Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

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.

The terms when used outside of an objective and general social science discussion about group dynamics is divisive. To tell someone to "check their privilege" is simply to seek rhetorical advantage and contrary to the principle of charity.

The Principle of Charity - Philosophy Lander.edu

The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive from before subjecting the view to evaluation.

Rather than try to first understand the argument it's dismissed as coming from someone of privilege. It's also a blatant ad hominem poisoning the well (of course you would say that, you are white and therefore privileged).

There is simply no need to ever ask someone to "check their privilege". More importantly, doing so is condescending even if it isn't meant to be. It's a terrible strategy for anyone involved in a discussion or debate. To understand why, it's important to understand the role emotions play in our decision making and interpersonal dynamics. The best book to explain why such rhetoric is doomed to failure is The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

I strongly recommend to anyone who wants to be persuasive in their discussions to read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by politics and religion. The following is a video by Haidt explaining his theory.



Of course Haidt is white so you have an easy way to dismiss him if you wish.

 

[qwints]

Can you quote the Koran? The Hadith? Do these rules apply to Christianity?

I feel reasonably certain that a thread such as "evil quotes from the koran" consisting of people without a personal connection* to islam posting passages from the koran and explaining why they are evil would be locked on atheismplus. A basically identical one attacking the bible would probably not be, due to an assumption that the posters in the thread had a personal connection to christianity. Although I think it's likely that this restriction would be applied to situations where I don't think it should be (specific and accurate criticism), I'll continue to feel comfortable posting there.

*By personal connection, I mean someone who was raised muslim, formerly practiced islam, considers themselves "culturally muslim", lives or lived in a predominantly muslim country or has some other personal experience with islam.

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

That very may be true as I don't have a lot of experience in the online "SJ" community. I think they are useful in feminist theory and sociology.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I feel reasonably certain that a thread such as "evil quotes from the koran" consisting of people without a personal connection* to islam posting passages from the koran and explaining why they are evil would be locked on atheismplus. A basically identical one attacking the bible would probably not be, due to an assumption that the posters in the thread had a personal connection to christianity.

And that just shows how accurate that trite saying about assumptions is. I'm an atheist. My parents are atheists. My grandparents were atheists (or, at least, the ones that didn't die when I was young - I have no idea about the others as it never came up even once). And while my country is nominally Christian, in my experience religion is very rarely discussed, most of those who are Christians tend to be fairly casual and shallow believers, and it can even be seen as strange to be religious - a famous example being a member of parliament being asked about a former prime minister's religious affiliations and replying "[the ruling party] don't do God", and the prime minister in question waiting until he'd left office before declaring himself to be religious.

This means, I assume, that I cannot comment on any religion whatsoever. Or do I get a free pass on Christianity, because it's not a "brown person"'s religion?

Which does, of course, question why Christianity isn't a "brown person"'s religion. Jesus was Middle-Eastern. Discounting Vatican City and the Picturn Islands (which have only 48 inhabitants), the country with the highest percentage of Christian population is Armenia. There are half a billion Christians in Africa. How is Christianity not a "religion of brown people"?

 

[RandFan]

I feel reasonably certain that a thread such as "evil quotes from the koran" consisting of people without a personal connection* to islam posting passages from the koran and explaining why they are evil would be locked on atheismplus. A basically identical one attacking the bible would probably not be, due to an assumption that the posters in the thread had a personal connection to christianity. Although I think it's likely that this restriction would be applied to situations where I don't think it should be (specific and accurate criticism), I'll continue to feel comfortable posting there.

By all means. Just don't try and convince us the site has anything to do with skepticism and critical thinking. You would have a better time trying to convince us you have a pet unicorn. I like unicorns. Don't care much for presumption.

 

[Kochanski]

That very may be true as I don't have a lot of experience in the online "SJ" community. I think they are useful in feminist theory and sociology.

Please don't use the word theory in conjunction with feminist, it is an abuse of the word theory.

 

[Piscivore]

Please don't use the word theory in conjunction with feminist, it is an abuse of the word theory.

It is endemic in the entire social justice world. I just took a class dealing with "social justice" and to them "theory" apparently means "whatever crap one makes up that is emotionally satisfying, no evidence needed"

 

[qwints]

Please don't use the word theory in conjunction with feminist, it is an abuse of the word theory.

It's a common usage. See also economic theory.*

This means, I assume, that I cannot comment on any religion whatsoever. Or do I get a free pass on Christianity, because it's not a "brown person"'s religion?

Assuming christians aren't subject to violence and discrimination for being christian where you live, and given that your country is nominally christian, i think there's a pretty clear difference.

 

[Stout]

"evil quotes from the koran"

Oh, that one's easy it's been done on the skeptics annotated koran. A skeptical tool that would, no doubt, go over like a pregnant pole vaulter on A+

Link

 

[RandFan]

Oh, that one's easy it's been done on the skeptics annotated koran. A skeptical tool that would, no doubt, go over like a pregnant pole vaulter on A+

Link

Can you prove that those who compiled that list were Muslim? If not then what good is the list? You seem to think that arguments and evidence should be judged by their own merits and not the merits of those making the arguments and providing the evidence.

Shame on you.

 

[Stout]

Can you prove that those who compiled that list were Muslim? If not then what good is the list? You seem to think that arguments and evidence should be judged by their own merits and not the merits of those making the arguments and providing the evidence.

Shame on you.

I'm sorry, my bad, From now on I'll accept just everything that anybody says happened to them.

Crap...now I have to apologize to that guy who I questioned whether he might have been dreaming rather than doing the astral traveling he was boasting about.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Assuming christians aren't subject to violence and discrimination for being christian where you live, and given that your country is nominally christian, i think there's a pretty clear difference.

Cool, I can comment on every religion except Islam. Despite knowing more about Islam than many other religions, having spent more time in mosques than any other religious building or institution, having spoken face-to-face with more Muslims about Islam than I have adherents of other religions about their religion, and having participated in more Islamic rituals with Muslims than I have any other faith bar one.

It's a novel way of determining who has the right to an opinion and who doesn't, I'll grant you that.

 

[AlBell]

[derail]

...

That very may be true as I don't have a lot of experience in the online "SJ" community. I think they are useful in feminist theory and sociology.

The bolded are useful to generate sophistry and rhetoric attacking white cis-gender xian males.

What else are those areas of study good for? Other of course than a useless-to-potential-employers degree.

[/derail]

 

[dasmiller]

This means, I assume, that I cannot comment on any religion whatsoever. Or do I get a free pass on Christianity, because it's not a "brown person"'s religion?

Assuming christians aren't subject to violence and discrimination for being christian where you live, and given that your country is nominally christian, i think there's a pretty clear difference.

Oh, dear. It turns that, where I live, convicted sex offenders are sometimes subject to violence and discrimination, and they're certainly in the minority. Should I refrain from criticizing rape, pedophilia, sexual assault . . . ?

 

[Wildy]

Yes, it's a shame that personal experience is seen at A+ as being more pertinent than knowledge.

That's because facts don't real, only feels.

Which does, of course, question why Christianity isn't a "brown person"'s religion. Jesus was Middle-Eastern. Discounting Vatican City and the Picturn Islands (which have only 48 inhabitants), the country with the highest percentage of Christian population is Armenia. There are half a billion Christians in Africa. How is Christianity not a "religion of brown people"?

I don't think Armenians count as brown people. So you'd be told something along the lines of 'brown people believe in Christianity, but it's not a religion of brown people'.

 

[Piscivore]

It's a common usage. See also economic theory.*

Because economics is noted for its rigour. There are still people who believe Marxism is a viable idea.

What is the asterix for?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, dear. It turns that, where I live, convicted sex offenders are sometimes subject to violence and discrimination, and they're certainly in the minority. Should I refrain from criticizing rape, pedophilia, sexual assault . . . ?

You grew up in a culture that's nominally rapist, though...

I don't think Armenians count as brown people.

It's right next door to Turkey, which is right next door to Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. The capital city of Armenia is closer to Mecca than New York is to Santa Cruz. A quick session on google brings up plenty of pictures of Armenians and every one of their skin tones is darker than Ayatollah Khomeini's. So either they're brown, or Iranians aren't. Or Khomeini wasn't a Muslim and Iran isn't a Muslim nation.

 

[Lorentz]

A quick session on google brings up plenty of pictures of Armenians and every one of their skin tones is darker than Ayatollah Khomeini's. So either they're brown, or Iranians aren't. Or Khomeini wasn't a Muslim and Iran isn't a Muslim nation.

I'm not sure you're allowed to be making factual claims about Ayatollah Khomeini without having personally experienced him or being Iranian. However, until I know your skin colour, ethnicity, age, physical health and personal wealth I can't be sure that you're wrong.

 

[Humes fork]

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).

Yes, they are an utter embarassment. Strange woos and faithies haven't capitalized on their existence.

Three of the "big names" in A+ (Carrier, Myers, McCreight) have at various instances in the past made stabs at Islam. If ceepol got notice of that, would these three then get excommunicated?

Just what books would A+ members recommend people to read? Anything by the for horsemen would be off, they are white males after all. Same goes for various skeptical classics. If I'm not mistaken Richard Carrier in one of his early posts complained that there was too much reading of books by white males. Presumably his own books shouldn't be read.

Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim? Written by a brown person, yet criticizes brown people's religion.

 

[s_pepys]

greta cristina reacts to jamy ian swiss - pz myers spat!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/05/08/policing-their-own/

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 4. Do not copy and paste large blocks of text from other sites. Links are sufficient. Here ends the modsplaining.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Rainbow is problematic? Rainbow?

Rainbow?

Qwints, do you think British children's TV show Rainbow is a tool of the patriarchy?

What about Bill Nye the Science Guy?

If yes, please explain why in great detail. If no, please show how open and sceptical A+ is by going to that thread and politely and respectfully telling them that those two shows are not at all problematic.