Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's been said before, but things like A+ inevitably fail when everyone starts arguing over which group is most oppressed.

Is it blacks?

Gays?

Women?

Native Americans?

Middle Easterners?

Gay blacks?

Blind gay blacks?

And related questions like: Do black men benefit from male privilege, or does being black negate this? Similarly, do white women benefit from white privilege, or does being a woman negate this?

If you happen to be a token straight white male in the movement, it can be bewildering choosing who to side with as the radical gays, black nationalists, and radical feminists start eating each other alive. I've witnessed this happening many times before. If a straight white male attempts to referee since he is obviously not a member of any oppressed group, he could get expelled for being racist, or anti-gay, or a misogynist, or anti-everything. So, the smart thing for him to do is to sit back and watch the entire thing self-destruct.

It's actually quite hilarious to watch!
 
And can you understand why someone who is talking about how a problem personally affects them could be alienated by people without personal experience changing the subject to a dispassionate analysis of the system?
Click to expand...

The more I think about this, the more it seems like BS to me. Being personally affected by injustice motivates people to understand it. Take any and every UHC discussion that's happened here in the past several years. The most prolific posters, and the ones who understand the problems most thoroughly, are the ones who have been most affected. People who have been harmed by the US system aren't ever, ever, ever offended by dispassionate analysis. We're enthusiastic about it.

I've been a member of support-only groups for a couple of things, too, and even there, everyone was trying to analyze.
 
Zelenius said:
If you happen to be a token straight white male in the movement, it can be bewildering choosing who to side with as the radical gays, black nationalists, and radical feminists start eating each other alive. I've witnessed this happening many times before. If a straight white male attempts to referee since he is obviously not a member of any oppressed group, he could get expelled for being racist, or anti-gay, or a misogynist, or anti-everything. So, the smart thing for him to do is to sit back and watch the entire thing self-destruct.

It's actually quite hilarious to watch!
Click to expand...

Yes, hilarious...and sad. Something similar happened to Occupy Wall Street. They steadfastly refused to adopt any agenda or leadership, and then got torn apart as different groups tried to seize the reigns (Native American activists, feminists, animal rights, etc.).
I wish that people could put aside their egos long enough to work towards a common goal.

But I guess that's just my privilege talking, right?
 
Originally Posted by qwints
And can you understand why someone who is talking about how a problem personally affects them could be alienated by people without personal experience changing the subject to a dispassionate analysis of the system?
Click to expand...

Er.. that works both ways. Can you not understand how a person with the best of intentions ( whatever happened to good faith?) dispassionately trying to analyse the system and help , could be alienated by someone taking offence that somehow others don't feel what they do, aren't somehow taking it seriously enough, or are so emotionally/psychologically attached to the subject that they get sarcastic or abusive?

-
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
Yes, hilarious...and sad. Something similar happened to Occupy Wall Street. They steadfastly refused to adopt any agenda or leadership, and then got torn apart as different groups tried to seize the reigns (Native American activists, feminists, animal rights, etc.).
I wish that people could put aside their egos long enough to work towards a common goal.

But I guess that's just my privilege talking, right?
Click to expand...

Err...nothing of the sort happened with OWS. It was mostly violent repression combined with activism burnout that diminished it, and on the local level, it's still active in various forms.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Sandy
...for one example.
 
qwints said:
Asking permission before pm'ing doesn't bother me. Receiving pm's without permission bothers some. Obsequiousness to religion in the public square does bother me. I've concluded that the offense caused by members of a religion not having their religion deferred to in public spaces is outweighed by the harm deferring to religion in public does. I do respect some religious customs when I enter into private spaces or choose not to enter those spaces rather than comply with those customs.
Click to expand...

You are basically saying that you will use reason and logic when something bothers you and not worry about it where it does not. That kind of thinking is what bothers me most about A+ and why I think it is doomed to fail.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Yes, hilarious...and sad. Something similar happened to Occupy Wall Street. They steadfastly refused to adopt any agenda or leadership, and then got torn apart as different groups tried to seize the reigns (Native American activists, feminists, animal rights, etc.).
I wish that people could put aside their egos long enough to work towards a common goal.
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of the problem is that, often, there really isn't a common goal. Protesting the status quo is an activity, but it really isn't a goal. Changing the status quo would be a goal, but if the different groups want different changes, then the different groups have different goals. The groups may cooperate when they have similar goals, but some groups aren't good at that . . .
 
AvalonXQ said:
This certainly proves you're really from A+. This sort of self-righteous, vapid deconstruction of a user's posts to try to create racism that isn't there is exactly what demonstrates that you guys are evil bullies rather than posting in "good faith."

Also, good job putting words in quotes that he didn't actually say. You couldn't be more dishonest if you took a course in it.
Click to expand...

Curiously, that charge seems to have gone unanswered.:D

Ever curiouser still is over on their "Don't be an ass" thread moderator piegasam condemns such tricks.

irk, "This isn't a debate club" is more a reference to formal debate tactics where people use rhetorical trickery to get away with smuggling fallacious reasoning into a discussion and thereby winning points as opposed to an honest give and take. You're kind of equivocating with "debate" and "argument" there, a la "just a theory".
Click to expand...

Where I'm from everybody is pretty white and as a result our street thugs are pretty white as well. My lived experience is different and I find it offensive that someone would suggest that street thuggery is connected to being black. It's just, well you know.......
 
qwints said:
Avalon, I've underlined the parts I was referencing. Why do you think recursiveprophet is talking about street thugs and changing his syntax when he mocks the atheistplus site?
Click to expand...

Okay! Here we go! I got the pitchforks, who's got the torches?? I'm never late to a good necktie party!

Ah, crap, I thought I was still on A+...
 
Daald said:
You are basically saying that you will use reason and logic when something bothers you and not worry about it where it does not. That kind of thinking is what bothers me most about A+ and why I think it is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

Why should I worry about something that doesn't bother me? Having a rule that people ask before pm'ing doesn't seem wrong to me. A religious institution asserting authority in public spaces does seem wrong to me. Having more data by listening to people's perceptions and experiences just makes my evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of those things more accurate.

Rrose Selavy said:
Can you not understand how a person with the best of intentions ( whatever happened to good faith?) dispassionately trying to analyse the system and help , could be alienated by someone taking offence that somehow others don't feel what they do, aren't somehow taking it seriously enough, or are so emotionally/psychologically attached to the subject that they get sarcastic or abusive?
-
Click to expand...

Sure, that makes perfect sense to me - though I'm a little bemused by your grouping of sarcasm and abuse together. I've seen that happen on atheismplus.
 
kellyb said:
Err...nothing of the sort happened with OWS. It was mostly violent repression combined with activism burnout that diminished it, and on the local level, it's still active in various forms.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the activists burned out? Yes, part of it was violent repression, and part of it was what I was talking about. When you have a disorganized group facing organized repression, it's not hard to predict who's going to come out on top. It ain't rocket science. Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, etc.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
Curiously, that charge seems to have gone unanswered.:D

Where I'm from everybody is pretty white and as a result our street thugs are pretty white as well. My lived experience is different and I find it offensive that someone would suggest that street thuggery is connected to being black. It's just, well you know.......
Click to expand...

I've specifically highlighted where I quoted from, and pointing out that someone has referenced or alluded to a common racist stereotype isn't endorsing that stereotype.
 
Zelenius said:
If you happen to be a token straight white male in the movement, it can be bewildering choosing who to side with as the radical gays, black nationalists, and radical feminists start eating each other alive. I've witnessed this happening many times before. If a straight white male attempts to referee since he is obviously not a member of any oppressed group, he could get expelled for being racist, or anti-gay, or a misogynist, or anti-everything. So, the smart thing for him to do is to sit back and watch the entire thing self-destruct.

It's actually quite hilarious to watch!
Click to expand...



Well, that's just a Burden we White Men must bear.
 
Rrose Selavy said:
So, according to that, if you read it one way, you may not post any sexually orientated material that may violate the laws of your country. So if you are gay posting from a country where that sexual orientation is illegal you may not post about it.


Who writes this stuff? It doesn't even make grammatical sense.
Click to expand...

Check your grammar privilege or you will be banned.
 
qwints said:
Why should I worry about something that doesn't bother me? Having a rule that people ask before pm'ing doesn't seem wrong to me. A religious institution asserting authority in public spaces does seem wrong to me. Having more data by listening to people's perceptions and experiences just makes my evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of those things more accurate.
Click to expand...

Because you should have good reasons to believe what you believe and you should apply those reasons on all facets of your life. The problem with the PM thing is the lack of evidence or taking subjective experience as evidence then silencing all opposition. When you demand one type of evidence to certain people and another standard for others then that makes that person a hypocrite. If one claims to be a critical thinker such things should bother them when they are pointed out.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Minor derail: I found a solution that works for me. Anytime I see a blog post or a forum entry that starts with the words 'Trigger warning' (or similar A+ jargon) I know to skip. Its a trigger warning to avoid... nonsense.
Click to expand...

TRIGGER WARNING!!!!!

I'd like to send you $100,000. Please PM me your address.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom