Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[recursive prophet]

Don't raise them as a hypothetical. Say that something hurts you. Not that it's not civil or doesn't conform to your idea of reasonable discourse. Say that something causes you pain.

I said being interrogated in an aggressive manner triggered my anxiety in my reply to ceepolk, and was banned for trolling. Or was it really for 'tone policing? Doesn't this rule eliminate even the possibility of what you suggest above? Are not the vast majority of people offended by being belittled personally on public forums? And if some of the super sensitive types A+ supposedly goes out of it's way to protect become the victim of such abuse, might it not be more likely to be harmful than receiving a PM?

I don't know, but it's a reasonable assumption to believe that more people are harmed by personal attacks than unsolicited pms. Why are you comparing the frequency of this?

Because it is somehow argued at A+ that while the very few who might be offended by a PM be protected at the cost of inconveniencing everyone else while the clearly more likely behavior to trigger harmful insecurity among the sensitive-pile-on attacks by a group of very aggressive staff and members-is not only condoned but rationalized under freedom of expression, ffs! Then they have the nerve to claim objecting to such attacks is trolling?

I agree that verbal abuse should be stopped. I think it's gotten better since the forum started, and I've seen several members specifically subject to moderation for engaging in personal abuse.

From what I've seen it must have been p. nasty for that to happen, and again would appreciate links to where you objected to this kind of behavior on the boards. As to the situation getting better I would suggest it's because they have now pretty much eliminated or cowed any who dared question the personal experience authority of the unprivileged in-crowd. Look at the numbers next time you go there. The user and guest counts keep going down along with the number of posts. 2,400+ on the member list, while they now average fewer than 20 viewing. At the moment there are 12. For me this speaks volumes.

The term "street thug" is racialized in modern US discourse and has been for a generation.

Wow. Can you present any evidence at all to support this assertion? I can assure you I was quite definitely thinking of white thugs in this case as I suspect most of those I was applying the analogy to are white. This is now starting to look like an inverted straw herring. Race has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, so you can only lose credibility trying to make it an issue. And you can't even defeat the straw man part if you can not site or link any proof that the term "street thugs" equates in any way with race except in your mind.

@Myriad: Thanks for the clarifications on so many points here. I only wish I had your talent for clear and succinct articulation.

 

[Doctor Plop]

I'm saying he has used language that is commonly used by racist, I'm not saying he is a racist.

Why mention it at all?
Given that the subject had nothing whatsoever to do with the ongoing discussion, the only really plausible reason I can come up with is that you sought to undermine RP by planting the notion that he may be a racist.

I find such oblique insinuations more objectionable than outright accusations, because the former are knowingly introduced while being careful to retain a modicum of plausible deniability - which you are now making use of.

In a more Aplussy environment such a move would go pretty much uncontested. Not here, fortunately.

On a more general note, I see your lapse there as pretty indicative of what my experience of life has gleaned about this whole area. That is, that the majority of truly racist, sexist etc.. people I've known in life have been those of an Aplus-like mindset.

This because their politics-dominated worldview requires them to apply a kind of stereotyping conceptual overlay onto pretty much all human interaction.
Thus pretty much all human behaviour comes to be interpreted in terms of the most easily identifiable superficial grouping elements that can be used to divide people up, i.e. race, gender, class/wealth, age, sexuality, able/disabled etc..

This constant politics-driven mental mapping of people according to group identities ends up simply turning those using an Aplus-like approach into basic bigots.
Just a slightly different shade* of bigot.




* Yes folks, I'm tone policing

 

[RandFan]

The term "street thug" is racialized in modern US discourse and has been for a generation. It's not a neutral word.

Just because you assert something does not make it true. Argument by assertion is a fallacy. And this illustrates the problem. Anything can be asserted to be offensive and that fact makes it easy to censor points of view that you don't agree with. That is antithetical to skepticism and critical thinking.

Again, A+ is free to run their forum as they please. But we are free to criticize A+ and point out that they are doing a disservices to skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[RandFan]

And here it is again, working on the assumption that lynching, aka extrajudicial punishment applies/applied exclusively to blacks and therefore has racist connotations.

The poster doth protest too much, methinks.

You are the one who is trying to make more of what was said than is reasonably justified. If anyone is protesting too much it is you.

 

[Doctor Plop]

Just because you assert something does not make it true. Argument by assertion is a fallacy. And this illustrates the problem. Anything can be asserted to be offensive and that fact makes it easy to censor points of view that you don't agree with. That is antithetical to skepticism and critical thinking.

Six assertions there

 

[Myriad]

The term "street thug" is racialized in modern US discourse and has been for a generation. It's not a neutral word.

Interesting. And how you know this? One possible explanation is that the term "street thug" is racialized to you -- that is, when you think of street thugs, you think of minorities. I certainly do not. Can you show otherwise?

I also haven't made the claim that recursive prophet is a racist, I've pointed out the language he's used and explained why I think it's problematic.

Problematic how?

I'm sure many racists have used words like "color," "soup," "preserve," "the," and "problematic" as well. Which of those words (besides "problematic") are also problematic?

I've also heard that racists eat corn on the cob, wear shoes, go bowling, do crossword puzzles, vote in elections, take aspirin, and brush their teeth. Which of these activities have become problematic due to being things racists do?

There are of course some words, actions, and ideas that are almost exclusively used by racists. I'm sure I don't have to spell any of them out, and I regard those words, actions, and ideas as wrong.

Is it not sufficient to avoid those? Who decides "problematic?" That's not your unilateral decision to make, surely, as any speech whatsoever could then be branded "problematic" based on your subjective whim.

I'm saying he has used language that is commonly used by racist, I'm not saying he is a racist.

I'm glad you're not saying he's racist. But it leaves me unsure what you were trying to say or imply, other than that he has not carefully filtered his speech to your personal preferences. He is, of course, under no obligation to do so. So what is the problem in problematic?

Substitute "misogynist" for "racist" in any of the above, and the principle and the point remain the same.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RandFan]

Six assertions there

You are absolutely correct. I'm happy to clarify which of those are philosophical axioms and which ones are opinions.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Qwints,

You're right - from your perspective and the circles you move in. There aren't a whole lot of street people on these forums and we get into this discussion quite often - e.g. the use of charged words. I'm on the side that says that if a word or expression is charged and you have no way of knowing it, you're excused. (That means you, RP, not that you should care whether I excuse you or not.) And I'm going to sound like an A-Plusser, because I think continuing to argue that it couldn't be a charged expression is silly when the mass of evidence out there will tell anyone who cares to look that "street thug" is synonymous with "gangsta" for the last couple of decades.

I may be the only person in this thread who listened to a lot of rap. I was living in Alphabet City in the '80s, (when it was still six parts barrio, three parts 'hood and one part old fart hippies like me) and many of my friends in the neighborhood were into rap and street culture. By the end of the decade, "street thug" had pretty much been used by the media to describe street/gang culture and Gangsta Rap took it over and like so many other previously disparaging labels, began to wear it like a badge. Tupac even wrote a credo for them, which apocrphyally is supposed to be the wording of a peace treaty between the Crips and Bloods back in the early 90s. It's rather well known,... in certain circles. (Anyone interested can Google "Tupac & Thug Life".)

I like the clarification of this argument that A+ uses. "What you said sounds racist" is not "You are a racist". On A+, they all know the shorthand. Over here, we tend to get bogged down in the "You calling me a racist(idiot, sexist, woo, conspiracy theorist)?"

 

[Zelenius]

On a more general note, I see your lapse there as pretty indicative of what my experience of life has gleaned about this whole area. That is, that the majority of truly racist, sexist etc.. people I've known in life have been those of an Aplus-like mindset.

This because their politics-dominated worldview requires them to apply a kind of stereotyping conceptual overlay onto pretty much all human interaction.
Thus pretty much all human behaviour comes to be interpreted in terms of the most easily identifiable superficial grouping elements that can be used to divide people up, i.e. race, gender, class/wealth, age, sexuality, able/disabled etc..

This constant politics-driven mental mapping of people according to group identities ends up simply turning those using an Aplus-like approach into basic bigots.
Just a slightly different shade* of bigot.


* Yes folks, I'm tone policing

This has been my experience too, but I would go even further. I believe the extreme left is every bit as bad as the extreme right. The Soviet Union and Maoist China shows what happens when far left extremists take over, and their very narrow, dogmatic, absolutist thinking becomes the law of the land.

So many millions of people were killed in their failed far-left social experiment. This doesn't mean that all leftism itself is evil, I'm mainly talking about communists here; I'm as much opposed to the extreme right as I am to the extreme left. It must be mentioned that some of the biggest opponents of the Soviet Empire were more moderate leftists.

While I am not accusing anyone of plotting mass murder, it is for good reason the ideology at A+ could be described as "cultural Marxism". The mentality over there is very similar to if not indistinguishable from those Soviet citizens who supported their communist government.

 

[Stout]

Such "thinking" may get you an A+ (see what I did there?) in your Queer Studies seminar, but it pretty much gets you laughed at in the real world.

You betcha, I could probably get a graduate degree in whatever it is they teach in the humanities department and my thesis would consist of listing "would you like fries with that" in every known language.

See how I could be an awesome troll on the A+sylum ?

 

[Stout]

The poster doth protest too much, methinks.

Oh look, misdirection

At least you're not denying my claims.

I won't rehash points already made over the language save to say that this is an international forum and not everybody relates to the American pop culture connotations of certain terms.

They call such assumptions Amerocentric, or something like that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Again, A+ is free to run their forum as they please. But we are free to criticize laugh at A+ and point out that they are doing a disservices to skepticism and critical thinking.

This.

 

[Stout]

This constant politics-driven mental mapping of people according to group identities ends up simply turning those using an Aplus-like approach into basic bigots.
Just a slightly different shade* of bigot.

Great post in it's entirety however this point requires a bit of clarification in order to get straight to the heart of the SJ mindset.

There's a special definition of racist and misogynist that gives SJ warriors to act like bigots and it has to do with which group has the most power in society. Bigotry against those groups isn't as "bad" as racism, sexism and is in fact, encouraged, in order to challenge the status quo.

It;s like "good" bigotry, if you will.

Fight the power and all that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

 

[Doctor Plop]

Great post in it's entirety however this point requires a bit of clarification in order to get straight to the heart of the SJ mindset.

There's a special definition of racist and misogynist that gives SJ warriors to act like bigots and it has to do with which group has the most power in society. Bigotry against those groups isn't as "bad" as racism, sexism and is in fact, encouraged, in order to challenge the status quo.

It;s like "good" bigotry, if you will.

Fight the power and all that.

Well, yes, I agree (as I do with Zelenius too).

SJ warriors and their ilk conscientiously employ:
racism against whites
sexism against males
transgenderism (if that's even a word) against 'cis' people
ableism (ditto) against the able bodied
sexualityism (ditto) against heterosexuals
etc..

This leads to an interesting consequence, in that it removes any moral power behind their very frequent accusations that others are engaging in racism, sexism etc.. (because their own actions 'show' that these can be 'good' behaviours).

Because their own political movement simultaneously subsists on both the practice and denunciaton of racism, sexism etc., from a rational and moral point of view it is entirely self-defeating.

 

[qwints]

Myriad, the point is that it is terminology used by racists as a dog whistle. One should be aware of the connotations of one's language.

this is an international forum and not everybody relates to the American pop culture connotations of certain terms.

They call such assumptions Amerocentric, or something like that.

An exceedingly fair point. I invite you to google "street thug" and count the blatantly racist things you see, but I'm not familiar with the words use in other Anglophone cultures.

recursive prophet, because of your use of the smug smiley, I didn't interpret your post as saying you were actually suffering from anxiety due to ceepolk's language.

 

[qwints]

TCS, great song.

Doctor plop, talking about race, etc... isn't racism, etc..

 

[RandFan]

Myriad, the point is that it is terminology used by racists as a dog whistle. One should be aware of the connotations of one's language.

Just because racists use language as a dog whistle doesn't invalidate it for others to use. That said, I don't accept your premise. Isn't it convenient and self serving to be able to censor the words of others by accusing them of racism or innocently using racist terms?

“There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions, and wooooords.” --Carlin

 

[RandFan]

Well, yes, I agree (as I do with Zelenius too).

SJ warriors and their ilk conscientiously employ:
racism against whites
sexism against males
transgenderism (if that's even a word) against 'cis' people
ableism (ditto) against the able bodied
sexualityism (ditto) against heterosexuals
etc..

This leads to an interesting consequence, in that it removes any moral power behind their very frequent accusations that others are engaging in racism, sexism etc.. (because their own actions 'show' that these can be 'good' behaviours).

Because their own political movement simultaneously subsists on both the practice and denunciaton of racism, sexism etc., from a rational and moral point of view it is entirely self-defeating.

Agreed.

 

[recursive prophet]

recursive prophet, because of your use of the smug smiley, I didn't interpret your post as saying you were actually suffering from anxiety due to ceepolk's language.

So I was suspended for a month because of 1 smiley? Well, in fact I agree in part. My point in using it was that if others can be given special consideration because of their 'triggers' then why shouldn't I be cut a little slack for a much more common one? You did wisely agree more people would be upset with an aggressive public interrogation than a PM, the topic of that thread. Face it. What really upset ceepolk was being hoisted on her own petard.

And save yourself some typing-just call me rp.