Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[qayak]

I agree with Hokulele. My dad always let me fight my own battles - when it was within my ability to do so. Particularly when it was my actions that got me into the battle in the first place. I do the same for my daughter.

This reminds me a little of an incident years ago, when I was arguing with a neighbour (elderly gentleman) about shared responsibilites on the property. It got a bit heated, voices were raised, but I was holding my ground and things started to calm down as he began to see my perspective, although he didn't agree with it. My (now ex) husband came to the door, pulled me aside and started pushing the other man about - for upsetting his wife. Apart from the massive inappropriateness of the violence (the man was shaken, but not hurt) it was incredibly disrespectful to me as well. He basically undermined me and decided that I couldn't handle the matter myself, and that some good manly testosterone was what was needed - to 'protect' his property - nothing to do with the actual argument that was being had.

Your ex's mistake was not one I would make. My wife and I operate as a unit, I would never undermine her position, especially under the circumstances you describe.

This is a matter of not allowing someone to intimidate my wife simply because they happen to be larger than her. Calling her a "slut" is the first step on the road to intimidation with physical violence being the final step.

It is quite easy to stop the intimidation without undermining her position in an argument.

 

[westprog]

Even if the white guy is someone like this:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100514235151/simpsons/images/d/dd/Cletus.png?

I think that there's no doubt that Cletus does get privilege from being a white male. However, it can't be claimed that the fact that other white males get to be CEO's confers a huge benefit on him. He's never going to be a CEO, and in fact, his inability to advance leads to his status being correspondingly reduced, as an obvious favour. Brandine doesn't have the same level of expectations, so failure to achieve is less shameful.

The statistical benefits of being a White Male don't equate to individual benefits. The personal, inherent benefits tend to be quite ephemeral, dealing with issues of status and respect that are very hard to quantify.

It's not, however, difficult to quantify Brandine's privileges. She's less likely to go to prison than Cletus, likely to live longer, less likely to lose a limb, or to be homeless, or to get killed in a war. These are real benefits, which apply to nearly all classes and races between genders.

 

[Acleron]

Except that's not true. Reading the quotes it seems to me that the only one which makes a broad statement is the PZ quote. Every single one of the others addresses an individual or defined group of some size which does not include "everyone who disagrees with them".

In this post, the guy seems to define the points atheism plus in rather broad terms; he says they're against sexism, racism, and homophobia or whatnot; and he seems to absolve anyone who is against those things, not only those people who are members or agree with everything atheist plus says. He does seem to ignore the "don't be a dick" rule, that's true; but it also seems to be par for every hole of this particular course.

But whatever. It seems to me that if you don't like those people, there's no reason to get so upset about things they say which you shouldn't care about. It doesn't bother me that Christians think I'm going to hell; it doesn't bother me if atheist plus thinks I'm an "irrational douchebag" or whichever term they like to use.

As for the bit about "redefining atheism" - again, why should that bother you? You know what atheism is - who cares what they say it is? No need to go storming their embassy because they blasphemed the Holy A-Word.

Here is another FtB demonstrating cool elegance of restrained language.

A question of the value in adding atheism to social justice prompted this eloquence.

This comment by Stevarious on a previous post is perfect, so I am lifting it up and publishing it here. And honestly, if you don’t get that this is 100% correct, then you are nothing but a

delusional selfish ****ebagge

:

The reply to the question, that you are required to approve 100%, was the usual name calling with an absence of any relevance to the question.

 

[devnull]

Conclusion: Atheists still really suck at functioning in groups.

Which is a *good* thing, because it is strong evidence that there is no widely accepted dogma.

That is, atheists have yet to en masse become that which we despise.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

That is, atheists have yet to en masse become that which we despise.

But damned if the plussers won't keep trying.

 

[Mister Agenda]

In the long run, I regard the difficulty of herding us to be one our virtues.

 

[Humes fork]

In the long run, I regard the difficulty of herding us to be one our virtues.

The herding cats thing. I remember Dawkins mentioning it in TGD. Though cats can't be herded, in enough numbers they can make a lot of noise that can't be ignored.

 

[Piscivore]

They also fight and tussle with each other with very little provacation, and sometimes even for fun.

 

[Humes fork]

I think Atheism+ was inevitable sooner or later actually. On some TAM panel Greta Christina complained that skeptic groups should also advocate a political agenda (her politics of course) in addition to what they already do. As she didn't get much support for it, she had a vacuum to fill. And you get Atheism+.

I don't see what's wrong with simply wearing more than one hat so to speak. Plenty of skeptics do, like Michael Shermer who has been a speaker at Freedom Fest (a libertarian conference) as well as to TAM.

 

[Hokulele]

I don't see a problem with wearing more than one hat, but I do have a problem with using the name of only one of the hats as if it necessarily applies to both. It would be like my starting a group called Asian+ where all members are of at least partial Asian descent, and are left-handed. The public perception would be that a call for more left-handed scissors in America's schoolrooms is an Asian issue, rather than a left-handed one.

While I do agree that most of the causes they list are good ones, I do not agree that all atheists do, or should, feel the same way, but that is what the general public would probably take away from it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see a problem with wearing more than one hat, but I do have a problem with using the name of only one of the hats as if it necessarily applies to both. It would be like my starting a group called Asian+ where all members are of at least partial Asian descent, and are left-handed. The public perception would be that a call for more left-handed scissors in America's schoolrooms is an Asian issue, rather than a left-handed one.

While I do agree that most of the causes they list are good ones, I do not agree that all atheists do, or should, feel the same way, but that is what the general public would probably take away from it.

And even if I agree with their issue being an issue I agree with I might not agree with their methods.

 

[westprog]

And even if I agree with their issue being an issue I agree with I might not agree with their methods.

What is fundamentally offensive is the characterisation of the people who disagree with their approach, and the deliberate stigmatising of anyone who expresses reservations as not only being personally lacking in empathy, but deliberately persecuting individuals.

 

[Orphia Nay]

In the A+ privilege thread:

DarthSutekh wrote:
Because I am male I am treated as a potential rapist.

The mod wrote:

Not legitimate lack of privilege. It is because men are overwhelmingly the aggressors in violent crimes, and particularly in rapes, that women have to assume you COULD be a rapist until proven otherwise. That isn't a lack of privilege on your part.

So complaining about being treated as a rapist gets you treated as a rapist. Nice.

 

[Orphia Nay]

So if you're a white male you're privileged.

But if you're disabled you're not privileged.

What if you're a disabled white male?

 

[Krikkiter]

In the A+ privilege thread:



The mod wrote:



So complaining about being treated as a rapist gets you treated as a rapist. Nice.

That thread is terrible. It seems like some (not all) posters are desperately trying to apply labels to themselves so they can join in the pity fest and slacktivism.

 

[WillyWonka]

With regard to male privilege, it reminds me that this notion is not new.

When I started work, my supervisor which had defected from Czechoslovakia had done his studying in Prague. He was able of going to school since his father was a bricklayer, and did not have the bourgeoisie privilege thus was worthy of education. One of his friends had unfortunately a father which was a teacher. He went to a farm for four years for reeducation.

I am afraid that this use of privilege, as applied by A+, is nothing more than a rehashed socialist experiment which failed miserably last century. We can see the proletarian class rising against the atheist bourgeoisie.

 

[Quinn]

In the A+ privilege thread:

DarthSutekh wrote:
Because I am male I am treated as a potential rapist.

The mod wrote:

Not legitimate lack of privilege. It is because men are overwhelmingly the aggressors in violent crimes, and particularly in rapes, that women have to assume you COULD be a rapist until proven otherwise. That isn't a lack of privilege on your part.

And yet somehow I suspect that if someone had written:

"Because I am poor and an ethnic minority I am treated as a potential criminal."

...the response would decidedly NOT have been:

"Not legitimate lack of privilege. It is because poor minorities are disproportionately the perpetrators certain crimes, that others have to assume you COULD be a criminal until proven otherwise. That isn't a lack of privilege on your part."

Gah, back to following my own rule about not complaining about internet forums in other internet forums...

 

[Badger3k]

And yet somehow I suspect that if someone had written:

"Because I am poor and an ethnic minority I am treated as a potential criminal."

...the response would decidedly NOT have been:

"Not legitimate lack of privilege. It is because poor minorities are disproportionately the perpetrators certain crimes, that others have to assume you COULD be a criminal until proven otherwise. That isn't a lack of privilege on your part."

Gah, back to following my own rule about not complaining about internet forums in other internet forums...

No need - that's about all that forum is good for - lulz and eye-boggling rampant stupidity. We're watching the Titanic (well, maybe the SS Tidy Bowl) sink in real time.

 

[Myriad]

I think they'd have to admit this one is legitimate:

"Because I am left-handed, the buttons on women's clothing are on the wrong side for me to undress them easily."

 

[Checkmite]

You seem to be the one who is getting upset, I merely pointed out a suitable reference to show you the level of debate.

What makes you imagine I'm getting upset? Do I not sound calm?

Or in their cases, the level of non-debate, because if you disagree with them you are labelled as I indicated. How you can reach the conclusion that they don't after reading that list I cannot ascertain.

Why does it annoy me that they associated feminism, racism, etc with atheism? Because when I debate theists, mainly catholics, sooner or later the accusation comes of being a communist, socialist, leftist etc. My argument is that atheism is purely a non-belief, that some atheists may also support those causes is irrelevant. That argument has now been made harder.

I sincerely doubt that. I can see the logic, but I'm most extremely skeptical that the "battle" between atheists and atheists-plus matters to anyone except you guys who are fighting it, so to speak. I have yet to see any repercussions or implications outside of the atheist community; and I'd be hard pressed to say that as yet I anticipate any.

I actually support the aims that atheism+ is supposed to stand for, but not the extremes of some of those aims. I also support free speech, this group tries to suppress it.

I also reserve the right to comment about their extremism, their suppression of free speech, their lack of skepticism and even the silly name calling they indulge in.

Well, I suppose everyone has a right to do whatever they want. I was just curious if there was more to it aside from "because we can".