Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[UnrepentantSinner]

These people are nuts.

Seriously nuts.

That's all I have to say really.

You're abusing your privilage as someone with nuts.

or...

You're abusing your privilage as a being that produces via gametes rather than budding, spores or asexual reproduction.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Disappointing from Rebecca, imo. One of the biggest issues that caused A+ in the first place (and one I firmly disagree with) is the assumption that all trolls and mysoginists on the internet are within the atheist/skeptic communities.


I'm sad to see that still perpetuated.

Really? Rebecca has gotten more mileage/attention whoring/etc. out of Elevatorgate_TM than anyone else. Does it really surprise you that she would continue to propagate the meme that all the attacks/rape/death threats would be coming from sincere atheists/skeptics instead of a bunch of 4chaners, etc. doing it for the lulz?

 

[Wildy]

I see from Twitter that Rhys Morgan Rebecca Watson and Teek are all despairing of the way A+ has gone.

https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/255685705999728641

The A+ers weren't happy to see him disagree with them. Originally one of his crimes was not wanting to read that stupid Schrödinger's Rapist post.

And for something silly I present you this from Y YOU NO SKEPTIC.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Someone should start a thread called "Newcomers: Are you willing to be called a potential troll?"

 

[dasmiller]

Someone should start a thread called "Newcomers: Are you willing to be called a potential troll?"

It's my understanding that newcomers are assumed to be actual trolls until proven otherwise.

Or bigoted racist misogynist ********* ****s.

Or, most often, both.

ETA:
Hmmm . . . so if a newcomer answered "no," then they're not willing to work with the mods, and should be banned.

and if a newcomer answered "yes," then they don't mind being considered enemies of A+, and should be banned.

That thread could be a big timesaver.

 

[Dani]

A blog post on the FtB site that actually makes a lot of sense.

Q&A by Al Stefanelli.

Unsurprisingly, he's under attack in the comments.

Unfortunately, his reactions to the comments could be better. "Your request for citations or evidence is unfounded"? Really? How is it so? Because he just offered his points of view? Yeah, sure, but points of view are usually related to facts. And these facts are easy to be verified by linking to a particular thread on the A+ forums. And then there's that emotional tone, too, with phrases that start with "I don't give a flying... ".

Maybe it's the general tone on the FtB comments?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Does it really surprise you that she would continue to propagate the meme that all the attacks/rape/death threats would be coming from sincere atheists/skeptics instead of a bunch of 4chaners, etc. doing it for the lulz?

I never could understand why I should care about what kind of email Rebecca gets, anyway...or what she expected the atheist community to do about it.

 

[westprog]

Unfortunately, his reactions to the comments could be better. "Your request for citations or evidence is unfounded"? Really? How is it so? Because he just offered his points of view? Yeah, sure, but points of view are usually related to facts. And these facts are easy to be verified by linking to a particular thread on the A+ forums. And then there's that emotional tone, too, with phrases that start with "I don't give a flying... ".

Maybe it's the general tone on the FtB comments?

The trouble with the discussion generally is that it's all about the "Schrodinger's rapist" discussion, and they are doing so without referring to what was actually said. Naturally, everybody has their own idea of what was said, and they have no trouble at all talking around each other. Nothing is achieved and nothing is really said.

The funny thing is that when there is an opportunity to discuss the issue on the actual forum and the actual thread - to discuss whether it's ok for a woman to consider a man she knows nothing about a potential rapist, but wrong for her to consider a black man a potential mugger - this is carefully avoided. Threads are shut down as soon as there's a sign of dealing with a point like that - or if someone expresses something very carefully and avoids tripping the warnings, he can safely be ignored.

 

[WillyWonka]

It seems that, like Matt, Al Stefanetti, has created a big disturbance in the force. He is been vilified on FtB, and surely banned from A+ forum.

It is interesting of how quickly someone get shun by this group. No middle ground; if you do not entirely agree with us, you are the enemy. I saw a picture of someone (Greta perhaps?) with a sign saying :"Matt Dellahunty is a traitor". Traitor of what? Sold military secrets to the enemy? Or just asking questions?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The funny thing is that when there is an opportunity to discuss the issue on the actual forum and the actual thread - to discuss whether it's ok for a woman to consider a man she knows nothing about a potential rapist, but wrong for her to consider a black man a potential mugger - this is carefully avoided.

I don't think you can equate the two, unless you can show that most muggers are, indeed, black. I think that you can show that most rapists are men.

However, that does not mean that Schrodinger's Rapist is valid. Just because most rapists are men, that does not mean that most men are rapists. This seems like the simplest of logical fallacies.

 

[WillyWonka]

I don't think you can equate the two, unless you can show that most muggers are, indeed, black. I think that you can show that most rapists are men.

However, that does not mean that Schrodinger's Rapist is valid. Just because most rapists are men, that does not mean that most men are rapists. This seems like the simplest of logical fallacies.

I think that A+ and to some extend FtB and Skepchick use debating subjects, such as privilege, now Schrodinger's Rapist, and others, as conclusions instead of a starting points of debates. The issue is not whether, in this case, that Schrodinger's Rapist is true, but instead if it is a valid point. From there, you can debate its validity. Instead, in A+'s world, you have to choose if you are a rapist or not. Most guys find find this conclusion unacceptable.

 

[westprog]

I don't think you can equate the two, unless you can show that most muggers are, indeed, black. I think that you can show that most rapists are men.

If you were attending a conference on lung cancer, then you would be either crazy or a very extreme racist to assume that the black lecturers would be more inclined to assault you in the corridor. However, there are circumstances and places where you are more likely to be subject to street crime, and the perpetrators of such crime may well be more likely to belong to a particular ethnic group. It's also often true that people assume that to be the case even when it isn't.

However, that does not mean that Schrodinger's Rapist is valid. Just because most rapists are men, that does not mean that most men are rapists. This seems like the simplest of logical fallacies.

I get the point of Schrodinger's rapist. If someone doesn't know what I might do, they are taking a risk in any interaction with me. Of course, this doesn't just apply to women and rape. It applies to all interactions with all people. The trouble is that in most cases, the potential harm is so great, that it's felt to be justified to treat people as if they might be perpetrators, even when they aren't. That's how many people live in society. There's not such a big jump from Schrodinger's Rapist to Driving While Black.

 

[westprog]

I think that A+ and to some extend FtB and Skepchick use debating subjects, such as privilege, now Schrodinger's Rapist, and others, as conclusions instead of a starting points of debates. The issue is not whether, in this case, that Schrodinger's Rapist is true, but instead if it is a valid point. From there, you can debate its validity. Instead, in A+'s world, you have to choose if you are a rapist or not. Most guys find find this conclusion unacceptable.

The usual response is that from a position of privilege, You Just Don't Get It. What it's like for a woman to fear an attack. In fact, most people have been in a position where they've felt vulnerable and afraid, and sometimes - in fact, usually - the fear turns out not to be necessary.

 

[Dani]

I don't think you can equate the two, unless you can show that most muggers are, indeed, black. I think that you can show that most rapists are men.

However, that does not mean that Schrodinger's Rapist is valid. Just because most rapists are men, that does not mean that most men are rapists. This seems like the simplest of logical fallacies.

You don't need to show that most muggers are black to equate them. You only need to show that there's a higher ratio of muggers among black people.

And that would be a double standard, which is the point Westprog was getting accross.

Yours is a different approach. The problem is where you set the bar for "potential rapist" in relation to a group of people? Let's say, for the sake of the argument (I'm making up the numbers) that 5% of men are rapists, while only 1% of women are.

Statistically, members of both groups are "potential rapists", but the likelihood of them being actual rapists is very low in both cases. So why set the bar arbitrarily at 3,5%, for example? That would be a good question, with the actual numbers.

 

[Mr. Scott]

These people running the A+ forum seem unable to handle diversity of opinion.

 

[WillyWonka]

The usual response is that from a position of privilege, You Just Don't Get It. What it's like for a woman to fear an attack. In fact, most people have been in a position where they've felt vulnerable and afraid, and sometimes - in fact, usually - the fear turns out not to be necessary.

Of course, but it assumes that privilege is static, which is never. It is also cultural. When I speak in French to my staff at work, they will use "vous" instead of "tu" (equ. of you), which is a mark or respect, age and in some way previlege. But it does not convey the same meaning of privilege as in English, it is more style and convention. In Japanese, the honorific language will be used. I believe that this issue with privilege comes from academicia, and this is why it is not well understood by most.

 

[Amazer]

Someone should start a thread called "Newcomers: Are you willing to be called a potential troll?"

Wouldn't 'Schrodinger's Troll' be more apt?

 

[westprog]

Of course, but it assumes that privilege is static, which is never. It is also cultural. When I speak in French to my staff at work, they will use "vous" instead of "tu" (equ. of you), which is a mark or respect, age and in some way previlege. But it does not convey the same meaning of privilege as in English, it is more style and convention. In Japanese, the honorific language will be used. I believe that this issue with privilege comes from academicia, and this is why it is not well understood by most.

The idea that privilege is static seems to be at the heart of the concept. There also seems to be no distinction between privilege in the sense of being more likely to have some benefit, and privilege in the sense of actually possessing the benefit. Thus being white and male is a privilege because CEO's of companies are mostly white males. How does this benefit someone who isn't, and never will be a CEO? Not at all - but that doesn't stop it being mentioned as an example. Privilege is often expressed in totally vague and almost meaningless terms - people "listen to you more", "your opinions are respected" - unquantifiable and unverifiable assertions. Things that are just plain incorrect - "women are more at risk from violence". The concept isn't valueless. There's no doubt that there are benefits accruing to being a heterosexual white male. However, they aren't exactly as portrayed.

 

[sphenisc]

You don't need to show that most muggers are black to equate them. You only need to show that there's a higher ratio of muggers among black people.

And that would be a double standard, which is the point Westprog was getting accross.

Yours is a different approach. The problem is where you set the bar for "potential rapist" in relation to a group of people? Let's say, for the sake of the argument (I'm making up the numbers) that 5% of men are rapists, while only 1% of women are.

Statistically, members of both groups are "potential rapists", but the likelihood of them being actual rapists is very low in both cases. So why set the bar arbitrarily at 3,5%, for example? That would be a good question, with the actual numbers.

How do I factor in the fact that, with appropriate surgery, all women are potentially men?

 

[Wildy]

How do I factor in the fact that, with appropriate surgery, all women are potentially men?

Well if I were to pretend to be an A+ person I'd say that your comment is transphobic and you should feel ashamed for saying it.