Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[qwints]

However, I read this study and I just have to shake my head in wonder. If you're examining inequalities, how can you ONLY interview women? Where's your control group? Perceptions of inequality between men and women were studied, by only asking women. How on Earth can this tell you anything? I mean, really, where is the pretense of doing actual science?

No man is an island, Entire of itself. Statistics^WP Econometrics^WP

The study was designed to examine why women perceive an unequal division of household labor as equitable. It examined pre-existing survey data from 25 countries (ISSP ). They looked at responses from women because that's what they were analyzing.

The question of whether women perform more housework than men is well-settled, although there certainly differences in different countries and over-time. Do a google scholar search on gender division of household labor. See, e.g., Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household
Labor"" which uses both survey data and time-diary data. The disputed question is to what extent gender (as opposed to non-gender based factors like time availability) influences who does the housework.

You're correct that the study's measure of actual inequality was based on survey responses from women. That's a limitation, but the study wasn't designed to prove that inequality exists (which is heavily documented by the sources they cite), but to explain "why perceptions of inequity are relatively infrequent in spite of dramatic inequalities in the household division of labor."

We are confident in this measure because, overall, women estimate rather similar values for themselves as men do for their partners and vice versa: In the entire ISSP data set, among respondents having a partner, men
estimate their own contribution on average as 9.0 hours per week and their female partner’s contribution as 21.3 hours, and women estimate their own contribution as 21.4 hours and their male partner’s contribution as 7.5 hours. But we cannot rule out that at least some women who perceive a lack of equity tended to underestimate their spouse’s participation in household work.
This is a potential limitation of our study and could only be remedied by time budget data for both partners.

 

[qwints]

Of course we're just a married couple with two kids trying to make a household work, and we haven't thought out the political implications of emptying the diaper pail.

I'm sure you're a wonderful person with a wonderful relationship.

 

[adamwho]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
Of course we're just a married couple with two kids trying to make a household work, and we haven't thought out the political implications of emptying the diaper pail.

I'm sure you're a wonderful person with a wonderful relationship.

Just like all the other people atheism+ has demonized....

 

[squealpiggy]

FTB Chris Clarke.

Evidently conspiracy theory is quite okay if you're on the right side of the political spectrum.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...amie-hyneman-youve-got-some-explaining-to-do/

That is utterly indistinguishable from the 911 truth conspiracies and the like. It has everything. A false flag bombing, clandestine training exercises, intimidation of witnesses... no mention of j00s yet but there's always time.

I'm sure you're a wonderful person with a wonderful relationship.

I'm not, I'm a terrible human being. Vain and callow and always living in desperate fear of my own mediocrity.

But I try.

 

[One Tenth]

They'd probably go with pedophilia is rape because children, due to their age, are incapable of giving informed consent.

From the context, I think Beezelbuddy was talking about the sexual attraction towards prepubescents, not actually having sex with them.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

From here:



Well, I'm not at all interested in ending capitalism. These people are clowns.

Naturally some of them want to end capitalism, considering that they themselves are self-ascribed marxists.

Let me reflect on all the times I've read economic analyses over in A+ and FTB...

Oh, wait, there weren't any. Post-modernists love to give anti-capitalist lip-service, but it is all meaningless as far as I can tell.

 

[adamwho]

Here is a theory I want to float:

Doesn't this Atheism+ thing seem like part of a bigger picture, specifically it looks like last-stand of the baby-boomer-hippy, quasi-marxist, down-with-the-man nonsense. Other parts include the occupy-movement and a lot of unreasonable fear of government and business.

I understand that many might think this is a gen-x thing or even a millennial, but I think it is the last stand of the boomers.

Any takers on this theory?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Here is a theory I want to float:

Doesn't this Atheism+ thing seem like part of a bigger picture, specifically it looks like last-stand of the baby-boomer-hippy, quasi-marxist, down-with-the-man nonsense. Other parts include the occupy-movement and a lot of unreasonable fear of government and business.

I understand that many might think this is a gen-x thing or even a millennial, but I think it is the last stand of the boomers.

Any takers on this theory?

I'd be happy to see some demographics to prove me wrong (or right - doesn't really matter), but I doubt that they're boomers. I'm a boomer and they don't seem to have much intersection of experience with the various aspects and phases of "The Movement". With some overlap, that would run to Marxism/Socialism, Civil Rights, Ban the Bomb, Anti VN War, Feminism, Gay Rights... All of this stuff was prior to 1970. I don't see anyone on A+ who comes from that era.

 

[adamwho]

Originally Posted by adamwho View Post
Here is a theory I want to float:

Doesn't this Atheism+ thing seem like part of a bigger picture, specifically it looks like last-stand of the baby-boomer-hippy, quasi-marxist, down-with-the-man nonsense. Other parts include the occupy-movement and a lot of unreasonable fear of government and business.

I understand that many might think this is a gen-x thing or even a millennial, but I think it is the last stand of the boomers.

Any takers on this theory?

I'd be happy to see some demographics to prove me wrong (or right - doesn't really matter), but I doubt that they're boomers. I'm a boomer and they don't seem to have much intersection of experience with the various aspects and phases of "The Movement". With some overlap, that would run to Marxism/Socialism, Civil Rights, Ban the Bomb, Anti VN War, Feminism, Gay Rights... All of this stuff was prior to 1970. I don't see anyone on A+ who comes from that era.

Do you see PZ as a gen-xer? Or Benson?

Maybe I just look at them and think 'old people'.... but then again, I have gray hair too.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

From the context, I think Beezelbuddy was talking about the sexual attraction towards prepubescents, not actually having sex with them.

That is what I meant, but I realized almost as soon as I clicked submit that that was way too subtle of a distinction to even consider the plussers ever acknowledging (esp. considering that they already equate casual come-ons with rape), so no big deal.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do you see PZ as a gen-xer? Or Benson?

Maybe I just look at them and think 'old people'.... but then again, I have gray hair too.

Well, age-wise, Peezers is a boomer. Accomplishment-wise, though, not so much. He would've been one around the time of Brown vs Board of Ed, would've been three for the Kennedy-Nixon debates, six when Kennedy was assasinated, 7,8,9, during the sit-ins and voter's rights drives, 8,9,10 during the anti-war protests, etc... I suppose he could've been a precocious protester, but I've never heard him mention it.

Ophelia - I don't even know how old she is.

I can't honestly say that I'd heard of either of them before the 2000s.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Some newb posted a thread asking for links to the various exciting projects of A+ and the initiatives they support. Silly Wabbit!

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4790

The explanations seem to avoid the correct answer (we'd rather talk about things than actually do something), but you have to give credit to Kassiane - my own personal version of the gift that keeps on giving - for an honest and accurate, if ironic, assessment.

by Kassiane » Sun May 26, 2013 11:45 pm

Nobody really does anything "in the name of A+"

A+ers happen to be the kind of people who do SJ things. And that's why we're here instead of being all smugly superior that we don't believe in gods or know that homeopathyis silly. (Well, we might do that too. But that's not *all* we do)

They happen to be the kind of people who do SJ things.... they just don't do them. They hang out in a private tree fort being all smugly superior towards the neuronormative majority. That's showing 'em!

I was looking for a source for the quote. Was it Martin Luther King or Ralph Abernathy who said, "Hey, I know. Let's stay inside this week and not cause any commotion. We can all talk about how uninformed and hateful those police in Selma are while they beat up those local marchers."

Yeah, social justice in action.

 

[Empress]

Your privilege is showing again, FMW. Do you have any idea how many spoons it takes to get out of the private tree fort and go do things? First you have to climb down the rope ladder, which is abelist for those with paralysis and agoraphobia issues, and then they have to go into the house to get their keys. The spoon use here should be obvious to anyone, b/c the keys are sitting in a room, and rooms are BIG. Plus they might see some housework that needs done, and how can you be expected to go protest things when you're suffering from an asthma attack after putting a dirty dish in the sink?

Sure their little chats might not look like a lot from the outside, but inside that tree fort, they're changing the world!

 

[Jono]

Your privilege is showing again, FMW.

Reminds me of something Pinker wrote in his book 'The Blank Slate...', with regards to policies and mentalities in formerly marxist regimes:

If people are shaped by their social enviroments, then growing up bourgeois can leave a psychological stain ("Only the newborn baby is spotless"). The descendants of landlords and "rich peasants" in postrevolutionary regimes bore a permanent stigma and were persecuted as readily as if bourgeois parentage were a genetic trait. Worse, since parentage is invisible but discoverable by third parties, the practice of outing people with a "bad background" became a weapon of social competition. That led to the atmosphere of denunciation and paranoia that made life in these regimes an Orwellian nightmare.

Sounds very... familiar.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have a question. Anyone can feel free to answer.

Why is it that the morally repugnant idea "women are for the entertainment of men and should stay in the kitchen" is met with near immediate banhammer on FtB, whereas the morally repugnant idea "All men and male-identifying people should be killed" is, while given abuse, not an immediately bannable offence if the person is mentally ill?

I don't get it. If a man who had been abused by their mother had come on and said "rar let's kill all the womens!" they would have been banned within seconds by PZ (and understandably so) but that psychotic sleepingwytch is given a stern talking to and then left? She's actively dangerous!


As an added bit of weirdness, what the hell kind of person believes that they are both morally correct and evil at the same time? I mean, who advocates for a social system they think is evil?

"I know I'm evil for saying it, but all men are evil and should be killed. Oh how evil of me! But it's the system I believe in and it's a good one because men are evil. Except I'm evil. But we should adopt this system and wipe out men."

Seriously?

 

[Empress]

IIRC, that particular poster got in trouble at A+, not for posting revolting misandrist rhetoric (although she might have done that, I don't know) but for the horrible offense of going into an "I need support" thread and mentioning she needed support as well. Perhaps this is unfair on my part, but I suspect her revolting manifesto would have been met with the same "Now, now, Simpleflower, we get where you're coming from, but none of that" attitude over at A+, but being seen to sidetrack someone else's "help me" thread by saying "me too" gets you threatened with a ban.

It's like in The Wizard of Oz where the residents of Emerald City don't know the the city is only green b/c they wear green goggles, but anyone else would see it clearly. If you're part of the A+/FTB family, everything an insider says is fine or at least treated with kid gloves, even if it's enough to turn any decent person's stomach. But the rest of us, never having donned our green goggles, are horrified.

 

[Stout]

That is what I meant, but I realized almost as soon as I clicked submit that that was way too subtle of a distinction to even consider the plussers ever acknowledging (esp. considering that they already equate casual come-ons with rape), so no big deal.

It wouldn't matter whether a pedophile was actively practicing or celibate and just thinking about it and wanting to explore those thoughts as something that may have been created by society.

There's no room anywhere within SJ for pedophilia and I'll post an example of this from another SJW forum, the one where they keep referring to themselves as "the left"

Thread

 

[Stout]

I have a question. Anyone can feel free to answer.

Why is it that the morally repugnant idea "women are for the entertainment of men and should stay in the kitchen" is met with near immediate banhammer on FtB, whereas the morally repugnant idea "All men and male-identifying people should be killed" is, while given abuse, not an immediately bannable offence if the person is mentally ill?

I don't get it. If a man who had been abused by their mother had come on and said "rar let's kill all the womens!" they would have been banned within seconds by PZ (and understandably so) but that psychotic sleepingwytch is given a stern talking to and then left? She's actively dangerous!


As an added bit of weirdness, what the hell kind of person believes that they are both morally correct and evil at the same time? I mean, who advocates for a social system they think is evil?

"I know I'm evil for saying it, but all men are evil and should be killed. Oh how evil of me! But it's the system I believe in and it's a good one because men are evil. Except I'm evil. But we should adopt this system and wipe out men."

Seriously?

Think of it as the oppressed fighting back with the only weapons they have they have at their disposal. Sleepingwhich is oppressed along multiple axis ( ooooo look at me, I'm using the language ) including mental health ( remember, social model good, treatment bad ) and as a result gets some slack, or understanding for wanting to bring down her oppresses in a violent way.

We can use Israel vs Palestine as an example here. SJWs ignore or heavily downplay Hamas's vow to eliminate Israel or their use of suicide bombers/rockets against civilians because there's a power imbalance and the Pals are using the only tactics that are available to them.

From the same forum I just linked to, here's another example of a call to genocide by an SJW. Link, post #17

Note how that call goes unchallenged.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thread

Foolmewunz surfaces, gasping for air.

I made it through the first page of comments. Tell me it doesn't get worse! The personal anecdote always trumps the discussion of concepts and ideas, evidently.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I understand at 4:00 AM the Sunday morning after the speech a group of attendees met with PZ in his hotel room to discuss "what to do about Ron Lindsay?" It seems the idea of skepticism, critical thinking, and questioning everything is beyond the grasp of that crowd. All they see is "are you with us, or against us?"

So what were they going to do? Tell Ron Lindsay he could no longer attend the conference he organized?

I guess we can assume the A-Plusers are now going to boycott CFI events. Add that they are already boycotting TAM, and soon there will be no conferences they can attend. Will they organize their own? That would be highly, highly entertaining, but sadly, highly, highly unlikely, since I doubt any of them have any money.