Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[ponderingturtle]

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?

I don't know, I don't make those arguments. I know gender variant people so I know about this, but I really don't care what those idiots think.

 

[Quinn]

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"

And yet that's not the way the term is used in practice, at least not consistently. As evidence, I site an A+ thread (which I don't have a link to, but will try to dig it up if requested) in which someone was complaining that people who, like her, didn't own a car are systemically oppressed by a society that rewards car owners. A driverarchy, if you will. She claimed that people who had a car couldn't understand what it was like for people like her who had to walk to work and to the store. And it was unanimously agreed upon that yes, that was a fine example of privilege, and yet another one that the car owners would henceforth check.

Of course there were usual fallacies, like ascribing motive to people she knows nothing about (i.e. assuming the reason a driver cut her off is because he believes he's more "big and important" than she is). But what amazed me was that no one pointed out the obvious fact that every car owner is also a pedestrian some of the time, and every form of "oppression" she faced was also faced by her alleged oppressors. Maybe not as often or for as long at a given stretch, but everyone knows what it's like to almost be mowed down by a rude driver. Furthermore, rude drivers don't only "oppress" pedestrians that way, they also do it to other drivers. And for that matter, it's just as possible (and common) for a rude pedestrian to "oppress" a driver, assuming the driver is among the 99.999% of the population who won't actually deliberately run over a pedestrian who's acting completely out of line.

In this case, privilege seems like simply a synonym for advantage. Of course owning a car is an advantage over not owning one, because being able to get from one place to another faster than your legs can carry you is inherently advantageous. But the claim that "You don't know how it feels" is completely divorced from reality.

Incidentally, that thread was the closest I ever came to joining A+, to point these things out. But then I decided that madness lies that way, and that my swift ban would be a time-wasting exercise in futility. That and the infamous limerick thread were the two that convinced me to write off the entire A+ culture as too shrill and hysterical for rational conversation.

 

[qwints]

This thread?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't know, I don't make those arguments. I know gender variant people so I know about this, but I really don't care what those idiots think.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did, I was just quoting your post because it was your post that reminded me that I'd thought about what I posted and had wanted to post it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

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!

roflz

 

[Diogenes]

...(i.e. assuming the reason a driver cut her off is because he believes he's more "big and important" than she is)...

I would have had thought that most people left this kind of grade school thinking behind by the early 20's if not sooner...or maybe more of a teenage.."it really is all about me" mentality.

 

[recursive prophet]

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.

<snip>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.

Excellent question Gold! Like all profound observations it seems so obvious in retrospect. Kudos! I do hope young qwints provides us with an answer. If group consolation and validation is all you seek, why host a public website where those with contrary views are able to join? All the time wasted in correcting them takes away the preening activity, so....

 

[qwints]

If group consolation and validation is all you seek, why host a public website where those with contrary views are able to join?

I like it because it allows me to be exposed to issues I wasn't already aware of -it's where I first heard about Idle No More, for example. Being open also allows people who've been wanting something like the forum to join it.

 

[luchog]

Excellent question Gold! Like all profound observations it seems so obvious in retrospect. Kudos! I do hope young qwints provides us with an answer. If group consolation and validation is all you seek, why host a public website where those with contrary views are able to join? All the time wasted in correcting them takes away the preening activity, so....

Without the contrarians, they lose a large part of their interaction dynamic. There must be a boogeyman they can point to in order to maintain their victimization rhetoric. While there is no shortage of those outside the community, having an "outsider" actually actually present and providing the contrary position reinforces their worldview in a way that an abstract cannot. It makes the "threat" more immediate; and galvanizes the group against a common foe, promoting stronger cohesiveness and distracting from internal inconsistencies and intra-group conflicts.

This is a group dynamic common to human interaction that cult leaders and demagogues have long made use of, providing a clear and present external enemy, and encouraging a more exaggerated us-vs.-them dynamic, in order to quell internal dissent and cement their own control. Even in a group with no ostensible leaders, those who are capable of manipulating this dynamic quickly become de facto leaders, and remain so as long as there are sufficient enemies available. If no external enemies can be found, then it's not difficult to manufacture internal enemies by attacking anyone who fails to evince sufficient ideological purity. This is less preferable than an external enemy, however, as it has a much greater likelihood of fragmenting the group and causing opposing factions to form.

 

[s_pepys]

I like it because it allows me to be exposed to issues I wasn't already aware of -it's where I first heard about ]Idle No More[/HILITE], for example. Being open also allows people who've been wanting something like the forum to join it.

crikey! thats a whole other thread right there!

 

[s_pepys]

I like it because it allows me to be exposed to issues I wasn't already aware of -it's where I first heard about Idle No More, for example. Being open also allows people who've been wanting something like the forum to join it.

yeah. people like this:

I stopped posting there soon after I was informed that I'm essentially oppressing my autistic 9 year-old by having him in therapy. You know, the only treatment of autism that has any demonstrated clinical efficacy. Apparently I'm ableist.

I didn't get banned, though.

its worse than religious. its disgusting!

 

[recursive prophet]

Ah, the smell of desperation in the evening...

Sure looks to me like the anti big tent devotees at A+ are starting to have second thoughts about their 'our way or the highway' paradigm. Now they are apparently even tolerating theists with agendas. As several here have adroitly pointed out, having others to disparage is a necessary part of the social dynamic that created the site.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4328

 

[adamwho]

Sure looks to me like the anti big tent devotees at A+ are starting to have second thoughts about their 'our way or the highway' paradigm. Now they are apparently even tolerating theists with agendas. As several here have adroitly pointed out, having others to disparage is a necessary part of the social dynamic that created the site.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4328

If they were actually doing something they wouldn't need somebody to kick around.

Let fact some facts: We people who spend lots of time online at forums are looking for acceptance and the positive feeling we get from being part of a tribe. Part of that is having committed enemies/competitors. The atheism+ people are no different in their psychological needs (if a little needier)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sure looks to me like the anti big tent devotees at A+ are starting to have second thoughts about their 'our way or the highway' paradigm. Now they are apparently even tolerating theists with agendas.

I'm not sure how much being banned after 12 posts counts as "tolerating".

But I have to say that my favourite part of that thread is, again, ceepolk. Brother says that he's civil, ceepolk shouts at him saying that she's not, he says she's starting a fight, and SubMor says that you don't get to poke someone with a stick and then claim that they're starting a fight when they yell at you. So...saying that you don't swear is starting a fight.

And, as a point of interest, she uses the term "longshoreman". Isn't that a little sexist as a term? Is she saying women can't be dockers?

 

[jhunter1163]

Sure looks to me like the anti big tent devotees at A+ are starting to have second thoughts about their 'our way or the highway' paradigm. Now they are apparently even tolerating theists with agendas. As several here have adroitly pointed out, having others to disparage is a necessary part of the social dynamic that created the site.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4328

Ol' Brother Edward lasted a whole 14 hours before he got banned for a week. That was, frankly, longer than I expected him to last, given the tendencies of the "administration" there.

Just goes to show that the A+ crowd has no interest whatsoever in actually discussing anything. I'll exclude qwints from that statement; he's got the stones to come over here and engage us, to his credit.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If by "abnormal" you mean like minorities are "abnormal".

I'm sorry but I don't think there's a funcation equivilancy between race or ethnicity and gender. All humans are humans, though some express a phenotypical difference while having nearly identical genotypes. Is there really a problem with, in the case a sex and gender, using normal and the preferred term for non-normal (trans, gay, intersexed, etc.) instead of loaded terms like non-normal or abnormal?

- eta This post sums up precisely why I won't use terms like cis, trans*, genderqueer, etc.

FWIW, I never use and will never use the term. I'll use the far more cumbersome "people who were born the gender they feel themselves to be", should I ever have cause to actually use that in a sentence, and that's because I've only ever seen the terms "cisgendered" and "cis" used by people like those at A+ and, like you, I find their behaviour off-putting.

In my case, certainly, if their goal is in any way to promote their mode of communication, then they're having the opposite effect.

 

[zooterkin]

On the other hand, I rather suspect Brother Edward has gone looking for confrontation. Veridicanism appears to be a freshly started religion looking to make its mark. Whether it's genuine or a Poe I have no idea.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Can I get an "Amen!".... Please. Somebody give me an "Amen!"

Cristo has been saved. He has seen the error of his ways and has repented in public. Praise be unto the Illumi-Notty of the A+ Inner Sanctum. For they have turned a sinner away from the dark and into the light of A-Plussiness!

Hallowed be their name.

Is it my imagination or did I hear that thread utter, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"


http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=716&start=2150

"930" wasn't one of Chris Brown's magic numbers, was it? How fun that would be if it turns out Christophera has found a home amongst the downtrodden.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry but I don't think there's a funcation equivilancy between race or ethnicity and gender. All humans are humans, though some express a phenotypical difference while having nearly identical genotypes. Is there really a problem with, in the case a sex and gender, using normal and the preferred term for non-normal (trans, gay, intersexed, etc.) instead of loaded terms like non-normal or abnormal?.

If you have normal and an abnormal class why not call them abnormal? Normal vs gay means to most people gay=abnormal. Because that is what ~normal means.

So you wouldn't refer to someone as straight or heterosexual but as normal to contrast them with the abnormal homosexual and bisexuals? Because that is exactly how you said you refer to people in the above quote.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

If they were actually doing something they wouldn't need somebody to kick around.

Let fact some facts: We people who spend lots of time online at forums are looking for acceptance and the positive feeling we get from being part of a tribe. Part of that is having committed enemies/competitors. The atheism+ people are no different in their psychological needs (if a little needier)

I agree with the highlighted, except I have actually learned from others here, and enjoy the dialogue. If you dissent from the groupview on Atheism+, you are kicked with an admonishment to "study the giftbag of rules". How does that encourage any kind of discourse or logical argument? If you don't automatically adhere to the predescribed rules of language, defined by a subset, you're removed.

How does that help anyone involved?