Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[westprog]

Ermm, no. That would be trolling.

I would be interested in discussing the issue of privilege, not in order to upset them, or expose them, but just to find out what the position is. I just don't think it's possible to enter their forums to discuss things with an open mind.

I certainly wouldn't dismiss issues of privilege, but I think that as presented, it's a grossly warped theory of society. Clearly people who are rich, well educated and come from a stable family background have an enormous advantage in life, which often they have done nothing to deserve. The pretence that someone who makes a hundred million dollars did it all on his own, with nothing but the first million to help him out, is a grossly distorted myth which deserves to be exposed. However, there's a countervailing myth that a poor, uneducated white male from a broken home is part of the ruling elite in society, just because boardrooms and governments are full of people who look like him. It's nonsense fighting nonsense.

 

[Myriad]

I would be interested in discussing the issue of privilege, not in order to upset them, or expose them, but just to find out what the position is. I just don't think it's possible to enter their forums to discuss things with an open mind.

Agreed.

I actually am left-handed, and in theory I would be up for a discussion of the degree and relevance of privilege in right-handedness. For that purpose I'd certainly be willing to drop the provocative example of removing women's clothing (not because it's a bad or inappropriate example, though -- after all, some women do make belittling jokes about men who are less than adroit at such things). And it could serve as a useful reference point for comparing and contrasting other claims of privilege or lack thereof, and better understanding the overall concept.

But the Atheism Plus forum is not a suitable environment for such a discussion. I strongly suspect that posting in the appropriate thread with a list of "Because I am left-handed..." points, no matter how seriously toned and empirically grounded they were, would be considered an attack. I could be wrong, but their past treatment of others does not get them the benefit of the doubt.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Mister Agenda]

And yet somehow I suspect that if someone had written:

"Because I am poor and an ethnic minority I am treated as a potential criminal."

...the response would decidedly NOT have been:

"Not legitimate lack of privilege. It is because poor minorities are disproportionately the perpetrators certain crimes, that others have to assume you COULD be a criminal until proven otherwise. That isn't a lack of privilege on your part."

Gah, back to following my own rule about not complaining about internet forums in other internet forums...

That was the first response I thought of as well, thanks for saving me the trouble, and saying it more eloquently than I would have.

 

[Wildy]

I asked a similar question somewhere here - if you're white, you're privileged. If you're a woman, you're not. What if you're a white woman? How does that work? Do they cancel each other out? This is why the "privilege" argument is so stupid.

I believe the term they use is "intersectionality". I have no idea how such a concept is supposed to be used though. From what I've seen online it's used to move the goalposts after someone is called out on their blanket usage of "privilege".

 

[chillzero]

I think they'd have to admit this one is legitimate:

"Because I am left-handed, the buttons on women's clothing are on the wrong side for me to undress them easily."

Someone beat you to it.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=740&p=9183&hilit=buttons#p9183

Because I am woman I have to wear buttons on a side that makes it easier for men to undress me

I think one of the deleted responses labelled as trolling pointed out that historically, buttons were placed that way to enable maids to help ladies dress.

 

[Humes fork]

I suspect that the existence of an "atheist community" is unknown to most people, including atheists.

It depends.

The National Academy of Science is an overwhelmingly atheistic community, but it is not based on atheism.

There are several communities based on atheism, both online and in the real world, but not all atheists are members of such communities.

 

[chillzero]

Someone beat you to it.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=740&p=9183&hilit=buttons#p9183



I think one of the deleted responses labelled as trolling pointed out that historically, buttons were placed that way to enable maids to help ladies dress.

oopsie!! It was in this JREF thread!!

 

[westprog]

It depends.

The National Academy of Science is an overwhelmingly atheistic community, but it is not based on atheism.

I don't think that a community can be characterised as an "atheist community" if it's not atheist. We wouldn't refer to a Jewish community that was 5% Christian. Though I suppose certain groups might be described by their beliefs but are in fact delineated by some other measure. For example, the Catholic and Protestant communities in Ireland undoubtedly include atheists among them.

There are several communities based on atheism, both online and in the real world, but not all atheists are members of such communities.

Far from it. There may well be a set of people who have certain characteristics, but that doesn't equate to them forming a community.

 

[chillzero]

I'd like to point you toward this article about atheist community, as relevant here:

http://www.skepticism-uk.org/conten...eptical-community-and-you-re-(probably)-in-it

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that a community can be characterised as an "atheist community" if it's not atheist. We wouldn't refer to a Jewish community that was 5% Christian. Though I suppose certain groups might be described by their beliefs but are in fact delineated by some other measure. For example, the Catholic and Protestant communities in Ireland undoubtedly include atheists among them.

If you moved into a neighborhood that was say 50% gay many would class it as a gay neighborhood. So clearly you do not need absoluteness for a group to be classed as such.

I think the difference is between community which can be described in multiple ways and say an organization which can collectively have a view. For example the catholic church is against many things many catholics are not.

 

[westprog]

I'd like to point you toward this article about atheist community, as relevant here:

http://www.skepticism-uk.org/conten...eptical-community-and-you-re-(probably)-in-it

Well, there's one obvious element to this reference - that it refers to a skeptical community, not an atheist community. However, leaving that aside - I certainly don't wish to imply that no atheist community exists. However, notwithstanding the success of books published by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, I still consider that the atheist community is quite small, and doesn't include more than a small proportion of the people who don't believe in god. That might be a bad thing - it might be that atheists are disadvantaged by not being part of a pressure group looking after their interests. Still, there it is.

 

[d4m10n]

PZ posted this cartoon on his blog:
ataraxiatheatre.com/comics/2012-09-12-meanwhile-in-the-blogosphere.png

Fixed it: imgur.com/9MVqT

 

[chillzero]

Well, there's one obvious element to this reference - that it refers to a skeptical community, not an atheist community.

Ach ... brain dead today. Sorry.
There is probably a fair amount of relevancy with the arguments RockMobster has drawn, anyway.

However, leaving that aside - I certainly don't wish to imply that no atheist community exists. However, notwithstanding the success of books published by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, I still consider that the atheist community is quite small, and doesn't include more than a small proportion of the people who don't believe in god. That might be a bad thing - it might be that atheists are disadvantaged by not being part of a pressure group looking after their interests. Still, there it is.

Interesting comment.

 

[Humes fork]

If you want to advance "social justice", however defined, why limit yourself to atheists? It seems like an awfully stupid thing to exclude theists interested in it. Especially in the US.

 

[Humes fork]

 

[westprog]

Ach ... brain dead today. Sorry.

HATER! Well, I got the point anyway.

There is probably a fair amount of relevancy with the arguments RockMobster has drawn, anyway.
.

Certainly. It's mostly as valid for atheist groups as for skeptics. The existence of a community doesn't imply agreement on all issues.

 

[Mr. Scott]

[qimg]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RDzyhYDrjMc/UEnzsMkox7I/AAAAAAAAACM/sktJEHxSsFA/s1600/McCreightMen.png[/qimg]

Ageist, racist, sexist, stereotyping, name-calling, troll-style remark. She must think turnabout is fair play. I call hypocrisy. Why are images of Ann Coulter flashing in my brain right now?

 

[Acleron]

HATER! Well, I got the point anyway.



Certainly. It's mostly as valid for atheist groups as for skeptics. The existence of a community doesn't imply agreement on all issues.

And it is to be hoped we never agree on all issues. It is unlikely that skeptics and/or atheists have all the right answers, to be of one mind would preclude discussion and debate.

 

[westprog]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67365058d5930e02a.png[/qimg]

Ageist, racist, sexist, stereotyping, name-calling, troll-style remark. She must think turnabout is fair play. I call hypocrisy. Why are images of Ann Coulter flashing in my brain right now?

It's fair enough to point out that certain groups are under-represented, but its seems unfair to assume that this is necessarily the fault of the group itself. It's also not necessarily the case that adding number of young white women with degrees in women's studies equates to full diversity.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why are images of Ann Coulter flashing in my brain right now?

Naked?