Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
UnrepentantSinner said:
They get hysteric over innocuous t-shirts and run away from TAM in tears.
Click to expand...
It's infantilizing.

Camille Paglia said:
"If women expect equal treatment in society, they must stop asking for infantilizing special protections. With freedom comes personal responsibility."
Click to expand...
BTW: I'm not opposed to policies and regulations to protect women. However, there also needs to be some personal responsibility. When skepticism is ditched for irrational fear then it becomes a problem. Trembling (or whatever it was) because you see a guy with a camera that is capable of taking photos up a woman's skirt is childish. Grow up.
 
Last edited:
Sounds to me like calling someone a racist is a pretty objectionable ad hominem to invalidate anything your opponent is saying, especially when the point you're countering has nothing to do with racism. A very poor tactic for an atheist/skeptic/critical thinker, but common in SJ circles.
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
I haven't ignored the substance of the claim - profanity and anger is not abuse.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't think that. In Socialjusticopia "righteous anger" is best expressed with vitriol and profanity, especially when unleashed on the deserving.

qwints said:
You're also misapplying the affirming the consequent fallacy. As applied it would be, if you're a racist, then you use the term "street thug", recursive prophet used the term "street thug" therefore recursive prophet is a racist. I'm saying he has used language that is commonly used by racist, I'm not saying he is a racist.
Click to expand...

"I'm not saying he's racist. I'm just saying he's acting like a racist and will let the readers conclude for themselves."

Disengenuous BS. Such Jedi mind tricks might work in the groupthink hive-mind of A+, but it's pathetically transparent to true critical thinkers - and I called it last night.

qwints said:
What are you apologizing for? You used a syntax that you don't normally use by omitting a verb and changed the spelling of "that" to a phonetic spelling of "dat". What were you trying to sound like?
UnrepentantSinner said:
{snip hellfire code}Trigger Warning: Coy Disingenuousness!


{the below was edited out, but appeared when I multiquoted my post}
These "questions" are so transparent you're not fooling anyone, least of all RC.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
Doctor plop, talking about race, etc... isn't racism, etc..
Click to expand...

Well the KKK could try making the same argument.
They could try, but it wouldn't work because it would be inconsistent with their wider behaviour.
Exactly the same would apply to the sort of SJer racism that goes on at A+.
 
Foolmewunz said:
ETA: In terms of the diversion factor, I find it like that TV/Movie Memes site. You think you're going to look up one thing, but keep getting distracted by reference to something else and go looking for that, and pretty soon another hour has gone by. (Luckily I'm baking, so I have 40/50 minute periods when I have that time on hand. If I was back in an office environment, I'd be getting nothing done.)
Click to expand...

You mean TV Tropes?

qwints said:
I haven't ignored the substance of the claim - profanity and anger is not abuse. Abuse is wrong. Moderators ought to stop abuse. Some instances of abuse have not been moderated as they should have been. Some instances have and I've seen improvement.
Click to expand...

And if the moderators are themselves being abusive?

The term "street thug" is racialized in modern US discourse and has been for a generation.
Click to expand...

Geez, you A+ers are such US-centristists.

It's not a neutral word. I also haven't made the claim that recursive prophet is a racist, I've pointed out the language he's used and explained why I think it's problematic.

You're also misapplying the affirming the consequent fallacy. As applied it would be, if you're a racist, then you use the term "street thug", recursive prophet used the term "street thug" therefore recursive prophet is a racist. I'm saying he has used language that is commonly used by racist, I'm not saying he is a racist.
Click to expand...

You may not have said that he was racist outright, but you expected us to fill in the blanks ourselves and come to the conclusion that recursive prophet was racist.
 
qwints said:
Myriad, the point is that it is terminology used by racists as a dog whistle. One should be aware of the connotations of one's language.
Click to expand...

So should you, because that sentence reads to me like "check your privilege."

Which is pretty clearly anti-16.5, sport.

You should be aware of the connotations of your language.

/I could be a Mod on A+! (well except for the whole not being completely evil)
 
qwints said:
The term "street thug" is racialized in modern US discourse and has been for a generation. It's not a neutral word. I also haven't made the claim that recursive prophet is a racist, I've pointed out the language he's used and explained why I think it's problematic.
Click to expand...

This sounds like passive aggressive nonsense.

Why do you even assume that the discourse is US based?
 
Wildy said:
You may not have said that he was racist outright, but you expected us to fill in the blanks ourselves and come to the conclusion that recursive prophet was racist.
Click to expand...



It's almost like he was whistling for his dog, or something....
 
Originally Posted by qwints

The term "street thug" is racialized in modern US discourse and has been for a generation. It's not a neutral word.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to re-check your privilege then, and not just the US centric type.
I live in a very ethically mixed area of London and I still would not equate the word "street thug" with a particular race.
 
Last edited:
recursive prophet said:
So I was suspended for a month because of 1 smiley? Well, in fact I agree in part. My point in using it was that if others can be given special consideration because of their 'triggers' then why shouldn't I be cut a little slack for a much more common one?
Click to expand...

Pretty much - that and saying you wouldn't respond to the moderator further. Do you believe people when they talk about triggers for their emotional traumas? Someone who has concluded that people can't be triggered by otherwise unobjectionable material isn't a good fit for atheismplus.

Wildy said:
And if the moderators are themselves being abusive?
Click to expand...

Then hopefully the other moderators will deal with it. We've had at least one moderator step down after pressure from other mods over concerns she was being abusive. But your point is taken - quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Wildy said:
Geez, you A+ers are such US-centristists.
Click to expand...
atheismplus absolutely has problems being US-centric with most of the non-US posters being from Canada or the UK.


devnull said:
Why do you even assume that the discourse is US based?
Click to expand...
recursiveprophet's location says California, so I assumed he's speaking from a US perspective. I apologize if that was a unjustified assumption.

@UnrepentantSinner,

I see you were able to understand my point easily. A small part of recursive prophet's language came off as racist. My goal is to get him and others to think about the meaning of their language, not to poison the well.
 
@qwints So I'm curious, you say the the term "Street Thugs" is racially charged, and has been for a generation. So exactly which race is it charged against?
 
Last edited:
Daald said:
The plus on atheism does the same think. It condescends to the atheists that do not agree with whatever agenda the plus meant to represent.
Click to expand...

Well, when you think about it, "Atheism+" really means, "Skeptic, except for atheism and a long list of other things that should just be accepted without argument."

I mean, you can take a skeptical approach to atheism if you want, but why bother? It's a pretty short chain of reasoning, and the conclusion is pretty clear, long-established, and widely accepted among skeptics.

To atheism, the skeptics at A+ want to add a whole list of other issues, which they have determined are as beyond rational debate, as atheism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom