Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Badger3k]

No, I meant "What's his point?" What caused him to make this comment in the first place? It seems like he thinks that there's a grain of truth to it, but when you examine his "evidence", it's either flimsy or bogus. (A commenter debunks his 1-in-4-women-raped myth, and he responds irrationally, like a 9-11 Truther.) But even he admits that he's mostly trying to get a rise out of people, and he's not terribly interested in defending the whole thing.

This allows quite a bit of equivocation. If somebody calls him on his BS, he can say "Gotcha! You're taking it all too seriously!" So, how much of it is serious, and how much hyperbole?

I would be interested to see in what context the comment was made (i.e. the panel discussion).




I try not to underestimate people, but the worst A+ has done, so far, is irritate people on the Internet. For crimes against humanity, that ranks pretty low.

(Okay, they may have irritated some people in person, too. Fortunately, I have not had to experience that, yet. Perhaps that is part of my privilege? I apologize in advance for any victims of A+ that may have been offended by this comment.)

This reminds me of older material of PZ Myers, where he went after Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, several times, where Scott said stupid ****, was called on it, then backpedaled into the "It's just a joke" comment. PZ gave him hell for that, but during this whole ***************, he's been silent - but then, Laden has been doing a renfrew to PZ's Dracula for years, and provided cover for them - he seemed willing to do openly what the others want to do behind the scene. Just my opinion, and that of a lot of other FtB watchers (now with A+!). Eatin' a lot of popcorn watching this train wreck.

 

[Badger3k]

Just FYI - I did find the article posted debunking the testosterone-damage bit (and more) at http://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/07/22/some-falsehoods-about-the-y-chromosome-and-male-brains/.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I myself am not a far leftists, so I have very little sympathy for such people. I'm for gender equality of course, but I wouldn't call myself a feminist because that term is associated with so much nuttery (at least here in Sweden).

I comfortably call myself an ardent feminist because feminist means supporting equal rights for women, and ardent means feeling strongly about it.

I draw the line at female privilege, and support gender blindness as a worthy goal. Harriet Hall's T-shirt (below) rocks!

What I think is really irritating about A+ is it's the old "we are forming a club and you can't join us." There's something about that, that goes right to the heart, even if it's a club you wouldn't want to join anyway. Being told I can't join because I'm an old white male and won't acknowledging the infallibility of anyone born with a uterus, is offensive, even if I'd never want to join their club if they'd let me.

 

[Walter Ego]

I would be interested to see in what context [Laden's] comment was made (i.e. the panel discussion).

Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=U...v5uvPhZ29fs&feature=player_detailpage#t=2221s

 

[squealpiggy]

When I said feminist, I mean supporting women to obtain and maintain equality and to remove historical barriers. For example, providing support not only to smart women but also providing support for teenage mothers, women in abusing relationship, removing stigma for women taking time to raise their children, etc. I hired women that few managers would look at, and I was never wrong. I fought other managers telling me not to hire middle age women. I was never disappointed.

The type of feminists you mention are so radical that they get very little support, and mostly in academia, or it radfem groups. They are never taken very seriously.

Now you're mansplaining!

 

[Stout]

Of course. The "douchebag" rationalisation shows how shallow the language policing really is - what is claimed to be a way to remove offence is simply making language comfortable to one specific group. They hate ****, ****, and ******-******, but because they've grown up using other phrases, they'll come up with an explanation of why they aren't offensive really. Someone from a different culture will have quite a different attitude - which is wrong.

That's not to say that offensive language shouldn't be avoided, but with some degree of objectivity.

I wasn't thinking so much on the language issue with that point sentence but it does raise an interesting point. It all depends on who is using the language and why. For instance a black person may use the word that rhymes with tigger as a woman might use the word that rhymes with stitch in an effort to reclaim the word and make it (somehow) less offensive. Let a white male use either of those words and it hits the fan.

I was thinking more along the lines that the POC don't act all oppressed, that they don't fit the leftist ideal of how a POC should be acting. Occasionally, the odd one does play that role and it's entertaining to watch the whiteys fall over themselves with guilt and shame. Saying "This is not a safe space for....." has caused many pasty white hands to be wrung.

 

[westprog]

No, I meant "What's his point?" What caused him to make this comment in the first place? It seems like he thinks that there's a grain of truth to it, but when you examine his "evidence", it's either flimsy or bogus. (A commenter debunks his 1-in-4-women-raped myth, and he responds irrationally, like a 9-11 Truther.)

I read that. "These statistics are entirely reliable, and here's exactly why." "Well, I really care about rape. Are you trying to say that it's not a problem?" I think at this stage this particular statistic is only thrown in to draw out people so that he can claim that they don't care about what happens to women. This is advertised as a science blog, btw.

But even he admits that he's mostly trying to get a rise out of people, and he's not terribly interested in defending the whole thing.

This allows quite a bit of equivocation. If somebody calls him on his BS, he can say "Gotcha! You're taking it all too seriously!" So, how much of it is serious, and how much hyperbole?

I would be interested to see in what context the comment was made (i.e. the panel discussion).

He seems to want to have it both ways - yes it's true, but I won't explain how because I'm just kidding around. I note that there were two fairly catastrophic demolitions at the end of the discussion, followed by silence.

I try not to underestimate people, but the worst A+ has done, so far, is irritate people on the Internet. For crimes against humanity, that ranks pretty low.

(Okay, they may have irritated some people in person, too. Fortunately, I have not had to experience that, yet. Perhaps that is part of my privilege? I apologize in advance for any victims of A+ that may have been offended by this comment.)

How much does all this matter? It impacts on one or two people that somebody might have heard of, like Dawkins, but it's not really a big deal.

 

[Humes fork]

I comfortably call myself an ardent feminist because feminist means supporting equal rights for women, and ardent means feeling strongly about it.

I see. The word has different connotations here.

I draw the line at female privilege, and support gender blindness as a worthy goal. Harriet Hall's T-shirt (below) rocks!

It sure does. Why was it even considered offensive in the first place? I'm at a loss here.

What I think is really irritating about A+ is it's the old "we are forming a club and you can't join us." There's something about that, that goes right to the heart, even if it's a club you wouldn't want to join anyway. Being told I can't join because I'm an old white male and won't acknowledging the infallibility of anyone born with a uterus, is offensive, even if I'd never want to join their club if they'd let me.

Agreed. And the "If you don't agree with us then you're a douchebag and misogynist" mentality.

I remember when I took a critical thinking course in uni. The book stated that one should interpret one's opponent as charitably as possible. Certainly not what they are doing.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I remember when I took a critical thinking course in uni. The book stated that one should interpret one's opponent as charitably as possible. Certainly not what they are doing.

I never heard that before. I like it!

 

[zeggman]

Laden has been doing a renfrew to PZ's Dracula for years

What is "renfrew"?

 

[Moss]

What is "renfrew"?

I think he meant Renfield.

 

[Paulhoff]

Reading of "Sisterhood of the Oppressed" by Paula Kirby







Paul

 

[zeggman]

I think he meant Renfield.

I still had to google it, but that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Badger3k]

I think he meant Renfield.

Oops - thanks for that. It has been a while since I have watched a movie with the character in it, and messed up the name. Sorry.

 

[Paulhoff]

I changing from Atheism++ to, for what it isn't worth, Atheism(-).


And of course, "The less rules the better for all".


None would be good.


Paul

 

[westprog]

I never heard that before. I like it!

Another important aspect - which may or may not be part of the course - is that in order to dispute with someone, you should try to find out exactly what it is they are claiming, and try to argue with that.

All too often arguments revolve around trying to attribute claims that people never made, and using extrapolations of a position that aren't actually sound. This is not unknown on JREF, or any other forum, but it seems to be the A+ SOP. PZM in particular seems to favour the technique. Scott Myers seemed quite bewildered to find that he was being attacked for things he hadn't actually said, but that PZM was attributing to him.

 

[Walter Ego]

Reading of "Sisterhood of the Oppressed" by Paula Kirby

I like this one by the same reader.

Reading of "Atheism+ Is A Good Thing" by ferulebezel

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

To prove that being a highly-educated atheist doesn't mean you can't be an idiot at the same time?

Or, as Randi once said, "An education doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you educated".

 

[Paulhoff]

Reading of "One Year After ElevatorGate" by Christ Willet





Paul

 

[Orphia Nay]

I remember when I took a critical thinking course in uni. The book stated that one should interpret one's opponent as charitably as possible. Certainly not what they are doing.

I never heard that before. I like it!

"Lack of Charity fallacy" is one of the 100 fallacies Julian Baggini explores in his "The Duck That Won the Lottery". I hadn't heard that one before, and it really chimed with me. (It's a great book, and I highly recommend it.)

I wish more people were aware of that one.