Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
franklinveaux said:
Wow, seriously? For reals? How can anyone not read that Twitter account and see that it's parody? (In particular, it's a meanspirited parody of some of the ideas of third-wave feminism; that's why the Twitter account makes specific and frequent mention of "third-wave atheism." It even says so in the Twitter description.)

Folks....it's parody. It doesn't rise to the level of humor of the Landover Baptist Church Web site, and it's certainly nowhere near The Onion, but it's parody. It's not serious. Not a word of it. It's a reaction against complaints that the skeptic and atheist community is misogynistic, which deliberately borrows language from Third Wave feminism to attack people who complain about misogyny in the atheist community.

I happen to think it's poorly done; I do believe that the atheist and skeptic communities really do have a problem with misogyny. Obviously, the person or persons responsible for the Atheism+ Twitter feed disagree.
Click to expand...

The Twitter feed may be a parody but Atheism+ is something that has been proposed seriously.
 
Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?

Likewise words like “retarded”: when I call someone or something retarded, I am not referring to actual mental disability or the actually mentally disabled. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a mentally disabled person a “retard!” then I’d be using a slur.

Context changes the meaning of words. This is a basic fact of language.
Click to expand...


No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

What a ******** excuse. I guess some privileges are privileged.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?
Click to expand...
Wonder if that logic works elsewhere. "No, see, he's not black, so I'm not using a slur when I use that word!"

This has nothing to do with privilage. This is mere justification, a wall of rationalization built to protect this clown from the simple fact that he has become what he ostensibly hates.
 
Myriad said:
Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?




No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

What a ******** excuse. I guess some privileges are privileged.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

More to the point, you hear this exact same bovine excrement from gamers defending using "gay" and "faggot":
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/8726/use-of-the-word-faggot
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/07/do-gamers-use-the-word-gay-too-casually/
 
Humes fork said:
Can some American please vote for the Libertarian Party in November and tell these clowns that it's because of them? Lots of beers promised when we are together in the dungeons of Carrier and Myers.

On a more serious note, I get the impression that what they don't like is that there are so many atheists and skeptics and humanists who are white males. While I'm all for trying to attract all sorts of people to skepticism, to complain at the attendees that most people who show up on meetups and the like are white males is silly. The people who show up are the ones who are interested and for whom it is convenient. What do you suggest, forcing women and minorities to attend at the point of a gun?
Click to expand...

The massively ironic part is that Carrier, who is telling anyone who doesn't sign up unconditionally that they are racist, sexist bigots who should GTFO, is of course, a WMCM.
 
franklinveaux said:
Wow, seriously? For reals? How can anyone not read that Twitter account and see that it's parody? (In particular, it's a meanspirited parody of some of the ideas of third-wave feminism; that's why the Twitter account makes specific and frequent mention of "third-wave atheism." It even says so in the Twitter description.)

Folks....it's parody. It doesn't rise to the level of humor of the Landover Baptist Church Web site, and it's certainly nowhere near The Onion, but it's parody. It's not serious. Not a word of it. It's a reaction against complaints that the skeptic and atheist community is misogynistic, which deliberately borrows language from Third Wave feminism to attack people who complain about misogyny in the atheist community.

I happen to think it's poorly done; I do believe that the atheist and skeptic communities really do have a problem with misogyny. Obviously, the person or persons responsible for the Atheism+ Twitter feed disagree.
Click to expand...

However, much of what @AtheismPlus posts is almost direct quotes from some of the people promoting Atheism+. That's why it didn't jump out as parody from the start.
 
Myriad said:
No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.
Click to expand...
I am sure if you explain to him why he's made a fallacious argument, he'll either admit it or marginalize and kick himself out, as not part of his movement, and not anyone he any longer wishes to deal with.

'Cause, you know, he's like uber-rational. A+berrational?
 
Myriad said:
Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?




No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

What a ******** excuse. I guess some privileges are privileged.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

What I find objectionable about that whole exchange is not the particular reasoning about whether "balls" is wrong but "retarded" is right. People can have different opinions. It's the aristocratic air of handing down wisdom from the mountaintop. Look at the exchange about is/ought. It's not a matter of disagreeing. If you think you are capable of disagreeing with him, you're just wrong, and hence a bad, bad person. Not the kind to play Mario Kart with. His way or the highway.

How the very reasonable demand that people be treated with common courtesy could give birth to this monstrosity is bizarre. And scary.
 
zeggman said:
I am sure if you explain to him why he's made a fallacious argument, he'll either admit it or marginalize and kick himself out, as not part of his movement, and not anyone he any longer wishes to deal with.

'Cause, you know, he's like uber-rational. A+berrational?
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the only reason that Myriad or anyone else would disagree with him is that they are filled with racist hatred and white male privilege.
 
Dinwar said:
Wonder if that logic works elsewhere. "No, see, he's not black, so I'm not using a slur when I use that word!"

This has nothing to do with privilage. This is mere justification, a wall of rationalization built to protect this clown from the simple fact that he has become what he ostensibly hates.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about him except what I've read from his blog today. From my (mercifully) limited experience with acquaintances who were slipping into paranoid schizophrenia . . . he really does sound kinda like that. This business of identifying anyone who isn't an Atheist+TM as an enemy is . . . disturbing.
 
El_Spectre said:
Ok, seriousness then.

Obviously, the environment shouldn't be hostile to particular genders, ethnicities, etc. That's a given. And I'm pleased to see that the demographics at TAM at least have gotten more diverse.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And the rape threats at Rebecca Watson are horrible.

El_Spectre said:
That said, it always makes me a little uneasy (as one of those evil white males) when someone - whether a speaker or a friend in the bar - starts talking about how much "we" need to "include" and "draw in" women, minorities, etc. to the event or "movement". The intent is good, but man, does it come off as condescending. It almost sounds like women and non-whites need to be rescued, to be enlightened.

That kind of thinking is unintentionally disrespectful, I think, and it makes me kinda sad.
Click to expand...

At the least, they should not blame the white males who attend for being white males and destroying diversity or whatever by their presence.
 
A+ may very well be used as a sociological study of how a religion starts.

They have self chosen their leaders.
Decided on what everyone has to accept.
Made a list of punishments for those who don't follow their rules.
Started reinventing the meaning of words.

Now, do they write their bible and appoint their prophets before they introduce god or vice versa?
 
Acleron said:
Now, do they write their bible and appoint their prophets before they introduce god or vice versa?
Click to expand...

It sounds like they've got a headstart on scriptures. Richard Carrier's blog entry points to where his books lay out the necessary basis for all morality (reason, compassion, and integrity); and also lay out guidelines for judging when somebody is being stubbornly fallacious, and is therefore a heretic.

And anyone who questions his holy words will be cast into outer darkness - or at least into the sewers with the other CHUDs. What more needs to be said? :rolleyes:
 
separates the light side of the force from the dark side within the atheism movement, so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst, and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.
Click to expand...

So the line is drawn!

Are you a douchebag Dark Side Atheist? Or a Enlightened Atheist+?

Lightsabers will be issued shortly.

Choose wisely...

:boxedin:
 
lopeyschools said:
So the line is drawn!

Are you a douchebag Dark Side Atheist? Or a Enlightened Atheist+?

Lightsabers will be issued shortly.

Choose wisely...

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

Hm. Those halfsword techniques I've been working on aren't really going to contribute to my longevity here, are they?

Acleron said:
Now, do they write their bible and appoint their prophets before they introduce god or vice versa?
Click to expand...
To be fair, they've got better documentation than most bibles do already. Of course, alien probings have better documentation than most religious books, so that's a rather dubeous honor...
 
Humes fork said:
At the least, they should not blame the white males who attend for being white males and destroying diversity or whatever by their presence.
Click to expand...

At least! If white males enjoy something bad, ie.- slavery, they are vilified. If they enjoy something good, ie.- skepticism, they are vilified. If they enjoy something that has no moral aspect, they are vilified. One would almost think it's a set up.

When I look at the demographics of A+, I see a group of Johnny Come Latelies. They are pissed that the boat sailed before they were born. Everything in skepticism has been done and it is just a matter of engaging the same battles that have been fought so often before.

Unfortunately, that doesn't sit well with the narcissistic nature of A+ members.

Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism:

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:

Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.

Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.

Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.

Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.

Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.

Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.


And so, they are hell bent on making themselves relevant to the movement by any means necessary.
 
Ocelot said:
Atheists plus we care about social justice,<br />
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,<br />
Atheists plus we protest racism,<br />
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,<br />
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.
Click to expand...

I am always suspicious of any "social" movement who does not support "human rights". Here, it assumes that some rights are more important than others.

Conceptually, even religious freedom should be supported if you care about social justice.
 
Dinwar said:
Hm. Those halfsword techniques I've been working on aren't really going to contribute to my longevity here, are they?

To be fair, they've got better documentation than most bibles do already. Of course, alien probings have better documentation than most religious books, so that's a rather dubeous honor...
Click to expand...

Oh well, so it's straight to god then :duck:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom