Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Jalok]

Didn't Stephen Pinker write about how the idea of "change your language, change your thinking" is putting the cart before the horse? I'd have to go and reread his books, but I could swear that he did in deed say that...Blank Slate, I think.

<Wants to join the fun>

There you go again with your linear thinking privilege. This Pinker fellow is obviously old and out-of-date with current thinking.

As Schrödinger's Cart shows: you can place the cart before the horse, the cart after the horse, the cart upon the horse, but you can not say definitively which approach is correct until the cart reaches the faire; at which point the Warglebargle Field collapses.

jalok

 

[qwints]

Didn't Stephen Pinker write about how the idea of "change your language, change your thinking" is putting the cart before the horse? I'd have to go and reread his books, but I could swear that he did in deed say that...Blank Slate, I think.

I don't know. There's a lot that's been written on the effects of switching to gender-neutral language, but I can't seem to find any good experimental data suggesting that one person changing their language affects their thinking.

 

[d4m10n]

I love this vital Atheist movement that took off in the 60s with Madalyn Murray O'Hair^WP, who one could call the Hitchens of her time. I hate to see it poisoned by a cloistered group of people who seem to be mentally ill. The enemies of Atheism are having a field day mining their bizarre remarks.

I'd love to see a few examples of this happening. I've been tuning out the enemies of atheism (champions of theism) for some time now, outside of the political arena.

 

[theprestige]

Do those words have different meanings within the gay community? Does "queen" imply someone who prefers the feminine role, for example?

It's a lot more complex and nuanced than that. "Queen" implies a gay subculture archetype (or stereotype--gay people can be bigoted people, too) that may exhibit traits that would be considered "feminine" by naive straight people.

But really, at that point the heteronormative concepts of "masculine" and "feminine" are already out the window.

Once you allow that men smooching on men is perfectly cromulent, who's to say that acting a certain way is girly, or just another way of being manly?

 

[squealpiggy]

It's a lot more complex and nuanced than that. "Queen" implies a gay subculture archetype (or stereotype--gay people can be bigoted people, too) that may exhibit traits that would be considered "feminine" by naive straight people.

But really, at that point the heteronormative concepts of "masculine" and "feminine" are already out the window.

Once you allow that men smooching on men is perfectly cromulent, who's to say that acting a certain way is girly, or just another way of being manly?

You mean "acting a certain way is cisgendered feminine as insisted upon by the patriarcy or just another way of being cisgendered heteronormative masculine as insisted upon by the partiarchy".

 

[jhunter1163]

It's a lot more complex and nuanced than that. "Queen" implies a gay subculture archetype (or stereotype--gay people can be bigoted people, too) that may exhibit traits that would be considered "feminine" by naive straight people.

But really, at that point the heteronormative concepts of "masculine" and "feminine" are already out the window.

Once you allow that men smooching on men is perfectly cromulent, who's to say that acting a certain way is girly, or just another way of being manly?

So by banning these terms you're taking away words that the gay community uses to identify chosen roles within the culture? Got it. Nice work, A-Plussers. Everyone gets a trophy.

 

[Foolmewunz]

So by banning these terms you're taking away words that the gay community uses to identify chosen roles within the culture? Got it. Nice work, A-Plussers. Everyone gets a trophy.

Not really - I saw no one there discussing banning "queen" or "queer" or "gay", just homosexual, homosexuality, male, female.

And to add to The Prestige's answer,... "It depends..."

Purely anecdotal, of course, but I've seen a closeted bear referred to as a "musty old queen". In casual conversation, especially mixed gay/straight, they'll often throw out any old term, largely as sarcasm. But if you're ever in a serious conversation with them, they will use the separate terminology. Butch has a meaning; as does bear; as does queen; as does twinkie; etc.... Hell, probably just to piss off A+, they'll also throw about "fag", "faggot" and "homo".

And that friend I mentioned who's a bit of an activist? He takes on the gay/bi community on using those sorts of terms because he's dead serious about it all and thinks they help ghetto-ize the gay/bi/trans community. He claims that most of his buddies agree when pushed for an answer, but mostly can't be bothered. I'd send him over to A+, but his details would probably break the database. He's a dyed in the wool Catholic Gay Activist.

ETA: faggot - - testing
I wasn't sure if it was a forbidden word, and I remember something from some forum where putting a forbidden word in quotation marks got you around the auto-censor, so wanted to test.

 

[theprestige]

In the gay circles I've run in, "fag" and "faggot" were about equally accepted as neutral descriptors, hateful pejoratives, and honored titles. It all depended on context.

But.

Back to the A+ forums. The objective of the game, the thing that scores the most points, is ignoring the actual context, and inventing a new context in which some arbitrary word gives offense to some arbitrary victim group, and then taking the speaker to task for using that word.

There's a thread at A+ (I can't be arsed to find it at the moment) where someone, in good faith, offers Native Americans as an example of a minority group wrongfully oppressed in some way meaningful to SJWs.

This is promptly followed by a derail from a bona fide Native American, incensed that someone would dare use his personal experience as an instructional/argumentational resource.

This is the problem with the A+ forums. They're not about advancing the discussion, they're about finding excuses to silence debate. That's really what the 101-301 divide is about. It's not about facilitating advanced conversations, it's about banning anyone who doesn't agree with the accepted orthodoxy.


"301" really just means "agrees with ceepolk". And "101" really just means "shut up or we will ban you".

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'd love to see a few examples of this happening. I've been tuning out the enemies of atheism (champions of theism) for some time now, outside of the political arena.

I tune out to them, too, but as a result of this thread I notice google takes Elevatorgate searches straight to Conservapeda. Otherwise, I've pretty much taken others' word for this, but we are monitored by conservapedia and you can find references to these disputes in their column Atheist factions.

 

[Wildy]

It seems that KenDoll found something about atheism that he could write about that doesn't involve clowns or other insane "satires".

 

[jhunter1163]

faggot - - testing
I wasn't sure if it was a forbidden word, and I remember something from some forum where putting a forbidden word in quotation marks got you around the auto-censor, so wanted to test.

Both "fag" and "faggot" are within the rules here.

[/derail]

 

[zooterkin]

Harriet Hall has commented on the ructions.

It boggles the mind that someone like Dr Hall can be accused of not being a feminist.

Some interesting comments, plus some from RW making it all about her, as usual.

 

[Zelenius]

Harriet Hall has commented on the ructions.

It boggles the mind that someone like Dr Hall can be accused of not being a feminist.

Some interesting comments, plus some from RW making it all about her, as usual.

I was lurking on that thread yesterday and was shocked to see RW make an appearance. RW and crew still can't forgive Dr Hall for the heretical T-shirt. Her "analogy" of Dr Novella wearing a "I am not a skepdoc, I am a skeptic" T-shirt at a conference causing Dr Hall to get offended was laughably pathetic. And what condescension!

The attacks on Dr Hall for being "inaccurate" in her describing the sexual differences between men and women are pathetic. One A-plusser in the SBM thread keeps harping on Dr Hall's alleged "inaccuracies" all because she didn't account for transsexuals, which could potentially dehumanize them they claim.

Do these crazies have any idea how obnoxious they sound? I thought grammar nazis were insufferable, but these A-plusers who police everyone's language to such unhealthy extremes are beyond the pale. I find it impossible to tell the difference between A-plussers and a person doing a parody of them. No, a parody can't do justice to them, the parody would look fake because of how it isn't extreme or exaggerated enough.

I am an admirer of Dr Hall and all she has done and hate seeing her time wasted dealing with these ultra-PC idiots who should find something more constructive to do with their time. Dr Hall is one of the brightest stars in the entire skeptic movement, it's disturbing to see her getting attacked so pointlessly, and relentlessly by those who are either peripheral to skepticism or at best inhabit the sewers of the skeptical movement. While she can defend herself, I really wish she didn't have to waste her time doing so.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Shermer, Novella, Grothe, Drescher, Hall,
All far from perfect and not beyond criticism, I'm sure, but I expect they will continue to have their statements misconstrued and picked over with a particular vigour by some , while others equally vocal but not associated with the JREF or TAM , won't.

Pure coincidence of course.

 

[squealpiggy]

Harriet Hall has commented on the ructions.

It boggles the mind that someone like Dr Hall can be accused of not being a feminist.

It's simple. When Harriet Hall encountered resistance, misogyny and bigotry she confronted it head on and forced the mainstream to acknowledge her ability and zeal.

To the A-Plus crowd it seems that the taking of any actual action to counter prejudice is a betrayal because by actually tackling oppression head on you're minimizing the argument that you shouldn't have to.

An example I see frequently in reference to "rape culture" is when somebody suggests that you don't walk home alone, avoid deserted areas, don't get too drunk and be aware of your surroundings at all times. This is met with howls of indignation because women "shouldn't have to" go out of their way to be safe.

I agree. They shouldn't have to. But they do have to.

Feminists who insist they be accepted through the force of their own will and ability cause all sorts of problems for the shouldn't have to types who hide on their Social Justice message boards complaining about how unfair it all is.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Dr Hall is one of the brightest stars in the entire skeptic movement, it's disturbing to see her getting attacked so pointlessly, and relentlessly by those who are either peripheral to skepticism or at best inhabit the sewers of the skeptical movement. While she can defend herself, I really wish she didn't have to waste her time doing so.

Dr. Hall's attackers are unwilling to face the fact that it's their own mediocrity that's holding them back, not persecution from the stars of the movement nor an unwelcoming environment for the underprivileged.

I call it the American Idol Syndrome, where losers protect their egos by blaming the judges.

It's also related to the Dunning-Kruger effect^WP.

 

[theprestige]

Dr. Hall does a much better job of describing and arguing against the balkanization of the skeptic community than I ever could.

And then, in the comments, we have this masterful summation:

I guess I was totally mistaken to have believed that the goal is a society that recognizes that we are all part of the community of humans, that takes us as we come and values us by our character and our contributions, that works to assure a valued place for everyone.

Now I’ve learned that the unifier is not our shared humanity but the tiny, miserable differences that must be carefully noted and acknowledged and woe be to those who fail to frame that acknowledgment with exactly the right nouns and adjectives.

Is this where the quest for social equality has taken us? Really?

That's the $64,000 question, right there.

 

[Zelenius]

Dr. Hall's attackers are unwilling to face the fact that it's their own mediocrity that's holding them back, not persecution from the stars of the movement nor an unwelcoming environment for the underprivileged.

I call it the American Idol Syndrome, where losers protect their egos by blaming the judges.

It's also related to the Dunning-Kruger effect^WP.

Well, I think you are mostly right, except that they are losers who are incapable of achieving the status of mediocrities.

Great analogy with American Idol BTW.

 

[tsig]

Harriet Hall has commented on the ructions.

It boggles the mind that someone like Dr Hall can be accused of not being a feminist.

Some interesting comments, plus some from RW making it all about her, as usual.

518 words ~25 of them are "I".

Love the closing:


I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.

So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.


IOW I'm taking time to notice you to tell you you're below my notice.

 

[qwints]

An example I see frequently in reference to "rape culture" is when somebody suggests that you don't walk home alone, avoid deserted areas, don't get too drunk and be aware of your surroundings at all times. This is met with howls of indignation because women "shouldn't have to" go out of their way to be safe.

I agree. They shouldn't have to. But they do have to.

So the fact that they have to is a bad thing. What's wrong with saying that it is, in fact, a bad thing?

Now I’ve learned that the unifier is not our shared humanity but the tiny, miserable differences that must be carefully noted and acknowledged and woe be to those who fail to frame that acknowledgment with exactly the right nouns and adjectives.

Vive la différence. I fail to see the tension in recognizing our shared humanity in all of its diverse forms and expressions.