Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[kmortis]

Personally I don't have a problem with words themselves. I don't mind using terms like "cis" or "cisgendered". I would have a problem with people demanding that others adopt the vernacular. To quote Carlin, there are no bad words. There are bad intentions. Perhaps people are using words like cisgendered to score some rhetorical point but I've read enough of the literature to know that the word has real meaning and real value to sociologists, therapists and the community.

I don't mind if other people have a problem with the word. Whatever.

Yes, but Carlin also had a problem with softening of the language (Shell Shock --> PTSD). Until yesterday, I had no idea what cis- meant. I still don't have a firm grasp on it. I do know what it means to be the weirdo though. I fight for weirdos, they're my people. Whilst I fully appreciate those who think that changing the language will help, even though there is some evidence that it won't, I personally will not engage. I understand that there are those who are not comfortable in their own skin; those who feel the same attractions I do, but to the "wrong" gender; those who don't have the same dangly bits as me; those who have different melanin content in their skin. It's all good. They all deserve the same rights and opportunities that I have. Why do I need to have new words for old issues thrown at me?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't understand how atheism plus could be such an issue. Look at people with accomplisments not reducible to blogging about atheism or feminism. Look at people like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sean Carroll, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Steven Pinker. How much have they bothered with atheism plus? Nothing, really (except Dawkins once made an indirect tweet at them, to their great anger). It's simply not worth their time. They are too busy trying to understand the world and explain their findings to others.

I doubt most of them have even heard of it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, but Carlin also had a problem with softening of the language (Shell Shock --> PTSD). Until yesterday, I had no idea what cis- meant. I still don't have a firm grasp on it. I do know what it means to be the weirdo though. I fight for weirdos, they're my people. Whilst I fully appreciate those who think that changing the language will help, even though there is some evidence that it won't, I personally will not engage. I understand that there are those who are not comfortable in their own skin; those who feel the same attractions I do, but to the "wrong" gender; those who don't have the same dangly bits as me; those who have different melanin content in their skin. It's all good. They all deserve the same rights and opportunities that I have. Why do I need to have new words for old issues thrown at me?

All cis is for is to provide an opposite to tans. So you can say non transgendered in a way that does not have the pejorative connotation of normal.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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."

They need a blog, not a forum.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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'm a white male. You're saying that I'm more privileged than Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama? Seriously?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So, normal then?

You're going to hell.

 

[squealpiggy]

I'm a white male. You're saying that I'm more privileged than Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama? Seriously?

It doesn't make sense to say you'remore privileged. Unless you're saying something that a SJW doesn't like. Then you are more privileged than they are and therefore wrong.

Am I doing it right?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

They need a blog, not a forum.

I think criticizing and banning the ignorant, privileged mansplainers is at least half the fun. It's them against the world, but if the world stops paying attention to their stupid little games, what's the point? Sycophants get tiresome after a while; they need to keep fighting those enemies so they can feel fully like the martyrs and warriors they know themselves to be.

 

[Diogenes]

I think criticizing and banning the ignorant, privileged mansplainers is at least half the fun. It's them against the world, but if the world stops paying attention to their stupid little games, what's the point? Sycophants get tiresome after a while; they need to keep fighting those enemies so they can feel fully like the martyrs and warriors they know themselves to be.

Watching the decline in unique visitors seems to indicate they're getting less attention now.

 

[kmortis]

You're going to hell.

Yeah, but you'll be there too, so I'll have good company.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It doesn't make sense to say you'remore privileged. Unless you're saying something that a SJW doesn't like. Then you are more privileged than they are and therefore wrong.

Am I doing it right?

I think you have the basic concept down.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think criticizing and banning the ignorant, privileged mansplainers is at least half the fun. It's them against the world, but if the world stops paying attention to their stupid little games, what's the point? Sycophants get tiresome after a while; they need to keep fighting those enemies so they can feel fully like the martyrs and warriors they know themselves to be.

Good point. Thanks for mansplaining that to me. Or cissplaining***, or whateversplaining.

***I originally spelled that as cisspalining.

 

[qwints]

Give it a try. Your experiences are different, therefore ________.

If you can find a way to fill it in that doesn't overbear or end the conversation, then perhaps that's what you should say, instead of "check your ******* privilege."

"You don't know how it feels"

I'm a white male. You're saying that I'm more privileged than Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama? Seriously?

You have white and male privilege. Hilary Clinton has white privilege. Barack Obama has male privilege. Presumably both of them have more power, money, and social status than you do. Those things almost certainly have a much greater effect on their and your day-to-day experiences than privilege.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You have white and male privilege. Hilary Clinton has white privilege. Barack Obama has male privilege. Presumably both of them have more power, money, and social status than you do. Those things almost certainly have a much greater effect on their and your day-to-day experiences than privilege.

Which underscores how stupid the whole "privilege" argument is. Thanks!

 

[Myriad]

"You don't know how it feels"

Part of that is implicit in "your experiences are different," and the other part is most likely, in any given instance, false.

The part that's implicit is, "you don't know exactly how it feels."

The part that's probably false is, "you don't know at all how it feels."

But I'm still looking for what comes after the "therefore" that provides a valid reason for bringing it up in a discussion in the first place.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TheGoldcountry]

qwints, you've brought up some excellent points. I'm glad you're here, because otherwise this would turn into an echo chamber just like some accuse A+ of having.

My main question, and one I think is shared by others, is this: If the moderators of A+ are so bound and determined to keep out any dissenting opinion or viewpoint that deviates from their acceptable model, why do they have a forum at all? The only feedback I ever see is "You're exactly right, you go!" or "Read the rules or you're gone." I've even seen people admonished just for defending others, as though they should distance themselves from any wrongheaded people or risk being painted with the same brush. If absolute agreement is the goal, why not just set up a private e-mail list and pat each others backs in private? Banning and insults certainly don't lead to polite discourse and learning, whether you're on the right side of the social/political fence or not.

 

[squealpiggy]

qwints, you've brought up some excellent points. I'm glad you're here, because otherwise this would turn into an echo chamber just like some accuse A+ of having.

My main question, and one I think is shared by others, is this: If the moderators of A+ are so bound and determined to keep out any dissenting opinion or viewpoint that deviates from their acceptable model, why do they have a forum at all? The only feedback I ever see is "You're exactly right, you go!" or "Read the rules or you're gone." I've even seen people admonished just for defending others, as though they should distance themselves from any wrongheaded people or risk being painted with the same brush. If absolute agreement is the goal, why not just set up a private e-mail list and pat each others backs in private? Banning and insults certainly don't lead to polite discourse and learning, whether you're on the right side of the social/political fence or not.

Pinky Ponk: Who here hates it when the patriarchy oppresses the Sisterhood?

GeekyChuck: Yeah, I totes hate that.

GoobyFlap: Me too, I hate when the Patriarchy oppresses the sisterhood

GlimmerWang: I'm glad we all agree. Thread locked!

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Pinky Ponk: Who here hates it when the patriarchy oppresses the Sisterhood?

GeekyChuck: Yeah, I totes hate that.

GoobyFlap: Me too, I hate when the Patriarchy oppresses the sisterhood

GlimmerWang: I'm glad we all agree. Thread locked!

Yeah, that's about it.

The sad thing is, looking at the topics, some good issues have been brought up for discussion many times in the past, and the threads have withered on the vine. They seem more interested in wielding the same power as the other websites they despise, rather than being a better example.

 

[qwints]

If the moderators of A+ are so bound and determined to keep out any dissenting opinion or viewpoint that deviates from their acceptable model, why do they have a forum at all?

Interesting discussion, mutual support, and a place to spread awareness about social justice issues.

These forums are a safe space intended to facilitate discussions about social justice in the context of atheism.

The only feedback I ever see is "You're exactly right, you go!" or "Read the rules or you're gone."

There have been some quite contentions discussions involving people who are all still members there.

If absolute agreement is the goal, why not just set up a private e-mail list and pat each others backs in private? Banning and insults certainly don't lead to polite discourse and learning, whether you're on the right side of the social/political fence or not.

Because talking in public allows some people who like that kind of discussion to find it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That would be gender queer. Cis and trans only apply to those who identify as male or female. Others are lumped together in queer gender.

I do wonder about how this works in relation to the article posted a page or two back. If SJWs believe that the difference between men and women in sports is 100% due to societal constructs and that there is no physical difference between the sexes, then how do they marry that with the idea that some people have female brains, some have male brains, and some are somewhere on a spectrum in-between? If biological differences between men and women are creations of society, rather than something inherent in each gender, then why are gender roles within society something inherent in each gender? Why is gendered thinking inherent if gendered biology isn't?