Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwints said:
I just want to take this opportunity to say that prescriptivism sucks. And that writing in the way certain curriculums teach is not a mark of or even a good proxy for intelligence.
Click to expand...

I would say that, rather than being prescriptivism, a statement that if you are educated you'll write as if you are educated is something of a tautology. I mean, look at you - you didn't pick the word "prescriptivism" up from uneducated circles, did you? And yet you can follow that word with the colloquial "sucks". Nobody's saying that you have to adhere to specific rules of language in order to come across as educated, but instead that if you are educated it will show in your writing.

And, although you're the only person to have mentioned intelligence, rather than education (or, if you prefer, intellectualism), if you are intelligent, then that will also come across in your writing.

And it is, of course, possible to be one without being the other. I'm sure we've all at some point encountered someone who was inarticulate yet clearly clever, and also someone who used lots of big words but in a way which betrayed their lack of intelligence.

No, what's being talked about here isn't rules of language, but the content of what's being said.
 
Stout said:
It's all about ceepolk.

White people discussing Islam ? Oh no you don't

I'll quote the post just in case she realizes how racist she's being and does some editing, or makes the whole thread disappear.

Most people who frequent the forum are generally uninterested in talking about religion and how silly it is, just generally. But the particular fixation on talking about Islam is more about talking down brown people.
Click to expand...

Isn't that cute, she calls everybody a Christian, on a forum supposedly dedicated to atheism.

All hail the ceepolk.

ETA Thread
Click to expand...
Presumptuous and as far from skepticism and critical thinking as one can get.

Skeptic said:
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/

It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Click to expand...
Sorry ceepolk, you don't have a god damn clue what skepticism and critical thinking are. You certainly don't understand the importance of the dialectic and the spirit of free expression. Oh, and you are a bully.

Thank you JREF for being a staunch supporter of skepticism and critical thinking and for supporting the spirit of free expression. Thank you for the right to criticize any ideology or theology.
 
qwints said:
I just want to take this opportunity to say that prescriptivism sucks. And that writing in the way certain curriculums teach is not a mark of or even a good proxy for intelligence.
Click to expand...

Kochanski said:
It may not be the mark of intelligence but it makes your writing more intelligible, unlike some places. Some of us prefer not to live through the looking glass.
Click to expand...

First, let me take a moment to complain about the use of "prescriptivism" vs. "descriptivism". These are terms with very specific meanings in Linguistics, and they are not mutually exclusive terms. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". They've been co-opted by Post-Modernists and turned into little more than anti-intellectual jargon; but in actuality they refer to very different aspects of the creation, use, and evolution of language.

Second, use of standardized language may not be a mark of, or proxy form intelligence; but it's a pretty darn good indicator that the person using said language is concerned about clarity of communication. It it a lot easier to demonstrate intelligence when using language everyone understands.

The accusations of "elitism" against those who support "prescriptivist" use of standardized language (whether English, Francais, Deutsch, etc.) is nothing more than intellectual laziness and anti-intellectual pseudo-populism.

Insisting on standardized definitions and spellings for words is not a "tool of the oppressors", it's an attempt to create a robust framework for clear and effective communication of all ideas, broad and subtle, simple and complex. Its about removing barriers to communication. The framework can be, and must be, flexible; but it is still necessary, and there is a limit to the degree to which the rules can be bent. As that framework is weakened and eroded, eventually communication is possible only in the most rudimentary forms, if at all. Miscommunication abounds, and an inordinate amount of time must be spent defining and explaining terms. That's why exclusionary groups are so fond of their jargon; it's not about communication, its about differentiation, about building barriers. It creates an artificial Us vs. Them divide, clearly delineating the in-group from the out-group.
 
Last edited:
Next time someone starts whingeing in Forum Management about how the mods here are all jackbooted thugs who go about stamping out every vestige of free discussion, I'm going to quote Ceepolk's post.

It's incomprehensible to me why anyone would want to participate there. It's not a discussion forum; it's an agree-with-Ceepolk-or-get-banned forum. I think I'll start calling it C+, not unlike their grades in sociology.
 
RandFan said:
Presumptuous and as far from skepticism and critical thinking as one can get.

Sorry ceepolk, you don't have a god damn clue what skepticism and critical thinking are. You certainly don't understand the importance of the dialectic and the spirit of free expression. Oh, and you are a bully.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that her kind of hate speech is actually illegal in Canada, as qwints once said, we don't have freedom of speech here. A+ stills seems insistent on maintaining their atheist, critical thinking and skepticism image, much to the chagrin of the posters like the one who criticized some Islamic practices only to raise the ire of the ceepolk. That poster just flounced.

Thank you JREF for being a staunch supporter of skepticism and critical thinking and for supporting the spirit of free expression. Thank you for the right to criticize any ideology or theology.
Click to expand...

Two thumbs up :)
 
luchog said:
First, let me take a moment to complain about the use of "prescriptivism" vs. "descriptivism". These are terms with very specific meanings in Linguistics, and they are not mutually exclusive terms. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". They've been co-opted by Post-Modernists and turned into little more than anti-intellectual jargon; but in actuality they refer to very different aspects of the creation, use, and evolution of language.

Second, use of standardized language may not be a mark of, or proxy form intelligence; but it's a pretty darn good indicator that the person using said language is concerned about clarity of communication. It it a lot easier to demonstrate intelligence when using language everyone understands.

The accusations of "elitism" against those who support "prescriptivist" use of standardized language (whether English, Francais, Deutsch, etc.) is nothing more than intellectual laziness and anti-intellectual pseudo-populism.

Insisting on standardized definitions and spellings for words is not a "tool of the oppressors", it's an attempt to create a robust framework for clear and effective communication of all ideas, broad and subtle, simple and complex. Its about removing barriers to communication. The framework can be, and must be, flexible; but it is still necessary, and there is a limit to the degree to which the rules can be bent. As that framework is weakened and eroded, eventually communication is possible only in the most rudimentary forms, if at all. Miscommunication abounds, and an inordinate amount of time must be spent defining and explaining terms. That's why exclusionary groups are so fond of their jargon; it's not about communication, its about differentiation, about building barriers. It creates an artificial Us vs. Them divide, clearly delineating the in-group from the out-group.
Click to expand...

Luchog I wish I had your eloquence, I bow to you. You are saying what I would have said if I could write.

Another point about using standardized language it means that individuals who are not native speakers have a better chance of understanding what you have written as they learn book English or in my case book Spanish. I can read Spanish fairly well but listening to people speaking it, I can barely get the gist and it is not just the speed they speak, it is the slang they use that I was never taught.

In the land of the internet, don't assume everyone reading your words is a native English speaker.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Next time someone starts whingeing in Forum Management about how the mods here are all jackbooted thugs who go about stamping out every vestige of free discussion, I'm going to quote Ceepolk's post.
Click to expand...
Learning about A+ has really opened my eyes about moderation issues.
 
While I've expressed some disagreement with ceepolk over the exact expression, I do agree with the core point: it's quite common for me to observe people who have no knowledge of or experience with islam to criticize it in overly generalized ways. I live in a country where racist xenophobia is routinely cloaked in terms of religious criticism. That line of thought has helped enable wars of aggression and the regular violation of international and domestic law against muslims. That's why I agree with reasonable efforts to prevent the further spread of such othering. While I don't think that should include any government action, I'm fine with a private entity like atheismplus preventing such attacks.

In short, although specific and accurate criticisms are fine, I share ceepolk's dislike of generalized and uninformed attacks.

luchog said:
First, let me take a moment to complain about the use of "prescriptivism" vs. "descriptivism". These are terms with very specific meanings in Linguistics, and they are not mutually exclusive terms. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". They've been co-opted by Post-Modernists and turned into little more than anti-intellectual jargon; but in actuality they refer to very different aspects of the creation, use, and evolution of language.
Click to expand...

Interesting. A brief Google search doesn't yield me any follow up reading on your point, got a link or a good cite? My point was that educated writing, which I took to mean an adherence to formal rules of grammar, was orthogonal to the validity of points expressed using that writing, and that one should not attach value to adhering to formalistic rules divorced from actual usage. But it's not a subject I know anything about (only a single intro course under my belt), and I'd like to read more.
 
qwints said:
While I've expressed some disagreement with ceepolk over the exact expression, I do agree with the core point: it's quite common for me to observe people who have no knowledge of or experience with islam to criticize it in overly generalized ways.
Click to expand...
I need no experience with islam to know that female mutilation is a crime against humanity. I need no experience with Islam to know that killing gays and lesbians is a crime against humanity. I need no experience to know when atrocity is attrocity.

Tell me qwints, you need to live and experience Islamic nature to know that cutting of the clitoris and labia of a young girl is barbaric? Really?
 
Of course not, but you need to condemn the people actually committing, supporting, or tolerating the atrocities. FGM, which is indeed a horrific violation of human rights, isn't a product of Islam.

In six of the countries where data on religion are available – Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal – Muslim population groups are more likely to practise FGM/C than Christian groups (see Figure 10, page 11). In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in Niger, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania the prevalence is greater among Christian groups.
Click to expand...

Groups which practice FGM have cited Islam as a justification, but other Islamic scholars have condemned FGM. Someone making an argument that all muslims practice FGM or that "real Islam" requires FGM are not only wrong, they're doing harm.
 
qwints said:
Of course not, but you need to condemn the people actually committing, supporting, or tolerating the atrocities. FGM, which is indeed a horrific violation of human rights, isn't a product of Islam.
Click to expand...

You have a point there. People assume religion determines, or at least strongly influences culture. It appears to me the other way around: cultures shape how religion is practiced and how scripture is interpreted. Given the levels of ambiguity and contradiction inherent in all forms of holy scripture, this means anything can be part of your religion that you want to be part of your religion.
 
qwints said:
While I've expressed some disagreement with ceepolk over the exact expression[...]
Click to expand...

Indeed, there's now a note saying that you pointed out that the opinions of ex-Muslims should be okay, too.

[...]I do agree with the core point[...]
Click to expand...

Evidently you don't. You say "although specific and accurate criticisms are fine", ceepolk says "if you want to criticize one abrahamic religion, you better criticize them all." So you would be okay with a criticism of Islam which was specific to Islam, as long as it was accurate. Ceepolk, on the other hand, specifically says that you cannot make a criticism of Islam unless that criticism cannot also be leveled at other Abrahamic religions, and then you must criticise all Abrahamic religions, rather than just Islam. Anything else is racism.

You're okay with specific and accurate criticisms, she's emphatically not. She's happy with criticisms that are so generalised that they apply to several religions.

It's reasonable to say that we should beware of making uninformed* criticisms, especially ones which are or border on Islamophobic. It's not reasonable to say that criticisms of Islam which don't also apply to Christianity and Judaism are necessarily racist.

*Please note that it's possible to be white and Christian and still be informed about Islam without ever having been a Muslim yourself.
 
Last edited:
rustypouch said:
Well, we all know that's white men just aren't victims, nor is it possible to oppress them. No matter the situation, blame whitey. Although I don't know what would be the feelings about one group of white people oppressing another. I think it either wouldn't matter, or be explained away by patriarchy.
Click to expand...

Well, as the saying goes, there's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing white-on-white oppression, the end.
 
Lorentz said:
You have a point there. People assume religion determines, or at least strongly influences culture. It appears to me the other way around: cultures shape how religion is practiced and how scripture is interpreted. Given the levels of ambiguity and contradiction inherent in all forms of holy scripture, this means anything can be part of your religion that you want to be part of your religion.
Click to expand...

I think it's more of a feedback loop. Culture informs religion and religion informs culture. But either way, it's not straightforward to neatly separate them.
 
Wildy said:
But in SJW world there is no such thing as white-on-white oppression, and in cases where you think there is, then just remember that they weren't white at the time, even if they were.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, racism is natural, though we don't have to be slaves of our nature.

It's natural to divide people into "us" and "them" and to treat "them" with sociopathic, compassionless cruelty. The "them" can be a color,level of privilege, religion, nationality, sports team affinity, gender, woo or not woo ... you name it.

The A+ SJWs are continuing this unenlightened tradition, exposed by their "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric. Ms. Polk has simply chosen whites as her "other" to hate and validates it as "justice" (more accurately recognized as revenge). Plus, she cannot even imagine, in fact exudes hatred for, white people having compassion for "brown" people suffering from the cruelty they inflict on each other in the names of their religions.

There's been way too much prejudice and cruelty from people of ALL colors in human history to even THINK about withholding compassion for people of any color just because of their color, the end.*

* Just for a moment, I imagined how nice it would be to have the power to ban anyone who disagreed with me.

"Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be" - Temple Grandin
 
qwints said:
Groups which practice FGM have cited Islam as a justification
Click to expand...
That makes it an Islamic practice. There are no gods to tell us which of their followers are doing it right and which aren't. It doesn't mean all or "real" muslims do it, but it does mean that these are doing it for Islam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom