Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Zimmerman/Martin issue and Elevatorgate? Totally connected to each other : http://www.freezepage.com/1374102677NLIVBMYTOK

He is understandably hurt to think that she has seen him as a potential threat and taken a precaution for her own safety. He assumes she didn’t know he’s a famous musician on a popular late night show, and attributes her fear to his large size and his dark skin color. He wants her to see him as a human being and not a black thug.

As the comments on the piece suggest, I wasn’t alone, as a woman, in placing myself in her shoes. I’ve sort of been in her shoes, after all, though in my case the man in the elevator was white, confident and forward, and the very height of entitlement.


<sings> It's all about meeeeeeeee </sings>
 
I wouldn't be surprised if you encountered things like people making unjustified negative assumptions about you or criticizing you without justification.
Oh, absolutely. Please don't misunderstand me. I've said over and over that I accept the concept of privilege. It would be very dishonest of me to say I had not encountered false perceptions and even malicious commentary. Thankfully I was not obese in school and didn't suffer bullying as a result.

What I've seen a lot of people not get in this discussion is that the problem is not with generic public health advice like saying it's good for people to eat a reasonable amount of healthy food or engage in an appropriate amount of exercise, the problem comes when people express vitriol towards people based on weight.
My problem's with A+ and FTB is not due to liberal view points. Nor do they lie with those who are compassionate and empathetic to the plight of women, minorities and those who are disadvantaged.

No, my problem is with the lack of good moderation and the in-group, out-group dynamics that the lack of proper moderation engenders. Absent moderation the problems inherent to the innate nature of humans, what Jonathan Haidt calls, The Righteous Mind, the in-group will soon bully the out-group. It doesn't matter how otherwise reasonable, compassionate or empathetic the participants are, eventually many will gravitate to bullying behavior and justify that bullying behavior. To many honest and objective outside observers that is what has happened at A+ and FTB.

When it comes to discussion and debate, other than civility, there can be no prior restraint. The JREF forum does not favor skeptics over non-skeptics. All are equal here (within the limits of human error of course. JREF is not perfect). A 9/11 truther can hold forth here as much as any skeptic.

If you are looking for someone who is sympathetic to social justice then you have found him. I passionately argue in favor of gay rights, women, minorities, etc., etc. every day on this forum. Often my passion gets the best of me and I am uncivil. At those times I get a warning to stop. I won't lie to you, some times I'm on the border and don't get a warning. But I try harder than I did in the past because I don't want to lose my ability to post. And because I'm a bit more aware of the importance of civility and I'm cognizant of the real problem of being a rationalizing human (statistically speaking, our minds are far more adept at rationalizing than they are at formal logic). JREF, has made me a better poster. We should all be aware of our own Righteous Minds.

I wish everyone would read and understand Haidt's book. Life would be better for all. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
 
Last edited:
Oh, absolutely. Please don't misunderstand me. I've said over and over that I accept the concept of privilege.
I think it important that I make clear that while I personally accept the concept of privilege, the use of it as a rhetorical device is sketchy and more likely than not to be condescending and patronizing. The way it is often use does not further the discussion or engender comity.

"Check your privilege" is, IMHO, a really dumb thing to say. Pointing out that a person could have bias because of privilege is okay in my opinion. It should never be used to seek rhetorical advantage.

It's the presumption that truly bothers me. IMO, had RW stated that, "typically women feel vulnerable in enclosed circumstances". That women are, statistically, less likely to be receptive to advances and men might do well to keep that in mind, there would have never been an elevatorgate.

It's the patronizing and absolute nature of her statement that earned her some criticism. Following that up with accusations of "privilege" just added gasoline to a small fire. Watson's ego would not allow her to listen to the criticism and consider how her words would be perceived. She, typical of most humans, was defensive and sought to win a public debate through what she thought was a trump card. A rhetorical advantage. She was a woman who did not see the world through the eyes of patriarchy and therefore she was right and anyone who disagreed was automatically wrong.
 
The Zimmerman/Martin issue and Elevatorgate? Totally connected to each other : http://www.freezepage.com/1374102677NLIVBMYTOK

<sings> It's all about meeeeeeeee </sings>

Rebecca Watson is the Anne Coulter of skepticism: somebody who just says ridiculous things, in order to draw attention to herself. She has ardent fans and ardent haters who she can set off just by opening her mouth, but she really adds nothing of substance.

I was rather surprised to see that a lot of people were using Ron Lindsay's reply to Rebecca, and not his speech, as the rationale for demanding that he step down. Apparently, insulting Rebecca is the equivalent of insulting all feminists, which is the equivalent of insulting all women, everywhere. Her fans live on an entirely different planet.
 
Maybe it's been mentioned, not sure been out of the loop for a bit. But seems like FTB has lost some of bloggers as late. Anyone know what happened?
 
Maybe it's been mentioned, not sure been out of the loop for a bit. But seems like FTB has lost some of bloggers as late. Anyone know what happened?

Most of their best bloggers (imo) have jumped ship and joined up with the Patheos blog network.
 
Most of their best bloggers (imo) have jumped ship and joined up with the Patheos blog network.

One left this parting shot. make of it what you will.

It feels like I’m forgetting something…

PZ Myers is the only really massive draw to FtB.
It’s no secret that Greg Laden was ****-canned from FtB for his violent threats against me. Do you remember the way PZ Myers handled the situation? He posted a public hand-washing of *me* over the disclosure of Laden’s vile words. Always name names (unless it’s when our bff’s do it?)
Staying at FtB after being publicly renounced by the only major draw to the blog network…? **** that.
He’s also a fake. PZ has a “Trophy wife”, has used ‘gendered slurs’ multiple times, such as endorsing the phrase “Science, it works bitches!” as great motto for scienceblogs, etc. Why people think he’s a super feminist ally is beyond me. If he’s only converted to this brand of feminism recently, then why all the overblown hatred for people making the same mistakes he’s made several times? Can’t they too come around?
I recently left this brief summary elsewhere.
PZ posted the day Laden was ****-canned over that incident… PZ publicly washed his hands of me? If PZ had his hands on me for any reason, I’d need a goddamn shower. Did you know that he recommended and linked to cartoons of women being *raped* by octopus-like tentacled animals? He’s made several ‘under the sea’ adult references in his posts over the years.
All apologies for the kink-shaming there, but when your apparent fetish breaks multiple laws in just about every country you don’t get to publicly wash your hands of people. 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.
PZ, stop washing your hands of people. Just wash your hands.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2013/07/09/why-the-move/
 
I wonder how their little online "conference" went?

I wonder too, seems like such a lame idea. The whole point of conferences for me is to have face to face interactions with many people, individually and in groups. It is fine to do google hang outs with people and listen to speakers lots of different ways, but that just misses the point of conference to me.
 
I wonder too, seems like such a lame idea. The whole point of conferences for me is to have face to face interactions with many people, individually and in groups. It is fine to do google hang outs with people and listen to speakers lots of different ways, but that just misses the point of conference to me.

I haven't been to any conference (might have to do with them usually being on the other side of the planet), but I can totally see your point. Why not simply film a lecture from everyone instead (because being online, that's basically what it would end up being). There is nothing wrong with filmed lectures, but it's not really a conference I'd say.
 
The Zimmerman/Martin issue and Elevatorgate? Totally connected to each other : http://www.freezepage.com/1374102677NLIVBMYTOK




<sings> It's all about meeeeeeeee </sings>

Finally got round to reading this. What a bizarre blog post. She was annoyed by the forward and confident white guy (the "height of privilege") but she'd be OK with Truelove because he's a black guy and that's like a social justice blue belt (not a black belt though, because black belts in that particular art are reserved for middle class college-educated white women or something).

I just don't understand her at all.
 
The fragmentation of a movement, like the atheist movement, is a sign of its success. The instinctive impulse to divide the world into "us" and "them" is all but irrepressible.

Something like this break between "mysogynists" and Social Justice Warriors was just waiting to happen. It was inevitable, but it's bogus and is rooted in the base, ugly, primitive instinct responsible for racism, sexism, slavery, cruelty, pogroms, and genocides. Skeptical and critical thinkers should be able to see this and rise above it.

Look how many times Christianity has cleaved into warring sects, and how Islam broke into Sunni vs. Shiite shortly after Muhammad's passing.

Someone needs to give a passionate, scholarly rigorous, and persuasive conference talk against it.

This nonsense has to stop.

The recent report on CBS 60 Minutes explains (backed up by actual science) how the impulse to divide the world into "us" and "them" is an inborn instinct:

Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality

...oh, this book looks good: "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them"

A pathbreaking neuroscientist reveals how our social instincts turn Me into Us, but turn Us against Them—and what we can do about it

Our brains were designed for tribal life, for getting along with a select group of others (Us), and for fighting off everyone else (Them). But modern life has thrust the world’s tribes into a shared space, creating conflicts of interest and clashes of values, along with unprecedented opportunities. As the world shrinks, the moral lines that divide us become more salient and more puzzling. We fight over everything from tax codes to gay marriage to global warming, and we wonder where, if at all, we can find our common ground.

A grand synthesis of neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, Moral Tribes reveals the underlying causes of modern conflict and lights the way forward. Here the human brain is revealed to be like a dual-mode camera, with point-and-shoot automatic settings (“portrait,” “landscape”) as well as a manual mode. Our point-and-shoot settings are our emotions—efficient, automated programs honed by evolution, culture, and personal experience. The human brain’s manual mode is its capacity for deliberate reasoning, which makes our thinking flexible. Our point-and-shoot emotions make us social animals, turning Me into Us. But they also make us tribal animals, turning Us against Them. Our tribal emotions make us fight, sometimes with bombs, sometimes with words, and often with life-and-death stakes. Drawing inspiration from moral philosophy and cuttingedge science, Moral Tribes shows us when to trust our instincts, when to reason, and how the right kind of reasoning can move us forward.

Moral Tribes is the work of Professor Joshua Greene, the director of Harvard University’s Moral Cognition Lab, a pioneering scientist, a philosopher, and an acclaimed teacher. The great challenge of Moral Tribes is this: How can we get along with Them when what they want feels so wrong? Ultimately, Greene offers a surprisingly simple set of maxims for navigating the modern moral terrain, a practical road map for solving problems and living better lives.

A major achievement from a rising star in a new scientific field, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them will refashion your deepest beliefs about how moral thinking works and how it can work better.
 
Last edited:
The fragmentation of a movement, like the atheist movement, is a sign of its success. The instinctive impulse to divide the world into "us" and "them" is all but irrepressible.

Something like this break between "mysogynists" and Social Justice Warriors was just waiting to happen. It was inevitable, but it's bogus and is rooted in the base, ugly, primitive instinct responsible for racism, sexism, slavery, cruelty, pogroms, and genocides. Skeptical and critical thinkers should be able to see this and rise above it.

Look how many times Christianity has cleaved into warring sects, and how Islam broke into Sunni vs. Shiite shortly after Muhammad's passing.

Someone needs to give a passionate, scholarly rigorous, and persuasive conference talk against it.

This nonsense has to stop.

The recent report on CBS 60 Minutes explains (backed up by actual science) how the impulse to divide the world into "us" and "them" is an inborn instinct:

Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality

...oh, this book looks good: "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them"

t's been amazing to watch this split develop. PZ goes from a Hero to a Demon in a flash til now everything he says is twisted into some unrecognizable caricature because he objects to men slyming women.

Seeing otherwise intelligent individuals turn from Dr. Jeckell to Mr. Hyde at the mere mention that it might not be civil to call women bitches, ***** and whores and suggesting that they needed a good raping is educational.

It's the United Atheists against the Atheists United vs the Atheist Alliance.
 
t's been amazing to watch this split develop. PZ goes from a Hero to a Demon in a flash til now everything he says is twisted into some unrecognizable caricature because he objects to men slyming women....

That's pretty disingenuous, don't you think?

He was already a caricature of rational free speech long before he started championing feminism. I followed his science and FtB blog and was a FB friend from a bit before this spit happen. At first I found the, primarily, anti-religion vitriol amusing...over time, though, I realized that this was his primary kick on his blog...yelling down at people who couldn't really yell-back on his own playground. His less-frequent science-related posts combined with the increasing fanatical feminist posts saw me breaking that association.

It just started to look like he wanted to hoist a firebrand high to keep the people whose esteem he values from pointing the old white cis-male = "unclean" finger at him. This is speculation on my part, obviously.
 
Seeing otherwise intelligent individuals turn from Dr. Jeckell to Mr. Hyde at the mere mention that it might not be civil to call women bitches, ***** and whores and suggesting that they needed a good raping is educational.

Nominated for strawman of the month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom