RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism atheism plus
- Status
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I can't speak for Quinn, but this is a pretty weak argument. Who should have the most say depends on the nature of the issue, the extremity of the effect, the scope of the solution, and the risk from intended and unintended side effects of the solution.
Often the people most emotionally invested in a problem are the least qualified to make a rational contribution to solving it. I offer crimes of passion as but one example.
I would define it broadly and flexibly.
That study probably means that someone is trying to set the a minimum standard for equal opportunity this is overly close to their unreasonably high standard for minimum equal outcome.
There's only a wide spectrum of political positions because even a hair's-breadth deviation from the orthodoxy is treated as a radical departure. The difference between Leninists and Trotskyites only seems wide to Leninists and Trotskyites. To a Democratic Republican--or even a Democratic Socialist--the idea that Leninism-Trotskyism represents a wide political spectrum would be laughably absurd.
Or am I wrong? If I were to really dig deep at the A+ forums, would I find moderate conservatism well-represented? Fiscal conservatism? Social conservatism? Anarcho-liberterianism? Objectivist libertarianism?
Put it another way: What is the most widely divergent political position that you consider to be well-represented on the A+ forums?
It's always OK to care about things.
Cumulative impact leading to a hostile environment never seems to be a consideration when constantly attacking someone for all the slightly offensive things they're supposedly doing.
Why does the Fee-Fee Protection door only ever swing one way?
It's like there is some sort of Maxwell's Fee-Fee Demon, collecting the favored Fee-Fees on one side, and excluding the disfavored Fee-Fees on the other.
Or maybe I should call it Mussolini's Demon, because that's what it really is: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Call it what you like, but let's not kid ourselves that the job is really gender-neutral.
Thanks! I certainly don't loathe myself for my white male privilege. In fact, I rather quite like it. I enjoy its benefits, and take advantage of it every day if I can (and I take it on faith that I'm taking advantage of it even if I'm not consciously aware of doing so). I'm glad to know you--and other reasonable social justice warriors--don't hate me for it. You don't hate me for it, do you?
It depends on your definition of easy.
Are you committed to doing the easy work of just alienating everybody else while you wait for social trends to evolve your way?
Or are you committed to doing the hard work of gradually building acceptance among moderates, to accelerate social evolution.
The [American] Civil War got hundreds of thousands of people killed, in a world that was already evolving towards global abolition. Slavery was on its way out in America, and it would have been a great humanitarian boon if it had happened more gradually, without the horrific bloodshed that ensued because moderates were alienated in the name of doing it the hard way.
Daald
Muse
Then it would be best to go for Atheism#.
That way they are object oriented always run in their own runtime environment. Everything they say must then be reinterpreted to work in the real world
That way they are object oriented always run in their own runtime environment. Everything they say must then be reinterpreted to work in the real world
s_pepys
Muse
- Joined
- May 31, 2010
- Messages
- 761
yes, shes still there. nothing has been mentioned of the evo-psych thing, feminism, social justice and now this conversation with pz meyers.
i do hope they speak out soon regardless of rebeccas wishes. they should be able to disagree on air. assuming she does agree with meyers.
lxxx
bedlin88
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2012
- Messages
- 137
I think your missing Quinn's point they aren't throwing their Hands Up because it's hard they are throwing them up because the people with their "strident pursuit" are nuts.
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
A+ was supposed to be secular humanism, minus white men.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Donna Noble
Student
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 26
There are photos around the internet of Rebecca Watperson looking decidedly pleased to be 'objectified'. That's what I can't stand about these radical feminazis; their general hypocrisy. Youtube's Thunderf00t has a video on the topic.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Re: Atheism Plus
But most of those are pre EG. She was a horrible person the who objectified women horribly with bordello themed parties.
But most of those are pre EG. She was a horrible person the who objectified women horribly with bordello themed parties.
Kochanski
Illuminator
And who ignored or disparaged the objections of WOMEN who spoke up objecting to the theme.
leonAzul
Illuminator
qwints
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 697
The study says nothing about setting a "minimum standard for equal opportunity." It says that employers were less likely to respond to an equally qualified resume if that resume had an African American sounding name than if it had a White sounding name. If it's a general trend that it's harder for equally qualified African American people to get a job, wouldn't that mean that there was not equality of opportunity?
I'm not aware of any social conservatives on the forum. There are fiscal conservatives and anarchists. I'd say most people could be classified as social democrats, greens or socialists. It's certainly true that there's less political diversity than you'd find here.
I would say anarchists, but I'm not well versed enough in that area to accurately classify them.
Calling someone out for doing something offensive is not equivalent to doing something offensive in the first place. Abuse is bad, but saying what you said seems racist isn't abuse.
Not at all.
Transcript
You're right that talk is cheap and that action is hard. You're wrong if you think that changing society requires gently persuading moderates to stop being part of the problem.
Edited by Locknar:
Please do not curse in your posts, or otherwise mask such words to avoide the auto-censor (rule 10). Additionally, added NSFW BCCode tag to video as it contains "adult" language.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,395
I doubt it. Assuming ,and it'a a big "if", they are "part of the problem", without taking those that identify with the middle ground with you , it's highly unlikely any significant political change or social progress is possible.
-
Last edited:
Joe Random
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 3,447
I'm curious how A+ers would reconcile this statement by Jen McCreight :
with the unfettered, rabid dog pile actually seen on the A+ forums in many of the discussions linked in this very thread. Especially the Backpack Girl incident, and this little gem : http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3733 , where posters and moderators decide that, in a forum which expects trigger warnings for RickRolls, a 'dont' dogpile' rule would be unworkable.
It seems to me that the Plusers simply define any question that doesn't start off in lock-step with the A+ opinions (or worse yet, fails to use the proper neologisms) as 'illegitimate'. This then opens the doors to Fair Game people, a la Scient*logy.
Seriously? Demanding trigger warnings for a RickRoll is reasonable, but asking the Inner Circle to stop flinging abuse at someone for wanting to gather information on a subject that doesn't happen to involve Setar isn't workable?
(http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/responding-to-common-misconceptions-about-atheism/)
with the unfettered, rabid dog pile actually seen on the A+ forums in many of the discussions linked in this very thread. Especially the Backpack Girl incident, and this little gem : http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3733 , where posters and moderators decide that, in a forum which expects trigger warnings for RickRolls, a 'dont' dogpile' rule would be unworkable.
It seems to me that the Plusers simply define any question that doesn't start off in lock-step with the A+ opinions (or worse yet, fails to use the proper neologisms) as 'illegitimate'. This then opens the doors to Fair Game people, a la Scient*logy.
Seriously? Demanding trigger warnings for a RickRoll is reasonable, but asking the Inner Circle to stop flinging abuse at someone for wanting to gather information on a subject that doesn't happen to involve Setar isn't workable?
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
This is the argument that I've been making. Randi, or the JREF, does not start out with the presumption that there is one truth and everyone who does not understand needs to be sent to a reeducation camp. It might be maddening at times but a truther or psychic comes to this forum with the same standing as anyone else.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's funny because it's true.
Edited by LashL:
Edited to properly mask profanity in quote.
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
You said, "[t]he cumulative impact of a lot of slightly offensive things can create a hostile environment."
Which I agree with. For example, "calling someone out for doing something offensive". Do that a lot, and the cumulative effect is to create a hostile environment.
As to whether or not it's abusive, I don't think that's for you to say. Obviously if the person you're calling out feels abused by your constant accusations of (accidental or apparent) racism, it's not your privilege to say you're not abusing them.
This leads us right back to Mussolini's Demon.
I get the impression that people from various forums are monitoring this thread, so I'm going to post this here, in response to the blog post exchanges between PZ Myers and Steve Novella.
Welcome to the Common Ground.
Congratulations on finding your way here! Now that you've arrived, we invite you to look around and get acquainted.
As you do so, however, there are some things we'd like you to keep in mind. Unfortunately, not all of the things you might have expected or hoped for when you sought out the Common Ground will necessarily turn out to be true. Experience has shown that it's better to begin your visit here with realistic expectations, rather than become disappointed later. Therefore, we encourage all newcomers to familiarize themselves with the following facts:
The Common Ground is not as large as your personal ground.
This is an inevitable result of the way the Common Ground is defined: as a set of ideas a group of people, who do not agree on everything, do agree on. Consequently, there are things that you would agree with, that others who share the Common Ground would not agree with, and hence are not part of the Common Ground. The Common Ground is therefore a proper subset of, and thus necessarily smaller than, the totality of all you embrace.
It might appear that this should go without saying, but surprisingly often, it does not, and becomes a source of intense frustration. Upon discovering that some favorite idea of theirs is not part of the Common Ground, some people declare the Common Ground too small and stifling to inhabit. That's quite all right, as long as that's as far as the objection goes. If the Common Ground is not for you, then go in peace, to the insular enclave or contested battlefield of your choice. The Common Ground can still be an excellent starting point, and is rarely the destination anyhow.
The Common Ground is crowded.
We've shown that the Common Ground is small, precisely because it is shared by many people who do not agree on everything. Consequently, inevitably, the Common Ground is also crowded.
That makes it very difficult to stand out here. If you're seeking attention, to make a name for yourself, to add distinction to your resume or drama to your life, you will probably not be satisfied with the results you'll get in the Common Ground. Again, if those are what you're looking for, you will probably have to look elsewhere.
The Common Ground is under no obligation to awaken to your (or another's) clarion call.
Failure to anticipate either or both of the previous two facts can have, for some people, unfortunate consequences. A typical scenario is that someone becomes disillusioned over the failure of the Common Ground to immediately annex their personal cause (in other words, at being denied immediate effortless victory over those who disagree), and then becomes further offended when complaints about their disappointment attract little attention in our crowded milieu.
All too often, the result is toxic embitterment. Toxically embittered individuals feel the need not only to depart the Common Ground (as anyone is always welcome to do), but to attack it. Embittered people will mistake the Common Ground for the enemy, and try to discredit it, to poison it or strafe it, to make it uninhabitable. Usually they attempt to do this by shaming or slandering its occupants as dead weight, reactionaries, traitors, or worse. That dreary declaration of war against the Common Ground, "If you're not with us you're against us," is heard daily from every direction.
Hearing this can be alarming, in turn, to those newcomers who do find the Common Ground congenial and would regret its loss. Do not worry. No one can remove you from the Common Ground against your will. Those who have spent time here generally find that the bitter ideologues' shrill condemnations of the Common Ground fade into the background noise. Even those who do go off following someone's clarion call can be, and usually are, welcomed back later.
Meaningful change means expanding the Common Ground.
On every border of the Common Ground, you will find contested or contestable ground, where disagreement exists. The only thing that expands the Common Ground is turning that disagreement into agreement, and only turning disagreement into agreement represents meaningful change or progress. Schisms and purges, retreats to isolated enclaves, scapegoating and shaming, may occasionally be justified or necessitated by short-term tactical circumstances, but in and of themselves they are all losses, not gains. As your opening move or your preferred strategy, they will doom you to failure.
As difficult as expanding the Common Ground is, there are many ways to do it. But the most effective way, judging from history, is to work from inside the Common Ground outward. The key is to identify underlying principles already agreed upon, and apply them in new ways to matters not yet agreed on.
Remember, the Common Ground is crowded, and not glamorous. But if you can accept that, it's a perfectly valid place to work toward change. The person casting the five millionth yes vote in a referendum will not become famous, but might well be the vote that passes it. That person is the hero of the Common Ground, not to be scorned for having taken so long, but sought and embraced and celebrated.
Thank you for visiting the Common Ground! We hope that keeping the points above in mind will help make your stay a pleasant and productive one.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Welcome to the Common Ground.
Congratulations on finding your way here! Now that you've arrived, we invite you to look around and get acquainted.
As you do so, however, there are some things we'd like you to keep in mind. Unfortunately, not all of the things you might have expected or hoped for when you sought out the Common Ground will necessarily turn out to be true. Experience has shown that it's better to begin your visit here with realistic expectations, rather than become disappointed later. Therefore, we encourage all newcomers to familiarize themselves with the following facts:
The Common Ground is not as large as your personal ground.
This is an inevitable result of the way the Common Ground is defined: as a set of ideas a group of people, who do not agree on everything, do agree on. Consequently, there are things that you would agree with, that others who share the Common Ground would not agree with, and hence are not part of the Common Ground. The Common Ground is therefore a proper subset of, and thus necessarily smaller than, the totality of all you embrace.
It might appear that this should go without saying, but surprisingly often, it does not, and becomes a source of intense frustration. Upon discovering that some favorite idea of theirs is not part of the Common Ground, some people declare the Common Ground too small and stifling to inhabit. That's quite all right, as long as that's as far as the objection goes. If the Common Ground is not for you, then go in peace, to the insular enclave or contested battlefield of your choice. The Common Ground can still be an excellent starting point, and is rarely the destination anyhow.
The Common Ground is crowded.
We've shown that the Common Ground is small, precisely because it is shared by many people who do not agree on everything. Consequently, inevitably, the Common Ground is also crowded.
That makes it very difficult to stand out here. If you're seeking attention, to make a name for yourself, to add distinction to your resume or drama to your life, you will probably not be satisfied with the results you'll get in the Common Ground. Again, if those are what you're looking for, you will probably have to look elsewhere.
The Common Ground is under no obligation to awaken to your (or another's) clarion call.
Failure to anticipate either or both of the previous two facts can have, for some people, unfortunate consequences. A typical scenario is that someone becomes disillusioned over the failure of the Common Ground to immediately annex their personal cause (in other words, at being denied immediate effortless victory over those who disagree), and then becomes further offended when complaints about their disappointment attract little attention in our crowded milieu.
All too often, the result is toxic embitterment. Toxically embittered individuals feel the need not only to depart the Common Ground (as anyone is always welcome to do), but to attack it. Embittered people will mistake the Common Ground for the enemy, and try to discredit it, to poison it or strafe it, to make it uninhabitable. Usually they attempt to do this by shaming or slandering its occupants as dead weight, reactionaries, traitors, or worse. That dreary declaration of war against the Common Ground, "If you're not with us you're against us," is heard daily from every direction.
Hearing this can be alarming, in turn, to those newcomers who do find the Common Ground congenial and would regret its loss. Do not worry. No one can remove you from the Common Ground against your will. Those who have spent time here generally find that the bitter ideologues' shrill condemnations of the Common Ground fade into the background noise. Even those who do go off following someone's clarion call can be, and usually are, welcomed back later.
Meaningful change means expanding the Common Ground.
On every border of the Common Ground, you will find contested or contestable ground, where disagreement exists. The only thing that expands the Common Ground is turning that disagreement into agreement, and only turning disagreement into agreement represents meaningful change or progress. Schisms and purges, retreats to isolated enclaves, scapegoating and shaming, may occasionally be justified or necessitated by short-term tactical circumstances, but in and of themselves they are all losses, not gains. As your opening move or your preferred strategy, they will doom you to failure.
As difficult as expanding the Common Ground is, there are many ways to do it. But the most effective way, judging from history, is to work from inside the Common Ground outward. The key is to identify underlying principles already agreed upon, and apply them in new ways to matters not yet agreed on.
Remember, the Common Ground is crowded, and not glamorous. But if you can accept that, it's a perfectly valid place to work toward change. The person casting the five millionth yes vote in a referendum will not become famous, but might well be the vote that passes it. That person is the hero of the Common Ground, not to be scorned for having taken so long, but sought and embraced and celebrated.
Thank you for visiting the Common Ground! We hope that keeping the points above in mind will help make your stay a pleasant and productive one.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
To be fair here, Rebecca has changed her view on quite a few things. Most of those pictures that I have seen of her used to point out inconsistant actions are not recent and do not reflect her current point of view on how she or anybody else should behave.
But that does not mean that she is consistant in her current behavior either. Current Rebecca and pre-TAM 8 Rebecca would probably spend a lot of time arguing with each other if they were both present at the same time.
ETA: Also the old Rebecca would probably have been banned at A+ faster than most people.
- Status