Atheism Plus is just Anarchism Minus

UPDATE: Seems like this entry is the latest victim of a Reddidiot invasion. I might have to close down the comments at any time, but so far the retards are behaving.

The + stands for Quality! No wait, that doesn’t work…

As you may know, there has been a lot of hubbub in atheist circles on the issue of misogyny. Some atheists have spoken up in support of silencing complaints of sexual harassment and potential rape. In response, there’s been a controversial proposition of making a subgroup called Atheism+. The person who started the idea defined it as such:

We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

The Atheism+ forum has a lot of threads about “privilege” and funfeminism. Does this all strike you as… similar… to something that already exists?

Yep. Atheism+ is really just Anarchism-, tooled to be appealing to liberals (so no anti-capitalism, anti-hierarchies, anti-imperialism, etc). It’s basically a bunch of liberals trying to do “social justice” but not knowing what the fuck they’re doing.

I mean, let me be clear. I greatly enjoy that Atheism+ is pissing off all the entitled assholes in the atheist community. I hope it succeeds and keeps pissing as many people off as possible, because they deserve it.

But insofar as being a serious movement, it’s pretty silly. I’ve already commented that atheism is not a sound basis for any movement, and that goes double for social justice. The fact that religion is sexist and racist does not mean atheism (which is not the opposite of religion) is a sound platform on which to launch an anti-sexism and anti-racist worldview. The fact that their feminism is strictly funfem is proof of that. They are not really interested in helping women.

I would hereby like to announce that I am starting a new movement called Atheism++. It’s… Anarchism. Congratulations, all Atheists++, you are now Anarchists. Enjoy fighting hierarchies without liberal blinders (and you still don’t have to be a real feminist!).

Some starting entries for you Atheists++:

Worshipping the magic hierarchies…
Why hierarchies are immoral…
“Hierarchies are natural!”

And if you’re actually interested in real feminism, read Feminism 101 Blog and Radfem 101: A radical feminist primer.

22 thoughts on “Atheism Plus is just Anarchism Minus

  1. Bedelia Bloodyknuckle September 9, 2012 at 20:56

    yeah, one of my friends was in that group. She got kicked out for basically calling their shit out on a thread which basically talked about mentally disabled women being forced to have sex with mentally disabled men against their will, she said that most mentally disabled people do not have the capacity or the understanding to say “no” or consent (which is true) and that it is wrong, ableist, patronizing and misogynistic to suggest such a thing, that disabled women should be forced to have sex with mentally disabled men in order to have “an active sex life.” These people make me sick!

    • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 09:27

      Urgh. That is TERRIBLE.

      • Bedelia Bloodyknuckle September 10, 2012 at 14:34

        It is! :(

  2. Len (@BdrLen) September 9, 2012 at 23:09

    Oh no, the nonsense is still in there too…

  3. lordmetroid September 10, 2012 at 01:34

    What does funfem mean?

    • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 09:26

      Liberal feminism, individualist feminism, any other form of feminism that puts the emphasis on how women should be “empowered” by their inferior status.

  4. Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 15:09

    Not everybody who wants to “do” social justice necessarily subscribes to an anarchist political philosophy…that being said, I agree, basing a social movement on a foundation of nontheism doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    On the other hand, I don’t know if I want to take advice on how to “do social justice” from somebody who uses ableist slurs.

    • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 18:11

      It’s not an ableist slur to call Reddidiots retarded. They actually have mental problems. The fact that the MRAs flourish on Reddit should be evidence of that.

      • Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 18:22

        Yes it is . . . retarded is specifically a derisive term for the mentally challenged.

        Here, I’ll do the hard work for you:,mod=7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

        • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 18:24

          Thank you for being a condescending retard.

          • Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 18:24

            I dont’ feel bad about condescending to people who use slurs.

          • Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 18:30

            I guess it’s totally fine to call these people retards, because they “really are” retards.

        • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 18:29

          And I don’t feel bad insulting you for your lack of content. So… I guess we’re even.

        • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 18:31

          What are you, a The More You Know mascot? Take your Sunday Special philosophy somewhere where people give a shit.

          • Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 18:33

            So . . . by your response I have to assume that it is fine to call them retards, and that it’s not a slur, because they “really are retards”.

            Just like it’s totally fine to call Chinese people chinks, because they “really are chinks”.

        • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 18:34

          Actually, your assertion implies that race is more than a social construct, which makes YOU the only racist here. Funny, that.

          • Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 18:36

            No . . . I know race is a social construct. Social constructs aren’t “fake”. They are real things that really affect people. Just because they aren’t genetic doesn’t mean they “don’t exist” or “don’t matter”.

        • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 18:38

          Again, thank you for the Sunday Special philosophy. But you did imply that they “really are” a race. I never said there was such thing as as “really being” any race. So can we cut the crap and talk about the entry now?

          • Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 18:45

            I was just making a comparison between the use of slurs, not stating some kind of empirical position on the definition of race. You’re the one who went there.

            Sure, I think your blog post has merit, but when you use the word “retard” as an insult, you DO lose some credibility trying to talk about social justice, just as surely as you would by saying “a bunch of jerks from faggit have invaded the post.” That’s all. Consider your words. No need to get defensive.

            Retard is a slur, plain and simple. Calling it “Sunday school special” isn’t actually a counter-argument.

        • Francois Tremblay September 10, 2012 at 18:46

          Kay, but if you don’t have anything to say about the entry, keep it for your blog or somewhere else. Thanks.

          • Zachary Alex Stern September 10, 2012 at 18:46

            What I just wrote is directly related to, and a comment on, your entry…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: