Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[luchog]

Agreed, but in my opinion you're still talking technological progress there.

Except that you're missing a key factor there: technological progress requires a society where such progress is considered desirable, and is actively encouraged. Progress of the kind that RandFan notes requires a culture that considers those things to be valuable and worth striving for. Various historical periods of China saw some incredible technological advances, but these were isolated and never developed. Progress such as was noted in RF's post was not considered particularly desirable; maintaining the status quo was far more important. Which meant that any new inventions were either restricted to very limited uses, or even actively suppressed if they were considered too likely to disrupt the status quo. The ancient Greeks and Romans were similar, valuing the stability of their society, and preferring slave labour to technological solutions, over systematic investigation of the natural world.

Social progress is necessary for technological progress.

There is also the issue of how we define "progress". What is seen as progress in our culture, may be considered regressive or destructive in others. A culture where freedom of personal movement is valued, but diseases are considered either the judgement of the gods, or an important natural process (weeds out the weak, strengthens the survivors), would consider the development of steam engines and railroads to be progress, but advancements in medical science to be contrary to G-D's or Natural Law. (Not all that far-fetched, anti-vaxxers and their illk spring immediately to mind).

The focus and direction of technological progress reflects the values of a culture; it does not create them.

 

[RandFan]

I'd call those evidence of technological progress.

Technological advances that improve social societies. And let's not forget the advancement of social foresight to invest in technology to improve society. I'll grant you the premise and I see utility in drawing a distinction but I will stand by my point.

Here you are indeed addressing social progress. And if I compare the 21st century Western mores to those in the third world, or those of a few centuries past, I agree completely.

However this doesn't convince me that the progress is structural, as the technology is. I have little confidence that populations couldn't be easily whipped up into frenzies that allowed a third world war to happen. I don't see politicians using evidence over gut-feelings, polls and focus groups. Science and technology rest on solid knowledge that can be reproduced independently. Social mores and politics rely on diffuse hard to define cultural mechanisms and a good dose of demagogy.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not actually pessimistic about the possibility of keeping, or improving our social mores. I'm just not confident that societies won't backslide into outlooks that engender the equivalent of witch burnings, once again. The Dark Ages did follow the relatively enlightened Roman Empire.

I do not know what culture will be like a few dozen years in the future. I have no idea if it will be more enlightened or not. That is of course by my definition of "enlightenment". I don't count the A+ philosophies as "enlightened", but maybe some future generation would.

I agree with you but find it beside the point.

 

[Lorentz]

Except that you're missing a key factor there: technological progress requires a society where such progress is considered desirable, and is actively encouraged. Progress of the kind that RandFan notes requires a culture that considers those things to be valuable and worth striving for.

True, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a culture that doesn't practice slavery, or one where women aren't chattel. We do not have very much data on what kinds of cultures are best suited for scientific and technological progress. In the past few centuries Northwest Europe and North America have been the most prolific. These areas have fairly enlightened cultures, but I don't think that correlation implies causality. For a few counterpoints, Nazi Germany especially and to some extent the USSR, did pretty well on technology.

So I'd say that your idea is plausible, but very far from demonstrated. Way too few data points to show convincing correlation, let alone causation.

Social progress is necessary for technological progress.

This claim goes further and I think the Nazi war technology - at the time more advanced than what any other nation had - is a counterexample. I also have a problem defining "social progress" in an objective sense, rather than just progress in the direction you or I think it should go. As you address below.

There is also the issue of how we define "progress". What is seen as progress in our culture, may be considered regressive or destructive in others. A culture where freedom of personal movement is valued, but diseases are considered either the judgement of the gods, or an important natural process (weeds out the weak, strengthens the survivors), would consider the development of steam engines and railroads to be progress, but advancements in medical science to be contrary to G-D's or Natural Law. (Not all that far-fetched, anti-vaxxers and their illk spring immediately to mind).

The focus and direction of technological progress reflects the values of a culture; it does not create them.

Excellent point, but do we know which aspects specifically engender original solid science? Perhaps the only society which will be able to come up with a GUT will be one with an aristocracy owning the rest of humanity as slaves, genetically altering one caste to become super-scientists and using physical and mental coercion to give them the needed focus.

p.s. I'd like to belatedly express my admiration for the clarity and eloquence with which you addressed issues in some of your previous posts.

 

[Lorentz]

Technological advances that improve social societies. And let's not forget the advancement of social foresight to invest in technology to improve society. I'll grant you the premise and I see utility in drawing a distinction but I will stand by my point.

Technology certainly improves living conditions, I'm not convinced that technology by itself it ever addresses issues like slavery, racism, or sexism (let alone ableism ).

I agree with you but find it beside the point.

Actually my posts were beside the point; a tangent I found interesting rather than a criticism of your post.

 

[RandFan]

Technology certainly improves living conditions, I'm not convinced that technology by itself it ever addresses issues like slavery, racism, or sexism (let alone ableism ).

Actually my posts were beside the point; a tangent I found interesting rather than a criticism of your post.

I can live with that.

 

[Humes fork]

Here is a plusser celebrating the higher suicide rate among young men compared to other groups:

Perhaps accurate, I'd not be entirely surprised by this correlation standing up to further scrutiny. It tallies with what I've heard of the statistics here in Scotland at least: Suicide is the biggest killer of young men. Arguably good riddance to the privileged

Yes, the statement was universally condemned at the forum, and the poster eventually retracted it. But the original sentiment of hatred for (white, heterosexual) men came from somewhere, and I think recieves more than a little encouragement at aplus.

 

[Lorentz]

Ally Fogg, whose writings on gender issues I so far find insightful, has a new post up about believing rape victims.

I don't find much to criticise, except perhaps a dollop of 'both sides do it', which I've noticed him saying before. Possibly this is because he takes a stance outside mainstream feminist, MRA, SJW, or popular views.

In one paragraph, his use of the word "problematic" struck me, as in:

Peter Lloyd’s article was especially problematic

I've noticed this word being used before in discussions on this thread and elsewhere. My problem with it is that I do not know what it means. I know the literal meaning, that there's a problem with it, but that's so unspecific as to be beyond unhelpful. For me it evokes the image of an Oxford don tugging his goatee thoughtfully, trying to not answer a difficult question by implying that the complexity of the subject makes it impossible to be more specific.

Now, to walk back my implied criticism of mr. Fogg, he actually does explicate in the remainder of that paragraph, what the problem is:

which pursues an editorial policy that creates a vastly skewed impression of the prevalence of known cases of false rape allegations in comparison to actual rapes, and therefore greatly inflates public perception of the likelihood that a rape allegation might be false, and the risk to (primarily) men of being the victim of a false allegation.

In most places I've seen that word used though, I've been left with a gnawing irritation that the specific problem isn't named.

Is "problematic" a code word in SJW or feminist circles?

 

[Lorentz]

Here is a plusser celebrating the higher suicide rate among young men compared to other groups:



Yes, the statement was universally condemned at the forum, and the poster eventually retracted it. But the original sentiment of hatred for (white, heterosexual) men came from somewhere, and I think recieves more than a little encouragement at aplus.

I'm pleasantlyl surprised that the statement was "universally condemned". Apparently they haven't fully committed yet to the dark side of the Farce.

 

[Empress]

I'm pleasantlyl surprised that the statement was "universally condemned". Apparently they haven't fully committed yet to the dark side of the Farce.

Of course, that thread if from last September, and no ceepolk or Setar to be seen. Perhaps unfairly, I suspect that if one of those two posters made the comment, esp today, it wouldn't meet with immediate condemnation.

 

[Stout]

Is "problematic" a code word in SJW or feminist circles?

Problematic means that something is borderline, has the potential to be "bad" but isn't quite there....yet.

Take Anita Sarkeesian's video, the second one where she says it's OK to enjoy problematic things. This means you can still play those video games where you rescue the damsel in distress you just need the SJW "education" to realize that you are supporting a thing that goes against your ideology.

That statement in that video moots her entire point wrt the message she's trying to deliver. I like rescuing damsels in distress so the "problem" is what then ?

It's liking Elton John's song Island Girl because of the music but hating it because of the lyrics. It's liking the new Star Trek movie because it's star Trek but condemning it because Khan was played by a white guy.

It's the rhetorical equivalent of an SJW get out of jail free card. Just identify something as being problematic and you're good to go.

 

[Stout]

It looks like somebody's having a laugh over at A+

Funny thing is this is exactly the sort of misandric, heterophobic racist profile I'd freate were I wanting to troll them however I'd have left out the fatphobia 'cause I know the rules of the game. Or......maybe I'd run with it just so I could post an apology later.

OP aside, it getd really funny when one poster suggests an A+ meetup and ceepolk chimes in with NO! NOT SAFE !! xie's afraid of rape gangs showing up...or something.

I wonder which moderator let the fatphobic comment through. Remember A+ mods need to hold your hand for the first 15 posts so somebody read that and approved it without concern for their more rotund members. So much for the "safe space" idea, that portly Aplusser who was feeling all victimized because a store at her local mall no longer carried the plus sized clothes she bought once a year for her vacation wardrobe. The one who was being oppressed by mountains of laundry after returning from one of those trips. Probably crying in her pousse-cafés at the tables in Monaco after discovering the betrayal.

My guess...this is a chemgeek sock.

 

[Empress]

Ahhh...ceepolk never fails to deliver. It must be hard to have the entire universe revolve around you, poor dear, and everyone constantly trying to find you in real life to perform unspeakable acts in your presence. Alas. I feel for her.

 

[zooterkin]

It's liking the new Star Trek movie because it's star Trek but condemning it because Khan was played by a white guy.

Just as an aside, how is that different from the original? Ricardo Montalban was white, too.

 

[Stout]

Just as an aside, how is that different from the original? Ricardo Montalban was white, too.

It was something I picked up on A+. I'm not really fussed about it myself but the SJWs seem to have issues.

Thread

 

[Lorentz]

It was something I picked up on A+. I'm not really fussed about it myself but the SJWs seem to have issues.

Thread

If a POC had been cast as the bad guy, wouldn't that also be, ehmm, problematic?

 

[zooterkin]

It was something I picked up on A+. I'm not really fussed about it myself but the SJWs seem to have issues.

Thread

They actually refer to Montalban as a PoC; wow! He was born in Mexico, the son of Spanish parents. My Spanish colleagues will be intrigued to know they are People of Colour.

 

[Kochanski]

They actually refer to Montalban as a PoC; wow! He was born in Mexico, the son of Spanish parents. My Spanish colleagues will be intrigued to know they are People of Colour.

I think that is just them displaying their North American bias, anyone not born in US or Canada or in Europe must be a PoC.

 

[Wildy]

They actually refer to Montalban as a PoC; wow! He was born in Mexico, the son of Spanish parents. My Spanish colleagues will be intrigued to know they are People of Colour.

I wonder how fluid that idea is then? Would Mitt Romney be considered a PoC because he's the son of someone born in Mexico? Or does he pass because he's rich?

I think that is just them displaying their North American bias, anyone not born in US or Canada or in Europe must be a PoC.

Are there any people on there who aren't from the US or Canada?

 

[Kochanski]

I wonder how fluid that idea is then? Would Mitt Romney be considered a PoC because he's the son of someone born in Mexico? Or does he pass because he's rich?



Are there any people on there who aren't from the US or Canada?

I think all of their ideas are fluid based on whatever criteria they like at the moment and based on who they don't like at the moment.

No idea if A+ contains any people outside US & Canada, seems likely that majority are from US & Canada based on the fact that they don't seem to recognized other cultural differences, especially European ones.

 

[recursive prophet]

Only 8% of Mexicans are direct Spanish descendents. 30% are pure native americans, and 60% mulatto. The vast majority of the latter population is primarily indigenous, which means ethnic physical features would put them in the nebulous realm of PoC. This is true for most of Central America also, but further south it's more complicated, though in many ways similar, except for Argentina and Chile.

To really go to the root of all this I recommend Race and Human Evolution, by paleontologist Milford Wolpoff. Interesting to note most Mexicans and other immigrants from the south that I know, and having worked for the LA school district that is a very large number, do not consider themselves to be 'white' but hispanic. I knew the head of the language department at Garfield High in LA, and he wrote a paper on what a confusing misnomer 'hispanic' was. It literally means out of Spain, which of course as the numbers indicate is hardly the case.