Mad Dilla Huntter
New Blood
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2012
- Messages
- 23
Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism atheism plus
- Status
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Justicar (integralmath), a critic of the FtB-Skepchick-A+ politburo, has decided to rename his male member "Privilege" which will give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "check your privilege". I suggest all the pale patriarchal penis people (aka white males) of JREF follow suit.
Please be careful about showing your privilege, however.
Last edited:
Mad Dilla Huntter
New Blood
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2012
- Messages
- 23
Does stroking my privilege count?
Antiquehunter
Degenerate Gambler
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,088
Is A+ still alive & breathing? I would've assumed it has run its 15 minutes of internet fame by now.
AbsurdWalls
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 55
I think it's quite clear that it just didn't really work as a concept (leaving these words to posterity to they might bite me in the arse in a few years).
My understanding of Feminism (with a capital F) is that it's a perspective that you can adopt to look at the world. When you do so, some things make sense, other things are more difficult to explain (female-on-male rape victims on that forum were a good example, they got "Patriarchy hurts men too... somehow... WE MUST MAKE THIS FIT THE THEORY!"). It is however only one of several different perspectives that you could adopt. You might look at the world through a Marxist perspective, a Freudian perspective, a Randian perspective, etc. Science has this too, there are often several different frameworks that you can use to interpret the same evidence (e.g. Newton vs. Einstein).
Atheism+ was an attempt to synthesise the Atheism framework with the Feminist (well, Social Justice, but most of what they're doing is just Feminism at the moment) framework. This sort of thing seems to happen quite often, we have Christian Marxism for example. I imagine an attempt could be made to synthesise any two arbitrary theories and have a small group of people use those theories to interpret events in the world. I quite enjoy these sorts of perspective-taking exercises, it's why I like Zizek. The issue is that Atheism is not really a framework, it is the position of not accepting frameworks that assert the existence of God. Saying that Atheism is just a stand-in for Skepticism doesn't work either, because Skepticism is just an attitude towards frameworks that they should be examined critically.
The fatal contradiction is that the one thing that the A+ers do not seem willing to do is have their SJ/Feminist stance looked at critically. In fact, the practice of rational argument seems to break down altogether as you get closer to these fundamental assumptions (I have seen similar arguments before from a revolutionary Marxist who was trying to justify assassinating elected politicians to me). Arguments are deflected by making an analogy between Feminism and Evolution (with deniers equivalent to Creationists), but this is just a bald assertion and a false equivalence.
My understanding of Feminism (with a capital F) is that it's a perspective that you can adopt to look at the world. When you do so, some things make sense, other things are more difficult to explain (female-on-male rape victims on that forum were a good example, they got "Patriarchy hurts men too... somehow... WE MUST MAKE THIS FIT THE THEORY!"). It is however only one of several different perspectives that you could adopt. You might look at the world through a Marxist perspective, a Freudian perspective, a Randian perspective, etc. Science has this too, there are often several different frameworks that you can use to interpret the same evidence (e.g. Newton vs. Einstein).
Atheism+ was an attempt to synthesise the Atheism framework with the Feminist (well, Social Justice, but most of what they're doing is just Feminism at the moment) framework. This sort of thing seems to happen quite often, we have Christian Marxism for example. I imagine an attempt could be made to synthesise any two arbitrary theories and have a small group of people use those theories to interpret events in the world. I quite enjoy these sorts of perspective-taking exercises, it's why I like Zizek. The issue is that Atheism is not really a framework, it is the position of not accepting frameworks that assert the existence of God. Saying that Atheism is just a stand-in for Skepticism doesn't work either, because Skepticism is just an attitude towards frameworks that they should be examined critically.
The fatal contradiction is that the one thing that the A+ers do not seem willing to do is have their SJ/Feminist stance looked at critically. In fact, the practice of rational argument seems to break down altogether as you get closer to these fundamental assumptions (I have seen similar arguments before from a revolutionary Marxist who was trying to justify assassinating elected politicians to me). Arguments are deflected by making an analogy between Feminism and Evolution (with deniers equivalent to Creationists), but this is just a bald assertion and a false equivalence.
I think another huge problem that crippled A+ right from the start was that a lot of its "spokespeople"/most prominent proponents expressed their enthusiasm with, at least to me, incredibly off-putting hostility towards dissenters and an air of stern self-righteousness that doesn't really suit the fragility of a movement in its infancy. This triggered such an enormous backlash that the people involved spent more time defending, damage-controlling and isolating themselves in "safe spaces" than using the start-up momentum, which was certainly there at some point, to get this thing off the ground.
Very nice summary, by the way.
AbsurdWalls
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 55
Thanks. I want to clarify that I don't think being a feminist is irrational or just something to do for fun, just as I don't think Marxists are irrational or necessarily unserious (though many claim to be "ironic" when challenged sufficiently). My only point is that these ideas should not be treated dogmatically.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Walter Ego
Illuminator
The New Yorker magazine was well known in its heyday for its scrupulous fact checking. Michael J. Fox in Bright Lights, Big City (1988) played a fact checker for a magazine modeled on the New Yorker. (Since that was in the pre-internet age, his job involved making a lot of long distance phone calls.) Internet publications seem to have a different standard.
Fact-checking at The New Yorker:
http://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/fact-checking_at_the_new_yorker.php?page=all
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
My understanding is that the modern media fact-checking job consists of verifying that the purported 'fact' would upset people that the particular media outlet doesn't like.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Most vetting today is done solely by lawyers for potential legal liabilities. This is why skepticism is important. Skepticism is the first thing to have gone out the window in the misogyny in atheism meme.
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
I just got a one-day ban for taking another member to task over the following statement:
The response is from a white person, saying essentially that by simple merit of the fact they are 'white', they are an oppressor of any non-white group. The politically-correct ******** there is so deep that you can drown in it quite quickly.
I tried to argue that your skin color doesn't make you an oppressor; I was given a bunch of nonsense about 'privilege', and then got the one-day ban.
What really gets me is that all these people, in seeking to be so politically-correct and "sensitive" to others, only show their patronizing attitude towards those same people. The idea that non-whites are incapable of looking past your skin color, that all of them are so shallow or such helpless victims that the mere fact I have white skin causes them to feel victimized. Yeah, I'm sure there are some people like that...but the vast majority, no.
A bunch of white people with nothing better to do than sit around making excuses why they can't do anything because they are privileged whites. Trying to initiate dialogue to understand other cultures is patronizing, because you're white. Giving money to help others is condescending, and proof of your white insensitivity, in assuming that those non-whites want or need your money. Offering help is a hopeless sign of white pride, to think that you could possibly have anything that they need or want from you.
All of those things can be condescending, arrogant, etc. But they can also be done in a spirit of partnership, in a manner that empowers the group in question by giving them tools, resources, and knowledge that they don't currently have, to accomplish the goals that they themselves have set as priorities.
All-in-all, what I see is a brilliant opportunity to simultaneously feel wonderful about what an amazingly sensitive person you are, and to do absolutely nothing about it. "Privilege" means not only that you have more than others, but that you are effectively barred from using it to help anyone else.
This is in a discussion that I started about atheism plus being a predominantly white thing, and saying that if they really wanna' make a difference, they should focus on making it more relevant to people of other races/cultures.
The response is from a white person, saying essentially that by simple merit of the fact they are 'white', they are an oppressor of any non-white group. The politically-correct ******** there is so deep that you can drown in it quite quickly.
I tried to argue that your skin color doesn't make you an oppressor; I was given a bunch of nonsense about 'privilege', and then got the one-day ban.
What really gets me is that all these people, in seeking to be so politically-correct and "sensitive" to others, only show their patronizing attitude towards those same people. The idea that non-whites are incapable of looking past your skin color, that all of them are so shallow or such helpless victims that the mere fact I have white skin causes them to feel victimized. Yeah, I'm sure there are some people like that...but the vast majority, no.
A bunch of white people with nothing better to do than sit around making excuses why they can't do anything because they are privileged whites. Trying to initiate dialogue to understand other cultures is patronizing, because you're white. Giving money to help others is condescending, and proof of your white insensitivity, in assuming that those non-whites want or need your money. Offering help is a hopeless sign of white pride, to think that you could possibly have anything that they need or want from you.
All of those things can be condescending, arrogant, etc. But they can also be done in a spirit of partnership, in a manner that empowers the group in question by giving them tools, resources, and knowledge that they don't currently have, to accomplish the goals that they themselves have set as priorities.
All-in-all, what I see is a brilliant opportunity to simultaneously feel wonderful about what an amazingly sensitive person you are, and to do absolutely nothing about it. "Privilege" means not only that you have more than others, but that you are effectively barred from using it to help anyone else.
Last edited:
I don't know, but we should definitely start a movement against such nonsense.What is it with americans and making a pop-cultural movement out of every shade or variant of belief?
You're either with me, or you're a hobgoblin.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Oh, sure, pick on the hobgoblins. As if a hobgoblin has any choice about what species it was born into! And yet, just because someone is a hobgoblin, they're automatically guilty of scaring children and all manner of inappropriate deeds.
And for all that, hobgoblins are not considered a disadvantaged group under U.S. law, so they receive no explicit protection from discrimination or hate crimes.
####### speciesists . . .
Always the hobgoblin, or ogre, depends on my confidence on the given day.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I am not a hobgoblin but it they're being oppressed I'm there for them.
WillyWonka
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Messages
- 218
How could you understand the plight of oppressed hobgoblins from your non-hobgob privilege. You are so insensitive. I ban you for a day...
- Status