quietmarc wrote:I'm kind of with julian here, in that I would very strongly consider Natalie an ally in spirit
That doesn't prevent her from being wrong in this case, and if she makes a public criticism, then, like the rest of the world, people can publicly question what's behind it.
Also, I feel this kind of attitude is getting into Dillahunty territory. Yes, she's an ally. Yes, she says great stuff. But that does not prevent her from saying things that are wrong or unfounded, and I don't see why she should be insulated from criticism if she's wrong. Moreover, she chose to do this to validate a person who wants our movement to "fuck off and die." This is hurtful and I think we have a right--and a need--to talk about it.
I disagree with her objection to A+, and feel it's unfounded,
And that's why I think it needs to be discussed. I WANT to see if there's any merit to it. I really do--I tried and tried to give her objections the benefit of the doubt, but I'm stumped.
but I'd prefer to leave her out of this.
She chose to speak out against us in a public forum. She chose to validate the opinions of someone who "hates" us, who calls us "a pity party," and who wants us to "fuck off and die."
And, she did this AFTER she did her whole "I'm done with movement atheism" thing. If she wants to be left out of it, why is she throwing herself in it of her own volition? Moreover, I'm not demanding she answer, and I have made no attempt to contact her in any way because I don't feel that's my place. But if she can make a public criticism of us, why the fuck can't we address that criticism publicly?
I kind of expect that if we're doing our job right, she'll eventually come to see us as a positive force.
But why is she convinced that how the group happened to start (and the fact that we have a logo--oh, no wait, we don't! We have like four different ones that people use as appeals to them and there has not, to my knowledge, been any official decision) is NOT "doing our job right"? What actual merit does she have with this particular criticism? If she's actively refusing to see us as a positive force because we didn't get started to her liking, I'm sorry but I have a problem with that.
She's one of the few people that if she had a serious objection to what we're doing here, I'd listen to her first before getting argumentative.
I AM listening to her. I have specifically framed the post above to ask for advice on what I might be missing. The thing is I don't get it, and I can't fix any serious objections if I don't get them. No one has actually presented anything to communicate why her objection is serious--all I seem to be getting is variations of "But it's Natalie!"ischemgeek:
I have no objections to her simply not extending the benefit of the doubt, but frankly I don't think this is what's going on here. She is actively taking a stand that we are WRONG in this regard, this isn't just her not participating or not liking us--it is directly criticizing and I think we have a right to assess it. I'm not demanding her goodwill, just plain apathy would be fine. But making public criticisms that have dubious merit is an issue for me, no matter who they come from.
Grimalkin wrote:Besides, she said she didn't want to be involved in organized Atheism, full stop, whether it had a + by it or not.
But I don't think it's fair for her to say she doesn't want to be involved, and then take it upon herself to get involved by criticizing, and then we're supposed to ignore it because she claims not to be involved? Sorry, but no.Pteryxx
: Notice that I did not quibble about her criticisms of why she's distrustful of movement Atheism in general, and that she simply doesn't want to be involved in it. I completely accept that she has the right to be distrustful, but at a certain point that becomes just plain sniping--she has every right to worry that she's going to get burned by us and to treat us like we're Schrodinger's PSJWs, but the fact is I think she's getting to the point where she's misrepresenting, and pretty badly, in order to arrive at a label that we're PSJW, and that's why I have a problem with this tweet, because I really can't see ANY kernel to it, and I seriously want to consider valuable criticism and improve my outlook. At least with her complaints of a "with us or against us" mentality I could at least see where it was coming from.
slightly off-topic [ Show
Even then, though, I think she was taking the most misrepresented stance, and one that had been flogged by people intentionally trying to detract. I don't know how much more clear we could be that you don't have to join the group, but yes, you do have to agree with basic human decency. Is that too high a bar to set to label someone "against" us? Is it even POSSIBLE to have a lower bar?! Even fucking Carrier was trying to say "You have to have compassion, reasonableness, and personal integrity or you are against me" and he didn't seem to "get" that people were interpreting that to mean "if you don't join A+ you don't have compassion, reasonableness, and personal integrity," which kind of surprises me because he's usually a much better communicator! But what just gets my goat is if someone latches on to that, even though it is a known misrepresentation, it's like they're LOOKING for reasons not to like something, not just withholding judgment.