• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK so this has probably been brought up in this 146 page thread, but it's worth repeating.

Saw PZ tonight in Seattle and heard for the first time why they ban so many people from the FTBs. He believes he is refusing to give a platform to people with toxic snark.

Knowing 2 locals who were banned over the Watson crap, I'd say he's gone beyond not allowing a platform for the creeps, he's not allowing a platform for selective dissent.

Also from his comments it's clear he thinks if Watson says elevator guy's come on was harassment, it's was harassment. PZ equated it to blaming the Steubenville rape victim. That's just ludicrous, there's not only no comparison, it hurts the cause to equate them.
 
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle said:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SAWCSM

Had to look it up myself.
Click to expand...

Cheers.
I don't understand though - the request was to "disclose your sawcsm status"??

So I thought it must stand for something to do with gender, race, and societal self perception, or something. Particularly when the claimed reason is "To help us diversify the mod team". :boggled:

Do they mean they only want to know if someone is 'sawcsm'? (and what do they mean by 'sexual' in that context?)
 
The Daily Chuckle from A+ Forums

I wanted to open with "there's a chuckle a minute over there", but there are only about five posts an hour and 119 of them aren't even remotely humorous.

Today's award for sniffing one's own intellectual farts goes to Eowyn Entwife.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4347

For whatever reason (I guess there are people who are TRIGGERED by the ebil Dawkins), it's in their patented spoilers. I first thought she'd hid the comments because they're so stupid, but thinking back on her intellectual abilities, she doesn't see the difference between words/thoughts in a speech and the style of a speech.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I wanted to open with "there's a chuckle a minute over there", but there are only about five posts an hour and 119 of them aren't even remotely humorous.

Today's award for sniffing one's own intellectual farts goes to Eowyn Entwife.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4347

For whatever reason (I guess there are people who are TRIGGERED by the ebil Dawkins), it's in their patented spoilers. I first thought she'd hid the comments because they're so stupid, but thinking back on her intellectual abilities, she doesn't see the difference between words/thoughts in a speech and the style of a speech.
Click to expand...

"Where do we even begin with this level of ignorance? How do we explain Human Communication 101 to people who believe that a word or sentence has the exact meaning X and cannot have any other meaning unless the listener/reader is being malicious about meaning?"

That's right. The former Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, author of numerous bestselling books on science and culture, dozens of scientific papers and presented of several documentaries as well as respected lecturer in the fields of ethology and evolutionary biology and well known circuit and convention speaker Richard Dawkins needs "Human Communication 101".
 
Myriad said:
Interesting. Is it okay to use therapy to teach a non high functioning male autistic person that no means no? Or is that erasing them by forcing them to fit arbitrary social expectations?

(Yeah, that's a question related to "intersectionality." Whoop dee doo. So, what's the answer?)

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Moderating any child's behaviour in any way is erasing their nature and therefore wrong. Even changing a nappy is erasing a baby's right to sit around it its own excrement.
 
recursive prophet said:
At my age, long retired and a total recluse, I didn't think about it much as I can't see how it matters now.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't affect your life negatively, then I don't see how it matters at any age. It's probably about a decade ago now that my mum first said to me that she thought that I might be a high-functioning autistic. I took what's the first stage of testing online, which said that I could be, although that, of course, is only a very, very first step and such things can't be diagnosed without proper consultation with a qualified professional. And I did, briefly, consider getting tested but then I thought "who cares?" So I'd have a label to attach to myself. Would it make any difference to any part of my life? No. So how is it worth the time and/or expense? I just don't see why I, or anybody else, should care whether I'm autistic or not. I go to work, I go about my day, I'm perfectly happy. So who cares?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
OK so this has probably been brought up in this 146 page thread, but it's worth repeating.

Saw PZ tonight in Seattle and heard for the first time why they ban so many people from the FTBs. He believes he is refusing to give a platform to people with toxic snark.

Knowing 2 locals who were banned over the Watson crap, I'd say he's gone beyond not allowing a platform for the creeps, he's not allowing a platform for selective dissent.

Also from his comments it's clear he thinks if Watson says elevator guy's come on was harassment, it's was harassment. PZ equated it to blaming the Steubenville rape victim. That's just ludicrous, there's not only no comparison, it hurts the cause to equate them.
Click to expand...

I saw from your event thread that you were going to this. I didn't want to say anything before because I knew you are well versed in "Elevatorgate" and would see through his **** right away.

So now to my question. Were those points brought up to him or was there no opportunity? What was his reaction?
 
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SAWCSM
Click to expand...

Had to look it up myself.
Cheers.
I don't understand though - the request was to "disclose your sawcsm status"??

So I thought it must stand for something to do with gender, race, and societal self perception, or something. Particularly when the claimed reason is "To help us diversify the mod team".

Do they mean they only want to know if someone is 'sawcsm'? (and what do they mean by 'sexual' in that context?)
Click to expand...

It is one of their 'victim metrics' to determine if you are sufficiently underprivileged to holder a moderator position. See Oppression Olympics. The moderator needs to have credibility when the start demanding people 'check their privilege'.
 
CaptainManacles said:
But isn't that a bit like saying "I know what it's like to be confined to a wheelchair, I sit down all the time" There's a qualitative difference between having to walk a block on occasion and knowing you never have the option of using your own car. I get your point, and yeah, it does seem like privilege basically just means 'advantage' but it also seems like there are certain advantages that aren't as trivial as others, and we routinely fail to think about or account for how limiting certain disadvantages can be.

This can be especially bad when disadvantages are supported by a self reinforcing system: no one drives so pedestrians aren't accounted for, so everyone avoids being a pedestrian like the plague, so everyone drives, so city planning doesn't account for pedestrians, so people without cars can't hold down jobs, and can't afford cars. And when it ties into a larger problem like poverty it's even worse. Stuff like that can spiral out of control, but small little improvements can also explode into a huge difference over the long run, so I think there are benefits to being more conscientious about certain advantages, even more so when compounded by known cognitive biases about gender and race, wishful thinking and group-think.

Obviously this can be taken too far, but "different people have different advantages and disadvantages, try to be aware of that" is not a hysterical demand. It seems such an obvious thing that any reasonable adult would already be doing it, but a lot of people aren't doing it, and the manufactured controversy that has sprung up from very reasonable requests like "don't grab our boobs without asking" or "stop bothering me when I ask you to stop bothering me" is further evidence that a common sense refresher course is in need.
Click to expand...

With respect, however, there's a vast difference between saying 'having a car makes many things easier for you, and you might not understand the hardships faced by people who do not have the option to drive', and the kind of crap said in that A+ thread.

Comparing telling pedestrians to look for for cars with telling rape victims they should have dressed differently.

Seeing roadkill and being dead certain it was due to someone being in such a hurry they didn't want to slow down for an animal.

The nefarious mindset assumed for all drivers, as if there were some sort of zero-sum competition between drivers and pedestrians, and it was a full contact sport.

The large number of anecdotal encounters related about drivers who treated the poor Plusers with neglect or outright malice.

It's comical, really, when you read the whole thread. It sort of reminds me of a time I was in a doctor's waiting room many years ago. There was this one guy waiting who was telling stories of his childhood to some of the other people waiting. These stories were told with some mirth, but were all centered around the violence he and his siblings inflicted on each other. As he went on they became progressively more and more outlandish (stabbing each other through the screen door, hitting one over the head with a fish tank, etc.), culminating in the story-teller once having been held down by two brothers while a 3rd poured lighter fluid over him and set him on fire.

That's how man pluser threads read to me - not only do I not believe the tales they're telling, I think they're simply trying to one-up each other in outlandishness to the point where I have trouble not laughing.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Moderating any child's behaviour in any way is erasing their nature and therefore wrong. Even changing a nappy is erasing a baby's right to sit around it its own excrement.
Click to expand...

These are the idiots that let their kids yell, scream, and run around unhindered at restaurants, right?
 
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Moderating any child's behaviour in any way is erasing their nature and therefore wrong. Even changing a nappy is erasing a baby's right to sit around it its own excrement.
Click to expand...
These are the idiots that let their kids yell, scream, and run around unhindered at restaurants, right?
Click to expand...

Most of the Aplussers I know of personally are not married and/or don't have children.

It seems like the stereotype are old lesbian/gay or twenty something fresh out of a liberal arts degree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom