Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Daald]

And since you guys are looking into this again look at this link which has the timeline.

http://theismatheism.blogspot.com/2011/07/elevatorgate-timeline.html

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

"Harlem Shake"? THAT'S NOT COOL.

 

[squealpiggy]

Ah yes. For those who haven't seen it:

http://www.geekquality.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Neil-College-1.jpg

He was pretty fly.

"Harlem Shake"? THAT'S NOT COOL.

Oh my good Lord Vader.

And Gangnam Style was cultural vandalism against the horsey set and chubby dudes in saunas. And Party Rock Anthem was oppressing people who... dress in the dark? Can't figure that out.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Degrasse-Tyson was used as an example during a diversity seminar. You had to guess what job the people in the photographs did and they were varied in race. I immediately said "Oh that's Neil Degrasse-Tyson, he's a physicist".

They should have used his classic disco-pic.

I think it's terribly racist of you to make such a generalized statement about him.





... he's an astrophysicist.

 

[theprestige]

Even though I consider myself a feminist (by the dictionary definition: I support equal rights for women)

Oh SNAPE!

Better check your privilege, and start using the sociological definition!

OR WE WILL BAN YOU.

 

[Brainache]

"Harlem Shake"? THAT'S NOT COOL.

Really? White people have been appropriating popular culture from "PoC"* since Bix Beiderbecke was a baby, is this the first these Plussers have noticed?

*When did this start? People of Colour? Is this supposed to not be offensive? I'm sort of pinkish, does that count?


BTW I was half way through typing this when my Daughter (aged 15) came home from the shops with a present for me. I gave her 20 bucks when she went out with her friend on the condition that she should bring me back something "fun"... What she gave me was this:

I can only imagine the outrage that a "Big Daddy Pimp Cigar" would cause at A+. Apparently it is "A Bling Bling Smoke" and "...Fo' A Pimp That Aint No Joke!".

My Daughter will of course be punished severely for this...

 

[Foolmewunz]

I've heard it said before: There's no such thing as a Socialist worker.

Which is quite funny.

I don't get it. Maybe there's some subtle European nuance in there, what with us having No True Socialists in America, but every socialist I've ever known actually held down at least one job.

Or is this some Limbaugh-ism? They're the takers, not makers? Like I said, I don't get it.

 

[Wildy]

Just spent 15 minutes or so looking into the wacky world of RW, and saw the infamous video for the first time. So regarding what I asked about earlier I now see she did mention his hotel room as the place he was inviting her to.

I still think it's quite suspicious the elevator guy, if he exists, hasn't come forward. Certainly I wouldn't be surprised if a publicity seeker as driven as RW would make up such an encounter to enhance her views and attain more attention. Have any of her opponents asked her to describe this guy and asked about the time it took place? Talked to others who attended?

Dprjones was there and he's admitted to travelling on a lift with RW. The only difference between him and EG is that Watson went to his room.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Really? White people have been appropriating popular culture from "PoC"* since Bix Beiderbecke was a baby, is this the first these Plussers have noticed?

I've been watching tight-assed white kids try to do moves they saw on Soul Train for longer than I care to remember. And most black people have seen the same thing, but I don't know any of the brothers or sisters who took "offense" by it. They just thought it was uproariously funny.

*When did this start? People of Colour? Is this supposed to not be offensive? I'm sort of pinkish, does that count?

It's come full circle. The original expression, back when it was also okay to use the word "negro", was PERSON(s) of color. It was pretty much a standard usage among educated middle class, uh,... persons of color... around the turn of the previous century, up into the Depression, if I'm not mistaken. Since "colored" featured prominently on Jim Crow segregationist signs throughout the south, the shift was to Negro during the 30s to 50s and that, in turn, fell out of favor when Black and then African-American came into fashion. Any number of people who were "of color", though, have pointed out as many whites have pointed out... "I'm neither from Africa, nor actually black...". So there's been a gradual movement back to Persons (or People) of Color. I've seen no one promoting the use of "negro" again, however.

 

[kellyb]

These people can go to hell.
I took my own kids into the actual firezone protesting Wall Street's hegemony. I know what it's like to be staring down a gun. I know what it's like to fear for the life of your kids. I know what it's like to be a brown person demanding citizenship.
The A+ people can go to hell.

 

[Brainache]

I've been watching tight-assed white kids try to do moves they saw on Soul Train for longer than I care to remember. And most black people have seen the same thing, but I don't know any of the brothers or sisters who took "offense" by it. They just thought it was uproariously funny.

That was my impression too, judging by the number of ...er... PoC Comedians making jokes about it.

It's come full circle. The original expression, back when it was also okay to use the word "negro", was PERSON(s) of color. It was pretty much a standard usage among educated middle class, uh,... persons of color... around the turn of the previous century, up into the Depression, if I'm not mistaken. Since "colored" featured prominently on Jim Crow segregationist signs throughout the south, the shift was to Negro during the 30s to 50s and that, in turn, fell out of favor when Black and then African-American came into fashion. Any number of people who were "of color", though, have pointed out as many whites have pointed out... "I'm neither from Africa, nor actually black...". So there's been a gradual movement back to Persons (or People) of Color. I've seen no one promoting the use of "negro" again, however.

It only ever seems to be white people (who, like me, are actually a kind of pinkish light tan colour) who get tied in knots over these terms. I think it's what Larry David calls "Liberal Guilt".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I really don't want to get into an argument about such an old and petty issue, so I'll make this my one post on the matter.

Well, stupid in the sense that it subtly highlights how "privilege" is mostly a phantom issue harped on in lieu of the misogyny it simultaneously tries to parallel itself to, covertly demeaning it...and he does it cynically and without explaining it in handfuls of paragraphs likely because pointing this out typically elicits emotionalism rather than rational discourse.

No, it's stupid because it's saying that you shouldn't complain about something if there are people who have it worse. It's the same argument as "why are the police wasting their time on the theft of milk bottles from people's doorsteps? Haven't they got murderers to catch?" It implies that one can't be wrong because the other is worse, whereas the reality is that both are wrong.

Now, we can debate whether Watson was right to find this approach uncomfortable or not, for sure. I don't think we really have the right to dictate to others how they should feel about such things and my problem with Watson is how she behaved after people had responded to her original video, rather than with the original video itself. But I think people are entitled to disagree with her original video. However, while there are arguments to be made about whether Watson was right or not in her original video, the one that Dawkins made isn't one of them. It's fatuous and dismissive.

And, seriously, you think that Dawkins was being subtle?

 

[Doctor Plop]

The A+ people can go to hell.

Don't you think the people in hell already have enough to put up with?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Thanks for posting it. I hadn't seen it before. So, that was only hours before the encounter with Schrödinger's Elevator Man?



.

Erm.. I already posted this earlier.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8974521&postcount=3465

 

[Mr. Scott]

Erm.. I already posted this earlier.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8974521&postcount=3465

You did! I must have been away for a day or wasn't in a "click the video" mood when you posted it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

A+ is to rationality as Abbot is to Costello

A friend shared the following sketch with me, and I must have thought of the A+ style of argumentation (gaslighting through serial strawmanning) a dozen times.

Are the underpriveleged entitled to strawman the priveleged all they want and to not be called out for it?

When I interact with Aplussers I feel like Lou Costello in this sketch (skip to 3:36 if you're impatient):

 

[squealpiggy]

I think it's terribly racist of you to make such a generalized statement about him.





... he's an astrophysicist.

Hey that OUR WORD man. OUR WORD.

I don't get it. Maybe there's some subtle European nuance in there, what with us having No True Socialists in America, but every socialist I've ever known actually held down at least one job.

Or is this some Limbaugh-ism? They're the takers, not makers? Like I said, I don't get it.

It's a play on the name of the Socialist Worker Party. They're not really much of a party and rather than being socialists per se they tend to be all round professional agitators, willing to protest any cause and provide their own (branded) placards for every occasion. I daresay there's an equivalent in every country. The irony in the name "Socialist Worker" is apparent because they're there in numbers at every midweek protest and it makes you wonder exactly what "Work" these "Workers" actually do.

So there was some graffiti on a Socialist Worker poster in Manchester saying "There's no such thing as a socialist worker" which was a bit funny.

I really don't want to get into an argument about such an old and petty issue, so I'll make this my one post on the matter.



No, it's stupid because it's saying that you shouldn't complain about something if there are people who have it worse. It's the same argument as "why are the police wasting their time on the theft of milk bottles from people's doorsteps? Haven't they got murderers to catch?" It implies that one can't be wrong because the other is worse, whereas the reality is that both are wrong.

Now, we can debate whether Watson was right to find this approach uncomfortable or not, for sure. I don't think we really have the right to dictate to others how they should feel about such things and my problem with Watson is how she behaved after people had responded to her original video, rather than with the original video itself. But I think people are entitled to disagree with her original video. However, while there are arguments to be made about whether Watson was right or not in her original video, the one that Dawkins made isn't one of them. It's fatuous and dismissive.

And, seriously, you think that Dawkins was being subtle?

I don't think Dawkins was responding to Watson's initial comments. I think he was responding to the hysteria following the public castigation of Stef McGraw. I've said this before on this subject, "Guys don't do that" is not a big deal, "I don't think there's anything wrong with guys doing that" is not a big deal, "DISAGREE WITH ME AND YOU'RE PART OF THE PATRIARCHY THAT IS TEARING SKEPTICISM APAAAAART!" is the big deal and it's that which Dawkins was addressing with Dear Muslima.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't think Dawkins was responding to Watson's initial comments. I think he was responding to the hysteria following the public castigation of Stef McGraw. I've said this before on this subject, "Guys don't do that" is not a big deal, "I don't think there's anything wrong with guys doing that" is not a big deal, "DISAGREE WITH ME AND YOU'RE PART OF THE PATRIARCHY THAT IS TEARING SKEPTICISM APAAAAART!" is the big deal and it's that which Dawkins was addressing with Dear Muslima.

Yep. I'm in the middle of a discussion with a couple of people from the local Skeptics group to which I belong. They're aware of the saga, but have only seen parts of it. So, they saw the original, "Guys, don't do that comment", and then they missed a few steps, so they think RW is just a feminist under attack for daring to suggest that men shouldn't corner women in confined spaces to proposition them. Similarly, they've only really seen the original stated aims of A+ (which are reasonable, they're basically just secular humanism), and not the "with us or against us" reaction to, for example, suggestions that tying it to Atheism is not the best idea. I'm not sure I have the stamina to review the whole sequence of events so I can walk them through it next time I see them.

 

[Empress]

A friend shared the following sketch with me, and I must have thought of the A+ style of argumentation (gaslighting through serial strawmanning) a dozen times.

Are the underpriveleged entitled to strawman the priveleged all they want and to not be called out for it?

When I interact with Aplussers I feel like Lou Costello in this sketch (skip to 3:36 if you're impatient):

That was utterly perfect.

 

[Nihilus]

No, it's stupid because it's saying that you shouldn't complain about something if there are people who have it worse.

Actually, it's saying it's disingenuous to suggestively parallel a phantom issue you have with the tangible, serious issue others have in order to make yours seem viable. To presume that a complaint merits attentive coddling merely because it's made is like saying a theistic belief merits intellectual respect just because it is imagined.

It's the same argument as "why are the police wasting their time on the theft of milk bottles from people's doorsteps? Haven't they got murderers to catch?" It implies that one can't be wrong because the other is worse, whereas the reality is that both are wrong.

Because of the fact that "right" and "wrong" are relatively subjective concepts, selective emotional hypochondria can indeed sway the sentiment of how important addressing a particular thing may be. That doesn't mean we should be blind to the reason it seems so, though.

Now, we can debate whether Watson was right to find this approach uncomfortable or not, for sure. I don't think we really have the right to dictate to others how they should feel about such things and my problem with Watson is how she behaved after people had responded to her original video, rather than with the original video itself. But I think people are entitled to disagree with her original video. However, while there are arguments to be made about whether Watson was right or not in her original video, the one that Dawkins made isn't one of them. It's fatuous and dismissive.

Dawkins is always sharply dismissive of the illogical. What about this issue merits different comparison?

And, seriously, you think that Dawkins was being subtle?

I'm not measuring the subtlety of the comparative words, nor the delicacy of the parallel example he used to point out how the original claim works. Underneath all that is the concise, clear demonstration of how "male privilege" metaphorically fuels itself by tossing misogyny into its own furnace.