Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[squealpiggy]

Well, in the US, you're a crazy, left-wing extremist if you think that everybody should have health care.

In fairness the bulk of the nutcase political fringe in the US are right wingers. It's no accident that so many A Plussers are Canadian.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Some here don't pay attention to events.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-government/0NVX3NAI5nEmUguKhp5Q0J/story.html



IMO, SJWs are formulating the perfect society which will require force to emplace. But go ahead pretending all is well.

If we assume that everything in that article is true, I don't really see how it leads to the conclusion in your last paragraph. Or how that leads to you wanting to die while shooting police.

Can you explain your reasoning?

 

[AlBell]

Well, in the US, you're a crazy, left-wing extremist if you think that everybody should have health care.

You're a crazy, left-wing extremist if you think ACA provides health care for everybody at an affordable cost to society or the individual.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're a crazy, left-wing extremist if you think ACA provides health care for everybody at an affordable cost to society or the individual.

Hey it wasn't supposted to when the republicans designed it. It was just supposted to be more ethical.

 

[Antiquehunter]

In fairness the bulk of the nutcase political fringe in the US are right wingers. It's no accident that so many A Plussers are Canadian.

How dare you.

I'm so offended, I am sputtering poutine & maple syrup.

 

[squealpiggy]

How dare you.

I'm so offended, I am sputtering poutine & maple syrup.

Hey I'm a Canadian citizen from the UK. I come from and live in a country which is skewed politically to the left compared to the USA and so the crazy tend to be extreme left as opposed to extreme right.

The extreme right in the UK is so hilariously disorganised that they missed out on being the victims of a terror bomb because so few people showed up to a rally that it was over before the terrorists could get there!

 

[adamwho]

The new controversy of the week: Ron Lindsay's opening speech at the Women is Secularism conference.

Here is a link to commentary

Link to original speech

The problem is this: he dared to question the concepts of Patriarchy and Privilege and their misuse.

The atheism plus forums seem to be going crazy with what they see as a personal attack.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The new controversy of the week: Ron Lindsay's opening speech at the Women is Secularism conference.

Here is a link to commentary

Link to original speech

The problem is this: he dared to question the concepts of Patriarchy and Privilege and their misuse.

The atheism plus forums seem to be going crazy with what they see as a personal attack.

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after the speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss "what to do about Ron Lindsay?" It seems the idea of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything is beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is "are you with us, or against us?"

 

[adamwho]

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after the speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss "what to do about Ron Lindsay?" It seems the idea of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything is beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is "are you with us, or against us?"

What they can do is fund their own conference. It is the DC branch of CFI that makes this conference possible.

...Or maybe this is just another one of PZ's plots to get women back to his hotel room.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

You're a crazy, left-wing extremist if you think ACA provides health care for everybody at an affordable cost to society or the individual.

Yeah, no. The solution that we were advancing was single payer. What we got was a "universal" health care system that still manages to keep the insurance companies in business.

Only in America!

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after the speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss "what to do about Ron Lindsay?" It seems the idea of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything is beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is "are you with us, or against us?"

So, let me get this straight. Lindsay essentially says "You should listen to everyone; silencing people is bad", so they quickly huddle together and try to think of ways to silence him.

These people are as funny as any religious cult!

 

[qwints]

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after the speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss "what to do about Ron Lindsay?" It seems the idea of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything is beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is "are you with us, or against us?"

Are you just referencing PZ's blog post? I'm confused by your use of quotation.

So, let me get this straight. Lindsay essentially says "You should listen to everyone; silencing people is bad", so they quickly huddle together and try to think of ways to silence him.

There's something strange going on in this discourse and I can't quite express it. It seems like a lot of people have inconsistent views on the following proposition: "Some forms of criticism are silencing." I'm also not sure I understand what a lot of commenters mean by silencing right now.

 

[Empress]

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after the speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss "what to do about Ron Lindsay?" It seems the idea of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything is beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is "are you with us, or against us?"

Was coffee served?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

There's something strange going on in this discourse and I can't quite express it. It seems like a lot of people have inconsistent views on the following proposition: "Some forms of criticism are silencing." I'm also not sure I understand what a lot of commenters mean by silencing right now.

I agree that criticism, alone, is not silencing. However, when someone makes a thinly-veiled comment that an individual should be fired for things they have said, it goes above and beyond mere criticism.

Chris Clarke, a co-blogger of PZ Myers tweeted this:

Dear Skeptics Movement: Yes, nonprofits really do fire executive directors for that kind of thing. Sincerely, the real world. #wiscfi

I have absolutely zero respect for anybody who makes a comment like that. It's a dirty, underhanded rhetorical ploy; an attempt to scare someone into shutting up. I would feel the same way if somebody said something similar about Rebecca Watson or PZ Myers.

However, if you still think that my views are inconsistent, please explain, as I would like to see where I am wrong here.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Are you just referencing PZ's blog post? I'm confused by your use of quotation.


There's something strange going on in this discourse and I can't quite express it. It seems like a lot of people have inconsistent views on the following proposition: "Some forms of criticism are silencing." I'm also not sure I understand what a lot of commenters mean by silencing right now.

Perhaps I should not have used the quotes. It was from my recollection of second hand information, not precise quotation. I have not read PZ's blog post. I have another source.

I will reword it without the quotes:

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after Ron Lindsay's speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss what they would do about Mr. Lindsay. I think the ideas of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything are beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is if you are with them, or against them.

 

[Humes fork]

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after the speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss "what to do about Ron Lindsay?" It seems the idea of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything is beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is "are you with us, or against us?"

Let them rift with the CFI and put them to play in their own playground.

I thought naively that what brought this loose community together was skepticism, science, secularism and the like. Apparently that did not bring Myers.

 

[qwints]

However, if you still think that my views are inconsistent, please explain, as I would like to see where I am wrong here.

I wasn't specifically talking about your views, nor even about people who are attacking the negative response to Lindsay. Here's the short version - people think some criticism is silencing/bad while other criticism isn't. In your case, an "attempt to scare people into shutting up" (i.e. threats) is silencing. That's a reasonable position.

Long version of the inconsistency I'm seeing:

"Shut up and listen" is a response based on the idea that some forms of speech are silencing. It goes beyond just literally preventing another speaker from being able to be heard, but covers ways speech can alienate, marginalize or exclude people who should be listened to.

Lindsay's point, shared by many other people I've read or talked to, is that some people often incorrectly label speech as "silencing" (i.e. alienating or marginalizing) and respond with "shut up and listen" thus harmfully "silencing" (refusing to listen/engage) speakers labeled as privileged.

The main criticisms of Lindsay seem to be that his speech undermined/attacked the very conference it was opening. PZ said Lindsay chose to "chastise the attendees and instruct them in how to behave." Rebecca Watson contrasted the silencing of women through repeated online threats and regular "hounding" via social media with Lindsay giving a speech.

So, here's the tension - some people tend to think the criticism of Lindsay is a problem while thinking criticism/more speech is good in general. Others, specifically Watson, think that certain types of criticism are silencing but don't think the criticism of Lindsay qualifies.

 

[tsig]

I agree that criticism, alone, is not silencing. However, when someone makes a thinly-veiled comment that an individual should be fired for things they have said, it goes above and beyond mere criticism.

Chris Clarke, a co-blogger of PZ Myers tweeted this:



I have absolutely zero respect for anybody who makes a comment like that. It's a dirty, underhanded rhetorical ploy; an attempt to scare someone into shutting up. I would feel the same way if somebody said something similar about Rebecca Watson or PZ Myers.

However, if you still think that my views are inconsistent, please explain, as I would like to see where I am wrong here.

You are aware that there are female bloggers who have quit blogging due to comments from the slymepit?

 

[tsig]

I wasn't specifically talking about your views, nor even about people who are attacking the negative response to Lindsay. Here's the short version - people think some criticism is silencing/bad while other criticism isn't. In your case, an "attempt to scare people into shutting up" (i.e. threats) is silencing. That's a reasonable position.

Long version of the inconsistency I'm seeing:

"Shut up and listen" is a response based on the idea that some forms of speech are silencing. It goes beyond just literally preventing another speaker from being able to be heard, but covers ways speech can alienate, marginalize or exclude people who should be listened to.

Lindsay's point, shared by many other people I've read or talked to, is that some people often incorrectly label speech as "silencing" (i.e. alienating or marginalizing) and respond with "shut up and listen" thus harmfully "silencing" (refusing to listen/engage) speakers labeled as privileged.

The main criticisms of Lindsay seem to be that his speech undermined/attacked the very conference it was opening. PZ said Lindsay chose to "chastise the attendees and instruct them in how to behave." Rebecca Watson contrasted the silencing of women through repeated online threats and regular "hounding" via social media with Lindsay giving a speech.

So, here's the tension - some people tend to think the criticism of Lindsay is a problem while thinking criticism/more speech is good in general. Others, specifically Watson, think that certain types of criticism are silencing but don't think the criticism of Lindsay qualifies.

Unless you show unrelenting and unreasoning hate of PZ and all who mention his name with less than disdain you're not going to feel welcome in this thread.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

You are aware that there are female bloggers who have quit blogging due to comments from the slymepit?

No, I wasn't. Are you implying that one group's bad behavior justifies another's?

I, personally, couldn't care less about "the slymepit", and I don't see how it's germane to the discussion. If you can point out a slymepitter(?) who has posted that "female bloggers" should be fired for things they have said, I will be happy to condemn them.