Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[adamwho]

The Wikipedia issue is just another example of confusing opportunity with outcome.

Every person with access to an internet connection has the opportunity. The fact that some groups don't have the same participation levels (outcome) has nothing to do with bias. If anything, the wiki example falsifies their hypothesis.

They keep making the same thinking errors over and over.

Does anybody else get the impression that if they were in charge they would hinder, cripple and discriminate until every person had exactly the same interests, talents, abilities and motivation?

 

[rustypouch]

The Wikipedia issue is just another example of confusing opportunity with outcome.

Every person with access to an internet connection has the opportunity. The fact that some groups don't have the same participation levels (outcome) has nothing to do with bias. If anything, the wiki example falsifies their hypothesis.

They keep making the same thinking errors over and over.

Does anybody else get the impression that if they were in charge they would hinder, cripple and discriminate until every person had exactly the same interests, talents, abilities and motivation?

Pity that no one has invented some sort of garment which would obscure the wearer. Something so that they would only be judged on their words and actions, rather than any easily discernible physical characteristic. It might be something to look into to reduce prejudice.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

oh and wikipedia has now apparently joined the ranks of jref, reddit etc...


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/16/i-support-the-toofew-project/

Wow, some of these comments are a laugh riot!

Ah yes, Wikipedia. I used to be a fairly active contributor – I started their article on the game series Ecco the Dolphin and defended it from trolls. Lots of contributions to the stuff I was interested in – videogames and cartoons, mostly, with a few animals.

Eventually got very fed up with the politics and gave up contribution beyond the very occasional spelling correction after one too many ridiculous battles. The final straw was a debate over whether use the pronoun “he” or “it” when referring to a captive male specimen of a recently-extinct species.

Yeah, because idiots who have protracted arguments over which pronouns to use are so very annoying, right?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Could I have a show of hands of people who "bend over backwards to exonerate Christianity-motivated hate crimes." ?

Nobody ?

Could I have a show of hands of people who "bend over backwards to exonerate Christianity-motivated hate crimes." ?

Nobody ?

Nobody here, no. But on some communities, any mention of radical Christian activities causes a dogpile of apologists to proclaim that's only the bad Christians, most Christians are good people, in fact atheists are just as bad, etc. I'm thinking of the Atheism group on Reddit, here.

I've come to the sad conclusion that, just like any other minority, there are also self-hating atheists.

 

[Stout]

Nobody here, no. But on some communities, any mention of radical Christian activities causes a dogpile of apologists to proclaim that's only the bad Christians, most Christians are good people, in fact atheists are just as bad, etc. I'm thinking of the Atheism group on Reddit, here.

I've come to the sad conclusion that, just like any other minority, there are also self-hating atheists.

Interesting, I've never seen that in action. I'll go have a looksee at Reddit later on. I agree with most Christians are good people idea as are most Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, yada yada.

I wouldn't doubt there are self hating atheists. I wore the agnostic mantle for years before finally admitting to myself that that was kind of ridiculous. I knew skydaddy was fiction yet could understand why people felt the need to believe that there was/were higher power(s). One being, of course the desire to live "forever", another being the need to have help in making decisions.

Then there's the sense of community that religion brings. I just spent time with a group that had organized themselves for a mission, raised the money, booked time off work and spent their holidays doing good works. The topic of religion and my relationship to it never came up however I did learn that it's not a good idea to criticize country music to people from Texas.

It's my understanding that a lot of atheists, especially the so called "angry atheists" are rebelling against a religious upbringing. An upbringing I was, thankfully, spared.

I don't want to see any laws restricting the God hates fags guy however I might just show up in a pair of leather chaps and go all disco in front of him.

 

[adamwho]

Originally Posted by adamwho View Post
The Wikipedia issue is just another example of confusing opportunity with outcome.

Every person with access to an internet connection has the opportunity. The fact that some groups don't have the same participation levels (outcome) has nothing to do with bias. If anything, the wiki example falsifies their hypothesis.

They keep making the same thinking errors over and over.

Does anybody else get the impression that if they were in charge they would hinder, cripple and discriminate until every person had exactly the same interests, talents, abilities and motivation?

Pity that no one has invented some sort of garment which would obscure the wearer. Something so that they would only be judged on their words and actions, rather than any easily discernible physical characteristic. It might be something to look into to reduce prejudice.

I have long suspected that many of the oppressive customs against women in religion and elsewhere were well meaning but misguided attempts to 'protect women'. The irony is that the atheism+ and religious fanatics have the same goals and.... the probably similar outcomes if they had their way.

Imagine a world were women were treated as adults...

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I have long suspected that many of the oppressive customs against women in religion and elsewhere were well meaning but misguided attempts to 'protect women'. The irony is that the atheism+ and religious fanatics have the same goals and.... the probably similar outcomes if they had their way.

Imagine a world were women were treated as adults...

I actually knew a gender feminist who supported wearing burqas. The way she saw it, it was the mission of feminism to teach men not to rape. Since feminism hadn't been able to reach those radical Muslim societies yet, it was too dangerous for those women to quit wearing burqas. She, just like the fundamentalist Muslims, feared that if the men were tempted by naked female flesh, they would run about raping with wild abandon.

 

[adamwho]

An apropos song about social justice warriors....


"The Trees" (Rush)

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

 

[recursive prophet]

I've come to the sad conclusion that, just like any other minority, there are also self-hating atheists.

Interesting point. I might even be one. But I'm certain my atheism plays no causal role, and I kind of doubt there are very many who's self hatred is created by their atheism.

Been having some troublesome thoughts lately wrt my own level of actual privilege and comparatively sexist beliefs and actions going back a few decades. I worry we are throwing the proverbial baby under the bus and not addressing adequately the actual problems we face in crossing the gender gap. Meanwhile lets not forget it's the females that have saved us from a total cave in to a Republican plutocracy.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Yes, I should have said I have no problem with that aspect of it. I think it is quite likely that women are, in fact, under-represented among wikipedia editors, and I welcome efforts to address that. I would, though, like to see how the 15% figure was arrived at, and, as rustypouch says, it would be good to see the chain of reasoning that led to the conclusion that it was a result of sexism.

This may be where the figure comes from, though it's a year or more old.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/27/nine-out-of-ten-wikipedians-continue-to-be-men/

 

[Doctor Plop]

I would welcome the introduction of burqas into western society; provided they are only worn by pale, fat, ugly, moustachioed feminists. So I'm no longer forced to so irreversibly witness them bending over the tubs in the wholefood shop window.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I would welcome the introduction of burqas into western society; provided they are only worn by pale, fat, ugly, moustachioed feminists. So I'm no longer forced to so irreversibly witness them bending over the tubs in the wholefood shop window.

As long as we're not putting burkahs on humanists. Am I allowed to have a crush on Cristina Rad?

http://www.google.co.th/imgres?imgu...VFUffGFMmPrgfO0oGICA&ved=0CEoQ9QEwBQ&dur=8509


No! That would be wrong, Foolmewunz! You'll never become an A+ Illumi-Notty!

 

[luchog]

Blackburn's response to Sokal's Hoax.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything. There's no real support for Post-Modernism here, or much of anything for that matter. He doesn't have anything substantial to say about either one. It's just a sort of vague "Science is right about facts, but what really matters is 'truth'. aka, how we feel about things." He seems to be applauding the puncturing of the Post-Modernist balloon, while at the same time saying that Sokal wasn't very nice about it; oh, and some scientists are really awful people. I really fail to see what the point of any of that was.

Luchog, I've noticed that you seem to be quick to label things and dismiss them. How would you feel about similar behavior from a "SJW?"

You mean, like SJWs dismissing people by slapping them with labels like "racist", "sexist", or "privileged"? Hrm... I wonder how I feel about that.

The Post-Modern origins of the modern Social Justice movement (as opposed to the religious origins of pre-Civil Rights Era social justice efforts) are well established; and the rhetoric is effectively identical. Even a cursory examination of the most recent schools of Feminism, aka "Third-Wave", show a clear influence of PM though, most notably the anti-intellectualism, the emphasis on personal feelings and experiences over empirical data (and the outright denigration of empiricism), and the lack of the sort of focus and goals that First- and Second-Wave Feminism espoused. The origin point of Third-Wave Feminism, Rebecca Walker's "Becoming the Third Wave" reads like a primer on Post-Modernist Social Justice philosophy. First-Wave Feminism was founded strongly on women's sufferage and ending discriminatory legislation that gave preferential treatment to men in areas of child rearing, divorce, and property rights. Second-Wave Feminism built on the gains of the First, focusing on reproductive rights, sexual freedom, marital rape, and legal and political barriers to self-determination and equality. Third-Wave Feminism has no clear goals, but spun off as the result of infighting among feminists on sexuality and pornography; and has gotten mired in identity politics, racial politics, and "anti-elitism/intellectualism". Unlike the first two, it's more a vague collection of disparate and occasionally mutually-antagonistic groups with their own individual agendas and beliefs; whose only point of commonality is an expansion of the Second-Wave's view on patriarchial domination and oppression, seeing it as the overarching force preventing their individual agendas from being achieved; and an emphasis on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity (conflating the lack of the former as evidence of a lack of the latter).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Am I allowed to have a crush on Cristina Rad?

Allowed? I'd say it's mandatory, isn't it? Mind you, she's married.

 

[squealpiggy]

LOL, yeah, a noob who signed on October 4th on a site started in August a little over a month earlier. So I had a good laugh when setar said "you're new here."

This thread really is a prime example of the kind of madness that prevails at A+. Now that Chris has humbly apologized and bowed out they will be charitable towards him and focus their venom on mood2 if she doesn't follow his lead and stfu. I really hope qwint or Apos will try and defend ceepolk and setar's arguments itt. C'mon guys! Lets be havin ya!

It seems that the core of A+ are very very self conscious of their own privilege so when somebody comes along who has some real major issues they act immediately to oust them.

Regular: You can't call me 'dumb' because you're being ABLEIST!
Noob: I have two mental disorders and some major physical handicaps and I am legally blind.
Capricious Mod: You have doubled down on your stupidity and you have failed to see how offensive you are being. Have a ban.

It's like Daffyd Thomas, the Only Gay in the Village when he encounters another gay.

 

[Mr. Scott]

It seems that the core of A+ are very very self conscious of their own privilege so when somebody comes along who has some real major issues they act immediately to oust them.

Regular: You can't call me 'dumb' because you're being ABLEIST!
Noob: I have two mental disorders and some major physical handicaps and I am legally blind.
Capricious Mod: You have doubled down on your stupidity and you have failed to see how offensive you are being. Have a ban.

It's like Daffyd Thomas, the Only Gay in the Village when he encounters another gay.

That "Only Gay in the Village" is amazing.. Isn't "capricious mod" in reference to an A+ mod, redundant?

Hmmm.... now my mind is singing the Ban song to the tune of the Spam song. Can I have some ban eggs, sausage, and ban?

 

[Myriad]

Okay, though experiment about the record company.

Suppose the company is organized into two departments. Department A evaluates the potential market for each project (artist and album) pitched to them by artists' agents. They take all factors into account including the artist's race, insofar as it affects the market estimates. They then produce a breakdown for each project: most likely range of cost, and most likely range of revenue, presented as 90% confidence intervals, over a whole range of marketing scenarios. Let's say they're pretty good at this, and historically, 90% of their estimates have in fact turned out to fall within the projected 90% confidence interval, regardless of the music style.

This information is then passed along to Department B, but only the financial projections. The names, backgrounds, music styles, appearances, and races of the artists, and even what the music sounds like, are withheld from the dossier. Department B makes the decisions on which projects to fund and which marketing scenarios to choose, taking into account the various offered risks and returns, and the company's current financial position.

Let's then say that the result is similar to the actual historical period in question; that is, black artists are less likely to have their projects funded because overall, though there are specific exceptions, the (accurate) market analysis of Department A predicted higher risk or lower revenues for black artists' projects, so the money decisions made in Department B less often went that way.

Which department contains the racists: A, B, both, neither?

For a decision to be racist does not require anyone with individual racist motives.

Lots of discriminatory business decisions are about maximising profit or minimising risk- that doesn't make them any less discriminatory. Refusing to hire staff from ethnic minorities as it will scare away your customers is racist- but it could easily be done by a person who abhors racism yet needs to maximise profit to keep their business afloat- refusing to hire a young married woman as that may incur added costs if she decides to leave to start a family is sexist, but may also be a rational business decision takes by an person who is not sexist. It is because these decisions can be rational business decisions that we have laws against them, changing social attitudes is not enough to stamp them out.

I can agree with this. However, this distinction that is never considered by many. One of the largest issues I have with the A+/FtB is that they forever brand PEOPLE as racist/sexist/whatever, without considering the above. The other being that once, branded, you are forever the enemy.

We have all said something stupid or without thought to how it affects certain groups we are largely ignorant about. That doesn't always and forever make someone a racist, misogynist, etc...

Who cares? You've done an excellent example of explaining institutional racism as Brodski pointed out.

This was a depressing series of responses. Two reasoned answers, and then, "who cares?"

In other words, "you're right but... hey, look over there!"

"Who cares," because once established that you can still call it racism of one form or another, we can get back to sorting out the racists from the non-racists. Despite that we've just shown that that approach cannot possibly work because racially skewed outcomes can still result from the cumulative effects of individually non-racist decisions.

Brodski makes the point: "For a decision to be racist does not require anyone with individual racist motives."

Okay, then the follow up question, instead of "who cares?" or "look over there!", should be, exactly what does it require? Is a racially skewed outcome sufficient to prove a racist decision process? If not, what other elements must exist? That question desperately needs to be examined in detail.

I think I'll take that up in another thread.

Meanwhile, the answer to "who cares?" about whether given individuals are racist, or sexist, in a given case, is people who are accused of being racist or sexist. Believe it or not, they actually care whether or not the accusation is true. Can you imagine? Well, most people can. So the answer to "who cares?" also includes people concerned about others they think have been unjustly accused of being sexist or racist, and about the people they see as doing the unjust accusing.

"Who cares?" Look at how the A+ and FTB are perceived by non-racists and non-sexists outside those venues. Look at how their efforts to convince and recruit other socially aware humanists, skeptics, atheists, and rationalists are going. That's who cares.

"Who cares?" should show up engraved on a hundred precious ceramic necklaces at the next TAM. Maybe Vacula could make up a few to bring to WiS2. Who would care then?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Meanwhile, the answer to "who cares?" about whether given individuals are racist, or sexist, in a given case, is people who are accused of being racist or sexist.

I'd have thought, more to the point, that who cares is anyone who is actually concerned about the existence of racism in our society and would like to find a way to eliminate it, as opposed to those who would like to use it as a stick with which to beat people they disagree with.

 

[adamwho]

FtB is making another push to demonize reddit on reddit with less than stellar results.

 

[qwints]

"Who cares," because once established that you can still call it racism of one form or another, we can get back to sorting out the racists from the non-racists.

The entire point is that sorting out the racists from the non-racists is a futile and pointless exercise.

Okay, then the follow up question, instead of "who cares?" or "look over there!", should be, exactly what does it require? Is a racially skewed outcome sufficient to prove a racist decision process? If not, what other elements must exist? That question desperately needs to be examined in detail.

Sure, but that doesn't make sense in the context. The scenario we're discussing is, by definition, a racially biased process- black performers are less likely to be signed specifically because of their race. It doesn't matter if the decision maker is doing so because of their racial animus or because they are catering to someone else's racial animus, it's still a problem.