Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[dasmiller]

Does anyone know what "IMP" means? I sure as hell don't.

It's a type of demon DEMON.

ftfy

 

[theprestige]

Of course dealing with fallout from japanese colonialism is too complex for a+.

To be fair, I think the A+ forums are pretty clearly focused on "local" problems: Social justice concerns that hit close to home for its members. Japanese colonialism might not be too complex, but it's almost certainly out of scope for that forum.

The JREF forum doesn't get nearly as deep into astronomy and astrophysics as, say, the Cosmoquest forum, but nobody points and laughs and says astronomy must be "too complex" for JREF.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Does anyone know what "IMP" means? I sure as hell don't.

http://www.allthingsliquorice.co.uk/by/special_offers/content/products/english/liquorice_imps.html

?

 

[kmortis]

Does anyone know what "IMP" means? I sure as hell don't.

In My oPinion?

 

[ponderingturtle]

To be fair, I think the A+ forums are pretty clearly focused on "local" problems: Social justice concerns that hit close to home for its members. Japanese colonialism might not be too complex, but it's almost certainly out of scope for that forum.

The JREF forum doesn't get nearly as deep into astronomy and astrophysics as, say, the Cosmoquest forum, but nobody points and laughs and says astronomy must be "too complex" for JREF.

It also doesn't make claims about such things being off topic or verboten to discuss. There is a difference between not being of interest to the people on a forum and censored. And I suspect you can get members with appropriate knowledge here if the issue turned up.

 

[zooterkin]

There's enough overlap that the Aida Initiative (whose example convention policy and anti-harassment guide were adopted by PyCon organizers for their code of conduct) works to get that same policy adopted by "science fiction conventions, fan conventions, computer game conferences, and skeptic/atheist conferences" as well as open tech/culture conferences.

Even the "Short Version" seems long winded to me. I just had an excellent weekend at QEDCon. Here's the entirety of their equivalent statement:

An important note about feeling comfortable at QED

We want people to feel like QED is "their" event, and part of that means ensuring that everyone feels comfortable. If you feel another attendee, a speaker, a volunteer or a member of the QED staff has acted inappropriately toward you, we have nominated three Support Officers you can speak to, in confidence.

If you cannot find an officer, you can ask at the merchandise stand, or contact them directly on the numbers below.

<Photos, names and numbers of the officers>

As with the TAM version last year, I think brevity is preferable to spelling out all the possible things that might be wrong.

ETA: As far as I know, the officers were not needed; I didn't hear of any incidents, anyway.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

ftfy

Actually, I should have said "daemon". Why? 'coz it's cooler.

 

[Tony]

This thread is also about Free Thought Blogs (FTB), where PZ Myers^WP, a major supporter of A+, has sounded off on donglegate in his post "Adria Richards did everything exactly right."

PZ has become a pussy-wipped eunuch. In terms of the atheist "community" he is vastly eclipsed by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins.

 

[RandFan]

http://www.allthingsliquorice.co.uk/by/special_offers/content/products/english/liquorice_imps.html

?

No. Don't think so.

In My oPinion?

Bingo.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Does anyone know what "IMP" means? I sure as hell don't.

It's My Privilege.


-

 

[jhunter1163]

The JREF forum doesn't get nearly as deep into astronomy and astrophysics as, say, the Cosmoquest forum, but nobody points and laughs and says astronomy must be "too complex" for JREF.

Read some of sol invictus's posts over in Science. There's nothing too complex for that guy. Astrophysics may not be a focus of this forum, but that doesn't mean we don't have experts here.

 

[zeggman]

Does anyone know what "IMP" means? I sure as hell don't.

It's My Party (and I'll cry if I want to).

 

[ApostateltsopA]

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

Check again, I asked for evidence to support the claim he made and he responded with a link. When I asked how the link supported what I had asked about he got real evasive.

I find it interesting that you think my question was a strawman but that his hyperbolic post I responded to did not have issues. Or is it you only commented on what you perceived to be my misconduct and have not spoken on his for some reason?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

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?

Slight difference, my comment was a direct reference to you. Were you commenting directly to me? It helps if you put my name on. I'm ignoring a lot of background attacks, trying to address all of them is more than I have time for.

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.

Yet you are still not denying the accusation. You are talking around it a lot but it is patently false what you characterized as elevatorgate.

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.

So you removed two words, which alter the meaning of the sentence, for terseness.. I find that hard to believe.

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.

Or you lack an answer but refuse to walk back a statement.

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.

I doubt that,

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.

Sure they were. I engaged you directly on what you posted. I used you as an example of what is wrong with the culture on this thread. However I do agree that the exchange should be a fair one and I'm happy to answer your questions. (Within reason, asking me to mind read others is out.)

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).

Don't whine about walls, large posts are necessary to convey large amounts of information and you are hardly following your own advice with a single question on a single topic. Also given the nature of this threadnaught going back to previous pages is labor intensive and risks losing information, that is why I quote you fully.

As to emotions being valid tools of thinking, emotions are an unavoidable aspect of human thought. We can attempt to suppress them but this makes them act subconsciously. It strikes me that it is better to be aware of them, realize them and work with them. I think Quinn made great points about how empathy is only available if you allow for emotional thinking. I do agree with several posters I saw that one should not get carried away by emotion, however I see denying emotion as harmful in much the same way.

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.

Given the way you have danced arround this topic I don't know that it's worth it. However it seems pretty simple to me. When you attack the religion of marginalized people you are attacking them and their culture. If you are white and in the US or Europe you are making that attack down an axis of privilege, and that's bad. Focus on the religious issues in your own culture. Let the atheists in their culture work on their religion. No good will come of attacking before things are evened out.

Sylvia sums it up pretty nicely.

the best I can do is that appropriation is bad when it also contributes to racism beyond the racism-background noise of the prevailing culture, it's a grey area when it's at the background-noise level, and perfectly fine when it doesn't play into racism at all, if that's possible.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. It sounds like you're trying to force racism into a video game style points system, and it really doesn't work that way.

Also, a big NO to "background noise" being iffy or grey. Reducing the background noise of bigotry is the main point of having a safe space. "It's okay if everyone else is doing it" is how bigotry gets perpetuated and repeated.

I have a really *********** hard time respecting anything that's a faith or religious or woo belief, so the sacredness arguments rub very wrongly.

YOUR opinions have nothing to do with the wrongness of cultural appropriation. It's not about "I'll only refrain from racism as long as there's no religion involved"; that's not okay. You don't have to respect the belief in order to respect the believer.

You can think that worshiping a flying spaghetti monster is absurd. That's fine. Selling imitations of sacred FSM statues because it's profitable is not fine. Imitating sacred FSM dances because it's good exercise is not fine. Putting up sacred FSM decorations because you think they're pretty is not fine. Those are theft and mockery.

It doesn't matter if you think "sacred" is ********; it's still their ******** and you don't get to take it.

he did exactly what we should be doing with religious things- shucked the spiritual ******** and kept the worthwhile parts.

...as long as the people who own those things are okay with doing that. Stealing things because we don't think the owners are using them the "proper" way is colonialism. That is the justification that colonizers use to steal land, people, clothing, tools, knowledge, ideas, ad nauseum. It does not suddenly stop being colonialism when the theft is of a religious item or practice.

Also, I'm only interested in being the type of atheist who works to tear down Christian privilege. I'm not here to tear down other marginalized religions. I don't have a false sense of superiority like my lack of belief makes me a better person. I'm here about privilege and oppression and marginalization, and atheists are not the only group who are marginalized on basis of religion; in fact, we're better off than most.

Now I know someone mentioned that Islam is not marginalized because of fast growing and big numbers. In Islamic countries, I agree Islam is not marginalized, locally, assuming you are talking of the branch popular in any given place, being shia, for instance, in sunni territory is pretty damn awful.

However here in the states, being muslim is a very marginalized position. Look at all the nonsense with the "Ground Zero mosque" or any number of other attacks.

Now there is your olive branch, lets see some honest responses to the questions I have placed before you.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

This thread is also about Free Thought Blogs (FTB), where PZ Myers^WP, a major supporter of A+, has sounded off on donglegate in his post "Adria Richards did everything exactly right."

I don't know if donglegate has been discussed in ceepolkland (A+).

What are you suggesting? There was a thread at A+ we agreed it was shameful and hope Ms. Richards wins a wrongful termination suit.

PZ's post (Thanks for the link) is the first I've seen of one of the guys getting fired, I hope he also wins a wrongful termination suit.

The conduct of all the people losing their composure and lashing out at Richards over this is shameful. It does a tremendous disservice to the human race.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Check again, I asked for evidence to support the claim he made and he responded with a link.

No, you asked for evidence to support a claim he didn't make, and he provided evidence that supported the claim he did make.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The conduct of all the people losing their composure and lashing out at Richards over this is shameful. It does a tremendous disservice to the human race.

I call hyperbole. Don't have the time right now to answer your direct comments to me. Maybe later today.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

As to emotions being valid tools of thinking, emotions are an unavoidable aspect of human thought. We can attempt to suppress them but this makes them act subconsciously. It strikes me that it is better to be aware of them, realize them and work with them. I think Quinn made great points about how empathy is only available if you allow for emotional thinking. I do agree with several posters I saw that one should not get carried away by emotion, however I see denying emotion as harmful in much the same way.

I know this is not my discussion and I do not mean to dogpile you, just wanted to comment on this bit. And feel free to ignore it.

For one, you didn't even confirm that you agree that emotions are intellectual tools, let alone justify it. Being aware of them is not the same as regarding them as valid intellectual tools.

As for empathy, I have mostly seen it defined as the capacity to understand emotions in others, so this has nothing to do with emotional thinking, as in, empathy is not an emotion.

How do you see denying emotion to interfere with your thinking as harmful? (or did I misinterpret that last statement of yours, was it just trivial 'denying emotion is bad?')

 

[MarkCorrigan]

ApostateltsopA I'm going to ask one simple question to you, if that's ok?

I'm white, atheist "cultural Christian" as Dawkins puts it. Am I allowed to criticise Islam, yes or no?

 

[bedlin88]

Does anyone know what "IMP" means? I sure as hell don't.

Maybe "In My Privilege"