Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Foolmewunz]

Thank you yes, this is precisely what I mean and precisely the criticism I have of the Emily/Greg study.

Well, not surprisingly, since you both made the same error, you agree. I've read the study. It says nothing about using lower-class-sounding names, so that's a projection you folks are making. Neither of you has done anything to prove that Latesha and Jamal are "lower-class" names.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's a boorish, rude behavior that highlights a characteristically black physical feature as so much of an exotic novelty that it calls out to be felt up like a textured swatch in a book of fabric samples.

If people making this request haven't given enough thought to their creepy and imposing personal mannerisms to realize that this one may be a particularly inconsiderate request to subject a black person to, then I guess they might get an earful about it from a black person at some point. Hopefully, that will allow them to learn a new and useful fact about how to interact with other human beings in ways that are not rude and annoying. Why am I supposed to be upset if that happens?

Glad to see we agree on the underlying premise. It's not its "blackness" that makes black hair a target for boorish requests to touch or fondle, it's its differentness. In Africa, black villagers wanted to feel my big Zapata style mustache. My friend Ranger Gary had a wife with freckles and red hair and she couldn't get through the yard of the black school where she taught without two dozen kids wanting to press the freckles or stroke her hair.

So good luck with your campaign to correct people's manners and etiquette, since that's what it amounts to. Not many of us can aspire to such a noble calling.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Glad to see we agree on the underlying premise. It's not its "blackness" that makes black hair a target for boorish requests to touch or fondle, it's its differentness. In Africa, black villagers wanted to feel my big Zapata style mustache. My friend Ranger Gary had a wife with freckles and red hair and she couldn't get through the yard of the black school where she taught without two dozen kids wanting to press the freckles or stroke her hair.

So good luck with your campaign to correct people's manners and etiquette, since that's what it amounts to. Not many of us can aspire to such a noble calling.

Wouldn't that be oppressing their culture and enforcing our arbitrary Western standards of manners and etiquette in a fashion reminiscent of cultural imperialism? After all, who are we to say that it's a boorish, rude behavior that highlights a characteristically black white physical feature as so much of an exotic novelty that it calls out to be felt up like a textured swatch in a book of fabric samples? Check your white man's privilege!

If you don't watch out I'll tell my very small circle of real friends and my 40 000 fake friends to block you on Twitter.

 

[The Man]

If I believed they were making it up, I'd probably ignore/avoid them in the future. Why get involved with someone who's just looking for a fight?

So if you believed someone was making up the offense of being marginalized your response would be to marginalize them?

Sometimes people aren’t looking for a fight, they are just looking for confirmation of their interpretation of events or for those offering alternative interpretations to just go away.

 

[rustypouch]

So if you believed someone was making up the offense of being marginalized your response would be to marginalize them?

Sometimes people aren’t looking for a fight, they are just looking for confirmation of their interpretation of events or for those offering alternative interpretations to just go away.

That's what I've taken from the whole A+/SJW thing that's come up over the last little while.

If someone's offended, that's all that matters. Assuming Xe/Xi/Xo/Xum is a member of a traditionally oppressed group that's not 'white,' the feels are more important than any intent or objective reality.

 

[The Man]

That's what I've taken from the whole A+/SJW thing that's come up over the last little while.

If someone's offended, that's all that matters. Assuming Xe/Xi/Xo/Xum is a member of a traditionally oppressed group that's not 'white,' the feels are more important than any intent or objective reality.

Yet intent (or the perception of it) is a key element to qwint's query "Why get involved with someone who's just looking for a fight?". Why get offended by someone who's just looking to offend and why get offended by someone who isn't?

 

[colander]

Glad to see we agree on the underlying premise. It's not its "blackness" that makes black hair a target for boorish requests to touch or fondle, it's its differentness. In Africa, black villagers wanted to feel my big Zapata style mustache. My friend Ranger Gary had a wife with freckles and red hair and she couldn't get through the yard of the black school where she taught without two dozen kids wanting to press the freckles or stroke her hair.

So good luck with your campaign to correct people's manners and etiquette, since that's what it amounts to. Not many of us can aspire to such a noble calling.

My campaign? I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying here. I'm not going to be able tell anyone off for this, because nobody ever asks me if they can feel my hair. My understanding is that this particular demeaning annoyance happens much more often to people who are black.

Don't want to call it racism? How about racial exoticism? You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an alienating experience that happens more often to people who don't belong to the majority race in our society. These facts do not cease to be true even if most hair-touchers don't consciously mean to annoy black people.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Back to the topic, I was wondering what the A+ adherents here felt about the fact that A+, once hoped to be a growing and influential "movement," is now just one Internet forum of ever-shrinking numbers, activity, and relevance? What are their hypotheses for its apparent failure?

I'd appreciate it if the neutral and anti-A+ contingents would wait for the pro-A+ contingent to respond, first. Thanks in advance.

PS: Are there people who are truly neutral about the A+ endeavor? Any of them post here? Or, is it by design necessarily polarizing, and do Aplussers feel that's a good thing?

PPS: quints and ApostateA haven't responded to any of my posts for months, so I assume they've blocked me. If someone they do respond to, would repost the question for them, we'd have a better chance of hearing their response.

 

[Empress]

Back to the topic, I was wondering what the A+ adherents here felt about the fact that A+, once hoped to be a growing and influential "movement," is now just one Internet forum of ever-shrinking numbers, activity, and relevance? What are their hypotheses for its apparent failure?

I'd appreciate it if the neutral and anti-A+ contingents would wait for the pro-A+ contingent to respond, first. Thanks in advance.

PS: Are there people who are truly neutral about the A+ endeavor? Any of them post here? Or, is it by design necessarily polarizing, and do Aplussers feel that's a good thing?

PPS: quints and ApostateA haven't responded to any of my posts for months, so I assume they've blocked me. If someone they do respond to, would repost the question for them, we'd have a better chance of hearing their response.

Assuming they haven't blocked me, too, here you go.

 

[qwints]

Mr. Scott, I don't recall ignoring any of your posts. I don't think I've missed a question you've directed to me.

Atheismplus hasn't achieved anything of note that I'm aware of. Like the
"brights" experience a ways back, it created a lot more meta-discussion than any tangible results. The mods of the forum, and other atheismplus-identified groups, have focused on creating and maintaining safe spaces rather than recruitment efforts. Combine that with some of the early supporters putting more focus on other brands, and I'm not that surprised at the lack of tangible achievements. On the other hand, I'm less disappointed with this than I was with, for example, Occupy's dissipation.

One thing it has made aware of is the genuine antipathy that exists on social justice issues in the atheism and skeptic communities, as well as the significant amount of denialism regarding racial and sexual discrimination in those communities. I think I'm likely to continue to focus my resources towards groups like the National Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom Network that are more focused in their goals.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Qwints, I will preface this by saying that while we have disagreed I've considered you a generally respectful, decent and intelligent poster and I'm glad you're here.

I'm curious, and forgive me if you feel you've answered either of these questions before:

1. Do you believe that free speech is a good thing generally, obviously discounting slander, shouting fire in a crowded theatre etc?

2. A)Do you think that shining a light on ignorant and disgraceful beliefs and ideas is a good way to destroy them and keep them fringe OR
B) is it a better idea to suppress them?

 

[qwints]

Free speech is good, and the crowded theater line comes from a supreme court case that was wrongly decided. Schenck v. United States - 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Exposing bad ideas is good. Ridiculing, shaming and otherwise attacking bad ideas is consistent with exposing them. Consider Stetson Kennedy's "Frown Power" campaign. I oppose college speech codes and laws criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust. To anticipate an objection, however, refusing to publish or engage bigoted statements is not the equivalent of suppression.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

One thing it has made aware of is the genuine antipathy that exists on social justice issues in the atheism and skeptic communities, as well as the significant amount of denialism regarding racial and sexual discrimination in those communities.

I don't think we should be surprised by this. All atheists/skeptics have in common is not believing in homeopathy, bigfoot, Jehovah and so forth. There's no strong reason I can see to expect atheists/skeptics to be much more socially aware than is typical for their cultural background.

 

[colander]

Do you think you should be upset if over-sensitive people make factually false claims of racism, thus cheapening the accusation and giving ammunition to actual racists?

If a bunch of people are engaging for funzies in uncomfortable acts which they preferentially target towards members of an already socially disadvantaged ethnic minority group in a way that is sure to intensify their awareness that members of the group they belong to are commonly viewed as abnormal and typically afforded less respect for personal autonomy in the larger cultural context, how does that not constitute racism?

At what point do you allow that black people have the right to be upset about acts that serve no function to them except to make their lives more fraught and unpleasant and that are predicated solely upon the fact that they have racial features that look different from the ones typically seen on white people?

On average, how much of the racist stuff that racists like to engage in would you say has as its genesis the fact that black people sometimes complain about racism more frequently than you deem decorous? Can you give me a percentage here? I'm just trying to figure out the degree to which you believe that black complainers should be held accountable for their role in fomenting racist sentiment.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If a bunch of people are engaging for funzies in uncomfortable acts which they preferentially target towards members of an already socially disadvantaged ethnic minority group in a way that is sure to intensify their awareness that members of the group they belong to are commonly viewed as abnormal and typically afforded less respect for personal autonomy in the larger cultural context, how does that not constitute racism?

Answering a question with a question? That's one way to avoid answering a question, I guess. The thing I can't figure out is why you think anyone should answer your questions, given that you don't respond to theirs.

At what point do you allow that black people have the right to be upset about acts that serve no function to them except to make their lives more fraught and unpleasant and that are predicated solely upon the fact that they have racial features that look different from the ones typically seen on white people?

It doesn't seem like your post is going to answer the question at all. It seems like you're going on an unrelated, pre-scripted rant.

You know, if there's something you really want to get off your chest you don't need to post it in response to my posts, especially if it's totally unrelated. If you don't want to have a conversation you don't have to. Just post your rant as a stand-alone rant.

On average, how much of the racist stuff that racists like to engage in would you say has as its genesis the fact that black people sometimes complain about racism more frequently than you deem decorous? Can you give me a percentage here? I'm just trying to figure out the degree to which you believe that black complainers should be held accountable for their role in fomenting racist sentiment.

More of the same. Look, how about you back the rant truck up, and try again only this time you answer the question?

Do you think you should be upset if over-sensitive people make factually false claims of racism, thus cheapening the accusation and giving ammunition to actual racists?

 

[Stout]

Being oversensitive is the only way to win at social justice.

It's easy if you know how

Let's try a few examples

First up is Submor and his shutting down a thread about Islam, Sharia and Britain.

Thread

From the BBC article cited in the OP

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation (IKWRO) is campaigning to bring an end to the practice.

''We have spoken to many women and all of them tell us the same story; Sharia law is not providing them with the justice they seek. The councils are dominated by men, who are making judgements in favour of men,'' said Diana Nammi.

Submor is being anti-feminist and using Islamophobia as a smokescreen to mansplain to a poster who is presenting as male that hir concerns are invalid and the discussion will not proceed.

See?...... easy peasy

Or we can try dealing with the latest Watson vs Thunderfoot fracus.

Watson Writes ( note how I referred to her by her last name, I'm learning from the commentators on Ophelia Benson's blog)

That’s right: a mountain lion tried to rape Thunderf00t. He doesn’t say that explicitly but why else would he be using this story as an example of how women shouldn’t be raped

Link Bolding mine.

Clearly this is a rape joke, ha ha

Oversensitive ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

My campaign? I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying here. I'm not going to be able tell anyone off for this, because nobody ever asks me if they can feel my hair. My understanding is that this particular demeaning annoyance happens much more often to people who are black.

Don't want to call it racism? How about racial exoticism? You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an alienating experience that happens more often to people who don't belong to the majority race in our society. These facts do not cease to be true even if most hair-touchers don't consciously mean to annoy black people.

The point I am making is that you're talking about your corner of the world. With four hundred years of history, blacks are rightfully a little more aware of some of the subtle nuances in the language and behavior that applies to the American experience. I'm a part of a different community now. I know those battles over there and I think the elevation of discussion of such nuances is detrimental to the overall goals because it's distracting.

But it's like Freudian analysis vs behavioral modification. Freudian analysis, over twenty years might actually work better but behavioral modification shows results. We can spend a century trying to change the underlying sociological mindsets and might achieve something long after you and I are dead. But in the short term we have organizations actively working to deny people votes in the guise of Voter ID laws, we have states trying to cram fundy religious concepts into our school curricula, states and organizations trying to prevent LGBT persons from having the rights of all citizens and not terribly subtle misogyny and racism in the business world, particularly hiring and firing.

The A+ solution to all of this? Nothing. They educate themselves and the occasional acolyte and they complain on the internet. Their greatest activity consists of someone standing up to someone and calling them out - and they rack that up as huge achievement points. But more often than not, they don't call people out, they wished they would have called someone out then go post on the forums and everyone sends them "hugs if you want them". This sort of discussion is right up their alley.

But my point still stands. I'm saying boorish and insensitive behavior is sometimes merely boorish and insensitive behavior. NOT because of racial connotations, but because most people are too thick and self-centered to know or care. You think it has racial undercurrents. We disagree.

 

[Humes fork]

Being oversensitive is the only way to win at social justice.

It's easy if you know how

Let's try a few examples

First up is Submor and his shutting down a thread about Islam, Sharia and Britain.

Thread

From the BBC article cited in the OP

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation (IKWRO) is campaigning to bring an end to the practice.



Submor is being anti-feminist and using Islamophobia as a smokescreen to mansplain to a poster who is presenting as male that hir concerns are invalid and the discussion will not proceed.

Why doesn't anyone point them to Carrier's critiques of Islam, or Myers' desecration of the Quran (along with The God Delusion and a cracker)? The demise of their stupidity can't happen fast enough.

 

[Humes fork]

What Atheism+ Could Have Been
What Atheism+ Could Have Been, Part II

Pretty good writings. In summary, they should have spent time actually doing something for social justice (their conception of it, anyways) rather than attacking other people and name-calling.

 

[squealpiggy]

Well, not surprisingly, since you both made the same error, you agree. I've read the study. It says nothing about using lower-class-sounding names, so that's a projection you folks are making. Neither of you has done anything to prove that Latesha and Jamal are "lower-class" names.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...e/2005/04/a_roshanda_by_any_other_name.2.html

"What kind of parent is most likely to give a child such a distinctively black name? The data offer a clear answer: an unmarried, low-income, undereducated, teenage mother from a black neighborhood who has a distinctively black name herself."

In other words it is a lower class name, and the study did not control for class by using distinctively lower class white names as well.