Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwints said:
RandFan, here's my position: vilifying or attacking groups enables and encourages discrimination or violence against those groups. That's not a reason to refrain from specific and accurate criticism but it is a reason to be cautious about generalized language. In addition, condemning islam as evil or barbaric necessarily condemns people who follow islam as evil or barbaric.
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference from vilifying and attacking Muslims, and vilifying and attacking Islam. The fact that idiots on any extreme of the political spectrum conflate the two does not change that fact.

Criticizing Islam as inherently evil and barbaric is... well... dumb. It tells us nothing. Critiques should be specific, they should explain what it is about Islam that is detrimental to human individual and social well-being; and should recognize that there are numerous variations in the tenets of Islam that are adhered to. A critique of Wahabi Islam is going to be able to point out substantially more brutal repression inherent in its tenet than a critique of, say, Sufi Islam.

The fact that there are idiots who cannot differentiate between the religion as a generality and its adherents, who are either too stupid or prejudiced or agenda-driven to care, does not invalidate the validity of a rational critique of said religion. To claim otherwise, that criticism is invalid because of racial difference between the majority of its adherents and the majority of its critics, is itself a subtle and insidious form of racism.
 
Mr. Scott said:
Unfortunately, racism is natural, though we don't have to be slaves of our nature.
Click to expand...

Well you just do what the people who came up with "critical race theory" did, and just redefine "racism" in such a way that your prejudice towards the "privileged" group doesn't count as racism.

The A+ SJWs are continuing this unenlightened tradition, exposed by their "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric. Ms. Polk has simply chosen whites as her "other" to hate and validates it as "justice" (more accurately recognized as revenge). Plus, she cannot even imagine, in fact exudes hatred for, white people having compassion for "brown" people suffering from the cruelty they inflict on each other in the names of their religions.
Click to expand...

I don't think she can't imagine it, she works on the assumption that all white people are wrong and just makes up some tripe to rationalise her prejudice.

There's been way too much prejudice and cruelty from people of ALL colors in human history to even THINK about withholding compassion for people of any color just because of their color, the end.*
Click to expand...

Except in SJW world where that's perfectly acceptable depending on the colour in question.

* Just for a moment, I imagined how nice it would be to have the power to ban anyone who disagreed with me.
Click to expand...

But in SJW world having that power really depends on the colour of your skin and not the content of your character. I have no idea if being "transethnic" alters that in any way.

rustypouch said:
Of course, how silly of me, thinking that (for example) Irish people are white.
Click to expand...

That's correct. They stopped being people of colour when the oppression for being Irish ended.

Humes fork said:
What about Bosniaks and Albanians? White peoples that have historically been Muslims?
Click to expand...

They don't count because white people are always privileged and therefore they have no right to criticise their own religion or something.

What about the Christian minorities in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria?
Click to expand...

They don't count because they received preferential treatment under colonialism, even if they didn't.

Cis, privilege, social justice, yada yada. *Yawn* These people need to be trolled Sokal-style.
Click to expand...

They're at a point where such trolling wouldn't work. I mean A+ has really become Conservapedia in the sense that they've got an in group of the early adopters, and they drive away people who are either well meaning or deliberate antagonists through their double standard enforcement of the rules.

The people who hang around and keep on posting are either trolls who are trying to make drama or get the in group to say completely contradictory things, or well meaning people who think that the more they blindly agree with the in group the more likely they are to be accepted by that group (spoilers: they aren't).
 
WillyWonka said:
Qwints, what institutions do you want to destroy?
Click to expand...

Patriarchy, white privilege, the national security surveillance state and organized religion. I don't think criticism has to be aimed at making those institutions better (i.e. constructive). If constructive criticism means making the world a better place, then I'll agree that criticism should be constructive.

luchog said:
Criticizing Islam as inherently evil and barbaric is... well... dumb. It tells us nothing. Critiques should be specific, they should explain what it is about Islam that is detrimental to human individual and social well-being; and should recognize that there are numerous variations in the tenets of Islam that are adhered to.
Click to expand...

And I've got no problem with anyone making such specific and accurate criticism. On the other hand, you don't have to look very hard to find people making the useless/harmful generalized criticisms.
 
qwints said:
And I've got no problem with anyone making such specific and accurate criticism. On the other hand, you don't have to look very hard to find people making the useless/harmful generalized criticisms.
Click to expand...

Which in no way justifies the racist "brown-people religion cannot be criticized" attitude of the A+ in-group, where even rational criticism is clearly not allowed. It is increasingly clear that the A+/FTB crowd doesn't really care about true social justice; only about demonizing and beating down some variation of "old white rich cis-gendered straight Christian males". They've effectively disallowed any other sort of discussion.
 
luchog said:
I disagree with that. It's a cultural practice that is not exclusive to Islam; and in most cases, predates the adoption of Islam by the particular culture. Religious justifications are entirely ad hoc and post hoc; and FGM is no more an Islamic practice than killing "abortion doctors" is a Christian practice.
Click to expand...
Killing abortion doctors is a Christian practice for some. People do it because they think that's what their god wants. Regardless of how it got into their religion, if they're doing an act for their religion, it is a religious act.

[ETA] To clarify, I'm not arguing that all members who subscribe to the same faith generally have a share in the responsibility for an act done for that faith (though there are specific instances where I would), but that you can't secularize a person's actions just because others in their religion disagree. Each individual has a right to determine what their faith entails, and no one but that individual can tell them differently.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
Which in no way justifies the racist "brown-people religion cannot be criticized" attitude of the A+ in-group, where even rational criticism is clearly not allowed. It is increasingly clear that the A+/FTB crowd doesn't really care about true social justice; only about demonizing and beating down some variation of "old white rich cis-gendered straight Christian males". They've effectively disallowed any other sort of discussion.
Click to expand...

Nail, head, bang.
 
Kochanski said:
qwints what makes patriarchy and privilege institutions? Evidence please?
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care about the precise definition of "institutions," nor do I see what evidence has to do with defining terms in that manner. My point is that there are situations where criticism that aims at destroying rather than improving its target is perfectly appropriate. I also think that the things I listed are detrimental to people's well being, and that we would be better off in a world that has gotten rid of them rather than the one we're in now.

If you're asking what evidence there is that the society I live has patriarchy or white privilege, that's a much longer conversation. The basic claim is that societal norms and attitudes privilege certain people over others, and that this is undesirable. Evidence for this includes both observing society as it is (the demographics of corporate and government leadership, pay gaps, etc.) and controlled experiments (evaluations of identical CVs, observations of group discussions, etc.)
 
luchog said:
Which in no way justifies the racist "brown-people religion cannot be criticized" attitude of the A+ in-group, where even rational criticism is clearly not allowed.
Click to expand...

I've already said that I don't agree with the proposition that people cannot make any criticisms of socially marginalized religions they don't have personal experience with. While I can't speak for ceepolk, I don't think that's an accurate characterization of their position which is, at most, that they will not allow people without personal experience to discuss islam on atheismplus without reference to sources with actual experience.
 
qwints said:
If you're asking what evidence there is that the society I live has patriarchy or white privilege, that's a much longer conversation. The basic claim is that societal norms and attitudes privilege certain people over others, and that this is undesirable. Evidence for this includes both observing society as it is (the demographics of corporate and government leadership, pay gaps, etc.) and controlled experiments (evaluations of identical CVs, observations of group discussions, etc.)
Click to expand...
All well and good until you start accusing people of being privileged as a rhetorical device (see RW's accusation of Dawkins).
 
qwints said:
I've already said that I don't agree with the proposition that people cannot make any criticisms of socially marginalized religions they don't have personal experience with. While I can't speak for ceepolk, I don't think that's an accurate characterization of their position which is, at most, that they will not allow people without personal experience to discuss islam on atheismplus without reference to sources with actual experience.
Click to expand...
Can you quote the Koran? The Hadith? Do these rules apply to Christianity?
 
qwints said:
I don't particularly care about the precise definition of "institutions," nor do I see what evidence has to do with defining terms in that manner. My point is that there are situations where criticism that aims at destroying rather than improving its target is perfectly appropriate. I also think that the things I listed are detrimental to people's well being, and that we would be better off in a world that has gotten rid of them rather than the one we're in now.

If you're asking what evidence there is that the society I live has patriarchy or white privilege, that's a much longer conversation. The basic claim is that societal norms and attitudes privilege certain people over others, and that this is undesirable. Evidence for this includes both observing society as it is (the demographics of corporate and government leadership, pay gaps, etc.) and controlled experiments (evaluations of identical CVs, observations of group discussions, etc.)
Click to expand...

I don't find the concepts of patriarchy and privilege as used within SJ particularly useful or well established.

These are terms used as bludgeons. They are used to stifle discussion.
 
qwints said:
While I can't speak for ceepolk, I don't think that's an accurate characterization of their position which is, at most, that they will not allow people without personal experience to discuss islam on atheismplus without reference to sources with actual experience.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a shame that personal experience is seen at A+ as being more pertinent than knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom