and mine are actually pretty close. [...] Getting vile, hateful people out of the movement ... You're entirely right, you don't want to and shouldn't have to associate with the "vile, hateful people" who (despite being atheists) have indulged in quite appalling behaviour towards feminists. But presumably you would be happy to associate with those who are respectful towards women and who want women to be fully equal in society, yet -- for example -- might disagree with Richard Carrier on whether some point is or is not a logical fallacy, or who might make a good-faith assessment of the evidence on some issue that differs from somebody else's good-faith assessment of the same evidence. Carrier's somewhat puritanical version suggests that if someone is "shown" to be fallacious on anything, and doesn't immediately accept it, then they are acting in bad faith and should "GTFO". Yet who then does the "showing"? And can one argue with the "show"er, or is that automatically a sign of bad faith? There needs to be room for honest dissent and disagreement. When anyone say something similar to what I've just said, the usual response is that A+ wants to kick out the vile, hateful people, and yes it should. But sometimes FTB comment threads can give the impression that anyone who disagrees on anything at all is then lumped in with such people, even when they might be vastly nearer your position than that of the haters. Yes you want to kick out the