Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[blutoski]

Two of your possibilities - situations without agency and the experience itself. I'd define the former as situations without racial intent. One aspect of privilege is the ability to say or do things with racial implications without realizing it. Consider the widely discussed phenomenon of white people asking to touch black people's hair.

I can vouch for that one. My wife gets several requests a week for a feel. People don't realize how offensive this is until somebody actually tells them. It's not obvious.

Another example is language choices. My sister is in a rural community that has zero Jews. The synonym for 'negotiate' around there is 'Jew down'. As in: "I put a price tag for $10 dollars on that used skillsaw, but he jewed me down to $7." In this case, I don't think they're very aware that they're subscribing to and perpetuating a negative stereotype. It's just an expression, and when I explained the ethnic slur to my sister, she stopped using it.

 

[recursive prophet]

I really don't think saying you should only have sex with someone who really wants to have sex with you is trivializing anything.

Indeed. If everyone followed this guideline it would solve our over population problem in short order.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

It's the product of two good rules:

1) Getting drunk doesn't excuse you committing a crime
2) Having sex with someone who can't consent is a crime

And if two people, both under the legal age of consent, (which varies) have sex, are they both equally criminal or innocent as neither could legally consent?

 

[blutoski]

Reminds of what happens when someone in public life makes a remark
considered by some, to be "not quite right", critical (or offensive) in some way and are pressured to say something. Without retracting or apologising for the remark itself , which may be justified or unjustified, they will often apologise instead "for the offence" they may have caused.

Yeah, the 'non-apology-aplogy' - "I'm sorry you're so thin skinned that you let yourself be offended by my innocent remark."

Having said that... it's clear that there is such a thing as overreacting. Everytime the Rev. Al Sharpton is on TV, my wife switches the channel - he really comes across as an attention seeking clown.



I wonder if there is a direct link between "atheist martyrism" and an attraction to join A+?

Barry Beyerstein was an atheist like myself, but he used different terminology for regular atheists versus "an element" he referred to as "the villiage atheists." Meaning: the ones who were preoccupied with perceived slights or threats. The friction between skeptics who want atheism to be a primary goal of the movement vs those who feel it is only related and deserves its own organizations is older than I am. This feels like a current conflagration in what is probably a perpetual conflict.

 

[qwints]

And if two people, both under the legal age of consent, (which varies) have sex, are they both equally criminal or innocent as neither could legally consent?

As I said two sentences after the part you quoted, "This is conceptually similar to mutual statutory rape - the correct response is discretion based on the individual facts of the case." It also depends on whether you're talking about criminal penalties or moral judgment. Sliding scales ("romeo and juliet laws") are a common solution, where being close in age is a defense.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Then my stated assumption is wrong, and I would accept your idea that in that case it's solely about curiosity. Of course, the fact that similar behavior occurs in other situations doesn't mean the writer I linked to or the other women she talked to are wrong to be bothered by people asking to touch their hair.

It doesn't prove that they were wrong, but it certainly opens up the possibility, doesn't it?

If asking to touch unusual hair (or lack thereof) is something people do out of innocent curiosity all around the world and with complete disregard for class barriers, then it certainly means that those writers might be wrong in ascribing racism to people who want to touch their hair. You could even go so far as to say that they are probably wrong.

I'm not trying to get you kicked off A+ here, but that does follow from points you've agreed about.

Also are you ever going to clarify what you were trying to say about racism to me earlier? You tried to put words into my mouth to set me up for some argument or another, and when I didn't let you exercise that privilege you dropped the whole topic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Every time this crap comes up about 2 drunk people assaulting eachother comes up I have to roll my eyes... Its really not that difficult to understand. If you are too drunk to consent, you are in such a condition that you are unable to initiate or actively take part in sex. In any sexual encounter there has to be at least one partner who is actively taking part. This person is not to drunk to consent. If the other person is also actively participating, then they are also not too drunk to consent. If one of the people is lying there passively, perhaps not resisting - then they may very well be too drunk to consent. If 2 people are so drunk that all they can do is lie there passively, then there is no sex happening, and therefore no rape. If your partner is actively and enthusiastically taking part in sex with you, then there is no way you can be raping them, no matter if they are quite drunk. This would be a potential example of regretful drunken sex, but not of rape.

Please use your brains!

By your definition of too drunk to consent. Others use a definition that permits willful acts but removes consent. That is exactly what people are arguing against.

So if people have too drunk to consent is legally impaired for driving then you can very much have sex as an initiator and as an active participant.

With black outs it is even harder as you can't know if you were actively having consensual sex you don't remember or were raped while passed out.

 

[qwints]

Also are you ever going to clarify what you were trying to say about racism to me earlier?

I asked whether a phrase in your post was an accurate definition of the term 'actual racism' you referred to in your post. You haven't answered. if you want to define the term, we can continue talking. If you just want to write manifestos, I don't see the point.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You think that a single pop star changes the class of the name "Latoya"? Didn't work for Britney!



And what? The presence of people called Latisha in University does not change the perception of the class of the name.

YOUR perception, evidently.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I asked whether a phrase in your post was an accurate definition of the term 'actual racism' you referred to in your post. You haven't answered. if you want to define the term, we can continue talking. If you just want to write manifestos, I don't see the point.

I think I see your game now. Okay.

I've got a better idea. Pretend that the last sentence of that post read "Personally I very strongly favour preserving the power and usefulness of the term "racism" by only using it to refer to actual racism, and opposing SJW efforts to water down the definition into meaninglessness in search of cheap rhetorical points on the internet."

Now you don't have that "actual racism" phrase to get hung up on, you can respond to the rest of my post. Right?

 

[qwints]

You're clearly contrasting things we should be upset about from things that are cheap rhetorical points. I'm just asking you to define the former. I'm not trying to play rhetorical games, I'm just trying to figure out what sorts of things we agree are real problems before I try and explain why I think the things we disagree on matter.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think I see your game now. Okay.

I've got a better idea. Pretend that the last sentence of that post read "Personally I very strongly favour preserving the power and usefulness of the term "racism" by only using it to refer to actual racism, and opposing SJW efforts to water down the definition into meaninglessness in search of cheap rhetorical points on the internet."

Now you don't have that "actual racism" phrase to get hung up on, you can respond to the rest of my post. Right?

You're clearly contrasting things we should be upset about from things that are cheap rhetorical points. I'm just asking you to define the former. I'm not trying to play rhetorical games, I'm just trying to figure out what sorts of things we agree are real problems before I try and explain why I think the things we disagree on matter.

Well, I don't think that things that you and Kevin disagree on actually matter that much. I doubt that Kevin thinks that the language of the discussion has no import whatsoever, but if I read him correctly, the larger picture and the horribly damaging results that institutionalized and directed misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc... can foist on people are to be given more importance than the semantic debates.

This is what's harmful about the A+/FTB "drill down to the itty-bitty details and chomp all over them" discussions. You get sidetracked and lose sight, if there ever was any, of the end goals. Look at the Activism threads on A+. Those people who can't get their **** together to do anything of use to the Social Justice or Progressive movements (if they are to be termed as such) can get their **** together for hours on end to whinge on the internet. I have no doubt that some of them are just habitual whingers and would never do anything ITRW anyway. But how many people have you seen discouraged to find out "well, we're not an activism forum in THAT way"?

Keep your eyes on the prize. Worry about settling the subtle language and underpinnings of isms at the same time, but don't get lost in the details.

 

[theprestige]

The former is what I'm getting at. The feelings of marginalization are real even if they stem from an inaccurate appraisal of another's motives.

And therefore... ?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're clearly contrasting things we should be upset about from things that are cheap rhetorical points.

Correct so far.

I'm just asking you to define the former.

I thought I did. Unjust treatment of people based on racial characteristics which are irrelevant and not their fault.

I'm not trying to play rhetorical games, I'm just trying to figure out what sorts of things we agree are real problems before I try and explain why I think the things we disagree on matter.

You're doing a very good job of putting off having to try to defend the more problematic aspects of A+ conceptions of racism.

 

[qwints]

Keep your eyes on the prize. Worry about settling the subtle language and underpinnings of isms at the same time, but don't get lost in the details.

Fair enough. I think I was expecting more people to be resistant to disparate impact analysis, but the lack of resistance on that front seems to support the contention by you and others that this is a tactical disagreement, not one about end goals. I've had a lot of discussions where people think racism requires a racist's intentional discrimination, and some posters in this thread said some things that reminded me of that position but, not seeing anyone actually taking that position I can move on.

Unjust treatment of people based on racial characteristics which are irrelevant and not their fault.

I assume that ending is just reinforcing the term unjust(i.e. that you don't think there are relevant racial characteristics that are people's fault).

That's a fine definition, and I understand the contrast between unjust treatment and

non-white people getting offended without any proper justification,

I think, however, that a white person like myself should tend to defer to a black person when it comes to deciding whether that black person has a 'proper justification' for being offended. So when a black woman say that, given the racial context, white people asking to touch her hair offends her, I'll accept that and change my behavior. I don't think that other groups having a similar experience means that she is wrong to be offended.

I don't think I've seen anyone assert a claim about racism on the atheismplus forums, on their own behalf, that I found likely to be false on further reflection. I have seen people makes claims about language use on behalf of other groups that I don't find particularly persuasive, but nor do I find adjusting my language particularly burdensome. (I brought this up over there regarding restrictions on some kinds of ableist language a while back.)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Good general rule, and I completely agree. Was the reference intentional? If so, quite clever.

I don't know what the reference is. Yes, that very clever thing you said was intentional.

Assume the black delivery man disagreed with you, even knowing your friend's intent. Would you change your opinion?

I'd certainly listen to his reasoning with an open mind, and be prepared to change my opinion. But I won't change my opinion merely because a black person disagrees with me.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think, however, that a white person like myself should tend to defer to a black person when it comes to deciding whether that black person has a 'proper justification' for being offended.

"Tend to" is a phrase which can mean anything from "if everything else is equal I will let that tip the scales", to "I will always kowtow to their feels even if it's manifestly stupid". I agree with your sentiment if we're using the first definition of "tend to", but the A+ definition seems to me to be very much more like the second definition.

As others have said, a very basic part of being a critical thinker is realising that because someone feels something is true that doesn't make it true.

So when a black woman say that, given the racial context, white people asking to touch her hair offends her, I'll accept that and change my behavior. I don't think that other groups having a similar experience means that she is wrong to be offended.

This case seems about as clear-cut as one could ask for. Why do you think these people are right to be offended, given that we have clear evidence that hair-touching is a cross-cultural phenomenon reflecting curiosity, not a specifically USian phenomenon about racial prejudice?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I think, however, that a white person like myself should tend to defer to a black person when it comes to deciding whether that black person has a 'proper justification' for being offended. So when a black woman say that, given the racial context, white people asking to touch her hair offends her, I'll accept that and change my behavior. I don't think that other groups having a similar experience means that she is wrong to be offended.

Which is reasonable and perfectly fine. The one and only problem is how far you, me or others are willing to take it. What about the "It's getting dark" comment Foolmewunz mentioned for instance? Would you, in that situation, stop using a perfectly acceptable and legitimate phrase to describe the coming night because one black guy thinks you're discussing black people entering the room? Note that I'm not saying you would, I'm asking you.

I don't think I've seen anyone assert a claim about racism on the atheismplus forums, on their own behalf, that I found likely to be false on further reflection. I have seen people makes claims about language use on behalf of other groups that I don't find particularly persuasive, but nor do I find adjusting my language particularly burdensome. (I brought this up over there regarding restrictions on some kinds of ableist language a while back.)

Surely you note the problem here given your above comment?

It is unacceptable for me, as a white man, to over-ride any legitimate claims of offence by a black woman, and it is reasonable of me to defer to her as to what constitutes reasonable offence, correct?

So why is it ok for people over there to make a claim that X is racist to a group they cannot legitimately speak for?

Ceepolk, as a black woman is fine asserting racism aimed at her and saying certain phrases are racist in her eyes, (although I think she takes it waaaaaaay too far) but what about her shutting down the discussion of Islam because it's the religion of brown people?

She's not a Muslim. She's not an Arab (I'm assuming those were the brown people she meant and not say, Cat Stevens) so why does SHE get to decide what is acceptable to a group she isn't a member of? How is that different from a white racist saying that she should NOT be offended by the term Gollywog?

 

[Amazer]

I think, however, that a white person like myself should tend to defer to a black person when it comes to deciding whether that black person has a 'proper justification' for being offended.

Within reason I agree with you.

So when a black woman say that, given the racial context, white people asking to touch her hair offends her, I'll accept that and change my behavior.

I'd change my behavior too, but not because I think that the action of touching hair has racial overtones. I'd change it because it offends her personally.

I don't think that other groups having a similar experience means that she is wrong to be offended.

It does increase the probability that she is wrong however.

 

[qwints]

I don't know what the reference is. Yes, that very clever thing you said was intentional.

Rule of thumb^WP is a rather infamous case of people finding offense in a phrase without a good justification.