Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Myriad]

There's a kind of brash assumption about the good life of being a white male that is based on the rosiest assumptions possible. You're a white male, so everyone listens to your opinion. You're a white male, so you never need to be scared of being attacked.

There's a level of faith in the good life of maleness and whiteness that makes it sound like pure paradise. Hence the reaction to the homeless man. OK, he has some financial and housing issues, but he can still wallow in that male white privilege!

That's one issue with their thinking, yes. But my objection is more general.

You can claim that you have unique perspectives and understanding based on your life experiences. No problem. You probably do. Many people do.

You can claim that others are incapable of understanding those perspectives, because they do not have those same life experience. A perfectly reasonable claim, and probably true. We can discuss it and attempt to achieve understanding on some intellectual level, but that will always be far short of having the actual experiences.

The problem is that having established that claim, that your experiences are unique and personal and not understandable by others, you cannot expect or require others to understand them -- let alone expect or require others to agree with the opinions you've formed because of those experiences.

That is exactly what a Christian is trying to do when she says, If you'd experienced God's grace the way I have, you'd know that Jesus's love is real and you'd repent of your atheism. Maybe so, but if you didn't, so you feel no onus to accept grace or divine revelation by hearsay. The UFO believer can say: If you'd seen what I saw, you'd believe in alien grays too. Maybe so, but you didn't, so you don't.

Part of getting it is understanding that the very reason you get it, your experiences, is the reason others don't get it, and cannot be argued or shouted into getting it. You can create a social milieu where people who don't get it will be willing or feel obliged to pretend to get it, or even honestly think they get it, but those people will disappoint you sooner or later, especially if you're not even willing to give them credit for trying. If you think you get it but can only imagine selfishness or hostility as the possible reasons why others don't, you are probably one of those pretenders yourself.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[qayak]

That's one issue with their thinking, yes. But my objection is more general.

You can claim that you have unique perspectives and understanding based on your life experiences. No problem. You probably do. Many people do. You can claim that others are incapable of understanding those perspectives, because they do not have those same life experience. A perfectly reasonable claim, and probably true. We can discuss it and attempt to achieve understanding on some intellectual level, but that will always be far short of having the actual experiences.
The problem is that having established that claim, that your experiences are unique and personal and not understandable by others, you cannot expect or require others to understand them -- let alone expect or require others to agree with the opinions you've formed because of those experiences.

That is exactly what a Christian is trying to do when she says, If you'd experienced God's grace the way I have, you'd know that Jesus's love is real and you'd repent of your atheism. Maybe so, but if you didn't, so you feel no onus to accept grace or divine revelation by hearsay. The UFO believer can say: If you'd seen what I saw, you'd believe in alien grays too. Maybe so, but you didn't, so you don't.

Part of getting it is understanding that the very reason you get it, your experiences, is the reason others don't get it, and cannot be argued or shouted into getting it. You can create a social milieu where people who don't get it will be willing or feel obliged to pretend to get it, or even honestly think they get it, but those people will disappoint you sooner or later, especially if you're not even willing to give them credit for trying. If you think you get it but can only imagine selfishness or hostility as the possible reasons why others don't, you are probably one of those pretenders yourself.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It's a special pleading fallacy. Game, set, match... no further discussion required.

 

[westprog]

Looks like someone else is self-destructing in the Forum Matters subforum like you did. Is it clear what link the mods have to A+ aside from being the first folks to register the website?

If it's rEvolutionist then he seems to have been banned for discussing forum moderation on the forum moderation thread. No surprise really.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What makes Coyote underprivileged?

Hungry, homeless and stupid. Have you seen his attempts to catch the Road Runner?

Nom'd!

 

[Quinn]

I think there's a lot of benefit for people who are wealthy, well educated and from a stable family background in recognising that these things may have not been entirely coincidental in ensuring their current position in society. The trouble is that it's so often used as a way to kill objective discussion of any issue.

Very true, but then they've made it painfully clear that objective discussion isn't their goal, and is in fact met with hostility. I don't have the links to back this up (and I'm not about to engage in the self-torture of seeking them out), but people are criticized harshly for discussing things "too rationally." If you have the privilege of discussing an injustice in a detached, rational way, that means you've never been victimized by it, and therefore you're not qualified to even discuss it with people who have. Because that makes the victims feel like statistics, and apparently avoiding that it far more important than achieving honest, open dialogue that's consistent with objective reality.

 

[Foolmewunz]

"Privilege" goes off the rails the moment it stops being used as a useful guide to thinking about how various social groups interact in society and starts being used as a measuring stick for individual members of those groups to tally their misfortunes and blame them on other people.

Privilege goes off the rails when they try to assign a finite numerical value to a privilege or lack-of-privilege. In that one chart someone linked to above, I'm knocking the privilege ball out of the park... white, male, jewish*(ethnicity), but then I started losing points for stupid things - like -100 for living in someplace their privileged ilk has never heard of ("other - pick closest place", which would be rural China) and then big point drops for not having a job they recognize (entrepreneur, fer crissake... not even listed). So I wind up on the needy side of the ledger in the end.

The stupidity of the privilege ranking is such that all Mitt Romney would have to do to get ranked as a sufferer would be to blind himself. It seems that being blind is worth -100 while being stupid would only be -15.

*Did anyone else notice the neo-think. Being Jewish is higher on the privilege scale than being a WASP? I thought I'd at least get some pity points for all that anti-semitism stuff.

@Hokulele and Respectfully Myriad
I do not disagree with you on the issue of these people having some real pain... if they're real. We don't have anyone here who seems to know any of them firsthand, and the nature of the forum is, as Walter Ego pointed out, that it seems to deal with self-described agoraphobics. And a lot of the needy seem to be what we'd have termed maladjusted in previous generations. Can't seem to get along with people? It's lack of privilege. Not comfortable speaking with strangers? Lack of privilege. Etc...
But truly the part that has me not terribly sympathetic to them is that the neediest of the needy are some of the most vicious ad hom attack dogs.
Why it's almost like they have a new set of privilege criteria for their little safe place? "Rape or abuse victim? Here, you get a free pass to go to the free-wheeling sub-forums and say anything you want. If you have an agoraphobic relapse, don't worry - one of the mods will be along in a minute to invent a rationale for shutting up the other persons, so go do your worst." At Atheism+ they have their own redefinition of "prvilege".

We've had people here with major disabilities, who are dying, who were victims of abuse, homeless for a period, and many other of the conditions that those folks cite. Yet we seem to be able to abide by basic rules on civil discourse, we don't ban people who disagree with us, and we don't condone bullying or piling on. Plus, we've got pie! They can't even get a decent pie thread going, fer crissake.

And while I think there's an identifiable misogynist streak in some skeptics here, I don't think it's anything we can't deal with. I'd far rather they are talking and out in the open rather than shunted off to the banned list.

 

[Orphia Nay]

What makes Coyote underprivileged?

Hungry, homeless and stupid. Have you seen his attempts to catch the Road Runner?

Sorry, I was unclear.
I meant 'Ignoring the mod(s) who seem to be rampantly trampling all over anyone they feel like while protecting their favourites, and ignoring complete d***heads like Coyote who are trampling all over whoever they feel like with complete and utter impunity' ... there are people there in real pain.

My turn to say sorry. I wasn't implying you thought he was underprivileged and in pain.

It was just a question that came to mind after the general drift of the thread.

I suspect the people who may be underprivileged and in pain may be too afraid of him/her to call him/her on his/her abusive behaviour.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

The hostility of the A+ proponents towards mainstream atheists is a threat to atheism in general. Anti-atheists are cackling with schadenfreude that we are turning against each other. The exaggerated claims of aplussers that mainstream atheist skeptic meetings are replete with dangerous sexual predators (AKA white men) confirms theists' fallacious claims that, lacking moral compasses, we would have sex in the streets if it were not for fear of the angry god of the old testament.

The problem with this argument is that it could just as easily be turned round the other way - "The fact that mainstream atheists don't seem to be concerned that there are a huge number of trolls and/or sexual predators associating themselves with atheism confirms fallacious claims that..." and so on.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The problem with this argument is that it could just as easily be turned round the other way - "The fact that mainstream atheists don't seem to be concerned that there are a huge number of trolls and/or sexual predators associating themselves with atheism confirms fallacious claims that..." and so on.

That sounds so Faux News / fair and balanced. Yes, anyone can sling BS.

 

[Stout]

Privilege goes off the rails when they try to assign a finite numerical value to a privilege or lack-of-privilege. In that one chart someone linked to above, I'm knocking the privilege ball out of the park... white, male, jewish*(ethnicity), but then I started losing points for stupid things - like -100 for living in someplace their privileged ilk has never heard of ("other - pick closest place", which would be rural China) and then big point drops for not having a job they recognize (entrepreneur, fer crissake... not even listed). So I wind up on the needy side of the ledger in the end.

Well...you're currently not a member of the dominant society which makes you a radicalized person, you're not working a union job. Do you speak and read/write Thai fluently ? We could make a case that you're functionally illiterate. Are you Buddhist ? Minus some points if you're not. Atheist and "forced" to have one of those little shrines in your shop ?

Unless there's some compelling evidence the the whole "ZOG" CT reaches it's tentacles into Thailand, then you're Jewishness isn't a plus here and now.

On the upside, you do own your own means of production and should serve as a shining example to aspiring leftists however if you're not paying your staff a "living wage", then you're evil, so best to keep on about doing all the work yourself.

There you go, you no longer have privilege and are free to join the ranks of the oppressed over at A+ and rail against the dominant society with the best of them.

Oh yes, living under a monarchy with the threat of imprisonment if you criticize them has got to be worth something negative, class war maybe ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well...you're currently not a member of the dominant society which makes you a radicalized person, you're not working a union job. Do you speak and read/write Thai fluently ? We could make a case that you're functionally illiterate. Are you Buddhist ? Minus some points if you're not. Atheist and "forced" to have one of those little shrines in your shop ?

Unless there's some compelling evidence the the whole "ZOG" CT reaches it's tentacles into Thailand, then you're Jewishness isn't a plus here and now.

On the upside, you do own your own means of production and should serve as a shining example to aspiring leftists however if you're not paying your staff a "living wage", then you're evil, so best to keep on about doing all the work yourself.

There you go, you no longer have privilege and are free to join the ranks of the oppressed over at A+ and rail against the dominant society with the best of them.

Oh yes, living under a monarchy with the threat of imprisonment if you criticize them has got to be worth something negative, class war maybe ?

Woot! I'm a victim!

 

[Wildy]

The real question is: What is Atheism + doing now? Only a forum?

So far, besides the forum, which is one disfunctional place, I have not seen anything concrete done by that group. Jen has left a while ago, Greta is sick, PZ is ambivalent, Rebecca is on the conference tour. Only the mods are running the show.

They don't seem to be doing too much at all. They do have a section on activism but there isn't too much actual activism.

That section does have a strange discussion about Pornhub raising money for breast cancer research.

a what? not familiar with that?

lxxx

Mr. Scott beat me to it. Needless to say Conservapedia is an extremely insular website, in part caused by RationalWiki finding and documenting things that go on on Conservapedia. You can basically get a reaction from them by posting that you're going to troll them on Rationalwiki and get people who happen so sign up soon after you make that comment IP banned even though they've done nothing wrong.

"Privilege" goes off the rails the moment it stops being used as a useful guide to thinking about how various social groups interact in society and starts being used as a measuring stick for individual members of those groups to tally their misfortunes and blame them on other people.

I've noticed (and this is well before A+) that the use of "privilege" in discussions is just a fancy sounding way of telling someone to shut up and/or go away.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

That sounds so Faux News / fair and balanced. Yes, anyone can sling BS.

Not intending to sling BS. But as you say, it's easy for anyone to make that sort of argument, because it doesn't make any claims about whether a position's correct, just how it will look to other people. If something's the right thing to do, it shouldn't matter if people will twist it to fit their agenda. If it's wrong, there must be better arguments against it, dealing with the substance rather than the appearance. That's why I'm uncomfortable with arguments based on what theists will say.

 

[WillyWonka]

Woot! I'm a victim!

I checked the graph and also I am a victim! Fantastic, now I will be starting a blog to tell people how oppressed I am, and make a living speaking at conferences reading my tweets from people telling me to STFU. [/sarcasm]

As skeptics, we sometimes laugh at people believing in astrology, and as far as I am concerned, this "privilege graph" is nothing more than "astrology for atheists", or at least the type aligned with this kind of non sense. We should use our skeptical eye when highly complicated social interactions are summarized in an easy-to-read polar graph.

 

[AbsurdWalls]

My turn to say sorry. I wasn't implying you thought he was underprivileged and in pain.

It was just a question that came to mind after the general drift of the thread.

I suspect the people who may be underprivileged and in pain may be too afraid of him/her to call him/her on his/her abusive behaviour.

I saw somewhere (maybe on Reddit) that there are at least a couple of established members that are just playing at it. One of them was even supposed to be a mod.

Obviously no evidence was provided though.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I saw somewhere (maybe on Reddit) that there are at least a couple of established members that are just playing at it. One of them was even supposed to be a mod.

Obviously no evidence was provided though.

Poe's Law.

 

[Acleron]

Poe's Law.

So much of it is.

So much so, in fact, that PZ has now banned the use of Poe's Law.

I heard several announce “He’s a poe” or “he must be a poe”. Dear god, but I’m sick of that stupid word. It’s become a standard response to batty stupidity — lately, it doesn’t matter how ordinary a comment is or who said it or how well verified it is — there’s always someone in the crowd who has to show off how insightful or cynical they are by declaring that it must be a pretense.

This is supposedly about some conference he went to but I'm cynical.

 

[dasmiller]

I checked the graph and also I am a victim!

Oddly, I feel the urge to oppress you now.

 

[WillyWonka]

Oddly, I feel the urge to oppress you now.

Thanks! First threat! Hopefully someone will offer me coffee now.

 

[Stout]

Thanks! First threat! Hopefully someone will offer me coffee now.

I hope you don't mind instant, it's all I've got. Nice bowtie BTW.

Uh oh..look at me, operating the internet on a saterday night..damn I'm a victim too. Meet you over on A+