Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fwiw:

I'm not interested in the ideologies of A+ and FTB folks. And, FTR, I'm not anti-Marxist. I'm not pro-Marxist but I welcome the contribution of any philosophical position. I think one could argue that such labels are more likely to be ad hominem than to shed any light or advance any discussion.

I'm only interested in highlighting the bullying behavior, the fallacious arguments and failure to moderate in a neutral and objective manner.
 
RandFan said:
I'm not interested in the ideologies of A+ and FTB folks. And, FTR, I'm not anti-Marxist. I'm not pro-Marxist but I welcome the contribution of any philosophical position. I think one could argue that such labels are more likely to be ad hominem than to shed any light or advance any discussion.

I'm only interested in highlighting the bullying behavior, the fallacious arguments and failure to moderate in a neutral and objective manner.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is a pity, as I might enjoy arguing with you.

As for objectivity, please keep in mind that emotions are a valuable intellectual tool. ;)
 
qwints said:
I don't know about "thin privilege," but "fat shaming" is seen as a real and problematic thing.
Click to expand...

Lorentz said:
Agreed, which is a pity, as I might enjoy arguing with you.

As for objectivity, please keep in mind that emotions are a valuable intellectual tool. ;)
Click to expand...
:) Point taken. In all fairness though we should point out that emotions are important to the decision making process. What we need to do is recognize that our emotions often get the best of us and we need to try and employ critical thinking and not simply rely on emotions.

See Spock Fallacy.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I'm not interested in the ideologies of A+ and FTB folks. And, FTR, I'm not anti-Marxist. I'm not pro-Marxist but I welcome the contribution of any philosophical position. I think one could argue that such labels are more likely to be ad hominem than to shed any light or advance any discussion.

I'm only interested in highlighting the bullying behavior, the fallacious arguments and failure to moderate in a neutral and objective manner.
Click to expand...


I'm pro Marxist, I think Groucho and his brothers were among the best comedy acts.
 
Lorentz said:
I agree that they are blindly ideological and often behave as bullies, but I'd like some evidence for the highlighted part before I'd consider it even halfway credible.
Click to expand...

You know, there's a lot to say about that and I was on the path of ignoring the post completely, but instead will share my thoughts.

I did indeed read a post from an A+ figure who stated she was Marxist but it was months ago and I just filed that away in my head and now don't remember the person, venue, etc. Sorry about that. It wasn't a surprise because I had been seeing the similarity almost since this all started.

Around the time that A+ was heating up I had just seen the film Battleship Potemkin, about the start of the Bolshevik uprising, and the similarities seemed really stark and obvious.

My intent is not to tar them with a label. Using a label doesn't always limit and pigeon hole. It can also flesh out a syndrome that reveals a picture that's been obscure. Lots of the conduct of dissing the privileged, exploiting prejudice, attempting to replace competent leaders with mediocre commoners, demanding conformity of ideology, witch hunting dissenters, all match well the A+/FTB crowd with the Bolshevik playbook.

Ah, finally it's come back to me. A few people I friended on facebook because they were well known atheists, started in on the A+ misandry, and when double checking their "about me" found they listed themselves as Marxist. I made a mental note of it before blocking them. If I'd know I'd be challenged to present evidence, I'd have saved screen shots.

Hope this helps. We needn't dwell on the label. Carry on.
 
RandFan said:
:) Point taken. In all fairness though we should point out that emotions are important to the decision making process. What we need to do is recognize that our emotions often get the best of us and we need to try and employ critical thinking and not simply rely on emotions.

See Spock Fallacy.
Click to expand...
I don't know how, exactly, but somehow the series of links I clicked beginning with your "Spock Fallacy" took me to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/my_talk_at_wis2/. It wouldn't surprise me if this has already been discussed multiple times in the 7500+ posts preceding this one, but I hadn't been aware of it before. I only read this thread intermittently, so apologies in advance if this is covering old ground.

Apparently Ron Lindsay gave a talk at Women in Secularism 2, in which he said

"I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.

This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and ... poof, you’re done. End of discussion."

This statement led many people to demand that he be fired. Fortunately, the Center for Inquiry stood up to the bullies (though Lindsay was forced to apologize for his "outrageous" remarks).

I guess blacklists are always in style, among ideologues who can't tolerate differing opinions. I tend not to support organizations, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. Thanks, CFI, for kinda sorta standing up to the bullies. My check is on the way.
 
Mr. Scott said:
You know, there's a lot to say about that and I was on the path of ignoring the post completely, but instead will share my thoughts.

I did indeed read a post from an A+ figure who stated she was Marxist but it was months ago and I just filed that away in my head and now don't remember the person, venue, etc. Sorry about that. It wasn't a surprise because I had been seeing the similarity almost since this all started.

Around the time that A+ was heating up I had just seen the film Battleship Potemkin, about the start of the Bolshevik uprising, and the similarities seemed really stark and obvious.

My intent is not to tar them with a label. Using a label doesn't always limit and pigeon hole. It can also flesh out a syndrome that reveals a picture that's been obscure. Lots of the conduct of dissing the privileged, exploiting prejudice, attempting to replace competent leaders with mediocre commoners, demanding conformity of ideology, witch hunting dissenters, all match well the A+/FTB crowd with the Bolshevik playbook.

Ah, finally it's come back to me. A few people I friended on facebook because they were well known atheists, started in on the A+ misandry, and when double checking their "about me" found they listed themselves as Marxist. I made a mental note of it before blocking them. If I'd know I'd be challenged to present evidence, I'd have saved screen shots.

Hope this helps. We needn't dwell on the label. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I did initially take it to be a dismissive label.

I'm surprised there are so many individuals openly describing themselves as Marxists. I thought it was more of a pejorative nowadays.

AS for the similarity, I agree, though the analogy that strikes me as most apt is still Animal Farm.
As for the similarities, I fully agree.
 
Incredibly, PZ has recently chided the nation of Japan for their ‘rape culture’, pointing to the very rape comics that he previously recommended to his audience.
Click to expand...

Ironically (well maybe not so much), Japan has had one of the lowest rape-rates in the world for a long, long time, while also having one of the more stricter 'gender-role societies'. It's a stark difference from the unisex, civil-rights, flower-power laden 60's and 70's of the US and UK.

But but... the comics!?! :eek:
 
Jono said:
Ironically (well maybe not so much), Japan has had one of the lowest rape-rates in the world for a long, long time, while also having one of the more stricter 'gender-role societies'. It's a stark difference from the unisex, civil-rights, flower-power laden 60's and 70's of the US and UK.
Click to expand...

Correction: lowest reported rape-rates. There is quite a lot of evidence that the actual instance of rape is much much higher than the reported rate; and that the lack of reporting is due to the persistent second-class-citizen/commodity position of women, combined with a code of secrecy that pervades much of their culture.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
Correction: lowest reported rape-rates. There is quite a lot of evidence that the actual instance of rape is much much higher than the reported rate; and that the lack of reporting is due to the persistent second-class-citizen/commodity position of women, combined with a code of secrecy that pervades much of their culture.
Click to expand...

To a degree, I'm sure that counts for something though it's very hard to approximate. If the rapes aren't even reported, it's next to impossible to estimate a 'dark'-figure behind the scenes. However, considering that Japan has a, across the bar on violent crime, low crime rate in comparison to most of the world, I do not suspect that actual rape would be a particular exception to it.
 
Lorentz said:
Yes, this was discussed before and you're not the only one to be inspired by this into writing a check for CFI.
Click to expand...
I went back about a month in the thread, and read some of the previous discussion.

Then I hopped over to the "Social Issues" section, and saw that CFI was calling for a boycott & pressure tactics against Google, for hosting a fundraiser (& contributing $50,000 to the campaign fund) for climate-change-denying Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe.

Sigh.

Does no one believe in the simple power of free and open discussion any more?

Blacklists to the right of me. Blacklists to the left of me. Shut 'em down, and shut 'em up.
 
I read that something that might help explain why Sweden is pretty areligious is because many women are working and not raising children. Apparently it's a well-known fact in sociology of religion that women are often more religious than men (would also explain why most self-identified American atheists are males) and are often the one enforcing religious rules in the homes of religious families and raising the children religiously. Which obviously wont work if the women are out working.

I'm wonder that if the plussers even learn of this, will they declare sociology a sexist discipline? Oh the irony...
 
Humes fork said:
I read that something that might help explain why Sweden is pretty areligious is because many women are working and not raising children. Apparently it's a well-known fact in sociology of religion that women are often more religious than men (would also explain why most self-identified American atheists are males) and are often the one enforcing religious rules in the homes of religious families and raising the children religiously. Which obviously wont work if the women are out working.
Click to expand...
This explanation seems unlikely to be true. Work days are usually week days, while religion is usually practiced on weekends, when comparatively few are working.

Many women work in the United States, while a lower percentage work in Japan.

I'd be more inclined to consider universal health care as a causative factor, which would dovetail with social conservative opposition to it (though, to be fair, social conservatives are largely opposed to working women too).
 
zeggman said:
I don't know how, exactly, but somehow the series of links I clicked beginning with your "Spock Fallacy" took me to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/my_talk_at_wis2/. It wouldn't surprise me if this has already been discussed multiple times in the 7500+ posts preceding this one, but I hadn't been aware of it before. I only read this thread intermittently, so apologies in advance if this is covering old ground.

Apparently Ron Lindsay gave a talk at Women in Secularism 2, in which he said

"I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.

This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and ... poof, you’re done. End of discussion."

This statement led many people to demand that he be fired. Fortunately, the Center for Inquiry stood up to the bullies (though Lindsay was forced to apologize for his "outrageous" remarks).

I guess blacklists are always in style, among ideologues who can't tolerate differing opinions. I tend not to support organizations, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. Thanks, CFI, for kinda sorta standing up to the bullies. My check is on the way.
Click to expand...
Sorry about the link.

http://dailymull.com/topics/grist-for-the-mull/the-spock-fallacy-emotion-vs-reason

I strongly recommend the talk by Julia Galef, The Straw Vulcan (see video below).



Also, I pimp the following book constantly but it's so damn good. It's by Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist and it explains and provides evidence for the proposition that the human mind relies on intuition and emotion far more than it does reason and logic.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

To be competent skeptics and critical thinkers it's helpful to to understand the role that emotions play in our decision making process.
 
Jono said:
To a degree, I'm sure that counts for something though it's very hard to approximate. If the rapes aren't even reported, it's next to impossible to estimate a 'dark'-figure behind the scenes. However, considering that Japan has a, across the bar on violent crime, low crime rate in comparison to most of the world, I do not suspect that actual rape would be a particular exception to it.
Click to expand...

This is an extremely unsafe assumption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom