Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
kbonn's posts on the topic start here:

Now, that reads to me like simple defense and abuse of power and authority.

Not unlike cops thinking they are above the law, can run red lights and speed and beat up people they don't like because, if caught, they'd be given a pass since they're in the club.

I especially enjoyed the dogpilers' defense of dogpiling.

That they won't sympathize with someone surrounded by bullies amazes me, until I see it's just the old primitive law of the jungle in action.

Rationalists don't have to stoop to and defend the uglier aspects of human nature.
 
Last edited:
Again, what I find sad about the whole thing is that SJ CAN be paired with skepticism. It's not a bad match.
 
Again, what I find sad about the whole thing is that SJ CAN be paired with skepticism. It's not a bad match.

IHO, SJ is primarily a political concern. It involves political ideals and therefore subjective opinion.

For example, how would you use skepticism to work out whether or not public funding should be given to private schools/hospitals? Both sides of the argument have pro's and con's. You could use stats as facts but both sides can present equally convincing stats.

As an aside, this is what annoys me most about FTB and A+. They should be being proactive in the political scene; lobbying their local politicians for policy change (or not), but all I see coming from them is internet drama, blogs, forum posts, speaking/getting drunk at conferences.
 
Again, what I find sad about the whole thing is that SJ CAN be paired with skepticism. It's not a bad match.


I'm of the opinion that everything goes better with skepticism... that is, except for things that are based on error, fantasy and/or deception. And that pretty much rules out the particular brand of Social Justice™ practiced at A+, though not the concept of social justice as a whole.
 
I'm not so sure, scrut. I mean, yeah, skeptics question dogma. But I also think skeptics will defend social justice.

I've also seen skeptics defend status quo legal decisions simply because, logically and in the face of the evidence, "that's the law" and one has to follow the rules.

I also agree with Krikkiter. It's largely opinion and it's very hard to think that anything so subjective as politics is going to be ruled for long by critical thinking.

Personally, I think we're going about it arse backwards. What we should be looking for is groups that we're happy in and have to decide which is more/most important. If my thing is SJ, then I'd be looking for people interested in the area and then try to convert them to critical thinking rather than the other way around.

I think there's more argument for the position that Atheism is the logical by-product of skepticism (although I disagree with that) than that SJ is. But I think both groups (Atheists and SJ) are replete with critical thinkers and the goal should be to introduce more skepticism/critical thinking to your personal favorite interests rather than the other way around.

I see nothing wrong with being a member of an atheist group, for instance, and trying to swing them around or get some members interested in my passion for social justice. It doesn't have to be an entire mass conversion, either. Just some interested parties that might make up a sub-set within that atheist group/community. The problem occurs when you try to insist that the various goals do not and cannot conflict and that everyone must be all or nothing. That's the A+ failing.

So I reckon it depends on what you're looking for. My personal interests rank skepticism and critical thinking higher than my casual atheism or my devotion to SJ. This is a snapshot in time sort of thing. Historically, I was much more interested in SJ issues. I still am, but I think of them as separate from skepticism.

(I'm repeating myself because I don't know if I'm really explaining this very clearly. Apologies.)
 
I'm not so sure, scrut. I mean, yeah, skeptics question dogma. But I also think skeptics will defend social justice.

The key is to follow evidence, not ideology or dogma.

For example, if you want to decide if libertarian policies are a good idea, assess the societies that are the most libertarian and see how they're doing.

Ditto for social justice. Bouncing ideas around in an echo chamber that seem logical and rational just doesn't cut it. Look at societies that play out these idea, look for unintended consequences, etc.

The A+ crowd looks like the Bolsheviks to me. Did the Bolsheviks assess societies like the one they imagined in advance? Did it turn out as expected? Why, or why not?

Skeptics follow evidence. Not ideology, not dogma, not charismatic or bullying authority.

I think there's ample evidence following bullies like those in control of A+ leads to very unhappy results, irregardless of the altruistic image they present. They obviously love power, and will hold on to it no matter how much damage they cause.

I'll say it again. Evidence.
 
The key is to follow evidence, not ideology or dogma.

For example, if you want to decide if libertarian policies are a good idea, assess the societies that are the most libertarian and see how they're doing.

Ditto for social justice. Bouncing ideas around in an echo chamber that seem logical and rational just doesn't cut it. Look at societies that play out these idea, look for unintended consequences, etc.

The A+ crowd looks like the Bolsheviks to me. Did the Bolsheviks assess societies like the one they imagined in advance? Did it turn out as expected? Why, or why not?

Skeptics follow evidence. Not ideology, not dogma, not charismatic or bullying authority.

I think there's ample evidence following bullies like those in control of A+ leads to very unhappy results, irregardless of the altruistic image they present. They obviously love power, and will hold on to it no matter how much damage they cause.

I'll say it again. Evidence.

I like the Penn quote, "We should be especially critical of the ideas we like because we are sufficiently critical of those we don't".

The whole notion of placing ideology and politics off limits to criticism is the fundamental flaw with the atheism+/FtB crowd.
 
I like the Penn quote, "We should be especially critical of the ideas we like because we are sufficiently critical of those we don't".

The whole notion of placing ideology and politics off limits to criticism is the fundamental flaw with the atheism+/FtB crowd.

I think the whole original idea behind A+ was putting politics back on the skeptic table?
 
I think the whole original idea behind A+ was putting politics back on the skeptic table?

And I think that's why it originally appealed to many as a possible first step. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical or applying critical thinking to your discussions of politics and ideas, but when the underpinning is something nebulous like "well, I feel women have gotten too much attention and they need to be content with it", there's not much evidence one can provide to counter that. It's a "feeling".

Look at the politics and current events sections of this forum. You would not believe those are the same posters doing yeoman-like duty in homeopathy, bigfoot, psychic, etc... threads. Everyone just rallies behind their own particular idea. Who's right? Who's wrong? Well, I'm right, of course and the rest of you can go suck an egg. I'm sure everyone here has had a similar experience but I can remember standing shoulder to shoulder in the 911 CT trenches with certain posters who I now wouldn't give the time of day because I found they just weren't "skeptical" about politics. Evidence? Well, they're conservatives! Duuuh!

The A+ folks can't even apply skepticism to their own hairline cracks and divisions. How they (or anyone similar) would propose to set a standard for introducing social justice into the skeptic/atheist camp, I don't know. I think it's a club house. Just as you can have a club for Irish-American Left-Handed Gardeners, you can have a club for Skeptical Atheist Social Justice Supporters. Are all Gardeners left-handed and Irish-American? Are all Atheists skeptical or supporters of social justice?
 
The A+ folks can't even apply skepticism to their own hairline cracks and divisions.

Because of? I mean I get this is your opinion but seriously no source, that is just supposed to be really, super obvious?

Hi o/

You can blame Recursive Prophet for inviting me over.
 
Because of? I mean I get this is your opinion but seriously no source, that is just supposed to be really, super obvious?

Hi o/

You can blame Recursive Prophet for inviting me over.

I'll thank Recursive Prophet. Who knows, you might be the sane voice that convinces us they're more than just a footnote to several more important movements that they're a wee (and shrinking) portion of.

Welcome aboard. If you're unbanned over there, avoid saying anything bad about the head inmates. They don't cotton to no bad-mouthing on other boards (unless it's "in good faith", whatever that loaded expression means).

As to your question... the entire board is an example. Look at the number of like-minded individuals they've dogpiled and bullied and banned, just because of some silly-arsed notion that one of the dictators gets into zeep's head. I wouldn't trust most of the mods there to handle electrical appliances, much less to police my thoughts and the input I'm allowed to read.

They do not allow dissent. Not even from people who agree with much of what they're saying and they claim to stand for. "Oh, you're THAT kind of atheist social justice supporter??!! You're outta here."

If you're happy with their small tent philosophy, then maybe you're content with the tiny clubhouse that it's become. And frankly, I think that's all that anyone could really be getting out of the "safe space squared". It's so safe that no new ideas or contrary thoughts are allowed to cross the outer marker and be heard on the home planet.

Just look at the discussion on "allies". I believe it was started by the resident ill-informed socialist, and it makes sense because the consensus that everyone seems to have reached is right out of the Maoist-Stalinist Stupidity Playbook of 1980. "Hey, I know you're some kinda doctor Mr. Representative of Medicins Sans Frontiers, but don't try to tell US how to treat OUR wounds. We grew up here."

And FYI, I've done pro bono work for Medicins Sans Frontiers and for UNICEF. Neither of them asked me to sit in the back of the room, bus tables or carry a tribal leader's bag. Nor did they run me through a litmus test to see if I was their kind of person. They said, "You're here to help? You know heavy lift cargo? Can you help us get the right kind of lighter to get our emergency vehicles into Mogadishu?" Medicins Sans Frontiers has done more good in the last fifteen seconds than the gestalt membership of A+ has done since its inception. And they do actually seem to know how to build an organization and a bit of a "movement". But Setar Prime and Ceepolk Prime are having none of those "experts" or "specialists" - - at least not until they've paid some dues, eh?

I think you'll find that many of us here are actually in agreement as to the importance of many of the issues they claim they stand for. We would just far rather do it without big brother telling us how to speak, think and act.
 
Because of? I mean I get this is your opinion but seriously no source, that is just supposed to be really, super obvious?

Hi o/

You can blame Recursive Prophet for inviting me over.

You could read the thread. There are plenty of examples of the failure to apply scepticism by A+.

I like the discussions about Schrodinger's Rapist personally.
 
Personally, I think we're going about it arse backwards. What we should be looking for is groups that we're happy in and have to decide which is more/most important. If my thing is SJ, then I'd be looking for people interested in the area and then try to convert them to critical thinking rather than the other way around.

This.
 
I think the whole original idea behind A+ was putting politics back on the skeptic table?

I am not sure that was ever the intent. It seemed more of the "lets use 'skepticism' to show why the politics we already agreed to disagree with are wrong" thing.

My biggest problem with FtB/A+ is that I think that 95% of people who go there all agree about almost 100% of the issues brought up. However, many of us disagree strongly with the solutions that the FtB/A+ in-group propose, and therefore we are the enemy.
 
Because of? I mean I get this is your opinion but seriously no source, that is just supposed to be really, super obvious?

Hi o/

You can blame Recursive Prophet for inviting me over.

I am sure that they CAN, but it has happened over and over again that they do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom