Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread at atheismplus here, with the following comment:
But the white/male/upper-middle-class upbringing/mostly-typically-"masculine"/cisgendered stuff? Yeah. Not as much as others as I live in a fairly diverse and liberal area, but it's still there. There's one neighborhood where I walk for exercise that has quite literally multi-million-dollar estates; I've seen someone nod pleasantly to me, in my shorts and tank top, while carefully and continuously (and pretty blatantly suspiciously) watching someone else who happened to be a minority on the other side of the street. She and I had been pacing each other for a while, and I don't know if she noticed him do it, but it really made me uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Someone nods at him while he's running, and he reads a whole lot of 'something something' into it and it really makes him uncomfortable?

:crowded:

What if someone said... boo?
 
Jono said:
Thread at atheismplus here, with the following comment:


Someone nods at him while he's running, and he reads a whole lot of 'something something' into it and it really makes him uncomfortable?

...
Click to expand...

Or maybe he was just keeping an eye out on a potential rapist that of which she was unaware. Maybe that would only apply if she was warily watching the rapist/nonrapist.
 
Jono said:
Thread at atheismplus here, with the following comment:


Someone nods at him while he's running, and he reads a whole lot of 'something something' into it and it really makes him uncomfortable?

:crowded:

What if someone said... boo?
Click to expand...

It's probably human nature to be addicted to drama. If we can't complain about being raped, then lets make a huge fuss about a coffee invitation, or a glance.
 
In the seminal list of the Atheism Plus concept, does it strike anyone else that the "skepticism and critical thinking" seems to be an add-on, an afterthought? I've seen no evidence that Aplussers have any proficiency at it. I do see lots of gullibility for their leaders' opinions, and group think. The ban hammer is ready to fall on anyone showing skepticism or criticism of A+ dogma.

We are...
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.
Click to expand...
 
I think I see the problem

She and I had been pacing each other for a while, and I don't know if she noticed him do it, but it really made me uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Yep, he wasn't so much worried about getting burglarized by a jogger as he was checking her out.
 
Hey, that Imam is really a douchebag, eh?

Now in a normal world (normal world of logical social justice warriors), I would expect to be required to back up my contention about the Imam with some evidence or be derided for being a racist, and additionally be chided for using a gender-based slur. And the last place I'd expect for it to be okay to call someone a douche would be at A+.

Well, the Ministry of Truth is at it again!

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4564

Probably with a little one-upsmanship in mind, Zeitguest called out not one but TWO moderators for making cracks jokes about someone being a douche, pointing out that it was a gender-based slur.

Well, no. It's not. It's now, according to Newspeak, a really cool insult. I'll save the punchlines for those who want to read the thread, but it's just this side of mind-boggling. Would anyone like to take a guess as to the underlying justification for feminists and SJWs using the term? (No fair looking at the thread, yet!)



The capper, in the currently final post in the thread, by Emptyell, is a thing of beauty....

I think the push back is strong at least partly because once you give up sexist, ableist, racist and other such slurs you get a little protective of the few insults that are left.
Click to expand...
 
I just find it truly cluttered with a sad, bitter sense of irony; on A+ you're given a catch-22, because you are told not to reply too often and spam, but giving someone the "silent treatment" (basically, if a day has gone by without replying to said mod or Setar, Apostate etc) then you're burned for that too. The dynamic prevalent in the flesh on A+ is a hypocritical stance where you make an effort to comform to a safe-space, but policed in a very "USSR" fashion where you find yourself always at odds not to set them off into a victimized drama.

It's really, really quirky and self-defeating. Do any posters there, with hopes of wanting to stay on, dare to disagree with mods or senior members without having to think twice, thrice about their exact wording and so forth? It's simply no different an atmosphere there than on most political extremist forums; stalinism in action = comform to the minute eccenctricities or be bullied and bashed like a stray dog.

Shadow boxers extraordinaire...
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, no. It's not. It's now, according to Newspeak, a really cool insult.
Click to expand...

The explanations given in that thread for why it's not a gendered insult, I think, are very convincing. I think Zeitguest is wrong and, much as it pains me to say it, I think ceepolk is correct. She even explained it coherently, rather than her usual non-comments.

I think the use of the word is contradictory with some of the other things the A+ers have said in the past, but that's because those other things are wrong, not because their reasoning is wrong in this case.
 
Jono said:
I just find it truly cluttered with a sad, bitter sense of irony; on A+ you're given a catch-22, because you are told not to reply too often and spam, but giving someone the "silent treatment" (basically, if a day has gone by without replying to said mod or Setar, Apostate etc) then you're burned for that too. The dynamic prevalent in the flesh on A+ is a hypocritical stance where you make an effort to comform to a safe-space, but policed in a very "USSR" fashion where you find yourself always at odds not to set them off into a victimized drama.

It's really, really quirky and self-defeating. Do any posters there, with hopes of wanting to stay on, dare to disagree with mods or senior members without having to think twice, thrice about their exact wording and so forth? It's simply no different an atmosphere there than on most political extremist forums; stalinism in action = comform to the minute eccenctricities or be bullied and bashed like a stray dog.

Shadow boxers extraordinaire...
Click to expand...

I've compared the A+ in-crowd with Bolsheviks a few times here.

Foolmewunz said:
the last place I'd expect for it to be okay to call someone a douche would be at A+
Click to expand...

The question of whether or not douche is sexist has also come up before. The earlier argument was that women should not douche because it was unhealthy, therefore, it's not sexist. (BTW gay men douche before intercourse, but I have not yet seen that as a rationalization for the insult not being sexist. After all, men douche before taking on the "female role"). I still suspect the d-word could get one ejected from a technical conference if used in jest in the audience near a SJ Joan of Arc wannabe.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Scott said:
I've compared the A+ in-crowd with Bolsheviks a few times here.



The question of whether or not douche is sexist has also come up before. The earlier argument was that women should not douche because it was unhealthy, therefore, it's not sexist. (BTW gay men douche before intercourse, but I have not yet seen that as a rationalization for the insult not being sexist. After all, men douche before taking on the "female role"). I still suspect the d-word could get one ejected from a technical conference if used in jest in the audience near a SJ Joan of Arc wannabe.
Click to expand...

Aaaaha haaaa!
 
Mr. Scott said:
I have not yet seen [men's use of douches] as a rationalization for the insult not being sexist.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Dan Savage did at one point.


@Jono, I think you're right that people who don't carefully think about their posts tend to end up being moderated and/or criticized, especially if their initial post on a topic seems to ignore what other posters have said.
 
It ain't what you douche it's the way that you douche it,
It ain't what you douche it's the way that you douche it,
It ain't what you douche it's the way that you douche it,
And that's what gets results.
 
qwints said:
@Jono, I think you're right that people who don't carefully think about their posts tend to end up being moderated and/or criticized, especially if their initial post on a topic seems to ignore what other posters have said.
Click to expand...

Or if they respond to a ridiculous article that questions whether some cops are good by citing examples of cops they personally know who are good only to be met with a paranoid rant by a moderator.

A poster who fails to respond appropriately may find themselves banned from that thread with a "my experience trumps yours" mod box which, if I'm not mistaken, is a direct violation of the check your ego at the door rule.

Poster Cornelius left, no doubt he could see his ban looming simply for having the wrong opinion.
 
qwints said:
@Jono, I think you're right that people who don't carefully think about their posts tend to end up being moderated and/or criticized, especially if their initial post on a topic seems to ignore what other posters have said.
Click to expand...

Well, apples and oranges a bit since it is not as often the case as is; people feeling ignored and wronged over a contrary opinion. And, it is customary to focus on an OP, and not necessarily respond to every person's own sentiment. That's how things get annoyingly derailed more often than not.
 
Stout said:
Poster Cornelius left, no doubt he could see his ban looming simply for having the wrong opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently it is not cool to object to an article and sentiments which burn cops in general as thuggish nazi soldiers worthy of our scorn collectively, because if you do object then... well, you're stepping on someone's bad experiences with cops. How is this different from objecting to irrational hate by someone, who's been robbed or beaten by a black man, bandies together with other's who share their experience and scream bloody murder against black people in general??

Darn, I said "black people", should've been "brown people" no? :eye-poppi
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The explanations given in that thread for why it's not a gendered insult, I think, are very convincing. I think Zeitguest is wrong and, much as it pains me to say it, I think ceepolk is correct. She even explained it coherently, rather than her usual non-comments.

I think the use of the word is contradictory with some of the other things the A+ers have said in the past, but that's because those other things are wrong, not because their reasoning is wrong in this case.
Click to expand...

Mr. Scott said:
The question of whether or not douche is sexist has also come up before. The earlier argument was that women should not douche because it was unhealthy, therefore, it's not sexist. (BTW gay men douche before intercourse, but I have not yet seen that as a rationalization for the insult not being sexist. After all, men douche before taking on the "female role"). I still suspect the d-word could get one ejected from a technical conference if used in jest in the audience near a SJ Joan of Arc wannabe.
Click to expand...

I follow the arguments, but I think it's promoting Newspeak. Poor Zeitguest reacted like most of the population would react if you were to use the term... think it's a little smutty and quite a lot comparing the person to a feminine hygiene treatment/product. Why douche or douchebag instead of enema? Because the former has gender connotations, I feel.

Yeah, I get it. Blah blah blah... gay men douche, and enemas can be beneficial while douching is a byproduct of evil patriarchy.... But is this any different than Lenny Bruce's "Hmmm?" moment when he said that it's ridiculous that we use **** you as an insult because we all know that sex is great and that we all want it, so shouldn't we start using it as a compliment. That seems just as logical as co-opting douchebag, yet it didn't catch on, although he proposed it fifty years ago. I wonder why?

I realize that 201s are all enlightened and really don't give a flying fig for how the overall population may view certain things, but I think this is yet another of their variations on speaking in code (sometimes in tongues, it gets so absurd).
 
Foolmewunz said:
Why douche or douchebag instead of enema? Because the former has gender connotations, I feel.
Click to expand...

Or because the former two are already insults, whereas the latter isn't.

I don't see why you think that coining a new usage for a term wouldn't be Newspeak, whereas using a widely-used term how it's commonly used is. Or, indeed, how using a term how it's commonly used is speaking in code, whereas coining a neologism wouldn't be. That seems arse-backwards to me.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I realize that 201s are all enlightened and really don't give a flying fig for how the overall population may view certain things, but I think this is yet another of their variations on speaking in code (sometimes in tongues, it gets so absurd).
Click to expand...

What's 201???

You need to be in full cognitive dissonance to think "douche" is not sexist, since it literally refers to a disgusting excretion of women. Aplussers are not proficient at skepticism or critical thinking, but they are terrific at appealing to authorities like A+ bullies PZ, Carrier, and Polk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom