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

qwints said:
That's me, and I'm a he.

Those positions are compatible. Passing over the simple demographic discussion, I think the claim that several of you have a problem with is the claim that offense is more likely to be caused by people from a privileged group (i.e. whites more likely to cause racial offense, men more likely to cause sexist offense.) I think so because of the nature of privilege - it's much easier for white people to be ignorant of black culture than the other way around - rather than because one group has more animosity than another.

But this is pointless speculation - it doesn't really matter for this case and there isn't sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion even if one could get a decent probability. As was pointed out earlier, VanDyke was not the only black student at the school and there was at least one black administrator involved. Talking about the case as if these people don't exist is a problem.

That said, I'll gladly further discuss the issue of why I don't think it's bigoted to say members of certain groups are more likely to cause offense than others.
Click to expand...

Qwints,
Here's the problem. Note that Ischemgeek (taking the Ceepolk role and knitting while the guillotine is prepared) almost immediately jumps into "my personal experience". That's huge credit bucks in any discussion of anything at A+, as you know. So it may be an off-the-top remark or it may be a smarmy debating tactic to marginalize anyone else's pov. (I think it's habit.)

The thing is... Ischemgeek doesn't have any experience as a black person. But "my personal experience" is supposed to replace that because he/she has experienced oppression, he/she knows oppression. The simple answer is that this is A+ thinking. When the only tool in your box is a hammer then everything begins to look like a nail. I've lived in a very mixed community. I went to a school that was 95% black, I've hung out in black social circles where my nickname was "Snowball" ("whitest ****** I ever met" according to Rudy Collins).

In short, no one posting in that thread has the first idea of black on black teasing. It is much the same as The Ashleys. There are cool kids at the cool kids table at lunch, jocks at the jock table, fashionable kids vs slobs, and all those other groups and sub-groups that we all experienced in school. And believe me, if in a conservative group of middle class black kids, bible-thumpers and preppie types, a kid comes in with a 'fro in 2013, she or he is going to get ragged on, mercilessly but generally not with evil intent, by her black schoolmates. It would be the same treatment a white teen would get in the same sort of school if he was to show up with a mullet.

I have no idea just how lower-case-c christian these kids are and whether they're fully integrated socially. I don't pretend to know the school. And it doesn't appear from the pictures to be all that diverse. But the assumption that it was white on black is a leap for the tool box to get out that hammer.
 
I don't agree with qwints' conclusion regarding likelihood, but I don't see how it's bigoted.
 
Brainache said:
I guess we can't call it bigotry if the bigot thinks they are being reasonable.

That would be erasing their emotional validity, or something...
Click to expand...

I think the average person is more likely to be assaulted by a man than by a woman. Is that statement bigotry? I would say no. Partly because it is a reasonable conclusion (based on statistics).
 
cornsail said:
I think the average person is more likely to be assaulted by a man than by a woman. Is that statement bigotry? I would say no. Partly because it is a reasonable conclusion (based on statistics).
Click to expand...

OK.

But that isn't what we are talking about. This is a specific case where a race of people is being vilified because of prejudice.

I know racism doesn't count against white people, because, "privilege" or something at A+, but I didn't think it was the rule here.
 
qwints said:
"Is" does not equal "probably is". If we pick one US citizen at random, we can say meaningful things about the likelihood of their identity. As of 2010, they're most likely a white woman. Treating that as a given, however, is foolish and, to use Squeegee's language, fails to consider that non-white, non-woman people exist.
Click to expand...

Probabilistic statements regarding ethnicity are unnecessary where one is in possession of the facts of a specific case, which is what we are talking about. Moreover, for obvious reasons, national demographics do not necessarily characterize the population of a given school district. Where they do not, appealing to them is meaningless.
 
"I think it's more likely the students were white" isn't vilifying a race of people. Similarly, if someone was assaulted, the statement "I think it's likely that they were assaulted by a man" wouldn't be bigoted. Either could be motivated by bigotry, but they aren't inherently bigoted statements, nor do they vilify white people or men in general.
 
This is silly. There are certain behaviors that are more likely to be committed by men, women, American whites, American blacks, and so on... Refusing to acknowledge this doesn't make one some sort of enlightened progressive of super-non-bigotry.
 
cornsail said:
This is silly. There are certain behaviors that are more likely to be committed by men, women, American whites, American blacks, and so on... Refusing to acknowledge this doesn't make one some sort of enlightened progressive of super-non-bigotry.
Click to expand...

Yes, but applying that kind of generalisation to a specific case is unwarranted.

Most murders are committed by someone the victim knows, but that doesn't mean we always have to blame the spouse (or whoever), if we don't have all the details.

They went from "Black girl teased", to "Whitey done it", without even pausing to check the facts.

That is racism.
 
gentlehorse said:
Probabilistic statements regarding ethnicity are unnecessary where one is in possession of the facts of a specific case, which is what we are talking about. Moreover, for obvious reasons, national demographics do not necessarily characterize the population of a given school district. Where they do not, appealing to them is meaningless.
Click to expand...

The thing is... they weren't remotely familiar with the facts. The first person I know of who went to the trouble to find out what the school make-up was like, was me. They just jumped in with both boots (or maybe fashionable Earth Shoes made from renewable resources) and started crying "Racism!" because it's what they do. Qwints and somethingcrumpet pointed out or at least questioned that it might simply be a typical authoritarian school policy issue, to their credit. But if you look at Qwints' new thread, the first couple of comments seemed to be at least pointing towards mea culpa, but now they're starting to justify their own bias.

Note that I say "bias". I do not agree that this is racism or reverse racism. White people erroneously calling out other white people as racists is just a good example of being dense, not an example of self-hatred or being racists, themselves, IMHO. It's yet another example of why these folk shouldn't even earn the cub scout Social Justice merit badge, much less be the self-appointed standard bearers for Atheism Plus Social Justice.
 
Foolmewunz said:
...
Note that I say "bias". I do not agree that this is racism or reverse racism. White people erroneously calling out other white people as racists is just a good example of being dense, not an example of self-hatred or being racists, themselves, IMHO. It's yet another example of why these folk shouldn't even earn the cub scout Social Justice merit badge, much less be the self-appointed standard bearers for Atheism Plus Social Justice.
Click to expand...

You are quite right, "racism" is the wrong word.

I think "prejudice" is probably better, because on most issues their minds are already made-up. The cause is "Privilege" in every case.
 
qwints said:
I certainly don't, which obviously detracts from the worth of my opinion on the issue.
Click to expand...

Well, if I played (or the JREFF members played) by A+ rules, it might. And over at A+, of course, your opinion has no bearing because "personal" trumps anything but I'm sure you could come up with a story about being bullied in school, at least. In my world, though, since you didn't play that ignorance as a trump card or pull in a wild card of some other experience that is kinda/sorta related and then leap to blatantly erroneous conclusions, then your opinion is worth, well,... your opinion. and I respect it, 'cuz I'm like A+ people (don't tell them they have something in common with a lowly "skeptic") in that I'm going to give weight to the opinions of people I've gotten to know here, too.

As I said, kudos to you and whatchamacllitcrumpet for actually thinking along skeptical lines and looking for a better possible explanation. I hope you're not feeling a need to pull yourself back to the pack(herd? flock?) to fit in with the majority(of the tiny minority) view there. Their "personal experiences" in totally unrelated areas of socio-political dealings are not justification for making their poor leap-of-lackof-faith judgments. In fact, that's not even a good explanation. It's an excuse! But they're using it as justification, thereby implying that they'll just blindly follow their misguided instincts the next time a topic like this arises. And one will. They search for them like Travis perusing conservative boards for items to get outraged over and they will not learn from this experience as they did not learn from the criminally stupid thread about the city of Vancouver abusing the mentally ill.

Sadly, someone needs to rub their faces in the egg so that it's not just on their face, but in their nostrils and mating their eyelashes together and takes some real effort to remove. But unless you're ready to make it your swan song, don't do so.

Why not join in some actual battles? I could use a tag-team partner in my ongoing campaign to have as many of my posts moved to AAH as possible Call-Out the Bigots and Racists hobby. We have legitimate misogynists here. We have Holocaust Deniers, religious fundies, harsh right wing libertarians, shills for the GOP and Democratic Party, etc...

The JREFF allows all sorts of dissenting opinions. I know that breaks the heart of some of the special snowflakes who can't deal with the misogyny, but you don't seem to be a special snowflake needing that hankie with ammonia salts on it to recover from the shock of a contrary opinion.
 
Can the Aplussers acknowledge that black-on-black racism exists? Talk about a third-rail issue! In some African-American communities, individuals are ranked by skin color and hair quality -- the lighter your skin, the higher you're ranked. This would suggest a viable explanation for the bullying event we're discussing. Spike Lee made a film about this -- School DazeWP, which "touches upon issues of real and perceived racism related to skin tone bias and hair quality within the African-American community."


 
Mr. Scott said:
Can the Aplussers acknowledge that black-on-black racism exists? Talk about a third-rail issue! In some African-American communities, individuals are ranked by skin color and hair quality -- the lighter your skin, the higher you're ranked.
Click to expand...

Yo mama so black she drinks water and pees coffee.
 
Looks like PZ has decided that types of food are immoral.

2013
I’m cured, no more meat

Ethics, Personal

by PZ Myers

My wife is a vegetarian, and I’ve mostly cut meat out of my diet, too — I’ll indulge a bit when I travel, but that’s about it. But I’m done now. It makes no sense: it’s not sustainable or economical, but worse, it’s brutal and cruel. Rolling Stone has just published a remarkable expose of Big Meat, the factory farms that abuse animals.

I made the mistake of watching the videos, too. Fortunately, my dinner had been vegetarian already, or I might have lost it. So be warned.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/


I wonder if he'll discover the wonders of a "cleansing" diet next.

I'm sure that as a scientist he'll have the scientific justification for declaring eating meat immoral.

The commenters cannot gush enough.

ETA: Maybe his wife told him "vegetarianism or celibacy".
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Looks like PZ has decided that types of food are immoral.

2013
I’m cured, no more meat

Ethics, Personal

by PZ Myers

My wife is a vegetarian, and I’ve mostly cut meat out of my diet, too — I’ll indulge a bit when I travel, but that’s about it. But I’m done now. It makes no sense: it’s not sustainable or economical, but worse, it’s brutal and cruel. Rolling Stone has just published a remarkable expose of Big Meat, the factory farms that abuse animals.

I made the mistake of watching the videos, too. Fortunately, my dinner had been vegetarian already, or I might have lost it. So be warned.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
Click to expand...

Well, credit where credit's due. I have to applaud him for that.

I'm sure that as a scientist he'll have the scientific justification for declaring eating meat immoral.
Click to expand...

What a bizarre statement. Morals claims aren't scientific. Unless you buy into Sam Harris' conception of them (in which case most meat eating is definitely immoral).

The commenters cannot gush enough.
Click to expand...

That's pleasantly surprising. I'd have thought they'd be whining about him triggering their eating disorders or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom