You never really escape from High School.

Note: This post is long and rambling and about video games and cliques and there’s a good chunk of you who probably will find it hard to give two shits about anything I’m about to write about so you may want to skip it.

I grew up as the weird kid in school. I never really fit into any of the cliques or social groups and my friends were a diverse group of people, many of whom did fall into such categories. I’d like to think that my ability to get along with just about anyone in a work environment these days has a lot to do with how odd my social life was back in school. That said, there was a certain amount of drama that comes with not fitting in anywhere and one of the thimgs I was most happy about when I graduated was that I was finally leaving all that behind. Then I joined the work force and found that, no, you never completely leave that behind.

As I’ve gotten older it seems like the amount of stupid and pointless drama I encounter has diminished over time. Either that or I’m just really good at ignoring it these days. Yet occasionally things happen that remind me that there are plenty of people in this world who have nothing better to do than try to divide people into groups of us and them. Of course a lot of that shit happens in politics, but in a more generalized why and usually between people who don’t really interact much outside of a political protest or an Internet message forum. Rarely at this stage in the game do I expect it to happen among friends and acquaintances.  My most recent experience happened in, of all places, the group of people I play Call of Duty multiplayer with on a regular basis.

godhavemercyThanks to the Internet, I have a whole group of people I consider friends that I have never personally met. I’ve mentioned this before in the context of blogging as there are a number of folks that have read SEB and whose blogs I have read for a long, long time. The same is true of some of the folks I play online games with. Some of them I’ve been playing CoD with since the fourth installment was released in 2007. Thanks to voice chat and too much free time on our hands I’ve spent hundreds of hours with them teamed up on a quest of virtual warfare. Most of them I only know by their gaming nicknames — Abe Froman (the Sausage King of Chicago), Force, Repairman Jack Bauer, Mugz, Mute, Kionela, Fart Master, Deadly Karma, Grim, Willie Womp-ya, ScarMaster — but the same was true back in the 1980’s when I ran a BBS system on my trusty Commodore 64 and had a number of friends who I only knew through their aliases. There isn’t really anything in particular that caused us to start hanging out other than we seemed to get along and we played well together. In addition to that core group, there’s the folks who are more acquaintances than friends, but still folks you’re friendly with. They’re on your friends list because they made friends with one of the folks you play with regularly so occasionally they’ll be in the group with your buddies when you join in. You don’t mind gaming with them, but you don’t necessarily seek them out the way you do your core group that you’ve been gaming with for a long time.

Now one of the scourges of playing online games on the PC, particularly popular First Person Shooter games, is there are always assholes willing to cheat at the game simply to ruin it for everyone else. Whether it takes the form of exploiting glitches in the game that allow them to drop out of the map and still shoot at people in it or employing a program such as an aimbot or wallhack that gives them an unfair advantage in the game. They are a nuisance that has existed as long as multiplayer games themselves. Because of CoD’s popularity it is a primary target of people who write these hacks and you will encounter people cheating in the game on a regular basis. Back in the days when developers allowed players to run their own dedicated servers this was less of a problem because if the folks who owned the server suspected you of cheating, or just didn’t like your attitude, they could ban you from their server and you’d have to go off and find a different one to be a douchebag on. These days developers care more about squeezing as much money out of you as they can so most FPS games don’t allow you to host your own servers. Instead they use a form of peer-to-peer networking where one of the players in a match is picked to be the host at the time the round starts. I’ve gone into why this system sucks in other entries in the past so I won’t go over it again here, but suffice it to say that one of the best defenses against the inevitable cheaters you’d encounter is no more because there is no dedicated server with admins to ban the players. Instead the makers of CoD have put in a method of reporting someone for cheating into the game itself so when you encounter a cheater you pull up a menu and report them and hope that they’ll get banned eventually. This can take awhile as someone back at the game company has to receive the report, look into it, and make a decision and they receive a shitload of reports every day. Your only option until then is to either quit the match and take the loss or continue to play with the cheater and (probably) still take a loss for the effort. There are some cheaters who aren’t all that great at cheating and if you stick around you can sometimes still win the match, but if it’s an aimbot you may as well quit.

mymomsabitchOne of the side effects of cheating being so common is that if you’re a decent player, or just particularly lucky during a game or two, the first impulse a lot of other players have is to assume you must be cheating. While I’m far from being a pro, I am pretty decent at FPS games in general and CoD specifically in part because I spend way more time playing them than I should. My KDR (kill death ratio) is usually between the 1.5 and 2.0 range. That means on average I get one and a half to two kills for every death I suffer. That’s pretty good considering the majority of players have a KDR less than 1.0. As a result when I get into the groove and go on a tear through a match I often get accused of cheating and, probably, reported through the in-game reporting system. Doesn’t matter if you played really shitty in the previous five matches, all it takes is a couple of good matches to have someone get pissed at start accusing you of cheating. This is common and most folks with a KDR over 1.0 are used to it. Of course these false reports only add to the workload of the poor sap back at the game company that has to investigate them which only adds delay to the time before legit cheaters end up being banned. I say all of this as background info for what I’m about to write next.

As I said, you get used to being accused of cheating every so often by other players after you’ve had a particularly good game. However, a couple of months ago I was accused of cheating by someone I have played with on a semi-regular basis. He’s one of the folks I would consider an acquaintance. I don’t recall who he was friends with that I met him through, but he’s a pretty decent player himself with a KDR of 1.14 in Call of Duty: Ghosts team deathmatch. He seems like a decent fellow overall, but he has a tendency to jump to cries of cheater whenever someone does better than he thinks they should in the game. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll announce to my teammates when I find someone suspicious and I’ll ask them to watch their killcams when that player kills them to see if we can verify if they’re cheating or not. Aimbots are pretty obvious to spot because the player snaps around instantly and headshots you from across the map without ever seeing you. Wallhacks are a bit harder to discern because a careful cheater will wait until you are seen by the camera before shooting you, but because they know exactly where you’re at (thanks to a bounding box added to their display that won’t show up in the killcam) they can start shooting just prior to you coming around a corner insuring a kill. This is complicated by one of the “perks” you can take on your build in the game called Amplify. It makes all enemy footsteps louder unless they take a counter perk called Dead Silence. Using Amplify and a good set of headphones you can hear when someone is coming up behind you giving you ample time to turn around and line up a shot on a doorway before you can see them. I use both Amplify and Dead Silence in almost every class build I have in the game. Things are further complicated by how the fact that the game uses a peer-to-peer networking system. The person who is the host has a slight advantage over everyone else because his machine is the one that determines whether or not a bullet hits its mark. That alone can make the difference between an epic run and a shitty match. The further you are from the host, the more likely you are to have a shitty game. When that host is in another country your only hope is that everyone on the other team is a crappy player.

beatamotherfuckerAnyway, this fellow, we’ll call him Limbo for the purposes of this article, is quick to assume the only reason someone is going 25 and 3 is because he’s cheating and he gets quite upset about it. Not that I don’t rage a bit myself when I think someone is cheating. I don’t mind losing to someone who is a better player, but I can get quite agitated when it’s clear the only reason I’m losing a gunfight is because of network lag — let alone if I think the other person is cheating — so I can understand his irritation. Yeah, I know it’s just a stupid video game, but I know people who have gotten into fist fights over “friendly” poker games and/or pro football rivalries when they’re not even the ones playing the game. I was never any good at sports (my one trophy for winning the local Boy’s Club T-ball Championship when I was 8 notwithstanding) so I get all my competitive aggression out in virtual reality. I am am my most “male” when I’m participating in virtual mass murder and there are a lot of guys like us.

OK, I keep going off on tangents so let me try and get to my point. A couple of months ago Limbo decided I was a cheater and started to refuse to play with me in games. He didn’t say anything directly to me about it, just ignored me when I asked him if he had room in his group or if I invited him to my group and would quit a game if I ended up joining it regardless of which team I ended up on. It took a bit before it dawned on me that he was actively avoiding me and confirmation came one afternoon when I sent him an IM asking if he had room for two players on his team and, apparently not realizing it was me the message came from, he replied with “not if you’re bringing Dead God with you.” In the following conversation I was told that he knew what a cheater looks like and, buddy, I look like one. One of things he cited as evidence (other than the matches where I had a high score) was the fact that I never wanted to play against him in a game. It’s true that I was reluctant to play against him, as I am with anyone on my friends list, because I’d rather play with them than against them, but if that’s a problem then I was perfectly willing to play against Limbo if that’s what he wanted. He didn’t, because I was a cheater in his mind. I pointed out the fact that I’ve had the same Steam account for over 10 years without a single VAC ban listed on it and that I get review copies of Call of Duty games which I would put at risk if I cheated at them. He dismissed the latter as bullshit and the former as me being a very good cheater.

You can’t argue with someone like Limbo once he’s made up his mind so I didn’t waste too much time on it. I’m used to being accused of cheating, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that having the accusation come from someone I played with regularly wasn’t annoying. This is what led me to make my first ever YouTube video showing just how I manage to do so well in the game. This is it here:

I apologize for the poor video quality, but it was the first one I had ever done and it was before I upgraded from my AMD Radeon 7770 to the nVidia GTX 760 I use today. In this video I end up with a final tally of 27 kills and 1 death. To be fair, this took place during a free play weekend where they allow folks who haven’t bought the game yet to try it out and a lot of the people on the other team were very inexperienced, but I’ve done just as well (and occasionally even better) against experienced players. My Steam profile is full of screenshots of scoreboards from games where I did really well because I’m not beyond a bit of bragging about totally pointless accomplishments. Here’s one where I went 30 and 7. Here’s one from Modern Warfare 3 where I went 30 and 3. One more from Ghosts where I went 36 and 3. And, if you’ll permit me one more YouTube video, here’s my best ever run where I managed 40 and 11 and got the best killstreak in the game:

fuckshitupOne of the interesting things about this last video is the fact that I don’t start off having a great game. There’s no early indication that I’m going to end up on top and you can even hear me asking my team to keep an eye on one of the guys on the other team that seemed to be getting awfully lucky with his kills. Halfway through the match and my team is losing and I’m at a paltry 17 and 9 ratio. Then with about 3:23 left in the match we pull ahead and I go on a tear. Once I get the Loki it’s all over but the crying.

OK, enough bragging. Let me get back to the point. So three or so weeks go by and Limbo hasn’t spoken to me or stayed in a game I’m in and has engaged in a campaign to try and convince some of the other folks I play with regularly that I’m a cheater. Then, one afternoon, it all goes away. I’m invited to a game by a mutual friend and Limbo doesn’t leave. I ask if he’s OK with me there and he says yes. In fact, he acts like nothing ever happened. Totally pretends he didn’t spend the previous three weeks trying to convince folks I was a cheater and avoiding me.

Fast forward to last week when I realize that Limbo is no longer on my friends list. With the Steam client, if someone on your list removes you as a friend then they are automatically removed from your list as well. It’d been a few days since I’d last seen him in game (as I said previously, he wasn’t someone I regularly sought out to game with) and the only reason I noticed he had gone AWOL from my friends list was because I ended up joining a game he was in and yet wasn’t showing up as online on my friends list. I wondered if he was back on his Dead-God-is-a-cheater kick and it didn’t take long to verify it. Anytime I ended up in a game he was in — regardless if it was because I was invited by someone or just luck of the draw — he’d immediately quit. At one point I was in a group with some of my regulars when we got placed into a lobby with him and some of the other folks I regularly play with that he was grouped with. The match started and not 5 seconds into it a forfeit countdown started because Limbo, who had been lead of his party, had pulled the entire other team out rather than play against me. We ended up winning without ever firing a shot.

The last couple of days I’ve been hearing from mutual acquaintances that, indeed, Limbo is back on his kick and is trying to convince others that I’m a cheater. Word has it he’s managed to win over at least one other person — let’s call him USAF Inactive — I’ve played regularly with. I’ve not been pulled from USAF’s friends list yet, but he doesn’t speak to me in-game anymore and he usually quits at the end of the round if I’m on his team or immediately if I’m on the opposing side. It’s all a bit amusing because nothing has really changed since the last time Limbo decided I was a cheater. Well, I have ended up on the opposing team from him on a regular basis, because I’ve learned my lesson about not playing against my friends. and it appears that may be what brought on this latest bought of you’re-a-cheater syndrome. I’m pretty sure the last match I played against him I ended up being picked as host and I went on a great run including winning most of the gun battles when I came across Limbo and I could tell he was getting frustrated. About half-way through the match I started trying to avoid him altogether because I didn’t want to piss him off anymore than he already was. There was easily a half-dozen times I got the drop on him and I ended up not firing and went in a different direction just in the interest of harmony, but there was still a few times he’d come around the corner suddenly and I’d end up mowing him down.

This time around I’m not worried about convincing him or USAF that I’m not cheating. It doesn’t matter as they’re going to believe what they want to believe and there are still plenty of people for me to play with on my friends list. If anything, I’m amused at how like high school the whole thing feels. Which is the entire reason I wrote this huge, rambling, blog post. Limbo, despite being a middle-aged adult, is like all those kids who used to be so concerned about the cliques they were a part of. I mean, in the grand scheme of things being good at Call of Duty and having a high KDR and being way up on the leader board rankings really doesn’t mean jack shit to anyone who doesn’t care about KDRs or leader-boards. I take the game more seriously than I probably should, but I don’t take it anywhere as seriously as someone like Limbo does. All of this drama over a game is just silly and yet here we are. I’m arguably just as guilty of engaging in it for writing this huge post on it knowing that it really is meaningless, but I find it funny to think about.

itsnotsupposedtobefunAt the age of 47 I thought I had left all of this nonsense behind, but it doesn’t appear it ever fully goes away. Some folks will always find a reason to not like you or be jealous of you because you’re mildly good at some pointless thing or extremely lucky at said thing or, probably in my case, a little of both. Am I proud of my KDR? Yeah, a little bit. Ghosts is the first game I’ve managed to get a 2.0 in and that’s probably because a lot of the really, really good players didn’t like it and went back to playing MW3 or BO 2 where my KDRs are more in the 1.5 to 1.7 range. Last I checked the leader-board I was ranked 169 in the world for Team Deathmatch. Given the small player base on the PC that’s not all that surprising. Limbo was ranked around 71 in the world. Does that mean he’s the better player? Not really as your ranking on the leader-board is as much about time played than anything else. Limbo has 1,765 hours on record in Ghosts whereas I’m at 729 hours. When you have over 1,000+ more hours into the game you’re going to be higher on the leader-board regardless of how good you are. I think that’s part of what contributes to his thinking that I shouldn’t do as well as I do in the game. He has all those extra hours so he’s much more experienced and therefore should be nigh-impossible to beat, natch. The thing is, after you’ve got your first hundred hours or so into the game chances are any additional hours won’t amount to much improvement unless you really work at it.

One of the stupid things I do in the game to keep my interest from flagging is I try to unlock all the camos for every single gun in the game. You’ll note that in the first video clip the gun I’m using has some sort of grey camouflage on it while the gun I use in the second video is a bright gold color. Each gun in the game has 12 or so different camos that you can unlock by accomplishing various tasks. The red camo, for example, requires you to get 150 kills without using any attachments (e.g. sights, silencer, grips, etc.) on the gun. Another one requires you to get 50 kills while learning around a corner. Another might require 150 headshots and there’s one that requires simply getting 500 kills with the weapon. Unlock all the different camos and you earn the Gold camo showing you’ve mastered the weapon. Once I’ve mastered one gun, I move onto the next one. So far I’ve unlocked Gold on all of the submachine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, and marksman rifles. I’m halfway through getting Gold on the shotguns and light machineguns. One of the things you learn while doing this is how to use each of the guns in the game effectively giving you an edge over people like Limbo who tend to find one gun they’re happy with and stick with it 90% of the time. I also adjust my play style to the map. I can run and gun on the smaller maps, but I can also play conservatively on the medium sized maps and I can snipe pretty well on the bigger maps. If one play style isn’t working well I adjust my tactics and try and different style. You can see that happen in the second video above. I start off having a crappy game and then I adjust my approach and come out on top. Limbo seems to have one play style and that’s the run and gun approach. He relies on speed and surprise to carry him through and that can work pretty well against folks not prepared for it, but when they are it’s just going to lead to frustration if you don’t have another tactic to fall back on. Sometimes you have to play smarter than run around and shoot everything in sight.

Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time rambling about this and I’m not even sure I got my main point across properly. Still, it’s the most I’ve written in an entry in a long time so there you go.

Turns out I’m not really missing anything…

I wrote this over the course of several days so if it seems a little disjointed or wandering in what it has to say, well, at least you know why.

Back when the Atheism+ “movement” was announced and the resulting uproar on all sides flared up, I decided after a period of much frustration that I was done paying attention to the atheist community on the Internet. I deleted every blog in my blogroll that was more or less solely devoted to the topic and dropped quite a few folks from Twitter as well. I’ve never been overly active in the community beyond this blog anyway and if I didn’t like where it was going there was no point in paying attention to it. As it turns out, this was the right thing to do. I’m happier and less frustrated than I was when I was paying attention.

That said, there’s still a few folks on my blogroll and on Twitter that I follow simply because, like me, they’re not atheist-only bloggers though it’s a subject they, like me, touch upon from time to time. As a result, I still get the occasional peek at what is going on in the atheist community and occasionally I’ll follow a link out of morbid curiosity. My most recent peek reaffirmed my decision to devote as little attention to the atheist community as I can.

Ever since the whole ElevatorGate kerfuffle and the resulting year-long shitstorm there’s been a growing split in the community that eventually led to the “Atheism+” nonsense. In the time that I stopped paying it much attention things have only gotten worse. Atheists whom I respect have ended up on both sides of the divide and it seems that there are now two competing blogging collectives — Freethought Blogs and Skeptic Ink — that are headed by some of the more popular atheist bloggers that spend a good chunk of time taking potshots at each other.

Things have gotten so stupid in the atheist community these days that organizations such as the Center For Inquiry have been inundated with objections over whom they invite to speak at functions they host. Demands that they are, fortunately, refusing to comply with:

I am motivated to write about this topic for a couple of reasons. First, Russell Blackford has recently announced via Twitter that he will not attend any conference at which Rebecca Watson or PZ Myers is speaking.  Second, in the last few months, a number of individuals have advised me that CFI and its affiliates should never invite certain persons as speakers.  This advice has often been accompanied with a statement such as “If X speaks, I will not attend the conference.”  There was a flurry of such advice around CSICon, the Nashville conference of our affiliate CSI, presumably because our speaker list reminded people of objections they had to this or that individual.  Some of the advice was prompted by an essay by Watson that appeared in Slate around the same time as the conference, which, among other things, contained a mischaracterization of one of my blog posts.  This was offered as convincing proof that Watson was beyond the pale and should be considered persona non grata by CFI.

In any event, the list of individuals that CFI has been advised not to have any dealings with is long.  In no particular order it includes: Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Ophelia Benson, Harriet Hall, Russell Blackford, Edwina Rogers, Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, and Sharon Hill.  I am sure I am forgetting several more.

So this is what the atheist community has come to. People threatening not to attend or participate at an atheism/skepticism event if certain other people are invited to speak. Oh noes! I cannot be associated with such common rabble as that person! It’ll give me the vapors!

The ultimate example of this in action is, of course, Atheism+. When Jen McCreight first proposed this new branch of atheism she set off a shitstorm of entirely new levels of epicness. The idea was supposed to be that atheism+ would be a way for progressive atheists to show the world that they were about more than just not believing in God(s).

Jen explains In her own words:

It’s perfect. It illustrates that we’re more than just “dictionary” atheists who happen to not believe in gods and that we want to be a positive force in the world.  Commenter dcortesi suggested how this gets atheists out of the “negativity trap” that we so often find ourselves in, when people ask stuff like “What do you atheists do, besides sitting around not-praying, eh?”

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.

It speaks to those of us who see atheism as more than just a lack of belief in god.

It sounds innocuous enough and I have no issues with social justice or the other stated ideals above, but it’s clear right from that very first post that it was going to be divisive because of statements like this:

I want to improve the atheist movement, not create a splinter faction or something. But it’s fabulous marketing-wise and as a way to identify yourself as a progressive atheist, or whatever term you want to use. I know I’d love for people to start wearing A+ pins and Surlyramics so I know who I want to chat with.

She never intended to create a splinter faction, but that’s exactly what she ended up doing. Later she refers to Atheism+ as a “new wave of atheism” which pretty much ruffled the feathers of anyone who didn’t see anything wrong with the old wave. It didn’t take long before an “us versus them” attitude started to develop on both sides with several atheism+ supporters all but declaring that anyone who didn’t declare themselves part of the in-group would be assumed to be assholes/scumbags/douchenozzles not worthy of their company.

So far the total sum of their activism seems to have been limited to little more than setting up an official website with a forum, a Wiki page, and a sub-Reddit where they can control who is allowed to participate. Which I have no real problem with. It seems to me to be preaching to the choir, but I won’t begrudge them their right to do so. If they’ve done anything more substantial than the above it isn’t apparent in a casual skim of their sites. Which is, again, fine with me. I’d rather they had their spaces to chat amongst themselves if it keeps them busy and off the streets.

Part of the problem with atheism+ is that it’s an attempt to impose feminism, an idea that not everyone agrees with, onto atheism. Some of the folks opposed to this are literally bigoted misogynists, but many others are of the opinion that feminism already has its own movement and doesn’t need to take over the atheism movement as well. There’s nothing wrong with being an activist for both movements, but to suggest that the atheism movement needs to be “improved” by feminism rankles a lot of people. It doesn’t help that there are more than a few bigoted and misogynistic atheists out there who reacted poorly to the attempt. Add in the ever present Internet Trolls — people who will say anything to piss others off regardless of what they really think of an idea — to the mix and things go from bad to worse. Because of the constant harassment by trolls and legitimate assholes there’s been a tendency on the part of the Atheism+ folks to brush off any legitimate questions about their movement and how it’s being run as evidence that the questioner is a misogynist asshole and thus deserving of nothing but mockery and being shunned.

As a result of all this there has been a number of notable recent events such as the Matt Dillahunty fiasco. For those of you who don’t know him, here’s a snippet from his bio on RationalWiki:

Matt Dillahunty (born March 31, 1969) is the current president of the Atheist Community of Austin (Texas), and is also the current host of the public access show “The Atheist Experience” as well as the weekly web radio show “The Non Prophets.” He is also a founder of the comprehensive counter-apologetics Wiki “Iron Chariots”.

Personally, I’ve never seen anything he’s done, but he appears to be a fairly popular atheist activist with an enthusiastic YouTube following. I don’t know if he’s as popular as PZ Myers, but he’s generally pretty well regarded in the atheist community. More importantly he has been a pretty ardent defender of Atheism+ even though he, himself, wasn’t paying it much attention.

Rather than type out the whole debacle here, I’ll post this snippet from The Misfit Atheist that summarizes it pretty well:

The other day, Matt Dillahunty(who is the host of the show The Atheist Experience) had done a social experiment in an attempt to prove that the Atheism+ folks weren’t as batshit crazy as all of the critics claim they are to new users. He created two accounts on the Atheism+ forum: One was “Matt Dillahunty”, and the other was a “sockpuppet” account called “Curious”. [Editor's Note: Matt said that the account under his name was actually created back when the site was first setup, but had never been used. - Les]

What set the whole thing off was this thread (do read the whole thread, it’s awesome). Curious/Matt’s post got deleted and was instructed in the notification email to take his case to the moderators. The post that got deleted questioned the merits of a ban (in particular, the ban of “skep tickle” over questioning the now-successful bullying of Justin Vacula). Matt then proceeded to start a thread asking to have his deleted post reposted in that thread or put in an appopriate forum. From there, they ravaged “Curious” like a pack of wolves over fresh meat. That is, until Matt signed a post with his real name. The moderator mocked Curious, going so far as to say (paraphrasing): “Hahaha! I know Matt Dillahunty. He’s a good man. You, however, are not”.

Then Matt directed the Atheism+ admins and mods to his Twitter feed, where they found this bombshell: “Hello to the admins at Atheism+ forum. Curious is me”. And then the mods’ attitudes flipped from “Fuck off, troll!” to “We’re sorry, we didn’t know it was you, Mr. Dillahunty. Had we known, you would have been treated better”.

Eventually they ended up banning Matt under the “no sock-puppet rule” they had put into place even though what Matt had done wasn’t sock-puppetry by the traditional definition. There were several moderators who refused to even consider the point of Matt’s experiment because they were so fixated on his supposed sock-puppeting. In the process they lost one more supporter because it turned out the critics were right. The folks that moderate the Atheism+ forums tend to assume you’re the enemy until you’ve proven that you’re not. Perhaps that’s only to be expected given how much of a backlash the new movement has brought upon itself, but it doesn’t really support their claims of being inclusive.

Not that my aversion to the community is all due to my issues with the Atheism+ crowd, because it’s not. There are plenty on the non-plus side that have been stunningly obnoxious in their reaction to these events. Just reading the comments in the CFI blog entry I linked to earlier will provide you with enough bullshit from both sides.

My feelings are probably best summed up by a commenter who posted in that thread under the name “Tired” who said the following:

Oh,  for F@$K’s sake!

I am a reader of various “skeptical blogs” and I am part of the large group of lurkers that rarely post comments, but probably represent the bulk of the traffic to these blogs.

I read a wide variety of blogs, and I read them for the Skeptical content.

I also don’t attend conferences or other “skeptical” functions.

I suspect there will be a significant portion of the audience who will agree with me when I say…… “I’ve had enough”

Enough of the in-fighting, the name-calling, the holier than though attitudes.

This is NOT why I read the blogs.

Lately it seems the general nastiness towards others in the movement has become the dominant theme of many of the blogs I read (perhaps it hasn’t really, but it does certainly seem that way).

Personally I don’t really care about the little cliques in the movement, the “personalities”, or the petty squabbles. It all comes across as so much schoolyard bullshit.

If you want to persist with your in-fighting, how about you treat your “skeptical* audience with a little more respect and keep it to your personal emails and private mailing lists.

I, for one, am tired of it.

I got tired of it a long time ago hence my decision to start ignoring the atheist community as it stands today. There’s a number of atheist/skeptic bloggers who have let their popularity inflate their egos a wee bit much. Some are claiming an authority they really don’t possess simply because they have a high web traffic volume. I’m not impressed with your hit counter stats. All this drama may be great for driving up your numbers and stroking your egos, but it just alienates me and others like me.

Maybe there’s not enough of us to give a shit about. That’d be a real shame if it ends up being true.