Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumApparently, asking "Is it immoral to rape a Skepchick" is now discussion of theological issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121836983Which links to a page with nothing but the question "Is it immoral to rape a Skepchick?"
Yep, folks, DU's religion forum has officially been turned over to the inmates. There is even a group host participating in the thread.
I think it's time to make it official that DU now sucks more.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)An OP by THAT poster... in the Religion forum... GOT HIDDEN!
WOW!
Lucy Goosey
(2,940 posts)That was a weird, gross thing to post in the Religion group, or really anywhere on DU.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)question the original poster but you would never get a straight answer from him!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"There are some atheists who posts anonymously on a discussion board who are acting like complete fucking idiots, ergo you cannot criticize the anti-human, anti-progressive things my church does with my money."
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)This statement in the thread was outrageous to me: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=37269
The last time I checked, there was nothing in atheism that would favor the leadership of one gender over another.
frogmarch
(12,144 posts)says that atheists are amoral - or that atheism is, anyway. Maybe I read too much into it, but sounds as if the poster is saying that if atheists were to become a majority in the leadership of our country, the "rape is okay" attitude could prevail.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)And the only reason that we don't is because we're a minority.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Not only does the hierarchy of his church condone it by hiding and protecting the child rapers, adherents also condone it with their attendance, money and time given to that church.
Maybe I'm missing something though.
Rob H.
(5,340 posts)Most atheists I know IRL are as liberal as they come; one of them is even--*gasp*--a Socialist!!!1!! (He's a great guy, too, ftr, and he and I agree about a lot of things.)
Anything to deflect attention away from the wrongdoings of mother church, though, I guess.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Usually I try to keep the peace with progressives of faith, but remarks like that person made make it pretty tough. That was pretty revealing and ugly.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)It's just another pitiful attempt to smear atheists.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Can you point me to the Pharyngula/PZ Myers link dealing with this? I feel like I came in on the middle of the story.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Considering a group host participated on that thread, one can see the privilege at work.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Being in the majority group means less being questioned, more people willing to be silent or even supportive instead of challenging unfairness, etc.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)to smear atheists.
He focuses on bottom feeding scum and carefully avoids the atheists at Pharyngula on FTB who are mercilessly decimating the little dipshits.
PZ posted about Rationalia a couple of days ago, and the horde over there has been raking them over the coals ever since. (I love reading his blog, but man would I hate to be someone who makes the mistake of pissing off some of the regular commenters there. They're wicked-smart, well-read and eloquent, and most unwelcome visitors wind up getting mauled pretty badly.)
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)athiests in the Religion Group has caused me to avoid going there, and it's all down to a single poster. Feh!
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)And that's all I'm saying.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Like I said, it's why I don't go there much any more, and I love discussing religious stuff. I'm an atheist, but I don't mind if people believe whatever they can, and it's interesting to discuss doctrinal differences between denominations. It's a pet subject of mine, and one I'm still learning about. The snark gets to me, though, so I've pretty much abandoned the Religion Group.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)It rises to the level of Canned Meat Product Vikings Like, yep.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Although a few may be sock puppets. Well, probably are.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)I guess it must be hard work defending the indefensible.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)anyone who posts something like this has issues.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)We know there are a few participants in the religion forum who simply want to fight with & discredit atheists. It's their obsession, they are powerless over it.
This now-hidden post clearly demonstrates that, there is no denying it any longer (among the lucid anyway).
Julie
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that blocking him from this group was a good decision.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)there have been alerts on some posts in this thread.
(he loves smilies)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)is spectacular.
sakabatou
(42,082 posts)onager
(9,356 posts)...for anyone who doesn't know much about this whole thing and needs some background.
Quick thumbnail, and this is just me talking - it all started almost exactly 1 year ago, at the World Atheist Conference in Dublin, Ireland.
"Skepchick" - that's Rebecca Watson - was propositioned in an elevator at 4 AM. She made a YouTube vid and mentioned it.
A few days later, Watson spoke at another conference. Her subject was supposed to be Fundamentalist Xianity. Instead, she apparently attacked fellow skeptic Stef McGraw for not being feminist enough. McGraw was in the audience and got justifiably annoyed at being upbraided in public with no real opportunity to respond.
Sides formed up very quickly after that. Several other prominent female skeptics - Rose St. Clair, Paula Kirby, Abbie Smith - started shooting at Watson for various reasons. Watson's crew (PZ Myers, Greta Cristina et. al.) then circled their wagons and shot back. Richard Dawkins went temporarily insane, or something, and wrote a snarky piece trivializing Watson's "Elevatorgate" experience.
And of course, since it's the Internetz, some real assholes showed up to join the fun. That's where you got links like that one in the OP.
Here we are a year later, and at this point, there are so many accusations and counter-accusations that it's hard to keep them straight without a database.
So here's two detailed timelines of the whole affair so far. There are several other "Elevatorgate" timelines around the web, but these are the most current I could find:
Yes, there's a problem: http://ohthehumanityofitall.blogspot.ca/2012/07/deep-rifts-or-humanity-of-it-all-part-1.html
No, there isn't: http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Freethoughtblogs_timeline
Finally - honestly! - on July 1 2012, Paula Kirby published an article on Google Docs, "Sisterhood of the Oppressed." Definitely worth the read. She had this to say about women not being welcome at skeptical conferences:
The situation at the conferences has been exaggerated and distorted beyond all recognition, and any number of skeptical male attendees and one conference organizer in particular have been scandalously maligned in the process.
http://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02RDDb71N8Xc2EwYmw5T2Z4eDg/edit?pli=1
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I've seen mention of this bleed over into other discussions I follow elsewhere but didn't know where it all started.
I notice that there is robust discussion of all the issues in public, unlike the misogyny of a certain patriarchal monotheistic religion that has had centuries to clean up its act, but hasn't.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)For anyone interested in the "attack" on Stef McGraw, it's here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/07/31/how-badly-did-rebecca-watson-a/
onager
(9,356 posts)And why I linked to two completely different timelines.
BTW, as the Comments to your linked article show, some people DID consider it an attack.
Greg Laden certainly isn't a neutral observer, from all the stuff I've read. BTW, Laden recently got perma-banned from Freethoughtblogs. Apparently for using "violent threatening language" toward another poster.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)I didn't post that link so that we could discuss the comments there as if they're evidence of anything meaningful.
Nor did I post it so that Greg Laden's neutrality or lack thereof could be the new subject under discussion (???).
The reason I posted it was simply to provide the actual words Watson said, which were characterized as an "attack", so that anyone who didn't know what the "attack" was could judge for themselves.
(As an aside, FWIW, one might refer to those who agree that it was an "attack" as "Stef's crew", if one were interested in making such characterizations.)
One person's opinion that the problem with unaddressed sexual harassment at conferences is "exaggerated and distorted beyond all recognition" isn't exactly an impartial final word, wouldn't you say? Despite this, you seem to have presented it as such.
Similarly, the characterization of "any number of skeptical male attendees" being "scandalously maligned" is rather less than impartial.
So... yeah. I'll just leave this conversation now.