Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[MarkCorrigan]

Which are all laudable goals, I'd say.

 

[Mr. Scott]

So, I quote the dictionary devition of Prejudice, and you claim I am creating my own definitions?

You created your own definition of woo, not prejudice, as my post pointed out. Strange that you should mischaracterize my posting that way. Other defenders of A+ have done likewise. I wonder why A-plussers need to distort their opponents' positions to win arguments.

I'd don't think you're straw manning -- just experiencing enough cognitive dissonance so that you won't grok what I'm actually saying.

AFAIK, James Randi coined the term "woo," and by my understanding of his original coinage, prejudice is not woo.

By your definition of "woo," prejudice is woo. I will concede that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My that's seems a bit disingenuous. Was there a "new wave of skepticism" that brought about a movement called "skepticism plus"?

Interesting idea.

 

[zooterkin]

Which are all laudable goals, I'd say.

Well, exactly. It all went south when people had the temerity to suggest that perhaps "Atheism Plus" wasn't the best name for that collection of ideas, and that it was pretty much the same as humanism (or secular humanism, depending on where you live).

People who only saw those goals couldn't understand why so many seemed to be opposed to A+.

 

[squealpiggy]

Okay, well let's use a very specific example then. A woman asks not to be hit on. Someone hits on her anyway. He not only hits on her, but creeps around at the edges of a social group talking to no one, says nothing to her or anyone else until he just comes up and hits on her, and waits until she is in a confined space alone to do so. She doesn't make any sort of big deal out of this, she just makes one casual comment in a longer video that she finds that stuff irritating and that it's not the best way to impress a woman. Doesn't name the guy or ask him to be tarred and feathered.

You missed the next part where another woman opines that this isn't a big deal and is publicly declared to be a rape apologist. And while the original transgressor remains anonymous the person with the opinion is publicly eviscerated.

The SJW version of elevatorgate always seems to skip this step.

In any case I wasn't referring to Elevatorgate, I was referring to a woman who was disgusted that a 60 year old man may look at her and the general attitude that publicly glancing at or propositioning someone is the same as objectifying them.

 

[Doctor Plop]

Okay, well let's use a very specific example then. A woman asks not to be hit on. Someone hits on her anyway. He not only hits on her, but creeps around at the edges of a social group talking to no one, says nothing to her or anyone else until he just comes up and hits on her, and waits until she is in a confined space alone to do so.

Stop stalking me.

 

[The Greater Fool]

You created your own definition of woo, not prejudice, as my post pointed out. Strange that you should mischaracterize my posting that way. Other defenders of A+ have done likewise. I wonder why A-plussers need to distort their opponents' positions to win arguments.

I'd don't think you're straw manning -- just experiencing enough cognitive dissonance so that you won't grok what I'm actually saying.

AFAIK, James Randi coined the term "woo," and by my understanding of his original coinage, prejudice is not woo.

By your definition of "woo," prejudice is woo. I will concede that.

Your arguments cut mostly yourself.

For example. you were the first to put forth a definition of woo, that was incomplete, not consistent with it's use on JREF, and notedly would exclude items many of it's uses here at JREF.

By 'Mischaracarizing posts', did you mean like not providing a definition for woo, that you likewise were unable to provide? Or did you mean that by some stretch my posts have, in any way whatsoever, defended A+ as you seemed to imply (Thank god for weasel words). For the record, I am an evil older cis-gendered white man who is deeply engrossed and working in several aspects of gender, racial, and sexual equality, that would likely result in an A⁺ burring in my yard, that is IF they ever actually did anything IRL.

Odd that you use the A+ technique of "If you don't agree with me, you are a defender of misogyny A+. I find very little of A+ worthy of defense, other than my original point that perhaps prejudice should be addressed similar to woo.

Another interesting use of A+ tactics, that I disagree with you obviously means I do not grok understand your 301 level of skepticism, and therefore am not worthy of your consideration.

I think you may be correct that our current use of Woo was born with Randi, though I think it's pretty obvious that the skeptical community, and perhaps even Randi's use itself, has broadened to the extent shown at the Skeptics Dictionary (noting that you continued to fail to include such an authoritative definition), I went ahead to the Skeptics dictionary, Woo-woo:

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.
Here's a dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.
When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs.

Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy.

Please explain how 'prejudice' is inconsistent with this definition, particularly in light of the Third (final included) paragraph.

As you have posted nothing demonstrating prejudice is no different than the several other forms of woo that are discussed here,

So, by the Skeptics Dictionary, it seems prejudice is woo.

Sadly, you seem to make several of the same rhetorical errors that are being lampooned here.

 

[RandFan]

Which are all laudable goals, I'd say.

So is losing 15 pounds. What does that have to do with atheism?

Atheism + birdwatching.

 

[RandFan]

I've already pointed out that this very statement is, out of context, irrelevant to my point, and wasn't worded well so it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Hang on, did you or did you not say the following:

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized.

Do you stand by that statement? Yes? No?

If you don't stand by the statement then please give me the link to the post that clarifies what you said and what you meant?

 

[Diogenes]

...
Do you stand by that statement? Yes? No?

If you don't stand by the statement then please give me the link to the post that clarifies what you said and what you meant?

Hypothesis: The number of examples of which time was taken to be carefully fact check is less than or equal to 1.

 

[RandFan]

Hypothesis: The number of examples of which time was taken to be carefully fact check is less than or equal to 1.

I agree. Let me add another.

My Hypothesis: There is plenty of time to track back examples to verify that they are mischaracterized but there just isn't enough time in the day to point them out.

 

[Mr.Samsa]

My that's seems a bit disingenuous. Was there a "new wave of skepticism" that brought about a movement called "skepticism plus"?

The skeptic movement itself is a "new wave", it's only come about in recent times.

That sounds a bit straw mannish to me.

The disagreement is on: Safe from what? Safe from disagreement? Debate club? Rape threats? Coffee invitations? They are not safe from anything they hope to be safe from IMO.

Being hyper-visible to your enemy invites attack. The hammering they get from trolls gives testament to this.

But that's just equivocating on the word "safe". The word "safe" in "safe space" is defined as having rules that forbid discriminatory and bigoted attitudes. That is all it means.

It has nothing to do with being "safe from disagreement" - unless the disagreement is over whether I should be allowed to spout racist crap on a forum, then it is. It doesn't have a problem with coffee invitations, and even prominent figures in the area like Watson wouldn't argue that coffee invitiations are problematic (to suggest so would obviously be a purposeful misrepresentation of the actual details).

So again, just to be clear, a "safe space" does not literally refer to a place where no harm (in the broadest sense) could ever happen. That would be delusional and not something that could ever be created. A "safe space" is simply an area where there are rules about discriminatory attitudes and behaviors.

I'm not sure secular humanism is like atheism plus. Secular humanism isn't concerned that there are too many whites around.

I realise that this is a joke but I think sometimes it's wise to be careful with throwaway comments because some people actually believe that this is what atheism+ thinks, and think that the concept of the privilege implies the same thing.

I know it's nutty but I guess we can't expect everyone in the world to be rational.

I would say there's a difference between making fun of someone's name and finding someone's name amusing.

Indeed there is and most social justice activists will agree.

Some names just are funny. I'm not being xenophobic by finding Tiny Kox's name amusing, just because he's Dutch and I'm not. It's not his being Dutch that makes the name amusing, it's the fact that he's called Tiny Kox. Immature? Sure. Xenophobic? No.

Yes, finding names funny isn't a problem. Discussing the name and stating that it is funny is where the problems arise, in the same way that there is no problem with finding your best friend's wife attractive, but the problems arise when you start discussing that fact with other people or act on that attraction.

That is already happening! Lenient? They are hardly that now, one problem is already too many non-trolls and those with seemongly good intensions are getting banned for arbitrary "offences" , There are numerous examples previously in this thread. So much for "assume good faith".

They aren't "lenient" for a standard discussion forum, but they are incredibly lenient for a safe space. There are a number of members there who have been given multiple warnings and it's obvious that they aren't there because they're interested in anything to do with social justice, and they are just trolls. What's the point of giving these people multiple warnings?

It's a safe space, there is no place for "good intentions" and "good faith". If you hurt someone, it doesn't matter whether you meant to or not as the damage is already done.

Remind us again, with examples please, what the harm is, and what are these "discussion techniques" that cause such harm?

Engaging in forms of casual racism or sexism, like saying things like, "Whoa, a girl on the internet!". The harm is, as demonstrated by a number of findings like those in prejudiced norm theory, that not only does it increase the prejudice of the person making the joke, but it also has the effect of making bigots hearing the jokes more likely to believe that their views are shared by the general public (even if the person making the joke was being ironic or satirical).

 

[Diogenes]

The skeptic movement itself is a "new wave", it's only come about in recent times....

1952. I'm pretty sure that predates Google by a lot. I'm clearly not the only one "conflating" the forum and the "movement". Looks like a PR issue. Or we're all just wrong, I suppose, that's a perspective that can be taken.

 

[Diogenes]

...The harm is, as demonstrated by a number of findings like those in prejudiced norm theory, that not only does it increase the prejudice of the person making the joke, but it also has the effect of making bigots hearing the jokes more likely to believe that their views are shared by the general public (even if the person making the joke was being ironic or satirical).

Do you have some of those peer-reviewed references handy? I'm interested in reading the literature and if you're already found particularly compelling articles I'd be interested to know which ones those were.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

It's a safe space, there is no place for "good intentions" and "good faith".

Then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about as the Aplus forum a has a long Moderator stickie post on "good faith". which according to you has no place there.

The A+ Guide to Good Faith

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2104

Engaging in forms of casual racism or sexism, like saying things like, "Whoa, a girl on the internet!". The harm is, as demonstrated by a number of findings like those in prejudiced norm theory, that not only does it increase the prejudice of the person making the joke, but it also has the effect of making bigots hearing the jokes more likely to believe that their views are shared by the general public (even if the person making the joke was being ironic or satirical).

That's a generic invented example, I want you to show us actual real concrete examples of "discussion techniques" and the "harm" they produce. Casual racism or sexism can be, and is challenged on many forums , including here, has anyone been pulled up for saying "Whoa, a girl on the internet!" on the aplus forum? I doubt it. So what makes it any different?
Just flashing a term like "prejudiced norm theory" isn't going to suffice.

 

[Stout]

But that's just equivocating on the word "safe". The word "safe" in "safe space" is defined as having rules that forbid discriminatory and bigoted attitudes. That is all it means.

Ah, I see the problem here. A+ doesn't allow what they're defining as racism and sexism, the "sociology" definition of those words but they do allow, and even encourage bigotry and discrimination, they just label it "punching up"

Even if they have to make stuff up to do it.

An example ?

A couple of pages back I posted a link where one poster was on an anti-male rant. Going on about fuzzy lady brains etc, I'm sure you'rve seen those posts before they show up every few weeks. he kicker though was the line that people ( presumably men ) consider a woman having a period as unnatural.

Let's think about that for a second.

Who on earth thinks like that ? Seriously, if this were the roaring 20s then maybe she'd have a point however we've moved on, we've taken biology in middle school. There are religions out there that penalize women during certain times of the month however, back of the room etc, however they use words like unclean not unnatural.

That post even got a hand clapping gif.

Here's one for the problematic jar. Setar, a straight guy is criticizing a gay group, the HRC over their request that trans flags be stifled during a demonstration. Sometimes even straight up homophobia get a pass over on A+ if it's done by an insider.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Confusing Special Bunny Pleading

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=864&start=425

I'm no good at linking to a direct post over there, so I'll quote it - it's not long enough to get me in trouble for "huge swaths of material".

Re: The wishing, complaining, tantrum-throwing, venting thre
by NoGodsNoMasters » Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:45 pm

So Husband and I went out for our traditional pre-vacation shop, where we buy something new to wear while we're off having fun. The nearest thing to a mall around us is about 1/2 an hour away so we only go there sparingly. They have been slowly closing down any stores that I can shop in for clothes though. One store closed last year. The most successful plus size clothing store in the country. Now,
26 shops sell women's clothing.
3 sell plus size clothing.
At least that's what I thought until I went there this time. That number has now moved down to 2, one of which is too expensive for me to even think of going in to.
The store that I can no longer shop in still exist, but they no longer carry plus size clothes.
I didn't know that I was so repulsive to them that I should no longer be able to shop in person, out in public.

I've considered writing them a letter expressing this but I'm so dejected that I figure I probably won't get very far. I mean, if I don't mean enough to be able to shop in their stores, why should they listen to me now.
It's bothered me much more than I thought it would

Now, I have a lot of empathy for people with weight/obesity problems. My mom carried far too much weight for most of her adult life and was basically crippled from about the age of sixty. She also developed serious diabetes which evidently comes with the territory. And she died in 2000 because she wasn't strong enough to recover from an operation to fix a weight-related hernia. Plus, my sister was even larger and died a few years ago - heart attack/diabetic coma.

I just don't understand the basis for the complaint. Is she saying there's some kind of conspiracy out there to not service plus-size customers? If there's money in it, merchants will sell you anything. Anything! If you've got a market for used kitty litter*, someone will sell it. If there was any kind of retail market for plus-sizes, they'd be selling them in every store in the mall. Obviously, no one's coming in and shopping/buying.

Obese people do not go out a lot, that's a fact. They have taken to shopping on line in a big way. Rather than railing about the stores oppressing you, rail at your fellow plus-sizers for not getting out and supporting the stores that were offering you the products you needed. This is like all the people who shop at Walmart for the lower prices and then piss and moan about the store on the high street (that they haven't been into more than twice year for the last decade) being run out of business by Big Retail.

That "I didn't know I was so repulsive" is a statement unto itself. I don't find her repulsive and I don't know a single merchant who finds anyone, whether they're size 0 or size 24, who spends money in their shop repulsive. But I find her pity party special bunny pleading repulsive. "Waah, the sixteen stores that I like to browse through ONCE A YEAR to buy a single item no longer carry my favorites." With the number of larger people in the US and UK now, there's certainly a market for plus-size clothing. Where are the buyers? All sitting at home oppressed and depressed? Or shopping on the internet because there's a better selection and it's easier to do?


*traditionally, someone will now post a link showing that you can actually buy used kitty litter on line

 

[Daald]

Engaging in forms of casual racism or sexism, like saying things like, "Whoa, a girl on the internet!". The harm is, as demonstrated by a number of findings like those in prejudiced norm theory, that not only does it increase the prejudice of the person making the joke, but it also has the effect of making bigots hearing the jokes more likely to believe that their views are shared by the general public (even if the person making the joke was being ironic or satirical).

1. How have you determined that the person making such a joke has had their "prejudice increased"? What does that mean? How was this tested? How are you even defining prejudice?

2. How did you determine that making a covert bigot to go overt through making him think he is not alone to be a negative? Did you just bring him out of the closet so that society at large that does not believe such things can spot him and chastise him? How exactly again did you determine this to be a negative?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I didn't know that I was so repulsive to them that I should no longer be able to shop in person, out in public.

I've considered writing them a letter expressing this but I'm so dejected that I figure I probably won't get very far. I mean, if I don't mean enough to be able to shop in their stores, why should they listen to me now.
It's bothered me much more than I thought it would

Classic example of mind reading.

It seems like a bit of a dilemma because of course we can't really read minds, so the options of animus towards certain customers or simple supply/demand economics can't be decisively chosen.

When I was hospitalised and in group therapy we were going around and answering some basic prompts. This one was something about what we think about people. I said that people were scary, lying, cruel, stupid, etc. One of the therapists pointed out that when thinking those things about people and expecting the worst from them you are basically insulting/attacking them without any proof.

In a "safe space" we should be able to challenge people's misattributions with their experiences to help them see them more clearly.

 

[Lorentz]

Hello everyone, I've been following this thread and its precursors for a while now and finally registered so I could join in.

Mr. Samsa said: (I have to figure out how to include that in the quotes one of these days)

I think there are certainly teething issues with how moderation is supposed to work there but it is important to remember that it's a safe space, not a regular forum.

This has been bothering me for a while. A+ is said to be a 'safe space', but AFAIK that's not a term. Certainly there can be safe spaces, for victims of abuse, or for people with suicidal tendencies, or for people with paranoia. What you cannot have however, is a safe space in general. In a safe space, particular types of communication are disallowed, or closely monitored. That's what makes it a 'safe space'. It cannot however be a 'safe space' for everyone. Obviously A+ is not and is not intended to be a safe space for MRA's, or for Christians. The question then remains, who is it a safe space FOR? What aspects of reality are to be mitigated against to make the participants feel safe? Is it a safe space for transgenders? For women who feel objectified by men? For people with Aspergers? For people who suffer from paranoia? The criteria for making it a safe space for transgenders are different from those that would be applied for making it safe for women who live in fear of male aggression and they would, imo, be hard to combine.

To reiterate, I don't think 'safe space' is a valid concept, unless there is a 'for' attached. A safe space is directed towards a specific group of people who have particular issues, or it's nonsensical.