Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[jt512]

This seems to be the fallacy of excluded middle. Some (many?) reasonable feminists disagree with A+'s version of feminism. Does this therefore make them misogynist?

I think the whole reason some people are smacking heads on desks over A+ is that topics like feminism (much like politics) are nuanced / not black and white such that skeptical thinking alone dictates which of the many sides are correct. Worse, disagreement with their brand immediately makes you a douche-bag women hater. It's very fundie-like in my perception.

The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay

 

[qayak]

The conversation about privilege and social advantage is necessary only as a starting point to a conversation, because of its tendency to be invisible to those who have it;

This is true but it is also true that there is also a tendency for people who are looking for it to see it when it doesn't exist. As an example, someone mentioned, on this forum or another, I don't recall, about whites paying lower rates on mortgages than blackes is privilege in action.

And if you go look, it is true. Fewer whites than blacks pay high mortgage rates but it is also true that even fewer Asians do.

Remarkably, the Fed found that in 2005, for conventional home-purchase loans, 54.7% of blacks and 46.1% of Hispanics paid high rates, vs. only 17.2% of non-Hispanic whites. (Asians, by the way, were even less likely than whites to pay high rates for loans.)

So this "white privilege" suddenly isn't but people still use it as the example.

Personally, I think there is something to the theory of privilege but I also think that Western society is doing a pretty good job of changing things to make everything more equal. If we have learned anything though, it is that you can't do it over night. Nothing you do today will end privilege tomorrow, but it might end it in fifty years so by all means do it.

And there is the disconnect with Atheist+. That group doesn't care about privilege. That's why they misrepresent it to attack people who disagree with them.

 

[qayak]

The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay

You have to do some throwing out of real juggling with the facts to come to that conclusion.

 

[squealpiggy]

The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay

If the "almost universal" impression of Atheism+ is that it defines misogynists, racists, homophobes etc as "anyone not in the group" then perhaps those involved need to look at the message instead of blaming the recipient for not understanding.

 

[jt512]

If the "almost universal" impression of Atheism+ is that it defines misogynists, racists, homophobes etc as "anyone not in the group" then perhaps those involved need to look at the message instead of blaming the recipient for not understanding.

I guess that would depend on how seriously they want to justify themselves to a group with such a strong bias against them that they are rendered incapable of objective reasoning.

 

[RebeccaBradley]

I guess that would depend on how seriously they want to justify themselves to a group with such a strong bias against them that they are rendered incapable of objective reasoning.

It is not bias if it has been arrived at with good reason. I, for one, was excited when FtB started up, and initially read a number of the blogs with interest and pleasure. Red flags started to go up pretty quickly, though, and disillusionment was complete within about three months. Given the general FtB track record for intolerance and tribalism, it is perfectly reasonable to view their A+ initiative with suspicion.

 

[Hokulele]

Please go take a class in formal logic.

How would that help with your error? But just for fun, let's take a look at your second example:

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

This demonstrates the problem with your argument even more clearly. The main issue with this particular example is that it assumes that racism only applies when it is directed towards non-whites. That is in itself, well, racist. For all you know, a group might be more appealing to a particular non-white minority because it excludes the white people. In other words, being welcoming to racists would be welcoming to non-whites.

By setting up your arguments as a series of false choice fallacies, you are demonstrating the precise lack of logic Atheism+ decries.

 

[NearlySane]

My initial reaction to the idea was 'nonsense on stilts', in that I think much of New Atheism has too much effort trying to shoehorn values into a value neutral position. But I think that there may be some aspects which I see as positive in that it seems an attempt (if a feeble one) to break out of the idea that seems to underpin New Atheism that if one is a proper atheist one should be antitheist.

 

[Ocelot]

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2012/08/on-oversimplification-and-certaint/
If ever there were a ^This that needed ^Thissing then ^This is it. The more I read from Barbara Drescher the more I want to read more.

 

[Myriad]

I guess that would depend on how seriously they want to justify themselves to a group with such a strong bias against them that they are rendered incapable of objective reasoning.

What is your justification, rationalization, explanation, or excuse for PZM's responding to this:

My whole point is that not everyone dismissed as a “misogynist” or “hate and rage filled ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊” by the Atheism+ crowd is actually anything of the kind. Sometimes that kind of response is aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, rather than the genuine trolls who are sending threats and abuse.

...by telling the questioner that he personally ("and that's you, Guy") thinks women should be raped into submission?

In what way can that possibly be considered acceptable rational discourse? Is PZM claiming mind reading powers to know that the questioner thinks women should be raped into submission? Can he cite the questioner somewhere stating that women should be raped into submission?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[The Big Dog]

What is your justification, rationalization, explanation, or excuse for PZM's responding to this:

..by telling the questioner that he personally ("and that's you, Guy") thinks women should be raped into submission?

In what way can that possibly be considered acceptable rational discourse? Is PZM claiming mind reading powers to know that the questioner thinks women should be raped into submission? Can he cite the questioner somewhere stating that women should be raped into submission?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I asked that yesterday or the day before. Never got an answer.

It appears that the Athiesm Plus apologists have failed to note that the people at A plus are unilaterally labeling their detractors.

"Not everyone who disagrees with you hates women."

Response: "People want to rape people into submission. That is you guy."

The A+ folks are a joke.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2012/08/on-oversimplification-and-certaint/
If ever there were a ^This that needed ^Thissing then ^This is it. The more I read from Barbara Drescher the more I want to read more.

Same here.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The A+ folks are a joke.

We have the correct answer.

Mods, you may close the thread.

 

[Wildy]

Intellectual artillery?

"In the meantime, I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

Sounds like a Beer Hall in Munich.

By the way, nice of Mr. Carrier to co-opt Jen's idea, with a false dichotomy no less.

Typical male.

Shun me Mr. Carrier, because I am with you AND with them.

He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.

 

[Acleron]

He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.

Wow, and overnight I have become sexist, cruel and irrational. I suppose I have to be thankful I haven't become racist, intolerant and stupid. Yet!

 

[NearlySane]

He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.

I'll stick with just atheism - I'm perfectly well aware that there are atheists who are unpleasant - it's a value neutral position - atheism tells you nothing about what a person's values will be be, what they will be like. It adds nothing to their values and takes nothing away.

The clarification seems to imply that there there are agnostic atheists plus allowed now.

 

[bpesta22]

The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay

But what makes you a misogynist? Not towing exactly their party line, at least in my perception. It's not transposing a conditional. The whole thing seems to be a bi-conditional (not that there's anything wrong with that...)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.

I think A+ just became even more stupid.

 

[westprog]

I remember reading somewhere (FtB?) that some feminists defend using the term "douchebag", because they consider douching unhealthy, and (perhaps more importantly) it's an insult that's always used against a certain type of man (never a woman). If you do a search for douchebag feminism, there are actually quite a few articles on this topic. I think this one is fairly representative:

I think the quotes justifying the term show exactly how this thing works. Any objective observer would consider that the term was anti-woman. Of course it's a term applied to men - the insult is that he's so pathetic that he's like the disgusting object that comes into contact with a woman's supposedly filthy genitals. That's what the term is about, and the attempts to pretend that it's a reference to some kind of health guidelines is nonsensical. It's the kind of word used by teenage boys, and hearing it from adults is a bit disconcerting.

The justification, at heart, comes down to "I want to use the word, and I'm a feminist, so it's OK. Plus these women aren't offended, so to hell with the ones who are. They are probably the wrong sort of women."

Personally, I wouldn't try to set up a set of rules as to what words can and can't be spoken, but I would have thought that the people who do try to set up such rules would do so with some sort of objectivity.

 

[zeggman]

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to people we accuse of being misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals we accuse of being opposed to inclusivity.

We simply won't tolerate intolerance.

What if a woman is a racist homophobe? Can't choose women.

What if a non-white is a misogynist homophobe? Can't choose non-whites.

What if a gay is a misogynist racist? Can't choose gays.

I choose to be pragmatic. I'll even choose PZ on occasion, or Rebecca. While this is the first time I can recall Richard on my radar, I wouldn't rule out choosing him.

I'll work with Baptists, racists, misogynists, homophobes, and garden-variety ******** if we're working toward a common goal. I don't have a problem with people shunning me, but I'm not going to let anybody tell me who to shun. I'm happy to be a movement of one.