Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

No, I wouldn't expect you'd have a problem with her actions as you fail to see that she used a very very weak example of sexism to go public and score SJW points at someone else's expense. We know from her tweeted definition of racism that she's a hardcore SJW player and as we all know, being an SJW is all about the takedowns, the sticking it to the privliged, punching up, as they l;ike to say at A+.

An adult would have quietly let those guys know that she was overhearing things that made her uncomfortable and I'd go so far as to speculate she was looking for something, anything to raise this kind of fuss in order to direct attention to herself.

We've all seen that this is how SJWs like to work through reading A+. First they set up a "safe space" ( yea I know the stated reasons ) but it's obvious that the safe space concept is to facilitate the bashing of white males where those white males who may take issue with being bashed are effectively coerced into silence through the threat of or actual banning.

Take that quote I posted earlier today, where the poster is on about people thinking that women having periods is somehow unnatural. This is one clear cut case of hardcore misandry that's going to go unchallenged even though anyone reading it did the same wtf ? as I did.

On A+, in the safe space, nobody dares challenge this for what it is. Oh but misandry isn't a "thing", as they like to say over there. Well, dears, yes it is and I don't give a rip about reasons for being misandrists, racist etc. and the fact that the Aplussers have to make things up to make their points is well [ abelist slur ].

So donglegate a set up ? Wouldn't doubt that for a minute.

 

[Stout]

[qimg]http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4076/howmuchisthatdongleinth.jpg[/qimg]

Yea, tough to believe that she was "offended" by a crotch joke.

Playing the game.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Mr. Scott was discussing how people would react to people with different levels of privilege being in a relationship. ("an underpriveleged dating a privileged.") Gender and race are both axes of privileges, hence my response.

So you and A plus are "OK" with men dating women as long as there no imbalance of "privilege".Well how mighty generous of you all, what a wonderful world you are all building.
I bet it is the man who is assumed to be the privileged one so that accounts for the vast majority of relationships in the Western World and they all have an inherent built in imbalance of privilege based on gender according to most Aplus logic.

 

[jhunter1163]

I forget who mentioned the A+ ban list, but I can assure it hasn't been updated since like September. I was banned over 2 months ago and my nick still isn't on the list. I think they finally realized it was an embarrassment.

They realized that it exposes them for the fascists they are.

I'm not really well-versed enough to comment about the whole SJW thing, but I've been a mod here for two and a half years so I do feel qualified to comment on their forum "management", such as it is. By "setting up a safe space" they really mean "create a place where I and a few of my friends can rail about sociological topics without fear of contradiction."

 

[qwints]

So you and A plus are "OK" with men dating women as long as there no imbalance of "privilege".

No, it's okay despite the existence of male privilege. Just like relationships between people of different races are okay despite the existence of racial privilege.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

No, it's okay despite the existence of male privilege. Just like relationships between people of different races are okay despite the existence of racial privilege.

How very generous of you. You're just confirming my point.

-

 

[adamwho]

No, it's okay despite the existence of male privilege. Just like relationships between people of different races are okay despite the existence of racial privilege.

I think I would trust an Aplusser to give dating/relationship advice as much as a Catholic priest to provide sex advice...

 

[RandFan]

No, it's okay despite the existence of male privilege. Just like relationships between people of different races are okay despite the existence of racial privilege.

I ask you sincerely, why don't drop the idea of "privilege". I get it if we are talking about groups but when someone says "check your pivilage" that's about the most condescending and idiotic things a person can say IMO. It is very unlikely to advance the discussion. It's a presumptuous rhetorical device that is far more likely to poison the well than it is to do anything else.

I don't understand why sincere people insist on such polemics. And yeah, I hear you, according to many of the A+ ilk it shouldn't be polemic but we are talking about humans. People. Skin color, sexual orientation, gender, these are variables and they are not the only variables that contribute to a person's life.

Many white cis males are seriously abused and neglected as children and raised in poverty. Some have severe learning handicaps and/or are anti-social (aspergers, etc.). When you say with a straight face that that such a person has more privilege than say a black female who is sent to the best schools, raised in affluence and has a secure family life then you expose how vacuous the idea is when it comes to talking about individuals. It's NOT scientific once you take it out of the realm of groups. At that point it just becomes a rhetorical device.

Privilege is a valid sociological/anthropological concept when we are talking about normal distribution and all else being equal. Thing is, not everyone fits the normal distribution and all things are rarely, if ever, equal.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Mr. Scott was discussing how people would react to people with different levels of privilege being in a relationship. ("an underpriveleged dating a privileged.") Gender and race are both axes of privileges, hence my response.

The "privilege" thing just strikes me as another way to divide people into "us" and "them." There's good science that shows this sort of thing brings out some of the cruelest aspects of human nature.

 

[recursive prophet]

Privilege is a valid sociological/anthropological concept when we are talking about normal distribution and all else being equal. Thing is, not everyone fits the normal distribution and all things are rarely, if ever, equal.

Excellent point. That is another major flaw in the A+ approach. They see-though are not willing to defend-things as black or white in a grey world. We are all both privileged and marginalized victims from different frames of reference.

 

[kmortis]

I ask you sincerely, why don't drop the idea of "privilege". I get it if we are talking about groups but when someone says "check your pivilage" that's about the most condescending and idiotic things a person can say IMO. It is very unlikely to advance the discussion. It's a presumptuous rhetorical device that is far more likely to poison the well than it is to do anything else.

I don't understand why sincere people insist on such polemics. And yeah, I hear you, according to many of the A+ ilk it shouldn't be polemic but we are talking about humans. People. Skin color, sexual orientation, gender, these are variables and they are not the only variables that contribute to a person's life.

Many white cis males are seriously abused and neglected as children and raised in poverty. Some have severe learning handicaps and/or are anti-social (aspergers, etc.). When you say with a straight face that that such a person has more privilege than say a black female who is sent to the best schools, raised in affluence and has a secure family life then you expose how vacuous the idea is when it comes to talking about individuals. It's NOT scientific once you take it out of the realm of groups. At that point it just becomes a rhetorical device.

Privilege is a valid sociological/anthropological concept when we are talking about normal distribution and all else being equal. Thing is, not everyone fits the normal distribution and all things are rarely, if ever, equal.

What's a "cis" male?

 

[RandFan]

What's a "cis" male?

cisgendered.

 

[AlBell]

The "privilege" thing just strikes me as another way to divide people into "us" and "them." There's good science that shows this sort of thing brings out some of the cruelest aspects of human nature.

They've started their own little Stanford experiment, but if they kick all prisoners out who's left to denigrate?

How soon before they're eating their own; that or fess up it's an SJW Sokal hoax.

 

[qwints]

I ask you sincerely, why don't drop the idea of "privilege".

Because privilege matters, and understanding that "variables" like race, gender and class affect people's everyday experiences is part of understanding how the world actually is.

I get it if we are talking about groups but when someone says "check your pivilage" that's about the most condescending and idiotic things a person can say IMO.

Ideally, "check your privilege" is supposed to be a request for a person to examine whether their lack of experience is making them miss something about the subject. Have you seen a case where someone was obliviously opining on a subject while missing what seemed to be an obvious point? "Check your privilege" can be a special case of that phenomenon.

Many white cis males are seriously abused and neglected as children and raised in poverty. Some have severe learning handicaps and/or are anti-social (aspergers, etc.). When you say with a straight face that that such a person has more privilege than say a black female who is sent to the best schools, raised in affluence and has a secure family life then you expose how vacuous the idea is when it comes to talking about individuals.

Having one kind of privilege doesn't mean someone has a more desirable life than someone without that privilege. It just means they have the benefits of that particular kind of privilege. It's not (or at least should't be) a thing that an individual should be proud to have or not have, it's not something that makes a person more or less valuable, and it's definitely not something that precludes empathy.

The "privilege" thing just strikes me as another way to divide people into "us" and "them." There's good science that shows this sort of thing brings out some of the cruelest aspects of human nature.

This is a critique I take seriously, but I think it ultimately fails. Recognizing that some attributes alters people's experiences doesn't change the fact that they're people. I can be motivated by someone else's negative experience even if I can't share that experience.

 

[Diogenes]

Ideally, "check your privilege" is supposed to be a request for a person to examine whether their lack of experience is making them miss something about the subject. Have you seen a case where someone was obliviously opining on a subject while missing what seemed to be an obvious point? "Check your privilege" can be a special case of that phenomenon.

I've not seen this applied this way for the month or so I followed that forum. It was always applied as an ad hominem or as a way to summarily dismiss an argument. Maybe they're different now?

There was a thread there that failing to recognize trans- by using cis- was an expression of cisprivilege.

 

[Sciwoman]

As an ad hominem or as a way to summarily dismiss a person or their argument is the only way I've seen it used there. Perhaps qwints can supply us with examples of the use he claims.

 

[adamwho]

cisgendered.

It is a little unfair to have them wade through the poor writing.

Cisgender is a person whose biological gender and 'psychological' gender align.... or simply not transgender.

Ultimately it is an example of adding terminology to level the status between 'normal' and 'different'. You can see other examples with gay/breeder and an endless stream of racial terms

 

[RandFan]

¹Because privilege matters, and understanding that "variables" like race, gender and class affect people's everyday experiences is part of understanding how the world actually is.

²Ideally, "check your privilege" is supposed to be a request for a person to examine whether their lack of experience is making them miss something about the subject. Have you seen a case where someone was obliviously opining on a subject while missing what seemed to be an obvious point? "Check your privilege" can be a special case of that phenomenon.

³Having one kind of privilege doesn't mean someone has a more desirable life than someone without that privilege. It just means they have the benefits of that particular kind of privilege. It's not (or at least should't be) a thing that an individual should be proud to have or not have, it's not something that makes a person more or less valuable, and it's definitely not something that precludes empathy.

1. None of these things has anything to do with my point. You could stop using the rhetorical device and still discuss and debate in a logically valid and good faith fashion. We do it at JREF all of the time. You say privilege matters. A.) that's an assertion. B.) Matters to what? From a sociological POV I would agree that it very much matters. In a debate or discussion not only is it not likely to matter but it's likely to cause discord.
2. Ideally or not it is pointless. Even if there was some value to it when speaking of or to individuals (there isn't) it's too easy to abuse and people are, well, people. I'll say it again, it's a supremely idiotic thing to say. It's not politic. It's not diplomatic. It's as if I told a liberal to check his or her ideology and if I made presumptions about an individual based purely on that persons ideology.
3. All of this entirely irrelevant to my point. I'll concede every premise. So what?

So, I still have no idea why you insist on using the word "privilege".

 

[RandFan]

It is a little unfair to have them wade through the poor writing.

Thanks. Perhaps you are right but for the life of me I find nothing difficult about it.

 

[RandFan]

Many white cis males are seriously abused and neglected as children and raised in poverty. Some have severe learning handicaps and/or are anti-social (aspergers, etc.). When you say with a straight face that that such a person has more privilege than say a black female who is sent to the best schools, raised in affluence and has a secure family life then you expose how vacuous the idea is when it comes to talking about individuals. It's NOT scientific once you take it out of the realm of groups. At that point it just becomes a rhetorical device.

Having one kind of privilege doesn't mean someone has a more desirable life than someone without that privilege. It just means they have the benefits of that particular kind of privilege. It's not (or at least should't be) a thing that an individual should be proud to have or not have, it's not something that makes a person more or less valuable, and it's definitely not something that precludes empathy.

I'm sorry but this one has really stuck in my craw. I think your use of the word "desirable" is an attempt to equivocate or avoid the point.

• Being born affluent IS to have privilege.
• Being sent to the finest schools Is to have privilege.
• Having the contacts to other people of affluence Is to have privilege.
• Being mentally stable Is privilege.
• Being raised in a stable home Is privilege.

I resent the equivocation. As if there are some factors in a person life that affords that person "privilege" but other factors are simply "desirable". Nonsense. You can call Halle Berry's life "desirable" but if you are honest you will admit that she has many privileges that I can only dream about. She can get loans that I can't. She can go into establishments I can't. She can meet with influential people that I never could.

A person who is born into affluence is more likely to grow up affluent. If you don't see that as a privilege then you are simply not being honest. And that's the problem I have with that term in such a setting. You automatically assign people to superficial groups without any in depth analysis of that person. My example above you still see as advantaged or "privileged" over an woman born into affluence and that is just such nonsense.

I'll tell you how you can change my mind. Show me stats that poor white males raised in dysfunctional homes are more likely to succeed in life than rich black women raised in healthy homes and I'll consider your point.