Jan Steen & Phil @ Nugents, awesome (and/or funny) comments. The whole thing about entryism and Atheism Plus, like in 86 was a excellent summary. I find it hard not to instantly recognize the Atheism Plus debacle in it.
Jan Steen wrote:It may be helpful for me to point out that ‘neo-feminist/crypto-Marxist ideologues’ is simply a more colourful way of writing ‘Social Justice Warriors’. I don’t think it is far of the mark. Firstly, SJWs are evidently ideologues, secondly, they are clearly a somewhat non-standard brand of feminists, and finally, what theoretical underpinning they have is based on Critical Race Theory and other half baked stuff from Academia that has rather clear roots in Marxist thinking. Since, like most actual roots, the Marxism is somewhat hidden, the term crypto-Marxist seems appropriate.
As regards the takeover attempt, may I remind you of the (in retrospect comical) effort by a large contingent of bloggers and their followers to create the Atheism Plus movement? This aimed to replace the existing atheist movement, which was believed to be a horrible and outdated cabal of old white men. It is amusing to re-read some of the embarrassing rhetoric published on those blogs in connection with A+.
Atheism Plus crashed and burned, and only Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, resident FTB supergenius, still believes it is alive and kicking. PZ Myers and others were initially supportive, but were cunning enough not to play too prominent a role, so that they could wait and see what happened. Poor Jen McCreight took most of the flack, some of which was provoked by the intellectual artillery of the above-mentioned Dr. Richard Carrier PhD (who was quickly denounced by Jen, but by then the damage had been done).
Anyway, the failed attempt taught us one thing: that there is a group of people in the atheist movement who are eager to control it, to push it in a certain direction. This group is what we now call the SJWs.
Understandably, you being one of them, your immediate reaction is denial and ridicule. But the facts are fairly obvious. Since Richard Dawkins is the most prominent representative of the traditional atheist movement, he was given the role of Goldstein, the perpetual enemy. Confirmation bias being what it is, every tweet by Dawkins further enraged the SJWs, until he became the secular equivalent of Satan. Notice for example the morphing and malicious interpretation of “Dear Muslima†by Adam Lee, which I pointed out in my comment.
I rest my case.
A Hermit simply dismisses it. They all also carefully avoid the ogvorbis reaction (which is the main issue).
----
Look at what A hermit does there:
In
comment 69, I laud out exactly where I see the problem. It's already fairly annoying to always have to make it throughout, because they otherwise weasel through the cracks too easily. So there is everything one would need. Including a summary quote by Oggy with all vital information...
Ogvorbis wrote:The last year that I lived out west, I was offered a summer job babysitting two girls (aged about 4 and 7 (?)) […] Good job for a twelve-year-old […] One day, he asked if I could watch a third girl who was 6 years old. I said, sure. […] I was invited to jointhe sex play. TThe third girl had the 3 year old tied up. The tow older ones were taking turns doing things to her and I joined in. THey didn’t invite me but or maybe they did but that doesn’t matter. I joined in. […later comment …] But I didn’t stop before raping three young girls […] But it would have been even better if I hadn’t raped them, right?
Combined with reaction by no other than Elyse...
Elyse wrote:I cannot read through it. [the comments] Now that there are stories of abusers asking victims to tell them it’s okay. Now that the thread has comments telling child abusers that they would let them watch their own kids
It was explained exactly that it is not about the case itself, but the community reaction.... It was explained that critics did recognoze Oggys age (thats not the issue anyway, but the FtB reaction). Yet, its all ignored and when A Hermit thinks he deals with the issue... what does he do?
A Hermit wrote:OK, I had to look it up, but apparently here’s what teh person calling themselves Ogvorbis says they did:
“I was raped, repeatedly, by my cub scout leader for a period of about two or two-and-a-half years. I was forced to rape others (including a toddler girl (and I still feel like shit for doing that (yes, I know it wasn’t my fault . . . ))). I was used for child porn. I told once and was informed that I was a liar and then sent to my rapist to apologize and he raped me again to punish me.â€
That person recognizes that what they did was wrong, even thought they were forced to do it, and regrets it. To the extent that anyone defends Ogvorbis is it for his status as a victim of rape and abuse, not for his victimization of others.
As far as I can see no one, including Ogvorbis, is saying that what he did wasn’t rape, or is trying to minimize it or to blame the victims. The conversation there is a little more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
But what does this conversation on PZ Myers blog have to do with Adam Lee’s blog anyway? Why do Dawkin’s defenders always try to change the subject when their Dear Leader gets criticized for saying something stupid? Does the fact that other people sometimes say stupid things too make his comments any better? I don’t think so…
:roll: