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

[Walter Ego]

Atheism Plus. Over this way-------------->

[westprog]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

That may be changing. There is already technology (e.g. IDOL from Autonomy (now part of HP)) which can index audio and video.

It seems an elaborate way to get to where one would be in the first place just by writing the stuff down, but it's better than nothing. As you say, the problem with many of the video essays is that they lack the structure that writing them out would possibly give them.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Because I'm from the South? We make two quarts of it (fresh brewed, never canned or instant) in my three-person household every day. I'm drinking some right now... with lemon.

Bags or loose leaf?

*you choose if that's a euphemism*

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Bags or loose leaf?

*you choose if that's a euphemism*

BAGS.

[mijopaalmc]

The Atheists+ don't seem to understand that "allies" are not people who will mindlessly endorse what ever they do:

Originally Posted by ischemgeek

Originally Posted by Michael McG

The construction you used did minimize persuasion as an aim of marginalized persons, so don't pretend that I am being ignorant her.

Dude, ffs, you have many people here saying that persuasion isn't our primary goal here. Yes, you are being ignorant, and willfully obtuse to boot. As ceepolk an the others have said, this is our base. This is our safe space. This subforum, specifically, is a space where those who want to be allies (i.e., those who've already decided that social justice is important) can come to ask for resources for self-education. The rest of the forum is a space where we can talk about issues, work towards bigger goals, and otherwise engage in community building. It is not a space where we want fight to 'convince' those who've already made their minds up about us. Sorry, dudebro, but our basic goals and humanity ain't up for debate here. Deal.

Would you expect the ACLU to debate with every racist yahoo about whether or not racial profiling is bad on their main site? **** no. Same here. We are not debating our basic tenants because those are why we got started in the first place. If someone doesn't give a **** about that stuff, there's a whole wide Internet out there for them to play in. They don't have to take this space. And we are not going to give them this space. Full stop.

ETA: How does one advance a "social justice movement" without persuasion?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

The Atheists+ don't seem to understand that "allies" are not people who will mindlessly endorse what ever they do:



ETA: How does one advance a "social justice movement" without persuasion?

I'd have no problem with this position if they were honest about it. Their refusal to say "Before posting here, you have to accept certain views about privilege, rape culture and so on. If you put forward views opposing this, you will be banned." I explicitly asked them to do this.

Instead, they find themselves in the position of wanting to ban people for holding opposing views, but can't do so. Instead, they have to just make reasons up. They have a list of banned people on the site, together with the supposed reasons for the banning. In most cases, the reasons given are clearly a lie. People are not banned for inappropriate language, or harassment, or disputing with moderators. They are banned for putting forward alternate viewpoints.

I don't see anything wrong with a site that restricts discussion within certain parameters. A site discussing evolutionary biology is quite within its rights to stop people discussing creationism. A structural engineering site should not have to deal with people claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, together with back-of-the-envelope calculations to prove it. Conversely, creationist and conspiracy sites should be able to have their own place where they can exchange views.

If the A+ site did this, then we'd have nothing to complain about. When someone puts forward views that were deemed unacceptable, then they could be politely warned that the topic wasn't open for discussion. If they persist, they could simply be asked to leave. This would obviate the need for all the angst and anger and misunderstanding. Instead, when confronted with a polite, reasonable person who disagrees with the A+ point of view, they have to make up reasons to ban them - and often, to try to provoke them into an angry response. This has turned the entire forum into a thoroughly unpleasant environment. Paradoxically, if they had a far more rigorous and draconian set of rules, enforced honestly, then much of the rancour would simply disappear. However, I think they like the rancour. They want the confrontation.

[Humes fork]

So how is a+ doing these days? Are people still into it?

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

So how is a+ doing these days? Are people still into it?

Who won the sweepstake?

[AbsurdWalls]

Originally Posted by westprog

I'd have no problem with this position if they were honest about it. Their refusal to say "Before posting here, you have to accept certain views about privilege, rape culture and so on. If you put forward views opposing this, you will be banned." I explicitly asked them to do this.

I think the main problem with it is the conceit exhibited by the forum royalty claiming that they have all already identified all of the problems and arrived at the one true solution for them - hence there is no need for any meaningful discussion.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Acleron

Who won the sweepstake?

Not me. I gave them until the end of the year. Looks like I was off by 2 months.

I had cooked up a scheme to mock them at Skepticon and CSIcon, but since I couldn't make either, my plans fell apart. Which is probably good, because no one would have cared anyhow. It's dead.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Not me. I gave them until the end of the year. Looks like I was off by 2 months.

I had cooked up a scheme to mock them at Skepticon and CSIcon, but since I couldn't make either, my plans fell apart. Which is probably good, because no one would have cared anyhow. It's dead.

With the exception of Skepticon, don't (American) skeptic conferences take pains to distance themselves from atheism?

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

With the exception of Skepticon, don't (American) skeptic conferences take pains to distance themselves from atheism?

Whereas the with the exception of A+ forum, atheist fora don't tend to take pains to distance themselves from skepticism.

[RebeccaBradley]

Damion (who also posts on JREF) has just finished a good 3-part series on his Skeptic Ink blog, contrasting his experiences on the A+ forum and the Slymepit. A brave soul, Damion. ETA: Here is the link to Part 1.

http://skepticink.com/backgroundprob...ities-part-13/

[Paulhoff]

As soon as any Organization becomes an Us and Them, drop it.


Paul

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

Whereas the with the exception of A+ forum, atheist fora don't tend to take pains to distance themselves from skepticism.

They've pretty well adopted an anti-skeptic stance now. They'll use the tools of skepticism when someone says something they don't like, but any attempt to direct them the wrong way and they don't like it at all.

[Moss]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

As soon as any Organization becomes an Us and Them, drop it.


Paul

Heh.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley

Damion (who also posts on JREF) has just finished a good 3-part series on his Skeptic Ink blog, contrasting his experiences on the A+ forum and the Slymepit. A brave soul, Damion. ETA: Here is the link to Part 1.

http://skepticink.com/backgroundprob...ities-part-13/

Can't say I've ever ventured into the skymepit however I have been entertaining myself with A+ since it's inception and I'd say the assessment of that place is spot on. Great link to The Guardian article in part three, yep, social justice in a nutshell.

Interestingly, on A+ they're quite open about their mental health issues.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by westprog

They've pretty well adopted an anti-skeptic stance now. They'll use the tools of skepticism when someone says something they don't like, but any attempt to direct them the wrong way and they don't like it at all.

I'd be interested in seeing an attempt to apply the tools of skepticism to the theories of academic feminism. For example, can we test the rape culture hypothesis? Has this sort of thing already been tried here or elsewhere?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Stout

Can't say I've ever ventured into the skymepit however I have been entertaining myself with A+ since it's inception and I'd say the assessment of that place is spot on. Great link to The Guardian article in part three, yep, social justice in a nutshell.

I find the Slymepit rather too in love with its own transgressive nature. There's discussion going on there, but it seems far too prone to scatological outbursts.

Quote:

Interestingly, on A+ they're quite open about their mental health issues.

There's a strong feeling that any objective examination of principles is a deeply wounding personal attack.

There are often stories of personal trauma which according to the narrator, leave the person unable to leave the house, or in constant fear of attack. I have no reason to doubt that these are real, and immensely distressing. However, there's never any questioning that the subjective views of a person who's so circumscribed by their mental state would necessarily correspond with objective reality.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd be interested in seeing an attempt to apply the tools of skepticism to the theories of academic feminism. For example, can we test the rape culture hypothesis? Has this sort of thing already been tried here or elsewhere?

The general response to any kind of querying to any claim, whether it's something vague like the "rape culture" concept, or specific, like the Superbowl domestic abuse statistic, is to query the bona fides and agenda of the person making the query. If you cared about rape or domestic abuse, you wouldn't be nitpicking about mere facts.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by westprog

I find the Slymepit rather too in love with its own transgressive nature. There's discussion going on there, but it seems far too prone to scatological outbursts.



There's a strong feeling that any objective examination of principles is a deeply wounding personal attack.

Strange isn't it ? the way they're so involved in trigger warnings to avoid upsetting some people yet their arguments quite frequently downplay the effect of "being mean" has on non elite posters feefees or feelers or whatever term they're using this week.

Quote:

There are often stories of personal trauma which according to the narrator, leave the person unable to leave the house, or in constant fear of attack. I have no reason to doubt that these are real, and immensely distressing. However, there's never any questioning that the subjective views of a person who's so circumscribed by their mental state would necessarily correspond with objective reality.

Most of those stories I believe and they raise the question...Should we, out of sympathy, cut the APlussers some slack because they identify as "us" the skeptical/atheist community ? If so, should we also cut other political extremists, like the KKK the same amount of slack due to the possibility of mental illness having an effect on their perception of objective reality ?

I wonder what came first. The mental illness stemming from society at large's failure to live up to the high ideals or the activism as a type of therapy and coping mechanism ?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Stout

Strange isn't it ? the way they're so involved in trigger warnings to avoid upsetting some people yet their arguments quite frequently downplay the effect of "being mean" has on non elite posters feefees or feelers or whatever term they're using this week.



Most of those stories I believe and they raise the question...Should we, out of sympathy, cut the APlussers some slack because they identify as "us" the skeptical/atheist community ? If so, should we also cut other political extremists, like the KKK the same amount of slack due to the possibility of mental illness having an effect on their perception of objective reality ?

I wonder what came first. The mental illness stemming from society at large's failure to live up to the high ideals or the activism as a type of therapy and coping mechanism ?

One thing that I genuinely don't get. There's an accepted assumption on A+ that the Internet is a place where if you are an unprivileged minority - black, female, disabled, of a sexual persuasion different to the norm - then you cannot get a hearing, and your concerns are shouted down.

There might be some truth to this - but what it ignores is that on the Internet nobody knows who you are. Strangely enough, this obvious fact is often ignored on A+. They are very fond of the assumption that someone speaks from male privilege, rich privilege, white privilege - but of course, they don't know what descriptions people have. The language people use is the only possible way that people can identify themselves online - and strangely enough, failure to adhere to the norms of white privileged language is sufficient grounds for a ban on A+.

Of course, this is not something that can ever be discussed on the A+ forum itself. I'd hoped that the new, unregulated A+ forum might allow such issues to be raised, but it seems to have fallen between two stools. The A+ people won't go near it, and the non-A+ people aren't going to be interested in something proudly proclaiming that it's A+. Most of the people posting there are people banned from the A+ site complaining about it. (And I include myself in that).

[Stout]

The self identification as a member of a marginalized group is intended to give weight to the lived experiences of the poster making the comments. It was one of the reasons I thought marrying atheism/skepticism to social justice was a strange idea as we all know how the skeptical community treats anecdotal evidence. I don't know whether APlussers have tried this tactic on the anonymous internet and found them to be rejected and are licking their wounds. or what.

suffice to say, there is a hierarchy in the social justice movement where the most marginalized are perceived to be at the top, due to their lived experiences.

What is even more important than that hierarchy is "sticking to the social justice script" No deviation, zero, or that marginalized group status is mooted. You're "exposed" or "flagged". Did you see them raising issues over on A+ over the terms butthurt and positive discrimination ? The lack of normal people, AKA trolls over there is already causing them to eat their own and I suspect they'll keep a few questionable people around just to keep the conversation going.

Another problem in combining skepticism with social justice is the number of assumptions one has to make in order to successfully argue social justice points. Take the existence of rape culture as a for instance. One HAS to assume it exists and SR is the "bible" wrt how to think about male/female interactions. One HAS to assume that patriarchy is the sole driving force between all social interactions and assume that something as simple as women not getting along with other is solely due to their being conditioned to do so.

Example

Then we have the contradictions, like this one where the author says

Quote:

I even think about why I go to bed with men in the first place. Is this biological or social? Would I be a lesbian if I hadn’t been conditioned towards heterosexuality?

Now we have to work from the assumption that the nature vs nurture argument is all weighted toward the nurture side which flies in the face of everything I've ever read from gay rights activists claiming that sexual orientation is innate.

We're also required to work on the assumption that being an atheist means being only anti Judeo-Christian lest we fall into making statements against the religions of marginalized groups and face accusations of racism. eg Islamophobia, because most practitioners of this religion are brown people.

Given the amount of assumptions one has to make in order to function at A+, I'd say it's closer to religion than atheism.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

Whereas the with the exception of A+ forum, atheist fora don't tend to take pains to distance themselves from skepticism.

Touché!

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by westprog

I find the Slymepit rather too in love with its own transgressive nature. There's discussion going on there, but it seems far too prone to scatological outbursts.

I sincerely wish that the ****-flinging were the worst of it.

[WillyWonka]

Originally Posted by Stout

The self identification as a member of a marginalized group is intended to give weight to the lived experiences of the poster making the comments. It was one of the reasons I thought marrying atheism/skepticism to social justice was a strange idea as we all know how the skeptical community treats anecdotal evidence. I don't know whether APlussers have tried this tactic on the anonymous internet and found them to be rejected and are licking their wounds. or what.

This has been my issue from the start. I would have gave them a pass if they had framed their movement as a subset of atheism with a view of a specific type of social justice. I think it would has made quite an interesting subject of debate.

But no, Richard Carrier wrote his blog about A+ has being the Real Atheism and anyone disagreeing was at best a douche bag. While some of them distanced themselves, PZ et al never repudiated the statements and especially PZ continued to pursue it.

This reminds me of the U.S. Tea Party were all the wing-nuts found a place to coalesce and rotted the American Republican Party in becoming extremist.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I sincerely wish that the ****-flinging were the worst of it.

I just didn't feel comfortable delving any deeper than a cursory glance. It's just as unpleasant as A+ in a different way.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by WillyWonka

This has been my issue from the start. I would have gave them a pass if they had framed their movement as a subset of atheism with a view of a specific type of social justice. I think it would has made quite an interesting subject of debate.

But no, Richard Carrier wrote his blog about A+ has being the Real Atheism and anyone disagreeing was at best a douche bag. While some of them distanced themselves, PZ et al never repudiated the statements and especially PZ continued to pursue it.

This reminds me of the U.S. Tea Party were all the wing-nuts found a place to coalesce and rotted the American Republican Party in becoming extremist.

Or framed it as a social justice movement who just happen to be anti Christian, which would pretty much fit with every other social justice movement out there but I guess these guys wanted some flashy packaging.

[AbsurdWalls]

Originally Posted by Stout

The self identification as a member of a marginalized group is intended to give weight to the lived experiences of the poster making the comments. It was one of the reasons I thought marrying atheism/skepticism to social justice was a strange idea as we all know how the skeptical community treats anecdotal evidence. I don't know whether APlussers have tried this tactic on the anonymous internet and found them to be rejected and are licking their wounds. or what.

I don't think it is necessary to ignore anecdotal evidence to practice skepticism. The positive side of listening to people in the groups that these issues affect is that you can be alerted to cases where the actual lived experience does not fit the theory (combating this is supposedly one of the key aims of the sort of discourse that A+ wants). Unfortunately this does not seem to be practiced there when you have the wrong anecdote (or are apparently misinterpreting your own life... I think they call that gaslighting when other folks do it to them).

To go back to my previous point about the aim being to build a framework for understanding the world, when these are taken as seriously as A+ takes feminism then they cannot abide contradictory anecdotes. For these sorts of structural projects a possibility once is a necessity forever.

[Mr. Scott]

I just watched again Greta's talk "Why Atheists are so Angry," and it's brilliant. It made me sad to think she's a big part of an atheist-against-atheist endeavor.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[westprog]

Originally Posted by AbsurdWalls

I don't think it is necessary to ignore anecdotal evidence to practice skepticism. The positive side of listening to people in the groups that these issues affect is that you can be alerted to cases where the actual lived experience does not fit the theory (combating this is supposedly one of the key aims of the sort of discourse that A+ wants). Unfortunately this does not seem to be practiced there when you have the wrong anecdote (or are apparently misinterpreting your own life... I think they call that gaslighting when other folks do it to them).

One of the worst things you can do on A+ is to refer to things that a woman/poc/gay/transexual said to you about their experience. That is immediate ban material. It's not relevant, under any circumstances. Studies, statistics etc are also very dubious. The anecdotal experience of the people posting on A+ is the primary source, and anything else is considered only insofar as it supports that.

Quote:

To go back to my previous point about the aim being to build a framework for understanding the world, when these are taken as seriously as A+ takes feminism then they cannot abide contradictory anecdotes. For these sorts of structural projects a possibility once is a necessity forever.

It's also expressed in very specific terms. Entirely accepting a particular theoretical framework isn't a matter of sifting evidence. It's being a decent human being.

[Humes fork]

Can We Reclaim The Movement?

I think someone needs to look up "atheism" in a dictionary.

Can someone give a coherent, well-rounded definition of "social justice" for me? I don't vote for the Social Democrats here in Sweden. Does that mean I'm evil?

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Can We Reclaim The Movement?

I think someone needs to look up "atheism" in a dictionary.

Can someone give a coherent, well-rounded definition of "social justice" for me? I don't vote for the Social Democrats here in Sweden. Does that mean I'm evil?

Quote:

Because of the correlation of religious societies with violent societies,

Is there a correlation? Or just an assumption, from a position of prejudice?

[Verklagekasper]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Can We Reclaim The Movement?

I think someone needs to look up "atheism" in a dictionary.

"Can We Reclaim The Movement?"

One cannot reclaim something that wasn't ever in one's possession, so I suppose what she means is "Can We Hijack The Movement"? Answer: Probably not. It is evident that the movements they desire to "reclaim" aren't receptive at all to the idea of being controlled and patronized by people trying to force their political views on everybody.

"Beyond that, skepticism logically should include social justice. Skepticism and atheism should be linked in people’s minds with social justice because skepticism leads naturally to social justice."

Skepticism doesn't naturally lead to any ethical or political view whatsoever. It's a philosophy about how to evaluate the validity of claims by objective means. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't imply nor contradict any political, ethical, or religious convictions or views of the world. Skepticism can be applied by anybody. And it can be applied to anybody's claims. Nothing that you claim is immune to skepticism, whether it's about social justice or anything else.

"The logical continuation of the attitudes that lead to atheism, a skeptical, rational attitude, is to question the societal norms that hurt others. While those who only identify as atheist may not be a part of the movement we seek to create, those who identify as skeptic should logically move into a social justice arena if they follow their beliefs through."

One's attitude is a fuzzy thing that can barely be explained by means of logic. It depends on one's personality, which again has been influenced by countless things throughout one's life. Trying to reduce it to a single cause is futile. Likewise, there is no such thing as a "logical continuation" of attitudes.
Moreover, most people DO object others getting hurt. They DO object injustice, and they care. They just don't want to associate with people who want to be in control but could not even formulate a valid argument if their lives depended on it. Try to develop some empathy, learn to accept that people don't necessarily share your views, particularly if you have difficulties to argue rationally. Stop regarding people as sheep that need to be crammed into that "social justice arena" of yours.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by westprog

s. Studies, statistics etc are also very dubious.

But... presumably they dont mind certain rape and domestic violence statistics?

[Stout]

Originally Posted by AbsurdWalls

I don't think it is necessary to ignore anecdotal evidence to practice skepticism. The positive side of listening to people in the groups that these issues affect is that you can be alerted to cases where the actual lived experience does not fit the theory (combating this is supposedly one of the key aims of the sort of discourse that A+ wants). Unfortunately this does not seem to be practiced there when you have the wrong anecdote (or are apparently misinterpreting your own life... I think they call that gaslighting when other folks do it to them).

To go back to my previous point about the aim being to build a framework for understanding the world, when these are taken as seriously as A+ takes feminism then they cannot abide contradictory anecdotes. For these sorts of structural projects a possibility once is a necessity forever.

Nor do I think it necessary to ignore anecdotal evidence either, it has it's time and place. Over on A+ they've given so much weight to their individual anecdotes regarding how the world works that they're shouting peoples input down and claiming "they're not genetically qualified to provide that input" See "check your privilege" , but in allcaps in a big font with exclamation marks behind it and in bold red text.

They're creating the exact opposite of the world they envision and my inner cynic tells me that they're more out for revenge on the status quo and using the SJ model as justification.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Can We Reclaim The Movement?

More broad brush drivel from another educated egghead who's able to step up to the trough of privilege and pig out enough to get herself a couple of degrees that amount to nothing more than self indulgence.

Olivia, we tell you that we're not sexist, that we're not racist yet you refuse to believe us. You need to go to the absurd eg EGate, SR in order to come up with "proof" that we are. It's those absurdities that we're challenging, Olivia, not your core ideals.

Sometimes, we read your blog posts and end up scratching out heads. We read sentences like.

Quote:

Most words for occupations have the default as male, and many include “man” in the actual word: for example policeman, fireman, or mailman. New attempts to introduce female variants of this or gender-neutral variants have been generally unsuccessful,

From this post

Then we reflect on the fact that, around here at least, the words police officer, fire fighter and letter carrier have been in use for over a decade. We scratch our heads wondering, does Olivia live in some sort of backwater berg that didn't get the gender neutral pronoun switchover memo,or is she just dragging up old terms to try and make a point ?

[brodski]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Is there a correlation? Or just an assumption, from a position of prejudice?

Pinker argues that there is, but it depends on how you define a religious society, almost all of his "least violent" (low murder rate) societies have a state religion.
Even if we could find a firm correlation between violent societies and religious societies it makes just as much sense to say we would best reduce religious influence by reducing violence as it does to say that we will reduce violence by reducing religious influence.

I'm much more sold on the idea that both religious influence and violence in a society are determined by other factors and that you can't control one by influencing the other. But that rather takes the meat out of the "atheism leads to social justice" argument.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Is there a correlation? Or just an assumption, from a position of prejudice?

Whenever this discussion comes up, there are religious societies, and that's-not-a-real-atheist-society societies, and Sweden. Lovely Sweden with its atheist values and universal healthcare.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Stout

Nor do I think it necessary to ignore anecdotal evidence either, it has it's time and place. Over on A+ they've given so much weight to their individual anecdotes regarding how the world works that they're shouting peoples input down and claiming "they're not genetically qualified to provide that input" See "check your privilege" , but in allcaps in a big font with exclamation marks behind it and in bold red text.

They're creating the exact opposite of the world they envision and my inner cynic tells me that they're more out for revenge on the status quo and using the SJ model as justification.

It's not just that they accept anecdotal evidence. It's that their anecdotal evidence trumps yours. Post on A+ about something a black/gay/trans friend said to you, and prepare to get a kicking. That kind of anecdote doesn't count. It's what someone you never met on the internet tells you that you're meant to listen to.