Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, two threads really pissed me off.

Geeks, nerds, etc.

emptyell said:
Do we really need a trigger warning on discussion of 'geek' as a pejorative?

Of course the reason it is no longer so pejorative is that now many of the richest and most powerful people in the world are nerds and geeks. This is not so much a reclamation as a tranisition in the balance of power. Once we have achieved true racial, gender, ability (etc) egalitarianism slurs will largely lose their impact. Until then they will remain a tool of oppression.

Reclamation, it seems to me, is just a way for oppressed groups to diminish and ameliorate the effect of slurs on themselves personally. It does not seem to me to be a way to rehabilitate the words or make them acceptable in the mouths of oppressors. The only way to do that is to truly address the imbalance of power. After that some of the words may retain some descriptive value (nerd and geek seem likely candidates) but others such as the N, F and T words seem better destined to become historical relics and the R word can be limited to descriptions of mechanical and chemical processes.
Click to expand...

Setar said:
not only that, but geekdom itself is heavily imbued with both class and able privilege. for class privilege, "geek" pursuits tend to require quite a bit of money, especially when they first appear -- release-day consoles/games and state-of-the-art gaming PCs aren't really things that poor people can afford much (most early "geeks" cut their teeth at universities, because otherwise they'd never have had access to early computers -- things were too big, too expensive, or both, for most anyone other than universities, government agencies and large corporations to own); other pursuits such as tabletop games also tend to require a fair amount of investment in order to play reasonably well. for able privilege, "geeks" tend to think they're smarter than everyone else (mainly 'cause that's the geek stereotype, and geeks tend to do well at 'academic' pursuits due to interests) full stop.

IME the bullying geeks tend to face either has to do with non-NTness, which is ableism...or (more rarely) it has to do with geeks themselves being classist ableist douchewads. it rarely, if ever, has to do with geeks just being geeks.

and, as a proud nerd/geek, I will tell you that for the reasons stated above geeks are not a marginalized group.
Click to expand...

ceepolk said:
yeah, I don't see geeks being denied jobs and rights.
Click to expand...

Linky.

Are these pod people?

First of all, being a geek is not specifically a class, gaming, or NT thing. Being a geek includes but is not limited to other stereotypes like being socially awkward, fashionably unacceptable, ugly, poor at sports (male), receiving good grades in school, having "obscure" interests, etc.

And yes, there has been an attempt to "reclaim" the word. I have always opposed it and still do. Adults should be able to realise how pathetic the label is.

The general person who is labelled a geek isn't Zuckerberg or Gates. They aren't limited to rich, white cismales engaging in lavish past times. They are kids being bullied and socially ostracised.

Heck, most gamers don't build crazy rigs.

SubMor said:
It's not an exercise that can accomplish what you're trying to use it for. "Geek" has never been (for lack of a better word) tainted in the way that bigoted slurs have.
Click to expand...

Who are you to tell people whether geek has been tainted or not? The "geek chic" fad is hardly universal, and socially isolating words still affect a lot of us today.

All of this hints at another thing...

ceepolk said:
I just have a problem with discussing the rights of fictional theoretical beings while actual sentient, sapient, existing beings suffer.
Click to expand...

ceepolk said:
but that's not where the thread is. It's in atheism plus instead of the general discussion forums. the placement in a principal topic forum just lends more weight to the idea that it's more interesting or neat to talk about the rights of sophisticated, expensive computers than it is to talk about oh, disabled poor trans women of colour.
Click to expand...

This is all, even the last geek bit, an example of Muslima-style Oppression Olympics.

Why should we worry about the rights of upper class gay white men when children in Africa are starving? Why should we waste time on gender neutral pronouns when children in Africa are starving?

On the other hand there is this good thread on fat-phobia, where A+ once again decides to kick out person who actually works in the field they are talking about. You can tell it is good because of the responses:

ischemgeek said:
As a final note: All of what Onamission5 and Mocha said about erasure. If you ask for feedback and then ignore it, that's erasure and in this context dovetails heavily with societal ableism and fatphobia. Have you noticed that the people who you respond to in depth in this thread tend to be those who have not explicitly self-identified as overweight, chronically ill or disabled? I've noticed. I'm not saying that's purposeful: our society has ableism and fatphobia imbedded in it heavily and nobody is immune. I'm saying it's something that you should be mindful of, since that sort of pattern is microaggressive to the already-marginalized and also reinforces their marginalization by effectively excluding and erasing their voices in a discussion about them.
Click to expand...

Onamission5 said:
Except, when working within a frame which focuses on social justice models, personal experiences with one's own medical condition or of a client within the medical system matter. By failing to acknowledge the personal, you're placing emphasis on the medical and treating the medical as if it overrides the needs and experiences of the patient, when, according to a SJ model, it is in the best interest of both patients and medical establishments if doctors listen to and serve the needs of the patient. The primary thing a medical model does is diagnose and treat medical conditions. It does not usually treat whole people, nor does it place much if any emphasis on the patient's wellbeing outside of what a doctor has determined their clinical condition to be and how "compliant" a client is with the doctor's instructions-- whether that diagnosis is accurate or not, whether the instructions actually address the patient's issues or not. That is a 'doctors first' attitude. What is being presented to you is an emphasis on placing patients and clients first, and you're not acknowledging that.

When someone tells you how they have been treated by doctors and you respond by saying things like "most doctors X" you are A) erasing the personal experiences of the people in this very thread and replacing those experiences with the voice of the medical establishment with you as the spokesperson and B) assuming a position of authority over the people who have outed themselves as clients of medical practices. You need to listen. Listen to the personal, internalize the personal, because it is through the personal that people who are clients and patients experience your field. Ideally, you need to address the personal. At the very bare bones, bottom of the barrel least, you need to acknowledge that it exists rather than reflexively defending the medical model and emphasizing the clinical.

This thread is focused on why patients matter. You keep shifting the focus to doctors. You're erasing people. You need to stop doing that.
Click to expand...

Linky.

Huh, I didn't know there was an SJ medical model :confused: .
 
Marsha, the poster who had the audacity to not stick to the SJ medical model got a 7-day ban for not toeing the party line re: racism in their Zimmerman thread. As usual, ceepolk wins the thread by complaining/whining that other mods don't have her back by banning Marsha before she got around to seeing the need. Fortunately for her, all the other mods immediately jump up and do what she wants, imposing the temp ban and then apologizing to ceepolk for not having done it earlier.

Marsha joined on June 21, 2013, so she almost made it a month before her temporary banning. Frankly, I'm surprised.
 
In there catchall Does The Moderation Suck thread, Serene asks why he/she got moderated for posting a question about racism in the Zimmerman "affair" (as one of their mods calls it) thread. He's mod-splained that said thread is no place for a discussion on racism!!?? The theme of the thread is "I don't care what the verdict is, SYG and Zimmerman and everyone who supports either SYG or Zimmerman are racists". Apparently if you want to ask a question about racism you're supposed to find some other thread and just accept that the in crowd has already declared this to be an issue of racism and comment on agree with that.
 
Ok, as a....fairly overweight man myself (38 waist trousers, L-XL shirts generally) I have a question to ask about "fat-phobia" and so on...

Why not just lose some god damn weight? If you're being treated differently by your doctor, maybe it's because your weight is at a medically unacceptable level and you're putting your health at risk?

I don't doubt that there are douchebags out there who wouldn't hire a marginally overweight person, and they are indeed douchebags, but if you're so overweight you whine about being given a blood test for diabetes every time you go to hospital (I met someone in person who did this) then lose some god damn weight. If you're THAT much at risk of something that is directly caused by your own poor diet and lack of self control for the love of god get help in losing weight.

I'm not saying everyone has to be model skinny or buff and bronzed, because that would be a weird and creepy situation for the world to be in, and there's nothing wrong with having a few extra pounds, or even being a bit fat if you're still physically capable, but for the love of god stop whining that no one finds your 48 waist XXXL body appealing. There's a reason for that. If you're complaining that it's discriminatory that you aren't allowed to participate in social activities that have a size or weight restriction, that isn't discrimination either, it's because you are over the safe limit for the activity. On my brother's stag party, I was unable to do a free-fall activity at the climbing thing we went to on the second morning because I was almost a stone over the weight limit. This isn't because they were discriminatory douchebags who hated me for being fat, it's because I could have potentially broken the damn equipment and severely injured myself.

There's nothing wrong with having a bit of fat on you. There's nothing wrong with being a curvy woman or a chunky guy. If you're a little overweight and you don't mind? Fill your boots. As long as you get all the nutrition you need if you're still medically safe then be whatever weight you want to be. But don't start whining because your doctor puts you on a diet to stop the unacceptable strain on your heart. It's your fault you screwed yourself so badly. It's YOUR fault you're so fat you're sick. No, I do not need to accept you for who you are because unlike gay, trans or black people you CHOSE to be fat. Lose the damn weight. Similarly, if you're UNDERweight then put some damn weight on. I'm not going to bully you for being fat, but I'm not going to feel much sympathy if you slowly kill yourself either. (Does not apply to those with severe mental imbalances causing weight gain or loss, only those who demand that we accept their poor decisions as being perfectly fine ones)

I have pretty much the same attitude towards smokers, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
In there catchall Does The Moderation Suck thread, Serene asks why he/she got moderated for posting a question about racism in the Zimmerman "affair" (as one of their mods calls it) thread. He's mod-splained that said thread is no place for a discussion on racism!!?? The theme of the thread is "I don't care what the verdict is, SYG and Zimmerman and everyone who supports either SYG or Zimmerman are racists". Apparently if you want to ask a question about racism you're supposed to find some other thread and just accept that the in crowd has already declared this to be an issue of racism and comment on agree with that.
Click to expand...

They actually put in a mod-box in the Zimmerman thread with their usual discussion shut-down explanation that A+ is not a 101-level space and adding that discussion on whether it was racist is unacceptable and won't be allowed. I can't fathom why you even have a discussion forum if discussion is not permitted.
 
Empress said:
Marsha, the poster who had the audacity to not stick to the SJ medical model got a 7-day ban for not toeing the party line re: racism in their Zimmerman thread. As usual, ceepolk wins the thread by complaining/whining that other mods don't have her back by banning Marsha before she got around to seeing the need. Fortunately for her, all the other mods immediately jump up and do what she wants, imposing the temp ban and then apologizing to ceepolk for not having done it earlier.

Marsha joined on June 21, 2013, so she almost made it a month before her temporary banning. Frankly, I'm surprised.
Click to expand...

Now that was a truly stunning performance by ceepolk. By not clearly defining the target(s) of her ire, it caused one hapless poster GreatBlueHeron to instantly assume she was the guilty party and not only post an apology but add some large, commanding text to her post to let her fellow aplussers know she was indeed ideologically pure enough to participate in the discussion.

I find it interesting that there was no response to Gaiustaberna's suggestion that Zimmerman couldn't be guilty of racism because Zimmerman himself was a kinda, sorta PoC and as we all know the "sociological" definition of racism that they use over there would nullify race as a factor in Zimmerman's motivations.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I have pretty much the same attitude towards smokers, by the way.
Click to expand...

As a smoker, I agree with your post. It's my fault and my fault only that I have this habit/addiction and as much as I want to blame advertising ( or something ) for my taking up this habit, deep down I know that the decision to smoke is/was mine, and only mine, to make.

Hummm...the law says I can't smoke in restaurants, outdoor patios, less than 10 feet from a doorway or air intake and may soon prohibit me from smoking in parks. Can I claim that being a smoker is an axis I'm oppressed on ?
 
Stout said:
As a smoker, I agree with your post. It's my fault and my fault only that I have this habit/addiction and as much as I want to blame advertising ( or something ) for my taking up this habit, deep down I know that the decision to smoke is/was mine, and only mine, to make.

Hummm...the law says I can't smoke in restaurants, outdoor patios, less than 10 feet from a doorway or air intake and may soon prohibit me from smoking in parks. Can I claim that being a smoker is an axis I'm oppressed on ?
Click to expand...

As Tsukasa Buddha learned with that person who needs four billion calories a day, that's going to depend.... Is Setar or Ceepolk or Ellie or one of the other cool kids a smoker? If so, then you will shortly have the whole membership rallying behind the oppressed smoking minority.
 
Does being obese counter my white heterosexual male privilege? I always struggle with privilege math. It probably only applies when white heterosexual males are fatsplaining to me.

So, I guess I have that.
 
Nice to see they're applying their usual levels of skepticism over there.
1- "It's clearly a race issue and it's a disgrace!"
2- "I see no evidence of that."
Mods - "How dare you ask for evidence, you racist. Banned."
 
Dissolution said:
Nice to see they're applying their usual levels of skepticism over there.
1- "It's clearly a race issue and it's a disgrace!"
2- "I see no evidence of that."
Mods - "How dare you ask for evidence, you racist. Banned."
Click to expand...

That place is safe from what, exactly???
 
Last edited:
Empress said:
They actually put in a mod-box in the Zimmerman thread with their usual discussion shut-down explanation that A+ is not a 101-level space and adding that discussion on whether it was racist is unacceptable and won't be allowed. I can't fathom why you even have a discussion forum if discussion is not permitted.
Click to expand...

Because it's not a discussion forum. It's an echo chamber.
 
RandFan said:
Does being obese counter my white heterosexual male privilege? I always struggle with privilege math. It probably only applies when white heterosexual males are fatsplaining to me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't "counter" anything, but is is an area where a lot of people face marginalization. I wouldn't be surprised if you encountered things like people making unjustified negative assumptions about you or criticizing you without justification.

What I've seen a lot of people not get in this discussion is that the problem is not with generic public health advice like saying it's good for people to eat a reasonable amount of healthy food or engage in an appropriate amount of exercise, the problem comes when people express vitriol towards people based on weight.
 
qwints said:
It doesn't "counter" anything, but is is an area where a lot of people face marginalization. I wouldn't be surprised if you encountered things like people making unjustified negative assumptions about you or criticizing you without justification.

What I've seen a lot of people not get in this discussion is that the problem is not with generic public health advice like saying it's good for people to eat a reasonable amount of healthy food or engage in an appropriate amount of exercise, the problem comes when people express vitriol towards people based on weight.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion is sort of obvious, isn't it? Wanna try running that by Calorie Girl? Her entire take on the discussion of veganism was that it was an affront to her needs so TB could go to hell and the Greek chorus joined in and a swell time was had by all.

There was also a thread about how hard it is to find plus-sizes in mall or department stores. There was no discussion of the economics or the rationale behind these stores and departments disappearing*, it was automatically, ... 'cuz they're biased and don't want my obese self in their privileged stores.

And the recent thread was basically stymied due to the usual Ceepolk rationale. Any discussion of obesity as a medical problem is just thin-splaining and designed to oppress healthy people who don't fit into the bigoted ablist model.

I come from a family of people with obesity problems. My mom's life was hell when she was older because carrying an extra 75/80 kilos destroyed her knees and she wasn't able to walk comfortably (at first) from about the age of 50, and not ambulatory at all by the time she was in her 70s. My sister died of heart failure resulting from a diabetic attack/coma at 62. She, too, carried a massive amount of weight. If I was to offer this paragraph at Atheism+, they'd have a quandary. You can't gaslight my concerns. You can't ignore my personal experiences. Yet, here I am questioning the catechism of the groupthink. There are actual reasons to be concerned about obesity. Dismissing them as bigotry is a good route to an early grave.

*There is such. Mall stores deal in turnover. Little miss Size 3 is likely to buy ten or twelve items a month. Miss Plus-size, maybe 1. Also, people dealing with weight problems tend to not go out as much, so impromptu buying is not likely to be in the cards. The stores and chains have the demographics. I know - I asked them because I dealt with major retailers for the last fifteen years of my career and had to spend a lot of casual time with many of their people when we'd just jaw about topics that we found interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom