This podcast is an audio version, with some elaborations, of my first ever blog post, entitled “Whoever I Don’t Like Is Ruining The Atheist Movement.” Definitely check out and share the blog version! It has screenshots and links and stuff.
Leave Thomas a voicemail! (916) 750-4746, remember short and to the point!
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/seriouspod
Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod
For comments, email email@example.com
8 Replies to “SIO56: Who Speaks for the Atheist Movement?”
There’s an Anti-PC movement? I had no idea. Where do I sign up? If our asses can be saved, it will be non-Republican, pro-left anti-PC people who do it. Those and the so-called Deep State will be the ones to pull us out of the quicksand, if it can be done. The regressive left and the alt-right are standing in the middle of the swamp flinging fistfuls of goop at each other and at everyone else, even those you would have thought were on their respective sides—while we all continue to sink.
Embrace the Void, y’all! (It’s closer than you think.)
I agreed entirely with your sentiments, and will read that blog and maybe share it when I have fb again.
It was a bit strange hearing you read your writing on air, trying to keep in mind who was talking, you-reading-you, or you-reading-you-quoting. you-aside is easy though.
I’m gonna re-send a voicemail on whitesplaining where I get to the point quicker.
when I want to avoid white guys like Dawkins, krauss, Harris and boghossian talking about what is reasonable, the first place I turn is Thomas, Eli, Noah, Heath, Tom, and Cecil
The episode thumbnail pic is straw man. This was never the problem and the points don’t even contradict.
I haven’t read either your post or Smalley’s, but I couldn’t help but notice Smalley apparently uses that damn horseshoe theory. Even though the anti-PC crowd is apparently against the soft sciences, it sure doesn’t stop them from making stuff up about them. Because that’s what the horsehoe theory is: nothing but crap. It isn’t part of political science. It is a theory in only the colloquial sense, and not the academic sense. It’s the Golden Mean fallacy under a new name and nothing more.
Now that I’m done beating a dead horseshoe, I’m reminded of back when Elevatorgate went down. Remember, the whole thing started when Watson posted a video about sexism at an atheist conference. And around that same time, we saw more and more stuff about conferences and the atheist community not doing a good job protecting or catering to minorities.
Perhaps all the resistance to anti-harassment policies and basic tolerance has something to do with all this. I certainly can’t say for sure, but it came to mind as one possible cause that could have contributed to people not wanting to go to conferences with folks like Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer.
Great episode, Thomas.
I liked this episode and agreed with most of what you had to say, particularly the black/blue lives matter bit. It was a little stilted sounding listening to you read on air but nothing to distracting. My own theory on the drop in conference attendance is that the field used to bee dominated by one or to mega-conferences per year (ie the amazing meeting) but now it seems like every small town or organization is throwing their own little conference thus diluting the overall pool .
Good podcast and blog post. I very much appreciate your approach to these matters, and it has been very rewarding to see your own evolution on political and philosophical matters. (You leaned pretty heavily libertarian in your early days, but – as is the case when people honestly investigate the issues – seem to have moved toward a more traditional liberal viewpoint of late.
I’m one of those atheists not attending conferences or having much interest in the movement. This is a shift, as I was getting more involved in the movement right about the time Elevatorgate exposed the right-libertarian vs. liberal social justice “rift” in the “community.” The truth is that atheism of itself isn’t that good of an organizing principal, and I have been deeply disappointed by much of the irrational thought and actions coming out of supposed “Skeptic leaders.”
Whats Lawrance’s stance on PC? I thought he was always more left leaning, somewhat like Matt D. is?