Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Stout]

Wow..Gotta hand it to A+ for delivering the weirdness again.

Here we have poster smhll criticizing skeptics for failing to accept lived experiences as valid input to a topic.

that the need to tell one's story of abuse/oppression and be believed is the fundamental way that feminists and "ists" from any other axis have such brutal conflict with skeptics who have the impulse to say "Mmm, no, I'm not going to believe anything that just observed by one subjective and fallible human being." (paraphrase)

Link

Obviously failing to notice that only hours earlier, Submor had done exactly that.

Anecdotes are not data. Even assuming this is accurate, your sole experiences are not representative of the larger culture, and depending on what country you're from, it is highly likely that the scientific data show that your experience is not the norm.

Link

It looks like it depends whose story it is as it appears that some lived experiences are more valuable than others in the world of equality politics.

Now if they'd only drop this dancing around with their stupid definition of privilege and cut to the chase and admit that saying "check your privilege" is the exact same thing as calling someone an oppressor.

We all know how SJWs feel about "oppressors"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

thanks

Just so you know, what I thought was going to be a hard day at work turned into a very hard day at work, so I'm not going to get round to anything which requires thinking tonight. I've also got a heavy weekend so I will answer your question, but I'd be surprised if I did so before Monday at the earliest.

 

[luchog]

The Double Dragon defense is weak, and pointless, it is a perfect example of old games(or carbon copy remake) that fit the mark Anita is aiming at.

The later parts of the video are much better and point out how flimsy Anita's Research is, and how hypocritical she is.

A little while back, I watched most of her Tropes vs. Women videos, and I was not impressed. While she does make some good points, most of her work is shoddy parroting of party lines with no real insights.

Her familiarity with the material she's criticizing is often lacking, or is cursory at best. I've noted several examples where she's made comments about some of her examples that are factually inaccurate, or are taken out of context and completely fail to support her assertions. It's clear that for many examples that she has done no direct research of her own, but is simply repeating second- and third-hand information from a similarly biased source; some of which are common misconceptions that would have been easily countered with a bit of actual effort to go directly to original sources.

One of her biggest complaints about the portrayal of women isn't the ordinary negative stereotypes, but that too many of the "strong" or "positive" portrayals aren't actually positive, since they merely make women too much like men. Too reserved, detached, violent, competitive, snarky, ivory-tower intellectual, or otherwise "masculine". Many of which she herself portrays in Again here, many of her critiques are based on second-hand sources, or the most superficial examination of the characters. Further, while she claims to wants to see a different image of women in entertainment, she's never really clear on what that image is. It's all criticism with only the most rudimentary attempt at describing what she would consider a positive image.

One of the strangest of her criticisms is against the Straw Feminist, admittedly a trope badly in need of being relegated to an unmarked grave. The problem is that some of the examples she uses use direct quotes from many Second Wave feminist icons; and one actually makes comments nearly identical to her own comments in other videos. Apparently she isn't as much concerned with what the character says, but that it's not said right.

She's a fairly typical Third-Wave Feminist, lacking a clear focus or goal, heavily invested in group identity, subjectivist thinking, and an emphasis on "raising awareness" over direct action.

 

[Wildy]

Fascinating isn't it ?

SJWs give themselves a pass to entertain the same bigoted thoughts they claim to abhor in "the enemy" (white cis straight males ) by wrapping it up in their mumbo jumbo about privilege and oppression.

They may be all bent out of shape about free speach and how it allows the enemy to express their opinions but turn the tables, and start accusing the SJWs of hate speech and look how fast they'll run and hide behind their asinine definitions of racism and sexism in order to justify their hate.

That's because their speech matters. Your's doesn't. The crazy definitions are there to justify this logic, since it's not like they can pull out the "free speech" argument not is it?

I'll have to save that Reddit thread for the next time some SJW brings up the concept of straw feminist.

You might as well just direct people to r/SRSWomen or even the main SRS page.

Ceepolk once describe the city she lives in as a "white wasteland" so I can't help wondering whether the race of these ( assumed to be male ) people trying to talk to her might not be meeting her skin colour ideals.

But who knows, maybe it's her hot exotic imported underwear that's causing her to put out subconscious flirtatious vibes that's drawing all that unwanted attention ? Bras, those oppressive tools of the patriarchy that the ceepolk constantly obsesses over, I figure she would have burned them long ago.

<snip>

Link

To be honest I'm starting to get a little creeped out at the way the discussion about ceepolk is going. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say her underwear choice has **** all to do with the "unwanted attention" she's getting.

Speaking of the "wrong" people looking I might as wel drop this little gem written by some maroon with a PhD who goes on about how grossed out she is when "old guys" look at her.

<snip>

and

<snip>

Link

From what I've seen the "allies" of the "anti-male gaze" people are fundamentalists of various religions. Fundamentalist Islam has it's solution with the burqa or niqab and most of us here are aware of Orthodox Jews in Israel wearing modesty glasses, glasses that are designed to prevent men from seeing anything beyond a few metres in front of them.

I've observed that the people complaining about men looking at them are often times complaining about the wrong kind of men looking at them. They just give lip service to the idea that all of them shouldn't look at them.

The Oh-So-Sanctimonious hard left ought to do the world a favour and take a long hard look in the mirror before it climbs up on it's pedestal and jacks itself raw accusing those-that-are-not-them of hate.

I think your advice has come a few decades too late.

 

[Stout]

To be honest I'm starting to get a little creeped out at the way the discussion about ceepolk is going. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say her underwear choice has **** all to do with the "unwanted attention" she's getting.

Fair enough, I just thought it was curious that someone who's always on about objectification and gender stereotypes would want to boast about buying into one of those stereotypes ( cranking the hotness factor ) and spend so much time educating others on the secrets of performing femininity.

From what I've seen the "allies" of the "anti-male gaze" people are fundamentalists of various religions.

Agreed, with this being one more point on how the far left is closer to religion and further from any sort of skepticism or critical thinking that we're familiar with. Did you know why women are at the back of the Mosque ? Seems it's hard for men to pray with a bunch of bent over women in front of them, Allah might not get the attention he's warranted.

I've observed that the people complaining about men looking at them are often times complaining about the wrong kind of men looking at them. They just give lip service to the idea that all of them shouldn't look at them.

Agreed, hence the article I linked to where an anti male gazer actually spells it out. I've never seen anything quite like that and the ageism didn't cause any ripples on the SJW site that hosted it.

I think your advice has come a few decades too late.

Better late than never

If I can deprogram just one SJW, then my work is done.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

If I can deprogram just one SJW, then my work is done.

Is there a support group for ex-SJWers?

How about a 12-Step program?

Hhmmm....I might have something here...

 

[qwints]

What do YOU do in the real world that makes a real world difference in ANY social justice cause?

Great question, and I hope everyone asks themselves the same for any cause they believe. Currently, I give my time and money to organizations I believe in, I try to behave in ways consistent with my principles, and I try to bring up issues I believe in in relevant social contexts.

Intellectually-sterile Post-Modernist gibberish.

Blackburn's response to Sokal's Hoax.

Emotionalism appears to be the entire basis for the APlusser's/SJW's moral/ethical code; and amounts to little more than "my feelings are more important/valid than yours".

This ^^. Please explain and give examples that refute the above qwints. It sure is how it looks to me and I suspect most others here.

What's emotionalism? I can assure you, having had the discussion, that most people who discussed the subject at atheismplus did not share my moral philosophy. I'd enjoy the fairly lengthy conversation on moral philosophy necessary to understand one another's positions since luchog seems adverse to using jargon to shorten the conversation. Since my position is not the majority one at atheismplus or, for that matter, particularly well-informed or innovative, I don't think it belongs in this thread.

Which department contains the racists: A, B, both, neither?

Who cares? You've done an excellent example of explaining institutional racism as Brodski pointed out.

One of the largest issues I have with the A+/FtB is that they forever brand PEOPLE as racist/sexist/whatever, without considering the above. The other being that once, branded, you are forever the enemy.

We have all said something stupid or without thought to how it affects certain groups we are largely ignorant about. That doesn't always and forever make someone a racist, misogynist, etc...

That's a valid criticism. People at atheismplus can be too quick to label others, but I've also seen people make an effort to talk about the words as problematic without attacking the person. I don't have much sympathy for people who refuse to consider how something they've said could be hurtful, and instead focus on defending themselves.

She's a fairly typical Third-Wave Feminist

Luchog, I've noticed that you seem to be quick to label things and dismiss them. How would you feel about similar behavior from a "SJW?"

 

[Roboramma]

For a decision to be racist does not require anyone with individual racist motives.

Yes, it does, pretty much by definition.

Lots of discriminatory business decisions are about maximising profit or minimising risk- that doesn't make them any less discriminatory.

Agreed, but "discriminatory" and "racist" are two words with different meanings.

Refusing to hire staff from ethnic minorities as it will scare away your customers is racist- but it could easily be done by a person who abhors racism yet needs to maximise profit to keep their business afloat-

I don't see that it's racist. I agree that it's something that we as a society should prevent, because allowing it means allowing something that perpetuates racial inequality. But that doesn't mean it's a racist decision.

I'm probably only disagreeing about semantics, here, but it seems to be meaningful to me to say that there's no racism involved in the actual decision, in spite of the fact that this sort of decision can perpetuate racism.

refusing to hire a young married woman as that may incur added costs if she decides to leave to start a family is sexist, but may also be a rational business decision takes by an person who is not sexist. It is because these decisions can be rational business decisions that we have laws against them, changing social attitudes is not enough to stamp them out.

Again, that's not sexist. It may be a good idea for us as a society to prevent that sort of decision because we want to promote gender equality, and allowing this sort of thing means increasing gender inequality, but recognising actual statistical differences between different groups and acting on those differences in one's rational self-interest isn't sexist. It may be wrong, but that's a different story.

As I said, I still support preventing that sort of decision making on a societal level, because it's good for society as a whole, but it seems like a perversion of the words "sexism" and "racism" to apply them here.

 

[s_pepys]

peezus is def on the prowl again.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/15/we-get-some-suggestions/


oh and wikipedia has now apparently joined the ranks of jref, reddit etc...


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/16/i-support-the-toofew-project/

(Thanks to Dana for making me aware of this!)

sleaze!

 

[rustypouch]

peezus is def on the prowl again.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/15/we-get-some-suggestions/


oh and wikipedia has now apparently joined the ranks of jref, reddit etc...


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/16/i-support-the-toofew-project/


sleaze!

So how is the wiki thing evidence of any sort of discrimination? Wiki's set up so that anyone with internet access can edit it, without revealing gender. I don't think there are any major barriers to editing a page, besides having references.

If such a low proportion of editors are women, isn't that their choice not to participate? Who does PZ think he is, telling these women how they should behave?

As for the Ceepolk thing, it seems a lot to work to maybe meet someone who loathes me on principle.

 

[zooterkin]

So how is the wiki thing evidence of any sort of discrimination? Wiki's set up so that anyone with internet access can edit it, without revealing gender.

And, given that, how does anyone know what proportion of wikpedia editors are women in the first place?

 

[Foolmewunz]

peezus is def on the prowl again.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/15/we-get-some-suggestions/


oh and wikipedia has now apparently joined the ranks of jref, reddit etc...


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/16/i-support-the-toofew-project/




sleaze!

So how is the wiki thing evidence of any sort of discrimination? Wiki's set up so that anyone with internet access can edit it, without revealing gender. I don't think there are any major barriers to editing a page, besides having references.

If such a low proportion of editors are women, isn't that their choice not to participate? Who does PZ think he is, telling these women how they should behave?

As for the Ceepolk thing, it seems a lot to work to maybe meet someone who loathes me on principle.

And, given that, how does anyone know what proportion of wikpedia editors are women in the first place?

I'm really failing to find anything wrong with the idea, conceptually. People who are a part of a group or groups who they feel are under-represented/covered by Wikipedia should feel free to post articles on whatever subject they choose. If they've got items that they think would merit coverage, then creating a group to get that done is fine by me.

What I fear, though, is that they'll go Truther Mode and start editing other articles so that we can view, say, the War of 1812, from the pov of its impact on feminism or how WWII as all about privilege and patriarchy. I hope they stay with their "safe harbor" theme and stick to producing new material on topics which may be of interest.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm really failing to find anything wrong with the idea, conceptually. People who are a part of a group or groups who they feel are under-represented/covered by Wikipedia should feel free to post articles on whatever subject they choose. If they've got items that they think would merit coverage, then creating a group to get that done is fine by me.

Yes, I should have said I have no problem with that aspect of it. I think it is quite likely that women are, in fact, under-represented among wikipedia editors, and I welcome efforts to address that. I would, though, like to see how the 15% figure was arrived at, and, as rustypouch says, it would be good to see the chain of reasoning that led to the conclusion that it was a result of sexism.

 

[s_pepys]

I'm really failing to find anything wrong with the idea, conceptually. People who are a part of a group or groups who they feel are under-represented/covered by Wikipedia should feel free to post articles on whatever subject they choose. If they've got items that they think would merit coverage, then creating a group to get that done is fine by me.

What I fear, though, is that they'll go Truther Mode and start editing other articles so that we can view, say, the War of 1812, from the pov of its impact on feminism or how WWII as all about privilege and patriarchy. I hope they stay with their "safe harbor" theme and stick to producing new material on topics which may be of interest.

from the beginning of peezus' post;

Hey, we all know what atheists, gamers, tech people, and scientists have in common: underrepresentation of minority viewpoints and the presence of indignant white male gatekeepers. Now we get to add another category: wikipedia editors.

 

[s_pepys]

or this from the organiser;

Feminist POC Wikipedia Takeover! 3/15 11-3 EST

Hello Friends!

I am really excited to tell you about a project I am working on called Feminists Engage Wikipedia, where folks around the country sign into Wikipedia, edit certain entries and add new ones to counteract the very white straight cis dude nature of the site. We will be working in person and virtually Friday, March 15 from 11 am to 3pm EST. I would love for you to be involved and there are a number of ways you and people you know can participate.

Give Ideas for Entries-
Add New People, Events and Things – Perhaps an awesome Black feminist writer who just wrote her first book? Or an important woman of color disability justice activist? Is their an important moment of Trans* activism that’s not on Wikipedia? An important documentary or two that need to be reflected in wikipedia?
Edit existing Entries - Who needs an important source or event added to their existing entry?
You can add them to our list of entries to work on here by clicking edit in the brackets to the right.
If you already have something ready to go, add it your self!

 

[Stout]

Is there a support group for ex-SJWers?

How about a 12-Step program?

Hhmmm....I might have something here...

A 12 step program might work but I was thinking along the lines of an intervention where we get the SJW in the hot seat and gently explain to them that we, with we meaning people, don't actually think in the way that the SJW mindset would characterize us as doing.

And...

I had a perfect example this morning through the use of the latest entries on their stoning to death thread however it's still ongoing (complete with edits) so I'll just leave it hanging for now.

What stands out and has withstood the editing is this post by ultra special snowflake, chemgeek.

That's because the attitude behind such sentiments is to some extent about race. Backlash against Islam in general is often colored by racism and religious bigotry: Look at how people respond to radical Islam vs radical Christianity. They condemn radical Islam from the highest towers and paint all Muslims as "radical Islamists," while they bend over backwards to exonerate Christians from the toxicity of their religion and No True Scotsman the hell out of Christianity-motivated hate crimes. The difference? The stereotypical Muslim isn't white, and the stereotypical Christian is.

Could I have a show of hands of people who "bend over backwards to exonerate Christianity-motivated hate crimes." ?

Nobody ?

Of course, nobody here is doing that whole confusing religion with race thing that SJW all accuse us of doing, right ?

You know, I'm starting to get this inkling, this vague genesis of an idea in my head that sociology just might be rather useless when discuss the real world and is probably best confined to the halls of academia and terminated with extreme prejudice should it somehow escape.

 

[jhunter1163]

Has anybody seen anything that actually got edited? This was supposed to be yesterday.

 

[s_pepys]

Has anybody seen anything that actually got edited? This was supposed to be yesterday.

they described it (worryingly) as an "edit-a-thon", but from an, albeit, quick look. it doesnt seem like they had much of a response.

who knows, maybe women with internet access, generally speaking, dont need "educating" in how to edit wikipedia. it aint rocket science really.

it strikes me as quite condescending towards women and the education they really want to provide them with is their own feminist viewpoint.

most women have more sense than to be bothered by this kind of "activism". imo

(also, i think we have to be on guard of any groups going there en masse to edit anything and everything they dont like or agree with)

lxxx

 

[Stout]

I wonder how they know Wikipedia is has a "very white straight cis dude nature " ?

Oh, they're just making that up.

At least the conservatives had the sense to go create their own wiki, Conservapedia, unlike these weenies who would prefer to vandalize "our" non safe space.

 

[jhunter1163]

(also, i think we have to be on guard of any groups going there en masse to edit anything and everything they dont like or agree with)

lxxx

I agree that any organized attempt to mass-edit Wikipedia should be viewed with some alarm. While there may be honest efforts to broaden the scope of some articles and to add articles on topics of interest to SJWs, my experience with human nature tells me that there's going to be much more vandalism than there will be "education".