Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[adamwho]

#2 up, current #1 down.

You can vote on the atheismplus reddit if you place a '+plain' at the end of the url

www.reddit.com/r/atheismplus+plain

 

[DrDave]

You can vote on the atheismplus reddit if you place a '+plain' at the end of the url

www.reddit.com/r/atheismplus+plain

now you're just plusplaining

 

[CaptainManacles]

With respect, however, there's a vast difference between saying 'having a car makes many things easier for you, and you might not understand the hardships faced by people who do not have the option to drive', and the kind of crap said in that A+ thread.

Comparing telling pedestrians to look for for cars with telling rape victims they should have dressed differently.

Seeing roadkill and being dead certain it was due to someone being in such a hurry they didn't want to slow down for an animal.

The nefarious mindset assumed for all drivers, as if there were some sort of zero-sum competition between drivers and pedestrians, and it was a full contact sport.

The large number of anecdotal encounters related about drivers who treated the poor Plusers with neglect or outright malice.

It's comical, really, when you read the whole thread. It sort of reminds me of a time I was in a doctor's waiting room many years ago. There was this one guy waiting who was telling stories of his childhood to some of the other people waiting. These stories were told with some mirth, but were all centered around the violence he and his siblings inflicted on each other. As he went on they became progressively more and more outlandish (stabbing each other through the screen door, hitting one over the head with a fish tank, etc.), culminating in the story-teller once having been held down by two brothers while a 3rd poured lighter fluid over him and set him on fire.

That's how man pluser threads read to me - not only do I not believe the tales they're telling, I think they're simply trying to one-up each other in outlandishness to the point where I have trouble not laughing.

The argument being made isn't that bad driving is as bad as rape, the argument being made is that there is a similar lack of proportion being shown when deciding who to blame. Which I don't necessarily agree with, but it's not as hysterical as you're making it out to be. It's debatable, and so they did discussed the issue, and many of the regular posters disagreed with her, quite aggressively. I'm not seeing the characterizations of that forum being anywhere near accurate. Seems like a bunch of reasonable people having reasonable discussions about their views, sharing personal stories and gripes. It's not a formal debate, it's just an internet discussion form, I don't see the problem with sharing anecdotes and complaining about bad drivers.

 

[Diogenes]

...I'm not seeing the characterizations of that forum being anywhere near accurate. Seems like a bunch of reasonable people having reasonable discussions about their views, sharing personal stories and gripes....

Maybe you don't have a complete dataset and have missed some things like that rant against a rape victim or the Matt Dillahunty episode.

(If I am remembering correctly it was suggested that being dead would be better than having had been raped...to a rape victim.)

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry but I don't think there's a funcation equivilancy between race or ethnicity and gender.

I'm talking purely statistics here. Nothing else.

All humans are humans, though some express a phenotypical difference while having nearly identical genotypes. Is there really a problem with, in the case a sex and gender, using normal and the preferred term for non-normal (trans, gay, intersexed, etc.) instead of loaded terms like non-normal or abnormal?

Without getting into that debate for a moment, You are making far too much of my point.

- eta This post sums up precisely why I won't use terms like cis, trans*, genderqueer, etc.

Read it. Respect the poster. I don't particularly care why you do or don't use certain terms. They have no bearing on me. I can probably find a way to accommodate your particular bias against certain terms so it's really not an issue between us. The terms dodn't exist simply for PC purposes as I suppose some imagine. They have utility and function in the medical and LGBQT communities and those who seek increased rights for such individuals.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw from your event thread that you were going to this. I didn't want to say anything before because I knew you are well versed in "Elevatorgate" and would see through his **** right away.

So now to my question. Were those points brought up to him or was there no opportunity? What was his reaction?

Can't believe how many typos I miss, it's not like I don't proof read. ...

Someone asked about the banned commenters on the FTBs and PZ described vulgar trolls which makes sense to ban, but that's not consistent with who they actually ban. Fine, don't give a platform to trolls, but all dissenters are not trolls.

I don't recall the question that resulted in the harassment/date rape comment. He was essentially stating that we should believe women who report feeling harassed as that claim makes the claim legit. Very circular. There is some truth in it but not the way he's viewing it. If someone gropes you and you complain and someone else says, "So what? You weren't physically hurt," yeah PZ would have a point. But he specifically said, "if the woman felt harassed then she was" and clearly it was a comment that said he's bought into camp Rebecca hook line and sinker.

PZ went on to mention people blaming the Steubenville victim and I totally agree and think it's really an important issue. But to dilute it with the kerfuffle over elevator guy hitting on a woman? There is absolutely no equivalence.

I was pleased though, someone new to our group (I happened to carpool with) had seen my thread in this forum asking for people to tell us any harassment incident at any atheist/humanist/skeptic event that they had first hand knowledge of and they're weren't any. This person even said he had heard the Dr Buzzo up-skirt camera incident didn't really happen. I don't know if it did or didn't and really don't think it matters. I have no doubt there is an occasional creepy guy in any large gathering. That still doesn't equate to the invented victimization that has been claimed to go on regularly with no event administration response.

None of the questions directly challenged PZ on the split in the community over the elevator crap. I figured it wasn't going to result in his recognizing my point, so I didn't bother.

No one was prevented from bringing it up. The theme of the talk was sort of, "get involved in social issues". But not much time was spent on resolving differences of opinion on which issues to be involved in.


I should also add that my new friend the carpool guy is an Asian male who grew up extremely 'un'privileged. He had a few things to say about RW's very privileged life compared to his.

 

[RandFan]

I disagree that the phrase "check your privilege" is necessarily such a phrase, even though I agree it can be misused in that way.

I think you extremely naive.

I don't understand whether you're making a broader claim regarding talking about privilege in the context of individual experience. I've argued that talking about privilege like some sort of cumulative asset that relates to a person's moral worth is an unhelpful analysis of privilege, and different from how privilege is used on atheismplus.

See the highilighted. That's doing it wrong. "Privilege" has any little tono utility when referring to an individual.

Let me be clear. If you are not a social scientists and or you are not speaking in broad terms about communities or groups then don't use the term privilege. Again, not sure what's so difficult to grasp about this. The mindset and behavior of an individual cannot be falsified in terms of privilege. Privilege isn't a premise that will support a definite proposition as it relates to an individual. It is rhetorical. It has the net effect of poisoning the well.

You have made all kinds of unsupported claims. Give me an example of how telling someone to "check their privilege" is something other than a condescending rhetorical device.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Maybe you don't have a complete dataset and have missed some things like that rant against a rape victim or the Matt Dillahunty episode.

(If I am remembering correctly it was suggested that being dead would be better than having had been raped...to a rape victim.)

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized.

The irony is that it seems like the feminist community suffers from the exact same problems as the atheist community. They have a few, very reasonable ideas, like, "don't secretly take upskirt shots of people at conferences" and a small number of people maliciously straw man that into ridiculous proportions, and outrage spreads, compounded by the fact that there are a few people on the margins of the movement for whom that straw man is accurate.

That's not to say that the second someone labels themselves a feminist, or an a-pluser, that everything that comes out of their mouth is spun gold, but they seem to have a lot of valid points.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They have a few, very reasonable ideas, like, "don't secretly take upskirt shots of people at conferences"...

That idea is not unique to the feminist community. It's pretty much agreed upon by most members of society.

...and a small number of people maliciously straw man that into ridiculous proportions, and outrage spreads, compounded by the fact that there are a few people on the margins of the movement for whom that straw man is accurate.

Well, the only people who "strawmanned' are the Aplussers. No one ever saw anyone take upskirt photos. It was all the invention of a sexually confused individual and (I think) her friend.

 

[Diogenes]

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized..

So how am I mischaracterizing their use of "check your privilege" to me with respect to autism? Am I unreasonable in having my son in therapy? (Link was a page or two ago.)

 

[adamwho]

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized.

The irony is that it seems like the feminist community suffers from the exact same problems as the atheist community. They have a few, very reasonable ideas, like, "don't secretly take upskirt shots of people at conferences" and a small number of people maliciously straw man that into ridiculous proportions, and outrage spreads, compounded by the fact that there are a few people on the margins of the movement for whom that straw man is accurate.

That's not to say that the second someone labels themselves a feminist, or an a-pluser, that everything that comes out of their mouth is spun gold, but they seem to have a lot of valid points.

Depends on the brand of feminism. The vast majority of the western world signed onto equality feminism decades ago and atheists/skeptics/secularists tend to be FAR out front on these issues.

But that isn't the type of feminism that is being promoted at atheism+, they are promoting the disciminatory gender feminism.

And when they are talking about equality they frame it in the most condensing way that alienates their potential allies.

***

But honestly, the people here have if anything been extremely generous in their characterization of atheism+. So I doubt the sincerity of you comments.

 

[RandFan]

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized.

[sources missing]

The irony is that it seems like the feminist community suffers from the exact same problems as the atheist community. They have a few, very reasonable ideas, like, "don't secretly take upskirt shots of people at conferences" and a small number of people maliciously straw man that into ridiculous proportions, and outrage spreads, compounded by the fact that there are a few people on the margins of the movement for whom that straw man is accurate.

Then, IMHO, you don't even understand the arguments made by A+ critics and you've not taken the time to understand them.

That's not to say that the second someone labels themselves a feminist, or an a-pluser, that everything that comes out of their mouth is spun gold, but they seem to have a lot of valid points.

If you are going to engage us in a defense of A+ it would be preferable to be less generic in your assertions and it would be very helpful if you would provide examples of what you are asserting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized.

The irony is that it seems like the feminist community suffers from the exact same problems as the atheist community. They have a few, very reasonable ideas, like, "don't secretly take upskirt shots of people at conferences" and a small number of people maliciously straw man that into ridiculous proportions, and outrage spreads, compounded by the fact that there are a few people on the margins of the movement for whom that straw man is accurate.

That's not to say that the second someone labels themselves a feminist, or an a-pluser, that everything that comes out of their mouth is spun gold, but they seem to have a lot of valid points.

Could you clarify for me what straw man you have in mind here?

I'm trying to resolve the problem when behavior that by most standards is considered 'normal', (like a guy in a hotel elevator politely asks a girl he has not met to coffee in his room. This is the modern world after all), and when that behavior is deemed to be objectifying the woman by a certain number of women. It's pretty easy to argue an up-skirt camera is unacceptable. But hitting on a woman has a very broad range when it comes to OK-not OK. "Hey baby, wanna ?" would be an easy call. But how do you resolve the split with people when the issue is different social standards?

For example, when I was a teenager, a one night stand that ended up with sex somewhere was pretty common. But there's no doubt some people would find that shocking. OTOH, you had to like the guy and if a guy was too crude about it, not many girls would find the guy very attractive. But say you have a guy who is used to girls who find sex on first dates normal and a girl who thinks that's shocking behavior. How is that guy supposed to know that? And isn't more egalitarian for either of the parties to be the one to deal with it? Either the girl says no thank you or the guy takes a more cautious approach.

Doesn't that guy have a right to talk to a girl he hasn't met just as much as the woman has a right to not talk to him?

I'm not trying to choir preach here, I'm looking for an argument that might sway a feminist in the Watson camp toward recognizing both parties have some responsibility here to treat the other with consideration that their cultural expectations might clash.

 

[CaptainManacles]

That idea is not unique to the feminist community. It's pretty much agreed upon by most members of society.

Except there is a not so small chunk that doesn't think that, and quite often the rest of society seems willing to jump aboard their mischaracterizations and straw men when reasonable demands are made. A woman asks to not have her breasts grabbed, some douchenozzle reacts with "oh, so you're saying sex is bad!" , and a mob forms to hang the man-hating she-beast. Almost no one in the mob would ever otherwise support sexual assault, but the net effect is the same

Well, the only people who "strawmanned' are the Aplussers. No one ever saw anyone take upskirt photos. It was all the invention of a sexually confused individual and (I think) her friend.

I wasn't intending to refer to any specific issue.

 

[RandFan]

E A woman asks to not have her breasts grabbed, some douchenozzle reacts with "oh, so you're saying sex is bad!"

[sources missing] Absent evidence this is itself a straw man argument. No one is at all making this argument as far as I can tell.

I wasn't intending to refer to any specific issue.

Generic acusations and unfounded assertions are not likely to advance your cause. Provides some examples, some quote and we can have a discussion.

 

[CaptainManacles]

So how am I mischaracterizing their use of "check your privilege" to me with respect to autism? Am I unreasonable in having my son in therapy? (Link was a page or two ago.)

When did I say you did? I was addressing a specific claim about a specific thread, where one of the critics very blatantly and intentionally mischaracterized an A+ thread to make them look bad. You are ignoring that that just happened, and instead putting words in my mouth and bombarding me with ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Daald]

<snipped to save scroll bars everywhere > <topic of PZ in Seattle>

I'm glad he was asked about it. I am afraid he is getting the wrong impression when pushing his agenda for atheists to be involved in social issues. He has some wacky things wrapped up with some important topics so he gets the impression that people agree with 100% of what he says because when asked about the wacky things he seems to respond with the examples we all agree with.

I guess I just wanted him pressed more just so he stops and thinks about what he is saying.

 

[Daald]

When did I say you did? I was addressing a specific claim about a specific thread, where one of the critics very blatantly and intentionally mischaracterized an A+ thread to make them look bad. You are ignoring that that just happened, and instead putting words in my mouth and bombarding me with ridiculous nonsense.

This does not fit with what you said below.

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized.

This second quote seems like you are dismissing all examples because they mischaracterized A+. What did you mean exactly?

 

[squealpiggy]

When did I say you did? I was addressing a specific claim about a specific thread, where one of the critics very blatantly and intentionally mischaracterized an A+ thread to make them look bad. You are ignoring that that just happened, and instead putting words in my mouth and bombarding me with ridiculous nonsense.

If you were addressing a specific claim it was not quoted, cited, linked to or referenced in any way.

 

[Diogenes]

When did I say you did? I was addressing a specific claim about a specific thread, where one of the critics very blatantly and intentionally mischaracterized an A+ thread to make them look bad. You are ignoring that that just happened, and instead putting words in my mouth and bombarding me with ridiculous nonsense.

I can see why you find them maligned.