Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Professor Yaffle]

And the particular example, if anyone who's not black is honest about it, is something that probably everyone wondered about at one time. When the first major 'fros were out in the 60s, most people who were not black or intimate with blacks had no idea whether it felt like a big fluffy pillow or a wire scrub brush or something in between. I remember when the "wet look" came back in whatever decade that was and a white guy asking another white guy if he could feel his "Poindexter". It's just curiosity coupled with minor boorishness.

As I said, the best example is guys who shave their heads. Anyone who's gone that route knows that people of all sizes and shapes and colors and genders will ask if they can rub it.

Its also similar to the phenomenon that most pregnant women experience, where people want to touch their belly.

 

[Wolfman]

I just pop into this thread occasionally, mainly to be amazed that, "Wow, this is still going?" I mean, come on...you guys are approaching 9000 posts now!

From what I can see, there isn't anything new being contributed to the discussion, seems to be just an endless, repetitive cycle of the same regurgitated arguments, over and over and over again. Myself, I've long since given up any hope for the A+ movement...their policies of censorship and exclusion have essentially rendered them impotent and meaningless. It's just a small clique of people who make each other feel important by repeating the same stuff over and over.

Pretty much exactly the same as is being done here.

Move on, people. There's nothing more to see here.

 

[jhunter1163]

Its also similar to the phenomenon that most pregnant women experience, where people want to touch their belly.

Whaaaaaaa? People do this? How incredibly rude.

 

[Diogenes]

Whaaaaaaa? People do this? How incredibly rude.

My wife's response to the last time this happened...

She was about 8 months pregnant and on an elevator. This young woman got onto the elevator and reached-out, touched her belly and said "Blessings be!"

In turn my wife said,"You just wished blessing on my tumor."

In the between-floors silence that followed she just looked at the stunned young woman. As the elevator doors opened my wife tells her, "No, it isn't a tumor but maybe next time you'll think about asking before just touching someone like that."

 

[qwints]

Why and to what end? What's the purpose being served by indulging someones fantasies like that?

Absent a reason, I tend to avoid offending people or otherwise bothering them if possible. And a lack of conscious racist intent doesn't negate otherwise racist language or actions - as the post Crommunist made above says, most racism is accidental, people whose experiences don't make them realize the racial implications in certain situations.

It is unacceptable for me, as a white man, to over-ride any legitimate claims of offence by a black woman, and it is reasonable of me to defer to her as to what constitutes reasonable offence, correct?

So why is it ok for people over there to make a claim that X is racist to a group they cannot legitimately speak for?

It's not. All I should do is relay the concerns of members of that group, not purport to know how they feel.

what about [ceepolk] shutting down the discussion of Islam because it's the religion of brown people?

I didn't like her particular phrasing, but there's a different issue going on there. That's a specific application of a general principle, discussions about a group without reference to the actual experiences of that group can be harmful. It wasn't saying (or wasn't just saying) that the discussion was offensive to Muslims.

 

[luchog]

How intriguing! Please elaborate on the distinction between wealth and class that explains why you think that it is probably not racism that causes employers to give less consideration to even wealthy job applicants who possess stereotypically black names. Thanks in advance.

Is it stereotypically black, or stereotypically lower-class black? How would stereotypically lower-class white names fare vs. stereotypically upper-class white? And in what context? How about lower-class black vs. lower-class white? Would an employer be more likely to call a Bubba over a Jamaal?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's not. All I should do is relay the concerns of members of that group, not purport to know how they feel.

Relay those concerns based on what? Having heard what one or two of them have to say? Having taken a survey? What your concerns would be were you a member of that group? What concerns you believe that group should have in order to attain equality?

I didn't like her particular phrasing, but there's a different issue going on there. That's a specific application of a general principle, discussions about a group without reference to the actual experiences of that group can be harmful. It wasn't saying (or wasn't just saying) that the discussion was offensive to Muslims.

That's not what she said. She said that you cannot make a criticism of Islam that cannot also be levelled at Christianity and that, furthermore, while you do so you must explicitly note that the thing you're criticising Islam for is also to be found in Christianity. Anything else is colonialist.

 

[luchog]

I tend to avoid offending people or otherwise bothering them if possible.

I would agree with this philosophy; except that I would alter "if possible" to "within reason".

There are times when it is reasonable to avoid offending people, and to refrain from certain language and actions: when they are culturally tinged with clear connotations of oppression. And there are times when it is not reasonable, when such connotations exist only in the mind of the offended, with no clear cultural background to justify them. When it is merely indulging the oversensitive and self-centered. When it ends up creating an environment hostile to free expression by kowtowing to mere paranoid fantasies, or the manipulative tactics of entitlement attitudes. The line between reasonable and unreasonable is not always clear, and it is always best to err on the side of caution; but it does a disservice both to society and the individual to accede to the unreasonable. Acceding to such unreasonable demands rather perpetuates oppressive memes, than dispels them.

 

[qwints]

Relay those concerns based on what? Having heard what one or two of them have to say? Having taken a survey? What your concerns would be were you a member of that group? What concerns you believe that group should have in order to attain equality?

The first or second, that is - actual opinions from people of the group- while naming the source, and preferably either citing that source or finding a publicly available source that supports it. Not the last two, though I might rely on the third in particularly egregious/obvious cases.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The first or second, that is - actual opinions from people of the group- while naming the source, and preferably either citing that source or finding a publicly available source that supports it. Not the last two, though I might rely on the third in particularly egregious/obvious cases.

How do you decide which members of the group you should listen to? Rebecca Watson or Stef McGraw? Amy Roth or Harriet Hall?

 

[zooterkin]

You missed the entirety of the oppression olympics discussions? Ophelia's crying jag at TAM over Harriet's shirt, and the blowup that resulted?

Amy, not Ophie, I think you meant.

 

[theprestige]

Why and to what end? What's the purpose being served by indulging someones fantasies like that?

No, I get it. Being an inconsiderate dick is not cool. Society does marginalize some people. Be mindful that while your words and deeds may seem benign to you (or even be benign), they may come across quite differently to someone who is systematically marginalized by society. So, be mindful of that.

On the other hand, intent counts for something. If someone accuses you of intentionally marginalizing them, when you did not, it's your responsibility to explain your intent and be mindful of the misunderstanding in the future.

I'd say it's the other person's responsibility to take your intent into account, when evaluating their feelings--especially their feelings towards you as an individual human being, which is the important thing.

On the gripping hand, if you unintentionally exercise privilege in a way that contributes to the systematic marginalization of someone else, or to their perception of the same, your intent probably doesn't mean much. Carelessness and ignorance aren't much of an excuse. Again, be mindful.

But this all assumes human beings of good will, trying to deal fairly with each other in good faith, to be charitable, tolerant, inclusive, and forgiving. Obviously each individual is responsible for their own feelings and choices in this regard. If you find that being mindful of your privilege and the feelings of others does not improve your relationship with someone, you are probably better off terminating that relationship rather than accepting responsibility for how they feel or how they choose to act.

 

[recursive prophet]

There are so many things that bug me about A+ culture. Yet another one is the argumentative tactic of claiming a huge thing, then when challenged defending a tiny thing.<snip>

A-plussers trying to use the ideas of "privilege" and "intersectionality" as a justification for their own prejudice and bigotry doesn't make them any less bigoted or prejudiced. It just makes them hypocritical as well as illiberal.

You did a great job of summarizing in this post Kevin. Kudos!

I just pop into this thread occasionally...[to say]
Move on, people. There's nothing more to see here.

Yet as you acknowledge you keep popping in with this same message. What was it Al said about repeating the same action and expecting different results?

I agree A+ has become irrelevant. They average about 5 users online, lol. But I think this thread serves a worthy purpose in examining their thinking, and highlighting the most egregious bits as a cautionary tale.

 

[qwints]

Kevin, are you saying I'm making much larger claims than I'm defending? If so, could you give an example? My goal here isn't to make and defend broad claims, but to try and increase mutual understanding of our positions given some of the vitriol going back and forth.

How do you decide which members of the group you should listen to? Rebecca Watson or Stef McGraw? Amy Roth or Harriet Hall?

Listen to all of them, realizing that they no one gets to define a particular group. If the message is that some members of a group are bothered and some aren't, act accordingly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Listen to all of them, realizing that they no one gets to define a particular group. If the message is that some members of a group are bothered and some aren't, act accordingly.

So you don't agree with calling people "gender traitors" or "chill girls" or saying that they've "failed feminism 101"?

 

[colander]

Is it stereotypically black, or stereotypically lower-class black?

It's both. But do you think it is a non-racism-related coincidence that most names that people perceive to be disproportionately common among black people just happen to be associated in employers' minds with "low class", whereas only a tiny minority of relatively uncommon names primarily associated with white people happen to evoke a similar association?

Balking at the proposition that there might be some racial component to this discrimination and attributing the disparities instead to perceived differences in "class" rather misses the forest for the trees. All other things being equal, the more characteristically "black" a name is, the greater is the degree to which the name bearer will be perceived as being "low class". How do you figure that this framing of the issue manages to sidestep the possibility of racial discrimination?

 

[colander]

From what I can see, there isn't anything new being contributed to the discussion, seems to be just an endless, repetitive cycle of the same regurgitated arguments, over and over and over again. Myself, I've long since given up any hope for the A+ movement...their policies of censorship and exclusion have essentially rendered them impotent and meaningless. It's just a small clique of people who make each other feel important by repeating the same stuff over and over.

Yes, I agree! Also, your post saying exactly the same things that have been repeated ad nauseum hundreds of times throughout this thread was much more interesting and insightful than all of the others. I think it is because you are noble and impressive, like the wolf! Will you be my new dad?

Together, we will howl and prowl the neighborhoods after dark and knock over all the garbage bins and fearsomely ruin everyone's yard gardens with our mysterious wolven ways*.

*These ways consist mainly of digging and chewing.

 

[qwints]

So you don't agree with calling people "gender traitors" or "chill girls" or saying that they've "failed feminism 101"?

Not if it's being done to invalidate the target's experiences or in an attempt to establish the speaker as the one true speaker for a group. People can, of course, criticize others for having different values or seeking different outcomes. Either way, I don't like the term [x] traitor because I think false consciousness arguments tend to disparage people's agency.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So you don't agree with attempting to invalidate someone's experiences, but do you agree with calling someone a "chill girl" or not?

How about Uncle Tom? Is that better, or worse? What if it's a black guy calling another black guy an Uncle Tom? I'll be blunt, I can't see the difference between a black man calling another black man an Uncle Tom (someone who kowtows to whites to be accepted) and a woman calling another woman a Chill Girl (someone who kowtows to men to be accepted).

It's sick, but I suspect if Quinn (to use a black poster here at random) called a black A+er an Uncle Tom he would be immediately banned, among even less civil reactions.

 

[Kochanski]

Not if it's being done to invalidate the target's experiences or in an attempt to establish the speaker as the one true speaker for a group. People can, of course, criticize others for having different values or seeking different outcomes. Either way, I don't like the term [x] traitor because I think false consciousness arguments tend to disparage people's agency.

How about just because it is rude, disrespectful and childish to call people names.

I find it very interesting that individuals who are claiming mistreatment by others are very quick to label and disparage people.

I was taught that you should treat others the way you wish to be treated.