Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

I've certainly see that happen, but I think there's a real effort to talk about helpful or harmful words and actions rather than about good or bad people.

I don't see how advocating, for example, reasonable accommodation is equivalent to intentionally reducing someone else's abilities. Seeking to reduce the effects of system discrimination isn't actually an attack on the people enjoying the benefits of that discrimination. I also don't understand your use of "subversive" or "wishful", or see anything on the atheismplus forums that talks about people's feeling of inadequacy next to someone else's "exceptionalism."

qwints, you seemed focused on the process when the problem, IMO, has more to do with the paradigm. The process is driven by the in-group out-group dynamics.

Here at JREF a proponent of psychics or a proponent of UFO abductions are not assumed per se wrong. There is no truth commission or predetermined subjects beyond the illegal and obscene that are declared or assumed wrong by those who moderate.

We are asked to be civil and polite. That's all. The process we object to is one driven by presupposition.

 

[Nihilus]

"Harrison Bergeron"?

Bingo.

 

[Nihilus]

I don't see how advocating, for example, reasonable accommodation is equivalent to intentionally reducing someone else's abilities.

It isn't...in theory. However, these issues are always inevitably weighed with the concern over the "psychological effects" of disproportion onto the less-abled.

And what you are describing above, to someone with a critically analytical assessment, has nothing to do with equality at all.

Seeking to reduce the effects of system discrimination isn't actually an attack on the people enjoying the benefits of that discrimination.

Again, not in theory. But human history shows us that we, as a species, are not sated when things balance out, but instead by some compensatory system of perceived reparations to whatever parts of our psyche we self-diagnose as wounded from the presumed oppressive forces.

This itself is because anti-intellectualism has left people crippled in the capacity to realize when demonization of the exceptional does not really mean purposeful equality.

I also don't understand your use of "subversive" or "wishful", or see anything on the atheismplus forums that talks about people's feeling of inadequacy next to someone else's "exceptionalism."

Perhaps you've never seen the word "privilege" used?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Noticed the TAM banner at top of every page shows the Key speaker and 50% of other major speakers are er.....female.
Co incidence or not, suspect that certain people are not going to give them any credit or even positive mention -

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Noticed the TAM banner at top of every page shows the Key speaker and 50% of other major speakers are er.....female.
Co incidence or not, suspect that certain people are not going to give them any credit or even positive mention -

It's been this way for the past several TAMs. IIRC, 2-3 years ago, female speakers were actually > 50%.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

It's been this way for the past several TAMs. IIRC, 2-3 years ago, female speakers were actually > 50%.

but how do they get them all into the hotel elevator?:

 

[kbonn]

One of the largest issues I have with the A+/FtB is that they forever brand PEOPLE as racist/sexist/whatever, without considering the above. The other being that once, branded, you are forever the enemy.

We have all said something stupid or without thought to how it affects certain groups we are largely ignorant about. That doesn't always and forever make someone a racist, misogynist, etc...

That's a valid criticism. People at atheismplus can be too quick to label others, but I've also seen people make an effort to talk about the words as problematic without attacking the person. I don't have much sympathy for people who refuse to consider how something they've said could be hurtful, and instead focus on defending themselves.

The issue here, is that often times, when you are critical of someone in pointing out how what they said is racist, to the other person it sounds/feels like you are calling THEM a racist. How does that work? Intent isn't magic? Stepping on my toes?

Isn't it more important that it sounds to me like you just called me a racist? It doesn't matter what you said, all that matters is that it triggered me. Perhaps I come from a family of racist and have struggled my whole life to be better than that. Of course, everyone falls short in some instances, but why is me being offended or hurt at you "calling me a racist" any less important than whatever perceived insult I accidently (INTENT IS NOT ACTUALLY MAGIC) dropped on someone else?

There are many examples that all that matters is in group/out group.

For example. Poking fun at M. Night Shyamalan's name. Gets called racist by someone. Defended by mods as not racist. Eventually admitted to be racist. The first/normal reaction to the accusation is to defend it as not racist. After all, if it was racist, why would you say it?

 

[RandFan]

I also don't understand your use of "subversive" or "wishful", or see anything on the atheismplus forums that talks about people's feeling of inadequacy next to someone else's "exceptionalism."

Perhaps you've never seen the word "privilege" used?

Agreed.

 

[kbonn]

I have long suspected that many of the oppressive customs against women in religion and elsewhere were well meaning but misguided attempts to 'protect women'.

I dont think you know how right you are.

I think that many feminists are now doing the same thing. In fact, that is one of the big issues for many on the anti-FtB/A+ side. Many of the things the FtB/A+ people want assumes that the(a) woman can't make an educated decision on her own. Or can't succeed on their own, despite women largely moving into many well paying jobs and even becoming the majority in many. For example, being a vet is now commonly looked at as more of a "woman's job" where as 50 years ago, it was almost exclusively men.

Women are entering STEM fields, just not all of them, and not at the same rate. Hey guess what? Many of the people who would have gone into STEM in the last 20-30 years went into finance instead, because MONEY.

 

[ponderingturtle]

but how do they get them all into the hotel elevator?:

They ban coffee.

 

[qwints]

RandFan, would you mind explicitly stating the problem that has to do with paradigm? I've said before that I'm glad that open forums that provide a clean slate for discussion exist.

And what you are describing above, to someone with a critically analytical assessment, has nothing to do with equality at all.

What is a "critically analytical assessment"? Reasonable accomodation laws seem 1)intended to allow more equal access to society; and 2) have the effect of enabling people to participate in society who otherwise wouldn't be able to. Thus, I'm at a loss to understand your bare assertion that reasonable accommodation has nothing to do with equality.

But human history shows us

Again, this kind of statement doesn't actually justify anything.

demonization of the exceptional does not really mean purposeful equality.
....
Perhaps you've never seen the word "privilege" used?

I don't think the world "privilege" in a sociological context has anything to do with "demonization of the exceptional." Look, for example, at "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" Those elements of white privilege have nothing to do with individual exceptionalism.

 

[Kochanski]

but how do they get them all into the hotel elevator?:

Bigger question is how does anyone get into the elevator at the South Point when the BMXers finish their races. It is madness I tell you

 

[luchog]

"Harrison Bergeron"?

This thread is increasingly bringing to mine one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes, referring to the same sort of mentality exhibited by the APlussers and their supporters (albeit the SJWs of his time tended to be more overtly religious).

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

 

[Foolmewunz]

qwints, you seemed focused on the process when the problem, IMO, has more to do with the paradigm. The process is driven by the in-group out-group dynamics.

Here at JREF a proponent of psychics or a proponent of UFO abductions are not assumed per se wrong. There is no truth commission or predetermined subjects beyond the illegal and obscene that are declared or assumed wrong by those who moderate.

We are asked to be civil and polite. That's all. The process we object to is one driven by presupposition.

Bolded Part: Be still, my leaky heart! Oh, if that were true. We have a number of voices who call for reasonable discussions but just as on A+, we have an equal number who just simply HAVE TO be the first to call out the woo or sock-puppet or JAQ-off. We're very adept at dog-piling here but our moderation tries to rein us in and will not, usually, take part in the beat down.

 

[Foolmewunz]

They ban coffee.

Hissssssss! Die, heretic!

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Wow, my limited experience with Shermer in person is that he is a little shy and eager to please; completely the opposite of callous and pretentious.

Yeah, for somebody to say that about Shermer is madness. Those morons should spend more time attacking him. The guy has more charisma in his pinky finger than they have in their entire frowny-face, angry-at-the-world bodies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From a comment on the Skeptchic Reddit post

Eh? JREF over run by Objectivists? Presumably it was a different Michael Shermer who wrote about the Cult of Ayn Rand?

Interesting comment. The JREF, no, but Shermer does have a whole book on unbridled Libertarianism being the hope of humankind.

 

[adamwho]

Interesting comment. The JREF, no, but Shermer does have a whole book on unbridled Libertarianism being the hope of humankind.

There is a huge spectrum of libertarianism (from classical liberal to tea party).

 

[Rrose Selavy]

There is a huge spectrum of libertarianism (from classical liberal to tea party).

Penn Gillette is a very open Libertarian but his assoc with JREF is mostly
at TAM as far as I can see, being close magician friends with Randi.
Described as an Objectivist on his wiki article, but even if it were true that hardly makes JREF "over run" with them. Not even sure if he would identify with the label.

 

[WillyWonka]

Penn Gillette is a very open Libertarian but his assoc with JREF is mostly
at TAM as far as I can see, being close magician friends with Randi.
Described as an Objectivist on his wiki article, but even if it were true that hardly makes JREF "over run" with them. Not even sure if he would identify with the label.

The issue is whether or not this is important. Skepticism by itself does not carry a political colour. Unfortunately, A+ does, and as such require that any followers to buy into their ideology. This is why this created the rift from the beginning, especially with Carrier's "you-are-with-us-or-you-are-against-us" manifesto. So what if Penn Jillette or Shermer are libertarians; those are political options, not not theist or skeptic ones.