Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For the life of me I can't figure out what was going on there but no worries, the comments section provided plenty of lulz.

I like this one



So the next time we see the SJWs on about "the haters".......

Sara Mayhew is a feminist. However, she's not doing feminism the A+/FTBully Approved Way^(tm), which makes her SJW Enemy #1.

 

[Edx]

Of course it is, that's the attraction.

The goal here is to point out just how when and where social justice types are unable to live up to the moral standards they demand from society at large. Under their own rules of engagement a comment like RW makes at the beginning of her charity video would elicit howls of outrage from the SJ crowd were the genders of both the speaker and the butt(s) of the joke reversed.

But of course they've written themselves special rules to allow this sort of behaviour. Rules like women can't be sexist because sexism=prejudice+power so making a bigoted joke against members of a group who are perceived to have power is OK because it's all part of the fight for equality.

Check it out.



SJ writes the rules and it's our job to make sure they stick to those rules. Luckily for us, they can't.

And don't forget about that the video where PZ makes sexual jokes in public at a conference, which would be against his own sexual harassment rules he was so interested in introducing. Its okay if he does it, he's a safe feminist male obviously. He should watch his step though, he wouldnt want to accidentally push it too far or he'll have to do some grovelling about how he didnt mean it and couldnt help himself because he's just a disgusting horrible male and patriarchy and normalised hatred of women made him do it, or something.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Edx, true to form you're still posting as if you've not read what I've actually said, and are instead making up your own narrative. You are seemingly incapable of being rational on this subject and, as such, I should simply have not engaged you in the first place. Doing so is a waste of your time and mine.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

False. Then you rage against people being blocked on Twitter, as Thunderf00t has, then that is exactly what you are defending.

Has he raged against people being blocked on twitter? I've seen him post videos against the Block Bot and be sarcastic about people proclaiming to be sceptics while disallowing comments on YouTube, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Stout]

And don't forget about that the video where PZ makes sexual jokes in public at a conference, which would be against his own sexual harassment rules he was so interested in introducing. Its okay if he does it, he's a safe feminist male obviously. He should watch his step though, he wouldnt want to accidentally push it too far or he'll have to do some grovelling about how he didnt mean it and couldnt help himself because he's just a disgusting horrible male and patriarchy and normalised hatred of women made him do it, or something.

I may be mistaken here but didn't he disown that video and we're dealing with a "new and improved" PZ Meyers here and now.

 

[RayG]

You do understand hyperbolic self referential humour right? She wasn't attacking every male atheist on youtube and she also, and this is just between you and me, wasn't being serious. I know right! She's always super serious and doesn't have a sense of humour so how can she make a joke!

Oh I like a good joke, but I didn't see one presented. But then I would have thought a video entitled 'Help Blood Cancer Research with Light the Night' would be all about raising money for cancer, not her sexism. I guess losing a number of my relatives to cancer, takes the humor out of it for me. Especially hilarious was hearing her insensitive remark about balls shriveling up. One of my last memories of my father was seeing him crying in his hospital bed after they had removed his cancerous testicles. Real funny stuff.

Was it funny to her? Must have been, but I found it inappropriate considering the actual cause she was trying to raise money for.

You didn't answer my question though. If a male skeptic made a youtube video to help raise money for pancreatic cancer, and made disparaging remarks about some female skeptics and their vaginas, then would it just be hyperbolic self referential humor? Because, you know, he's not really being serious.

If you think that was a genuine attempt to denigrate other people you have got to have the thinnest skin around.

Had she left out her opening comment I wouldn't have an issue with her video. In my opinion it was done in poor taste. You see it otherwise, good for you.

RayG

 

[Mumbles]

Has he raged against people being blocked on twitter? I've seen him post videos against the Block Bot and be sarcastic about people proclaiming to be sceptics while disallowing comments on YouTube, but that's not the same thing.

Yeah, I mean the Block Bot, among other examples. In any event, here's Thunderf00t complaining about blocking on Youtube and Twitter.

As for youtube comments, I'll note that when a black host of a podcast I like noticed a woman banning youtube comments, his immediate reply was "I should do that too. At least I wouldn't be called nineteen kinds of <racial slur redacted>." The point is, people like that Feminist Frequency woman don't want to put up with the mob of people screeching slurs, in order to pretend that they're getting responsive feedback, so why should they? Frankly, anyone putting intelligent feedback into that mass is wasting their time anyway, since they likely won't get a reply, so why enable it in the first place?

I'll also note that I have read that people are using the BlockBot list to find people to troll. Those people are also jerks, and I have no problem with them being called out.

 

[Mumbles]

Where did Thunderfoot say or imply that "anyone who blocks you on twitter or disables Youtube comments is some sort of evil villain who is violating your free speech"?

Answered above.

Now what he probably said is that those that block and ban with ease with anyone that disagrees with them shows they don't like criticism. We know that is the case with people like Watson and Sarkeesian because they act like the only criticism they have ever received has been hateful trollish "death and rape threats".

And if a minority is substantial, then so what? Why bother putting up with any of it in the first place? And furthermore, I notice that Anita Saarkasian (or whatever) never promised a debate in her "tropes Vs Women" series in the first place. In fact, she seems very clear that she was offering a one-sided analysis.

Your emotional exaggeration doesn't make it true. Thunderfoot has never defended those who wrote "death and rape threats" to Watson. Although it does need to be said that most of Watsons "rape and death threats" are not actually threats.

He did, plain and simple.

"All speech is free, unless I'm bothered by it!" is a sentiment common to feminists, ironically. Not sure where you keep pulling that out of.

Yes, quite a few feminists ascribe to that mantra as well, as well as quite a few of the "atheism+" folks. What does this have to do with what we're discussing?

Also whats interesting is you say she aimed the joke at HIM, in what way does what she say at all relate to what Thunderfoot has said about Watson? Has Thunderfoot sent Watson a death or rape threat? Has he advocated for people to send her death and rape threats? or has he just said that she won't honestly engage her critics preferring to paint them all as hateful rapists and raving misogynists so she can handwave them?

The relation is simple. Thunderf00t thinks that women and minorities should just put up with slurs being spewed at them, Watson mocked him for this. The end.

Ugh, this is a repeat of that damn elevator thing. "Well, how can you be sure that some guy who followed Watson into a closed elevator and immediately dropped a thinly veiled sex proposition wasn't just some innocent guy?" Same thing. Some guy spewing slurs on Youtube deserves the time of day? Nah.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yeah, I mean the Block Bot, among other examples.

Can you name these other examples, because that's not how you characterised what he's done.

As for youtube comments, I'll note that when a black host of a podcast I like noticed a woman banning youtube comments, his immediate reply was "I should do that too. At least I wouldn't be called nineteen kinds of <racial slur redacted>." The point is, people like that Feminist Frequency woman don't want to put up with the mob of people screeching slurs, in order to pretend that they're getting responsive feedback, so why should they? Frankly, anyone putting intelligent feedback into that mass is wasting their time anyway, since they likely won't get a reply, so why enable it in the first place?

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too. And if you're not interested in honest and open discourse, then you shouldn't proclaim yourself to be a sceptic.

Of course, that's not to say that you need to read the comments. The point is that allowing people to make whatever comments they like and letting the peanut gallery decide for themselves which are valid points and which are just meaningless insults is the option which more closely resembles an open and honest stance. It's not about getting feedback for yourself, it's about allowing counterpoints and discourse.

 

[Mumbles]

Can you name these other examples, because that's not how you characterised what he's done.

No, I won't. The example given is enough for me, and I don't see where I'm mistaken.

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too. And if you're not interested in honest and open discourse, then you shouldn't proclaim yourself to be a sceptic.

Here's the thing - I don't ascribe to the Sarah Palin view of free speech. I take the Elon James White ( NSFW) view instead. You can spew a slur at me, and I'm free to hate you for it.

Of course, that's not to say that you need to read the comments. The point is that allowing people to make whatever comments they like and letting the peanut gallery decide for themselves which are valid points and which are just meaningless insults is the option which more closely resembles an open and honest stance. It's not about getting feedback for yourself, it's about allowing counterpoints and discourse.

Yeah, and there are times where the viewers are just spewing slurs. What's so bad abpout shutting down comments, in that situation?

 

[Stout]

Ugh, this is a repeat of that damn elevator thing. "Well, how can you be sure that some guy who followed Watson into a closed elevator and immediately dropped a thinly veiled sex proposition wasn't just some innocent guy?" Same thing.

You're absolutely positive that elevator guy wasn't gay then ? There's a word they use over on A+ for assuming someone is a member of the dominant sexual orientation, heteronormativity, and it's highly frowned upon

 

[Stout]

Can you name these other examples, because that's not how you characterised what he's done.
.

Tf was a little off in that video. At the beginning he does compare social media to a public space but an argument could be made that, technically, we rent space from the social media companies and pay for it by ( presumably ) paying attention to their advertisers.

Other than that, he was spot on. The minute I see comments are disabled I know I'm in for a lecture on something that is probably going to tell me that I suck.

For instance Anita Sarkeesian is on about how rescuing the damsel is a "thing" in some video games and how that "thing" is supposed to have an effect on my psyche. I can't tell Anita, using the media that she used to tell me about how my double dragon playing in 1988 reinforced misogyny, that I didn't give a rip about the damsel. I just wanted to kick some ass. I figured she just didn't want to hear it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I won't. The example given is enough for me, and I don't see where I'm mistaken.

Your claim was: "you rage against people being blocked on Twitter, as Thunderf00t has". You've not provided any examples of this, instead citing the Block Bot. At best, this is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion of the Block Bot. Especially as you're characterising criticising the Block Bot as defending people who make rape threats.

As I'm a person who has criticised the Block Bot, I don't think that I'm being unreasonable to ask you to either substantiate or retract the claim that I'm defending people who issue rape threats.

Here's the thing - I don't ascribe to the Sarah Palin view of free speech. I take the Elon James White ( NSFW) view instead. You can spew a slur at me, and I'm free to hate you for it.

Okay. That's not relevant to what you were replying to. The quote in question was:

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too. And if you're not interested in honest and open discourse, then you shouldn't proclaim yourself to be a sceptic.

Feel free to respond to that, should you so choose.

Yeah, and there are times where the viewers are just spewing slurs. What's so bad abpout shutting down comments, in that situation?

There's nothing bad about it, per se. But pre-emptively disallowing comments on any and all videos does rather indicate that you're not interested in allowing dissenting opinions to air. Which doesn't say much for your commitment to open and honest debate.

I once watched a Christopher Hitchins video in which he was at some university in the US. It was either a Christian university, or it was a Christian society at the university, or something like that, because everybody in the audience appeared to be a Christian, and the person he was debating was a Christian. The person he was debating introduced Hitchins, and then spoke first. In his introduction, he told the audience to "go easy" on Hitchins. The first thing Hitchins said when it was his turn to speak was to disregard that and to feel free to say anything to or about him.

That's my view of free speech. I don't know what Sarah Palin's view of free speech is, nor do I care.

All of which is rather irrelevant, given that this isn't an issue of free speech, and nobody is claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to prevent people from commenting on YouTube videos.

 

[colander]

If you're interested in honest and open discourse, then you have to be prepared for insults, too.

If you're interested in going wilderness camping, then you have to be prepared for bear encounters, too.

Does that mean that it's not acceptable to bear-proof your encampments?

I note that you've chosen to post your argument on the JREF Forum, the moderation policy of which expressly forbids the use of insults and seeks to remove them whenever and wherever they appear. Does your choice to post on a forum where rules against incivility are aggressively enforced mean that you are not interested in honest and open discourse?

I don't think that actively seeking to circumvent the possibility of being subjected to personal insults is an action that is in any way inconsistent with "being prepared" for them.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you're interested in going wilderness camping, then you have to be prepared for bear encounters, too.

Does that mean that it's not acceptable to bear-proof your encampments?

I note that you've chosen to post your argument on the JREF Forum, the moderation policy of which expressly forbids the use of insults and seeks to remove them whenever and wherever they appear. Does your choice to post on a forum where rules against incivility are aggressively enforced mean that you are not interested in honest and open discourse?

I don't think that actively seeking to circumvent the possibility of being subjected to personal insults is an action that is in any way inconsistent with "being prepared" for them.

What a strange collection of arguments. None of them seem to really be relevant to what I've posted.

 

[colander]

What a strange collection of arguments. None of them seem to really be relevant to what I've posted.

I don't think you're trying very hard, here. You've implied that disabling commentary on YouTube videos is an action inconsistent with an interest in "open and honest discourse." I don't see how it is. It does not prevent such discourse from occurring any more than does the President choosing not to permit hecklers to interrupt his state-of-the-union address.

 

[Leftus]

There is a fundamental difference between heckling, a disruptive act during a speech, and responses after the speech. Even it could be granted that it is one and the same, that doesn't explain turning off the voting buttons. The state of the union does allow people to clap after all. The state of the union is also shared in advanced for the out of power party to record a response.

By closing off every possible means of feedback that isn't already in your echo chamber, from video to comments to votes, you don't see how this curtails open and honest debate? They just don't block the hecklers, they block everyone and everything. Can't support, can't defend, can't help those on the fence to a side.

Having everyone just give their own state of the union speech without any consideration to any other viewpoint is the exact opposite to free and open debate. While that might be the starting point for a dialog, they will go no further. And worse, they will allow nobody else to go further anywhere they want their message to be heard.

You shouldn't claim to be a skeptic and refuse to listen to points you aren't already in agreement with. It's fundamentally dishonest. Every claim must be weighed with the evidence and it's dangerous to exclude ideas just because we hold them dear. Most of us wouldn't be here if we all operated that way. It's also doing a disservice to the position you are trying to put forth since it will never be allowed to be explored, expanded or improved because debate has been censured.

They are saying through their actions that their thoughts can't be questioned. That bothers some of us.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I was reading about the book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, which is about the mind control and brainwashing China did to captured US servicemen in the 1950s, and the list of techniques just struck me as alarmingly close to the conduct of FtB/A+ leaders:

In the book, Lifton outlines the "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform":

Milieu Control [e.g blockbot and safe spaces]. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés [e.g. mansplaining, check your privilege], which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.[3]

 

[Edx]

Edx, true to form you're still posting as if you've not read what I've actually said, and are instead making up your own narrative. You are seemingly incapable of being rational on this subject and, as such, I should simply have not engaged you in the first place. Doing so is a waste of your time and mine.

I asked you two very simple questions. Why are they so hard to answer?

• If games can be said to normalise sexism, why doesn't it also normalise violence?
• If games don't actually cause people to be violent in real life, then why will games cause people to treat women any differently in real life?

If you believe you have answered this please copy and paste the exact part/s of your post/s you believe answer this.

 

[Edx]

I may be mistaken here but didn't he disown that video and we're dealing with a "new and improved" PZ Meyers here and now.

haha, I don't know! But I'd love to see where he addressed that.