Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Empress]

Heh. Yeah, I've been watching that play out over the afternoon. Much to my shame I even waded into the middle at one point, but then thought better of it, and shut up. I think they're going to drive Dawkins right over the edge.

 

[squealpiggy]

The problem is the incorrect belief that people with mental illness are necessarily dangerous or violent, or lumping all mental illness together, especially when that's combined with othering.

While it's true that implying someone must be mentally ill to have done something doesn't imply that all mentally ill people will do that thing, it still reinforces the problematic association. Thus colloquially speculating on the mental health of a murdered can be harmful.

This is nonsense. Speculating on the mental health of murderers in no way implies that all murderers are mentally ill, much less that all mentally ill people are murders. Any more than asking if these onions are French implies that all French people sell onions.

Some onion sellers are Spanish.

A+ activists need to pick their battles more intelligently. There are people being beheaded in the street right now in the name of a nonexistent god, and this is what they get all worked up about?

You mean a vicious white male hetero cisgendered tool of fascism (soldier) willfully damaged the car and bloodied up the knives of two People of Color (sic)

CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

 

[Stout]

Submitted for your entertainment.

This post over at FtB where PZ Myers is so steeped in privilege that he whips out some classic classism and defines the value of people's comments based on how much money they have to spend on clothing. Yea, I know they wear Savile Row suits over in priviligeville, spending all that money on vanity ( see ceepolk ) while people are starving on the streets, but, hey, it's social justice and it's not required to actually practice what you preach.

Interestingly, not one of the commenters called PZ in this faux pas which means either they missed it, in which case they suck at social justice. or they're ignoring it, in which case, they suck at social justice. Maybe they need to hire me as commandant at the reeducation camp they obviously all need to attend.

That would be a fun gig.

The comments section starts to get really really weird at post #69 when the text of a link posted at #53 is brought to light. Yep, someone calling for genocide

What's with SJW and their genocidal wishes ? First the roman over at A+ and now someone called sleepingwytch at FTB. I'll be looking over my shoulder at the Monsanto protests today, where I'll be oppressing hippies...because i read on A+ that it's an OK thing to do.

Anyways

The comments get interesting wrt the genocidal maniac with Aplusser Xanthe coming to the defense of the potential mass murderer 'cause,,, whacko and PZ issuing a mere warning ( genocide bad ) rather than a ban.

Doesn't Mr Priviley McPrivileged realize that he's in the target group ?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Submitted for your entertainment.

This post over at FtB where PZ Myers

I'm beginning to think PZ simply can't attack anything but the strawmen he creates.

 

[squealpiggy]

Submitted for your entertainment.

This post over at FtB where PZ Myers is so steeped in privilege that he whips out some classic classism and defines the value of people's comments based on how much money they have to spend on clothing. Yea, I know they wear Savile Row suits over in priviligeville, spending all that money on vanity ( see ceepolk ) while people are starving on the streets, but, hey, it's social justice and it's not required to actually practice what you preach.

Interestingly, not one of the commenters called PZ in this faux pas which means either they missed it, in which case they suck at social justice. or they're ignoring it, in which case, they suck at social justice. Maybe they need to hire me as commandant at the reeducation camp they obviously all need to attend.

That would be a fun gig.

The comments section starts to get really really weird at post #69 when the text of a link posted at #53 is brought to light. Yep, someone calling for genocide

What's with SJW and their genocidal wishes ? First the roman over at A+ and now someone called sleepingwytch at FTB. I'll be looking over my shoulder at the Monsanto protests today, where I'll be oppressing hippies...because i read on A+ that it's an OK thing to do.

Anyways

The comments get interesting wrt the genocidal maniac with Aplusser Xanthe coming to the defense of the potential mass murderer 'cause,,, whacko and PZ issuing a mere warning ( genocide bad ) rather than a ban.

Doesn't Mr Priviley McPrivileged realize that he's in the target group ?

Lots of people want Ron Lindsay to be fired because of a mild difference of opinion, don't they?

EDIT

Post 44 from Peezus himself:

"I don’t get it either. I was just reviewing my talk for tomorrow, and I’ve got a line in there where I say that science isn’t enough…and specifically bring up sociology as a fundamental discipline we need to solve the world’s problems."

This is the guy who despises evolutionary biology because it isn't science.

EDIT AGAIN

That sleepingwytch is a basket-case and a creepy weirdo. Now we know what sort of "free thought" is permitted on FreeThoughtBlogs. Not mild disagreements on gender politics, but the outright call for genocide against people who identify as their biological gender.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

It’s the refusal to recognize that some of the people who support the same causes as CFI have been barraged with incessant hatred for about two years now — and that that hatred has been aimed at women and the people who support women’s rights.

Here's a question, PZ...If FTB et al. "support the same causes as CFI", why have they been "barraged with incessant hatred for about two years now", while CFI has not? Perhaps it has something to do with tactics or rhetoric? Perhaps it has something to do with...trolling?

I recently saw a good comment (which I can't find now) that pointed out that PZ has simply become a professional troll. It's hard to argue with that, when he has posts with titles like "I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement". To be honest, I have doubts that there was ever a marriage to begin with.

 

[qwints]

I do not believe that words by themselves, disconnected from intent, are harmful. This idea seems to me to be fairly exclusively North American....
Is this belief in the power of individual words regardless of context or intent, truly just a North American thing? I'd like people from other countries to weigh in, please.

Interesting question. I'd be curious to see as well.

Which culture are you speaking of anyway?

I stand corrected.

If one grants that it's possible, the next question is, is it worth it?

It is for me. Might not be for you.

 

[Humes fork]

Here is a riddle I just thought up:

The plussers are obsesses with race, gender, priviledge and so on. What if I suggest that Italians and Greeks aren't really white (based on my observation of them, I think many of them aren't, in many cases they look like Middle Easterners). According to the plussers white cisgendered males are uniquely priviledged and also the scum of Earth. Am I doing Italians and Greeks a favor here by liberating them from the evil white umbrella, or am I doing damage to them by excluding them from white priviledge? How does the priviledge algorithm work?

 

[Diogenes]

...
This is the guy who despises evolutionary biology because it isn't science.
...

I wonder if his department knows that. I'm going to guess "yes" but, just, wow that really looks weird for someone on faculty in a biology department to say.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Post 44 from Peezus himself:

"I don’t get it either. I was just reviewing my talk for tomorrow, and I’ve got a line in there where I say that science isn’t enough…and specifically bring up sociology as a fundamental discipline we need to solve the world’s problems."

This is the guy who despises evolutionary biology because it isn't science.

r.

While (unless I'm reading it wrong) Dawkins seems to be sarcastically dissing sociology in his tweet.

Richard DawkinsVerified account
‏@RichardDawkins
So many people incapable of drawing an elementary distinction: between racism and INSTITUTIONAL racism. Probably studied sociology.

-

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It turns out if you don't buy into the privilege philosophy you are a "privilege denier", which is admittedly quite tame on their part.

If you "deny privilege", you are actually invoking The Secret! And they have a chart to prove it!

First of all, that isn't a chart. You can't line thought bubbles up at random and call it a chart. And what is with the rectangles at the bottom? Second of all, half of those thoughts seem to be about affirmative action, not the philosophical definition of privilege they have created.

 

[tsig]

I wonder if his department knows that. I'm going to guess "yes" but, just, wow that really looks weird for someone on faculty in a biology department to say.

You wouldn't be suggesting threatening his job now would you?

 

[tsig]

Lots of people want Ron Lindsay to be fired because of a mild difference of opinion, don't they?

EDIT

Post 44 from Peezus himself:

"I don’t get it either. I was just reviewing my talk for tomorrow, and I’ve got a line in there where I say that science isn’t enough…and specifically bring up sociology as a fundamental discipline we need to solve the world’s problems."

This is the guy who despises evolutionary biology because it isn't science. EDIT AGAIN

That sleepingwytch is a basket-case and a creepy weirdo. Now we know what sort of "free thought" is permitted on FreeThoughtBlogs. Not mild disagreements on gender politics, but the outright call for genocide against people who identify as their biological gender.

Cite?

 

[Diogenes]

You wouldn't be suggesting threatening his job now would you?

Doesn't look like UMM even has a masters program, so he's probably not obliged to actually be doing research....besides he's tenured.

Thought this was interesting, though, from back when he liked Dawkins

http://www.morris.umn.edu/newsevents/view.php?itemID=2341

...A developmental biologist (one who studies embryos), Myers discussed with Dawkins the latter’s book, titled The God Delusion. Dawkins takes a strong atheistic view with which Myers essentially agrees. “We disagree on the scientific issues, however,” added Myers, “such as on the relative importance of selection in evolutionary history.” Although Myers views Dawkins as a well-spoken, quiet person, he also noted that Dawkins is the biggest “popularizer…a big man for communicating science to the public.”...

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I quite agree Sqeegee. I don't like the word retard as an insult either although I must say I have found myself using it on occasion and I dislike myself a little more each time I realise it.

That's because when person A calls person B a retard, they are comparing them to someone with mental retardation as if this were not only a bad thing for that person, but something which makes that person lesser.

All caveats about relative ability etc. aside, I do not think that mentally retarded people are lesser than me, I think they are just as much people as I am and don't find it appropriate to use as an insult for that reason.

When person A calls person B a moron on the other hand, they are almost certainly not calling that person mentally deficient in the classical sense associated with retardation. They are instead calling the person an idiot. I do not find this objectionable. I struggle to understand how anyone who accepts that language evolves (caveats about technical language notwithstanding) can claim that they think moron refers to mental retardation outside of arcane medical literature. Anyone who does not accept that language evolves is beyond hope.

You post exists at cross-purposes. Do you not see that the evolutionary process happening to the word "retard" is almost identical to the one which previously changed the meaning of "moron?" This change was not, and is not, happening overnight. Every time you hear the word "retard" used in a context that only means "idiot," it's that much closer to only ever meaning idiot and being quite nonoffensive.

But, specifically, I'd say that you shouldn't use the word "retard" or "retarded" unless you'll equally happily use the word "******" (or "Paki" or "Chink", or whatever offensive racial epithet describes an ethnic group you don't belong to) under the same circumstances. You may disagree.

If you never ever use "the R-word," and try to keep other people from using it, this is exactly what will happen. It will not magically go away. Words don't do that. It will only amplify its importance. You are saying, "this word is a grave insult and people need to always know exactly what it is so that it doesn't accidentally slip out and cause offense." That's giving it power over you.

The real solution is dilution. You ought to be using the word more, not less, in any and all usages which are devoid of the offensive context. That will cut the legs under its meaning. If any minor social gaffe is retarded, it loses its sting, even when applied as an insult.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If you never ever use "the R-word," and try to keep other people from using it, this is exactly what will happen. It will not magically go away. Words don't do that. It will only amplify its importance. You are saying, "this word is a grave insult and people need to always know exactly what it is so that it doesn't accidentally slip out and cause offense." That's giving it power over you.

That is ridiculous victim blaming. The "you are giving them/it power over you" argument has always struck me as obnoxiously philosophical.

The real solution is dilution. You ought to be using the word more, not less, in any and all usages which are devoid of the offensive context. That will cut the legs under its meaning. If any minor social gaffe is retarded, it loses its sting, even when applied as an insult.

Some people tried that with the n-word, queer, fag, and recently slut. Didn't really take off (save for obscure in-groups). And un-provoked people started using "gay" in more general contexts and it still didn't take the meaning of the word away from gay people.

 

[Quinn]

The real solution is dilution. You ought to be using the word more, not less, in any and all usages which are devoid of the offensive context.

That is, unless you live in the land where words are forever locked into the most offensive, oppressive, patriarchy-supporting definition that has ever been associated with them, regardless of how many decades it's been since anyone has actually used them that way. In that world, claim that a word has evolved beyond its literal origins, and people will get all hysterical on you.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

That is ridiculous victim blaming. The "you are giving them/it power over you" argument has always struck me as obnoxiously philosophical.

Yeah, I'm being a little hyperbolic, but Squeegee was being a little melodramatic, so I hoped it would balance out. Point is, if you treat a word as being special, it will continue to be special.

Some people tried that with the n-word, queer, fag, and recently slut. Didn't really take off (save for obscure in-groups). And un-provoked people started using "gay" in more general contexts and it still didn't take the meaning of the word away from gay people.

The only one of these I'm familiar with is "fag," using the 4chan sense of someone who is a bit irrationally obsessed/thin-skinned about something (I have in the past referred to myself as "spacefag"), and also a generic identifier (Europeans are colloquially "eurofags"). While it is an in-group usage, it's not a terribly obscure one and it works amazingly well, to the point that gay people often have to refer to themselves as "actual fag here" or "fag fag" for clarity, otherwise no one will know what they mean. I would actually like to spread it further. Here, for example. Can I count on your support in fighting off the ****storms I'm certain will follow its introduction?

What I think you're referring to with queer and the n-word is usage within the subgroup that is still explicitly disallowed (and just as offensive) outside of the subgroup. Of course it didn't help.

May I share an anecdote?

A few years ago my young niece came home one day and told my sister about a new classmate of hers. Among describing the little boy's hometown and interests slipped out: "oh, and he's a [n-word]." My sister, not missing a beat, politely finished the conversation, then called my father up and demanded "WHAT THE HELL DID YOU SAY TO HER?!"

It eventually surfaced that my niece's terminology did not come from my often blue-languaged dad, but from the boy himself, who had apparently never been taught that that was not a word white people were allowed to ever say. What followed was a quick parent-parent call, and two conversations where it was made apparent that race was A Big Deal and some words were Not To Be Used and here's why, and forty years of racial prejudice were drummed into the heads of two kids who until that moment would not have thought there was anything at all to any of it. And something of value was lost.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you never ever use "the R-word," and try to keep other people from using it, this is exactly what will happen.

Lucky I'm not doing that, then.

It will not magically go away.

I didn't say it would.

Words don't do that.

I didn't say they did.

It will only amplify its importance.

Perhaps.

You are saying, "this word is a grave insult and people need to always know exactly what it is so that it doesn't accidentally slip out and cause offense."

No I'm not. I wrote a long post which contained exactly what I was saying. You might try responding to it.

 

[Lorentz]

The real solution is dilution. You ought to be using the word more, not less, in any and all usages which are devoid of the offensive context. That will cut the legs under its meaning. If any minor social gaffe is retarded, it loses its sting, even when applied as an insult.

That's a valid point, that's one mechanism that can work in language. I don't think it's the only mechanism, or even always the dominant one. How language evolves is a tricky subject. Do we have an evolutionary linguist in the room?

I did however have a very similar experience when I first encountered the accusations of "misogynist!" during the Elevatorgate kerfuffle. To me at the time, "misogynist" sounded like an epithet of comparable weight to "pedophile", or "arsonist". As I read more, I found it had changed meaning to either "someone who has said something sexist", or even "someone who doesn't share the same feminist views.". If someone had called me a misogynist three years ago, I'd have been in shock. If someone called me that today, I'd take it to mean they disagree with some aspect of my version of feminism (depending on the definition of whether I am one - I'm not calling myself one now, that's for sure).