Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Also: "kyrarichical attitudes". WTF? I guess I need to buy a decoder ring to figure out what these morons are talking about. But I won't. I'll just point and laugh.
Click to expand...

It’s kind of like “X”-splaining. Etymologically the “archy” is an area of dominion or rule while the “Kyri” (or kurios) is the lord or ruler of that domain. Generally not you or your group (as that ruler), so the” kyri” is just a place holder for any “X”-archy that dominates you as opposed to you being one of its rulers. Like a monarchy, plutocracy patriarchy, or (gasp) matriarchy. As I mentioned some while up thread “lord ruler” seems kind of redundant.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy


Sorry for silly redundant word-slpaining
 
The Man said:
It’s kind of like “X”-splaining. Etymologically the “archy” is an area of dominion or rule while the “Kyri” (or kurios) is the lord or ruler of that domain. Generally not you or your group (as that ruler), so the” kyri” is just a place holder for any “X”-archy that dominates you as opposed to you being one of its rulers. Like a monarchy, plutocracy patriarchy, or (gasp) matriarchy. As I mentioned some while up thread “lord ruler” seems kind of redundant.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy


Sorry for silly redundant word-slpaining
Click to expand...

Does anyone get the feeling that the whole A+ thing is a class project for someone to impress their Queer Studies 101 professor?
 
kellyb said:
Not to mention that actual ageism is primarily a problem for older people, not younger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
Click to expand...

Well that's the real rub of it. We as a society restrict the privileges, and even some of the consequences, of the young. Not just because they are young but because when you are young you also tend to make bad or impulsive choices not to mention you might be at greater risk of injury from simple lack of experience. We also as a society restrict the privileges of the elderly for very similar reasons. Again risk of injury though now due to reduced mobility and making bad choices this time due perhaps mental degeneration. Not everyone is on the same time table developmentally or degeneratively. So while saying the group tends this way is not ageist, saying that you must be that way just because of your age is. Certain developments and deterioration of abilities are correlated with age because they progress with age.

That adolescents tend to lack impulse control and long term planing skills based on brain development is not ageist while 'your just too old to speak about being a teenager' is.
 
The Man said:
Besides the apparent disdain for being ‘brain-splained’ (sorry if I’m disdain-splaining here) the whole anti-ageism ageism of that thread was quite bizarre. Apparently as a teenager or near teenager you can speak about being or having been a teenager. However, evidently at some point, due only to your advancing years, you can no longer speak about being a teenager. Despite obviously having been one and perhaps still working with many. Check your youth privileged ageism. I understand that people might not like the idea, particularly when you’re young, that we may tend not make the best decision when we are young but to assert an argument based only on age (‘you’re not a teenager’) while purportedly railing against ageism is the pinochle of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Bizziare, innit ?

Being a teenager is something we all have experience in but if you just have to talk about a marginalized group, then why not make one up to suit the purposes of the conversation.

I'd like to toss in the age of consent to sexual intercourse into that thread.

And of course we have crowd favourite ischemgeek who, at 25 is trying to make some sort of "ageist" argument about being denied long term birth control. The solution to her problem, at least it would be if she lived in the part of Canada that I live in, would to be to find a walk-in clinic with a doctor who'll give her what she wants.

I haven't had a family doctor in 30 years.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I would never join A+ because the "discussion" over there seems completely antithetical to what true skeptical discussion ought to be. There are no sacred cows here at JREF; there are herds of them there.
Click to expand...
It's heads they win tails you lose. You are a man. Your argument is invalid.
 
d4m10n said:
Started to write a comment about that blighted bugger of a bot, but it got out of hand and turned into an entire blog post. My apologies.
Click to expand...
Excellent blog post. Have you seen Hitchens' talk on free speech? He makes the exact same points as you but provides additional examples.

 
Funny thread here.

It started off about PZ denouncing skepticism for treating politics and social issues off-limits. Then it went on to NOMA and whether science determines values. That debate made sense, but what they actually argued about made no sense to me at all.

TW: Buckets of Stop =/
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Funny thread here.

It started off about PZ denouncing skepticism for treating politics and social issues off-limits. Then it went on to NOMA and whether science determines values. That debate made sense, but what they actually argued about made no sense to me at all.

TW: Buckets of Stop =/
Click to expand...

After skimming that thread, I'd like to think that Mr. Samsa would be welcome here, particularly if (as seems likely) he winds up getting banned from A+ for . . . umm . . .

Oh, like they really need a reason for banning
 
d4m10n said:
Started to write a comment about that blighted bugger of a bot, but it got out of hand and turned into an entire blog post. My apologies.
Click to expand...

Don't apologize; it says much of what should be in the A+ 101 ("REAL" 101) guides. Abandon all choice, ye who enter here. The bot is just an extension of their censoring and banning process, which is very sensible to two or three people who have an agenda and then just blindly "Me Too-ed" by everyone else. If you want your social justice fed to you like pablum from "those in the know", then A+ is the place for you.

This really sounds like an updated version of Farenheit 451. Does anyone remember when the fireman (book burner) was explaining (poorly) why and what they were doing as he was putting books in the fire and ended a sentence with something like "... so we burn all the books", and looked wistfully at a copy of Mein Kempf as he tossed it into the blaze, and repeated, "All the books", as if to say, "even great works like this one".

If you look at the list of people they've banned (and the deep thought that went into the process), you can get an idea as to what the blocked list is going to be like. Anyone who pisses one of them off. That'll include Mabuse, but it'll probably also include Dawkins!
 
Myriad said:
Originally: to cause someone to question their own mental health, by means of deception, such as denying hearing something audible so that the other person hearing it must wonder if they're hallucinating.

As used at Atheism+: to attempt to cast doubt on axiomatic dogma by using facts.
Click to expand...

You need to check your privilage and quit methanesplaining.
 
Oh, man. Poor logical A+ poster, daring to rationally, calmly, articulately challenge the PZ-led consensus on the A+ boards. One person banned, thread locked. Poster in question now painted as ableist boogeyman for no reason other than refusal to follow the herd.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3830&start=75


clearly ableist bigot said:
A+ mod said:
so if this is what you're not trying to do, do better at not doing it. start by thinking about why people think that you're supporting the medical model that only defines health as the absence of disease,
Click to expand...


My guess is that someone linked to a comment of mine, without context, in the members area with their own interpretation of it saying, "Look what this ******* is saying", and then people came here to tell me how wrong I am without reading the rest of the thread.

I honestly cannot imagine any other possibility where repeated statements of "I reject X" can be interpreted as "I support X".
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding! I think we have a winner!

See how this works, A+ people/mods? It doesn't take rocket surgeons to figure out how the Inner Party operates.

Oh, and speaking of bannings, thread locking and frozen peaches, I stumbled across this earlier and thought of A+ management:

I am well acquainted with all the arguments against freedom of thought and speech — the arguments which claim that it cannot exist, and the arguments which claim that it ought not to. I answer simply that they don’t convince me and that our civilisation over a period of four hundred years has been founded on the opposite notice.
Click to expand...

If I had to choose a text to justify myself, I should choose the line from Milton:
By the known rules of ancient liberty.
Click to expand...
The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals arc visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice.
Click to expand...

http://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go
 
I don't think this blog has been linked to before - http://takimag.com/article/when_atheists_are_aholes_scott_locklin/

Consider the “A+ movement.” They call themselves “A+” because they’re self-regarding atheists “plus” some other stuff. The A+ “movement” was founded as a result of the debate around the Elevatordammerung, a cataclysm that ensued when a socially inept nerdling asked a cabbage-headed pinup girl for a cup of coffee while in an elevator. The resulting tumult eventually spawned the A+ schism with the part of the “atheist movement” who found this as silly as the rest of the world did.

The A+ sect is effectively a religion. They do not consider themselves to be such, but their superstitions saturate their lives in ways that put ultra-Orthodox Jews to shame. The A+ communion is fanatically Manichaean. They fervently believe that the world is evil and can only be purified by their efforts to bring the world to A+ holiness.
Click to expand...
 
zooterkin said:
I don't think this blog has been linked to before - http://takimag.com/article/when_atheists_are_aholes_scott_locklin/
Click to expand...

an interesting article as it shows how people are already conflating a+ to modern atheism as a way of attacking all atheism. after all, everything he states about a+ is pretty much correct.

to me, it seems the author leaves his entire argument invalid by admitting he is an atheist. and as he is blogging publicly about his views. this makes him the very ahole he is talking about.

from the comments:

"Modern atheism:

1. I don't believe in God. I believe in natural selection.

2. I believe in Equality! No races! No gender!

3. I am clearly a *********** moron."
 
zooterkin said:
I don't think this blog has been linked to before - http://takimag.com/article/when_atheists_are_aholes_scott_locklin/
Click to expand...

This reminds me of this cartoon:

atheists.png


(Note to mods -- link provided by the host specifically for hotlinking)

As an interesting aside when this cartoon was posted over at A+ it was derided as sexist because in a different cartoon the host expressed a preference for "nerd girls". Because being attracted to a "type" is a tool of the patriarchy.
 
kellyb said:
Oh, man. Poor logical A+ poster, daring to rationally, calmly, articulately challenge the PZ-led consensus on the A+ boards. One person banned, thread locked. Poster in question now painted as ableist boogeyman for no reason other than refusal to follow the herd.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3830&start=75
Click to expand...

This is a quote from my favourite and yours, Setar:

"No. What you should have done is used an example that doesn't treat disabilities as diseases, because disabilities aren't diseases."

No, but they are disabilities, some of which can be caused by disease.

This comment came about because Mr Samsa was making a point about how things like "health" or "happiness" are measurable but the value placed upon them is not. He used a video game analogy, basically saying that he likes games that are simple, quick and available on his browser. But some other people like video games that are complex and involved. So which is better, Farmville or WoW? The obvious point being that just as you can measure traits of video games but cannot objectively assign a value according to those traits, so you can measure traits of progressiveness such as health or happiness but cannot assign a value to those traits using empirical means.

The predictable response was to ridicule it for being about video games and demand a real life example. So he gave this example (I'm paraphrasing):

Sequestering and forcefully treating the deaf for their disability will lead to a healthier society. But living under such a society would result in a lower metric for happiness.

So he gets dogpiled for being ableist, despite him stating that such a fascistic society would make him unhappy.

And that led to the ridiculous comment that "disabilities are not diseases", something which is true but not for the reason that Setar thinks it is.

I don't know, you read about scientific advancements in neuro-robotics that allow a quadriplegic woman to use mechanical hands using her thoughts and give her true independence from her disability and while the rest of the world stands in awe of the truly great things that science and technology have achieved the A-Plus crowd will worry about the negative effect this will have on the quadriplegic community.

Also I wish they would pack it in with this "xe" and "hir" business. They're responding to somebody whose user name is Mister Samsa. I think it's probably OK to call him "he".

ETA I read to the end of the thread linked above. Monsieur Samsa has been told to make what he is arguing for clear and to not obfuscate. I know what he's arguing for exactly and at no point does he appear to be disguising his message. Am I that much more intelligent than the posters of A plus, or are they being deliberately obstinate because they feel like they're being challenged?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom