The censorship that's happening here is mostly a minority of men who happen to be hateful and are trying to silence women.

You are accusing the feminist faction of doing the dividing.  Or at least that is what I read.  If you aren't then please let me know.  But by your language alone you certainly were doing that.  And yes, I did read it.  I'm accusing you of using words that are offensive to me.  If you don't care, that's your prerogative, I certainly can't make you.  But your language is what is dividing the movement.  Throwing around words like "feminazi" is a sure way to paint women who try to stick up for themselves as demons.

I would go with "it's a pity the perceived threat to atheism isn't misogynist coward douchebags who meet women's attempts to raise concerns about harassment at conventions with a campaign of threats of violence up to & including rape & murder, rather than mean feminist meanies who are being mean because they hate fun".

But I guess that's just me.

Agreed.
 

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #877 on: April 05, 2013, 02:02:43 PM »
Your reasoning here seems all over the map.  First you say that the problem doesn't exist.  And then you admit that there is enough evidence there that the religious community can latch on to it and use it to accuse atheists of lacking in morals.  Which of course we all know that they do.  But really, which is it?  Is it a non-problem that doesn't exist, or is it a wide-spread phenomenon that has the danger of threatening the atheist community and their reputation?

I don't follow this... I put the page of hate up because it showed what is happening in the atheist community, because it illustrated the entire 'need for feminism and activism' in the atheist community.  I don't understand what that has to do with your argument at all. 

Soooo, I put up an entire thread of hate directed at THE skepchick.... and yet 'none of this offense is ever shown'... What do you need to see to believe that people are getting rape and murder threats? Do you consider death threats to be offensive?  I do. Do you want me to link up the petition that was made to try to get Rebecca thrown off of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe?  Because that happened...  She commented that she didn't feel comfortable being hit on in an elevator by a drunk at 3 am... That's all she did...  And the (mostly) male response was to try to silence her.  Fortunately the men of the Skeptics Guide all said, pretty much, 'screw that'... (paraphrasing there)

And if you really don't like the idea of censoring free speech and demonizing open discussion.... See the aforementioned petition to have the one and only female member of the Skeptic's guide removed from the podcast.  It's one of the most popular skeptical productions around, and the ONLY person to have that happen was the single female.  Because she made one comment on her blog, and not on the show.  The censorship that's happening here is mostly a minority of men who happen to be hateful and are trying to silence women.

Admittedly, I only woke up a few hours ago, so yeah, my points are most likely all over; my point was supposed to be that I've not seen (admittedly, from the small amount of evidence I've seen) or expect that skeptic conventions are hot beds of rape and men lining up to abuse women. And that if this isn't true, proporting the idea that it is, and drawing huge amount of attention to a problem which doesn't exist only further builds the opinion in the minds of the theistic community that as soon as you move away from religion, we (atheists) all devolve into rapists and murderers who just want to kill and fuck anything we want without judgement.

I don't think death threats and such are a 'need for feminism and activism'. Death threats arn't acceptable, in any instances. I have seen some very legitimate points posted on the Page 'o Hate listed as 'Look! This is the reason we need Atheism+!', which while the minority, still arn't deserving of their position of 'Haters gonna hate'.

I can't comment on the 'Elevatorgate' or whatever people call it, because I have no knowledge on the incident and I'm not familiar with Rebecca/anything involving her.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #878 on: April 05, 2013, 02:06:40 PM »
Quote
If you think that this is unnecessary, if you think that women are 'feminazis' and are 'hijacking' the movement, then you really are prejudiced.

If you meant specific women, like those heading Skepchick, please say so. By just saying 'women', you kind of mean... women. If that wasn't your intention, it's still how it read.

Quote
First off, if you have no problem with feminism, please stop using the word 'feminazis'.  It is basically a use of an emotional plea to divide a movement.

I use that word because I don't believe they are feminists. They use feminist words, like 'equal', but then they say things like, I shit you not, 'a male brain is just a female brain that was damaged by testosterone'. Feminine supremacist is a much more accurate name for these people.

Here is the time stamp for that particular comment.

http://youtu.be/v5uvPhZ29fs?t=37m4s

Quote
Second off, your supposed 'social thugs' are really just women, who are fed up with being treated as second class citizens.  In order to make change, one has to sometimes be outspoken and ask for things. Women pretty much want to be treated equally, and they aren't.  If you are scared of a division in atheism, perhaps you should go after the men who treat women like crap.  Perhaps you should go after the men who make us feel like we aren't welcome, and that we might be in danger if we try to participate. 

Social thugs was in response to the men and women heading Atheism+, not skepchick, and it was in response to loosely worded, uneccessary and manipulative policies they are trying to enforce, like 'banning t-shirts that could offend'. That is social thuggery.

Quote
And if you really don't like the idea of censoring free speech and demonizing open discussion.... See the aforementioned petition to have the one and only female member of the Skeptic's guide removed from the podcast.  It's one of the most popular skeptical productions around, and the ONLY person to have that happen was the single female.  Because she made one comment on her blog, and not on the show.  The censorship that's happening here is mostly a minority of men who happen to be hateful and are trying to silence women.

I don't know who this is, and if she was wrongly removed, then that is awful.

Quote
You are accusing the feminist faction of doing the dividing.  Or at least that is what I read.  If you aren't then please let me know.  But by your language alone you certainly were doing that.

That was in regards to the posted videos, I apologize for not clarifying :( It clearly shows prominent members of Atheist+ urging members to ostracize those that do not agree with their policies and a general 'us vs them' mentality. That is what I was against. None of my comments were made in regards to actual feminism.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #879 on: April 05, 2013, 02:39:42 PM »
Okay, the problem with some of your arguments here is that you really don't seem to know who I'm talking about. 

The same person who I was talking about, the one who they petitioned to have removed from the Skeptics Guide.....

You posted her up.  Or at least, it was her picture I saw before I clicked play on the third video you posted.  Her name is Rebecca Watson.  She helped found Skepchick, she is not a founding member of the Skeptic's guide, but she's been on it for many years now.  And she has been talking for a decade at atheist conventions. 

A few really hateful men tried to petition to have her removed, thus removing the only female voice on a really popular podcast, due to the elevator-gate incident.  She did not get removed, though, because the guys on the guide stuck up for her.

She's also one of the founders of Atheism +.

I will also note that since you don't seem to be that linked in to the atheist community, or at least, not as rabid about it as I am, that you might want to check your sources for those videos.  Thunderf00t has an axe to grind with a lot of the members of Atheism+.  The basic history of it is this:

Thunderf00t used to be one of the cool kids over at Freethought Blogs.  He was removed for basically being a troll.  He got mad.  He immediately retaliated by messing with their mailing list, which included access to confidential emails. He was caught and removed once again, but only after he got what he considered 'ammunition' against the people at Freethought. He doesn't like the cool kids anymore.

That said, I still, from time to time, watch his videos.  He has thoughtful things to say sometimes.  However, when it comes to his opinions about the leaders of Atheism+, his view is far from rational.

As for the comment about "if you think women are feminazis" okay.. I could have worded that more specifically, but again, until women are equal, with equal pay and representation I feel that the word is simply a dirty one.  I've been discriminated against personally, and I merely want equality.  The vast majority of feminists feel the same.  Perhaps there are a few that have treated you badly, but they are not the majority.  And I'm personally horrified by any woman who would make that comment about testosterone.

And also: the leaders of Atheism+ include some people from Skepchick, so I do use them somewhat interchangeably. And again, due to Thunderf00t's own prejudice, I don't really give him credence in his opinions of many of those leaders. 
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 02:42:55 PM by Bandita »

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #880 on: April 05, 2013, 02:55:07 PM »
I'm aware of the history between them, my problem is people claiming these conventions are a hotbed of misogynist harassment that needs an intervening group, and then offering to step in and change it without actually showing us this problem existing at all.

Please, show me where serial harassment takes place against women at Atheist conventions. Not in blog comments, at conventions. Show me the problem that they insist exists.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #881 on: April 05, 2013, 03:24:00 PM »
Actually, rereading my original post, I must apologize for the wording I use. I won't delete or edit it, as that would be pretty dishonest of me. I said some dumb things, and burying them won't help me learn from them. I still don't support Atheism+ in it's current state (based on how I've seen it's members conduct themselves) but I will concede that my knowledge of Atheism+ is a bit lacking and that I spoke poorly.

I'm also running a massive fever and slipping in and out of consciousness, and while that's no excuse, it's certainly a contributing factor ^^'

Offline Avis habilis

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #882 on: April 05, 2013, 03:36:40 PM »
Ouch. Get well soon, man.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #883 on: April 05, 2013, 03:58:22 PM »
I'm aware of the history between them, my problem is people claiming these conventions are a hotbed of misogynist harassment that needs an intervening group, and then offering to step in and change it without actually showing us this problem existing at all.

Please, show me where serial harassment takes place against women at Atheist conventions. Not in blog comments, at conventions. Show me the problem that they insist exists.

Your request is impossible.  I am not at a convention. I have not ever been to one, and don't have any handy dandy footage on my phone. I will point out, however, that the vast majority of rape is not reported, much less prosecuted. Most women feel dirty and icky about anything that even approaches harrassment, and many of us are told that we 'bring it on ourselves'. One of the very reasons that it DOES appear in blogs is that they are kind of a safe place to talk about it.  Certainly the police won't help us if we report it.

And if you don't accept that the intimidation by commenters on threads as harassment, threats to rape a prominent woman next time she speaks or goes out in public, then I don't know what harassment is.  I know it's only (technically) directed at a few specific people, but on the other hand, the rest of us women aren't longing to be in a room full of rapists who are looking for Rebecca.  What if one of us says something that one of those animals doesn't like?  We could be their replacement target.  And if you read some of the threads, it seems sometimes that EVERY commenter is a rapist or a murderer, even though, logically, that's just ridiculous.

I have, however, been told that my opinion didn't matter, and further, called a "cunt" and a "whore" because someone didn't like my opinion, and that I was an idiot, a slut, a bitch, and a "fucking waste of human feces, I wouldn't even rape you"  for simply posting my own opinions on my own thread on facebook.  You don't have to believe it happens at conventions, but if that happens on my own thread, from people I actually know, on facebook, then logically it happens at cons too where no one can hold strangers accountable. (and yes, I defriended them.)

Also: thanks for not editing your original post.  I must admit I hate it when I see a thread and can't figure out what people are talking about because of edits...

Online Sethala

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #884 on: April 05, 2013, 04:07:45 PM »
Well, I will say that I am very much opposed to the Atheism+ crap, at least what I've read about it.  It actually sounds very much like religion: on the outside, it promises wonderful things, equality for all, openness about everything, behaving reasonably, compassionately, and with integrity.  Sounds great, right?  Except when you go deeper in and look at what there is, it's a bunch of scare tactics, promoting an us-or-them mentality that only manages to divide an already-small group even further.  There's a large push with those that are proponents of A+ to go out and say that anyone who rejects them is a horrible person.  Case in point, Richard Carrier has a blog post about A+, but read how he responds to the comments starting with this one: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/comment-page-1#comment-20031

(As an aside, he proudly boasts that he moderates comments on his blog, which means he can easily get rid of any comments that disagree with him; it seems like he only posts the comments that agree, or the comments that he can respond to in order to make himself look better.)

Now, I consider myself an atheist, a secular humanist, and depending on who's asking, I agree with feminism (there seems to be a difference between the feminists that want equality for all, and the feminists that want female supremacy, but that's a topic for another thread).  But I keep the interests separate.  If I'm talking to someone about religion, I generally only say I'm an atheist, because everything else I believe is irrelevant unless the conversation leads to another topic.  Similarly, I can agree with religious people on the goals of secular humanism; I know there's a few Christian groups that are in favor of gay marriage, or women's rights, and I can support them even if I'm an atheist.

Anyway, if someone wants to continue this line of thought, I think it would be best to break off into another thread specifically for A+.  If someone wants to do that, feel free to quote me and post your response in that new thread.

Firstly, I never used the word "all." You inserted that into my statement.  You did, however, call women "feminazis" and that is what I responded to.  Until women make the same amount of money that men do, until we have equal representation in government, you should probably stick to "feminists" because the word "feminazis" is degrading to those of us who have been paid less than men for the same job and are upset about it.

Trying to not go off on too large of a tangent here... but do you happen to have anything backing this up?  I know there was a study done comparing wages for men and women, but I was under the impression that it didn't break down the results based on type of job, so men working in higher-paying fields that don't have very many women were skewing their averages upwards, while women in lower-paying jobs that don't have very many men were skewing their average downwards; studies that broke it down based on the actual job tended to be much closer, and I remember a study that compared only single women with no children actually showed them getting higher pay than single men with no children.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #885 on: April 05, 2013, 04:21:19 PM »
I don't actually read Richard Carrier.  I know he's one of the big wigs over there, but I'm not that into him. 

And yes, I can prove that.  If you believe the bureau of Labor Statistics... I have them on my bookmarks because of all the reports I've had to do on the subject.  Here's one of them, sorted by industry.

And there's also the little problem of the Glass Ceiling.  Some people argue that women don't have "the same type of jobs as men" and therefore the two can't be compared, however with the glass ceiling many women can't get promoted into the same 'type.'  Which is still discrimination and boils down to the same thing. You can't really compare the manager with the salesperson?  Well, why are there five male managers, one female manager.... and there are forty female employees and only a dozen males?  (I worked a job like that once, don't know if it's representative, but I was pretty unhappy there)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm

I've also heard people throw in other data, like how much time women take off for babies and stuff.  But I have no kids, and so that doesn't affect me. It rather insults me when I hear that as an explanation for why I should expect to be paid less for the same work.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 04:24:26 PM by Bandita »

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #886 on: April 05, 2013, 04:25:18 PM »
Well, I will say that I am very much opposed to the Atheism+ crap, at least what I've read about it.  It actually sounds very much like religion: on the outside, it promises wonderful things, equality for all, openness about everything, behaving reasonably, compassionately, and with integrity.  Sounds great, right?  Except when you go deeper in and look at what there is, it's a bunch of scare tactics, promoting an us-or-them mentality that only manages to divide an already-small group even further.  There's a large push with those that are proponents of A+ to go out and say that anyone who rejects them is a horrible person.  Case in point, Richard Carrier has a blog post about A+, but read how he responds to the comments starting with this one: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/comment-page-1#comment-20031

(As an aside, he proudly boasts that he moderates comments on his blog, which means he can easily get rid of any comments that disagree with him; it seems like he only posts the comments that agree, or the comments that he can respond to in order to make himself look better.)

Now, I consider myself an atheist, a secular humanist, and depending on who's asking, I agree with feminism (there seems to be a difference between the feminists that want equality for all, and the feminists that want female supremacy, but that's a topic for another thread).  But I keep the interests separate.  If I'm talking to someone about religion, I generally only say I'm an atheist, because everything else I believe is irrelevant unless the conversation leads to another topic.  Similarly, I can agree with religious people on the goals of secular humanism; I know there's a few Christian groups that are in favor of gay marriage, or women's rights, and I can support them even if I'm an atheist.

Anyway, if someone wants to continue this line of thought, I think it would be best to break off into another thread specifically for A+.  If someone wants to do that, feel free to quote me and post your response in that new thread.

Trying to not go off on too large of a tangent here... but do you happen to have anything backing this up?  I know there was a study done comparing wages for men and women, but I was under the impression that it didn't break down the results based on type of job, so men working in higher-paying fields that don't have very many women were skewing their averages upwards, while women in lower-paying jobs that don't have very many men were skewing their average downwards; studies that broke it down based on the actual job tended to be much closer, and I remember a study that compared only single women with no children actually showed them getting higher pay than single men with no children.

This.

I, like most sane people, wholely support feminism. I, however, disagree hugely with Atheism+ and their attempts to promote feminism in the way they do. Being an Atheist doesn't mean you support feminism, but a lot of feminists are humanists, so the two tend to go hand in hand, but Atheism+ promotes this in a fashion which I find both dishonest and ironically backwards to the ideas the people supporting this movement hold.

Matt Dillahunty, a man I hugely respect in the Atheist community, even he has fell prey to their tactics; "If you disagree with this, feel free to post so I can block you. If you agree, keep quiet and I won't." and as Sethala points out, Richard Carrier's disgusting 'Unless you believe exactly what we do about atheism/secular humanism/etc.', then you're part of the problem and deserve to be treated as the subhuman scum you are'. Coming from people who heavily associate themselves with the Freethoughtblogs, to resort to using tactics of censorship and division to prove their message is 'right'? It's pretty backwards.

Offline Bandita

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #887 on: April 05, 2013, 04:29:19 PM »
Okay.  I'm gonna have to go look into this.  This stuff about blocking people is new to me.  I somehow missed this.

When the F**k did this crap start?

Zokay... well, I won't defend A+... But I still will defend feminists, and a couple of people in A+.



Also... after wikiwalking for about five minutes.. I found this. 

http://notanmra.blogspot.com/

I'm not sure if it's insulting men or women more....
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 04:34:58 PM by Bandita »

Online Sethala

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #888 on: April 05, 2013, 04:38:10 PM »
How long ago did Matt Dillahunty say that?  I remember reading another story elsewhere that, after hearing just how rudely the FTB guys treated people, decided to join under a new name, not tell anyone who he was, and just be himself... and then got banned fairly quickly.  I was under the impression that he had distanced himself after that, but I haven't followed him much since then outside of the show.

And Bandita, while Thunderfoot tends to be pretty dismissive and rude at times, and has a bad history with FTB already, his latest video might be a good place to start looking at things.

As for wages, thanks for the chart.  It's definitely something I would like to look into more, and I'll hold off on debating it until I know more about it.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #889 on: April 05, 2013, 04:41:18 PM »
How long ago did Matt Dillahunty say that?  I remember reading another story elsewhere that, after hearing just how rudely the FTB guys treated people, decided to join under a new name, not tell anyone who he was, and just be himself... and then got banned fairly quickly.  I was under the impression that he had distanced himself after that, but I haven't followed him much since then outside of the show.

And Bandita, while Thunderfoot tends to be pretty dismissive and rude at times, and has a bad history with FTB already, his latest video might be a good place to start looking at things.

As for wages, thanks for the chart.  It's definitely something I would like to look into more, and I'll hold off on debating it until I know more about it.

It's either Thunderf00t's second or third video - he shows a quote from Youtube where he makes the comment.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #890 on: April 05, 2013, 06:45:13 PM »
Matt Dillahunty, a man I hugely respect in the Atheist community, even he has fell prey to their tactics; "If you disagree with this, feel free to post so I can block you. If you agree, keep quiet and I won't." and as Sethala points out, Richard Carrier's disgusting 'Unless you believe exactly what we do about atheism/secular humanism/etc.', then you're part of the problem and deserve to be treated as the subhuman scum you are'. Coming from people who heavily associate themselves with the Freethoughtblogs, to resort to using tactics of censorship and division to prove their message is 'right'? It's pretty backwards.

By which you mean Carrier's "Unless you can at least say you're on board with being reasonable, being compassionate, and showing integrity, you are supporting the irrational sexism of the status quo, and those of us on Team Social Justice will know to avoid you"? Which revision has been up since no more than 17 days after his initial post, and as of the Tfoot video you're arguing from, a total of 7 months?

This is the problem I have with the enemies of A+ and social justice within atheism in general: They can only make their case by being hideously deceptive. Oh, and the whole bit where they're against the radical notion that women are people.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #891 on: April 05, 2013, 07:22:44 PM »
By which you mean Carrier's "Unless you can at least say you're on board with being reasonable, being compassionate, and showing integrity, you are supporting the irrational sexism of the status quo, and those of us on Team Social Justice will know to avoid you"? Which revision has been up since no more than 17 days after his initial post, and as of the Tfoot video you're arguing from, a total of 7 months?

This is the problem I have with the enemies of A+ and social justice within atheism in general: They can only make their case by being hideously deceptive. Oh, and the whole bit where they're against the radical notion that women are people.

This is not deception. What you're doing now? This -is- deception. You're arguing that being against Atheism+ is 'being against the radical notion that women arn't people', which is false. It's emotionally blackmailing people into submitting to your ideals, because if someone doesn't, it's not 'I disagree with A+', it suddenly because 'I don't believe women are people'. Which are two hugely different notions. This is also an opinion mirrored by Richard Carrier. I can't tell if they have been revised or not since their posting, because I'm too lazy to search them out right now, but the fact this man thinks this way to begin with is a huge pointer to what he believes, revised or not.

"/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/ 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 villiany."

"I call everybody now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicaly, via Facebook and 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."

These two posts can be found quoted in Thunderfoot's third video, which Sabby posted. However, lets also take a quote directly from the man on his blog.

"In the meantime, are you an atheist? Do you identify as an atheist? Then I canít insist, but I do ask that you to defend these goals and values (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve itís values and aims (since you donít have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality? Then at least weíll know who to work with. And who to avoid." - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207

Does this sound like the ideal that Atheism should aim towards? Ideals which are not only against the idea of freethought, but to emotional blackmailing and straight up personal insults? This is a man who feels it's perfectly fine to censor your own media (such as, the majority of Skepchick/Atheism+ videos and forms of media, including Richard Carrier's blog, where all feedback is moderated fully), but that it's also the duty of atheists to bombard every form of social media we can to spread to message of Atheism+. And if you're not doing that, or you don't agree with Atheism+? Well, it looks like you're just an inferior being, who is sexist, cruel and irrational. Because as we know, the ideal of freethought is not infact the right to think for yourself, but censorship, not being allowed to think other than the thoughts of the whole and to blindly follow the ideas someone else has put in place because if you don't, you're not as good a person/atheist as we are. Does this sound like any other groups to you, who push that you have to believe in the exact same as what the ruling body does or be branded a heretic who is an immoral scumbag? That questioning or opposing the method in which these ideas are put forth is akin to a personal attack on the belief set in place?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 07:25:37 PM by Vanity Evolved »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #892 on: April 05, 2013, 07:56:14 PM »
This is not deception. What you're doing now? This -is- deception. You're arguing that being against Atheism+ is 'being against the radical notion that women arn't people', which is false. It's emotionally blackmailing people into submitting to your ideals, because if someone doesn't, it's not 'I disagree with A+', it suddenly because 'I don't believe women are people'. Which are two hugely different notions. This is also an opinion mirrored by Richard Carrier. I can't tell if they have been revised or not since their posting, because I'm too lazy to search them out right now, but the fact this man thinks this way to begin with is a huge pointer to what he believes, revised or not.
So quote-mining the hell out of Carrier's article to make it look like it's saying "Get into A+ or get out!", and deliberately using a statement Carrier abandoned over half a year ago, is not deception? You and I have a very different view.

Also, you'll note that I deliberately cast a wider net than A+. And yes, if you are against social justice within atheism, a male-dominated space, then you are against female equality in this space. Which... is pretty much what I was saying, and is what Carrier was getting at. He very explicitly and specifically is not saying "Join A+ or else!". He is saying "Support reasonableness, compassion, and integrity, or support the sexism and irrationality that is the status quo." This... is hardly an indefensible position.

"/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/ 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 villiany."
Read the three paragraphs above that, the part that leads directly into this statement. Go ahead, I'll wait.


Done? Good. Now, is he talking about A+ vs everyone else, or is he talking about standing up against bullying and hatred and people whose attitude appears to be "I don't like you so I'm going to make you miserable"?

"I call everybody now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicaly, via Facebook and 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."

These two posts can be found quoted in Thunderfoot's third video, which Sabby posted. However, lets also take a quote directly from the man on his blog.
For fuck's sake. Seriously? This is the exact bit of deception I was calling out. He abandoned this statement within two weeks. But seven months later, it's being treated as representative of his current views.

"In the meantime, are you an atheist? Do you identify as an atheist? Then I canít insist, but I do ask that you to defend these goals and values (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve itís values and aims (since you donít have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality? Then at least weíll know who to work with. And who to avoid." - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207
Emphasis mine. It will be important later. TL;DR: You don't have to be part of A+. That's fine. But if you don't support compassion, reasonableness, and integrity, then you're casting a vote for all the problems of the status quo, and those of us on Team Social Justice aren't going to think you're worth our time.

Does this sound like the ideal that Atheism should aim towards? Ideals which are not only against the idea of freethought, but to emotional blackmailing and straight up personal insults? This is a man who feels it's perfectly fine to censor your own media (such as, the majority of Skepchick/Atheism+ videos and forms of media, including Richard Carrier's blog, where all feedback is moderated fully), but that it's also the duty of atheists to bombard every form of social media we can to spread to message of Atheism+. And if you're not doing that, or you don't agree with Atheism+? Well, it looks like you're just an inferior being, who is sexist, cruel and irrational. Because as we know, the ideal of freethought is not infact the right to think for yourself, but censorship, not being allowed to think other than the thoughts of the whole and to blindly follow the ideas someone else has put in place because if you don't, you're not as good a person/atheist as we are. Does this sound like any other groups to you, who push that you have to believe in the exact same as what the ruling body does or be branded a heretic who is an immoral scumbag? That questioning or opposing the method in which these ideas are put forth is akin to a personal attack on the belief set in place?
So. From that quote, including the bit I bolded, you somehow get "You must be part of our organization and endorse everything it says and does, or else"? Funny, I get "Supporting the specific values and goals I outlined above appears to be part of being a decent human being."

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #893 on: April 05, 2013, 08:03:37 PM »
So quote-mining the hell out of Carrier's article to make it look like it's saying "Get into A+ or get out!", and deliberately using a statement Carrier abandoned over half a year ago, is not deception? You and I have a very different view.

Also, you'll note that I deliberately cast a wider net than A+. And yes, if you are against social justice within atheism, a male-dominated space, then you are against female equality in this space. Which... is pretty much what I was saying, and is what Carrier was getting at. He very explicitly and specifically is not saying "Join A+ or else!". He is saying "Support reasonableness, compassion, and integrity, or support the sexism and irrationality that is the status quo." This... is hardly an indefensible position.
Read the three paragraphs above that, the part that leads directly into this statement. Go ahead, I'll wait.


Done? Good. Now, is he talking about A+ vs everyone else, or is he talking about standing up against bullying and hatred and people whose attitude appears to be "I don't like you so I'm going to make you miserable"?
For fuck's sake. Seriously? This is the exact bit of deception I was calling out. He abandoned this statement within two weeks. But seven months later, it's being treated as representative of his current views.
Emphasis mine. It will be important later. TL;DR: You don't have to be part of A+. That's fine. But if you don't support compassion, reasonableness, and integrity, then you're casting a vote for all the problems of the status quo, and those of us on Team Social Justice aren't going to think you're worth our time.
So. From that quote, including the bit I bolded, you somehow get "You must be part of our organization and endorse everything it says and does, or else"? Funny, I get "Supporting the specific values and goals I outlined above appears to be part of being a decent human being."

I get your point here; as I say, I don't know exactly when that quote was abandoned, but the fact he said it in the first place is hardly reassuring.

I get the drift, but it's not something I support. I don't know anything about 'Team Social Justice', but the amount of censorship I have seen through a lot of Atheism+'s videos and such, especially Richard admitting to heavy handed, complete moderation in his own works, doesn't paint a nice picture in my mind. I can't say much more on the topic, as obviously, my knowledge on the topic as a whole is limited, but if censorship is a big ideal within Atheism+, something I already find unnecessary (I've yet to meet any active, out Atheist, thankfully, who supports any notion that racism, sexism or homophobia is a -good- thing), then it's not something I would want to be a part of, period. I think that is my major point.

I feel like I'm waffling a bit, but the idea that we need an Atheism+ seems to imply there's a huge base of Atheism which is dedicated to downtreading women, homosexuals and minorities, which... is something I havn't encountered. At all.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #894 on: April 05, 2013, 08:09:56 PM »
I get your point here; as I say, I don't know exactly when that quote was abandoned, but the fact he said it in the first place is hardly reassuring.
I don't know when it was abandoned exactly either, but it was within 17 days. (See the link I posted above.) And yeah, he said it. Sometimes people say something that's too extreme or unsupportable, then walk it back and retract that. Is that reserved for real atheists now, or are A+ types allowed to do it too?

I get the drift, but it's not something I support. I don't know anything about 'Team Social Justice', but the amount of censorship I have seen through a lot of Atheism+'s videos and such, especially Richard admitting to heavy handed, complete moderation in his own works, doesn't paint a nice picture in my mind. I can't say much more on the topic, as obviously, my knowledge on the topic as a whole is limited, but if censorship is a big ideal within Atheism+, something I already find unnecessary (I've yet to meet any active, out Atheist, thankfully, who supports any notion that racism, sexism or homophobia is a -good- thing), then it's not something I would want to be a part of, period. I think that is my major point.
it's not censorship. It's not providing a platform for people to spew misogyny on. People are allowed to say whatever they want, but they are not entitled to force somebody else to provide a platform for it. And frankly, moderation probably wouldn't be so heavy if it weren't for the whole firehose-of-misogyny-and-hatred thing that comes up every time an A+ type leaves an unmoderated venue.

The sad truth is that you don't have to be vocal or even intentional in your support of sexism and homophobia and transphobia and racism. When they're baked into the culture at large (as sexism is in atheism, for the obvious example), then supporting the status quo is supporting this discrimination. EDIT: And trying to silence people who speak out against it strikes me as vocal support.

I feel like I'm waffling a bit, but the idea that we need an Atheism+ seems to imply there's a huge base of Atheism which is dedicated to downtreading women, homosexuals and minorities, which... is something I havn't encountered. At all.
Are you familiar with the numbers on female attendance of atheist events? Or of female speakers at atheist events? People don't need to be dedicated to discrimination for it to happen.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #895 on: April 05, 2013, 08:32:46 PM »
I don't know when it was abandoned exactly either, but it was within 17 days. (See the link I posted above.) And yeah, he said it. Sometimes people say something that's too extreme or unsupportable, then walk it back and retract that. Is that reserved for real atheists now, or are A+ types allowed to do it too?
it's not censorship. It's not providing a platform for people to spew misogyny on. People are allowed to say whatever they want, but they are not entitled to force somebody else to provide a platform for it. And frankly, moderation probably wouldn't be so heavy if it weren't for the whole firehose-of-misogyny-and-hatred thing that comes up every time an A+ type leaves an unmoderated venue.

I agree, I have seen some of the pretty horrid attacks people get on Youtube over things such as this. However, I still don't agree that disabling discussion of any topic on an open forum such as Youtube is a good thing; the only times I've ever seen this is in instances such as Creationist videos or videos such as Onision. People who heavily censor content they don't approve of just because it doesn't agree with them. Of course, death threats and 'I will rape your mother lolololol' are hardly things you want, but especially in these discussion videos where people discuss topics such as racism amongst atheists, why should the legitimate atheists who wish to add to this discourse or add questions of their own be disallowed? The idea of several people 'debating' amongst themselves, all in the same group, who already agree on pretty much the same thing reminds me a church discussing things with itself. What more can there to be gained from 'lets discuss what we already agree on, and agree more'?

Quote
The sad truth is that you don't have to be vocal or even intentional in your support of sexism and homophobia and transphobia and racism. When they're baked into the culture at large (as sexism is in atheism, for the obvious example), then supporting the status quo is supporting this discrimination. EDIT: And trying to silence people who speak out against it strikes me as vocal support.
Are you familiar with the numbers on female attendance of atheist events? Or of female speakers at atheist events? People don't need to be dedicated to discrimination for it to happen.

By this point, I'm going to have to drop the dicussion of A+, as obviously, I don't have enough information to add anything new to this discussion. But as for the attendence of women at atheist events, I can't say I do know the numbers; I've never attended one or looked into it. I'm curious as to how sexism is ingrained in atheism, as I'm not sure why it would be, so if you could direct me to some sources which show this, I'd be very interested in reading up on it, as it's not something I've encountered. I'm simply not a fan of 'silence all forms of communication from anyone, because we get abuse' as a tactic. This heavy handed approach means that the views of those who arn't bigoted racists, homophobes, transphobes, sexists, whatever, are being equally silenced, which I find wrong. Once you get into being able to completely moderate any form of communication, it becomes much easier to close off or censor people with legitimate complaints about your ideas as well as those who are out to attack your ideas in malice; it becomes much easier to cultivate a set of ideals which are unshifting, because you now have absolute control. But by this point I'm probably going to have to stop because I'm almost verging into conspiracy theorist territory. ^^'

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #896 on: April 05, 2013, 08:38:52 PM »
I agree, I have seen some of the pretty horrid attacks people get on Youtube over things such as this. However, I still don't agree that disabling discussion of any topic on an open forum such as Youtube is a good thing; the only times I've ever seen this is in instances such as Creationist videos or videos such as Onision. People who heavily censor content they don't approve of just because it doesn't agree with them. Of course, death threats and 'I will rape your mother lolololol' are hardly things you want, but especially in these discussion videos where people discuss topics such as racism amongst atheists, why should the legitimate atheists who wish to add to this discourse or add questions of their own be disallowed? The idea of several people 'debating' amongst themselves, all in the same group, who already agree on pretty much the same thing reminds me a church discussing things with itself. What more can there to be gained from 'lets discuss what we already agree on, and agree more'?
If I'd ever seen a single example of Youtube comments adding something meaningful to the discourse, I might agree with you. And... well, this isn't a debate, really. "We should treat people with a modicum of respect." is not something that should be up for debate, and that's pretty much the core argument here.

By this point, I'm going to have to drop the dicussion of A+, as obviously, I don't have enough information to add anything new to this discussion. But as for the attendence of women at atheist events, I can't say I do know the numbers; I've never attended one or looked into it. I'm curious as to how sexism is ingrained in atheism, as I'm not sure why it would be, so if you could direct me to some sources which show this, I'd be very interested in reading up on it, as it's not something I've encountered. I'm simply not a fan of 'silence all forms of communication from anyone, because we get abuse' as a tactic. This heavy handed approach means that the views of those who arn't bigoted racists, homophobes, transphobes, sexists, whatever, are being equally silenced, which I find wrong. Once you get into being able to completely moderate any form of communication, it becomes much easier to close off or censor people with legitimate complaints about your ideas as well as those who are out to attack your ideas in malice; it becomes much easier to cultivate a set of ideals which are unshifting, because you now have absolute control. But by this point I'm probably going to have to stop because I'm almost verging into conspiracy theorist territory. ^^'

I'm frankly getting pretty worn out here, so will not be digging up sources. I might tomorrow, if it's a point of contention. Suffice to say: Attendance and pannel representation is not good. IIRC, attendance tends to hover around 20%, and panel representation is very typically one token woman. I don't think it's ever been 50% in either category ever, except in conferences specifically aimed at women.

As for moderation: Again, it's not like they're being denied a platform at all. They're just being told the people they vocally hate won't provide it. And... well, how low does the Signal:Noise ratio have to go before it's accepted that filtration might not be a bad idea?

Online Sethala

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #897 on: April 05, 2013, 10:12:32 PM »
I'm frankly getting pretty worn out here, so will not be digging up sources. I might tomorrow, if it's a point of contention. Suffice to say: Attendance and pannel representation is not good. IIRC, attendance tends to hover around 20%, and panel representation is very typically one token woman. I don't think it's ever been 50% in either category ever, except in conferences specifically aimed at women.

As for moderation: Again, it's not like they're being denied a platform at all. They're just being told the people they vocally hate won't provide it. And... well, how low does the Signal:Noise ratio have to go before it's accepted that filtration might not be a bad idea?

I've been to a handful of conventions (mostly anime or game conventions), and I think almost all of them are close to the same, no matter what the topic is.  If it's not something that's specifically geared towards women, there tends to be noticeably more men present than women.  I haven't looked at actual demographics, mind, but just a few glances around the larger rooms is enough to say that yes, there's a notable male dominance.  It makes me wonder, is this really something about "atheism is a male-dominated pursuit"?  Or is it merely that women are less likely to go to conventions in general?

Now, let me say one thing: I am all for equality, I am all for both women's rights and men's rights, and the rights of anyone that doesn't fall directly into either category.  I'm all for the rights of black people, of white people, of... whatever color everyone else is.

However, I am not for mixing the two.  There are atheists that don't agree on some of these issues (and before you try and say that they must be horrible people, let me point to the conversation we've had in the Adria Richards thread and point out that not everyone is going to agree on issues, and that doesn't mean they're horrible misogynists), but I want to be able to stand with them on issues related to atheism, and not throw them out of the group because they don't subscribe to a certain philosophy on a completely unrelated topic.  Similarly, I know of religious people that are for gay rights, for instance, and I want to count on their support when I'm on those issues, no matter what kind of thoughts they have on theism.  I'm all for making a group that cares about both issues, but don't try to label it atheism.

As for Richard Carrier, I need to look at his most recent stuff and see what he's been saying lately, so I'm gonna do that now and come back to you later.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #898 on: April 05, 2013, 10:43:43 PM »
I've been to a handful of conventions (mostly anime or game conventions), and I think almost all of them are close to the same, no matter what the topic is.  If it's not something that's specifically geared towards women, there tends to be noticeably more men present than women.  I haven't looked at actual demographics, mind, but just a few glances around the larger rooms is enough to say that yes, there's a notable male dominance.  It makes me wonder, is this really something about "atheism is a male-dominated pursuit"?  Or is it merely that women are less likely to go to conventions in general?
Why are women less likely to go to conventions? It's a mystery! If only there were some way to find out what they're thinking... maybe if there's something about convention environments that makes them feel uncomfortable.

Even if your idea were correct, does that explain why female voices tend to be such a rarity by default?

Now, let me say one thing: I am all for equality, I am all for both women's rights and men's rights, and the rights of anyone that doesn't fall directly into either category.  I'm all for the rights of black people, of white people, of... whatever color everyone else is.
So when there's clear issues with sexism in the atheist community, we should...?

However, I am not for mixing the two.  There are atheists that don't agree on some of these issues (and before you try and say that they must be horrible people, let me point to the conversation we've had in the Adria Richards thread and point out that not everyone is going to agree on issues, and that doesn't mean they're horrible misogynists), but I want to be able to stand with them on issues related to atheism, and not throw them out of the group because they don't subscribe to a certain philosophy on a completely unrelated topic.  Similarly, I know of religious people that are for gay rights, for instance, and I want to count on their support when I'm on those issues, no matter what kind of thoughts they have on theism.  I'm all for making a group that cares about both issues, but don't try to label it atheism.
...ah. We should sit down and shut up, and pretend there's no problem, or risk tainting our atheism with social justice. Right. Colour me skeptical. As for what to call it: This is a group whose social justice ethic derives directly from their atheism. It's a subset of atheism by its very nature. Trying to pretend it's anything else is just dishonest.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 10:48:01 PM by Ephiral »

Online Sethala

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #899 on: April 05, 2013, 11:16:41 PM »
So when there's clear issues with sexism in the atheist community, we should...?
...ah. We should sit down and shut up, and pretend there's no problem, or risk tainting our atheism with social justice. Right. Colour me skeptical. As for what to call it: This is a group whose social justice ethic derives directly from their atheism. It's a subset of atheism by its very nature. Trying to pretend it's anything else is just dishonest.

When there's a problem with sexism in a tech community, do we need to come up with a "Tech Plus" label that's technology plus women's rights, and fight for higher wages for women, better representation in politics, etc?  No, because it's a freaking tech community.  You work with women, try to figure out what you can do to increase their participation in your own events, because that's what's relevant to you, but you don't go on a crusade for rights in other areas.  Now, you might have some people try to form a splinter group that does care more about issues outside of the industry, and that's fine.  But you don't redefine the entire group's agendas to match this small splinter group, and you don't foster a mentality that anyone who refuses to join the splinter group is "against equality" just because they prefer to keep the two interests separate.

Atheism Plus isn't just a way to fix issues with sexism in atheism.  It's gone beyond that.  It's gone to a point where it wants to become a social advocate for minorities and it wants to throw around the weight of the atheist community to do it.  I'm not saying that social justice warriors are a bad thing (I will say that some of them - SOME! of them - go too far and start making a mess of things, but the ones who are able to keep a clear head are the ones I support), but I'm saying they're not a part of atheism directly, and that mixing the two groups' issues is just muddying the waters and diluting what atheism is actually about - removing religion from government and ensuring that our country has not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religion.

Now, are there sexism issues with atheism right now?  Possibly, and I don't think it's anywhere near as big as some of the advocates want to make it sound like; most of the harassment, it seems, isn't because they're women but because they seem to be playing the victim in a bid for attention, and that draws trolls like rotting meat draws flies.  Now, I haven't looked at the whole history of things, but I know I didn't hear anything at all about this harassment stuff beyond a few isolated issues until after the whole "elevatorgate" issue.  It makes me skeptical about the whole issue, and my thoughts are that, while harassment is likely a problem, there's nothing more severe about harassment here than at other places, and a lot of the talk about harassment is scare tactics.  Further, it seems that most of the people that are complaining about being harassed now are the ones that started to become vocal about the issue. (Sorry, I'm tired and I can't figure out how to word this properly to make sense.)  For instance, Rebecca Watson, as far as I could tell, didn't say anything about getting harassed, there were no legions of internet trolls making threats at her, until she suddenly had a random stranger that didn't quite understand the notion of personal space.  Maybe he was a stalker, or maybe he was just someone with one of the many mental conditions that make it impossible to read body language and didn't know how creepy he was acting.  (As someone who has the same issue with being unable to read body language, let me say that it is really freaking easy for me to accidentally creep people out by getting in their personal space.)  Either way, she made a big deal out of it, and suddenly, harassment all over, and both her and the trolls started feeding off of each other.  Does this mean that there's a problem with harassment?  To be honest, I don't know, but the situation's enough for me to not just say "yeah, there's a problem we need to deal with".