Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Krikkiter]

I don't know. I just read on there that the "sociological definition" of racism is quite different from the colloquial, legal and dictionary definitions.
According to "some sociologists", racial bigotry is apparently not racist when the racial bigots are part of the oppressed racial minority. Maybe ceepolk is brown her/him/itself?

It does explain that ridiculous statement by P.Z. Myers that "if you're white, you're racist."

For some reason I thought ceepolk was an overweight black woman.

 

[qayak]

Weren't the two main characters in Pong female? And the supporting character was a one ball man. What more do these psycho-feminists want?!

 

[Mr. Scott]

ceepolk would be a brilliant bond villain. wonder who could play her?

I found ceepolk's picture online. Halle Berry is prettier but has a similar look. Racially, her look is ambiguous. Could be Native American, East Indian, or light African American. Her avatar, brown chicken eggs, indicates what's important to her: skin color and gender.

 

[qayak]

Although the sexual references (abd association with buring virgins to death in giant wicker men) probably means that that's out too.

What a colossal waste of virgins. They are pretty rare these days.

 

[qwints]

And what is it you "win" at the end of the day?

A conclusion about a moral principle.

People often resort to emotional arguments when logical arguments fail. That is not to say that they can never be right if they resort to an emotional argument. Why is it a good thing to just skip the attempt at logical arguments, and appeal only to emotional ones, as so many at A+ do?

Because there are domains where logical arguments are inapplicable, and using them can be alienating.

This is an admission that atheism+ is neither a skeptical or rationalist movement. And from the main topics discussed it isn't even an atheist movement.

Paying attention to emotion is, in fact, necessary for rational behavior. See the Straw Vulcan talk posted above.

I've just googled that thread, and it seems that the received wisdom is that if you're white and you listen to hip-hop, then you're appropriating another culture, which is colonialism and therefore evil.

I don't think that was the consensus of the discussion. The appropriation that occurs is when the music industry chooses to sign and promote white artists performing a style that is otherwise dominated by black artists - Elvis being the classic example. There's a difference between appreciation and appropriation.

 

[H'ethetheth]

For some reason I thought ceepolk was an overweight black woman.

I didn't have any preconceptions, except I imagined she must have strong shoulders to support that massive chip.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

2) why haven't those feminists who are concerned about the industry gone ahead and developed any female friendly games ?

Because whining is always easier than doing.

Pithy as that is - and maybe containing a grain of truth - that's a bit like saying you shouldn't point out backwards hurtful stereotyping in summer blockbuster movies before you've made a summer blockbuster movie yourself.

Changing things on that scale is an uphill battle, but it's getting there.

What is certainly not helping is the maelstrom of bullying and absurdity that is A+. Then again it's just a forum, and the (non)quality of the discussion should be quickly evident to any reader.

 

[bouch]

The problem is that there is a definite issue with gender/sexuality as portrayed in gaming, particularly the poor portrayal of female characters, and the near-complete absence of homosexual ones. There is a whole lot of discussion and debate that is still unresolved, or in some cases barely even started. It's unfortunate that intelligent debate over the issue tends to so often get hijacked or lost in the noise once the SJWs jump in.

I'm not a gamer, so I'm not familiar with a lot of these issues. However, its pretty easy to see the female character portrayal issue (hell, watch "Wreck It Ralph" and see what they made Jane Lynch look like...).

But how do you have an openly homosexual character in a game, unless its a game with overt sexual content? I guess, in simpler terms, how can you tell Mario and Luigi aren't gay?

 

[brodski]

What a colossal waste of virgins. They are pretty rare these days.

Very rare on Summerisle, that's why they had to ship one in special.

 

[brodski]

But how do you have an openly homosexual character in a game, unless its a game with overt sexual content?

Plenty of games have romantic content/ sub-plots, without being overtly sexual.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sorry if this is a bit of a topic change, and the thread "over there" is a bit old, but this really exemplifies Social Justice According to A+.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4127

Rather than making a few keystrokes and signing up (anonymously) to smack down some of the horrid misogynistic comments and victim blaming prejudice, the A+ "Social Justice in Action" solution is to complain to each of your five good buddies in your safe cubbie hole.

This is SJ 301? You sit around and talk about how bad some people are? What the hell does that accomplish? Get off your privileged duffs, sign up as Anonymous7 and give them a piece of your mind. Defend your ground first then expand your territory. Sitting around pissing and moaning is just plain pathetic.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I guess, in simpler terms, how can you tell Mario and Luigi aren't gay?

Of course they are gay; look at their moustaches!

/me heads off to the gay pope thread to point out Ratzinger's lack of tache...

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Of course they are gay; look at their moustaches!

* Professor Yaffle;9069492 heads off to the gay pope thread to point out Ratzinger's lack of tache...

off topic but hilarious...

A day ahead of the papal conclave, faces at the scandal-struck Vatican were even redder than usual after it emerged that the Holy See had purchased a €23 million (£21 million) share of a Rome apartment block that houses Europe’s biggest gay sauna.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...23m-building-with-huge-gay-sauna-8529670.html

 

[zooterkin]

One of the great things about music is that when people appropriate styles and do it well it creates diversity. Elvis though? Hmmm... imho he took something that was cool, organic and creative and made it into something that was gaudy Hollywood crap and made lots of money out of it. That only happened because he was white. He perverted something and made money.

The Hollywood crap came later in his career, after he left the Army. His early recordings were a lot closer to the black music it was derived from, though even that was sanitised to some extent, but it was music that he loved. Get hold of the Sun Sessions, if you haven't already heard them. The unfortunate fact is that American society at the time did not allow for black performers to succeed in the mainstream. Elvis succeeded, initially, because he sounded black but was white.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

A conclusion about a moral principle.

What "moral principle"? That people can be manipulated? That's not morality, that's marketing.

Because there are domains where logical arguments are inapplicable, and using them can be alienating.

I agree that there are certain aspects of argument that are not logical. If you have an audience that responds better to emotion, you should appeal to their emotions. But you can have both good logic and good rhetoric; you can appeal to emotions and still make a logical argument. In fact, I think that an argument that appeals on both levels is often the most persuasive argument you can make.

Paying attention to emotion is, in fact, necessary for rational behavior. See the Straw Vulcan talk posted above.

Yes, for setting goals. But not for achieving goals. Use the right tools for the job at hand, etc...

When you give your reasons for believing a thing, for why you are doing a thing...those should not be based on emotion, in my opinion.

I don't think that was the consensus of the discussion. The appropriation that occurs is when the music industry chooses to sign and promote white artists performing a style that is otherwise dominated by black artists - Elvis being the classic example. There's a difference between appreciation and appropriation.

What is that difference, though? That's sounds like a matter of opinion. How do you decide whether or not the artist is showing respect? "My rapper appreciates hip-hop, but yours is just pretending to be black!"

 

[s_pepys]

Paying attention to emotion is, in fact, necessary for rational behavior. See the Straw Vulcan talk posted above.

indeed. paying attention to your emotions in the context of a debate or discussion is a good thing to do in order to keep them in check.
you have to constantly be on guard to make sure your emotions dont skew your opinions on the subject at hand imo. its difficult, sometimes impossible, but there it is.

also, it seems to me you have subtly changed your argument to "paying attention" to your emotions for rational "behaviour"?

 

[RebeccaBradley]

I don't know. I just read on there that the "sociological definition" of racism is quite different from the colloquial, legal and dictionary definitions.
According to "some sociologists", racial bigotry is apparently not racist when the racial bigots are part of the oppressed racial minority. Maybe ceepolk is brown her/him/itself?

It does explain that ridiculous statement by P.Z. Myers that "if you're white, you're racist."

That definition (Racism = Prejudice + Power) comes out of Critical Race Theory, which has pretty much taken over large swaths of sociology and ethnic relations studies. Everyone with a white skin is both privileged and a racist. Anyone with any other version of skin is a victim, and entitled (in fact, obligated) to be furious about it. There is also the feminist version, in which possession of a penis substitutes for possession of white skin. At the cost of (yet again) appearing to self-promote blatantly, I've recently written about this on Skeptic Ink: http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2013/03/08/chuck-your-privilege/

A side-note: I've lived quite a bit of my life abroad, in countries with nonwhite majorities, and it's a big, messy world. The sort of analysis found in CRT is outrageously ethnocentric, based on a certain reading of the North American past; and I see the attempt to generalize it to the rest of the world as a kind of postcolonial neocolonialism.

 

[kbonn]

People often resort to emotional arguments when logical arguments fail. That is not to say that they can never be right if they resort to an emotional argument. Why is it a good thing to just skip the attempt at logical arguments, and appeal only to emotional ones, as so many at A+ do?

Because there are domains where logical arguments are inapplicable, and using them can be alienating.

BS. The way arguments are put forth can be alienating. Conclusions can be cold and still be right. There are very few instances where logical arguments are inapplicable.

Just as we shouldn't abandon emotion completely for logic,(Straw Vulcan), we shouldn't completely abandon logic completely for emotion.

Great example. Setar claims speaking about "The economy" erases people, and we shouldn't talk about it in that sense or use the term. This was said in a thread about economics!

Sounds legit? Or is logic inapplicable in a discussion about the economy?
Setar has made many choices in Xir life, including NOT going to therapy for Xis issues,(because Xe doesn't trust them, and/or thinks they are secretly reporting to xir parents), dropping out of college(which is understandable, given the issues present, but it doesn't seem like Xe has made any steps towards reconciling these issues.

Setar then uses xir situation,(part-time, unskilled labor work that doesn't pay well), to rail against the "system" that put xir there. Setar also manages to play a lot of skyrim in xir time off and claims that xe is 'gifted'. It would seem to me, that the logical thing to do would to attempt either school part time, or some other program in order to learn a skill which can lead to better employment prospects. Instead, Setar uses xir emotional arguments in regard to any discussion based on economics/minimum wage/whatever.

I have no issue discussing what sort of welfare people in poverty should receive, or what the minimum wage rate should be(I personally think it is much too low in the US), but that doesn't change the fact that part time, unskilled labor will always be at the bottom of the pay scale.
When you do work that a 16 year old can do on summer break, you are going to make the minimum.

 

[s_pepys]

That definition (Racism = Prejudice + Power) comes out of Critical Race Theory, which has pretty much taken over large swaths of sociology and ethnic relations studies. Everyone with a white skin is both privileged and a racist. Anyone with any other version of skin is a victim, and entitled (in fact, obligated) to be furious about it. There is also the feminist version, in which possession of a penis substitutes for possession of white skin. At the cost of (yet again) appearing to self-promote blatantly, I've recently written about this on Skeptic Ink: http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2013/03/08/chuck-your-privilege/

A side-note: I've lived quite a bit of my life abroad, in countries with nonwhite majorities, and it's a big, messy world. The sort of analysis found in CRT is outrageously ethnocentric, based on a certain reading of the North American past; and I see the attempt to generalize it to the rest of the world as a kind of postcolonial neocolonialism.

good article. cheers.

 

[Stout]

Pithy as that is - and maybe containing a grain of truth - that's a bit like saying you shouldn't point out backwards hurtful stereotyping in summer blockbuster movies before you've made a summer blockbuster movie yourself.

Changing things on that scale is an uphill battle, but it's getting there.

Why would such a project need to be in the blockbuster league when it could be done in the independent film class and succeed on the merits that drove the genesis of the project in the first place?

IOW why not give the consumers the opportunity to vote with their dollars as a wake up call to the established industry ?

What is certainly not helping is the maelstrom of bullying and absurdity that is A+. Then again it's just a forum, and the (non)quality of the discussion should be quickly evident to any reader.

IMO A+ is a good thing for the skeptical community as it presents a first hand look at the kind of thinking that goes on in SJW circles. As a for instance, take yesterday's pile on christo thread where one poster decries the use of the word "crackhead" as being racist ( apparently most crack users are black, who knew ? ) with nary another poster questioning that analysis.

Then we have Setar getting all bent out of shape over being misgendered expecting everybody to know what his avatar is and actually read his sig line. Setar, you know, that guy who calls himself lordsetar on twitter. For some strange reason Pearl Jam's Jeremy pops into my head whenever I see lordsetar. King Jeremy the wicked...ruled his world...........

Speaking of setar he also goes on about newcomers to an exiting community and how those new comers should bend to the will of the existing culture. I wonder what his views on immigration, assimilation and multiculturalism are ?

Then we have the "we're not calling you a racist, just saying your words are racist" which eerily echoes the Christian love the sinner but hate the sin schitck along with a healthy dose of "we're not trying to hurt you, we're trying to help you".

All wrapped up in a neat package