Atheism + revisited, anyone here also post there?

[TaraJo]

Sounds like a great name for some more awful Michael Bay movies: When Trans-forum Girls Collide, Who Is Safe?

I could see it now. Would that mean we get to cast Ann Coultier as the villian? :p

In seriousness, a particular brand of radical feminism seems to have taken root within trans circles. It's amazing how little insight its adherants have, though. I mean, they're willing to bash men and attack men left and right and it's perfectly justified, but the second someone changes it from "hostility towards men" to "hostility towards anyone born with a penis," they completely lose their shit. Why can't they see that treating people like shit is a shitty thing to do regardless of their identity and that attacking someone for an inborn, immutable trait puts you solidly in the 'asshole' category?

I can understand where the feminist side to atheism comes from. I mean, it's easy to point out the scientific innacuracies to theology and it's easy to point out the logical fallicies to their dogma, but it's also easy to point out the vast amount of social injustice championed by religion, too. It's also easy to notice how much of atheism is populated by socially awkward dudes, some of who can make women uncomfortable. But there's a big difference between forming a safe space where you can feel comfortable and squashing any criticisms and bad mouthing everyone who disagrees with you from the safety of an echo chamber. They seem to be doing the later.

[FatAndFaithless]

Sounds like a great name for some more awful Michael Bay movies: When Trans-forum Girls Collide, Who Is Safe?

I could see it now. Would that mean we get to cast Ann Coultier as the villian? :p

In seriousness, a particular brand of radical feminism seems to have taken root within trans circles. It's amazing how little insight its adherants have, though. I mean, they're willing to bash men and attack men left and right and it's perfectly justified, but the second someone changes it from "hostility towards men" to "hostility towards anyone born with a penis," they completely lose their shit. Why can't they see that treating people like shit is a shitty thing to do regardless of their identity and that attacking someone for an inborn, immutable trait puts you solidly in the 'asshole' category?

I can understand where the feminist side to atheism comes from. I mean, it's easy to point out the scientific innacuracies to theology and it's easy to point out the logical fallicies to their dogma, but it's also easy to point out the vast amount of social injustice championed by religion, too. It's also easy to notice how much of atheism is populated by socially awkward dudes, some of who can make women uncomfortable. But there's a big difference between forming a safe space where you can feel comfortable and squashing any criticisms and bad mouthing everyone who disagrees with you from the safety of an echo chamber. They seem to be doing the later.

*Dons his A+ hat* WELL YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY AN ANTI-FEMINIST.

[Dystopia]

The kind of A+ forums are not really for me, specially if they don't share a policy of open mind and dialogue. Anything too extreme is bad. Do they accept anyone on those forums who isn't an anti theist?

[Rampant.A.I.]

I browsed for a bit.

I dunno, struck me as sort of

When asked to check your privilege, use your thumb to hold open your waistband a bit. Have a quick look down. With smug assurance, look her in the eye and say "Yep, still there. How's yours hanging?". Drives 'em nuts.

Now that's A+ material.

That said, the concept of privilege is a valid one, but when people over-use it the same way the religious right uses "liberal," "libtard," or any other "you disagree with me, therefore invalidating slur," it doesn't reinforce someone's position or make them seem more intelligent. It's just a proud display of uncompromising, narrow-minded bias.

[Cato]

That said, the concept of privilege is a valid one, but when people over-use it the same way the religious right uses "liberal," "libtard," or any other "you disagree with me, therefore invalidating slur," it doesn't reinforce someone's position or make them seem more intelligent. It's just a proud display of uncompromising, narrow-minded bias.

Agree 100%. It's a conversation stopper.

Take for instance gender pay disparity. The often referenced study that results in a 17% pay disparity is significantly flawed in that it doesn't address real and valid variance driven by non-gender considerations such as direct comparison of work type/professions, education levels, relevant experience, and hours worked. When these items are taken into account there is still a 5% variance. Certainly not as bad, but something that should be addressed.

The problem is that honest dialogue doesn't happen because the "privileged" group will use the more accurate study to simply dismiss the claim while the extreme feminists will uncritically deny the merits of the new study claiming that it is only 'mansplaining'.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well put. I must add that atheists, unlike cats, will turn around and scratch the shit out of you rather than dart off in a random direction.

I think that's probably the reason for all these fences they put up
If I remember correctly Atheism + was meant to be open to all, defining the ideology in open discussion and in a democratic way and stuff. Not sure what happened next. I do remember people complaining they were not allowed to voice their opinions on there.

lol, shades of the RRS there.

[LastPoet]

I keep them as a memento that being an atheist does not imply you are better. It's just easier to spot fails of thought without all the religious bullshit maskerading it.

[Losty]

...

:o

Why don't you post more often?

You're hawt

[Whateverist]

What does she have that I don't have?

[Losty]

What does she have that I don't have?

Hehe you're hot too