Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You're describing intersectionality.

I fear that if I click on that link, I'll automatically lose 20 IQ points.

 

[RandFan]

Because you should have good reasons to believe what you believe and you should apply those reasons on all facets of your life. The problem with the PM thing is the lack of evidence or taking subjective experience as evidence then silencing all opposition. When you demand one type of evidence to certain people and another standard for others then that makes that person a hypocrite. If one claims to be a critical thinker such things should bother them when they are pointed out.

That is why A+ isn't conducive to skepticism or critical thinking. Those things take a back seat to the social agenda. I don't mind people having an agenda. I do mind forgoing skepticism and critical thinking for the agenda. The A+ forum is free to do what ever is legal and within the rules of their EULA but what's the point if you are not going to be objective?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Sure, that makes perfect sense to me - though I'm a little bemused by your grouping of sarcasm and abuse together. I've seen that happen on atheismplus.

So have I. Why did you think I mentioned it? Though note I said sarcastic or abusive not sarcastic and abusive , though obviously one doesn't exclude the other.

Complain about it ? You're accused of tone trolling.

 

[recursive prophet]

You choice of syntax makes me think you were specifically talking about people who talk in African-American English. References to the "vernacular" of "street thugs" are also common among people disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.

Here again we see the kind of biased, unwarranted interpretation of the intentions of others that prevails at A+. Like when I accidentally called Sun Countess Sun Princess and was accused of intentionally trying to 'infantilize' her. Seems it's always the least charitable take possible of what the other is saying. Amounts to strawmanning actually. My replies to you had nothing to do with the ridiculous concept of race whatsoever. Read Wolpof's Race and Human Evolution. A+ has been accused of 'racism,' but note I never joined in that silly argument; a canard you would now hang on me based solely on your own projection?

You were ignoring other poster's talking about their personal experiences and attacked a moderator who called you on it, so I thought moderation was appropriate. 3 months seems overly long to me.

Ignoring? Because I didn't respond to every one of the many comments on that thread? By the same reasoning I could say you ignored many of my questions. Instead I acknowledged you had a lot on your plate and politely requested you reply to my key mystification: How would a public message somehow be far less threatening to the few extremely sensitive members who would supposedly see it there than a private one? None of the answers to that question to date seem at all adequate, so please expatiate on this one.

With what I proposed they could just ignore and delete it. Better still, if they just followed SC's example and blocked PM's they would never even be unnerved by the knowledge someone wanted to talk to them in private. How can a public message possibly solve the problem in such a non threatening way as that for any others that close to the edge of their next melt down?

Below is my brief exchange with ceepolk in which you claim I attacked her. See if you can even get any on the short list here of A+ defenders to agree what I told her would constitute an attack of some kind worthy of a month's suspension. Out of nowhere, because I realized the pile on was starting and unlike some don't have time to engage in intellectual exercise. At my age my laptop gives me plenty, thank you.

are you seriously arguing that you should be allowed to trigger people into panic attacks that could prompt them to need days of adjustment because asking for permission in public is "uncomfortable?"

SERIOUSLY?

what the **** do you think gives you the right to be permitted to do that?

how can you possibly justify this?

Well, to begin with, without the drama and hyperbole. How do YOU justify claiming that a PM requesting permission to send such will trigger a panic attack while having the same request made on a thread won't? And how does the member receiving the request respond? I assume that must be in public also, for they can't know for certain the person making the request wants to be PMed directly either. Can you name a single other site that has PM capability that requires requesting permission to do so in public before sending a PM? There's a good reason why you can't. It's a lame rule. But no real need for an answer ceepolk. I won't be responding further to your posts as doing so triggers MY anxiety big time.

So how do I get into the secret club where MY triggers will receive any consideration, qwints? And finally the big question you still haven't addressed. Do you really believe that even a tiny fraction of all net users, A+ included, would be more likely to be harmed or alarmed in any way by a friendly PM than the kind of public lynchings we've seen so often at A+?? If yes perhaps I'll start a poll here posing the question.

I am quite curious about the mind set at A+, and truly do appreciate your being willing to run the gauntlet here to attempt to explain it to me and others. But I do need to have a much better understanding of what your core values are and how you demonstrate them. Perhaps it would have helped if you'd made more of your protests on the boards instead of in PM's? And I would really like to read some of your posts where you actually disagreed with the noisy minority on staff. Searches are problematic when you can't log in. tia

 

[Myriad]

I've specifically highlighted where I quoted from, and pointing out that someone has referenced or alluded to a common racist stereotype isn't endorsing that stereotype.

No one referenced any racist stereotype except you, and yes you did endorse it.

Someone referenced speech patterns that are associated with street thugs and not with any particular race.

You've subsequently asserted that by referring to street thugs they were referring to a particular race. Doing so references and endorses the stereotype that street thugs are of a particular race.

It's completely analogous to this hypothetical conversation:

S: "I studied real hard, but another kid, this real math nerd, got the highest score on the test."
A: "If you have something against Asians, just come out and say it."
S: "Huh? I didn't say anything about any Asians."
A: "You alluded to the well-known stereotype of Asians being math nerds. Just raising your awareness here. Don't shoot the messenger."

This tactic can work in a setting where several more people can be relied on to pile on S and repeat the accusation until S either leaves, is kicked out, or abjectly apologizes for having unintentionally (but intent is not magic!) given such offense to Asians. But it rarely works in the real world.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Daald]

That is why A+ isn't conducive to skepticism or critical thinking. Those things take a back seat to the social agenda. I don't mind people having an agenda. I do mind forgoing skepticism and critical thinking for the agenda. The A+ forum is free to do what ever is legal and within the rules of their EULA but what's the point if you are not going to be objective?

I think that it was dead even before that simply by the label that it chose. Whenever your label can be seen as condescending you will be made fun of and marginalized by those that see it as such.

I think that is why "Brights" failed. When they were around I would not call myself an atheist for example because of how pompous they came off.

Same thing with apple's "Genius" bar. They are constantly at the butt end of jokes and how they don't meet that metric.

The plus on atheism does the same think. It condescends to the atheists that do not agree with whatever agenda the plus meant to represent.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think we all remember Dr. King's famous speech:

"I have a ******* dream that one day black children will be able to kick out all the privileged ******* white kids from the playground!"

 

[AvalonXQ]

I've specifically highlighted where I quoted from, and pointing out that someone has referenced or alluded to a common racist stereotype isn't endorsing that stereotype.

It's called a witch hunt. It's pretty much all that A+ bigots are good for. I'm disappointed you couldn't leave it behind when you came over here.

 

[qwints]

Myriad, have you heard of dog-whistle politics? It's quite common for people with bigoted agendas to use language that is facially neutral but that has specific connotations. I said that

References to the "vernacular" of "street thugs" are also common among people disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.

How would you discuss a racist stereotype without endorsing it?

My replies to you had nothing to do with the ridiculous concept of race whatsoever. Read Wolpof's Race and Human Evolution.

You can't just say that simply because the concept of race is meaningless in biology, it is therefore a meaningless concept. Culture, nationality, ethnicity and race all have real world consequences.

Ignoring? Because I didn't respond to every one of the many comments on that thread?

No, because you continued disputing a point when multiple people told you that people were legitimately bothered by unsolicited pm's. Specifically "How do YOU justify claiming that a PM requesting permission to send such will trigger a panic attack while having the same request made on a thread won't?" after several members told you that this was the case. People, including you, have suggested alternate ways to accommodate people bothered by unsolicited by pms without being banned or even criticized.

How would a public message somehow be far less threatening to the few extremely sensitive members who would supposedly see it there than a private one? None of the answers to that question to date seem at all adequate, so please expatiate on this one.

This was your main problem. You're dismissing the "extremely sensitive" people who told you it bothered them. Why should they provide you a lengthy explanation of why it bothers them when you've already said you don't find their reasons for feeling threatened adequate.

Below is my brief exchange with ceepolk in which you claim I attacked her.

I'll note you included, in the post in which you labeled her post as containing "drama and hyperbole," ignored the posters who'd told you that getting unsolicited posts bothered them, and told a moderator you wouldn't be responding further on that forum, emotes entitled "smug.gif" and "pwn.gif" from the site http://www.rantsnraves.org/.

I agree that a 1 month ban is a very long ban.

So how do I get into the secret club where MY triggers will receive any consideration, qwints?

Don't raise them as a hypothetical. Say that something hurts you. Not that it's not civil or doesn't conform to your idea of reasonable discourse. Say that something causes you pain. Reporting the post helps. People will screw up and hurt you anyway, but you'll get more consideration than you would in other spaces. And if it's invented or nonsense, expect to be banned.

Do you really believe that even a tiny fraction of all net users, A+ included, would be more likely to be harmed or alarmed in any way by a friendly PM than the kind of public lynchings we've seen so often at A+??

Perhaps you should consider the history of words like "lynching" before you use them out of context.

I don't know, but it's a reasonable assumption to believe that more people are harmed by personal attacks than unsolicited pms. Why are you comparing the frequency of this? I agree that verbal abuse should be stopped. I think it's gotten better since the forum started, and I've seen several members specifically subject to moderation for engaging in personal abuse.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's called a witch hunt. It's pretty much all that A+ bigots are good for. I'm disappointed you couldn't leave it behind when you came over here.

TRIGGER WARNING: Privilege and Racism

I agree.

 

[dasmiller]

<there was a comic here about the hierarchy of unfortunate circumstance, but it was long so I snipped it>

I don't think it's quite "who's-least-privileged" so much as "who's most perceptive." The assumption is that pretty much every perceived injustice is a true injustice, so if anyone perceives a problem with event X, then there really is a problem with X, and if you don't perceive that problem, well, you just don't get it and your SJ-cred is questionable.

So it's not a question of who has the least privilege, or who's the most oppressed, or who's the most easily-hurt. It's about who's the best at finding things that might hurt or oppress anyone worthy of empathy (as it turns out, this may not be as big a group as you might think, but that's another rant).

Which leads to some pretty broad interpretations of what might be offensive, or provocative, or racist, or sexist, or ablist, or misogynistic, or abusive, or homophobic, or . . . well, you get the picture.

 

[qwints]

It's called a witch hunt. It's pretty much all that A+ bigots are good for. I'm disappointed you couldn't leave it behind when you came over here.

Do you really think that the real bigots, the really nasty people, are the ones who challenge people on their use of bigoted language? Could you give me an example of when you've seen something racist or sexist and how you responded?

 

[RandFan]

Do you really think that the real bigots, the really nasty people, are the ones who challenge people on their use of bigoted language?

Of course. Christians claim that those who criticize their bigotry faith based values against gays and lesbians are bigoted.

 

[Myriad]

Myriad, have you heard of dog-whistle politics? It's quite common for people with bigoted agendas to use language that is facially neutral but that has specific connotations. I said that

References to the "vernacular" of "street thugs" are also common among people disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.

You know who else references the speech patterns of street thugs? People who are talking about street thugs.

In the present case, the context of reference to street thugs was that someone was comparing the behavior of some people on the A+ boards with that of street thugs.

That is insulting, toward people who are your friends. It's natural that you'd want to respond. There are, of course, many different possible ways of responding to such an insult, ranging from ignoring it completely to presenting a reasoned argument why it is not true to insulting the person back. (The latter, of course, could be against this forum's rules, as would the original insult have been if it were directed at you personally.)

But you appear to have chosen a different tactic: to parry and counter-attack by pretending that the speech was not against the behavior of people on the A+ forum at all, but instead, a completely out of the blue out of context racist attack against minorities.

I've heard of "dog-whistle politics." Have you heard of "gotcha politics?" How about "below the belt"? And one more: "Affirming the consequent."

(The latter, explicitly: Racists disparaging racial and ethnic minorities mention the speech patterns of street thugs. RP mentioned the speech patterns of street thugs. Therefore, RP is a racist disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.)

And here's why this point is important: the phenomenon you've just demonstrated is how about ninety percent of the supposed examples of claimed misogyny in the atheist and secular movements have come about.

How would you discuss a racist stereotype without endorsing it?

By discussing it without endorsing it.

If the discussion comes about entirely because you've already endorsed it, such as by assuming it applies based on one single element of the stereotype being mentioned (as in my "math nerds" example above in relation to stereotypes about Asians, or RP's reference to the speech pattern of street thugs in relation to stereotypes about people of color), then it is too late. You've endorsed it, so own it. Say that street thugs and ethnic minorities are so equivalent that a reference to the one must be seen as a reference to the other, if that's what you really believe.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Stout]

How would you discuss a racist stereotype without endorsing it?

That was your card, you played it with the assumption that people's perceptions of "street thug" would match your own.

Perhaps you should consider the history of words like "lynching" before you use them out of context.

And here it is again, working on the assumption that lynching, aka extrajudicial punishment applies/applied exclusively to blacks and therefore has racist connotations.

An A+ dogpile is a lynch mob.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That was your card, you played it with the assumption that people's perceptions of "street thug" would match your own.

And here it is again, working on the assumption that lynching, aka extrajudicial punishment applies/applied exclusively to blacks and therefore has racist connotations.

An A+ dogpile is a lynch mob.

Absolutely.

TRIGGER WARNING: Real History

It also connotates an appalling ignorance of history. People have been lynched for thousands of years, way before black people were even invented.

 

[Stout]

I don't think it's quite "who's-least-privileged" so much as "who's most perceptive." The assumption is that pretty much every perceived injustice is a true injustice, so if anyone perceives a problem with event X, then there really is a problem with X, and if you don't perceive that problem, well, you just don't get it and your SJ-cred is questionable.

So it's not a question of who has the least privilege, or who's the most oppressed, or who's the most easily-hurt. It's about who's the best at finding things that might hurt or oppress anyone worthy of empathy (as it turns out, this may not be as big a group as you might think, but that's another rant).

Which leads to some pretty broad interpretations of what might be offensive, or provocative, or racist, or sexist, or ablist, or misogynistic, or abusive, or homophobic, or . . . well, you get the picture.

Spot on analysis

This is exactly how to function at the 301 level, as they like to say on A+

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't think it's quite "who's-least-privileged" so much as "who's most perceptive." The assumption is that pretty much every perceived injustice is a true injustice, so if anyone perceives a problem with event X, then there really is a problem with X, and if you don't perceive that problem, well, you just don't get it and your SJ-cred is questionable.

So it's not a question of who has the least privilege, or who's the most oppressed, or who's the most easily-hurt. It's about who's the best at finding things that might hurt or oppress anyone worthy of empathy (as it turns out, this may not be as big a group as you might think, but that's another rant).

Which leads to some pretty broad interpretations of what might be offensive, or provocative, or racist, or sexist, or ablist, or misogynistic, or abusive, or homophobic, or . . . well, you get the picture.

Spot on analysis

This is exactly how to function at the 301 level, as they like to say on A+

Such "thinking" may get you an A+ (see what I did there?) in your Queer Studies seminar, but it pretty much gets you laughed at in the real world.

 

[qwints]

But you appear to have chosen a different tactic: to parry and counter-attack by pretending that the speech was not against the behavior of people on the A+ forum at all, but instead, a completely out of the blue out of context racist attack against minorities.

I've heard of "dog-whistle politics." Have you heard of "gotcha politics?" How about "below the belt"? And one more: "Affirming the consequent."

(The latter, explicitly: Racists disparaging racial and ethnic minorities mention the speech patterns of street thugs. RP mentioned the speech patterns of street thugs. Therefore, RP is a racist disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.)

And here's why this point is important: the phenomenon you've just demonstrated is how about ninety percent of the supposed examples of claimed misogyny in the atheist and secular movements have come about.

I haven't ignored the substance of the claim - profanity and anger is not abuse. Abuse is wrong. Moderators ought to stop abuse. Some instances of abuse have not been moderated as they should have been. Some instances have and I've seen improvement.

The term "street thug" is racialized in modern US discourse and has been for a generation. It's not a neutral word. I also haven't made the claim that recursive prophet is a racist, I've pointed out the language he's used and explained why I think it's problematic.

You're also misapplying the affirming the consequent fallacy. As applied it would be, if you're a racist, then you use the term "street thug", recursive prophet used the term "street thug" therefore recursive prophet is a racist. I'm saying he has used language that is commonly used by racist, I'm not saying he is a racist.

 

[qwints]

And here it is again, working on the assumption that lynching, aka extrajudicial punishment applies/applied exclusively to blacks and therefore has racist connotations.

The poster doth protest too much, methinks.