Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[ApostateltsopA]

And ApostateltsopA:



You know that a myth, right?

That doctors making choices about whom to save is a myth? I have no idea. I only know that at the moment I have agency, and I am very hesitant to surrender it. I can certainly see it as the old train must run over people, 1 or 3 will be killed, choose senerio.

What do you think the one person would choose if they could have the train hit them or the other three? I suspect it would depend on a lot of variables however I want my organs to remain mine until I decide otherwise. My next of kin are aware and will do what is needed if I am incapacitated.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

When did anyone anywhere on the A+ board advocate that bad things happening to brown people are ok because of brown?

From the mouth of global moderator ceepolk:

thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end.

I don't believe anyone there challenged ceepolk's statement about hands-off the religions of brown people, thereby either agreeing, or being afraid of her banhammer. It's been said that ceepolk isn't even an atheist, which, if true, makes one wonder why she's there.

In what way is this a suggestion that it's ok for bad things to happen to brown people?

 

[Mr. Scott]

In what way is this a suggestion that it's ok for bad things to happen to brown people?

Why do Aplussers always distort my words to counter my criticisms? Do they only attack straw men?

I gave my interpretation of ceepolk's command, taken in context. It's not the same as your distortion, above.

What's your interpretation?
She's ordering Aplussers to not think about the religions of brown people. The atheist movement has always been about improving the world by reducing the suffering of people, of any color, caused by religious delusions perpetrated by people of any color. Ceepolk, and presumably much of A+, apparently thinks that brown peoples' religions are exempt. Why? Because of colonialism over a century ago which no one alive is responsible for.

On CBS 60 Minutes last night was a report "Hunting the world's most wanted warlord: Joseph Kony" about someone who uses religious ideas to kidnap children, dismember his enemies, and keep a harem of female slaves to rape as needed. All justified with religion. But, according to ceepolk, a chief ideologue and enforcer at the A+ forum, we should not think about it because it's a brown person's religion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

http://skepchick.org/2013/04/an-open-letter-to-secular-community-leaders/

For instance, dear atheist leaders, if every hour of every day for a year someone randomly called you a disgusting heathen, told you you deserved to be raped by dogs, gave you pamphlets about burning in hell, and told you that your life was worthless and you should kill yourself, would you be ready for a calm and rational conversation with your neighbor, who just wants to tell you that you’d make more friends if you weren’t so angry all the time?

Evidence, please.

For instance, the disagreements I have with other feminists are by and large productive and interesting.

Tell that to Stef McGraw.

 

[Jono]

Brown people? Does it include the yellows and red indians?

 

[Stout]

Annnnnnd...we have safe space fail.

Setar this time, on the liberturds thread.

A picture of a cat with a commanding NO! all memed into it. What's the problem Stout ? I hear you asking, it's just a cat, put down the bong and step away from the SJWs

Well the problem is that particular cat. His name is Tard, a word we all know as a perjorative for someone with developmental disabilities and should such a person happen to wander into A+ they'd be confronted with that slur and possibly react in the fashion that an Aplusser receiving an unsolicited PM would.

Social justice is a minefield put it's a good idea for those planting that minefield to make a detailed map of just where they planed those mines lest they succumb to friendly fire.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Brown people? Does it include the yellows and red indians?

Funny you should ask that. I think ceepolk calls anyone brown who's not caucasion. It's a very sloppy designation. I've noticed that Koreans and Japanese tend to have skin very close to caucasion tone, and some Greeks and Italians to be rather brown. I've been told that Native Americans got called "red" because some Europeans noticed one tribe (the Beothuk people of Newfoundland) that liked to paint their skin with red ochre pigment.

For her, brown people I'm sure means not of European ancestry. Yes, European colonialism was a bad thing, but we have to start with the here and now, and atheist activists need to go after the falsity and toxicity of religion as their number one task without regard to skin color. Sadly, some brown peoples' religions justify unimaginably horrific treatment of women. In bold defiance of ceepolk, I'm thinking about it.

thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end. (A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012)

 

[RandFan]

Funny you should ask that. I think ceepolk calls anyone brown who's not caucasion. It's a very sloppy designation. I've noticed that Koreans and Japanese tend to have skin very close to caucasion tone, and some Greeks and Italians to be rather brown. I've been told that Native Americans got called "red" because some Europeans noticed one tribe (the Beothuk people of Newfoundland) that liked to paint their skin with red ochre pigment.

For her, brown people I'm sure means not of European ancestry. Yes, European colonialism was a bad thing, but we have to start with the here and now, and atheist activists need to go after the falsity and toxicity of religion as their number one task without regard to skin color. Sadly, some brown peoples' religions justify unimaginably horrific treatment of women. In bold defiance of ceepolk, I'm thinking about it.

Thanks.

thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end. (A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012)

Ignorance on parade. Oh, and those suffering in Muslim countries are going to have to suffer a little while longer. White oppression needs to be conquered first.

 

[Jono]

Funny you should ask that. I think ceepolk calls anyone brown who's not caucasion. It's a very sloppy designation. I've noticed that Koreans and Japanese tend to have skin very close to caucasion tone, and some Greeks and Italians to be rather brown. I've been told that Native Americans got called "red" because some Europeans noticed one tribe (the Beothuk people of Newfoundland) that liked to paint their skin with red ochre pigment.

Well I ment, they have this rather important ordeal-n-debacle in their forum rules about not using the word "female" unless in a very clinical fashion, and checking your privileges, yet the term "brown people" flies by without notice? I swear Bill Maher would have a field-day with that one.

 

[RandFan]

Well I ment, they have this rather important ordeal-n-debacle in their forum rules about not using the word "female" unless in a very clinical fashion, and checking your privileges, yet the term "brown people" flies by without notice? I swear Bill Maher would have a field-day with that one.

The absurdities are quick to spot. It's inherent to the mindset.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What do you think the one person would choose if they could have the train hit them or the other three?

Fatty is gonna die.




(Those who were at NECSS V will understand)

 

[ApostateltsopA]

In what way is this a suggestion that it's ok for bad things to happen to brown people?

Why do Aplussers always distort my words to counter my criticisms? Do they only attack straw men?

I gave my interpretation of ceepolk's command, taken in context. It's not the same as your distortion, above.

What's your interpretation?
She's ordering Aplussers to not think about the religions of brown people. The atheist movement has always been about improving the world by reducing the suffering of people, of any color, caused by religious delusions perpetrated by people of any color. Ceepolk, and presumably much of A+, apparently thinks that brown peoples' religions are exempt. Why? Because of colonialism over a century ago which no one alive is responsible for.

On CBS 60 Minutes last night was a report "Hunting the world's most wanted warlord: Joseph Kony" about someone who uses religious ideas to kidnap children, dismember his enemies, and keep a harem of female slaves to rape as needed. All justified with religion. But, according to ceepolk, a chief ideologue and enforcer at the A+ forum, we should not think about it because it's a brown person's religion.

I love this. You complained about me taking you out of context disingenuously _while_ you "quote" me without two words which rather change the meaning of the sentence. AND you pretend that you linked ceepolk out of the blue as opposed to linking it in direct answer to my post. As if I put the words in your mouth somehow.

Here, I'll repost the exchange since you seem to think that something which happened one page prior to this will be hard to fact check.

Your origional comment

..and no doubt full of "privileged" people.

"Like, omigawd, he asked me for cawfee in an elevator. I'm gonna complain when I'm onstage to eeeeeevrybody," said the privileged white girl.

You definitely show your privileged class if you get all drama about a coffee invitation when there are lovely young brown women being accused of witchcraft and burned alive. Today. Right now. The message I hear from the Aplussers is to pay no attention to it because the perpetrators are brown skinned.

My response

@RP,

There is literally too much here for me to respond to. Especially when it is buried in highly toxic comments like these,

<your comments from above quoted fully here>

When did anyone anywhere on the A+ board advocate that bad things happening to brown people are ok because of brown? Or any other reason it's ok for bad things to happen? Yet comments like his pass with little or no side look here. It is absurd. This is a gross misrepresentation of both A+ and Elevatorgate. It's fact checkable in seconds yet it flies totally uncontested. However my comments generate pages of responses, many of which are at least equally dishonest.

I see you don't contest my criticism of your elevatorgate comments, good for you. But then you supply this,

When did anyone anywhere on the A+ board advocate that bad things happening to brown people are ok because of brown?

From the mouth of global moderator ceepolk:

thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end.

I don't believe anyone there challenged ceepolk's statement about hands-off the religions of brown people, thereby either agreeing, or being afraid of her banhammer. It's been said that ceepolk isn't even an atheist, which, if true, makes one wonder why she's there.

And now you claim I've taken you out of context?! You are making the claim that ceepolk is excusing all bad behavior by religious people if they are brown. (among other claims equally absurd) You construct a straw effigy about some religious extremists and stand it in for all religion? You have completely ignored that the thread was about social justice, as opposed to telling people what they should believe in, e.g. attacking culture. Or perhaps "evangelistic atheism" which requires one to accept the notion that all religion is bad. (which would be an endorsement of thought crime)

Quite honestly, do you aspire to be Glen Beck? Some other Fox contributor? This level of disingenuousness can not be a mistake.

I did not take you out of context, I asked you a direct question, and when you responded I asked you how that was an example of what I asked you.

Your response was to truncate, further truncate, my comments and then take a swing at some straw, all the while projecting your behavior onto me.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I did not take you out of context, I asked you a direct question, and when you responded I asked you how that was an example of what I asked you.

Yes, but your "direct question" was a straw man, and Mr. Scott's reply was re-stating what he had actually said.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Well, there's lovely.

 

[Diogenes]

Well, there's lovely.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Response to moderated content removed.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

(See, this is how a mod SHOULD do it, minimal interference with no one getting banned or suspended.)

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Mr. Scott]

I see you don't contest my criticism of your elevatorgate comments, good for you.

I said the "A+theism" logo suggests A+ leaders are not very smart. Since you didn't disagree, does it mean you agree?

Let me make one thing clear. I support the "we are" official mission statement of A+ but think their tactics and conduct are ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy:

Mr. Scott cares about social justice,
Mr. Scott supports women’s rights,
Mr. Scott protests racism,
Mr. Scott fights homophobia and transphobia,
Mr. Scott uses critical thinking and skepticism.

First, not responding to a comment doesn't mean I have no refutation. You are projecting. Some remarks I think are so obviously wrong that anyone who's opinion I care about can see how wrong they are and it would be stating the obvious.

One of my goals is terseness. I see that's not one of yours. This is a difference in style. I assume you are not aware that you reduce your readership when you post a wall of text. When I quote a portion of a remark, it's to put front and center what I think the reader should see never with the intent to altering the meaning.

If I don't answer specific questions, it could be because I perceive them as rhetorical, I might not feel it's worth my time to answer a flood of them, or I've already answered them.

If you have serious questions you really want me to answer, ask them one at a time, state them tersely, clue me in that you really want an answer, and I will do my best.

Your most recent questions were obviously not serious. It's not always obvious which of your questions are serious. It's hypocritical to ignore my questions to you then demand I answer all of yours.

These are my serious questions for you:
I asked you a very long time ago to justify your statement that emotions are intellectual tools. To many of us, this flies in the face of skepticism and critical thinking, explicit in the A+ mission statement. We're still awaiting your response (unless it was missed in a wall of text).

I also asked for your interpretation of ceepolk's "don't think about brown peoples' religion"* edict. I'm still awaiting your response.

*Her complete post (linky) so you don't again accuse me of changing the meaning with partial quote:

yeah, that's what she's saying.

and i agree. thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end.

 

[Stout]

and i agree. thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end.

That statement is an edict to redirect A+ culture and restrict it to bashing white western society, nothing more.

Colonialism speaks for itself, the whole stolen from indigenous peoples thing ( black SJWs can exempt themselves from the colonialist role by stating that their ancestors were brought over to the Americas against their will ) while the white supremacist is a blanket label that SJW apply to all white people in western society. White supremacism has nothing to do with neo nazis as absolutely everybody hates neo nazis in our so called racist society.

It's atheism fail.

A+ doesn't do international politics.

Last week someone over there started a thread on North Korea. The thread got a few responses before being shut down by ceepolk with a curt NO ! then, hours later the thread was black bagged.

 

[Mr. Scott]

black SJWs can exempt themselves from the colonialist role by stating that their ancestors were brought over to the Americas against their will

That certainly applies to Africans imported to Europe and it's colonies for the slave trade, but there was mad colonialism by Europeans going on in Africa. Much of the strife in Africa today is traceable to European colonization.

 

[luchog]

*Her complete post (linky) so you don't again accuse me of changing the meaning with partial quote:

Wow, poking back through that thread shows it to be a triumph of ignorance, misinformation, and that sort of patronizing subtle racism so common to the far Left. Sylvia Sybil's comments in particular. Although I can see her point about cleaning up one's own backyard, her characterization of Islam, the world's second largest and fastest growing religion, as "marginalized" is beyond ludicrous. Close to one-quarter of the world population is Muslim. The growth rate of Islam in the developed world ranges from 20% to 200%, at a time when Christianity is barely growing, or even declining.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx
See also CIA World Factbook, United Nations Population Information Network.

To dismiss it as a "religion of brown people" is racist.

Reading the rest of the thread is equally painful. The sheer (willful?) ignorance of history and historical cultures is almost as disquieting; and the application of that ignorance to support such a patronizingly racist attitude is disturbing.

 

[Stout]

That certainly applies to Africans imported to Europe and it's colonies for the slave trade, but there was mad colonialism by Europeans going on in Africa. Much of the strife in Africa today is traceable to European colonization.

I fully agree with this however given the context within which that comment was delivered we can confidently assume that the colonialism mentioned had more to do with "our" trespassing on "their" land.

European colonialism has nothing to do with Islam nor are Muslims a marginalized group in, say, the middle east so someone beaking off about stoning in Iran would be perceived as racist under the A+ rules of engagement because we have a westerner criticizing a cultural practice that is technically none of "our" business.