the reason they were all annoying atheists was because islam bad, turns out

The new atheist movement was for neocons who didn’t care to do the Jesus stuff but still wanted in on being racist to Middle Eastern people

I'm going to take a different angle for my answer: Content.

There were a lot of people rallying around secularism but they had no guide post. The Intellectual Dark Web and similar groups of grifters targeted this unorganized group heavily with videos, posts, meet and greets, etc. They offered a direction to people who had no direction (in part because their cultures were predicated on members being traditionally religious). They made people feel heard, like they were special.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that a large number of self-identified atheists at the time were being reactionary and hadn't really detached from their religious programming - this was a huge talking point / criticism back in the day. It was true of many even though it was not true of all. When these reactionaries in particular chased after the IDW, it destroyed the fabric of the emerging community. How was a loose-knit, unorganized bunch of atheists supposed to survive half of its members becoming an army for religious cryptozealots?

The Islamophobia was obvious and disgusting. It was a mess of double standards. There was pushback against it - I gave quite a bit myself - but pretty quickly it had become too late to nip in the bud. We all fractured apart and the few existing spaces were absolutely overrun by reactionary ideologues. There was no longer a point to interacting with these groups. Inside of them, atheism was no longer even a common talking point. Instead it was the alt-right's talking points that took over - and standing in my shoes, I have to say that I still believe there was a concerted and inorganic effort to make it that way. But ultimately their efforts worked and that's all that matters.

I was already a Marxist (my atheism was also a big factor in my rejection of western hegemony) but I leaned more heavily into Marxist spaces as we all scattered in the wind away from the brigaded communities. I think I'm probably in the minority in that regard, but I know that I was far from alone.

I think this was a wakeup call for many of us about the continued strength of cultural religiosity and the challenge of actually deprogramming.

My takeaway was that there is serious work needed on the cultural and educational fronts before they can start changing the course of the material front. Or conversely, a massive material state change to provoke cultural adaptations.

However if part of the issue really was a lack of guidance outside predatory and exploitative grifters then I believe it reinforces the idea that more non-reactionary role models and content would help to counter those reinforcing the status quo. If there had been a coherent alternative to the IDW at the time, they may never have taken off.

This opinion is also a bit of self-criticism because I hate clout. I don't want a platform. I despise influencer culture. I think dialectics among communities should guide us, not the half-baked ideas of "Great Men" on youtube. But these preferences are not highly compatible with countering the effects of influencers like the IDW on directionless individuals. My anonymous pushback might have been well-constructed but it didn't move the needle even a single tick. Meanwhile the IDW was offering a pre-packaged and microwave-ready ideology that reinforced deep-seated biases and could be defended with "Just watch **** on youtube" instead of requiring individuals to personally explain their arguments. There was basically no contest.

Christianity was the most powerful force for regression and subjugation for the last 1500 years or so.

Turns out it wasn't Christianity, just aristocracy.

Russel Brand went the other way around and became a Christian to keep supporting western ideals.

He was always a mediocre entertainer. First he rejected Christianity as part of his dog-and-pony show. Now he's come around, because the original bit couldn't pull the same audience. But its always just been a performance. The only thing he cares about as the attention (and the money it generates).

Yeah I mean at that point Christianity was all about bombing people and hating LGBT people and those were big factors for me in rejecting it but it turns out there were also people who rejected it for some other reason and then realized that they'd accidentally undermined their justifications for bombing people and hating LGBT people and had to scramble to come up with new ones.

I really don’t get it, like, I thought the reason we were all annoying atheists because of a sense of love for humanity, equality, etc.

That was what I thought too, and was the reason I moved away from nu atheist stuff

Have you thought maybe they just wanted to be mean to the weird sheltered christian kid at school, and girls?

That's certainly my reason for being an annoying atheist

Reminds me of Christopher Hitchens. A man who made a living on the talk show circuit by tweaking people's noses and saying "Are you mad? Are you mad, yet?"

All fun and games when the people getting tweaked were self-important holy rollers. But as soon as he saw a payday in pissing on anti-war protesters by calling them Islamists, the man was urinating like a fucking fire hose.

Dawkins is just a lower-rent Hitchens.

They were always unwell.

Odd that the pants are all hell

He probably wanted to join the Catholic priesthood, but was worried it would be too blatant.

And if you are you can just do that little "i have sinned but i'm forgiven" ritual they do that somehow absolves them within their weird little cult.