Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[jhunter1163]

Thanks!

The team list needs to be updated. Beer-swilling jhunter1163 is not there.

I'm guessing I got taken off the list when I deregistered last year to deal with some family issues, and never got put back on when I re-volunteered. Otherwise, they've got some 'splainin' to do as to why I'm allowed in the Mod Area and why I can give people yellow cards and such.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

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?')

Perhaps you can tell me what you mean by intellectual tools, I assume you would qualify logic as a tool, what about conception? Is the conceiving of ideas a tool? If yes, then are there emotion laden ideas? If yes can using emotion better help understand those ideas?

To me empathy is an intellectual tool, which requires emotion and emotional awareness. If we want to understand each other than pure logic does not meet the needs of the demand. A good example would be the rational actor assumed in very basic economics. However we can see that not all people act rationally when spending and buying. This is where the psychology and emotional thinking come in. We can use our understanding of emotions to help analyze the irrational behavior, or to see rational where logic alone can not.

The last statement is my rejection of the idea that emotions should be suppressed or weeded out.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

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?

Allowed? I suspect you are allowed but I think what you really mean is will I criticize you for criticizing Islam.

That would be entirely situational. I would not bat an eye if you were to say all religion is foolish. If you said that Islam creates terrorists and is inherently bad I would call you on a gross oversimplification. I'd also point out the massive number of Muslims who abhor terrorism.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll ask that you clarify, in what circumstance or under what general setting do you intend to criticize?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

I'm white, atheist "cultural Christian" as Dawkins puts it. Am I allowed to criticize Christianity as practiced by brown or black people ?

Context would be helpful. If you were spending your time in Mississippi harassing church attendees, I'd reserve the same disdain for you that I have for the evangelicals that like to shout from bullhorns at atheist conventions.

If you are making broad, all christian, encompassing commentary, then I'll not bat an eye, unless you are doing it in a place where you'd be making your comments down an axis of privilege at the people who are at the disadvantage.

Specifics matter.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Another question that also illustrates the fundamental problem of Atheism Plus:

My brother is developmentally disabled. He believes God exists. Is he wrong?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Hi Myriad, I replied to you in detail some pages back, I'll understand if you missed it.

To this specific question, is he wrong, wrong about the existence of god? I have no idea. The concept that God usually refers to is non-falsifiable.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

I wasn't suggesting anything. Just sharing factual information.

However, I spiced it a bit by calling the A+ forum "ceepolkland" because it's one of those forums where a single person dominates and bullies everyone else, and seems to feel they have to answer almost every post and set the tone. I almost never visit there (or FTB) unless someone here provides a link. That's why I wasn't aware of their donglegate thread.

It's typical for companies to terminate employees who generate negative publicity, as Richards and her targets did. Richards has not had any activity on YouTube for a month. Her prudish, Joan of Arc moment may prove to be the worst decision in her life.

Why do you think ceepolk dominates the forum if you don't spend much time there reading?

It may be typical, but it's still shameful. It can also be the basis for a wrongful termination lawsuit, even in the case of at-will employment. However my experience in HR is that such firings are not common and even if someone were problematic, documented steps are followed before a termination, if only to avoid unemployment payments.

I'm not surprised if she's turned it off. The level of hostility that has been poured on her is pretty steep. If I were here I'd probably find something better to do with my time.

On topic,

Our first instinct should not be to suspect the very worst possible of others. Ms. Richards decided against speaking to the two men first. She decided against resolving any differences in an adult fashion, one on one with her perceived detractors. Instead she decided to act in a way that had the greatest potential to harm the two young men.

Is there something that can be said that would shine a better light on Ms. Richards?
Would it not result in a better society if we tried to work things out between us without social media and authorities first? Wouldn't a little personal responsibility and charity go a long way to reducing miscommunications?

Why do you think she did not behave as an adult? The two men were already in violation of the code of conduct for the location, which is why the organization took action against them. Why do you feel they deserved a respectful response from her, personally and in private, when they were showing no respect?

Would it? If everyone who was put upon by people being jerks spoke to those jerks they might, if I am being charitable, get a response where the jerks stop being jerks because they didn't realize they were being offensive. Personally I think they would react with indignation and anger. They would probably then double down and the whole thing derails. However by calling them out publicly, they lose the advantage of numbers and their behavior, and all the nasty behavior from like minded people, is on display for all to see. So the hollow claims of 'There isn't really a problem' can be seen for straw and the actual problem can get some attention.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Thanks for the olive branch. Accusing me of lying makes it wither a bit, though.

I scanned your post for questions and only saw one: "Were you commenting directly to me?" My answer is no. Point taken.

Most of your other remarks I've either already addressed, or I'd be stating the obvious if I addressed them. The two words I purportedly eliminated to misrepresent a quote are too far back for me to bother to locate in this long thread. It's your burden to support your claim.

Seriously? I supported my claim and you just admitted to being too lazy to look back two pages, after you sent me back over 20 to find the discussion on emotion. You haven't answered my questions, you have offered one continuous evasion. You are beyond disingenuous and have destroyed my faith in you as an honest interlocutor. Ergo, I'll be ignoring you from here forward and using you as an example of the culture here, should I need to do so.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

I've been thinking, and I want to create an account at the plusser forum. Is there any risk involved? I'm sure they'll get hostile sooner or later.

The risk is finding you enjoy your time there. If you join, please read the basket of links. It will cover lots of things you can do to get banned quickly.

/edit, Thought better of that last bit, the links will tell you what not to do, assuming you are interested in not getting banned quickly. The two most important rules, assuming you don't drop in trolling, are don't be an ass, and it's not debate club.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm guessing I got taken off the list when I deregistered last year to deal with some family issues, and never got put back on when I re-volunteered. Otherwise, they've got some 'splainin' to do as to why I'm allowed in the Mod Area and why I can give people yellow cards and such.

You're not doing a Rebecca Watson, are you?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Allowed? I suspect you are allowed but I think what you really mean is will I criticize you for criticizing Islam.

That would be entirely situational. I would not bat an eye if you were to say all religion is foolish. If you said that Islam creates terrorists and is inherently bad I would call you on a gross oversimplification. I'd also point out the massive number of Muslims who abhor terrorism.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll ask that you clarify, in what circumstance or under what general setting do you intend to criticize?

Say that someone wanted to say that female genital mutilation, passed off as a religious practice in Africa, was wrong? Is that okay because female genital mutilation is abhorrent, or is it wrong because it's criticising brown people?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Personally I think they would react with indignation and anger. They would probably then double down and the whole thing derails.

On what are you basing this? The only comment we have from the men in question is a statement from the one who was fired, in which he agrees that he was violating the terms of the conference and that he should have been evicted. We also know that when asked to leave by staff they didn't protest.

From that, and the fact that they smiled for the picture she took of them, you get that they would have started an argument had she politely asked them to stop? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Can you explain your reasoning, please, and cite what specific evidence has lead you to your conclusions?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Seriously? I supported my claim and you just admitted to being too lazy to look back two pages, after you sent me back over 20 to find the discussion on emotion. You haven't answered my questions, you have offered one continuous evasion. You are beyond disingenuous and have destroyed my faith in you as an honest interlocutor. Ergo, I'll be ignoring you from here forward and using you as an example of the culture here, should I need to do so.

I call projection and strawman.

You chose to go back 20 pages to reread your post. I chose not to go back and reread your posts, for which I didn't even know how far back to go. Big difference. When my questions are ignored, I typically restate them (although with the risk I'll be seen as badgering). You don't know what competes for my time in the meat world.

I promised to answer in good faith specific questions you asked me in good faith, and you implied I was a liar. If YOU want me to answer your old questions, it's YOUR burden to present them to me.

If MY conduct is, to you, especially representative of the culture here, then maybe it doesn't really represent the culture here.

I'm pleased you will be ignoring me. You can put me on "ignore" then you won't even see what I write unless someone quotes me. Click my name on this post, then in the drop down list select "Add Mr. Scott to Your Ignore List."

 

[Diogenes]

The risk is finding you enjoy your time there. If you join, please read the basket of links. It will cover lots of things you can do to get banned quickly.

...I think it's the phrase "link basket" that does it. What a passive-aggressive, condescending, unproductive bludgeoning tool that is, all wrapped up as a gift.

"Link basket". Shudder.

And even if you do you're still likely to get yelled-down, cursed at and banned, anyway. "Enjoy your time there."...? Really? I guess we have different definitions of "enjoy".

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Perhaps you can tell me what you mean by intellectual tools, I assume you would qualify logic as a tool, what about conception? Is the conceiving of ideas a tool? If yes, then are there emotion laden ideas? If yes can using emotion better help understand those ideas?

Yes, yes, yes and no. See I think we can draw a line between understanding emotions and using emotions to arrive to some conclusion. Our ability to conceive emotions, in addition to feeling them, is what helps us imagine ourselves in other people's shoes. Ie, empathy. So, I propose, let's first experience an emotion, and then, after trying to isolate and examine that emotion, let's make a decision which is detached (as much as possible) from said emotion, but still taking it into account.

Eg. 'Wow, these protesters sure make me mad, I want to punch them in the face.' Stop. Why did I feel mad? Am I insecure? Should I be? Is violence the best course of actions? So I recognize I'm mad, but I might not be justified in being mad and won't decide on resorting to violence because of my emotion. My being mad gives me no leverage in making a rational decision. But it's a fact that I concede and consider. So I either may go and strike a conversation with a protester, or, further taking into account my emotion, ignore them and walk away.

To me empathy is an intellectual tool, which requires emotion and emotional awareness. If we want to understand each other than pure logic does not meet the needs of the demand. A good example would be the rational actor assumed in very basic economics. However we can see that not all people act rationally when spending and buying. This is where the psychology and emotional thinking come in. We can use our understanding of emotions to help analyze the irrational behavior, or to see rational where logic alone can not.

The last statement is my rejection of the idea that emotions should be suppressed or weeded out.

Well, I agree with this part. Understanding of emotions is always a good thing. My original point was that emotions themselves aren't perhaps intellectual tools (tools to help make rational decisions), though, granted, they are things to consider as are any and all facts that influence human behavior. There's a reason why emotional reasoning has a negative connotation. But of course, we should examine our emotions and take note of them.

We seem to agree on the core points.

 

[Mr. Scott]

'Wow, these protesters sure make me mad, I want to punch them in the face.' Stop. Why did I feel mad? Am I insecure? Should I be? Is violence the best course of actions?

Exactly. Your experience of your emotions clues you in to what's happening inside you, and little about what's happening with the protesters. In fact, emotions can be easily spoofed. Skepticism and critical thinking blow the doors off emotional thinking.

In other words, emotions can be tools to understand emotions. Little else, I'd suggest. E.g., look how many people "feel" they will win the lottery today and ignore the math that says they likely won't. Some tool.

I love that talk about the Straw Vulcan (below). The fallacy of all those Star Trek episodes where McCoy wins over Spock because he's so damned emotional is contingent upon the enemies having emotions that resemble McCoy's. There's little reason to assume aliens have emotions similar ours.

If Aplussers think emotions are intellectual tools, they are betraying their seminal promise to "use critical thinking and skepticism."

Straw Vulcan talk by Julia Galef at Skepticon 4:

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Why do you think she did not behave as an adult? The two men were already in violation of the code of conduct for the location, which is why the organization took action against them. Why do you feel they deserved a respectful response from her, personally and in private, when they were showing no respect?

She was in violation of the code of conduct as well, namely with the attendee procedure of handling harassment. If she felt the forking jokes were offensive, harassing or making her uncomfortable, she should have either a) let them know and ask them to stop, b)report it to the staff, which is actually the proper procedure, or c) do both. It might be kinda douchy to run to the staff and file a report over a joke she didn't like, but that's her right. A grown-up thing to do would have been to ask them to stop. I find it debatable whether two guys chatting with each other and making 'inside' jokes (that were not directed at others) is a breach of CoC, the problem I suspect was more about jokes being audible enough for her to overhear them.

Publicly shaming by tweeting the pic, on the other hand, could certainly be considered harassment. At least in my book.

"The staff is well informed on how to deal with the incident and how to further proceed with the situation."

Apparently she felt she knows best how to deal with the incident and how to punish the 'violators'.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Apparently she felt she knows best how to deal with the incident and how to punish the 'violators'.

Richards' remark that she felt like Joan of Arc says it all. Getting people kicked out and fired for a juvenile joke made her feel important. The rules were irrelevant. She was appealing to a higher power, and has made it clear she's not an atheist or critical thinker.

 

[Lorentz]

I've thought about this subject a bit, so I'll give my very personal take on this matter. No need to respond unless you happen to feel like it, as there are many here eagerly asking for your time.

Why do you think she did not behave as an adult? The two men were already in violation of the code of conduct for the location, which is why the organization took action against them.

Objecting to some off colour jokes because they were sexual in nature seems to me a bit small-minded. Not adult behaviour. I know a few strict religious people who might do that, but really nobody else.

I agree they were literally in violation of the code of conduct. I do think that it's a silly code of conduct, that's far too broad. No dirty jokes allowed? I don't see any reasonable basis for making that a violation of the rules. It's not as if there were a lot of 12 year-olds running around. Mind you, while I've attended a lot of IT-related conferences, none of them had any code of conduct and - to my knowledge - no problems ensued. I did on a few occasions witness some innuendo, from both (apparent) genders (I did not ask about their sexuality).

Coming back to the violation issue, it seems to me the the least part of the issue. The real question is whether it was ethical to post their picture with that comment for the world to see, rather than a) asking them to stop, or b) just reporting it to the organisers.

Why do you feel they deserved a respectful response from her, personally and in private, when they were showing no respect?

Sexual innuendo where they might be overheard by someone was "showing no respect"? Truly, I find that a staggering exaggeration.

Would it? If everyone who was put upon by people being jerks spoke to those jerks they might, if I am being charitable, get a response where the jerks stop being jerks because they didn't realize they were being offensive.

I think you're jumping the shark here. They exchanged sexually laden jokes. This is "being jerks", it makes them "jerks"? As to your estimation of the probability of someone stopping, I find it laughably low. I'm sure as many as 99% of the people I've met at IT conferences would stop whatever they were asked to stop if someone asked them to. Whether they would agree it was "offensive" other than in the eye of one beholder, I don't know. After all, I disagree on that as well.

Personally I think they would react with indignation and anger. They would probably then double down and the whole thing derails.

As implied above, I think your "probably" - implying "> 50%" is out by some two orders of magnitude. Do you live in a city of rude sociopaths, is your esteem of humanity that low, or is it because some off-colour jokes make people "jerks" and thus likely to be sociopaths?

However by calling them out publicly, they lose the advantage of numbers

They had "the advantage of numbers"? Both of them, or just the one who was asked to leave?

and their behavior, and all the nasty behavior from like minded people, is on display for all to see.

"All the nasty behaviour from like minded people"? Hmmm as I'm like minded (though I rarely do innuendo except with close friends), that seems to imply I also indulge in "nasty behaviour". You're not a fundamentalist Christian, right? Just checking.

So the hollow claims of 'There isn't really a problem' can be seen for straw and the actual problem can get some attention.

What problem? One person took offense and went a big - and to my mind unjustifiable - step beyond just reporting it. Few others would have taken offense, which means by the definitions I'm used to, it was not actually "offensive" (yes, I realise A+ uses a different definition, but I don't think that is, or should be, a commonly accepted one).

 

[RandFan]

Why do you think she did not behave as an adult?

To be adult is to try and reduce conflict not increase it. She could have tried to solve the problem without going straight to security.

The two men were already in violation of the code of conduct for the location, which is why the organization took action against them. Why do you feel they deserved a respectful response from her, personally and in private, when they were showing no respect?

Because humans sometimes make mistakes. Because most humans are reasonable people. Because avoiding escalating the situation would reduce the likelihood of untended consequence for all of them {hint she would still have a job).

Would it? If everyone who was put upon by people being jerks spoke to those jerks they might, if I am being charitable, get a response where the jerks stop being jerks because they didn't realize they were being offensive. Personally I think they would react with indignation and anger. They would probably then double down and the whole thing derails. However by calling them out publicly, they lose the advantage of numbers and their behavior, and all the nasty behavior from like minded people, is on display for all to see. So the hollow claims of 'There isn't really a problem' can be seen for straw and the actual problem can get some attention.

I've run into these situations hundreds of times. Usually at the movie theater. A polite request is usually met with a polite apology and silence. At that moment, if the distractors refuse to be quite, THEN go to security. It's called living in a society and personal responsibility. I don't call 9/11 if I have a small fire in my skillet. I simply put a lid on it. Those who would call for the fire department are wasting everyone's time and making us more and more divisive.

What the hell is so hard to understand about that? Millions do it daily. They don't get famous. They don't cost people their jobd. They just realize that we live in a society and the best solution to interpersonal problems is a little personal responsibility and the decency to care about the person you are about to otherwise **** up their life/ Such a person doesn't see the world as "us vs the" but instead sees flawed humans. Such a person need a pound of flesh and has the maturity to first try and address the situation on their own. The two men need to understand that there are consequences to their actions. My guess is that the learned a lesson. No sue about the Big Id.

 

[Lorentz]

and it's not debate club.

An online forum that disallows debate seems a very strange thing to me (yes, I realise it's a generalisation, as some forms of debate are allowed on some topics).

But while I can enjoy reading some blogs without feeling a need to debate, surely the whole purpose of having a forum rather than a blog, is to allow debate?

In my view (I mostly conform to the consensus here), the "not debate club" is a misrepresentation. Some things can be debated from some points of view. A lot of points of view and a lot of topics, not at all.

Why pussyfoot around the elephant in the room? It's dogma; dogma that's required before you can be accepted into the "safe space". I know one safe space for people who are suicidal, where the dogma is that suicide is bad. It often (always?) goes with safe spaces.

Just accept what it is and roll with it, I say. The idea that A+ is not dogmatic is just too hard to defend in the long run.