Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Are you referring to me? I'm curious to know why people are referring to me as "she." Not a big deal, but I'm 27/M/Austin in the old parlance.

Thanks for mansplaining that.

Technically, I think if you don't know someone's sex, you're supposed to address them as "we" or "they" or "us" or "gle" or "tse". Or something.

Sorry for the mansplanation. I just figured everyone knew this already.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe you're dog-whistling misanthropic vaginocentrism, and some members of the audience don't even realize they're picking up on it?

Or maybe nobody cares, and they're not putting a lot of thought or effort into figuring out irrelevant gender questions.

Do you really feel it's important for people to think hard about whether you're a man or a woman or something else entirely? Does it really matter if people refer to you as "she" instead of "he"?

These are non-rhetorical questions.

Thanks!

Exactly.

When you spout stupidity, does it really matter if you're a "he" or a "she"?***








***Yes, I understand that some gender confused individuals prefer "we" or "they" or "shmeez". But I really don't care.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

TRIGGER WARNING: Quoted Hate Speech

Are "spaces" and "triggers" and "tone trolling" and "mansplaining" etc. new magic words introduced by the same old losers who can't seem to manage to function independently in the real world?

Or are they just recycled versions of the old magic words used by the same old losers who can't seem to manage to function independently in the real world?

Cisgendered privileged mansplainer.***








(***Mods: This is not a personal attack, since I have no idea what I just said. On the A+ forums, it could have been a compliment.)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The problem with judging good or bad "dissent" is that there are gays, women, Blacks, etc. on all sides of issues. Ideologically, it is difficult to even form a cohesive base view for "feminists".

So the idea that a handful of mods decide if your dissent is legitimate is silly.

Jumping back to the good old privilege debate, I dislike that they want the privileged person to shut up and absorb the view of the oppressed person they are speaking to. That woman/Black person/gay/etc. does not and cannot speak for everyone in their group.

 

[theprestige]

Confession: In the absence of clear, culturally-mainstream indicators, (e.g., "I had ovarian cancer once", "I am pregnant", etc.), I make a point of referring to everybody I meet online as "he" or "him", on the off chance that it will trigger someone who cares more about online gender defaults than I do.

Where it matters, I subscribe to the principle that on the Internet nobody cares if you're a dog. People who make a point of caring deserve what they get, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[rustypouch]

Are "spaces" and "triggers" and "tone trolling" and "mansplaining" etc. new magic words introduced by the same old losers who can't seem to manage to function independently in the real world?

Or are they just recycled versions of the old magic words used by the same old losers who can't seem to manage to function independently in the real world?

Just wondering.

ETA: That said, the entirety of the 'atheismplus' website appears to be a complete and utter cesspool of nothing but crap. Gahh. I won't be clicking on that ever again. The stupid, it burns.

As far as I can tell, the answer in yes.

Those words seem to be a method of stifling dissent.

I also wonder how these people are able to function in the world at large, if an unsolicited PM is enough to render them unable to even look at a computer for a few days.

 

[chillzero]

People who take the time and effort to debate and educate people repeating long debunked arguments should be commended for their work. I don't, however, think that is the only valid use of one's time.

Not every critique can be dismissed out of hand, but many can easily be recognized as repetitions of ones that have already been thoroughly debated and rejected decades ago.

So, how do you determine whether the person using the argument is new to it, or just rehashing it for lulz? If they are new to it, why would you ignore them and not take the educational opportunity to at least point to the existing debunking material?

How do you determine, also, that the debunking is ALWAYS final and that there is not some point made that you should at least give some consideration? Isn't it a good excercise to flex your skeptical muscles in re-pondering old issues occasionally? Or do you prefer to accept dogma?

 

[brodski]

The problem with judging good or bad "dissent" is that there are gays, women, Blacks, etc. on all sides of issues. Ideologically, it is difficult to even form a cohesive base view for "feminists".

So the idea that a handful of mods decide if your dissent is legitimate is silly.

Jumping back to the good old privilege debate, I dislike that they want the privileged person to shut up and absorb the view of the oppressed person they are speaking to. That woman/Black person/gay/etc. does not and cannot speak for everyone in their group.

you've hit on the potentially oppressive nature of identity politics, the idea that a member of a class either agrees with the political views which have been deemed to be the "correct" view for their class or they have just "internalised their own oppression". This is based on the Marxist schools of thought relating to "false conciousness"- it erases people as individuals and reduces them to the class(es) which they belong to, and it implicitly robs them of their right to individual, social, cultural and political autonomy.

But that's OK, if it's for a good cause.

 

[qwints]

when you start supposing the absolute truth and restricting speech that is not conducive to your truth you ensure that there will not be free thinking. You've just established a dogma.

That's what we object to.

Fair enough, and I admire groups like the JREF that are willing to explain and educate everyone. I just don't think that not doing so constitutes the establishment of dogma or absolute truth. I think we fundamentally disagree on whether the very expression of ideas can cause harm.

Do you see how you contradicted yourself above?

Those passages do not mean the same thing, so no. I don't believe someone when they say x hurts them is a different statement than x couldn't possibly hurt anyone.

So you find ceepolk's interpretation of my intent-it ain't magic ya'know-in posting one emoticon justifies my being silenced? Do you have any doubt that I will be banned there for my posts here?

You don't seem very silenced to me. I think ending a statement about being triggered with a smug icon deserves moderation. I have no doubt that you'll be banned from atheismplus for your posts here.

Are "spaces" and "triggers" and "tone trolling" and "mansplaining" etc. new magic words introduced by the same old losers who can't seem to manage to function independently in the real world?

Spaces = generic term for a definable area. Think of it like polity is used in political science.

Triggers = activates, causes to happen. In context, it means sometime that activates a traumatic memory in someone who's experienced trauma.

Tone trolling = An attempt to derail a discussion by talking about language use rather than the subject. Related to tone policing, refusing to engage with or telling someone to be quiet if they show anger or passion. [As I've said, there's lots of room for criticism on atheismplus turning complaints about abuse into complaints about profanity.]

Mansplaining = a condescending explanation from someone lacking personal experience to someone having personal experience, often from someone who has privilege on that particular subject. An excellent example, "Men Explain Things to Me"

So, how do you determine whether the person using the argument is new to it, or just rehashing it for lulz? If they are new to it, why would you ignore them and not take the educational opportunity to at least point to the existing debunking material?

You can't. That's why I admire groups that take the time and energy to educate people bringing up old arguments.

How do you determine, also, that the debunking is ALWAYS final and that there is not some point made that you should at least give some consideration? Isn't it a good excercise to flex your skeptical muscles in re-pondering old issues occasionally? Or do you prefer to accept dogma?

You can't, and it's absolutely useful to examine well-established issues. I just don't think that everyone has to do that everywhere all the time. Again, the key point for the exclusion of those view points is that allowing people to express them can alienate or marginalize others. As one example, many forums ban racist and sexist slurs.

 

[recursive prophet]

recursive prophet's post seemed to be mocking the very idea of being triggered as well making clear he didn't believe the people who said that receiving unsolicited pms was painful to them.

I didn't say you "questioned the trigger concept" or " 'made clear' unsolicited PM's couldn't be painful to anyone."

Those passages do not mean the same thing, so no. I don't believe someone when they say x hurts them is a different statement than x couldn't possibly hurt anyone.

You seem to have a problem ever admitting you made a mistake qwints, which makes you a good fit at A+. Here, as you've seen, not so much.

So please explain how what I put in bold again above is not a clear example of self contradiction. How do they mean something different? You said in one post I made clear PM's couldn't be painful, and in the next you claim you never said that. How is this not a contradiction on your part?

 

[Antiquehunter]

For what its worth - RW has received another vicious attack - someone drew a stupid picture of her and Emailed it to her. Which has caused the expected blog post, facebook post & (presumably) twitterings to commiserate about what a mean nasty place the world is, oh woe is me etc...

Now - I'm not advocating such behaviour, and I'm sure it is disconcerting - but you can't be an 'internet celebrity' and not expect to get some douchey Emails. If you're being harassed / threatened, then go to the police. Otherwise get to be highly skilled with the delete button.

I say suck it up.

But that could just be my rich white male privileged opinion showing through.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

You can't, and it's absolutely useful to examine well-established issues. I just don't think that everyone has to do that everywhere all the time. Again, the key point for the exclusion of those view points is that allowing people to express them can alienate or marginalize others. As one example, many forums ban racist and sexist slurs.

It's very telling that you associate someone in a so called skeptical forum questioning the status quo (even through some perceived ignorance, acknowledged or not) with posting clearly racist or sexist slurs.
Not even near the same thing.

-

 

[RandFan]

For what its worth - RW has received another vicious attack - someone drew a stupid picture of her and Emailed it to her. Which has caused the expected blog post, facebook post & (presumably) twitterings to commiserate about what a mean nasty place the world is, oh woe is me etc...

Now - I'm not advocating such behaviour, and I'm sure it is disconcerting - but you can't be an 'internet celebrity' and not expect to get some douchey Emails. If you're being harassed / threatened, then go to the police. Otherwise get to be highly skilled with the delete button.
I say suck it up.

But that could just be my rich white male privileged opinion showing through.

It's her stock in trade and she is very deft at milking it out for all its worth. She's not special for getting hate mail.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Now - I'm not advocating such behaviour, and I'm sure it is disconcerting - but you can't be an 'internet celebrity' and not expect to get some douchey Emails.

In RW's case, her entire internet celebrity status is based upon being a woman who gets hate mail. If it weren't for that, nobody outside of the skeptic/atheist community would know who she is.

 

[s_pepys]

In RW's case, her entire internet celebrity status is based upon being a woman who gets hate mail. If it weren't for that, nobody outside of the skeptic/atheist community would know who she is.

this part was a bit worrying.

http://skepchick.org/2013/02/objectified/

I want you to think about this the next time you hear Michael Shermer complain that Ophelia Benson’s mild criticism of his words is a “McCarthy-like witch hunt,” or when Paula Kirby complains that she’s being persecuted by feminazis because women are asking for better treatment, or when anyone complains that PZ and others are “Freethought Bullies,” or when anyone complains that I complain too much because once every few months I provide examples of the harassment I receive. Shermer, Kirby, and the others have no idea what it’s like to be hunted and harassed, because “our side,” the people who are speaking out against harassment, don’t do this to them. Michael Shermer isn’t told every day by atheists and skeptics that he’s worth nothing aside from the sexual gratification his body could offer someone. He isn’t told by atheists and skeptics that he deserves to be raped and abused. Atheists and skeptics don’t spend hours drawing images of him in dehumanizing positions. They don’t tell him that they’re going to sexually assault him if they see him at a conference. They don’t tell him he’s too old or fat or ugly to ****. They aren’t so terrified of what he has to say that they’ll do anything they can to silence him. And they don’t tell him that his disinterest in putting up with any of the former makes him too sensitive to be involved in the atheist or skeptic community.

 

[Krikkiter]

You don't seem very silenced to me. I think ending a statement about being triggered with a smug icon deserves moderation. I have no doubt that you'll be banned from atheismplus for your posts here.

Wow. He doesn't seem very silenced to you ... not yet anyway

Unbelievable that someone can be banned for asking questions on another forum. You guys are all class.

Spaces = ... <snip definitions that weren't requested>

If this was A- you'd be banned for deliberately ignoring the real question and answering what you wanted to be asked instead.

 

[Krikkiter]

this part was a bit worrying.

http://skepchick.org/2013/02/objectified/

I want you to think about this the next time you hear Michael Shermer complain that Ophelia Benson’s mild criticism of his words is a “McCarthy-like witch hunt,” or when Paula Kirby complains that she’s being persecuted by feminazis because women are asking for better treatment, or when anyone complains that PZ and others are “Freethought Bullies,” or when anyone complains that I complain too much because once every few months I provide examples of the harassment I receive. Shermer, Kirby, and the others have no idea what it’s like to be hunted and harassed, because “our side,” the people who are speaking out against harassment, don’t do this to them. Michael Shermer isn’t told every day by atheists and skeptics that he’s worth nothing aside from the sexual gratification his body could offer someone. He isn’t told by atheists and skeptics that he deserves to be raped and abused. Atheists and skeptics don’t spend hours drawing images of him in dehumanizing positions. They don’t tell him that they’re going to sexually assault him if they see him at a conference. They don’t tell him he’s too old or fat or ugly to ****. They aren’t so terrified of what he has to say that they’ll do anything they can to silence him. And they don’t tell him that his disinterest in putting up with any of the former makes him too sensitive to be involved in the atheist or skeptic community.

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Anyhoo, no Beccy they don't do those things to Shermer and they don't do them to you either. Well, at least not the way you think they do.

Funny thing though, these "atheists and skeptics" that you say are harassing you... I'm sure you've worked out that when you make yourself accessible through blogs, forums and social media it makes it easier for people to pull you up on your ******** right? But that's where you're stuck isn't it? Your money and fame come from your accessibility.

 

[theprestige]

this part was a bit worrying.

http://skepchick.org/2013/02/objectified/

I want you to think about this the next time you hear Michael Shermer complain that Ophelia Benson’s mild criticism of his words is a “McCarthy-like witch hunt,” or when Paula Kirby complains that she’s being persecuted by feminazis because women are asking for better treatment, or when anyone complains that PZ and others are “Freethought Bullies,” or when anyone complains that I complain too much because once every few months I provide examples of the harassment I receive. Shermer, Kirby, and the others have no idea what it’s like to be hunted and harassed, because “our side,” the people who are speaking out against harassment, don’t do this to them. Michael Shermer isn’t told every day by atheists and skeptics that he’s worth nothing aside from the sexual gratification his body could offer someone. He isn’t told by atheists and skeptics that he deserves to be raped and abused. Atheists and skeptics don’t spend hours drawing images of him in dehumanizing positions. They don’t tell him that they’re going to sexually assault him if they see him at a conference. They don’t tell him he’s too old or fat or ugly to ****. They aren’t so terrified of what he has to say that they’ll do anything they can to silence him. And they don’t tell him that his disinterest in putting up with any of the former makes him too sensitive to be involved in the atheist or skeptic community.

I think that RW is being trolled, plain and simple.

She's not the object of sexist, dehumanizing attacks because of some sexist undercurrent in the skeptic community. She's the object of such attacks because she has drawn attention to herself, and then made it extremely clear exactly what kinds of attention is the most distressing to her.

She's said repeatedly that this kind of treatment bothers her. So naturally the trolls make sure to give her exactly the kind of treatment that bothers her the most. Not because they're sexist, but because they're trolls.

These attacks aren't evidence of sexism. They're evidence of trolls.

I'm sure if Michael Shermer made a huge point of how much pictures of dead puppies bothered him, his inbox would soon be overflowing with pictures of dead puppies. And from this we would certainly not conclude that there was a huge anti-puppy undercurrent in the skeptical community.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Name: John Smith
Email: c375565@rmqkr.net
Comment: Hi Rebecca

http://is.gd/[URL REMOVED] Subject: News Item or Link

Time: Monday February 4, 2013 at 10:04 am
IP Address: 62.75.235.153

Once again , no one seriously condones this kind of thing but remarkable how Ms Watson's telepathic powers tell her that the sender of this email, like the others, was definitely an "atheist and skeptic".
Perhaps she could use her powers to further remotely separate the non believing cranks from the believer cranks.

Or alternatively, handover some evidence to the relevant authorities.

-

Yeah , someone knows this winds her up, they get a very public reaction, and they're pressing the button repeatedly.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yeah , someone knows this winds her up, they get a very public reaction, and they're pressing the button repeatedly.

... thus assuring that there will be more such trolling messages this week and next, giving her material for her next slow news week when she needs to bask in her oppression, again.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

The very thought that someone like Shermer or Dawkins isn't getting serious hate mail is absurd. Her qualifier, of course, is the escape clause. "Yeah, well I said, no one is sexualizing them in the hate mail." No, you guys merely want to see them anally raped with spiny animals on public blogs and forums, so that's not hate mail, that's civil discourse.