Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 09:26 AM Jul 2012

Apparently, asking "Is it immoral to rape a Skepchick" is now discussion of theological issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121836983

Which 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.
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Apparently, asking "Is it immoral to rape a Skepchick" is now discussion of theological issue. (Original Post) cleanhippie Jul 2012 OP
Whoa! PINCH ME! 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #1
The jury definitely got this one right! Lucy Goosey Jul 2012 #2
One would have to... rexcat Jul 2012 #3
Here's the line of thinking: trotsky Jul 2012 #4
Sorry to barge in. I'm a subscriber to this group who has lurked. Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #5
It sounds as if that post frogmarch Jul 2012 #6
That's how I read it too. Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #7
Maybe he is looking for common ground. Rape IS ok in that church, apparently. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #13
That statement is almost as messed up as his OP Rob H. Jul 2012 #8
I'm a Socialist too. Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #11
Nothing specific to atheism, no. redqueen Jul 2012 #10
Thanks redqueen, agreed. Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #12
Please, allow me :-) Rob H. Jul 2012 #15
Thank you Rob. H, off to read! Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #17
Exactly. And why his shit is tolerated is stupefying. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #16
Well, privilege does have its perks. :) redqueen Jul 2012 #23
What a spectacularly transparent and idiotic attempt redqueen Jul 2012 #9
Yep Rob H. Jul 2012 #14
The constant effort to ridicule, attack, and demean MineralMan Jul 2012 #18
Errrrrr, no. There's more. 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #19
Only one stands out for consistency and persistence, though. MineralMan Jul 2012 #21
Well, can't argue much with that. 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #22
To be fair, it's more than just one. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #20
Well, some people suck more than others. mr blur Jul 2012 #24
Sigh. Speaking of immoral, Curmudgeoness Jul 2012 #25
Consider the source. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #26
In a way this is helpful, hear me out. JNelson6563 Jul 2012 #27
It certainly reminds me Goblinmonger Jul 2012 #28
I'm positive it is eating him alive to be unable to respond to this thread. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #30
I'm pretty confident Goblinmonger Jul 2012 #31
And the fact that not a single one has been hidden cleanhippie Jul 2012 #34
It's been hidden sakabatou Jul 2012 #29
Posting these links again... onager Jul 2012 #32
Thanks for that too. Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #33
Wow, that's not one-sided at all. redqueen Jul 2012 #35
That was my whole point. onager Jul 2012 #36
Yes, anyone who is aware of the events knows that many people construed her words as an "attack". redqueen Jul 2012 #37

Lucy Goosey

(2,940 posts)
2. The jury definitely got this one right!
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 10:36 AM
Jul 2012

That was a weird, gross thing to post in the Religion group, or really anywhere on DU.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
3. One would have to...
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 10:53 AM
Jul 2012

question the original poster but you would never get a straight answer from him!

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
4. Here's the line of thinking:
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:25 AM
Jul 2012

"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)
5. Sorry to barge in. I'm a subscriber to this group who has lurked.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:41 AM
Jul 2012

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)
6. It sounds as if that post
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:59 AM
Jul 2012

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.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
13. Maybe he is looking for common ground. Rape IS ok in that church, apparently.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:21 PM
Jul 2012

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)
8. That statement is almost as messed up as his OP
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:45 PM
Jul 2012

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)
11. I'm a Socialist too.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:09 PM
Jul 2012

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.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
12. Thanks redqueen, agreed.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:11 PM
Jul 2012

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.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
16. Exactly. And why his shit is tolerated is stupefying.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:23 PM
Jul 2012

Considering a group host participated on that thread, one can see the privilege at work.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
23. Well, privilege does have its perks. :)
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:46 PM
Jul 2012

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)
9. What a spectacularly transparent and idiotic attempt
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:57 PM
Jul 2012

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.

Rob H.

(5,340 posts)
14. Yep
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:22 PM
Jul 2012

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)
18. The constant effort to ridicule, attack, and demean
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:05 PM
Jul 2012

athiests in the Religion Group has caused me to avoid going there, and it's all down to a single poster. Feh!

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
21. Only one stands out for consistency and persistence, though.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 02:31 PM
Jul 2012

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.

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
27. In a way this is helpful, hear me out.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 09:31 PM
Jul 2012

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

onager

(9,356 posts)
32. Posting these links again...
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 02:40 AM
Jul 2012

...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)
33. Thanks for that too.
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 08:43 AM
Jul 2012

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.

onager

(9,356 posts)
36. That was my whole point.
Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:33 PM
Jul 2012

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)
37. Yes, anyone who is aware of the events knows that many people construed her words as an "attack".
Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:30 AM
Jul 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»Apparently, asking "...