(March 20, 2015 at 11:45 pm)abentwookie Wrote:(March 20, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Wookie, I get what you're saying. It was my impression that they had a sort of ideological litmus test. Am I mistaken in thinking that they require members to adhere to a specific set of value claims?
Throwing people out for being disruptive is understandable. Throwing them out -- or worse, accusing them of racism or sexism etc -- will almost certainly foster groupthink.
If that's what they want, it's all good. Such an approach is nothing I'm interested in supporting.
Well, the purpose of the group was to fight against sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc... There was some disagreement about specific issues but nothing bad. Most of the problems came from the people complaining that Atheists shouldn't be involved in anything other than Atheism but there was also a lot of sexism coming from atheists, especially directed towards people like Jennifer McCreight (the founder), Greta Christina, etc... So yeah, some people were being obnoxious and needed to be removed. The people that I saw being accused of sexism and racism were BEING sexist and racist.
I think the problem is that a lot of people were talking about what happened even though they weren't actually there. Its similar to the thunderf00t incident. Some of his followers claimed he was banned just for posting an opinion that others didn't support but that isn't what happened at all. He was banned for being a belligerent tool and throwing a tantrum.Some people just don't understand the difference between acting like an ass and conveying your opinion in a mature and rational manner.
Are you familiar with the drama that occurred between Matt Dillahunty and the Atheism+ forum? That's the only thing I can say bugged me about Atheism+ from what I've read. The overreaction was unnecessary.
