Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
Just to continue the derail.... (might be worthy of a spinoff thread on The Rights and Wrongs of Your Right to Protest, Even Wrongly).

I've been to those demonstrations when people are proposing acts that will draw the ire (and hopefully not the fire) of the "forces of oppression". And I've actually voted in favor of same. There are shades of gray within shades of gray, though.

> We can't get a permit to protest within ten blocks of the hotel where X (pick your representative of the ruling class depending on the era) is speaking? Let's block traffic in midtown so the city "comes to a halt", man! I supported that. I knew I might get arrested*, but the gesture was worth it.
*Didn't. NYC cops after early '67 were some of the most disciplined uniforms we ever faced off against. They were rough during the first Whitehall Street actions, but they got so much bad ink that they treated most demonstrations like a St. Patrick's Day Parade with less drunks.

> Sit-in at a "No colored or indian served" restaurant in Oklahoma? Yep. Got hauled away for that one. And that was the purpose of the sit-in. Get my sweet thirteen year old face on camera being hauled away by cops for the local TV. Does anyone think that sit-ins were actually designed to get a grilled cheese sandwich because we were hungry? No. They were designed to get arrested, get some coverage on the evening news, and TO MAKE A COURT CASE.

> Symbolic "human circle of love around the Pentagon"? Totally illegal, but it was worth doing. Got a night in lock-up for that, too.

> Aged 11, with my mom, staring down the White Citizens' Council and providing a human shield for blacks registering to vote in Metarie Parish. The "law" was writ by those same folks who were trying to block the registration. The WCC, for those who aren't aware, was essentially the fluffy front and head office for the guys who normally went out at night with hoods on (no, not the defensive unit of the Ravens... those other hoods).

> Same Pentagon demonstration.... I mentioned above. I was in a group who threatened to leave the demonstration if anyone so much as vocally supported the idea by one of the crazies that a radical faction should occupy Arlington Cemetery,... and I quote,.... "Yeah, and we could piss on the graves of those ***************** war mongering soldiers buried there!" My protest wasn't nearly so significant as the head of Veterans for Peace who said that he'd send a group ahead..."... to block your entrance, *******!"

So, I'll draw the line at trashing things for trashing things sake, even if it's a symbolic target. ****** around with Arlington would've been counter to everything I believe and that I thought the Anti-War movement stood for. It would be like an atheist proposing to vandalize a church because of its symbolism and how far is that from KKK bombers blowing up churches or schools because of their particular symbolism? But - civil disobedience with a purpose is a legitimate expression IMHO. I mentioned recently that we always thought the funniest thing was calling us Anti-American. We were as patriotic as the guy with the huge flag on his lawn. We just saw our patriotic duty differently, e.g. to get out there and address what was/is wrong.

Like I said,... shades of gray within shades of gray. It's a personal decision and should not be entered into lightly. Would I do it again, in my dotage and having to take care of a wife and kid? Probably not, but I might be in the back rows holding the backpacks and mobile phones of the ones who choose to act.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that without a stated goal a protest is pretty worthless. I can get behind your sit-in because the goal is obviously to highlight the stupidity and injustice of "No Coloreds" or "No Natives" rules, ditto forming part of a human shield to protect the rights of people to vote (though I would object to the wisdom of bringing children along with you to do it). In this case you're protecting the rights of minorities against the actions of others. The human chain around the Pentagon though? What was that for? What was the stated aim? What did it achieve? That is something I would consider a pointless action designed to get someone arrested on camera.

And then you get into actions of violence and intimidation against people not involved in the protest and when police move in you get the falling to the ground and resisting arrest while screaming "I'M NOT RESISTING" because a lot of people don't seem to realise that you don't need to be physically fighting to be resisting arrest. Something as simple as not putting your hands behind your back is enough to get you charges with resisting and to open up legitimate use of force options to the officers.

To drag the derail kicking and screaming back to the topic, it's that sort of behaviour being displayed in the video posted above where somebody was being arrested for spitting on a car after blocking traffic and all of her friends made a big show of pretending to prevent the arrest, again to be able to play a video online claiming unprovoked abuse at the hands of the fascists in uniform.

I think we would probably disagree on this issue for reasons I have no doubt we could justify reasonably and rationally, but I think we probably agree far more than disagree.
 
qwints said:
There's a big difference between saying that the atheismplus forums are moderated poorly or unfairly, and saying that the idea of trying to address social justice through skepticism is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

Addressing social justice with skepticism is not fundamentally flawed. Thinking that you can develop iron-clad, timeless moral truths from skepticism alone, is. You can state that "health care is a human right". You can use all kinds of logical arguments to back up your position. You can use all kinds of scientific studies to back up your position. But you cannot scientifically prove that "health care is a human right".

This is A+'s problem. They see their way as the only one, true way, since they believe they arrived at it thorough skepticism. There is only one Truth, and they've found it...obviously, anyone who thinks differently is a false skeptic! Reasonable people can't disagree. If you disagree, then you are a misogynist, racist, etc. You get this when they criticize people who try to argue with them. They compare it to a creationist arguing about evolution on a biology board, as if any of their arguments or beliefs are as irrefutable as evolution.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
<snip>

This is A+'s problem. They see their way as the only one, true way, since they believe they arrived at it thorough skepticism. There is only one Truth, and they've found it...obviously, anyone who thinks differently is a false skeptic! Reasonable people can't disagree. If you disagree, then you are a misogynist, racist, etc.
Click to expand...

Like how communism was a proven truth in the Soviet Union, so any dissidents were foolish in opposing something so obviously true. Therefore, being a dissident was a sign of mental illness, and people therefore needed treatment (in a secure facility) for their own benefit.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Addressing social justice with skepticism is not fundamentally flawed. Thinking that you can develop iron-clad, timeless moral truths from skepticism alone, is. You can use all kinds of logical arguments to back up your position. You can use all kinds of scientific studies to back up your position. But you cannot scientifically prove that "health care is a human right".
Click to expand...

Sure, but so what? I can't scientifically prove that factually incorrect material (creationism) shouldn't be taught in schools, but I haven't seen any forum threads here condemning the NCSE's advocacy. You can't scientifically prove that pharmacies shouldn't sell worthless medication (homeopathy), but I don't see anyone here condemning the 10:23 campaign. I don't have a problem with organizations that decide, for tactical or other reasons, to refrain from advocating anything and limit themselves to discussing empirical facts. Nor do I disagree that making normative claims require non-scientific reasoning. But what's wrong with combining skeptical analysis of scientific claims with moral reasoning?


***Derail Below***

squealpiggy said:
a lot of people don't seem to realise that you don't need to be physically fighting to be resisting arrest. Something as simple as not putting your hands behind your back is enough to get you charges with resisting and to open up legitimate use of force options to the officers.
Click to expand...

While it's trivially true that officers can use force to arrest a non-compliant sunject, the "charges" would not be well founded in all jurisdictions. For example, in Texas:

Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.
Click to expand...

See e.g. Campbell v. State , 128 SW 3d 662 671 (Tex. App. -- Waco, 2003) ("refusing to cooperate with being arrested does not constitute resisting arrest by force")
 
qwints said:
Sure, but so what? I can't scientifically prove that factually incorrect material (creationism) shouldn't be taught in schools, but I haven't seen any forum threads here condemning the NCSE's advocacy. You can't scientifically prove that pharmacies shouldn't sell worthless medication (homeopathy), but I don't see anyone here condemning the 10:23 campaign. I don't have a problem with organizations that decide, for tactical or other reasons, to refrain from advocating anything and limit themselves to discussing empirical facts. Nor do I disagree that making normative claims require non-scientific reasoning. But what's wrong with combining skeptical analysis of scientific claims with moral reasoning?


***Derail Below***



While it's trivially true that officers can use force to arrest a non-compliant sunject, the "charges" would not be well founded in all jurisdictions. For example, in Texas:



See e.g. Campbell v. State , 128 SW 3d 662 671 (Tex. App. -- Waco, 2003) ("refusing to cooperate with being arrested does not constitute resisting arrest by force")
Click to expand...

According to most cop shows, resisting arrest is usually used to hold someone you don't want to lose for 10/12 hours and then the charges are dropped when they nail you with Murder 1 or determine your innocence.

I don't think Law & Order would just make stuff up, would they?
 
qwints said:
***Derail Below***



While it's trivially true that officers can use force to arrest a non-compliant sunject, the "charges" would not be well founded in all jurisdictions. For example, in Texas:



See e.g. Campbell v. State , 128 SW 3d 662 671 (Tex. App. -- Waco, 2003) ("refusing to cooperate with being arrested does not constitute resisting arrest by force")
Click to expand...

Let's assume that the jurisdiction does allow for use of force to arrest someone who is non-compliant. For example it could be covered by the Criminal Code of Canada. Like the videos being discussed are.

It's also worth pointing out that a wrongful arrest gives you a recourse in the courts. Resisting arrest is pointless, by that point they're not giving up and going away. It's almost like the act of resisting arrest is just to make a big song and dance so that you can claim to be brutalised.
 
Mr. Scott said:
Sasha Wiley-Shaw (aka Creepy Bitter Girl) was arrested at the Vancouver Casserole Protest and complained of police brutality.



(though she reportedly blocked traffic and spat on a car)

I think I know her handle on the A+ forum and on the JREF, unless it's someone else who writes exactly like her and has the same home town.

Sasha is the one near the beginning with the blue scarf:

Click to expand...

I loved it when the (TRIGGER WARNING: Thinsplaining) fat chick hit the ground. :)
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I loved it when the (TRIGGER WARNING: Thinsplaining) fat chick hit the ground. :)
Click to expand...

It was an obvious dive as well. If she was a hockey player she'd get two minutes for embellishment. If she was playing soccer she would get a yellow for simulation. If she was a boxer she would have her purse withheld pending an investigation.

But she fell so that she could later complain that "burly" officers shoved her to the ground while she committed the criminal act of obstructing a peace officer.
 
qwints said:
There's a big difference between saying that the atheismplus forums are moderated poorly or unfairly, and saying that the idea of trying to address social justice through skepticism is fundamentally flawed. There have certainly been mistakes in the way those forums are run, some of which have been addressed on that site and others of which have not.
Click to expand...

I don't know that the idea of addressing social justice issues through skeptical means is fundamentally flawed.

However, the A+ approach to social justice discussions strongly suggests that the mainstream of social justice thinking is poisonous and violently anti-skeptical. Note the prioritization of feelings over facts, and the rejection of science as "gaslighting".

It may be possible for skeptics to address social justice, but that's not what's going on in the A+ movement right now.

It seems to me that the skeptical approach to social justice would be just as painful for SJWs, as the skeptical approach to theism is painful to religionists.
 
qwints said:
There's a big difference between saying that the atheismplus forums are moderated poorly or unfairly, and saying that the idea of trying to address social justice through skepticism is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

But, it isn't unreasonable to say that people who moderate in the manner of A+ moderators are completely flawed in their believe that THEY can address social justice skeptically.
 
qwints said:
There's a big difference between saying that the atheismplus forums are moderated poorly or unfairly, and saying that the idea of trying to address social justice through skepticism is fundamentally flawed. There have certainly been mistakes in the way those forums are run, some of which have been addressed on that site and others of which have not.
Click to expand...

That's what's sad, isn't it?
 
Stout said:
It looks like Setar is getting trolled.

I wonder if the pitters have found his OK Cupid profile yet
Click to expand...

Setar said:
as a matter of fact, you give me ammunition. each bit of anonymous slymepit crap in my askbox equals another astroturfing data point.
Click to expand...

So, bullying = trolling, and trolling = astroturfing? I'm having a hard time keeping up with this...

Also, why does this guy hate capital letters. Has the lower-case proletariat overthrown the evil, upper-case bourgeoisie on his blog?!

Setar said:
well, guess what, buckoes: the Grinch has arrived and your Christmas party of privilege has been stolen. you’d best learn to deal with that in a way that doesn’t involve alternate bizzarro world realities, or accept your place in the corridors of history. your choice, I can’t stop you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, some people will laugh at this, and usually I'd be right along with them. But just now, it struck me as pathetic and sad. Poor guy. He needs a better hobby.

Setar said:
(PS: can’t wait to see you ignore this and put more anonymous crap in my askbox. I’ll be waiting~)
Click to expand...

"Please, please, pay attention to meeeee....."
 
recursive prophet said:
setarelven posted this.... I wondered also Kelly, until I scrolled down to the bottom left and found this.
Click to expand...

It's remotely possible that there's another person into social justice who goes by the name "Setar", but not when they have a bio like this:

Setar said:
hi, I'm a genderqueer socialist atheist with lots of anxiety. nice to meet you. kittens?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom