Less than one year ago 30,000 of us came together to stand up for our very existence as open and outspoken Atheists. I am of course referring to the 2012 Reason Rally put on by the hardworking folks over at American Atheists with support from just about every other power in the world of Atheism. It showed the rest of the nation that Atheists are here and might just be a unified force. While that feeling of unity and cooperation had a profound impact on many in the community, myself included, some did not share in that experience.
As many atheists reading this article may know, I am referring to the current infighting in the world of Atheist bloggers. What may have started out as a simple disagreement has turned into a No-holds-barred online war that has gathered a great deal of attention in and out of the Atheist community. Behaviors and tactics that we would only use on the most staunch of our creationist adversaries are being thrown at one another as if they didn’t mean anything. Let me give you a few examples from both sides.
Ophelia Benson, a prominent author in the Atheist community, has been the victim of a number of personal threats and verbal assaults from anonymous members on the other side of the infighting. Everything from fake profiles to threats of rape have been the kind of harassment she has repeatedly been tormented with. Here is an example of one of Ophelia’s fake twitter accounts.
Sadly this fake tweet pulled my name into this problem.
On the other side Reap Paden, host of the Angry Atheist podcast, has been labeled a sexist and racist for having a heated disagreement with another prominent blogger. Those kinds of labels are not easily shaken off, in some circles, especially our own, they can ruin you without any evidence to support them.
Many of us are guilty of the random attacks, myself included. When I first heard about Atheism+ I was skeptical so I asked around, sadly I formed my first impressions of this sub movement from the opinions of its fringe and said some things about it and its members that I now regret.
For that I do sincerely apologize. I know first hand that Atheists are a passionate and quick to anger group, after all hardly any of us has had an easy run being an open Atheist. Not a day goes by when we aren’t up against a horde of trained bigots who want to do everything in their power to convert us or silence us or worse. I have heard hundreds of stories accounting the abuses we have suffered at the hands of those who disagree with us. We are used to being cornered and fighting our way out, perhaps to the point that we sometimes forget how to be respectful to one another when we have a disagreement. Perhaps we have forgotten that there is a reason we are all on the same side.
Well no more I say. I am going to do something about it. In order to facilitate this I am calling for representatives from both camps in these blog wars to sit down with me in what may be the first of many live and public google hangouts to discuss grievances and come back to the world of civil discussion and cooperation. I am also asking for an end to the attacks from both sides as a show of good faith (and not the faith of the religious, but the faith that all atheists share: faith in ourselves—in our humanity and our ability to work together to create a more rational, understanding society).
So I invite you—no, I implore you—to join us in our campaign for cooperation.
If you are interested in being a part of these talks please contact me at theatheistnews@gmail.com
Thanks for this post and the personal invite to be included in these talks. Here’s my take:
http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013/01/30/a-call-for-civil-discussion/
Re: “Fake accounts”
Does anybody at all seriously mistake the “Ophelia F’ing Benson” account with the Twitter feed of the actual Ophelia Benson? Of course they don’t. Don’t confuse parody with impersonation.
The “parody” uses my real name. Yes, anyone at all does confuse it with mine, which was the point of using my real name.
And this is why Lee’s plan of sitting down and discussing grievances will never work – stuff like that. Blowing off a “parody” Twitter account that uses someone’s real name as something of no importance, because that somone is The Enemy. No, I’m not sitting down and discussing grievances on those terms.
Make terms of your own. Craft something. Put something forth. I said the same to Stephanie Zvan. I’m all ears and, as always, open to discussion.
I have made terms of my own. They go like this:
Leave me alone.
Ophelia – when have YOU ever left anybody else alone? That’s not exactly something you’re known for.
Conflict tends to be a two-way street.
Ophelia, you keep saying “leave me alone” which is all fine and dandy, but yet you keep talking, and talking. Wouldn’t the best thing to do, if wanting to be left alone, is shut up. I don’t mean to be rude, but you say one thing, and then turn around and encourage reaction from those you say you have nothing to say to.
I’ve even made terms specifically for you, Justin Vacula. They go like this:
Withdraw the lies you told about me in your podcast.
I made those terms way back last summer. Fat lot of good it did me.
You mean when he offered you an opportunity to get it straight on his podcast and you declined? Indeed, fat lot of good that did.
Also the fact that he didn’t lie at all, he just didn’t read all of it. You, too, have been culprit of that as I recall. Should we accuse you of lying, too? Then there is the gruelling question of what DJ Grothe said to you in an email exchange, where he allegedly blew you off and dismissed your concerns after your supposed threats, which you still have refused to produce. Let’s say the situations were reversed, would you be as courteous as DJ has been if he’d slandered you so? I don’t think so.
And, once again, Ophelia, you show what a bottomless pit of rage issues you have going on. I didn’t raise the point about parody vs. impersonation accounts because you’re “The Enemy”, but because there’s a substantial difference between the two. I know because I’ve been on the receiving end of both. (Guess what – Internet feminists aren’t the only people in the world who are on the receiving end of some vehement, sometimes nasty, opposition. Plenty of that to go around.) And if you really think the “Ophelia Fucking Benson” Twitter feed (with Pope Benedict icon, no less) is actually an “impersonation” that people actually think is you, then you’re simply confirming my impression of you as slightly unhinged.
FFS, lady, get a grip!
Ophelia, if you didn’t want trouble, you shouldn’t have started it. You were all happy to pile on the defamation against Harris, Dawkins, Grothe, Ali, Smith etc. Now you’re whining that it’s coming back.
Sorry, nah. No sale.
For my part, and I will say this loudly, I will not even consider a cease-fire until Myers apologises for lying to my face.
[...] Lee Moore is hoping for a cease fire. [...]
Sorry Lee, I’m 100% on Ophelia’s side on this one. Unless you start thinking about things the same way Ophelia does, she’s not going to sit down with you to convince you to start thinking about things like she does. You can’t go into a reconciliation thinking differently about the key issues, otherwise compromises will have to be made with the people on the other side, resulting in a less-greater good.
In the interests of making this work why dont we all take a step back. If Ophelia feels attacked why further an attempt to back her into a corner?
Seems to me that we are all on the same side, some of us just need a reminder.
I wanted to give my take on this. I honestly hate that I keep getting sucked into this by some strange sick interest. It has really been a process of disillusionment about what atheism is, and is not. But above all, I’m disgusted with this community, and where a year ago I was considering going to some conventions and getting into the local community, that was when I thought people who got that involved were doing so because they have good objective reasoning and a healthy share of skepticism. Now of course I knew there were atheists who call themselves that without true reflection, however, I thought that if they wanted to mingle with others like them they would have some commitment to logical reasoning and debate, without vitriol, and the extremely childish tendency to strike back, on both sides, in different ways.
But instead, rigid thinking and bad argumentation if you disagree somehow has claimed the moral high ground where skepticism once stood, and now we’ve become ideologues. Making sweeping generalizations, putting all people into one camp or the other, good guys and bad guys. This isn’t even worthy of adults, much less intelligent ones that I know both “sides” have. Dualism? Really? That’s what you’re going with.
I don’t get it guys, I really don’t.
I’m a secular humanist, I am a skeptic, and I am an atheist, I am a feminist, I am an egalitarian. I am lots of other things two.
Please read this next part, a few times
Neither of you are all right or all wrong. Stop taking things to the extreme, we all know that this leads to absurdity in almost all circumstances.
If you don’t sit down and listen to each other, you’re just widening the gap, and the people who are in the middle ground are going to get sucked in that ever widening gap, because the extremists are destroying the landscape. I’m afraid I’ve already been sucked in.
I’m out.
False equivalence much, Chris?
please explain exactly, in detail how what chris said was a false equivalency.
“Seems to me that we are all on the same side,”
No Lee, I don’t think the people who think that subjecting women in the movement to a constant stream of sexist abuse are on my side at all…
If they wanted to listen they could have started about a year ago.
Posting fail …that should have read “I don’t think the people who act as if subjecting women in the movement to a constant stream of sexist abuse is the way to have a rational debate are on my side at all…”
a hermit, I find you to be overly dramatic, repetitive, annoying, and a bit dim. You should change your name to “posting fail” cause yours always do. Do you really think anything you say is considered reasonable? “a constant stream of sexist abuse” ?? Do you hire an orchestra to play in your living room while you type out comments? Do you pause dramatically and then sweep your finger down from above your head to hit the ‘enter key’? At night do you dream Adam Lee saves your kitty from a tree wearing a spandex super hero costume, and he addresses you as “citizen”? Give it a rest. For the record I’m glad not to be on your side, you are way too uptight and stressed out and I’m pretty sure there is an object stuck in your ass. I’m not sure what it is but it clearly is effecting your judgement.
Oh the irony. “Overly dramatic.”
Every production of yours I’ve witnessed, including that blog post, injects “overly dramatic” in every place the “funny” should go.
I will say that I enthusiastically recognize you as not on my side. Common ground in mutual disdain.
for the record, speech intended as diplomatic tends to be less full of the verbal employment of using your scrotum as a lasso.
there. common ground. I think you’re both being absolutely infantile. You can gang up and hate on me now.
I have to say that I agreed with Hermit’s comment and Reap’s response is exactly the condescending attitude that has made me want to quite reading any of the skeptical/humanist/atheists blogs. I recently retired and was thinking of going to some of the various cons but not any more.
sometimes there’s a difference between acts and beings. when that exactly is is debatable but frankly, acts tend to be less than stellar evidence of individual being.
Good job Lee, it takes more effort to discuss things instead of just shouting insults over the internet pond. Like I just said on Justin’s Blog, even if you agree to disagree, that is better than what we have now.
Oh, this is rich, too…
“Reap Paden, host of the Angry Atheist podcast, has been labeled a sexist and racist for having a heated disagreement with another prominent blogger.”
A “heated disagreement?” Is that what you call screaming “FUCKING BITCH!!!!” at a woman over and over again?
Gee…why would anyone think that was sexist?
Unless he just calls Stephanie a “bitch” and no one else, it’s not sexist in the least.
The meaning of “sexism” being to treat the opposite gender as inferior. You also seem to behind the times, Hermit, since he’s changed it to her being a “dick”. Crisis averted.
doubtthat – You mustn’t have read Ophelia’s blog very often if you don’t think she’s quote unquote “whining.” Just recently she said she was being dehumanised in the same way the Vietnamese was during the Vietnam War and oddly enough, that isn’t the most ridiculous thing we’ve heard from her. She’s immensely narcissistic if she makes a conflict like that all about herself. She did the same thing with the acid attack on the Bolshoi director; assumed she too may be the victim of an acid attack. Pathetic.
For what it’s worth, Ophelia doesn’t have to accept the invitation. That’s her right. But if someone is willing to offer a cease fire and she still continues to charge, and continue to write aggressive blog posts about them whilst ironically telling them to “leave [her] alone” (although she can write about them as much as she wants, apparently), then it seems she doesn’t want to foster a better atmosphere. Then it seems she just wants more drama and if her blog posts are anything to go by, she’s becoming exceedingly efficient at it.
Look at her recent authoring. She just cannot let on. Her request for people to leave her alone rings hollow, especially when she’s so keen to not leave other people alone, the way she’s repeatedly written about Justin Vacula, the way she’s repeatedly written about Michael Shermer – I mean, come on. This is a person who’s eager for people to leave her alone? Please. She’s not that stupid. I’m not so sure about her supporters, though.
–
To speak in general, for Ophelia Benson to say Justin Vacula should “withdraw his lies” is hilarious. I would say it’s hilariously stupid, but we know she’s not that stupid. It’s a calculated move to cull her supporters into action, a move derivative of the so-called “New Media Douchebag.”
He read some but didn’t read all of it. That’s exactly what Ophelia did with Paula Kirby’s letter, read some of it but left some out. Doesn’t that make her, in her own words, a liar on equal footing as Vacula? It’s incredible that she should neglect to mention that fact, but then again it seems that’s her game. That’s her modus operandi.
Then, of course, there’s the question of the threats. According to her, a threat was made where she might be harmed and another where she might get shot – but in true Ophelia fashion, neglecting to mention that one of those “threats” was an eager, overly symphathetic and *paranoid* SUPPORTER who THOUGHT she might get harmed if she attended and THOUGHT she might be targeted for harassment, and the other one to do with vaccination. Yeah. Getting “shot” with a vaccination. Har har har. You so funny, Ophelia. But it would be more amusing if you didn’t rile up drama whenever humanly possible. Cheers.
First, regardless of what you think about Benson, it’s not a defense of one self-indulgent, childish whiner to claim that others engage in similar behavior.
I do read Benson’s blog regularly. Your summation is…lacking. I wish I could say I’m surprised.
Finally, Benson engaged Shermer based upon a statement he made in public. She pointed out the folly of the statement, and in response Shermer descended into a haze of melodramatic self-pity, as appears to be the habit of such folks.
The ridiculous aspect of your post is failing to distinguish between participating in the skeptical community through argument, through speaking, through conferences, and being harassed by dumbasses on the internet. If you or Shermer or Vacula or any of these other numbnuts went through a fraction of the bullshit that she has had to deal with, you would be up on your crosses so fast they wouldn’t have time to set up the thieves next to you.
She doesn’t want to be anonymous, she just doesn’t want to receive threats on a regular basis. Like this one:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/01/ill-teach-you-to-mention-acid-in-the-face/
She is whining in much the same capacity as she claim others do. And my summation is lacking, is it? Indeed.
The way Ophelia engaged Shermer clearly laid out that she didn’t want to discuss the matter with him, she just wished to misrepresent him and obfuscate. To create more drama. Why else would she assert that Shermer said women “don’t do thinky”? Is that what he said? No? Then there’s the several occasions when she wanted to play as the victim. She did it when franc hoggle said if he was transformed into a woman, he would “kick her in the cunt.”* (If it’s not obvious, that’s a scientific impossibility.) She did it when the Bolshoi director got acid thrown in his face and instead made it all about herself and the “deep rifts” within the atheist community. And now she’s done it again, comparing herself to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War.
Why so eager to become the victim? I wonder.
And if we’re going to talk about achievements, it’s amusing that you should disparage Vacula, who’s recently been very active in his home state of Pennsylvania, and Michael Shermer. Ophelia Benson has done more for the secular community than Michael Shermer? Even though it’s not a contest and I scoff at the thought of you attempting to make it so, allow me to laugh heartily in your face.
By the way, I love how Ophelia tricks her supporters into thinking a tasteless joke was a legitimate threat against her. That says more about your gullibility and stupidity than it says about her. Let’s recap: Ophelia Benson makes a blog post about the director of the Bolshoi getting acid thrown in his face. She makes it all about herself, the atheist community and how this might happen to her too.
Anyone with half a brain would realise she’s once again spouting narcisstic, self-serving bullshit, but not you, doubtthat. Never you. Never her supporters. But in an exchange on twitter, someone ridicules her by saying something along the lines of, “Yeah, insults on twitter generally does lead to acid thrown in your face.” To which Ophelia eloquently responds, “Fuck off.” Enter Jerry Conlon, who have a brief back and forth with Benson until he finally says, “Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good. You already look like you were set on fire and put out with a wet rake.”
This was obviously a joke. A tasteless, spiteful joke, but a joke. Do you think Ophelia Benson would be dumb enough to treat it as a legitimate threat? No. But her supporters would, and that’s the point. To shift the focus from her idiotic post about the Bolshoi to the “threat” that isn’t a threat. New Media Douchebag. Look it up.
*in before you make my entire post about this.
Sorry, that should be,
“… something along the lines of, ‘Yeah, insults on FACEBOOK generally does lead to acid thrown in your face.”
“By the way, I love how Ophelia tricks her supporters into thinking a tasteless joke was a legitimate threat against her. That says more about your gullibility and stupidity than it says about her. Let’s recap: Ophelia Benson makes a blog post about the director of the Bolshoi getting acid thrown in his face. She makes it all about herself, the atheist community and how this might happen to her too.”
There it is, right there. This is why there’s a “conflict.” Haha, throw acid in her face. What a great joke, I get it. And, by the way, who says it was a joke? Oh, you mean the dumbass that used his personal twitter account to send the message? Why on Earth would he, after realizing that all of his information is publicly available and could run into trouble with the authorities in his country have any incentive to play it off as a joke?
That’s your side: we must trust the word of the harassers. It should be clear to everyone reading exactly why there can be no resolution. You jackasses just need to fade away, which you will. It is always thus.
Couple more things:
1) YOU make everything about Benson. You brought her up, I didn’t. You’ve now spent several long, long posts digging into minutia (of course, your perverse, childishly rationalized view of it). You are obsessed with her, so every post reflects the running monologue in your head that obviously centers on her.
You guys can’t stop talking about her, and when she replies, you say, “see, she’s always making it about her.” What a bizarre community you’ve created. No, I really, really, really want nothing to do with you folks.
2) Every time there’s a mass shooting in this country, we pour over the journals and e-mail accounts of the assailant. We find things like a shooter with a total obsession over a Congresswoman who wrote all kinds of rage-filled, hateful messages in a variety of forums. We look back and say, “why didn’t we do something to avert the tragedy.”
Ophelia Benson has received far more vile threats and abuse than Laughlin sent to Gifford’s people. The article that you’re whining about concerning acid detailed a personal grudge wherein an individual harassed a woman on the internet, hacked her e-mail, hacked into her facebook account, and ultimately tossed acid in her face.
The people you are defending are engaging in the exact behavior that has been a prelude to horrible events. Then you have the fucking gall to demand that Benson just laugh it off cause, hahaha, acid is such a funny joke.
We live in a country where a random crazy person decided to fire round after round of bullets into a bunch of little children. In this world, only you seem to have the divine gift of separating actual threats from joke threats. Maybe the FBI should employ you to comb through the internet and let us know what we should worry about.
Seems like you don’t quite understand what sexism and misogyny mean. It doesn’t matter whether you call women cuts or whether you call them dicks. You are using pejorative and demeaning language because they have the audacity to be a woman and to disagree with you.
And here we go with more strawmen and false equivalence:
“Just recently she said she was being dehumanised in the same way the Vietnamese was during the Vietnam War…”
And she gave examples of how your friends in the slymepit do exactly that (“cobweb c*nt” being my current favourite example of the kind of reasoned discourse we see over there). Now please note, she is not saying that she has suffered as much as the Vietnamese, she’s just giving an example of how dehumanizing language can be used to distance oneself from the subject of one’s abuse.
Your objection to this is especially amusing when you follow it with this:
“she’s repeatedly written about Michael Shermer “
She mildly criticized a dumb remark by Shermer about skepticism being a “guy thing”. She didn’t make up rude names to call him, set up a forum or blog or fake twitter account to harass him or do any of the stuff you and your Slymepit buddies like to play at; she made one little remark in an article.
Shermer’s response has been to compare any criticism of him to witch hunts, the Inquisition and Nazism…
Talk about over-reacting…
As for the threat to throw acid in her face, waving away that kind of thing as “just a joke” and pretending that it doesn’t matter is exactly the kind of dismissive, contemptuous attitude that is going to convince people they don’t want to have anything to do with this community. Why would anyone choose to be part of a community where that kind of vicious intimidation tactic is considered to be acceptable behaviour?
And that’s all I’m going to say to you here, Pitchguest. I refuse to be drawn into any more exchanges with you and your fact-free ideologically driven rants.
Ahermit, you are an incredibly ignorant fool. I didn’t scream anything about anyone. I don’t scream. Your perception is effected by your lack of social contact it seems. I said stephanie zvan was a bitch because in my opinion she was being one. She replied by informing me I should address her as “fucking effective bitch” are you upset because I left the word “effective” out? For that I apologize. Now can you move on cause this point is hardly the end of the world, if you were more informed about it you would realize this.
You sincerely think that this division is the result of a misunderstanding that can be settled by having both sides sit down face to face? That’s either stunningly naive or simply disrespectful the argument taking place. Women are moving into the movement, a bunch of assholes aren’t happy about it. They have no legitimate complaints (oh no, sexual harassment policy? You may as well dip my cock in acid), so they turn to abuse. This ends when the abuse ends. That’s it.
We know what Vacula and Paden and Thunderf00t and the legion of mouth-breathers think. They’ve expressed views, if not clearly, cogently, or artfully, at least loudly and constantly. As a man, I already feel a strong enough sense of vicarious shame for the humiliating insecurity these jackass dudes project at every opportunity. I really think we can do without another venue to hear their “grievances.”
Goddamn, I felt embarrassed even typing the word “grievance” in this context. The whining is so utterly childish.
” Do you really think anything you say is considered reasonable? ”
Compared to screaming at people like you do Reap?…yes. Yes I do.
You know what’s reasonable? Creating over a dozen sockpuppets to rant and whine on a blog you’re not welcome at and have been banned from.
Oh, my mistake. That is the opposite of reasonable.
I do apologize for having to approve comments. We have had an issue with spam and are working out a better way to filter it. I assure you all that so long as you arent a spambot I will approve your comment as soon as I can.
Ophelia is not interested. Move on then. Please don’t let this endeavour be derailed by her rejection of a chance to find common ground.
Here’s a big part of the problem, Lee:
To what behaviors and tactics are you referring? If you mean refuting silly arguments with evidence and laughing at the ridiculous levels of butthurt, then yes–guilty as charged. If you mean relentless internet stalking and harassment, cherry-picking, quote-mining and criticizing people instead of ideas, no. Emphatically, no. None of the prominent bloggers on the side of a more inclusive atheist/skeptic community have engaged in this behavior toward creationists or anyone else. Hell, that kind of behavior is what we usually see *from* the creationists, because they haven’t got a reasoned argument to make in rebuttal.
I appreciate your attempt at brokering a reconciliation here, but the past few years have amply demonstrated that there are people in the atheist skeptic community that I don’t want on ‘my’ side. What you seem to be missing is that the people on ‘my’ side would love to move on, but that’s difficult to do when things like this keep happening. Or this. Or this. I could go on. Reconciliation seems highly improbably at this point. Really we’d just settle for being left alone to do the things within our part of the movement that make sense to us.
the validity of the first paragraph is predicated on your standards of evidence. You can’t just say it’s evidence. Humor me, give me an example of this evidence and your logical construct supporting it’s validity. Because those links you put in your second paragraph have no logical construct to justify them as evidence and at glance their use in justifying what you are saying is full of holes. Ill do a more detailed explanation in a bit if you’ll just humor me.
I don’t understand what “evidence” you’re asking for, Celia. I provided links to three data points from a vast sea of data that, collectively, support my belief that reconciliation is unlikely. Doubthat, below, sums it up nicely:
“I have no more interest in sharing a “community” with the harassers and their defenders than I want to share a political party with anti-choicers, young earthers, warmongers, and Tea Party nutjobs.”
Goodbye.
Im not defending either side of this stupid debacle. Ive been against this fight from day one and I have friends on both sides of the fence.
as for the rest, I wasnt asking for *more* evidence. I was asking for you to justify it’s use in your argument. if your premises and the conclusions you draw from them and your evidence are sound, that should be very easy for you. I want you to put some ethos into your position.
My argument is that it’s difficult to move on when daily hate mail flows like molten spam. It’s unpleasantly consuming a lot of time and effort *on both sides*, to be sure, but not in equivalent ways. The people taking the time to send the emails, create the fake twitter accounts, catalogue every perceived misstep into a wiki, prank people by signing them up for shit they didn’t want, etc. etc.? Those people could just stop doing it and save themselves a bunch of time. The people receiving the emails, tweets, et al, by contrast, are forced to keep dealing with it. They don’t have the choice to just quit, because it’s pouring into their lives unbidden every day. This is a bullshit, and it needs to stop.
That’s it. It’s not a complicated argument, so it shouldn’t need further justification.
Let’s be clear, doubtthat. Ophelia makes an acid attack on the director of the Bolshoi all about herself and this is made a mockery of by some commentors, including Jerry Conlon. He then makes an incredibly fatuous joke and Ophelia immediately takes it on board.
The difference is that none of you seem to be able to accept that you could be wrong on whether it was a joke or not. Jerry Conlon says it was a joke in poor taste and he apologised to Ophelia. He also never said he would “throw” acid onto her face or even implied such a thing, so kindly remove that bit of hyperbole from your narrative. He said “maybe it would do you some good.” In context, it’s a joke based on her appearance. It’s not something I agree with or something I myself would say, but let’s be reasonable: it’s no more a legitimate threat than franc hoggle’s “kick you in the cunt” is a legitimate threat.
But Ophelia isn’t a fool. She knows how to play the game and this is how she’s decided to play it. Always the victim, never the victimiser.
However, let us be clear about something else. The reason for this “conflict” is exactly the way you word it, but not the way you envision it. You see the rhetoric you use is completely different from the rhetoric I would use and it’s to do with one simple word: civility. We “jackasses will fade away”? If I recall, Ophelia Benson wasn’t the one who extended the peace pipe; Lee Moore did. Ophelia Benson wasn’t the one who wished for a cease fire and an opportunity to end this pointless “conflict”; Lee Moore did. But for all his pampering, what did he get? Burnt at the stake, of course, courtesy by her vicariousness herself. With that kind of rhetoric, how can you claim we’re the “jackasses” in this pursuit? That we are the irritants to be expelled?
If there’s one thing I can say, though, doubtthat, is that while I’m becoming exceedingly more embarassed for the bloggers at FTB, I’m even more embarassed by its commentators. Wowbagger, Nerd of Redhead, ImprobableJoe, SallyStrange, Aratina Cage, the list goes on; only a sample of the people who make FTB an insufferable place to be. I don’t know enough about you to make an assessment, but if your comments here are anything to go by, I’m not impressed. You’re not even trying to compromise. If the commenters at FTB were to get a clean slate then nevermind its inane bloggers, we might actually get to have an actual conversation.
Good lord, you are just pathetic.
“Let’s be clear, doubtthat. Ophelia makes an acid attack on the director of the Bolshoi all about herself and this is made a mockery of by some commentors…”
No, she didn’t. Again, she made it about YOU. She pointed out that the woman who had acid tossed in her face suffered through the exact internet abuse that you weirdos shoot her way. That you feel no shame in that behavior and try so hard to pretend it was a joke is sickening. Everything that happened to that woman right up to the point that the acid hit her face would be dismissed by you perverts as “just a joke.”
Look, this is a waste of time. You’re just babbling. I’m done indulging you Benson obsession. If you fail to understand the seriousness of sending messages at women suggesting that “…a vial of acid would do you some good…,” there’s no possible way to engage with you. You’ve spent all those words trying to defend that behavior. Amazing. Also, you have terrible senses of humor. That’s funny to you?
The person affected in the Bolshoi attack was a man.
What do you mean, is it funny to us? Did I make the joke? Did we collectively make the joke? Was it a particularly funny joke? No on all counts. Maybe if you tried to have an actual conversation (and incidentally knew what the hell you were talking about), we wouldn’t have to insult eachother. Just shoot the breeze like any normal person.
She’s remarkably prescient to make it about us, isn’t he? Although I can’t help but note that making it all about us (and indirectly all about her) is still marginalizing the attack and not actually making it about the attack. Nitpicking, maybe, but I think it’s an important point. (Again, the one who got acid splashed onto their face was Sergei Filin – a man.) Another tiny but pretty significant point is that Jerry’s joke was “just a joke” and not the actual incident, which I’ve taken great care not to confuse. I implore you to do the same. But I’ve indulged your confusion for far too long. If you’ll excuse me, as a woman, I need to kick this other woman in the cunt. Cheerio.
More gibberish.
Thank god we have rational, serious thinkers like you to explain that a tweet about throwing acid in a woman’s face isn’t the same as throwing acid in a woman’s face. If it wasn’t for your pedantic, breathless explanation, people would be left with the analogy between internet harassment and internet harassment. So confusing.
And you collectively got together to defend that asshole. Go read the slimepit discussion. Even if it wasn’t a threat, it was disgusting and a prime example of the misogyny in the skeptical community that decent folks have had enough of.
What do you want to say that you can’t? I understand your position, I find it vile and revolting and I have no more interest in sharing a “community” with the harassers and their defenders than I want to share a political party with anti-choicers, young earthers, warmongers, and Tea Party nutjobs.
You’re the other side. You’re not there because of a failure to understand your views. You’re there precisely because we understand your views.
I think this highlights one of the grievances for the Anti-FtB side (for those asking what grievances they have) when you say
I have no more interest in sharing a “community” with the harassers and their defenders than I want to share a political party with anti-choicers, young earthers, warmongers, and Tea Party nutjobs.
You see the problem is it isn’t your community. The language you use here is only a shadow of the language used by people like PZ Myers when he talks of the kinds of people he doesn’t really want at **our conferences**, as if by some holy ordination those who fly under the banner of the liberal left are granted divine right to eject whoever they so wish from any organisation they choose to be a part of. This kind of self-entitlement by the politically pious leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many. We all have to share organisations with people we don’t much care for because those grievances are over issues that are not relevant to the business of the day.
Admittedly, you are free to start an atheismplus forum-style community (replete with its own brand of odious hate merchants), where you CAN ordain what kinds of views people are allowed to hold, but conferences, conventions, the blogosphere, YouTube, podcasts, secularism, skepticism and atheism are all broad churches (‘big tents’ i think the A+ers call them)and general organisations in these fields cannot be expected to act like extensions of FreethoughtBlogs, banning and censoring anyone who doesn’t follow your specific brand of socio-political gender ideology.
So in the end we all have to try and get along, so why not start now?
We collectively got together to defend Jerry Conlon’s tweet?
Which version of the Slymepit were you reading? Vista?
Although I’m wont to refer to the Slymepit as a collective, mainly because we’re not and we’re not an echo chamber, but as I recall, many members of the ‘pit thought it was tasteless, others thought it was idiotic and some didn’t care. In other words, if there were any “collective” getting together on a point regarding Jerry’s tweet, it would be comdemnation.* It didn’t sit well with us at all. The only thing we recognised (and just so we’re still clear, so does Ophelia) was that it was meant as a joke and not an actual threat.
I would have thought that would have been obvious, but apparently not. Furthermore it appears that FTB commenters have a bad or selective memory if they’ve forgotten the many other “threats” Ophelia has received over the past months which she proceeded to pretend to take seriously, like someone saying if they got turned into a woman they would “kick her in the cunt.” A paranoid supporter making assumptions she might get targeted which caused her to pull out from TAM, or that she would get shot. (With vaccination.) Frankly to even assume these are legitimate threats is laughable.
But again, that says more about you than it says about her. Moving on.
By the way, it seems that you don’t just have a problem with making out people’s genders (it was a man getting acid thrown in his face, not a woman), you can’t even read. Nowhere in his tweet did Jerry Conlon say he would “throw acid” in her face, that he “would throw acid in her face” or any variation of “throw.” The tweet says, and I repeat, quote “maybe acid would do you some good …” unquote. The full tweet read: “Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good. You already look like you were set on fire and put out with a wet rake.” It was a dig at her appearance. Once again, it’s not something I agree with or would personally say. But it’s not a threat.
See – the problem, doubtthat, is that whenever someone tries to pass on the peace pipe, presumptions of “sides” come into question. I don’t think I’m part of any “side” or “the other side” but apparently that’s the line you’ve decided to cross. It looks like all you can do is spout platitudes and make empty assertions about “harassers” and their defenders and so on and so forth. Very tedious. Whenever you feel like coming back to the world of reason, let me know. In the meantime, this waterslide looks inviting.
*Irony being you tell me to read the slymepit discussion. I have, I was part of it, and it is nothing like the one you’ve imagined for yourself which makes me curious if you’ve read it yourself. Have you? Or are you content with taking words at face value? I’m never been part of a cult or a religious society, but I imagine that’s the kind of thing that would happen.
Noel:
Anti-choicers want to make abortion illegal. I am pro-choice and think it should be legal. So long as they are of the opinion that abortion should be illegal, I will never be in agreement with them politically. It doesn’t matter how many weepy, face-to-face circle jerks we have, the problem is their stance. I disagree with it.
So, too, do I have a problem with the views expressed by Thunderf00t, Paden, this Vacula fellow, and their supporters/defenders. As long as they hold to their positions (whine about harassment policies, constantly berate and attempt to humiliate women or make weak excuses for people who do…etc.) I will not consider myself in any “movement” with them, just like I don’t consider myself a Republican.
I don’t know why you think having substantive disagreements with people is somehow prohibited. I’m resisting any effort to have you or anyone else cram together some inchoate organization of people based on a shared disbelief in God (though, not really that) and that we don’t think Bigfoot exists. We agree on all the silly stuff, disagree on what’s societally important.
We all have the ability to choose who we associate with. We aren’t a religion. There’s no Pope declaring that we have to consort with one another. When people adopt views and advocate policies that I find repellent, I don’t support them. It’s that simple.
Doubtthat
Anti-choicers want to make abortion illegal. I am pro-choice and think it should be legal. So long as they are of the opinion that abortion should be illegal, I will never be in agreement with them politically.
Me neither, but there are many organisations I could be a part of alongside pro-lifers where it would be irrelevant. Why could you not attend an atheist gathering or a skeptics gathering with these people there? Secondly, if you really feel you can’t then shouldn’t it be you that bows out and not them (unless they are as intolerant of other perspectives as you are)?
You bring up the harassment policies and this is a great example of what I mean. Fiorst off let me state that my line all along has been if people feel the need for such a thing then the best bet is just to have one and be done with it.
But this is what happened. There were no harassment policies at certain events and some individuals campaigned to have that changed. Others disagreed with that and campaigned to maintain the status quo. nothing wrong with that surely, we are allowed our opinions I would have thought?
Funny thing is, I have read some bloggers and posters over at FtB say ‘if they want conventions without harassment policies why don’t they go and organise their own conventions?’
See what I mean about entitlement? When there were no such policies they seemed entitled to have their say and campaign to get them put into place (something which is their right to do, absolutely) but when the situation is reversed their position becomes one of ‘if you don’t like the staus quo piss off and run your own conference, this is **ours**’
The fact is that a disagreement and difference of opinion existed over these policies. So what? If every time a political party diosagreed over an issue it fragmented in half we would have more political parties in the average western democracy than we have people to join them!
So by all means disagree, no issue with that, but run your campaigns and have your say but then why can we not bury the hatchet and move on? Why does a disagreement have to lead to division? Are we really that intolerant nowadays? Does our embracing of diversity stop at the doorway of what really defines us: our opinions?
Lastly you write:
We agree on all the silly stuff, disagree on what’s societally important.
But this is what political parties are for, not atheist and skeptical communities. Does everything have to be political? If we find a group that wants to remain apolitical (as many skeptical movements are clearly keen to do) is it really necessary to force their hand and turn them into yet another political movement?
If it is politics and societal importance that you value (and I can hardly blame you for doing so) then there are a thousand organisations out there that cover your interests, can’t the people who are interested in the ‘silly stuff’ just have one or two?
PS: I will point out that the reason I am not involved with the skeptics scene is precisely because they are not interested in what interest me: atheism and religion. I checked, I found that what they were about is not what I am about and so I chose not to get involved. What i did NOT do is climb on board and then moan and whine that my interests are far more important than theirs and that they need to stop being so silly and make their clubs more in line with my requirements. Isn’t that the best way to go?
Noel:
First, I really don’t understand what’s wrong with people choosing where to spend their time and resources. This is a market solution: if a person thinks the disagreements are serious enough, they vote with their wallets and attendance and go elsewhere. I fail to see why this is problematic.
Sure, there are something I disagree with people about that I don’t find particularly serious. Often, it depends on the ends. I can support Barack Obama even though I disagree with a significant portion of his activities as president because the stakes are very high and the alternative is unthinkable.
What I need from the “resolutionists,” like you (I don’t say that as a pejorative) is some explanation of what ends are so important that I should squelch my objection to this harassing behavior and get along with everyone. What’s the equivalent to “Obama gets to name justices to the Supreme Court,” that would make me set aside, say, my objection to drone strikes in order to support him?
Second, “But this is what political parties are for, not atheist and skeptical communities. Does everything have to be political?”
I could not disagree with that more. For me, and a great many folks, atheism and skepticism are important precisely because they are boldly political statements. The notion that critical thinking should only be applied to Bigfoot weirdos and Anti-Vaxxers (which is a very political issue, by the way) is something I find baffling. But that’s fine. I’m not going to go to skeptical conferences where they stare at grainy UFO photos and do little else. If others want to do that, awesome. Whatever floats your boat, but if you think that’s “all’ skepticism is good for, then I’m not going to be rolling with you.
Why should I be forced to conform to their definition of skepticism? Why would I want that?
“What i did NOT do is climb on board and then moan and whine that my interests are far more important than theirs and that they need to stop being so silly and make their clubs more in line with my requirements. Isn’t that the best way to go?”
There are at least two issues going on here:
1) Broadly speaking, why is that definition of skepticism (the one that ignores religion and politics) the correct one? Who made that rule? Why shouldn’t it be changed? The people who are interested in skepticism are the ones that get to set the agenda, and if we’re no longer passing out in excitement over the prospect on a lecture about phrenology, then that topic probably won’t receive the attention it has in the past. Either you set in stone acceptable subjects for skeptical analysis, or you choose topics that interest people. I’m not sure I see what’s wrong with that.
2) From a different perspective, there’s a real problem with women and people of color participating in traditional skeptical topics. Hold constant the range of allowable ideas, there still is an issue of representation. Like every other aspect of modern life, this is changing. The old guard can either go down with the Titanic by fighting tooth and nail to make these Conferences as unwelcoming to women and people of color as possible, or they can adjust based on feedback those groups give. On that level they do need to stop being silly and change the rules of their club like the rest of modern society.
Doubtthat
For me, and a great many folks, atheism and skepticism are important precisely because they are boldly political statements. The notion that critical thinking should only be applied to Bigfoot weirdos and Anti-Vaxxers (which is a very political issue, by the way) is something I find baffling. But that’s fine. I’m not going to go to skeptical conferences where they stare at grainy UFO photos and do little else. If others want to do that, awesome. Whatever floats your boat, but if you think that’s “all’ skepticism is good for, then I’m not going to be rolling with you.
I actually think PZ Myers got it right when he said:
Skepticism has a broad brief. The skeptical movement does not
Maybe you and i don’t disagree on this. My bone of contention is when people go into established skeptics movements like the JREF and complain that their remit doesn’t cover something else which is ‘more important’. In no way did i wish to suggest that you cannot apply whatever mode of thought you so wish to whatever you so wish and, if there is no organisation that covers your interests, group together and form one with my full blessing
From a different perspective, there’s a real problem with women and people of color participating in traditional skeptical topics. Hold constant the range of allowable ideas, there still is an issue of representation.
I am all for encouraging anyone and everyone to get involved and feel welcome (,ost importantly) but if you are suggesting that subjects like parapsychology and poltergeists are only of interest to white men and on those grounds other areas (like study of gender politics and ethnic issues) ought to be included then I think you have overstepped the line from encouraging more diverse participation in something to making it something else. It then becomes no different to going to a reggae club and telling them they would get more white members if they diversified to play heavy metal as well, after all it is all music!
I think this thread sums up the difficulties but they are hardly insurmountable.
What is laughable is how easily so many people are willing to simply throw in the towel as if something has taken place that is simply too terrible to ever be worked around. I think some people really need to get a fucking grip. In the mean time, those who have still got some sense of proportion can try and make progress.
I recall my entire childhood, watching the news every day, and seeing two groups of Irishmen blowing up and gunning each other (and everyone else) down, each equally convinced they alone held the banner of righteousness and that righteous indignation being held up as grounds to never talk, never negotiate, never give one inch.
Times change and some of those who were right at the heart of those organisations amazingly ended up as politicians. Why? Because talking was the only way to resolve things.
Of course, for some, what went on in Northern Ireland pales into insignificance in comparison to fake twitter accounts, ‘dear muslima’ letters, smearing with hyperbolic labels (feminazis, misogynists, ftbullies, bigots etc etc), rape threats, accusations of hate-campaigns against an entire gender and god-alone knows what else. For these people nothing other than total recapitulation and an apology written in the blood of a sacrificed virgin (in fact a host of virgins to cover equally every gender permutation) will suffice; for these people nothing other than that which they are fully aware will never happen will suffice.
Fuck them
Bypass them
Talking is good, it is the only way to end things like this.
Jim
Just when I thought I was out…
I couldn’t help but come back for a few reasons.
Firstly the comment about false equivalency, I never said anything was equal.(or that such a judgement can even be accurately made, I don’t think it can) This goes back to this binary thinking, which you’re still employing, which means you still didn’t hear me at all. The two sides are an illusion. (It’s a trap! )
Unfortunately the prodding of trolls has created another class of troll, the covert, possibly unaware,perhaps even well-meaning troll.
The covert trolls are the ones above launching insults constantly. You can see they aren’t idiots, so they know what they’re doing. I’d like to first of all ask everyone to stick to the facts and not reference personal character. I’d also like to ask the moderator here to enforce this. I believe in free expression as much as anyone, but if any progress is to be made, we need to get rid of all the trolls, which includes anyone who continues to sensationalize this, and persists in name calling and personal attacks. They are not actually contributing at this point. And I don’t think thy started out as trolls, but they have unwittingly become too personally involved and emotional to be objective.
Something else that had been bothering me for a while is the rationalization of the personal attacks on Ophelia(or anyone for that matter), it doesn’t matter in the slightest if it was a “joke”, everyone should be condemning this. Disagreeing with someone does not make it ok diminish them, and saying they should have a thicker skin is really not your call to make. Imagine someone making fun of your appearance publicly on a regular basis. Ophelia, they’re wrong, and rationalizing it is wrong in my opinion, I’d like to call on everyone who has a shred of empathy to openly condemn this, and then BLOCK the trolls. Criticizing ideas is fine, criticizing people, we need to stop. That’s the other part of my message, Ophelia you have every right to speak out about abuse launched at you, but before doing so consider the source and their motives. You’re doing exactly what they want you to. Reacting.
The first rule of Internet club is don’t feed the troll!
No
Matter
What
…ever!
My general policy suggestion would be if considered a real threat, report to the site, and proper law enforcement, otherwise block and ignore. Any response spurs them on.
The beauty of the Internet is also its downfall-anyone can speak without fear of reprisals. If you dont feed
them they really do go away, this is what the block button is for. We should all use it.
So the first step, I think, is for those that disagree with Ms. Benson’s ideas, to clearly and vehemently distance themselves from those that seek to hurt her emotionally, or threaten her-even if it does seem like a “joke” to you. No one has the ultimate perspective of everything, if she feels threatened THAT IS ENOUGH. Even if you think she’s overplaying it or doing it for attention, it’s not your call to make, it’s hers, and accepting her claims about how she feels is just common decency. You don’t have to agree with her to be a decent human being, and extend her basic human courtesy.
And the action I would encourage of Ms. Benson, is to agree to extend a bit of a chance for those of us who really aren’t hateful, and aren’t out to hurt you, to have a dialogue. Maybe we disagree on some things, but we aren’t all trolls. I know I’m not.
There is a middle. I know moderates aren’t all that hip these days, but I’m calling on all the moderates to speak out. Show that you’re above the trolls. And for GOD’s sake, let’s heal.
And before anyone attempts to mischaracterize anything I’ve said-I mean nothing I’ve said in this post to disparage, hurt, or insult anyone in any way. And my reasoning is not perfect, if you think I’m wrong on something, please do say so, but please extend me the courtesy of not doing so rudely.
Sorry, but on the scale of wrongs, a parody account of Ophelia Benson is far from the worst thing I can think of. Not exactly nice, but I’ve seen a hell of a lot worse. Trying to get people fired from their jobs, physically threatening people (Hi, Greg Laden), censorship actions in actual meatspace (Hi, ‘Setar’), or petitions to have individuals one disagrees with drummed out of secular organizations (Hi, Adam Lee) strike me as a hell of a lot higher on the list of sins I’d think of to condemn, *way* above and beyond any kind of name-calling or mockery. Then again, I suppose the hopelessly thin-skinned won’t have that sense of proportion.
Youre absolutely right, the first step toward common ground I think could be condemning the dirty fighting. I focused on Ophelia because She commented earlier, and I’ve seen the sorts of things said about her and it’s bothered me. I
Guess I’m thin skinned for other people? In any case I agree, let’s get away from this ugly stuff, and let’s drop any rationalizations to justify trying to actually hurt a person’s life or feelings. I know there is a group of people that have nothing to do with that stuff, because im one of them. But they need to speak up.
Or the creationists win!!!!:)
In general, I agree with you, Chris. I think we need to get beyond this kind of shouting match, including the name-calling and mockery. It’s just that I’m not sure how far demand to distance oneself from this or that group, or condemn or apologize for some past action are going to go, on either side. And in terms of stuff where amends need to be made, name-calling and mockery are pretty low priority. Everybody’s going to have to get past a certain amount of “You called me….” if “cease fire” is in fact a real goal, though how many people on either side are on that page, I’m not really sure.
In terms of what I’d like to see some agreement on, any kind of personal threats first and foremost – any threats of rape, assault, or other violence that have been or are being made are completely beyond the pale and should enjoy no one’s support, nor should people who make such threats. Maybe a step below this, but still not OK, campaigns to have opponents fired from their job, demands that they be pushed out of secular organizations, petitions along these lines, and the rest also have to end.
I’ll get around to worrying about people saying mean things to each other once the above nonsense is off the table.
We moderates and outsiders should make a forum. We can host debates between the two warring factions. We can even be cheeky and call it Switzerland.
…and im only partially joking. if that would work, I’d do it.
I have some things to say.
First- You should all realize and accept that NONE of you are nearly as important as MOST of you seem to think you are. Period. You could drop dead, and the world would continue to spin and atheism would keep right on truckin’.
Second- You should also realize that NOTHING anyone else says- in discussion or debate- is nearly as important as MOST of you seem to think it is. Period.
Third- Political correctness is just that- POLITICAL. We don’t need to be politically correct in our inter-movement interactions (though we MUST be respectful of each other), and insisting that others adhere to strict political correctness only wastes time, builds resentments, and generates in-fighting. Statements made from the movement to the public MUST be politically correct, but internal communications need not be HELD (forcefully) to this standard.
Fourth- YOU ALL HAVE A JOB TO DO. The more you bicker, the more you SUCK at that job, because YOU’RE NOT DOING IT. If the bickering is more important to you than the movement, find another line of work/hobby/cause, because you are a counter-productive force in the movement.
Fifth- You rack a dissaprin. All of you. You folks are absolutely TERRIBLE at managing a focused, well-planned, coherent movement (except for the occasional successful event). Instead, the rest of the world just hears a bunch of angry atheists who can’t decide if they’re more angry at creationists, each other, or their parents. GROW UP, AND GET SOME DISCIPLINE AND COHESION.
Sixth- This is a social movement, and social movements are really political movements. You need to start thinking like savvy politicians, not gossipy high-schoolers.
YOU ARE WASTING TIME, AND AS YOU WASTE IT, CREATIONISM IS PASSING YOU BY AND RUNNING THE COUNTRY AND INDOCTRINATING THE YOUNG AND THE NAIVE. THEY ARE WINNING, BECAUSE YOU FOLKS ARE ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF LOSERS.
Here’s a useful exercise- try to think of a social or political movement that you respect- current or past. Now consider how the people involved in that movement BEHAVED. Consider the appearance they presented to the public. Consider their level of discipline, their cohesion, the way they expressed themselves, and the principles they adhered to.
Now compare that consideration to this thread. Do you feel idiotic yet? Inadequate? Hopeless? If so- GOOD, those are the feelings that can motivate change.
IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL, EITHER MIMIC THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY ACHIEVED SUCCESS, OR FIND ENTIRELY NEW AND NOVEL WAYS TO ACHIEVE IT. DON’T IMITATE FAILURES (which is what this thread does).
The secret to political/social persuasion is to APPEAL TO EMOTIONAL VALUES. It is NOT appealing to logic or reason. You must learn the mystical arts of ‘messaging’ and ‘optics’ before you can proceed to the next level. Unfortunately, atheism AS A WHOLE fails miserably in both of these areas. The snarky billboards represent messaging FAILURES, as do the quasi-vitriolic protest signs I usually see at rallies and so forth. Telling your opponents how WRONG they are WILL NEVER PERSUADE THEM; it will only make them HATE YOU MORE.
Talks can help smoothe things out, and sometimes it simply takes time. There’s so much in the pot right now, it all just needs to (in all seriousness) “simmer down.”
When a group is oppressed, as atheists in the U.S. are, there are going to be a wide array of responses to that oppression. Some will want to peaceably dialog with the oppressors. Some will want to defy those oppressors in the open marketplace of ideas, and some will want to strike back at those that have belittled and persecuted them for centuries.
And there are varying shades of activism within those responses, certainly. People are not the same. But that doesn’t mean that we cannot set aside our tertiary differences in order to agree on common goals. Petty infighting over this hastily worded comment or that over-the-top reply is counter-productive and divisive to what SHOULD be a relatively cohesive movement.
I find that one of the common rhetorical tendencies on the Internet is to inflate small statements on narrow contexts to universal condemnation. Someone can make an off-color joke, and IMMEDIATELY be condemned as a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a Republican. These sorts of leaps to judgment and the fallout from arguing every single detail of posted and re-posted commentary is endemic to the text-based internet. I think a LOT less of this would go on if we could all meet face to face; and perhaps that is why the Reason Rally was such a success. I for one, wish we could keep that feeling of solidarity and brotherhood going. No one benefits from SIWOTI syndrome.
I think we need to come to terms with the fact that there is no atheist community. We have no central authority (and we shouldn’t have), we have no core set of values (there’s no reason to assume otherwise). The only thing we have in common is that we don’t believe in gods. That leaves a helluva lot of other things that will inevitably differentiate us from one another and, no matter how much we might try to pretend otherwise, that’s just the way it is.
[...] [...]
Let’s all hope that a cease fire happens soon. I’m sick and tired of seeing atheists fight each other over the Internet.
[...] For more information on this topic you can check out my original post here [...]