Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[jof]

So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?

 

[Quinn]

In a related thread, "Oppressive Vocabulary", they've gone from objecting to the use of Homosexual as a noun (arguments for which I can profess certain agreements with, but which has the hope of a snowball in hell of succeeding), to working on getting rid of "male" and "female".

I will take your word for that, as I've filled my daily quote of people who are unknowingly imitating Mr. Van Driessen from Beavis and Butthead.

I'm just dying to see their version of the OED by the time they're done. It might actually be able to be abridged to a pocket book size.

Not a chance. For every word they eliminate, they invent two or three more, and the new ones are usually longer. "Stupid" is out, but "ablenormativity" is in.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?

To me it looks like the result of too many people revelling in their own percieved intelligence and political correctness, while being unable to see due to their unfortunate habit of wearing their anus as a hat.

 

[theprestige]

The sad thing is, this is actually true.

I fully appreciate the irony.

I'm just dying to see their version of the OED by the time they're done. It might actually be able to be abridged to a pocket book size.

I don't know what they'd call it, though, since 'Oxford', 'English', and 'Dictionary' are all socially unjust words.

So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?

I'm going to go with 'not nearly enough good intentions'.

 

[Nihilus]

I think their engine room is on fire.

This is an incredibly insensitive comment to any water nymphs that may be working there.

 

[Joe Random]

In a related thread, "Oppressive Vocabulary", they've gone from objecting to the use of Homosexual as a noun (arguments for which I can profess certain agreements with, but which has the hope of a snowball in hell of succeeding), to working on getting rid of "male" and "female".

(minor derail, asked as a question, not a challenge)

I'd read that thread and it raised my curiosity, though obviously there's no way in hell a productive discussion could be had over there about it. Since you say you have 'certain agreements' with objections to the noun form of "homosexual", can I ask what those objections to it are? I've known a large number of gay and lesbian people (at one point I worked at a company where I was in the very small heterosexual minority ) and their personal preferences for a term ran the gamut from 'gay' to 'queer' to 'fag', and others all over the map. While it might not have been the term of first choice I don't recall any specifically objecting to "homosexual", absent any other clearly offensive context (e.g. talking about 'the homosexual agenda').

What is it about "homosexual" as a noun that causes offense?

 

[Nihilus]

So A+ has developed an intellectual fragility that has resulted in impotence. Could this have been avoided, or is it the result of too many good intentions?

The idea that any social incongruence must be remedied by forced verbal/emotional affirmative-action from the party who happens to be in a better "beneficial" position at the moment is logically dead on arrival.

It's a huge intellectual and ethical disservice to promote the idea that only with an even playing field for everyone under every remote circumstance can a proper sense of self-worth be built. It's taken the silly, fantastical "you can be anything!" method of supposed morale-bolstering thrust upon kids and made a grown-up version of it.

 

[Nihilus]

What is it about "homosexual" as a noun that causes offense?

The potential for one person, somewhere (hypothetical or not), to find it distasteful.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.

 

[Nihilus]

It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.

Like "human", instead of "human primate".

 

[jof]

The idea that any social incongruence must be remedied by forced verbal/emotional affirmative-action from the party who happens to be in a better "beneficial" position at the moment is logically dead on arrival.

It's a huge intellectual and ethical disservice to promote the idea that only with an even playing field for everyone under every remote circumstance can a proper sense of self-worth be built. It's taken the silly, fantastical "you can be anything!" method of supposed morale-bolstering thrust upon kids and made a grown-up version of it.

So while attacking the dream (" in this wonderful democracy you can be anything") ,arguing for social justice, they are creating a feverish verson of the same internally.?
The "stupid is abelist" idea could take everything to its logical conclution.

 

[Joe Random]

It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.

I can understand that, though it hardly seems specific to homosexual. That could apply to any sort of noun (Bob the footballer, Gina the clerk, Eddie the twice-convicted sex offender). Heck, it could even apply to any of the Pluser's neologisms.

Isn't the (most logical) objection the reduction of a whole person into a single attribute, and not the specific word used to do so? I get it that this isn't necessarily your argument and you're just explaining it, but I'm still at a loss.

 

[Nihilus]

The "stupid is abelist" idea could take everything to its logical conclution.

The false parallel comes with the idea that a factual description of something, if it can be equated with something potentially embarrassing at any moment for that individual, should be amended.

Calling someone an amputee is ableist, then. Calling someone a cancer survivor is ableist as well.

Either that or it is a clever way by which the A+er can one-up themselves in conversation by reverse-trolling in the manner of reverse-ableisting. What I mean here is that, using homosexual as the example, the implication is that the non-A+er already has a (knowingly or not!) demeaning outlook on homosexuals because of being accused of using said term as a noun (creating circular logic); when, in reality, what is happening is that it is the A+er who has interjected the idea of insult where none was in the first place.

Unless you're talking to an obvious homophobe, people in mature discussions don't say "homosexual" as a noun thinking to themselves: "Ha! Although this word is perfect contextually to describe someone in the terms of the discussion we're having, I also subtly get to insult them by turning them into a one-dimensional caricature!" But the A+er sneaks that possibility in as "true" based solely on the fact that: (a) they were able to think of it, and (b) they can conjure up at least a hypothetical person who could find the use of whatever term uncomfortable.

It's like getting roofied a sidecar of argumentum ad hominem when you're not looking.

 

[H'ethetheth]

The false parallel comes with the idea that a factual description of something, if it can be equated with something potentially embarrassing at any moment for that individual, should be amended.

Calling someone an amputee is ableist, then. Calling someone a cancer survivor is ableist as well.

Either that or it is a clever way by which the A+er can one-up themselves in conversation by reverse-trolling in the manner of reverse-ableisting. What I mean here is that, using homosexual as the example, the implication is that the non-A+er already has a (knowingly or not!) demeaning outlook on homosexuals because of being accused of using said term as a noun (creating circular logic); when, in reality, what is happening is that it is the A+er who has interjected the idea of insult where none was in the first place.

Unless you're talking to an obvious homophobe, people in mature discussions don't say "homosexual" as a noun thinking to themselves: "Ha! Although this term is perfect contextually to describe someone in the terms of the discussion we're having, I also subtly get to insult them by turning them into a one-dimensional caricature!" But the A+er sneaks that possibility in as "true" based solely on the fact that: (a) they were able to think of it, and (b) they can conjure up at least a hypothetical person who could find the use of whatever term uncomfortable.

It's like getting roofied a sidecar of argumentum ad hominem when you're not looking.

And what's more, every time you ban some perfectly cromulent word like homosexual or foreigner and supplant it with a non-offensive new word like same-sex or immigrant, the very same bigots that used the previous term as an insult will adopt the new word and use it as an insult or continue to use the old word.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.

I'd originally heard the complaint from a gay activist friend in Hong Kong. (Sanity check: He used the term "gay activist" and I've got to say I still use gay more often than not.... is that in the lexicon at A+, or is my privilege showing?) The same complaint is reiterated in the OP of that thread - that it's an outmoded/outdated term. He/She (the OP) was originally speaking of the word "homosexuality", but the thread morphed into condemnation of both words. I don't go as far as to agree with them on some of the politicization nonsense.... e.g. I don't find "most scientiests" to be conservative and don't find the term to be a dog whistle, either.

Most of the community that I've dealt with (as in "gay community", not A+ community) use "gay", have repatriated "queer", and among friends will often use terms like "queens" and "homos", but I sincerely doubt that they'd take it well if, say, George Will used either of those.

As I said, though, I can see some of the arguments but I really don't come down strongly on their side. I suppose I use either term (homosexual or homosexuality) out of old habit, but having heard from a friend that it's not perceived well, I've tried to avoid them. I wouldn't go so far, though, as to ban their use which, naturally enough, is what's being proposed by the OP over there.

 

[Nihilus]

And what's more, every time you ban some perfectly cromulent word like homosexual or foreigner and supplant it with a non-offensive new word like same-sex or immigrant, the very same bigots that used the previous term as an insult will adopt the new word and use it as an insult or continue to use the old word.

Which shows that our "social justice" soldiers really couldn't care less about helping to promote rationality to where instances of bigotry and stupidity slowly get wiped away on a grand social scale, but would rather wax the uncleaned car by playing linguistic games to assuage the very same pseudo-victimization that they are simultaneously fostering by telling people that they should feel that way.

 

[Wildy]

I'm just dying to see their version of the OED by the time they're done. It might actually be able to be abridged to a pocket book size.

I think you mean Newspeak Wordbook.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

This is exactly it, IMO.

It's not so much that one is demonized for not being 301-level at the A+ forums - it's that having new ideas about where the 301 level discussion should go is off limits.

It's all very sad to me. The political right in today's political environment is reduced to rehashing Reagan-era slogans, and the left is just in a total state of disarray. The skeptical "we" on the left could hash out so much. But that's not what A+ is or does. And I really do think that's unfortunate.

I don't think that politics should be off limits from skepticism; far from it. I think that we could benefit from a healthy, back-and-forth dialog between left-wing and right-wing skeptics.

The sad truth is that skeptics suffer from that same angry "I'm-right-you're-wrong" partisanship that has infected all of US politics, so that any political debate is likely to exacerbate rifts in the movement.

This, of course, is exactly what A+ wants. Setar quotes PZ Myers, and then responds here:

PZ hits the nail on the head in his first post here:

Unfortunately, opening up the skeptic community to actually discussing these topics would lead to Deep Rifts that make the one over religion look insignificant. We’re riddled with wacky libertarians and their worship of the capitalist status quo (or worse, demanding a greater reduction in government and compassion). A libertarian speaker who openly espoused the opinions of a loon like Ron Paul — and there are people in this community who regard him as a saint — would pretty much guarantee a kind of noisy riot in the audience, and lead to a big chunk of organized skepticism decamping in fury.

Which would probably be a good thing.

It would be a good thing, but of course, while it's okay to just ignore all the harassment thrown at the leftists, we can't even consider turning a reality-based spotlight on the libertarians. That's a purge. It's always the right-wingers who have to get a pass on their horrible beliefs. Always.

Seriously, **** that noise. Someone needs to go after Shermer and the libertarians publicly. Otherwise, skepticism is nothing but a bunch of ivory-tower-dwelling privilege defenders =/

 

[Rrose Selavy]

It's using it as a noun rather than an adjective which is seen as problematic, ie describing someone as a homosexual, rather than a homosexual person. I think this is because using it as a noun seems to define the person as that thing and that thing only, rather than it being an attribute the person has.

There was a similar issue among the medical profession where I used to work.
For example, say in a research slide , at a conference or internal meeting, instead of "acromegalics" it would say "patients with acromegaly", or in another field, you might replace "schizophrenics" with "patients with schizophrenia" etc , Still patients, but not completely identified with their condition.
A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .

 

[Quinn]

Which shows that our "social justice" soldiers really couldn't care less about helping to promote rationality to where instances of bigotry and stupidity slowly get wiped away on a grand social scale, but would rather wax the uncleaned car by playing linguistic games to assuage the very same pseudo-victimization that they are simultaneously fostering by telling people that they should feel that way.

Furthermore, it shows that they are in utter, ear-plugging denial of the inescapable reality that human beings like short words, and that this preference is simply a matter of linguistic efficiency rather than aggression and oppression. In casual conversation, we take shortcuts rather than laboriously spelling out every detail when those details aren't relevant to the context, or when we can assume that they'll be understood.

But in the A+ universe, every detail that has ever been used to oppress someone is relevant to every context, and is worthy of being tediously clarified with every utterance; every abbreviation is an act of invalidating or belittling someone's experience and identity; and a charitable interpretation of words that leave even a little room for doubt can never simply be assumed. They're effectively trying to retrofit every identifier and every descriptor with a Seinfeldian "not that there's anything wrong with that."

They seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that most people, most of the time are simply not willing to go to the additional effort of saying "African-American cismale person" when "black guy" will do the job just as well -- especially when the only benefit from that extra effort is avoidance of the microscopic possibility of offending someone, somewhere who might be overhearing the conversation.