Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Axiom_Blade]

Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?

I have no doubt that "something more" was involved. But no one has said what that "something more" was. Of course, if Amy wants to keep it to herself, that is her business, and I completely respect that. However, by the same token, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from that incident, other than "something upset Amy".

You certainly can't use it as evidence that it was a "concerted attack" of some kind, or that skeptics/atheists are tolerant of misogyny or sexual harassment.

 

[Myriad]

Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?

There was definitely more involved. Strange as it may seem, the evidence suggests that somehow Amy had been persuaded that any expression of doubt about women being unsafe at TAM, and any expression of identity independent from Skepchicks, must necessarily be expressions of profound misogyny, personal hatred of herself, and rejection of important things she values. No wonder she was upset by Dr. Hall's shirt!

If this hypothesis is correct, what should be done about the cruel people who deceived her so?

Does the fact that the hypothesis is actually only possibly correct change the appropriate corrective measures?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[lopeyschools]

Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?

I have seen grown women and men reduced to tears for plenty of reasons.

Some of those reasons were pretty stupid IMO. ie. Men in tears because of <insert favorite team here> lost <insert major sports event here>. Women in tears for no apparent reason whatsoever. Some were not. Sometimes crying in just a release mechanism for stress that has built up from a lot of different sources and certainly does not indicate the likelihood of a person's claims.

 

[jt512]

I have seen grown women and men reduced to tears for plenty of reasons.

Some of those reasons were pretty stupid IMO. ie. Men in tears because of <insert favorite team here> lost <insert major sports event here>. Women in tears for no apparent reason whatsoever. Some were not. Sometimes crying in just a release mechanism for stress that has built up from a lot of different sources and certainly does not indicate the likelihood of a person's claims.

That doesn't answer the question. The question simply is, "Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?" Answering this question does not commit you to any hypothesis about why Surly Amy was crying at TAM.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Answering this question does not commit you to any hypothesis about why Surly Amy was crying at TAM.

What's the point of the question?

 

[jt512]

What's the point of the question?

The point of the question is simply that it is answerable, and therefore Bayesian inference doesn't always require one to specify probabilities.

 

[lopeyschools]

That doesn't answer the question. The question simply is, "Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?" Answering this question does not commit you to any hypothesis about why Surly Amy was crying at TAM.

I wasn't answering your question, I was commenting on it. My comment was "given a grown woman was reduced to tears," is a useless predictor of likliehood.

 

[qayak]

Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?

Given that the facts of the case are that a grown woman was in tears because of a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, I would say that it is 100% likely that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt and nothing else was involved.

Her reaction to that t-shirt is for her to deal with. When her tears decide what someone else can wear, it is time for her to seek professional psychiatric help.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You must be from freethoghtblogs. You were asked a question, dodged it and called the questioner a troll.

Nailed it.

 

[qayak]

In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.

A balanced appraisal? Please tell me you aren't saying the A+ crowd hasn't done what they are accused of doing?

A+ is like a company announcing they have just invented the tire. When it is pointed out to them that several companies including GoodYear and Firestone already did, they respond by saying their tire is th eonly true tire because those other companies are controlled by misogynistic, racist, privileged, white CHUDs. When it is pointed out that there are problems with their product, they respond by saying anyone who doesn't immediately buy their tire is a misogynistic, racist, white privilege enabler.

Pigliucci is like a marketing firm hired to try and salvage a product that everyone knows is an over priced piece of crap but that the Board of Directors has invested so heavily in they can't back out now.

Atheism+ = Atheism plus Asshats.

 

[Hokulele]

A balanced appraisal? Please tell me you aren't saying the A+ crowd hasn't done what they are accused of doing?

A+ is like a company announcing they have just invented the tire. When it is pointed out to them that several companies including GoodYear and Firestone already did, they respond by saying their tire is th eonly true tire because those other companies are controlled by misogynistic, racist, privileged, white CHUDs. When it is pointed out that there are problems with their product, they respond by saying anyone who doesn't immediately buy their tire is a misogynistic, racist, white privilege enabler.

Pigliucci is like a marketing firm hired to try and salvage a product that everyone knows is an over priced piece of crap but that the Board of Directors has invested so heavily in they can't back out now.

Atheism+ = Atheism plus Asshats.

To be fair, the linked article really wasn't that much of a defense of Atheism+, as many paragraphs were fairly critical of it and Carrier. I think I would paraphrase the article as saying, "Good luck, but it's not for me."

The author seemed to be more fond of "traditional" Secular Humanism, or creating a non-organizational label such as "progressive atheism".

 

[Kochanski]

Given that a grown woman was reduced to tears, which is more likely: that the cause was only a contrary opinion expressed on a t-shirt, or that something more was involved?

Were you at TAM? Did you see what went on?

Did you see the women that were pleased at Harriet's shirt? Pleased that she said what we have all been thinking for years, but politely kept to ourselves because we didn't want interfere with other women who seemed to enjoy the skepchick thing, but now are wishing we said something years ago because of all the things they do that embarrass and mortify us.

If Atheism+ does for atheism what skepchick has done for women skeptics, be afraid be very afraid.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

In the unlikely event that anyone on this website is interested in reading a balanced appraisal of Atheism+, Massimo Pigliucci has weighed in on it here.

I'm not sure why you posted this, but I agree with it. I am also a secular humanist.

However, unlike A+, I have no problems with atheist conservatives or libertarians. It's perfectly acceptable to agree with me on some things, and disagree with me on others. I will not call you any names, or threaten to kick you out of the clubhouse.

 

[jt512]

Were you at TAM? Did you see what went on?

No, so I'm at a disadvantage. I'm trying to piece together the truth from two sources of information that completely contradict each other and frequently resort to name calling, sarcasm, and sloppy reasoning.

 

[WillyWonka]

I was one of the volunteers at TAM and was asked to help as much as could to make the place welcoming. Contrary to a lot of people, I like Amy a lot. She has done quite a bit for TAM and I believe that she has done it unselfishly. She is very sensitive, and maybe a bit naive. I talked to her and her mother quite a bit. I like her necklaces, and buy more next years if she is there again.

I think what hurt her is the division within the movement. Some of her old friends did not want to talk to her anymore and there were a lot of negative tweets, mostly because of Watson's request for D.L.'s head. She felt the polarization of the movement. I do not think Harriet wore that shirt against her but to tell people no one speaks for her. Unfortunately, Amy took it personally.

There was nothing that JREF could have done. Any policies that JREF would have put in places would not have change this dynamic.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was one of the volunteers at TAM and was asked to help as much as could to make the place welcoming. Contrary to a lot of people, I like Amy a lot. She has done quite a bit for TAM and I believe that she has done it unselfishly. She is very sensitive, and maybe a bit naive. I talked to her and her mother quite a bit. I like her necklaces, and buy more next years if she is there again.

I think what hurt her is the division within the movement. Some of her old friends did not want to talk to her anymore and there were a lot of negative tweets, mostly because of Watson's request for D.L.'s head. She felt the polarization of the movement. I do not think Harriet wore that shirt against her but to tell people no one speaks for her. Unfortunately, Amy took it personally.

There was nothing that JREF could have done. Any policies that JREF would have put in places would not have change this dynamic.

Well said. I like Amy too and have bought her jewelry as gifts for (small s) skepchicks and will again. I agree she is very sensitive (she is an artist, after all! ), which is neither a good thing nor a bad one.

 

[Fitter]

The point of the question is simply that it is answerable, and therefore Bayesian inference doesn't always require one to specify probabilities.

It is not answerable by anyone participating in this thread.

 

[Wolfman]

I joined the Atheism+ forums, and lasted two days. My first day, I saw a mod inform someone who expressed a dissenting opinion that while he's welcome to disagree, their forums are intended only for people who support their plans. The exact quote:

you're free to disagree, of course -- though not necessarily here, on these forums which are dedicated to supporting the idea of A+.

I also started my own thread, raising several issues that hadn't been discussed much. It was done in a very polite manner, expressing support for the general principles of A+, and simply challenging them to take a broader perspective (ie. getting minorities more involved).

That thread was summarily closed after about one day. No rules broken, just a short notice that if I want to discuss those things, I must do so in one specific thread, and apparently should not raise those issues elsewhere.

I don't know how much the attitudes of the mods there reflect the attitudes of the "leaders" (if there are any yet) of A+...but it certainly seems that they are woefully unaware of what the terms "skepticism" and "critical thinking" mean...which is particularly sad given that both are stated goals/priorities of Atheism+

 

[westprog]

No, so I'm at a disadvantage. I'm trying to piece together the truth from two sources of information that completely contradict each other and frequently resort to name calling, sarcasm, and sloppy reasoning.

It's like a performance of Oleanna by the inhabitants of a lunatic asylum.

 

[westprog]

I joined the Atheism+ forums, and lasted two days. My first day, I saw a mod inform someone who expressed a dissenting opinion that while he's welcome to disagree, their forums are intended only for people who support their plans. The exact quote:I also started my own thread, raising several issues that hadn't been discussed much. It was done in a very polite manner, expressing support for the general principles of A+, and simply challenging them to take a broader perspective (ie. getting minorities more involved).

That thread was summarily closed after about one day. No rules broken, just a short notice that if I want to discuss those things, I must do so in one specific thread, and apparently should not raise those issues elsewhere.

I don't know how much the attitudes of the mods there reflect the attitudes of the "leaders" (if there are any yet) of A+...but it certainly seems that they are woefully unaware of what the terms "skepticism" and "critical thinking" mean...which is particularly sad given that both are stated goals/priorities of Atheism+

I'm involved in one very specific discussion about the usage of a particular term which I claimed denigrated women. It's interesting to see how such issues are dealt with in practice.