Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

A'isha said:
As I understand it, it's specifically related to First Amendment-related issues (in the US, at least). It's not so much a matter of "burden of proof of a claim" as it is that any given instance of speech is (generally, though not universally) considered to be protected speech unless proven otherwise in a court of law, rather than considered to be unprotected unless proven otherwise in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand why the US system has the burden of proof backwards. That doesn't mean that it's not backwards.
 
A'isha said:
If they're untrue, it's either legally-protected opinion, or it's legally actionable. If it's legally actionable, then file a lawsuit. If it's legally-protected opinion, well, then you're just going to have to suck up the free speech.
Click to expand...

I specifically said I consider it unjust regardless of whether it's legally actionable. I'm not on the block list and don't even use twitter so I have no interest in filing a law suit.

No, I don't actually give a **** whether or not other people give a **** about "historical examples of positive social progress achieved through public blacklists" either. If someone wants those examples, they can go look for them, and I hope they find what they're looking for. That's their business, though, and I'm sure as hell not going to do it for them.
Click to expand...

I apparently misunderstood you. I thought you were speaking more generally.
 
A'isha said:
If they're untrue, it's either legally-protected opinion, or it's legally actionable. If it's legally actionable, then file a lawsuit. If it's legally-protected opinion, well, then you're just going to have to suck up the free speech.
Click to expand...

This seems like a huge moral blind spot.

My criticism would be that publishing malicious lies about people is morally horrible. Not necessarily that it is legally actionable in every case, because it might or might not be. Just that people who do that are morally horrible, and people who defend people who do that are also morally horrible.

Saying that victims of such speech "are just going to have to suck it up" seems like wilful indifference to this issue. I find it odd because you frequently take a moral stand on other issues - this is not a criticism of you personally, because we are all inconsistent sometimes, but I'm curious about your reasoning (if any).
 
I wonder how they justify PZ Myers criticising anything that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says at all.
He's a white, middle-aged male scientist and professor born in the US and she's a black, African-born FGM victim who is under constant guard due to death threats from religious lunatics.
The Privilege! switch must be off or something.
That he intentionally quote-mines the hell out of her appears to have been overlooked in the echo-chamber too, for some unknown reason.
 
Dissolution said:
I wonder how they justify PZ Myers criticising anything that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says at all.
He's a white, middle-aged male scientist and professor born in the US and she's a black, African-born FGM victim who is under constant guard due to death threats from religious lunatics.
The Privilege! switch must be off or something.
That he intentionally quote-mines the hell out of her appears to have been overlooked in the echo-chamber too, for some unknown reason.
Click to expand...

As if I didn't have enough reasons to stack on the pile of "This is why I think PZ Meyers has lost his brain"...

For example, from the poo'ers own mouth:
I'm following the twitter conversation about the American Atheists convention this weekend, and in particular Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s talk. She’s reported to have said this:

"If you are gay the worst the Christian community can do in America is not serve you cake.…I just want you to think about being Muslim and gay today…the worst case scenario…bullies throw you off a building."

Fantastic. ‘Dear Muslima’ on the stage, from an ex-Muslim woman.

But in a bit of synchronicity, she’s neatly echoing the the sentiments of the right wing.
...
Why is this so hard? Yes, being thrown off a building or hanged is worse than being denied a wedding cake — there is literally no comparison between the two, they are so far apart. But that does not mean that we should meekly accept the lesser injustice because of the threat of the greater; acceding to discrimination in the US does not diminish the odds of a gay man being murdered in Iran, and neither does fighting for equality here detract from a larger battle there. Both of these people are committing a kind of rhetorical extortion, using the threat of murder elsewhere as a club to silence those who strive for respect and dignity in their lives. And in that sense both Ali and Cotton are happily exploiting atrocities to justify continued injustices.
Click to expand...

Comparing Ali to Cotton is idiotic, in this context or most I could conjur up. She mentioned a breath of comparison on the behalf of understanding how severe the situation is elsewhere. Going by what she's spoken and written elsewhere, she's not blind to the fact that the given injustice exist in scales and shaded everywhere. For crying out loud, she's (rightfully so) clamping down on an attiude that encourages the "stay away from their equality mess"-kind of approach, an attitude not uncommonly found within the A+ community (which I find very ironic). And here comes PZ Meyers, all clothed in irony if going by the FtB's own memes and the A+ crowds own often used argumentation, a white middle-aged priviliged man putting down Ayaan as "Dear Muslima, on the stage". And having the gall to claim that she is happily exploiting atrocities to justify continued injustices.

Erhm... what the hell happend to PZ Meyers brain?! What comes out nowadays, unfortunately, is little more than zealotry gowned with idiocy. Fatwa envy? Bite me Meyers, you've gone completely nutso.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
American freethought groups have shown a pattern of cowardly capitulation and accommodation when it comes to the new atheist takfiri.
Click to expand...

That's disappointing. I'm flabbergasted any group would want to be associated with PZ at this point. At least if they continue on their current trajectory FtB & A+ are on the route to becoming so caustic and uncompromising that they'll be excommunicating each other before long.
 
d4m10n said:
American freethought groups have shown a pattern of cowardly capitulation and accommodation when it comes to the new atheist takfiri.
Click to expand...

JT Eberhard is supporting them...

I’ve been content for the most part to ignore PZ and his brood and let them continue to minimize their own influence, but it seems enough people have finally had it with them, people who want to carve out an atheist movement that works together like it used to, despite our disagreements, instead of trying to tear it apart to achieve ideological purity (much in the same vein the Republican party is now seeing). Because of that, I wanted to throw in with Atheist Ireland.
Click to expand...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2015/04/atheism-atheist-ireland-denounces-pz-myers/
 
Stacko said:
That's disappointing. I'm flabbergasted any group would want to be associated with PZ at this point. At least if they continue on their current trajectory FtB & A+ are on the route to becoming so caustic and uncompromising that they'll be excommunicating each other before long.
Click to expand...

Other than the Warrior-friendly Skepticon, his speaking engagements have pretty much dried up.
 
I'm wondering about the "0.5 on the Kinsey scale." He seems to have mistaken the Kinsey Scale for perhaps the Richter Scale, which unlike the Kinsey Scale is a continuous function. Zero on the Kinsey scale means exclusively heterosexual, while 1 means "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual." So what's the .5 for? If he's thinking of "that one time in band camp," or the occasional fantasy here and there, that's already covered by "incidentally homosexual."

Embrace the one, dude. Or if you're really totally absolutely hetero, embrace the zero. Don't waffle.

(Could be worse; at least he didn't rate himself a negative three.)
 
Myriad said:
I'm wondering about the "0.5 on the Kinsey scale." He seems to have mistaken the Kinsey Scale for perhaps the Richter Scale, which unlike the Kinsey Scale is a continuous function. Zero on the Kinsey scale means exclusively heterosexual, while 1 means "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual." So what's the .5 for?
Click to expand...

I assumed it meant bisexual with no clear preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom