Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why did it sound "off"? Isn't that a form of tone trolling?

The language sounded off because it's language that I've heard used by bigots in a racist way. I'm unfamiliar with people using "street thug" as a reference for writing or speaking style in a non-racialized way.

It certainly could be a form of tone trolling. If I was just trying to provoke a reaction rather than engage in a discussion, it would be. If you conclude that no reasonable person could hear "vernacular" of "street thugs" as racially insensitive, then it's perfectly reasonable to believe that my raising the point was trolling.


Would you not agree that some web sites are better than others at propagating truth? If so, do you think that prior restraint and rudeness are a good way to foster social progress?

I don't think that there's one way to prorogate truth. Different methods are better for different audiences. I'd certainly agree that atheismplus is almost wholly ineffective at propagating truth to some groups - e.g. it makes almost no effort to interact with people who come their to challenge whether it should exist.

I've explained why I think enforcing politeness shuts some people out of the conversation, and people here have explained why they disagree with me.

I don't think either the 3 post non-spam requirement or heavy moderation constitute meaningful prior restraint.
 
Well, that's just a Burden we White Men must bear.

You mean:

Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.



Whoops, trigger alert:
Rampant sexism.
 
I don't think that there's one way to prorogate truth. Different methods are better for different audiences. I'd certainly agree that atheismplus is almost wholly ineffective at propagating truth to some groups - e.g. it makes almost no effort to interact with people who come their to challenge whether it should exist.

I've explained why I think enforcing politeness shuts some people out of the conversation, and people here have explained why they disagree with me.

I don't think either the 3 post non-spam requirement or heavy moderation constitute meaningful prior restraint.
Having thought about it for awhile I'm going to stop accusing A+ of prior restraint. Though not because of what you said. The definition doesn't quite fit. But there are ideas and perceptions, ideas, etc., that are out of bounds that are not potentially criminal, obscene, demonstrate a clear and present danger and/or are copyrighted that are not welcome at A+.
 
I've explained why I think enforcing politeness shuts some people out of the conversation, and people here have explained why they disagree with me.

I don't think you've ever demonstrated that politeness was ever enforced. There's a concept that giving offence can be a banning matter, but the use of obscenities is apparently fine, so this isn't related to politeness at all.
 
The poster doth protest too much, methinks.


If "the poster" to whom you refer is yourself, I would agree. It appears, at least to this disinterested and objective observer, that the poster 'protesting too much' is actually you.
 
I was under the impression that social justice took a lot of time, effort, and money. It's good to know that all you have to do is create a web forum and be rude to people.

And here lies the rub.

I tried to put forward this viewpoint on PZ's blog. I had recently worked with a collegue to identify the reasons behind the prevalence of male management in the large Australian company I was working for. (As it turns out, its just a horrible boys-club run by horrible people, but I digress). The way these things are removed from society is by the sustained effort of many people, not by bitching on a blog about people's use of the word "bitch".

I was told by many people, whose sole effort against sexism was whining on a blog, a whole bunch of crap that culminated in me being told to sodomise myself with various dead animals. Apparently I *wasnt* helping, nor was I helping when I engaged the prime minister of australia in an email exchange about gay marriage. These things don't matter.

What *does* matter is posting on forums. Yessiree.
 
An exceedingly fair point. I invite you to google "street thug" and count the blatantly racist things you see, but I'm not familiar with the words use in other Anglophone cultures.

I did, in order to assess the validity of your point. I found a racehorse, no idea what colour it is though but other than that I came up blank on trying to define street thug as being racialized.

Some more possibly problematic terms

Calling a spade a spade

The word....denigrate.

We could make them racialized if we try hard enough however it would involve a lot of pounding a square peg into a round hole.
 
And here lies the rub.

I tried to put forward this viewpoint on PZ's blog. I had recently worked with a collegue to identify the reasons behind the prevalence of male management in the large Australian company I was working for. (As it turns out, its just a horrible boys-club run by horrible people, but I digress). The way these things are removed from society is by the sustained effort of many people, not by bitching on a blog about people's use of the word "bitch".

I was told by many people, whose sole effort against sexism was whining on a blog, a whole bunch of crap that culminated in me being told to sodomise myself with various dead animals. Apparently I *wasnt* helping, nor was I helping when I engaged the prime minister of australia in an email exchange about gay marriage. These things don't matter.

What *does* matter is posting on forums. Yessiree.
What matters is as much discussion and debate as possible. And let's not forget the power of adversarial debate AKA dialectic.
 
I did, in order to assess the validity of your point. I found a racehorse, no idea what colour it is though but other than that I came up blank on trying to define street thug as being racialized.

Some more possibly problematic terms

Calling a spade a spade

The word....denigrate.

We could make them racialized if we try hard enough however it would involve a lot of pounding a square peg into a round hole.
Let's not forget that David Howard was fired for using the word "niggardly" and Anthony Federico was fired for saying "chink in the armor".
 
Asking someone why they chose a particular phrasing is not a leading question. A leading question is one that suggests its own answer. I was asking because I thought the language sounded off, and I wanted to hear why he chose it. More broadly the goal was to get people to think about their language use. I believe recursive prophet when he says he doesn't believe in the biological reality of race.


You were a bit more specific about the implications of your question, a few pages ago:

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.


As far as I've been able to tell, contrary to Foolmewunz's claims and despite his further claim that any doubt would be silly, "street thugs" is not a common synonym for "gangsta" and is not a very common phrase at all. Besides self-selected proper names, it has no meaning other than the combination of its two words: violence-prone people who are encountered on a street. There is no special definition for the phrase in any online dictionary that I can find, not even Urban Dictionary which is very profligate and up-to-date with phrases and neologisms.

The first two Google links for the phrase are, nonetheless, to Urban Dictionary (those links go to phrases and definitions in the UD that include one or the other word), and the third is for a race horse by that name. (Note: the kind of race where horses try to run faster than other horses, so please refrain from accusations of problematic language there.) The total number of hits for the phrase is about 400,000, which is consistent with it being used from time to time just as "street dog" and "street cat" (over 1 million hits each) are used primarily to describe creatures of the canis and felis varieties that are encountered in the street. For another comparison, the phrase "thug life" -- a phrase that was adopted by ethnic minorities and does have a meaning distinct from the concatenation of its two words -- gets 7.1 million hits.

Now, Foolmewunz's point does have some validity, if applied not to the phrase "street thug" but to the single word "thug" itself. The word is several hundred years old, and originated in India; my sympathy, however, for the Indian victims of this "appropriation" is more than a little tempered by the fact that they were organized cultists practicing cold-blooded murder.

Nonetheless, it is true that in recent decades, in the U.S., some cultures such as the rap music world have adopted the term, as evidenced by (among many other things) the number of Google results for "thug life." That hardly nullifies hundreds of years of more general uses of the word, but it is out there.

Because of this, I'm inclined to forgive qwints for reading the phrase "street thugs" and immediately thinking it was a reference to black people.

However, I have not seen any evidence for the claimed use of the word thug, or phrases containing that word, as a code to secretly signal fellow racists. That claim, furthermore, flirts with being unfalsifiable, if this lack of evidence ends up being offered as evidence of how insidiously secret the alleged dog-whistle code is.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
But there are ideas and perceptions, ideas, etc., that are out of bounds that are not potentially criminal, obscene, demonstrate a clear and present danger and/or are copyrighted that are not welcome at A+.

Absolutely, and I completely agree that this reduces that amount of discussion and debate on atheismplus. I'm glad spaces like this forum exist for such discussion and debate. I also think there's a need for spaces that shut out some voices to allow those marginalized in open forums to be heard. I'd imagine we have quite different views on restrictions on political speech through campaign finance law.

However, I have not seen any evidence for the claimed use of the word thug, or phrases containing that word, as a code to secretly signal fellow racists. That claim, furthermore, flirts with being unfalsifiable, if this lack of evidence ends up being offered as evidence of how insidiously secret the alleged dog-whistle code is.

If your point is that there's no evidence recursive prophet intended to use street thug to subtly make a racist point, I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd agree with you that there's good evidence he didn't. But I disagree that there's no good evidence that "street thug" is used by some bigots to do so. I'd point to Alexander Lamis's The Two-Party South as a good source. Its quotes from Lee Atwater about the Republican southern strategy are direct evidence of dog whistle politics. See also "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant" - an opinion piece from the times in 2005.
 
Last edited:
If your point is that there's no evidence recursive prophet intended to use street thug to subtly make a racist point, I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd agree with you that there's good evidence he didn't. But I disagree that there's no good evidence that "street thug" is used by some bigots to do so. I'd point to Alexander Lamis's The Two-Party South as a good source. Its quote's from Lee Atwater about the Republican southern strategy are direct evidence of dog whistle politics. See also "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant" - an opinion piece from the times in 2005.

So, to recap:
  • You don't think RP was being racist;
  • In fact, you think the evidence is against RP being racist;
  • You've had to fall back on a privileged position of citesplaining, to support any sort of racist interpretation;
  • Which interpretation you now admit was irrelevant all along.

Why did you bring it up, again? If you think RP wasn't being racist, and you agree that nobody else here probably knew or cared about the potential racist connotations, why did you mention it?

Was it simply to provide a clear object lesson in how thoroughly hateful, toxic, and chilling the A+ in-culture actually is?
 
I don't think either the 3 post non-spam requirement or heavy moderation constitute meaningful prior restraint.

The 3 post what now? Who mentioned that? Well I agree, I don't think the completely irrelevant no one has mentioned 3 post minimum requirement IS a big deal.

The hilariously *********** ridiculous, the god damn ***********, *******, *********** over the top gestapo like *********** Nazi style psycho moderation by a bunch of *********** gutter punks? Slightly over the top.

But thanks for *********** posting.

/full disclosure: gutter punk is NOT racist. Oh crap, pointing that out is probably Awesomesplaining.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, and I completely agree that this reduces that amount of discussion and debate on atheismplus. I'm glad spaces like this forum exist for such discussion and debate. I also think there's a need for spaces that shut out some voices to allow those marginalized in open forums to be heard. I'd imagine we have quite different views on restrictions on political speech through campaign finance law.
Thanks for responding. Your idea is interesting but it's not convincing to me.
 
Trying to make society more just does require enormous amounts of collective effort. One very small part of that effort can be creating a web forum. I'd rank posting on the forum somewhat below writing to my representatives in terms of efficacy.

Well, at least you acknowledge that it's a "very small part". But, you do realize that they've described posting on their special place as "Social Justice in Action" in a post in the Let's Ban the Newbs If They Come Here and Complain thread? This was a bit of Plussplaining as to why someone's street cred for having put his/her ass on the line against apartheid didn't amount to anything!

Of course, this was because the person who'd actually done something about injustice was a non-favored poster and the person doing the Plussplaining was a member of the inner sanctum (henceforth know as the Illumi-notty), but it was actually 'splained that the devotees of A+ converse on the forums then apply what they've learned in meatspace... and as it was put in that post... "Social Justice in Action". (Somehow, I think we're supposed to cue up a blare of trumpets at that point.)

I'd imagine that for people who've actually been arrested at sit-ins, hustled black voters around the obstacles created by the racists to keep them from the polls, been beaten on by cops, and been involved in assorted real-world activities, that sort of self-congratulatory crap would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so stomach churning.

Activists act. Applying what one learns on a bully-board by taking a tentative verbal stand against the office misogynist bully may seem like "action' to the weenies on A+, but I'll take Occupy or even the Tea Party more seriously. They actually put their money where their mouths are, whether I agree with them or not.
 
Then hopefully the other moderators will deal with it. We've had at least one moderator step down after pressure from other mods over concerns she was being abusive. But your point is taken - quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Are you talking about maiforpeace?

atheismplus absolutely has problems being US-centric with most of the non-US posters being from Canada or the UK.

But are they working on it? Or are they too busy complaining about being oppressed by the "patriarchy"?

Now that should come with a warning tag!

 
Why did you bring it up, again? If you think RP wasn't being racist, and you agree that nobody else here probably knew or cared about the potential racist connotations, why did you mention it?

First, it wasn't initially clear to me that recursive prophet wasn't intentionally being racist. His eventual response that he doesn't believe in race convinced me it wasn't intentional. That position is wrong, but it's not likely to lead to someone making subtle racist comments.

Second, because talking about the language we use is important. Word choice matters, and we can discuss it without losing the overall point. That overall point - several posters here dislike the amount of cursing at atheismplus - has been plainly made repeatedly. The discussion hinges on distinguishing profanity and passion from abuse, and I think there's a clear consensus that 1) abuse is wrong and should be stopped; and 2) although we disagree about what constitutes abuse, some members have abused others at atheismplus. Finally, we clearly disagree about the need to enforce rules of civility on an internet forum as opposed to focusing on preventing harm.

Finally, I think it's been a great way of making clear different approaches to dealing with the connotations of language. Some posters here seem to think that finding a non-bigoted usage or definition ends the conversation. Others feel that raising the issue is a red herring or a nasty personal attack. I do think there's something to the argument that people overreach and call out language that is neither intended to be nor would come across as harmful but for someone not personally affected seeking the opportunity to be righteously indignant.

I'd imagine that for people who've actually been arrested at sit-ins, hustled black voters around the obstacles created by the racists to keep them from the polls, been beaten on by cops, and been involved in assorted real-world activities, that sort of self-congratulatory crap would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so stomach churning.

I see your point. The reaction to Occupy Atlanta's treatment of John Lewis is instructive. We absolutely should honor people who've worked hard for causes we believe in. I think small efforts and changes are worth celebrating but not at the expense of appropriating others' sacrifices.

@Wildy, Yes I am, and yes, we're working on it.
 
First, it wasn't initially clear to me that recursive prophet wasn't intentionally being racist. His eventual response that he doesn't believe in race convinced me it wasn't intentional. That position is wrong, but it's not likely to lead to someone making subtle racist comments.

Second, because talking about the language we use is important. Word choice matters, and we can discuss it without losing the overall point. That overall point - several posters here dislike the amount of cursing at atheismplus - has been plainly made repeatedly. The discussion hinges on distinguishing profanity and passion from abuse, and I think there's a clear consensus that 1) abuse is wrong and should be stopped; and 2) although we disagree about what constitutes abuse, some members have abused others at atheismplus. Finally, we clearly disagree about the need to enforce rules of civility on an internet forum as opposed to focusing on preventing harm.

Finally, I think it's been a great way of making clear different approaches to dealing with the connotations of language. Some posters here seem to think that finding a non-bigoted usage or definition ends the conversation. Others feel that raising the issue is a red herring or a nasty personal attack. I do think there's something to the argument that people overreach and call out language that is neither intended to be nor would come across as harmful but for someone not personally affected seeking the opportunity to be righteously indignant.



I see your point. The reaction to Occupy Atlanta's treatment of John Lewis is instructive. We absolutely should honor people who've worked hard for causes we believe in. I think small efforts and changes are worth celebrating but not at the expense of appropriating others' sacrifices.

Well, I think you'd certainly be in the minority at FTB or A+. The only person who stood up to the whinge warrior was on the road to banning, I believe, anyway. (Someone who keeps scorecards can correct me if it's significant.) No one else, as we've oft noted, stands up to the b.s.

It's not just the bullying, but the fact that their definitions of reality all change based on the perceptions of the particular privileged poster who's making the claim. The RP lesson is that one with fewer stripes can't claim to be triggered by irrational angry posts if the one making the irrational angry post is part of the Old Xi Network and can trump that claim with being triggered by people refusing to respond to their acrimony.

Be honest if you would (not implying that you're not being honest, but leading into a totally new question from a different slant). You seem to be enjoying a rather free conversation here with a number of people who are rather against your safe harbor, but who do not fly off the handle and make suggestions as to which carnal acts you should go perform on yourself because you support a site that breeches our own requirement of free exchange of ideas and open discussion on just about any topic. Isn't this both more conducive to making progress and getting your message out than hovering in an echo chamber of holier-than-thou sycophants? Isn't the conversation here actually more "enjoyable"?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom