Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[luchog]

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.

This is coming directly from friends and acquaintances who have degrees in contrastive and comparative linguistics, respectively. I don't have any specific citations, though I'd expect it would be included as part of a scientific linguistics course. Wikipedia has a couple of articles which give a basic overview of the two processes; but in a nutshell, descriptive linguistics is in the realm of research, describing how language is used in historical and modern contexts, and how it evolves over time and in contact with other languagets, from an objective non-biased perspective, and is the basis for all scholarly linguistic research. Prescriptive linguistics is in the realm of education, building on descriptive linguistics to specify standardized forms, to improve language learning and communication efforts. The goal of scientific (as opposed to political) prescriptive linguistics is not to eliminate dialects, but to provide a way for speakers of differing dialects, and non-native speakers, to learn and communicate more effectively.

Part of the problem with prescriptive linguistics is that it's gotten highly politicized, and is often used as a tool to push a specific agenda. Interesting that you should complain about "prescriptivism", since that is exactly what the A+ crowd is engaging in. In fact, political prescriptivism in modern times has been primarily driven by a politically-correct agenda, in an attempt to eliminate "sexist", "racist", "ablist","elitist" etc. language. George Orwell wrote an detailed critique of political prescriptivism in Politics and the English Language, and satirized it with his "Newspeak" in 1984; and John Simon has an excellent criticism of Post-Modernist pseudo-populist prescriptivism in Paradigms Lost.

tl/dr version: Descriptivism is about research, prescriptivism is about education.

 

[luchog]

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.

I disagree with that. It's a cultural practice that is not exclusive to Islam; and in most cases, predates the adoption of Islam by the particular culture. Religious justifications are entirely ad hoc and post hoc; and FGM is no more an Islamic practice than killing "abortion doctors" is a Christian practice.

 

[rustypouch]

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.

Of course, how silly of me, thinking that (for example) Irish people are white.

 

[RandFan]

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.

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.

A.) You are moving your goal posts. You've now changed the subject.

B.) I happily concede that FGM is not an Islamic product. It's a cultural one kept alive by religion. I criticize Islam because it can easily be used as a justification for atrocity. What is the justification for Burkas in a secular humanist society? What is the justification for FGM in a secular humanist society? I condemn Islam because it does provide the impetus for atrocity. So what if some Imams disagree? I don't see that as a valid appeal to authority about whether or not FGM is moral under Islamic law. Islamic law isn't empirical and that's the problem. It's whatever the local Imam says is moral. The Koran and Hadith are contradictory and provide enough ammunition to justify many crimes against humanity.

I think Christine Rad makes the best arguments for why criticizing Islam is not per se racist.



I'm sorry but there simply are no sacred cows in skepticism. Islam is an ideology not a race. And just because racists also attack Islam because they don't like brown people is not sufficient justification to claim it's wrong to criticize Islam.

 

[AlBell]

...

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.

Did you try
http://www.bing.com/search?q=prescriptivism+vs.+descriptivism&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

Much more there than interests me.

 

[Jono]

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

If you indeed share ceepolk's brand of dislike, then do you share the over-generalised attacks on cops and white people poppin up dime a dozen? Or, do you agree that criticism should be specific, accurate and preferbly constructive? In this context, I do not understand how you can agree with the latter, while also saying you agree with ceepolk's "dislike of generalized and uninformed attacks".

 

[Stout]

Ah, okay, I thought he'd flounced in the thread. So he lurked for a while, decided that that community was exactly what he was looking for, then it took him 2 days and an encounter with ceepolk to realise that, actually, it wasn't the place for him at all.

He couldn't have lurked for very long as it only takes an hour or so to see that the place is an extremist nuthouse. He made a wise choice, like Cornelius before him.

I can't figure out just what went down last night on that Why I Nearly.... thread last night. It sort of looks like mentioning an ex-Muslim PoC doesn't really count as a source unless you mention it to ceepolk directly. Something like that. RINCF was banned for "derailing" Apollo was chastised for the same offense yet members with the proper join date are freely allowed to run amok with subjects of their choosing.

In other C+ news

Atheism tv posted a link to a video by Ophelia Benson. There was a pile on about the lack of a transcript. What makes it funny is one of the pilers on was the chemgeek who links to a video without a transcript in her sig line. Yes, a transcript exists but you have to go looking for it. Aplussers aren't complaining about that video link because....?

Thread

 

[Stout]

Of course, how silly of me, thinking that (for example) Irish people are white.

We mustn't forget those Polacks either

/All in the family

 

[qwints]

RandFan, here's my position: vilifying or attacking groups enables and encourages discrimination or violence against those groups. That's not a reason to refrain from specific and accurate criticism but it is a reason to be cautious about generalized language. In addition, condemning islam as evil or barbaric necessarily condemns people who follow islam as evil or barbaric.

If you indeed share ceepolk's brand of dislike, then do you share the over-generalised attacks on cops and white people poppin up dime a dozen? Or, do you agree that criticism should be specific, accurate and preferbly constructive?

Nope. Here's the difference: as I've cited above, people in the US have attacked people they perceive as muslims. The US is engaged in illegal military strikes in muslim countries that routinely kill non-combatants, and continues to discriminate against muslim people. Those wrongs are enabled by a social environment that tolerates or encourages the othering of muslims through generalized disparagement of islam or muslims. white people and cops are not subject to that violence and discrimination.


Specific and accurate are best practice for any type of criticism. On a very global level, criticism should be constructive - but I don't see anything wrong with criticizing institutions with the sole goal of destroying them.

 

[Jono]

Nope. Here's the difference: as I've cited above, people in the US have attacked people they perceive as muslims. The US is engaged in illegal military strikes in muslim countries that routinely kill non-combatants, and continues to discriminate against muslim people. Those wrongs are enabled by a social environment that tolerates or encourages the othering of muslims through generalized disparagement of islam or muslims. white people and cops are not subject to that violence and discrimination.

Certainly, though it doesn't really tell ,e how over-generalized attacks is moreso constructive simply because the object of the attack is not under military attack by a society (which is one of the impressions I got from my brief time at A+). I'd think that a notably "baby+bathwater"-attitude is, while with varying degrees, something one should critique itself as opposed to cultivate and nourish it (as Ceepolk and others on A+ have demonstrably done). Wether you agree or not if it applies to Ceepolk (or others on A+), you do recognize that there is a real problem with trying to merge such an attitude with critical thinking, yes?

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, here's my position: vilifying or attacking groups enables and encourages discrimination or violence against those groups. That's not a reason to refrain from specific and accurate criticism but it is a reason to be cautious about generalized language. In addition, condemning islam as evil or barbaric necessarily condemns people who follow islam as evil or barbaric.

Please to pay close attention. I did not condemn Islam as evil or barbaric. I said that Islam is conducive to evil and barbarity. It's not empirical. The Koran does give permission for lot's of evil including raping children. I don't condemn all Muslims. I do criticize their religion because it condones and even prescribes violence.

I'm sorry the racists also attack Islam for different reasons. But I reserve the right to criticize any ideology or theology. One more time, there are no sacred cows. Islam gives far more cover to hang homosexuals and rape children and many other atrocities than my criticism of Islam gives cover for racists.

 

[WillyWonka]

Specific and accurate are best practice for any type of criticism. On a very global level, criticism should be constructive - but I don't see anything wrong with criticizing institutions with the sole goal of destroying them.

Qwints, what institutions do you want to destroy?

 

[Jono]

There is a thread on A+ called "Problematic TV Shows". I just noticed it and the title of the thread stuck to me because I've seen several variants of it on other policy-politic-specific forums during the past one and a half decade. Naturally, in any given in-group atmosphere around an ideological or effort-based cause, the problem about what to like and dislike in contemporary entertainment tends to creep up (and the judgement about what a true "member of group X" should like and dislike). I've been present on 'extremist' forums from the left to the right, upside down and six ways from sunday for a long, long time. Always, always the ghost of truism and yardsticked approaches to media consumation gets shoe-horned in like crazy, where the participants interestingly enough get to the apex of their self-confessions on contemporary contempt. Lists of movies that are bad, filled with inherent meanings, intentions, manipulations and dogmas designed to do "this" and "that". Only... those lists, while usually listing the same darn movies, sitcoms and shows, all echoe different apologetics of how their interpretation is the real and true one. In one sense, it has enriched my life, because before I didn't know just how many subliminal messages you could read into 'Blazing Saddles' for example.

A recent entry in the formentioned thread, however, once more affirms an impression of A+ that I really do not want affirmed; people who are extremely allergic to white people for simply being... normative.

by Bowman » Tue May 07, 2013 6:46 pm

I am always triggered anytime I see the UK childrens TV show called rainbow, the reasons why as are as follows,

1: Jeoffrey the main host is a white normative male
2: Zippy always struck me as being sexually aggressive
3: George the only homosexual on the show, coloured a bright pink which is an obvious and weak attempt at trying to show this
4: Rod, Jane and Freddy, all white
5: Bungle, who is a bear, "bear" is a gay term for a very hairy heavy set homosexual man "Bungle" is British slang for a mistake and clearly this again shows contempt towards homosexuality in that it is trying to portray homosexuality as being a mistake.

Now, I do not know about point 5. It may very well be true, for all I know but... what is the problem with the main host being a "white normative male"?! What is the problem with Rod, Jane and Freddy being "all white". Please please, someone convince me fast that this isn't some self-hating white person who is suffering from what can only be described as a monumental case of white-guilt zealotry.

 

[Humes fork]

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

Atheism+ is an outgroup to me.

 

[Humes fork]

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.




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

All hail the ceepolk.

ETA Thread

What about Bosniaks and Albanians? White peoples that have historically been Muslims? What about the Christian minorities in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria?

Cis, privilege, social justice, yada yada. *Yawn* These people need to be trolled Sokal-style.

 

[Joe Random]

There is a thread on A+ called "Problematic TV Shows". I just noticed it and the title of the thread stuck to me because I've seen several variants of it on other policy-politic-specific forums during the past one and a half decade. Naturally, in any given in-group atmosphere around an ideological or effort-based cause, the problem about what to like and dislike in contemporary entertainment tends to creep up (and the judgement about what a true "member of group X" should like and dislike). I've been present on 'extremist' forums from the left to the right, upside down and six ways from sunday for a long, long time. Always, always the ghost of truism and yardsticked approaches to media consumation gets shoe-horned in like crazy, where the participants interestingly enough get to the apex of their self-confessions on contemporary contempt. Lists of movies that are bad, filled with inherent meanings, intentions, manipulations and dogmas designed to do "this" and "that". Only... those lists, while usually listing the same darn movies, sitcoms and shows, all echoe different apologetics of how their interpretation is the real and true one. In one sense, it has enriched my life, because before I didn't know just how many subliminal messages you could read into 'Blazing Saddles' for example.

A recent entry in the formentioned thread, however, once more affirms an impression of A+ that I really do not want affirmed; people who are extremely allergic to white people for simply being... normative.



Now, I do not know about point 5. It may very well be true, for all I know but... what is the problem with the main host being a "white normative male"?! What is the problem with Rod, Jane and Freddy being "all white". Please please, someone convince me fast that this isn't some self-hating white person who is suffering from what can only be described as a monumental case of white-guilt zealotry.

Given that :

One Pluser in that thread (irkthepurists) was threatened with permanent banination for daring to defend the show Family Guy in general and creator Seth McFarlane in particular ...

-and-

We know from an earlier post in this thread that the Irish aren't technically white ...

Can we say there's a problematic (dare I suggest privileged?) display of disdain for the Entertainment of Brown People(tm) by the Pluser mod-squad?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Now, I do not know about point 5. It may very well be true, for all I know[...]

The definitions of "bear" and "bungle" are certainly correct. The rest of it seems like rather a reach. You have to wonder how Bungle can be gay if George is the only gay character. Points 5 and 3 seem to contradict themselves somewhat.

 

[Empress]

There is a thread on A+ called "Problematic TV Shows". I just noticed it and the title of the thread stuck to me because I've seen several variants of it on other policy-politic-specific forums during the past one and a half decade. Naturally, in any given in-group atmosphere around an ideological or effort-based cause, the problem about what to like and dislike in contemporary entertainment tends to creep up (and the judgement about what a true "member of group X" should like and dislike). I've been present on 'extremist' forums from the left to the right, upside down and six ways from sunday for a long, long time. Always, always the ghost of truism and yardsticked approaches to media consumation gets shoe-horned in like crazy, where the participants interestingly enough get to the apex of their self-confessions on contemporary contempt. Lists of movies that are bad, filled with inherent meanings, intentions, manipulations and dogmas designed to do "this" and "that". Only... those lists, while usually listing the same darn movies, sitcoms and shows, all echoe different apologetics of how their interpretation is the real and true one. In one sense, it has enriched my life, because before I didn't know just how many subliminal messages you could read into 'Blazing Saddles' for example.

A recent entry in the formentioned thread, however, once more affirms an impression of A+ that I really do not want affirmed; people who are extremely allergic to white people for simply being... normative.



Now, I do not know about point 5. It may very well be true, for all I know but... what is the problem with the main host being a "white normative male"?! What is the problem with Rod, Jane and Freddy being "all white". Please please, someone convince me fast that this isn't some self-hating white person who is suffering from what can only be described as a monumental case of white-guilt zealotry.

They've got it hidden as trolling, now. Frankly, I can't tell what's trolling and what's serious over there. All sounds the same to me. I'm guessing that if part of the in-group says it, it's serious, but any part of the out-group consists of trolling. Very strange place.

ETA: Aha. Looks like someone (Pitter perhaps?) admitted to the trolling. Wonder if they knew it was trolling before it was outed.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

by Bowman » Tue May 07, 2013 6:46 pm

I am always triggered anytime I see the UK childrens TV show called rainbow, the reasons why as are as follows,

1: Jeoffrey the main host is a white normative male
2: Zippy always struck me as being sexually aggressive
3: George the only homosexual on the show, coloured a bright pink which is an obvious and weak attempt at trying to show this
4: Rod, Jane and Freddy, all white
5: Bungle, who is a bear, "bear" is a gay term for a very hairy heavy set homosexual man "Bungle" is British slang for a mistake and clearly this again shows contempt towards homosexuality in that it is trying to portray homosexuality as being a mistake.

If it's portrayed as a "mistake" why is the programme named after the all inclusive LGBT rainbow flag?

what a load of twangers at A plus...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1atuz_rainbow-twangers-episode_fun

 

[squealpiggy]

RandFan, here's my position: vilifying or attacking groups enables and encourages discrimination or violence against those groups. That's not a reason to refrain from specific and accurate criticism but it is a reason to be cautious about generalized language. In addition, condemning islam as evil or barbaric necessarily condemns people who follow islam as evil or barbaric.

Not really. I tend to think that the concept of religion is evil and barbaric but this does not mean that all followers of religion are evil and barbaric.

by Bowman » Tue May 07, 2013 6:46 pm

I am always triggered anytime I see the UK childrens TV show called rainbow, the reasons why as are as follows,

1: Jeoffrey the main host is a white normative male
2: Zippy always struck me as being sexually aggressive
3: George the only homosexual on the show, coloured a bright pink which is an obvious and weak attempt at trying to show this
4: Rod, Jane and Freddy, all white
5: Bungle, who is a bear, "bear" is a gay term for a very hairy heavy set homosexual man "Bungle" is British slang for a mistake and clearly this again shows contempt towards homosexuality in that it is trying to portray homosexuality as being a mistake.

Is this... come on, this has to be a joke. This is Rainbow:



The biggest issue with Bungle is that when he was swimming or at the beach he wore shorts, when he went to bed he wore pyjamas and the rest of the time... he was naked. All the time. On a kid's show. Sure he was a bear. But are we now associating all bears involved in children's programming with large hairy gay men? Because that completely changes the meaning of the Teddy Bear's Picnic.

I'm going to assume that this is a joke, because if somebody really was "triggered" by that then I don't want to live on this planet any more.