Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

A+ was always about decrying white/male/cis yada yada privilige, that's what a social justice safe space is all about.

The only acceptable way to criticize the way brown people do things is to frame it in such a way that they "have" to do it because the west is making them. Iran want's nuclear weapons ?? only to defend themselves from the west. N. Korea is pounding the war drums ?.....US out of the Korean Peninsula. Other than that SJ is about how much our society sucks, and sucks hard.

So why don't they have a one page post clearly outlining the A+ culture instead of that stupid basket of links ? Why are they flying an atheism flag instead of an SJ one ?

The idea is to lure the well meaning and unsuspecting in so the core group can bash the hell out of them before banning them.

It's all about getting emotional revenge on society for their crappy childhoods and Christian parents.

Good post. Agreed.

 

[squealpiggy]

I just wish we could leave Schrödinger out of it. Even a cursory understanding of his quantum entanglement joke leads to an erroneous impression of what the SR adherents are spouting...even the wikipedia entry on the cat:



This gives the impression that the "Stranger Danger" meme is ridiculous with the superimposition of rapist/not-rapist status simultaneously...that assuming any given male that you don't know is as equally likely a rapist or non-rapist simultaneously is absurd...but, no, they're serious.

Calling it Starling's Rapist would possibly clear that up, unless people remember "Silence of the Lambs"...at least there wouldn't be an erroneous initial impression lended by the co-opting of Schrödinger's Cat.

I get it, the cat exists as a probability wave that is both alive and dead and the whole thing is a throwaway joke anyway. But it's become a meme in which you don't know the answer until the box is opened. It could just as easily be called Chocolate Box Rapist, though that sounds like a very bad porno.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Say that someone wanted to say that female genital mutilation, passed off as a religious practice in Africa, was wrong? Is that okay because female genital mutilation is abhorrent, or is it wrong because it's criticising brown people?

I would agree that any mutilation is wrong. However I don't believe I've ever said that brown people should never be criticized. I don't believe anyone at A+ has made that assertion either.

On what are you basing this?....

Past experience, it could be both the guys are exemplars of civility, oh except for the whole disrespect crap that was the source of the incident. Still, how they behaved when they were under public scrutiny and how they would have behaved when confronted directly by one person.. I think it's safe to say those are likely different. Perhaps you disagree and you can give me a peer reviewed study showing that human reaction to stimulus is identical in both situations. (Yes this is snark, don't be silly in requests for specific evidence).

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Yes, yes, yes and no. See I think we can draw a line between understanding emotions and using emotions to arrive to some conclusion. Our ability to conceive emotions, in addition to feeling them, is what helps us imagine ourselves in other people's shoes. Ie, empathy. So, I propose, let's first experience an emotion, and then, after trying to isolate and examine that emotion, let's make a decision which is detached (as much as possible) from said emotion, but still taking it into account.

Eg. 'Wow, these protesters sure make me mad, I want to punch them in the face.' Stop. Why did I feel mad? Am I insecure? Should I be? Is violence the best course of actions? So I recognize I'm mad, but I might not be justified in being mad and won't decide on resorting to violence because of my emotion. My being mad gives me no leverage in making a rational decision. But it's a fact that I concede and consider. So I either may go and strike a conversation with a protester, or, further taking into account my emotion, ignore them and walk away.

Interesting, and close to my own process. One of the things I feel fortunate to have undergone is management training by a fellow named, Nikki Nemerouf. His model focuses on training methods but also on triggered emotional states and recovering from them. Anger, is identified as a triggered emotional state. Within the model it's also not considered a true emotion. Which is to say, that anger often, in my experience always, covers for some other emotion. If I can recognize when I am angry, a skill I continue to work on, then I can feel what emotion is there under the anger, or what emotion am I feeling anger to protect myself from, usually something painful, hurt, loss, embarrassment... Once I can identify what I am actually feeling I can make a conscious choice about both my desire to feel that way, and if the event which triggered me is actually worth being that upset over. So while reason and logic certainly play a roll in that process, emotion seems critical as well. I have to feel consciously as part of the process and conscious emotion seems like an emotional tool.

Well, I agree with this part. Understanding of emotions is always a good thing. My original point was that emotions themselves aren't perhaps intellectual tools (tools to help make rational decisions), though, granted, they are things to consider as are any and all facts that influence human behavior. There's a reason why emotional reasoning has a negative connotation. But of course, we should examine our emotions and take note of them.

We seem to agree on the core points.

I think we do too.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

She was in violation of the code of conduct as well, namely with the attendee procedure of handling harassment.

How was she in violation? You make the case that you feel it could be harassment. I went looking to see if pycon or the Ada Initiative's guide have a working definition of harassment, and they don't (at least not one I found) so I'm afraid I have to fall back on my understanding, backed up by some quick dictionary time. Harassment to me, and to my friends at dictionary.com, requires repetition. No single event would qualify. I would argue that the guys were not harassing her, though if they followed her and did it repeatedly that would change. However they were in clear violation of this section of the code of conduct,

Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks."

If she felt the forking jokes were offensive, harassing or making her uncomfortable, she should have either a) let them know and ask them to stop, b)report it to the staff, which is actually the proper procedure, or c) do both. It might be kinda douchy to run to the staff and file a report over a joke she didn't like, but that's her right. A grown-up thing to do would have been to ask them to stop. I find it debatable whether two guys chatting with each other and making 'inside' jokes (that were not directed at others) is a breach of CoC, the problem I suspect was more about jokes being audible enough for her to overhear them.

Publicly shaming by tweeting the pic, on the other hand, could certainly be considered harassment. At least in my book.

The problem was jokes about forking in a sexual way and "big dongols" again clear violation of the code of conduct.

Adria did contact staff, via e-mail with her phone. So b. done. As to a. they were in a public area, in rows of seats, not much room for meaningful conversation, though I agree she could have leaned over and told them, "Your conversation is disgusting and distracting please stop." I don't think she was obligated to do that.

Your beef seems to be the tweeting of their conduct. Why? Why is publically saying these guys are being bad, a bad thing to do? Especially since the thing they were doing was being done in public, just look at the picture.

Apparently she felt she knows best how to deal with the incident and how to punish the 'violators'.

This seems to me to be predicated on her not having contacted staff, which she did. Perhaps you thought they were following her on twitter? I don't know I tried twitter and had an intense dislike for the format.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

An online forum that disallows debate seems a very strange thing to me (yes, I realise it's a generalisation, as some forms of debate are allowed on some topics).

But while I can enjoy reading some blogs without feeling a need to debate, surely the whole purpose of having a forum rather than a blog, is to allow debate?

In my view (I mostly conform to the consensus here), the "not debate club" is a misrepresentation. Some things can be debated from some points of view. A lot of points of view and a lot of topics, not at all.

Why pussyfoot around the elephant in the room? It's dogma; dogma that's required before you can be accepted into the "safe space". I know one safe space for people who are suicidal, where the dogma is that suicide is bad. It often (always?) goes with safe spaces.

Just accept what it is and roll with it, I say. The idea that A+ is not dogmatic is just too hard to defend in the long run.

Quick response to this as I need to sleep.

I agree, that there are dogmatic tenants of safe spaces. Off the top of my head the ideas that racism/sexism and such exist and are problems. If you were to arrive at A+ trying to dispute those things you would not last long. However it is dogma in the sense that the debate is settled, not that there is no underlying reason or data for these things. Dogma in the sense that natural selection is real, not in the sense that god made the world because the bible says so. Dogma is not necessarily bad.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

A+ was always about decrying white/male/cis yada yada privilige, that's what a social justice safe space is all about.

The only acceptable way to criticize the way brown people do things is to frame it in such a way that they "have" to do it because the west is making them. Iran want's nuclear weapons ?? only to defend themselves from the west. N. Korea is pounding the war drums ?.....US out of the Korean Peninsula. Other than that SJ is about how much our society sucks, and sucks hard.

So why don't they have a one page post clearly outlining the A+ culture instead of that stupid basket of links ? Why are they flying an atheism flag instead of an SJ one ?

The idea is to lure the well meaning and unsuspecting in so the core group can bash the hell out of them before banning them.

It's all about getting emotional revenge on society for their crappy childhoods and Christian parents.

Good post. Agreed.

No not good post. It presumes an awful lot, primarily the unevidenced claim that the purpose of the A+ boards is to lure in unsuspecting people so they can be bashed and banned. Pure hyperbole there.

The links are there to cover all the bases in detail. If you don't like that, don't participate. Heck, I never received or read the basket. Though I am sure I have read many of the things it links to. I've also taken an active role in crafting the rules, like "Don't be an ass" and my personal favorite "Check your ego at the door"

Not because I want to bash people, but because failing to adhere to those two has been the reason I see most at fault for all the folks who show up, crash and burn.

(and now I really must go to bed. I'll get to the rest as I am able.)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I would agree that any mutilation is wrong. However I don't believe I've ever said that brown people should never be criticized. I don't believe anyone at A+ has made that assertion either.

ceepolk has. In fact, that quote is what started this tangent.

Past experience, it could be both the guys are exemplars of civility, oh except for the whole disrespect crap that was the source of the incident.

So you're ignoring the actual evidence we have in favour of your own prejudice.

Still, how they behaved when they were under public scrutiny and how they would have behaved when confronted directly by one person.. I think it's safe to say those are likely different.

Maybe, maybe not. We have no evidence either way. But the only evidence we do have does not support your conclusion.

 

[Diogenes]

Quick response to this as I need to sleep.

I agree, that there are dogmatic tenants of safe spaces. Off the top of my head the ideas that racism/sexism and such exist and are problems. If you were to arrive at A+ trying to dispute those things you would not last long. However it is dogma in the sense that the debate is settled, not that there is no underlying reason or data for these things. Dogma in the sense that natural selection is real, not in the sense that god made the world because the bible says so. Dogma is not necessarily bad.

A collection of anecdotal observations from a skewed and biased sampling population makes for poor data in my opinion...a lot like the Bible.

Natural selection is not "dogma". It is the current best explanation as is open to criticism, experimentation and discussion. The moment is not no longer open for debate it is no longer science.

 

[squealpiggy]

I would agree that any mutilation is wrong. However I don't believe I've ever said that brown people should never be criticized. I don't believe anyone at A+ has made that assertion either.

Ceepolk declared that there was way too much colonialism to criticise the religion of brown people. The exact quote is very similar to what I've written there.

She/he/xenomorph declared criticising the religion of "brown people" off limits because colonialism.

 

[Stout]

I can try to share my perspective on the line of the "don't attack the religions of marginalized people." I'm currently having a discussion on the topic on atheismplus, so I know this opinion isn't universal over there.

There has been a significant amount of hate crimes and discrimination against muslims* in the US. I'm sure we all agree that the small number of murders and larger number of assaults are wrong. Many of you also probably agree that some or all of the discrimination against muslims is wrong. Given that, some criticisms of Islam do more to marginalize people than to actually criticize the religion or the evil done in its name. One particularly egregious example would be the claim that all muslims are terrorists. I think a lot of Sam Harris's criticisms could also fall into that category.** To the extent that criticisms are designed to or have the effect of marginalizing people (rather than their incorrect/harmful beliefs), those criticisms are problematic.


*or people thought to be muslims
** See Harris's discussions with Scott Atran or Bruce Schneier

The title of the forum is Atheism+, with atheism writ large. Atheism means no god(s), no religion.Everything is on the table for scrutiny and to twist the definition to exclude religions practiced by people who happen to have darker skin is dishonest and disrespectful to the concept of atheism in general. Call the forum something else, Christians Suck, for example. if you want a hands off the brown peoples religion format.

Pretty much any group could be marginalized through criticism of their practices. We could be having a discussion about people who wear Hollister t-shirts (come on, you're paying money to advertise a store) and no doubt, a number of Hollister wearers are going to feel excluded, oppressed, attacked, for their choices.

A couple of scenarios

A woman walks into a Muslim barbershop asking for a man's haircut. The barber refuses citing his religious beliefs and how they prevent him from touching a strange woman and suggests she look elsewhere for the service she wants. Can we criticize this barber's decision to refuse service because we believe that busineses should not be allowed to discriminate against potential clients based on gender without having to deal with the usual islamophobia accusations from the usual suspects ?

or

A middle school decides to set up friday afternoon Muslim prayers in the school cafeteria to stop students from heading to the mosque for afternoon prayers and not returning to school afterwards because, it's friday afternoon. We atheists don't want religion in school, none of it, yet we have to weather the same accusations of Islamophobia when the specific religion under discussion has nothing to do with it.

I don't know anybody who says "all Muslims are terrorists" however most terrorists are Muslim is a different story. It didn't go unnoticed when two guys were arrested this week for a terrorism plot that the authorities were alerted by an Imam.

Atheists are going to be critical of religion and the socially negative actions taken by people in the name of religion ( eg fred Phelps ) and A+ would be wise to not only realize but accept this fact. It's an inherent part of atheism.

 

[AlBell]

A+ was always about decrying white/male/cis yada yada privilige, that's what a social justice safe space is all about.

The only acceptable way to criticize the way brown people do things is to frame it in such a way that they "have" to do it because the west is making them. Iran want's nuclear weapons ?? only to defend themselves from the west. N. Korea is pounding the war drums ?.....US out of the Korean Peninsula. Other than that SJ is about how much our society sucks, and sucks hard.

So why don't they have a one page post clearly outlining the A+ culture instead of that stupid basket of links ? Why are they flying an atheism flag instead of an SJ one ?

The idea is to lure the well meaning and unsuspecting in so the core group can bash the hell out of them before banning them.

It's all about getting emotional revenge on society for their crappy childhoods and Christian parents.

That, and still pissed off they weren't invited as dates to their Junior-Senior proms.

 

[squealpiggy]

That, and still pissed off they weren't invited as dates to their Junior-Senior proms.

"Hi Sue, umm... I... well I really like you and I would really love for you to come to the prom with me, you know, as my date. If you'd like?"

"ARE YOU SEXUALISING ME!?"

"Umm... yes?"

 

[Diogenes]

"Hi Sue, umm... I... well I really like you and I would really love for you to come to the prom with me, you know, as my date. If you'd like?"

"ARE YOU SEXUALISING ME!?"

"Umm... yes?"

So that reminded me of this Don Hertzfeldt animation:
(Trigger Warning: Intense stick-figure animated violence! )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lV5lnYlR58

 

[Jono]

That does match with impressions I had. It seems a weird trend indeed; almost like a subculture spreading its oversensitive tentacles across borders. The first signs I saw of it, about a decade ago, were in the U.S., does that match your impressions?

Pretty much. Ironically (perhaps) hyper-sensitivity has progressed paralleled to progressed tolerance. In one of the books I mentioned, the observation was made that the increase of 'general tolerance' in Sweden has gone hand in hand with a higher intolerance toward criticism, friction and perceived negativity... which of course ends up negating the very tolerance one would be pursuing in society. My personal experince, or interpretation of this trend, is that; as (or if) we become moreso anally retentive about getting rid of friction inbetween differences in society, the less capable we are of dealing with friction, conflict or criticism in a confident, adult and self-secure manner.

Incidentally, Pinker noted on stuff relating to this trend (though not framing it like so) in his book 'The Blank Slate...'

 

[Stout]

No not good post. It presumes an awful lot, primarily the unevidenced claim that the purpose of the A+ boards is to lure in unsuspecting people so they can be bashed and banned. Pure hyperbole there.

The links are there to cover all the bases in detail. If you don't like that, don't participate. Heck, I never received or read the basket. Though I am sure I have read many of the things it links to. I've also taken an active role in crafting the rules, like "Don't be an ass" and my personal favorite "Check your ego at the door"

Not because I want to bash people, but because failing to adhere to those two has been the reason I see most at fault for all the folks who show up, crash and burn.

(and now I really must go to bed. I'll get to the rest as I am able.)

I'd be interested in hearing your views on why A+ has been unable to grow themselves as a "movement", as to why they've never progressed beyond that core group who showed up on opening day. Why most new atheist posters who show up on the site are either banned or driven away.

New members are baited by "the community" and when they respond, they're hit with ridiculous concepts like tone policing. NO! STOP! YOU DO NOT GET TO DO THAT! Oh, do go on......

Does don't be an ass cover things like hiding a posters words and titling them with a smartass description intended to attribute a meaning to those words that the poster may/may not have intended ? Or, editing someone's posts using the strikeout feature then substituting another group of words as an "interpretation" of what the poster "really" meant?

example, from today.

Unsourced assertions of a deraily nature. Yawn.

Hummm...wanting a source for an opinion. Not very well thought out that one.

'check your ego at the door" is nothing but a meaningless platitude. A+ is all about moral superiority, how everyone should behave in their ideal fantasy world and is all about ego. Under the 10 post prejudgement program, A+ mods let thing through that they know are going to be problematic, just so they can let the community have a go.

New posters don't so much crash and burn, more they are run off the road and set alight.

 

[qwints]

Everything is on the table for scrutiny and to twist the definition to exclude religions practiced by people who happen to have darker skin is dishonest and disrespectful to the concept of atheism in general.

I don't particularly care about respecting the concept of atheism, but I agree that limiting discussion of religion to a few particular forms of Christianity isn't a good idea. It's important to bring global awareness to people like Ahmed Rajib Haider, Asif Mohiuddin and other bloggers who have been attacked, arrested and murdered in Bangladesh. So I don't think anyone should refrain from criticizing or raising awareness of actual oppression or injustice anywhere in the world. I do think that people should consider their words and actions when they're doing so in order to ensure they're not alienating people who aren't doing things wrong.

Pretty much any group could be marginalized through criticism of their practices. We could be having a discussion about people who wear Hollister t-shirts (come on, you're paying money to advertise a store) and no doubt, a number of Hollister wearers are going to feel excluded, oppressed, attacked, for their choices.

How many Hollister wearers have been assaulted or murdered for what others think of them?

[Gender discrimination example]
[School prayer example]

I've got no problem with anyone speaking out in those scenarios unless their language is more about attacking muslim people rather than advocating for gender equality or secularism. For example, although I support ending or changing the tax-exempt status of organized religion in the US, I'd almost certainly criticize someone who was only trying to revoke the tax exempt status of mosques.

I don't know anybody who says "all Muslims are terrorists" however most terrorists are Muslim is a different story. It didn't go unnoticed when two guys were arrested this week for a terrorism plot that the authorities were alerted by an Imam.

Talk radio hostMichael Graham is the closest I could find to that. ("Islam is a terrorist organization."). Here's a list of anti-Islam statements, most of which I would categorize as doing more to demonize people than to attack bad ideas or behavior.

I would categorize most claims of the sort that a muslim person is meaningfully more likely than a non-muslim person to be a terrorist as far more harmful than useful given the violence and discrimination against muslims in the US.

Atheists are going to be critical of religion and the socially negative actions taken by people in the name of religion ( eg fred Phelps ) and A+ would be wise to not only realize but accept this fact. It's an inherent part of atheism.

I realize and accept that fact. Happy?

 

[Humes fork]

The title of the forum is Atheism+, with atheism writ large. Atheism means no god(s), no religion.Everything is on the table for scrutiny and to twist the definition to exclude religions practiced by people who happen to have darker skin is dishonest and disrespectful to the concept of atheism in general. Call the forum something else, Christians Suck, for example. if you want a hands off the brown peoples religion format.

That won't work. Italians, Spaniards and Greeks can be pretty brownish, not to mention Latin Americans. They'll have to call it Protestants Suck. Or they could just go with Brown People's Liberation Front.

It is kinda disturbing how they tar atheists in general with their ideas. It reminds me of how Islamic lobby groups in Sweden routinely claim to represent 500 000 people, because that's the number of people with roots in Muslim countries in Sweden. What they overlook is that some of these people are Christians, some of them are atheists, some of them are secularized/nominal Muslims who probably don't want to be represented by them.

It would be much better if the plussers called themselves the Freethought Blogs movement or something like that.

 

[Diogenes]

....

How many Hollister wearers have been assaulted or murdered for what others think of them?

...

That sounds a lot like the "Dear Muslimina" defense.

 

[Kochanski]

That sounds a lot like the "Dear Muslimina" defense.

Ooh spot on, you deserve a cookie