Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Foolmewunz]

As I've mentioned before in this thread, the A+ position on the paramount authority of personal experience already rules out any sort of pro-atheism advocacy, though I'm not sure any of them have actually realized that yet. It's not only a matter of taking offense. Once less-privileged theists learn to truthfully say "I feel that billboard with the pro-atheist message is nullifying my personal experiences" instead of "it offends me," the A+ faction can no longer condone the billboard without obvious hypocrisy.

It would be ironic if instead, they of all people ended up agreeing with my own position on theism, which is that it should be considered primarily a matter of personal experience, rather than primarily as a matter of belief in (let alone the actual truth of) particular narratives. On that level neither their atheism nor anyone else's theism can be challenged (though specific practices associated with theism or atheism can still be challenged on various bases). Maybe they'd be happy with that; if so, it would actually be very consistent with the rest of their discourse, if not with their name.

But otherwise, they have a problem. Ask my developmentally disabled twin brother where God is, and he'll put his hand over his own chest and say "in here." Any A+ atheist who wants to dispute the truth of that without blatant ableism is welcome to try. If they claim to know better than him because they're more intelligent, better educated, more versed in spotting logical fallacies, or whatever, I can tell them, based firmly on their own principles, to go insert deceased quilled fauna into their ableist-privilege-smeared orifices.

These problems (or insights, depending on how you view them) don't occur if the discussion stays at the level of what can be shown scientifically to be overwhelmingly likely or unlikely. In other words, skepticism. But they're the ones that seem to want to assess ideas on the basis of personal experiences instead.

Respectfully,
Myriad

This would be appropriate if we were discussing a normal group of people wanting to discuss ideas. This is not a normal group of people in that sense. You, as an outsider, will be trumped by "someone we know better" who gets hives if religion is mentioned, so any personal experiences anyone from outside of the clique brings are worthless. This allows them to stake out any position by merely getting there first with a few of their walking talking emoticons and claiming the trump value of THEIR personal experiences.

In their strange Orwellian world, this is how policy is formed.

 

[Krikkiter]

I find it infinitely preferable to what preceded it.

Yeah I suppose I'd agree. Thing is, I don't think an apology was necessary from Hall but in the end it got the job done. Or did it?

Amy responded by reiterating her points about atheist/skeptic rape and physical violence threats and then some bloke called Steve Novella backed her up (doubled down if you will). Where are these threats of physical violence? How do we know they come from Atheists and skeptics? Apparently the police aren't interested. Why not? My guess is a combination of making **** up and not credible.

Clearly, Hall is mostly interested in sorting things out and moving on, whereas not-so-surly Amy and the rest - including Peezus Myers are more interested in using the exchange as a launch pad for more internet drama.

And the reason I cringed is because Hall showed maturity, sensibility and humility whereas Amy tried but came across as someone desperately trying to play with the big girls and failing miserably.

 

[jhunter1163]

Indeed. As far as I'm concerned, there is no right not to be offended. I want to have the right to say offensive things, and I think people should have the right to offend me.

It's as they say - it's easy to be an advocate of free speech, as long as you're defending speech you agree with. It's defending the right of people to say things that you find abhorrent that's indicative of truly believing in free speech.

I agree fully. To quote myself, "Politically-correct, well-meaning, popular censorship is still censorship". We allow all manner of offensive speech here, and I think that the forum is a better resource because of it; to show exactly why Holocaust denial and 9/11 truth and crackpot conspiracy theories are wrong is a valuable service. Better that than simply declaring the topics off-limits and banning those that espouse them.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So Setar referenced the now locked thread in their new thread about philosophers.

y'all who love to venerate dead dusty philosophers for giving us the arguments behind our struggles for equality? you've got some serious privilege issues. namely, the implicit racist sexist classism in saying that these were handed down from on high by privileged philosophers, that it had to come from the Humes and Lockes, that the people in the actual *********** struggles can't think of these things for themselves.

and then there was this thread, which was like...an exercise in detaching ourselves from the real problems. 'cause erasing the real suffering and real effects of not pursuing social justice is The Rational Way, yo. and more of this amazing detachment is good even though it's detached privilege blindness that causes all the *********** problems in the first place.

meanwhile people like me just look up at the shiny ivory tower and wonder if the overlords will give us solutions or if we have to just start *********** pushing.

give me a break. stop venerating these guys who got their words written down. not everyone reads them. I'm a socialist who hasn't read Marx, because it wasn't Marx's words that convinced me, it was looking at the *********** real world and trying to figure out solutions. I got to where I am by looking at actions and effects, not words and postulations.

so why the **** do we, in our amazing commitment to reality-based discussion, keep venerating the words and postulations so much? and for that matter, why do we keep acting like the words and postulations we like were handed down on high by some uber-privileged guys and venerating those uber-privileged guys as if no one else could possibly come up with the same basic principles?

Linky.

There are so many things wrong. Let's start with the obvious: people don't venerate philosophers. How much did anyone learn about Locke or Hume other their key arguments from their most famous books? I'm guessing absolutely nothing.

But another key point is that so much of A+ philosophy is based on... philosophy. The concepts of privilege, classism, rights, etc. did not arise from the ether. People developed these concepts to understand the real world. And especially with rights theory people are only too happy to point out that the thing they are describing existed long before the written theory.

It is funny not reading Marx is bragged about (hint, many socialists haven't read his books), because he wrote a book entitled The Poverty of Philosophy! Of course, his critique was different.

In fact, let's go further. Marx's view was that oppression in society can be traced to capitalism. A few decades ago, a new philosophy was brought out that removed classism as the anchor and brought it under the umbrella of "oppression". Thus the A+ supporters stand on the shoulders of old, white, cisgender males .

I'm not quite sure what the anti-philosophy rants are in response to. Certainly if anyone is engaging in pointless "angels on the the head of a needle" philosophising I think many of us would agree it is the A+ supporters.

The post first linked to states this:

…no. no. it doesn’t work like that. people don’t just read Locke or Mill or Rousseau and then magically wake up and realize “hey, I must be suffering”. people suffer. when they suffer, they look for why. and yes, some of them turn to amazing philosophers like the aforementioned, or Hume, or Russell, or others.

on the other hand, some turn to feminist writers such as bell hooks. some turn to Marx, some to Malcolm X.

and some turn to Rand. some turn to the ravings of Ron and Rand Paul. some turn to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones.

and in those writings and speeches they find words that appear to explain the root cause of their suffering (regardless of whether they actually do). they find “philosophy” that they agree with and push as the solution to problems (regardless of whether the solutions actually work).

but the words are not why they’re searching and fighting. they search and fight not because of the words of some long-dead philosopher, but because they are suffering in the real world due to the effects of what they fight against. and it was the very institutions they fought against that granted most of these dusty old philosophers the privilege to have their words made immortal, with a yawning silence (to us) coming from those who weren’t as privileged as the Lockes and Humes and Rousseaus of the world.

Linky.

The problem is practically spelled out for us. Without philosophy and proper thought we can spin in any number of directions to try to change our suffering.

 

[qayak]

And the reason I cringed is because Hall showed maturity, sensibility and humility whereas Amy tried but came across as someone desperately trying to play with the big girls and failing miserably.

^^^This^^^

That's always been my impression of RW, too. Someone trying desperately to run with the big dog skeptics and knowing it is only a matter of time before people start pointing out she's a mere chihuahua.

RW knew people didn't think much of her and her switching from Skepchick to FauxFemChick was just her jumping ship before she was pushed overboard.

To the skeptic community, losing RW/Surly Amy/PZ Myers has the same impact that losing a tricycle would have on a fish.

 

[Myriad]

This would be appropriate if we were discussing a normal group of people wanting to discuss ideas. This is not a normal group of people in that sense. You, as an outsider, will be trumped by "someone we know better" who gets hives if religion is mentioned, so any personal experiences anyone from outside of the clique brings are worthless. This allows them to stake out any position by merely getting there first with a few of their walking talking emoticons and claiming the trump value of THEIR personal experiences.

In their strange Orwellian world, this is how policy is formed.

Well, no, I wasn't planning on taking that or any other argument to their forums or blogs. Nothing has happened to alter my previous advice on that from upthread: for the love of humanity, leave them alone.

But if they aspire to be activists, sooner or later they must make their case outside their inner sanctums. Perhaps here, or if not here, whatever venue they regard as more important than here. If they do, that's one of many arguments they'll need to be able to address.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A Marxist on oppression olympics from the Obama/Hillary primary:

By the way, though I'm not going to go into it much here, the theory of identity politics is really a product of academic post-modernism. They theory defines itself as a post-Marxist theory, and in reality, it's an anti-Marxist theory. So I just want to make it clear that this defense of Marxism isn't coming out of the blue, but as a defense against an anti-Marxist theory.

...

This is a very important fact, and it's ignored by identity politics--that you don't have to personally experience a form of oppression to be able to actively oppose it. This very important fact hasn't been taken into consideration at all, because the central premise of the theory of identity politics is that only those who experience a particular form of oppression are capable of fighting against it--that, generally speaking, everybody else is part of the problem and therefore can't be part of the solution, and when you come right down to it, all men benefit from women's oppression, all straight people benefit from gay oppression, and all whites benefit from racism.

...

WHAT ALL these examples show is that there is no such thing as a common, fundamental interest shared by all people who face the same form of oppression. Oppression is not caused by the race, gender or sexuality of particular individuals who run the system, but is generated by the very system itself--no matter who's running it.

It goes without saying that we want to confront sexism, racism and homophobia wherever it happens. But that alone is not going to change the system.

The flip side of the theory of identity politics, which places all straight white men in the enemy camp, is equally problematic--because the entire element of social class is missing from the analysis.

Linky.

The social construction of racism by those in power centuries ago in order to justify slavery is absent in this analysis.

Instead, racism is conceived as a sort of ideological cancer of no clear origin that metastasizes in all white people, regardless of what they do, think or say. And like a dystopic nightmare, there’s no way out.

Third, according to her “white privilege” argument, there are no distinctions between whites in positions of power and the majority without. In fact, there’s no accounting for how a Black president could preside over a racist system in which a Latino man has killed a Black man and was let off by a mostly white police force led by a Black police chief.

She refers to “the system,” but has no class outlook in which to analyze how the system works and in whose interests. Because if all white people benefit— which includes the majority of people on food stamps, on unemployment and living in poverty in the United States — then these benefits are rather illusory, aren’t they?

...

Worse, it’s often counter-productive because by reducing racism to bad ideas and telling all whites they’re beneficiaries, the privilege argument demands ordinary white people relinquish privileges that they do not have, rather than unite to win what’s been stolen from all of us.

Perhaps the most telling thing about this “white privilege” argument is that many radicals have had their sights for justice set so low that it has come to be thought of as a privilege not to be gunned down in the night on a snack errand while wearing a hoodie because of the color of your skin. Isn’t that simply a human right?

Linky.

As for "lived experiences", I just attended my cousin's birthday party. My grandmother was in attendance (this is the bourgeoisie side of the family). She has the lived experience of being a poor Pollack living on the South Side. She is also incredibly racist and classist. In some anti-SJ jiu-jitsu move she uses her experience of people treating her like crap for her nationality and poverty to treat other people like crap for those same things. I don't get it, but it is sort of understandable. But I would love to see what the A+ people would make of her .

 

[recursive prophet]

To the skeptic community, losing RW/Surly Amy/PZ Myers has the same impact that losing a tricycle would have on a fish.

I think (hope) a better analogy would be more like a ten year old losing a tricycle when he has long ago moved on to a two-wheeler like most normal kids.

 

[theprestige]

So Setar referenced the now locked thread in their new thread about philosophers.



Linky.

Wow. Setar is insane. I'd ask, "what same basic postulates?", but it's obvious she hasn't read the thread, read the philosophers in question, come up with any basic postulates of her own, or compared them to anyone else's in any meaningful or skeptical way.

 

[Quinn]

y'all who love to venerate dead dusty philosophers for giving us the arguments behind our struggles for equality? you've got some serious...

Oh please oh please oh please let him say "'splainin' to do."

...privilege issues.

Drat!!!

 

[Foolmewunz]

I suppose someone else has mentioned it, but it strikes me that A+ is guilty of the anti-intellectual trend that's so common lately in those communities where book learnin' is evidently frowned upon. It's much more common among the right wing, but it's not unheard of on the left. I remember many a coffee shop radical in my day who disparaged the ivory tower revolutionary intellectuals. That's why Che became so popular among the Little Red Book crowd.

I do think it's absolutely precious (if not precocious as he/she wants us to think) that Setar didn't learn no socialism from no damned books. Got it right from the streets and the harsh reality of life on earth, oh yeah! Uh, if one is addressing a group of people who never leave their house or computer screen and can't function ITRW if, say, it's a cloudy day, then where are those folks going to get their experiences? Simple. They're not. They're going to read Setar and he/she thus becomes the new "musty old philosopher" to be eschewed. Frankly, you get better philosophy watching reruns of Tangerine and Cow* on the CN.

*One of the greatest shows in history!

 

[Krikkiter]

I think (hope) a better analogy would be more like a ten year old losing a tricycle when he has long ago moved on to a two-wheeler like most normal kids.

For me it's more like working out how the Black Plague was spread. But that's just me.

 

[d4m10n]

Two things:

1) I suspect the vast majority of people in the "skeptic community" (assuming there even is such a thing) have no idea any of this is going on. I've met lots of skeptics at SitP events, who have never heard of TAM, and many who have never heard of Randi (mostly younger people). Skepticism exists separate from TAM and the JREF.

2) The A+/Skepchick/#FTBullies are a rather small echo chamber...errr...group of people. They don't have the influence you may think they do. Most of their online supporters are people who would never come to TAM or NECSS anyhow.

This is absolutely spot on. I'm socially active within a fairly large atheist group (a few hundred active members) and maybe 5% of them have any clue about this ******** drama, and most all of those who have are actively producing content online.

For example, I asked the folks at lunch today whether they are going to the new improved TAM, and only one of them had any idea what I was talking about.

 

[recursive prophet]

For me it's more like working out how the Black Plague was spread. But that's just me.

Oh I kind of doubt they have had very much impact. Most of their audience now are guests curios about the slow motion logic train wreck. Note PZ never mentions the site and only posted there 3 times after he first joined in October and nada since. Only one ambiguous and brief mention on his blogs. Now they've driven off any who challenged their 'experiential authority' with statistical evidence-scisplaining-even they are becoming bored with all the preening. It is now down to about a dozen founders still attempting to maintain the Potemkin address page, to keep the lights on. I'll miss them. The strut of irrelevance sews the pomp of vainglorious self delusion. Alas they will soon be forgotten.

I think Sybil-ironic nick choice there-may have created a kind of meme for A+ with this comment: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70618#p70618

"See, setting up that contrast, where stupid is the opposite of smart, really doesn't reassure me. That is still reinforcing the idea that "stupid" is bad and "smart" is good.

Perish the thought. Maybe smart is bad and stupid is good, eh qwint? Can't really trust those left wing intellectuals like you. I know you're a lot smarter than me, but a 70 I have over 4 decades of that authority enabling experience on you. It worked for Bush, twice. But I suspect you're too open minded for the A+ clique. I imagine ceepolk describes it as airheaded in the secret forum, you being a privileged white boy and all with little experience to enhance your authority. How dare you question a high priestess like Setar?! It's blasphemy!

 

[jhunter1163]

I'm sorry, but I can't take these people seriously with all the spoiler tags and little editorial comments on them. Plus this little gem from Sybil:

See, that's another great thing about jettisoning slurs. Your vocabulary is expanded and your language is more precise.

Does not follow. There are times when "stupid" is exactly what I want to say.

Come on over, A-Plussers. I promise not to do anything like edit a typo in one of your posts so you get an AutoModAction PM and shut down for two days. I swear I won't do that. Really.

 

[theprestige]

So I'm beginning to feel that for me, personally, just snarking at the worst behavior of the worst behavers has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Going forward, I'm going to try to focus more on "what is A+ actually doing?"

To that end, I'm keeping an eye on the A+ subforums that actually focus on deeds, not words:

Organization, activism and charity

Well. There's only the one subforum, really, but it does have a few threads in it.

 

[Krikkiter]

Oh I kind of doubt they have had very much impact. Most of their audience now are guests curios about the slow motion logic train wreck. Note PZ never mentions the site and only posted there 3 times after he first joined in October and nada since. Only one ambiguous and brief mention on his blogs. Now they've driven off any who challenged their 'experiential authority' with statistical evidence-scisplaining-even they are becoming bored with all the preening. It is now down to about a dozen founders still attempting to maintain the Potemkin address page, to keep the lights on. I'll miss them. The strut of irrelevance sews the pomp of vainglorious self delusion. Alas they will soon be forgotten.

I think Sybil-ironic nick choice there-may have created a kind of meme for A+ with this comment: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70618#p70618

"See, setting up that contrast, where stupid is the opposite of smart, really doesn't reassure me. That is still reinforcing the idea that "stupid" is bad and "smart" is good.

Perish the thought. Maybe smart is bad and stupid is good, eh qwint? Can't really trust those left wing intellectuals like you. I know you're a lot smarter than me, but a 70 I have over 4 decades of that authority enabling experience on you. It worked for Bush, twice. But I suspect you're too open minded for the A+ clique. I imagine ceepolk describes it as airheaded in the secret forum, you being a privileged white boy and all with little experience to enhance your authority. How dare you question a high priestess like Setar?! It's blasphemy!

Stoopidity (or is that smartness), like the above will never be forgotten. They really are a wealth of hilarity. Thanks for that.

 

[Krikkiter]

So I'm beginning to feel that for me, personally, just snarking at the worst behavior of the worst behavers has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Going forward, I'm going to try to focus more on "what is A+ actually doing?"

To that end, I'm keeping an eye on the A+ subforums that actually focus on deeds, not words:

Organization, activism and charity

Well. There's only the one subforum, really, but it does have a few threads in it.

Ummmm yeah, no offense meant but good luck with that.

The Great Box-cutter Incident was a good example of their activism. That turned out well for them.

 

[jhunter1163]

So I'm beginning to feel that for me, personally, just snarking at the worst behavior of the worst behavers has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Going forward, I'm going to try to focus more on "what is A+ actually doing?"

To that end, I'm keeping an eye on the A+ subforums that actually focus on deeds, not words:

Organization, activism and charity

Well. There's only the one subforum, really, but it does have a few threads in it.

And I'd bet there haven't been 20 posts in it this month.

ETA: I'd be wrong. 34 posts this month, but half of them were in the "Another Big Organization ***** Up" thread, which is mostly about how an autism charity messed up.

 

[theprestige]

Ummmm yeah, no offense meant but good luck with that.

The Great Box-cutter Incident was a good example of their activism. That turned out well for them.

Oh? Tell me more!

And I'd bet there haven't been 20 posts in it this month.

ETA: I'd be wrong. 34 posts this month, but half of them were in the "Another Big Organization ***** Up" thread, which is mostly about how an autism charity messed up.

They do have a thread about an actual charity project they were going to undertake, but it kind of fizzled.

Apparently they had voted to implement one of a number of options, and then somehow got bogged down in having to select one of a number of options all over again. Rather than having a second vote to specify the specifics of the specific they'd specified with the first vote, they just gave up.

Other than that, there have been a few petitions posted, and I seem to recall somebody was totally facebooking an issue. Oh, and of course the complaints about some other charity screwing up.