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

[blutoski]

FCA's response.


Follow up story.

Ouch. Maybe not her classmates, but if we started the thread with uncertainty about whether anti-black racism was still a factor in the US, the comments section on that news site is pretty good evidence that such racism is indeed alive and well.

 

[Meed]

There's too much of your post to address without going too far on off-topic tangents, so I'll ignore some of it's points without conceding them in the spirit of staying on topic.

Christianity appears to be a merger of Judaism and Roman Pantheism instigated not by ethnic Jews, whatever color they were, but by the (white) Roman Empire. It's been very effective at spreading the empire's influence to far flung places like The Phillippines, South America, and Ireland.

I personally prefer to look at religion with color blind eyes, but decided for a moment to look at Christianity through SJW's color-obsessed eyes to see how it looked to me. I don't see them exercising a coherent, consistent philosophy, but rather a mish-mash of miscellaneous outrages.

Someone bring me up to date -- is Christianity, as practiced by indigenous Latin America, Fillipinos, Black Baptists and Pentecostals, and Black Africans, considered by SJWs to be untouchable "brown people" religions?

I think the argument would be that Christianity was brought to a lot of these places by Europeans during the times of European exploration/trade/colonization.

Also it would be accurate to say that anti-Muslim sentiment, while not necessarily racism, is often associated with or tied up with racism or if not racism then prejudice toward foreign peoples (which some might label as "xenophobia").

I'm perfectly fine with bashing Islam personally though, and certainly wouldn't call someone a racist for doing so just because some people who don't like Muslims are racists.

 

[Foolmewunz]

And in another thread, we have a similar behavior being exhibited.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5702

Legitimate topic. Should be of concern. Certainly merits attention and discussion. Similar measures were proposed by skinflints in the UK a while back to similarly legitimate uproar.

Alas, you get a few outraged posts (one of which typically says "I don't know about the topic, but golly I'm against this"), and then you get Ischemgeek doing zub's Ceepolk impression yet again.... No where in ANY of the hundreds of articles on this nor in any of the comments I've read, has anyone put this off to "Well, d2 sufferers are fat slobs and probably don't deserve our skinny money".

This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation. Why make it into some picayune hobby horse? I think the old adage is true: If the only tool in your box is a hammer, pretty soon the whole world begins to look like a nail.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I think the argument would be that Christianity was brought to a lot of these places by Europeans during the times of European exploration/trade/colonization.

So, if White Europeans infected them with Christianity, I'd consider it appropriate for White Europeans to "address" killing the Frankenstein Monster they created, regardless of the melanin levels of the victims infected. Not sure what the SJWs feel about that but recall they issued a hands-off decree against addressing Black Christian sects.

 

[Brainache]

So, if White Europeans infected them with Christianity, I'd consider it appropriate for White Europeans to "address" killing the Frankenstein Monster they created, regardless of the melanin levels of the victims infected. Not sure what the SJWs feel about that but recall they issued a hands-off decree against addressing Black Christian sects.

But, going by your sig; She doesn't specifically say Muslim.

If a Brown Person is Christian, do we still have to keep our hands off their religion?

 

[RayG]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5702

Alas, you get a few outraged posts (one of which typically says "I don't know about the topic, but golly I'm against this"), and then you get Ischemgeek doing zub's Ceepolk impression yet again.... No where in ANY of the hundreds of articles on this nor in any of the comments I've read, has anyone put this off to "Well, d2 sufferers are fat slobs and probably don't deserve our skinny money".

This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation.

First, I couldn't find either of those quotes in the link you provided. Isn't it the general rule to only place something inside quotation marks when actually quoting someone?

Something like: Foolmewunz says "This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation."

Instead of, Foolmewunz is "outraged at the lack of investigation by the A+ crowd."

Second, while I would agree that the topic likely deserves investigation, I'm not so sure it deserves outrage.

Is testing more than once a week necessary for those with Type 2 diabetes? Does research show that testing daily or three times a week produces significant positive results? What are the risk factors for Type 2 diabetes? Would regular exercise and reducing weight be more effective than using test strips to reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes? Is the petition a reasoned/rational approach, or an emotional one?

RayG

 

[Foolmewunz]

First, I couldn't find either of those quotes in the link you provided. Isn't it the general rule to only place something inside quotation marks when actually quoting someone?

Something like: Foolmewunz says "This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation."

Instead of, Foolmewunz is "outraged at the lack of investigation by the A+ crowd."

Second, while I would agree that the topic likely deserves investigation, I'm not so sure it deserves outrage.

Is testing more than once a week necessary for those with Type 2 diabetes? Does research show that testing daily or three times a week produces significant positive results? What are the risk factors for Type 2 diabetes? Would regular exercise and reducing weight be more effective than using test strips to reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes? Is the petition a reasoned/rational approach, or an emotional one?

RayG

Yeah, sorry about that first part. I thought of putting "I paraphrase" in parentheses but didn't go back to do so. I have a bad habit of wanting to write thoughts as imaginary dialogue and putting them in quotes. I'll usually wrap actual quote tags around anything that's a real quote.

As to the effectiveness of the strips... they're a tool for measuring blood glucose. If their doctors recommend exercise and diet and nutritional changes, they still need to see if those changes are aiding, but they're not going to wean them from their meds immediately and say, "Just run around the block and eat some rice cakes and you'll be fine. Don't worry about those dizzy spells or if you pass out." (That's another imaginary quote. No real doctors were harmed in the making of this post.) They will still need the Type 2 patient to be self-monitoring.

It's not a "treatment". It's a method of monitoring whether the treatments are working. Patients adjust their meds based on the readings they get. At a cost of about USD 0.75 a day for a strip (d2 patients test once a day) they're being penny wise and pound foolish. If the patient misjudges or decides to tough-it-out with minor symptoms, or say the d2 patient has a cold or flu and thinks they're feeling like crap from the bug rather than their blood sugar... the costs from complications are ten thousand fold higher than the costs of the test strips.

((Disclaimer: IANAD. I lost my sister to diabetes and my father-in-law. My mother suffered from 2d for years and tested herself daily. Beyond a certain range of change, she was told to NOT just adjust her dosage, but to get her ass to the hospital. It's deemed that significant.))

 

[Mr. Scott]

But, going by your sig; She doesn't specifically say Muslim.

If a Brown Person is Christian, do we still have to keep our hands off their religion?

Google to the rescue!

Are you saying atheists should not be working to "tear down" Islam or Hinduism?

i agree. thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end

So, Boss Ceepolk was referring to Islam and Hinduism, but I've seen atheist SJWs declare Black Christian congregations to also be untouchable. She didn't use the plural "religions" but it looks like she was in too much of a hurry to shut down criticism of brown religions to proof her post. The color of the people practicing the religion was apparently, to her, the most important factor.

 

[qwints]

I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.

 

[blutoski]

I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.

It complicates things a lot, unfortunately.

The correlation between ethnicity and religion can make targetting a particular religion de facto targetting people's ethnicicty. If nothing else, it's bad optics and therefore a questionable tactic. The FFRF's objetion to a star of david on a holocaust memorial is a recent example.

An older example that precipitated my distance from CFI Vancouver was their lack of social filter with regard to Blasphemy Day. Some of the cartoons they drew were not making a good distinction between blasphemy versus non-PC. eg: drawing Jewish Bankers with star of david medallions and money bags, or drawing Arabs with bombs. Their fallback excuse was that Blasphemy Day was more about the right to free speech, even if it's offensive. My thought is that it was inventing an excuse for bigoted speech, and more or less disgraceful behavior.

I can see how a person from an ethnic group targetted by CFI's campaign who also thought he was a skeptic would at least try to look for a segment within skepticism that was sympathetic before rejecting skepticism altogether. I think A+ intended to attract that demographic, but ended up losing control of their informal org to a few individuals with personality disorders.



I think there's a middle ground of reasonableness that is not being navigated because skeptical activists have become somewhat polarized. Either you can't criticize blatant bigotry because it's unskeptical to question free speech, or you have to have your thoughts vetted before membership is approved and only publish on message.


People like myself who understand that sometimes criticizing an ethnicity is unethical or downright stupid, while also believing that there is value in criticizing some ethnicities, picking our battles, don't really have anywhere to go within skepticism.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.

There are, no doubt, arguments against certain religions that have racial overtones. Much of the anti-Islam fervor is based on that, IMHO.

But to put that out there as the default position, as Ceepolk did and as a lot of you accept as "not completely unreasonable" is what complicates things. My default position is that the person I'm discussing things with is actually criticizing the religious beliefs and I don't insist (as I believe Ceepolk once proposed) that we cannot criticize Islam or Buddhism or Taoism or Totemism without simultaneously saying some bad stuff about Christianity and Judaism. This is just plain silly. On a board devoted to Atheism, the assumption should be that the poster is against religion and religious beliefs and just happens to want to discuss Buddhism in that particular post or discussion.

It's another case of having an agenda that serves to stifle discussion for no reason other than to promote the dogma.

 

[Amadanb]

I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.

You might not have agreed with ceepolk, but you sure didn't argue with her, did you?

I did, and it was patently obvious that she was trying to find some pretext to ban me from then on.

Her and that creepy guy who apparently joined A+ to convince us that the most pressing SJ issue for atheists should be defending Muslims did much to erode my sympathy.

 

[qwints]

I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.

Were you banned? I don't remember that, I just thought you stopped posting.

 

[s_pepys]

I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.

Were you banned? I don't remember that, I just thought you stopped posting.

I've read that thread and I don't see you disagreeing with ceepolk at all. Care to link to that discussion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.

This is the thread in question. I don't see a post from you in there at all.

 

[Humes fork]

Another gem. I didn't know non-Christian belief systems had intrinsic value.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Another gem. I didn't know non-Christian belief systems had intrinsic value.

I don't see what you're making reference to in that post, but I do like this;

If atheist groups within those cultures and communities offer to build allegiances with us, then we should support them however they ask.

Bearing in mind that "those cultures and communities" are, in the same post, defined as "non-Christian believers" we run into a nice little paradox. We should only comment on Hinduism or Islam if Hindus or Muslim atheists ask for help. But isn't "Muslim atheist" a contradiction in terms?

And, for a post which is nominally anti-racism, it does rather seem to fall into the same trap as ceepolk in saying that Islam is a foreign religion - implying that there are no white Muslims, no non-immigrant Muslims in the West. It may be true that the majority are non-white (this source suggests that 11% of Muslims in the UK are white), but the lack of precision ends up mirroring the "us and them" rhetoric of exactly the kinds of bigots the post is supposed to be railing against.

 

[Amadanb]

I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.

Were you banned? I don't remember that, I just thought you stopped posting.

No, I have not been banned. I just post very infrequently, because I have concluded that there are too many issues that I disagree with them on, and even with ceepolk gone, trying to disagree with anyone on A+ requires a very delicate dance of phrasing your words just so (especially if you are disagreeing with someone who is triggered by life, which seems to be about half of them). Usually I don't have the time or patience.

 

[qwints]

This is the thread in question. I don't see a post from you in there at all.

I'm qmartindale over there, which I've said here before. But that was a while back.

 

[qwints]

But isn't "Muslim atheist" a contradiction in terms?

Hitchens talked about being a "protestant atheist", and there are several explicitly ex-muslim organizations, such as Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and ExMuslim Blogs. Many atheists, like myself, left a particular faith.