Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwints said:
You can absolutely criticize Mormonism, Scientology or Islam for that matter without having experienced what it's like to be a member of one of those groups. If someone claims a personal religious experience, you should believe their subjective experience and criticize their interpretation of what it means.
Click to expand...

Why isn't the same true in any other case - that is, why isn't it appropriate to believe the subjective experience of a member of a marginalized group but criticize their interpretation of what it means? In A+, it seems the interpretation itself is above criticism.
 
qwints said:
I will absolutely join you in criticizing anyone, including self-identified feminists, who claims to understand what being part of a marginalized group that they are not a member of feels like.
Click to expand...
You have added the modifier "that they are not a member of". What's your assessment when the persons involved are part of the same group?

I'm asking because your statement implies the notion that women are equipped with a built-in expertise regarding the feelings of other women, which doesn't match reality:

Rebecca Watson failed to understand what Paula Kirby felt like when she denounced Kirby as being ignorant and privileged on a public panel. In a similar fashion she failed to understand Stef McGraw who she smeared as "parroting misogynist thought" and being among the people who prevented women from coming to events. Harriet Hall was excommunicated by the priestesses of social justice just because she wore a t-shirt expressing that she doesn't want to be regarded a skepchick but a skeptic. And the list goes on. Apparently, the magical mutual understanding among women that is alleged by feminists lasts just as long as women don't disobey them.
 
Speaking of Mussolini's Demon*, the "I messed up and I'm not sure why or how" thread is a pretty good example of the process in action.
Click to expand...
From the link.

Kassiane said:
God, I want to be as privileged and utterly unaware of it as you in my next life.
Click to expand...
Privilege isn't about individuals. You cannot falsify the notion that any specific individual's behavior is the result of privilege. Further, it does not address the argument. It attacks the person. This is ad hominem poisoning the well. It's no more reasonable to dismiss a POV because someone is a white male as it is to dismiss a POV because someone is a woman. No, "privilege" is not a magic word that turns ad hominem into logically valid argument.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Speaking of Mussolini's Demon*, the "I messed up and I'm not sure why or how" thread is a pretty good example of the process in action.





*I know nobody's speaking of it, but I'm really quite pleased with myself for coining it, so I'm going to keep pretending it's a thing.
Click to expand...

I saw that thread a while back.
I like the willful mis-reading of the guy who's ok with the status quo on nudity and how it's used as an excuse to quasi-dogpile and imply he's ok with, say, the status quo on racism or abelism or whatever.

Of course, it might not be willful misreading/misconstruing/misrepresentation. But then, that would mean that the plussite consensus-makers have reading comprehension skills on par with third graders.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I was curious about that and tried to google. Could you explain the term?
Click to expand...

I made it up in this thread the other day. It's vaguely analogous to Maxwell's Demon. It implements a double standard whereby the feelings, experiences, and interpretations of the in-group may not be questioned or debated; but the feelings, experiences, and interpretations of the out-group are relentlessly repudiated.

I call it Mussolini's Demon in honor of his classic fascist dictum: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Mussolini's Demon enforces this principle at the A+ forums (you've already noted that the Demon employs non sequiturs, ad hominems, and other fallacies in its working).
 
theprestige said:
I made it up in this thread the other day. It's vaguely analogous to Maxwell's Demon. It implements a double standard whereby the feelings, experiences, and interpretations of the in-group may not be questioned or debated; but the feelings, experiences, and interpretations of the out-group are relentlessly repudiated.

I call it Mussolini's Demon in honor of his classic fascist dictum: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Mussolini's Demon enforces this principle at the A+ forums (you've already noted that the Demon employs non sequiturs, ad hominems, and other fallacies in its working).
Click to expand...
I like it. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head.

A+: You are male. Your argument is invalid.
 
RandFan said:
From the link.

Privilege isn't about individuals. You cannot falsify the notion that any specific individual's behavior is the result of privilege. Further, it does not address the argument. It attacks the person. This is ad hominem poisoning the well. It's no more reasonable to dismiss a POV because someone is a white male as it is to dismiss a POV because someone is a woman. No, "privilege" is not a magic word that turns ad hominem into logically valid argument.
Click to expand...

I like the unspoken implication that nudists are not only highly represented in the A+ version of social justice, but oppressed by the privileged clothes-wearers, and resent clothes-'splaining.
 
RandFan said:
I like it. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head.

A+: You are male. Your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

I really, really don't think it has much to do with being male. It's about (anyone, of any gender, race, sexual orientation, etc) questioning the underlying assumptions of whoever can muster the most contrived outrage and thus control the A+ consensus via dogpiling, ban-threatening, privilege accusations, etc.
 
A particularly blatant example in that thread is Sylvia Sybil's flat insistence that her feelings on clothing automatically and unequivocally trump anyone else's feelings.

This is clearly at odds with the plussite insistence elsewhere that if you offend someone, you should first consider whether you are at fault, and then when you find your fault (as you inevitably must) you should promptly correct it.

But SS is part of the in-group, so Mussolini's Demon politely opens the door for her Fee-Fees, before slamming it shut in the face of Fee-Fees from the out-group.
 
theprestige said:
A particularly blatant example in that thread is Sylvia Sybil's flat insistence that her feelings on clothing automatically and unequivocally trump anyone else's feelings.

This is clearly at odds with the plussite insistence elsewhere that if you offend someone, you should first consider whether you are at fault, and then when you find your fault (as you inevitably must) you should promptly correct it.

But SS is part of the in-group, so Mussolini's Demon politely opens the door for her Fee-Fees, before slamming it shut in the face of Fee-Fees from the out-group.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the methods of determining if someone is a witch.

The accusers would tie up the accused and cast them into a water hole, such as a river or a pond. If the accused floated, they were considered to be in collusion with Satan, on the other hand, if they sank, they were cleared of the charges of witchcraft. The innocent women of course would fight for their lives and none sank, all floundered.
Click to expand...
 
RandFan said:
Has anyone ever tried to explain to the A+ crowd A.) what "rhetorical advantage" (sophistry) is? B.) What the principle of charity is? C.) What ad hominem is?
Click to expand...

I think the concepts would be rejected as tools of privilege. Any attempt to explain or apply them would be seen as an attempt to de-legitimize the experiences, feelings, and interpretations of in-group members.

Repeated attempts would get you banned. A first attempt longer than a short paragraph would probably get you banned. If it were known that you had proposed such an attempt on a different forum, that would probably get you banned even if you hadn't yet made such an attempt.

I think irkthepurists has shown remarkable fortitude in threading the needle between questioning the dogma and not getting banned. I wonder what's the over/under on the duration of his tenure there.
 
theprestige said:
I think the concepts would be rejected as tools of privilege. Any attempt to explain or apply them would be seen as an attempt to de-legitimize the experiences, feelings, and interpretations of in-group members.

Repeated attempts would get you banned. A first attempt longer than a short paragraph would probably get you banned. If it were known that you had proposed such an attempt on a different forum, that would probably get you banned even if you hadn't yet made such an attempt.

I think irkthepurists has shown remarkable fortitude in threading the needle between questioning the dogma and not getting banned. I wonder what's the over/under on the duration of his tenure there.
Click to expand...
I hate to be so cynical but I suspect you are right. Reason, it would seem, is just a convention.
 
theprestige said:
I think irkthepurists has shown remarkable fortitude in threading the needle between questioning the dogma and not getting banned. I wonder what's the over/under on the duration of his tenure there.
Click to expand...


I figure he won the contrarian lottery in the secret forum and they're keeping him around so Setar can say Stop =/ and ceepolk can say No.
 
Taking sides

Axiom_Blade said:
What?!? "Our side"? There is no "side"! Nobody is defending the person who sent an obscene picture to Rebecca. Yet, she is pretending that there are people who are on this guy's side...
Click to expand...

There are sides, as far as I can tell. At least three sides.

One side wants to play at being helpless victims, delicate flowers, and white knights for helpless victims and delicate flowers. That's A+ and their allies in a nutshell. Oppression is privilege, slavery is freedom, etc.

Another side wants to mock said victims and white-knights for their own entertainment, oftentimes handing them the quotes to mine and the shoops to display to affirm their victimhood/knighthood.

Most skeptics are caught in the middle, wishing we would spend more time debunking bunk and less time crying foul at imaginary bogeymen, fictional upskirt photographers, scary Twitter stalkers, and actual online trolls.

I'm still trying to figure out which side to join, but probably it will be whomever has the best snack trays.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I think the concepts would be rejected as tools of privilege. Any attempt to explain or apply them would be seen as an attempt to de-legitimize the experiences, feelings, and interpretations of in-group members.

Repeated attempts would get you banned. A first attempt longer than a short paragraph would probably get you banned. If it were known that you had proposed such an attempt on a different forum, that would probably get you banned even if you hadn't yet made such an attempt.

I think irkthepurists has shown remarkable fortitude in threading the needle between questioning the dogma and not getting banned. I wonder what's the over/under on the duration of his tenure there.
Click to expand...

Wow. Another gem prestige. I just found out today that my 1 month suspension has become a ban, or perma-ban in their redundant vocabulary. It obviously must have been based on what I've posted itt as I couldn't post anything there. I had no intention of ever posting there again anyway, but do regret I will not being able to do profile searches.

Of course there was no mention of my ban, and like most it has not been added to the banned list. "And when the people began to get nervous about the increasing number of arrests, the police began conducting them in the dead of night. They whisked off all who ever whispered a word against them into the darkness, and added their numbers to those of the disappeared."

Interesting to note none have really responded to the questions qmartindale (qwints) posed here: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=68614#p68614 The ironic comedy in play is quite amusing. Certain topics can't be forbidden, said the hobgoblin with a toothy grin. :)

Of course qwints must tread very carefully less he concede too much to reason and alienates it's opponent's feelings at A+. Let my ban be a cautionary tale. Big Xie is watching you!! :boxedin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom