Hey kids! First off, I would just like to say that I find it just as annoying as you do. When YouTube inserts, I'm a Mormon ads in every one of my videos that contains the words atheist or religion in the tags. You mocking me, YouTube? I know I'm a little bit late to the party, but I've decided to put in my two cents about the current Fed called atheism plus. Right off the bat, I admit that I haven't followed every single back and forth that has occurred since its inception several weeks ago. And while I've never felt the need to form my own little gang of do-good-or-society saviors, I don't necessarily begrudge people who do. Instead, I'm going to address certain comments made by a few of the atheism plus proponents. It really all began about a month ago when Jen McCraight from Free Thought Blogs called for a new wave of atheism to differentiate itself from homophobic, racist, and sexist trolls, after she found herself seemingly unwelcome in what she called a boys club. I know that some folks take offense to calling this sort of abuse trolling, but that's essentially what it is. As a female on the internet, I'm certainly no stranger to it, and calling it what it is trolling is not meant to diminish the damage it can cause. But I'll say right up front that I never have, and never will, associate such immaturity with innate male behavior, but always, with socially inept losers who could never approach anybody in real life, and only feel secure acting out on the internet because they perceive it as a consequence-free environment. And personally, I wouldn't call the atheists skeptic community a boys club as much as it is a sausage fest. By that, I mean that I've observed no concerted effort to restrict women from participating, instead it just seems to be something that women are rarely interested in participating. And anyway, here's the problem as I see it. One cannot manufacture a new wave of a social movement. These sorts of attempts usually die quick bits, as it doesn't take long for people to see right through the effective rhetoric that always comes with them. And even if this wasn't so artificial, it still doesn't make much sense to me to try to turn atheism into a social movement. But I'll elaborate on that later. Gemma Crate dubbed her a new wave, atheism plus in her next blog post, spelling out what atheists plusers believe. 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. Okay, sounds good on the surface. Although I find it a bit arrogant that any group would doubt themselves, employers of critical thinking and skepticism, when these attributes should always be practiced rather than proclaimed. To me, it's like declaring oneself the king of pop. Or declaring oneself a free thinker. Yes, I'm such a free thinker. Did you know that? I'm totally a free thinker. I'm completely enlightened and it's so hardcore. In other words, it completely defeats the purpose of being a so-called free thinker if you have to constantly remind everybody that you are one. And really now, we all have incidents in our lives from which we behave irrationally and illogically and this is usually motivated by emotion. We're humans. Sometimes we just can't help it. But whatever, therein to equality and justice. I still don't see what any of that has to do with atheism. In fact, I think they're tackling these issues backwards. The primary focus should be on these hot button issues themselves, with there being atheists a little more than an afterthought. But apparently I'm missing something because Jen agreed with a commenter who stated, quote, I can't help but see social justice as a logical consequence of atheism. I find this statement to be largely ironic because if social justice truly was a consequence of atheism, then there would be no need to create this new click in the first place. There's a common conception among those who have chosen to opt out of the new fad. And it is that this click operates on the, you're either with us or against us school thought. And while I've seen many fervent denials of this, I remain unconvinced that these folks have built an immunity against taking the last train of cult bill. It's one thing to claim to be the champions of skepticism, but it's already f*** up when you have the biggest cheerleaders like Richard Carrier lashing out at folks who show skepticism of the whole project. And calling anybody who mocks or makes fun of atheism plus an asshole. It's not a good sign when you have the forerunners of a movement throwing his e-fits when people remind them that atheism belongs in the realm of theology. And has nothing to do with one's positions on sexism and racism and homophobia. And that it's futile and disingenuous to try to co-op them into the atheist discussion. And that is because atheism deals solely in whether or not someone accepts or rejects the belief in gods. Secularism, separation of church and state, protection of equal rights for all. Now those are topics that go hand in hand with that kind of activism. And to dance around the implication that the majority of those who are in favor of these issues are atheists or even irreligious is just flat out wrong. So why so bent on atheism? It has to go back to Gemma Crate's initial beef with the trolling sheen others received. So let's just call a spade a spade. This is all about Thunderfoot. And the recent ass-hattery he perpetrated on the blogosphere and with his unauthorized access and dissemination of the free thought blogs list-serving males. That was shitty. But isn't it a bit juvenile to build a new clubhouse and put out no assholes allowed sign out front? Don't get me wrong. I find Thunderfoot to be an insufferable douche. But I think the same of free thought blogs on her peasy mires. And all that constant blathering and parading about being white and privileged. People will never really stop and listen to yourselves. It's not good when you become so ingrained in an ideology or a movement when it begins to warp your very vocabulary. And that is usually the first sign that a movement is more than what it purports to be. There's another problem and I'm sure this has been pointed out many times already. The atheism plus crowd doesn't seem to understand the difference between not being in favor of social equality and not being in favor of them. Richard Carrier mentioned before has shown his inability to understand this in the comment section of his blog. It also gets displayed on the atheismplus.com FAQ when answering the question, does A plus represent the official atheist position on social justice? The answer is, no, not all atheists are interested in advocating for social justice. Right there, that implies that anybody who was turned off by the overall politically motivated atmosphere and rhetoric that culminates from their armchair activism is not in favor of advocating social justice. And that is just another example that affirms the inner you're either with us or against us mentality. Some people are wary of joining groups for a variety of reasons. Personally, I rarely meet a group or click or organization that I feel a true affinity with. We are an online community of atheists blow hearts. This is true. But when there is talk of a doctrine or manifesto or must-held precepts, my bullshit meter immediately starts going off. Because where there is an organized group with tenants and shady convictions, there is always a bullshit. So I'm going to conclude this video by addressing what Richard Carrier calls and it quote, irrationality vaccine. Are you an atheist? Do you identify as an atheist? Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement. Are you with us or with them? Are you now a part of the atheism plus movement? Or do you at least cheer and approve its values and aims since you don't have to label yourself? Or are you going to stick with atheism less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality? Then at least we'll know who to work with and who to avoid. I'm going to go with option 3. I'll continue to champion the causes that I feel are worthy of activism, as I've always done, and still be disgusted with a venture that is encased in language that makes the headliners appear calculating and pompous, and who clearly aren't beneath employing the same tactics as the Mormons baptizing the dead. In this case, claiming anybody who isn't a bigot as one of their own, whether they adopt the label atheism plus or not. I acknowledge that these have been the comments of just a few, but I've seen nothing from other atheist plusers that denounce this attempt to absorb all of the right atheists. I'm already in favor of the quality between the sexes, and I've made several videos railing against racism and homophobia, in case new people are assuming that I'm a girl writes what kind of YouTuber. I'm certainly not. But I'm still repelled by what I've seen as atheism plus everyone we haven't yet blacklisted.