Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Foolmewunz]

TSA abuse in Japan on Youtube (almost NSFW):
www youtube com watch?v=at7AtyyTnaA

Well, it's a stupid sketch show. I don't think I'd get any more worked up about that than your average Benny Hill sketch.

 

[qwints]

Empress has no information, as far as I know, about the veracity of that poster's story besides their own personal experience with TSA. That does not seem to be sufficient information, given other reports/recordings of TSA misconduct, to warrant this statement:

But is is it more likely that [the Plussers] are repeatedly triggered and victimized simply because they are looking for reasons to be outraged and refuse to accept that other people tend to be well-meaning and want to do the best they can if only they were aware of unusual circumstances? I tend to suspect so.

That's my point, and I stand by it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Empress has no information, as far as I know, about the veracity of that poster's story besides their own personal experience with TSA. That does not seem to be sufficient information, given other reports/recordings of TSA misconduct, to warrant this statement:



That's my point, and I stand by it.

But personal experience trumps data every time. Why are you trying to erase Empress?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think it was Scrut who said early on that A+ would probably destroy itself before the end of the year.

Give that man a million dollars!

Yep, it was inevitable. Stupidity eventually collapses under its own weight.

 

[Skiltch]

Somebody here should write A+'s requiem. Try and make it constructive and charitable, if possible.

Sure, I'll take a crack at it.

There's nothing wrong, in principle, about forming a group that cares both about skepticism and social justice, or a group that tries to apply skeptical principles to social justice issues. But the failure of A+ reveals several important concepts that any such group has to keep in mind:

Skepticism matters. Claims that members of the group, whether they be proposed solutions or possible issues to target, should be evaluated skeptically. This is true even when the person making that claim has an oppression or the person challenging the claim has a privilege. Without skepticism, not only will the organization be ineffective as it targets non-issues and expends resources on useless solutions, but actual skeptics will leave.

Social justice matters. The group's actions should be geared towards fighting for social justice. The group should therefore have strategies to gather resources -- which can include money, objects, information, and volunteers -- and apply them to various problems in order to help people. If all the group does is talk about problems without ever doing anything, actual activists will be much less likely to join, and the group won't accomplish anything anyway.

Tone matters. Treating people horribly because of relatively minor transgressions drives people away, reducing the ability of the group to accomplish their goals. While the occasional terrible person might actually need to be castigated, if people who commit minor offenses are treated with the same respect and dignity that the A+ leaders wish to be treated with, they are much more likely to remain in the group, or join it, and help, than if they were treated with name-calling and hostility. If the members of the group appear to care more about their right to express their unbridled rage than about actual advocacy, the group's effectiveness and size will diminish.

Honesty matters. The group, and especially its leaders, must be honest to a fault about group activities. If they're found to be lying about things as trivial as forum moderation rules or the existence of secret boards for 'elite' members, that raises the question of what else they are lying about. People are less likely to contribute to, or take seriously, a group whose claims are not credible because its leaders are known to be disingenuous.

Leadership matters. The group should be led by people who know how to lead and have sufficient resources (or 'spoons') to do so, not necessarily by people with an axe to grind or by people who are more oppressed than anyone else in the group. If all the people at the top do is vent, then the group won't get anything done besides internal chatter.

Differences matter. Some skeptics will prefer to continue to focus on skeptical activism, and even some members of the group will have different priorities than whichever problems the group chooses to tackle. This should be recognized as fine. Trying to 'rank' oppressions, like the argument that 'there's so much racism that we shouldn't even look at religious oppression or skepticism until that's dealt with', is ridiculous and just drives away people that agree with the group on just about everything but are simply directing some of their resources elsewhere at the moment.

And lastly, intent... doesn't matter, but not in the way they think. If you want to participate in a social justice group, it doesn't matter how much good you intend to do. It doesn't matter how angry you really are at the injustices of the world, or how you have a great reason for not being able to do anything. It's not about you. It's about the cause, and the group's efforts should be wholly devoted to that cause. It might make a group member happy to scream on the forum at some other member who they think crossed them, and they probably don't intend any harm to the cause by doing that, but if it doesn't help the cause, it should be discouraged or prohibited. Because the purpose is supposed to be social justice, and that's far more important than letting someone feel smug because they unleashed a torrent of profanity on some newbie who doesn't know yet that the word 'moron' is considered ableist.

 

[qwints]

If you want to participate in a social justice group, it doesn't matter how much good you intend to do. It doesn't matter how angry you really are at the injustices of the world, or how you have a great reason for not being able to do anything. It's not about you.

Strongly, strongly agreed.

 

[dasmiller]

Sure, I'll take a crack at it. <snip>

I was going to say "good post, particularly the last paragraph," but qwints beat me to it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So the important issue is that ischemgeek called the people teasing the girl about her hair "white" when no article, including the one they cited, mentions the race of those people? It's a fair point, but I fail to see the significance.

You don't see the significance of a supposed leader in a group supposedly advocating for social justice being racist?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Care to explain your use of the term? Because it sounds absurd to me.

Assuming that the teasing must have come from white people because the victim was black is racist. The culture of the board not only allows, but encourages that sort of racism.

 

[Wildy]

That's not the case. Take a look at this music video from South Korea. Can we agree that the use of Native American imagery there is offensive? Or consider Hitler chic in Thailand.

The basic principle I'd put forth is, using or mimicking something from another culture without understanding its context can be offensive. I also think there's an interesting discussion to be had over whether any traditions or symbols are worthy of respect.

That depends on the kind of SJW you're talking to. Some are perfectly reasonable and would see how what you're seeing there is racism. However for some none of that would be considered racism because the people doing it aren't white because "power + privilege".

Just remember the one A+er (Setar? Ceepolk? It started with a "se" sound.) who said that you can't criticise Islam because brown people.

 

[Brainache]

That depends on the kind of SJW you're talking to. Some are perfectly reasonable and would see how what you're seeing there is racism. However for some none of that would be considered racism because the people doing it aren't white because "power + privilege".

Just remember the one A+er (Setar? Ceepolk? It started with a "se" sound.) who said that you can't criticise Islam because brown people.

That always makes me chuckle. As if Jesus was Scandinavian or something.

 

[Mr. Scott]

That's not the case. Take a look at this music video from South Korea. Can we agree that the use of Native American imagery there is offensive? Or consider Hitler chic in Thailand.

That depends on the kind of SJW you're talking to. Some are perfectly reasonable and would see how what you're seeing there is racism. However for some none of that would be considered racism because the people doing it aren't white because "power + privilege".

Just remember the one A+er (Setar? Ceepolk? It started with a "se" sound.) who said that you can't criticise Islam because brown people.

That was ceepolk (see my sig). If they are consistent, then Koreans and Thais should be immune to criticism from descendants of White Europeans. I heard PZ chided Japan for "rape culture" as expressed in their fiction (Japan has one of the world's lowest rates of rape BTW). No, PZ, lay off the non-whites.

BTW My working assumption on Christianity is it was concocted in the 3rd century by the Roman Empire (by White Europeans) to hoax the Jews into obedience. That would make Christianity a white people's religion invented for, and still used for, bullying non-whites (South Korea, Philippines, parts of Africa, Latin America, etc.). Notice the current Pope, celebrate for being from Latin America, is actually a White Spaniard in heritage.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That was ceepolk (see my sig). If they are consistent, then Koreans and Thais should be immune to criticism from descendants of White Europeans. I heard PZ chided Japan for "rape culture" as expressed in their fiction (Japan has one of the world's lowest rates of rape BTW).

As that link itself says, you can't really trust those figures. It's entirely credible that the reported rape figures are low per capita, yet the actual rape figures are high per capita.

 

[qwints]

Mr. Scott, you're correct that ceepolk and PZ don't agree. Why is that significant?

Assuming that the teasing must have come from white people because the victim was black is racist. The culture of the board not only allows, but encourages that sort of racism.

Is this a fair re-statement of your position?

Attributing race without an explicit statement from a source about race is racist. (While prejudiced as opposed to institutional racism?)*, it still represents a character flaw in the speaker. Failure to condemn such a character flaw, when combined with falsely labeling others as having that same character flaw condemns the place where it happened.

*Not sure about this, and I just want to make sure we're using the same definition of racism and you're not using the critical-race theory definition used at atheismplus.

First, I acknowledge that I can't find support for ischemgeek's describing the bullies as white. It's reasonable to assert that this was their assumption. It's fair to describe that as a racist (prejudiced) assumption. Given my personal experience and other accounts combined with the demographics at that school, it's possible that only some or none of the bullies were white.

Thinking about this, there does seem to be a significant issue - the use of white as a default. Assuming an unknown person is white (or straight, male, etc...) is, indeed, problematic and is part of the erasure of minorities from culture we see in a lot of areas.

On the other hand, I think y'all are advocating a different point - assuming someone who has done something negative has a certain characteristic means that the assumer believes all or most people with that characteristic tend to do that negative thing. In other words, if I assume a criminal is black, I believe all blacks are criminals. If I assume a racist bully is white, I believe all whites are racist bullies.

I don't, however, buy that argument by analogy. First, prejudice about whites and blacks really are fundamentally different in the US and many other societies. "White people can't jump" is a different kind of stereotype from "black people are stupid", even though both can cause stereotype threat because of the larger social context. Stopping a conversation about one to talk about the other is a common problem that tends to distract from the discussion by and of marginalized groups. Second, making a problematic assumption doesn't make you a bad person or disqualify you from the atheismplus forums. I've made that and said ill-considered/bigoted things, and I'm still there.

 

[adamwho]

Originally Posted by adamwho View Post
The cautionary tale isn't about promoting feminism and social justice, it is about pretending that they are equivalent to atheism and skepticism. It is about group think and us-against-them attitudes. It is about thought policing and dogma.

I'm not sure if that was the problem, though. They're not the only segment of skepticism to draw an equivalence between skepticism and specific social causes.

***
No: I think the problem was that they unwittingly failed the site curation balance between letting people convey their thoughts versus tempering uncivil or mentally unstable activity.

Certainly their behaviors were the biggest problem but there are still some blind-spots in the skeptic community, especially on political issues. It turns out that people are awesome skeptics when they generally dislike the claims being made.... not so much when they claims align with their political beliefs.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is this a fair re-statement of your position?

You don't need to re-state my position, as there's nothing unclear about what I said.

The rest of your post seems to be you having an argument with yourself.

 

[qwints]

You don't need to re-state my position, as there's nothing unclear about what I said.

The rest of your post seems to be you having an argument with yourself.

I'm going to keep restating things and asking you to correct any errors in my restatement. It's not a rhetorical trick, it's an attempt to communicate. Your statement wasn't clear to me. I wasn't clear on

1) What did you mean by "racist"?
2) Does the fact that the girl was black matter to the problem with the assumption or not?
3) Why do you say the board allows/encourages racism?
4) Why do you think that's a bad thing?

Based on your previous posts, I think I know what you mean, but I'd like to make sure I understand you.

here's the tl;dr on the rest of that post. Complaining about prejudice against whites in a post condemning a school for being racist against a black girl is a bad thing to do. That said, the assumption was indeed problematic

 

[Myriad]

here's the tl;dr on the rest of that post. Complaining about prejudice against whites in a post condemning a school for being racist against a black girl is a bad thing to do. That said, the assumption was indeed problematic

I question the underlying principle being applied here. Is it that complaining about (or, in general, attending to) a lesser matter is bad, when a more important matter has also been raised?

For example (purely hypothetical): someone defaces public buildings by spray-painting anti-rape graffiti on walls. Is opposing or condemning the graffiti inappropriate because rape is a vastly more important issue?

Another: a man on a subway platform is running around, shoving passengers and screaming at the top of his lungs about the evil Nestlé corporation causing world hunger. Can the transit cops arrest him, or must they solve world hunger (or at least, the shortcomings of the city's public mental health care system) first?

A third, much less hypothetical: A man is accused of sexual harassment on what appears to be inadequate evidence. Is discussing the inadequacy of the evidence in the case a bad thing, because there's so much sexual harassment that actually does occur?

This principle seems to be a fundamental point of division.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[jhunter1163]

I've been trying to figure out the same thing.

I've helped my octogenarian mother who has had two hip replacements and two torn rotator cuffs that prohibits raising her arms, repeatedly through the TSA checkpoints, and all it means is pushing her through in her wheelchair and giving explanations to the TSA agent about her medical situation and then calmly walking through the scatterback machine myself and waiting for her on the other side.

The TSA agents have been ubiquitously understanding and professional when confronted with my mother's physical maladies, and we have always been quickly on our way in no time, complete with my mother's medically necessary fluids, such as insulin.

Perhaps if the Plussers grasped the simple fact that they are not special snowflakes, other people are not out to get them, and workers are simply trying to do their jobs as reasonably and simply as possible, they might find that getting along in life is a goal we can all work towards.

I've found that granting others the presumption that they are well-meaning, including airport workers even in a post-9/11 world, makes everyone work towards a common aim and get along as best we can. I personally don't like the high security and lack of privacy that modern airports demand, and as a result I have only flown a handful of times since 9/11. But if my mother chooses to do so, and I choose to help her through the checkpoint, then it is my decision to face the difficulties that a personal inspection requires, despite a personal history of physical and sexual abuse. It is not the agent's fault that I have problems with being touched, and when I am even minimally open and honest with them, I have found them to have been unfailingly sympathetic and understanding, not to mention professional.

I can't help but feel that the Plussers inevitably have problems in every walk of life simply because they demand special status without taking the personal responsibility to vocalize their difficulties and work towards a mutually-agreeable outcome. Is it possible that they are all so unlucky as to constantly come in contact with jackasses who are invariably looking for a stooge on whom they can work out their personal demons? Sure. But is is it more likely that they are repeatedly triggered and victimized simply because they are looking for reasons to be outraged and refuse to accept that other people tend to be well-meaning and want to do the best they can if only they were aware of unusual circumstances? I tend to suspect so.

Life if difficult. It only gets more so if we refuse to communicate with one another about our personal struggles and strivings. But the Plussers seem to want to be victimized and outraged. If that is what they like, and that is what they demand, I find it no surprise that that is what they constantly experience.

I've only just now seen this post, which is a shame; I would have nominated it but it isn't eligible this month, damn it all. Still, it's a brilliant post.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

1) What did you mean by "racist"?

She judged people's actions not by the actions themselves, or by information about the event, but by imagining them to have a certain skin colour, and then imagining their motives based on nothing but that skin colour.

2) Does the fact that the girl was black matter to the problem with the assumption or not?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this sentence, but replace any race thus far discussed with any other race and my opinion would be the same.

3) Why do you say the board allows/encourages racism?

Because it allows and encourages racism.

4) Why do you think that's a bad thing?

Did you really just ask me why I think encouraging racism is bad?

Complaining about prejudice against whites in a post condemning a school for being racist against a black girl is a bad thing to do.

A) I didn't. B) Even if I had, why would it be a bad thing to do, if the post condemning the white people was factually incorrect and nobody had been racist against a black girl? Is it your contention that any stated prejudice against a black person - whether true or not - trumps any other kind of racial prejudice? I can understand not hijacking a topic about a certain type of racial prejudice with talk of a different type of prejudice, particularly if it's talk of prejudice against a group which are usually in the positions of power, but commenting on an erroneous post in a completely different venue is "a bad thing to do"?