4 ms·

>I don't know if you followed what happened to the Atheist community in the US, but its downfall was essentially the kind of witch hunt you're trying to incite.

by phaus 10y ago

>I don't know if you followed what happened to the Atheist community in the US, but its downfall was essentially the kind of witch hunt you're trying to incite. Did we have a community? Was there a downfall? I'm an atheist and I know more people that are comfortable being openly atheist in 2016 than at any other time in my life.

chickenfries 10y ago
I feel like this probably has something to do with Dawkins or Hitchens or something. The history of witch hunts in the USA are reactionary and conservative (Salem, McCarthyism) but for some reason these days the left have been branded as the witch hunters.
- phaus 10y ago
  Historically, I agree. However, there are witch-hunters to be found at the extremes of both sides. For example, there's nothing wrong with the concept of social justice, but there are people/groups acting in the name of social justice that spend all day every day trying to find someone's life/career to ruin over the slightest perceived transgression.
saalweachter 10y ago
As near as I can tell, this is referring to a minor scandal in what I usually think of as the skeptic community. Long story short, Dawkins made some comments regarded as regressive which got him dis-invited from a couple of skeptical conferences. It is a slightly different argument than the one we're having now, although it wouldn't surprise me if the sides people take are similar: given that in any large gathering of people (eg, a skeptical conference, an online forum, a corporation, a political party...) there will be some people whose behavior, actions, or speech is hostile, harming, or threatening to some other people, should we force some people to restrict their behavior or leave, or force other people to either accept it or leave? Unsurprisingly, a majority of the skeptical community opted towards restriction, many skeptical conventions reiterated their policies with the goal of making convention-goers feel safe and welcome, and some individuals who prominently made statements against these changes were dis-invited (as speakers) from some conventions.

by phaus 10y ago

chickenfries 10y ago

I feel like this probably has something to do with Dawkins or Hitchens or something. The history of witch hunts in the USA are reactionary and conservative (Salem, McCarthyism) but for some reason these days the left have been branded as the witch hunters.

phaus 10y ago
Historically, I agree. However, there are witch-hunters to be found at the extremes of both sides. For example, there's nothing wrong with the concept of social justice, but there are people/groups acting in the name of social justice that spend all day every day trying to find someone's life/career to ruin over the slightest perceived transgression.

saalweachter 10y ago

As near as I can tell, this is referring to a minor scandal in what I usually think of as the skeptic community. Long story short, Dawkins made some comments regarded as regressive which got him dis-invited from a couple of skeptical conferences. It is a slightly different argument than the one we're having now, although it wouldn't surprise me if the sides people take are similar: given that in any large gathering of people (eg, a skeptical conference, an online forum, a corporation, a political party...) there will be some people whose behavior, actions, or speech is hostile, harming, or threatening to some other people, should we force some people to restrict their behavior or leave, or force other people to either accept it or leave? Unsurprisingly, a majority of the skeptical community opted towards restriction, many skeptical conventions reiterated their policies with the goal of making convention-goers feel safe and welcome, and some individuals who prominently made statements against these changes were dis-invited (as speakers) from some conventions.