JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags atheism , Atheism Plus

Closed Thread
Old 25th August 2012, 03:44 PM   #201
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
I rarely see things eye to eye with you, but here I fully agree.
From @Atheism_plus - I think a legitimate rather than parody account.

"@TimNeale65 mens rights are for the most part already assured. Campaigning for them usually means, in reality, campaigning against women"

That's the pernicious side of the privilege concept. It presupposes that rather than groups having various privileges, that there's a simple hierarchy, and that the people on top of the hierarchy inherently cannot be disadvantaged in any way, and particularly not by their classification.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 03:59 PM   #202
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,364
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
Anyone read Carrier's books? I don't mind intellectual arrogance when it's earned, but those must be some fine books he wrote?
I haven't read them but I know a little.

He believes in objective morality. See his discussion with Sean Carroll in the comment section. He is also a fan of Sam Harris' ideas on objective morality.

He is also a bit of a pusher for Jesus mythicism, and his latest idea on the matter is that Bayes' theorem shows Jesus didn't exist or something like that.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 04:24 PM   #203
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Well to be fair the speakers also include Sean Carroll and Matt Dillahunty.

Dillahunty is firmly in the Skepchick/FTB camp.


Quote:
It's part of the deal, apparently.

Yes, indeed.

Quote:
Unfortunately due to the increasing demands of work and income I can no longer speak for free. For any speaking engagement I require expenses, a $200 honorarium, and an opportunity to sell my books at your event.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 05:17 PM   #204
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,599
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
From @Atheism_plus - I think a legitimate rather than parody account.

"@TimNeale65 mens rights are for the most part already assured. Campaigning for them usually means, in reality, campaigning against women"

That's the pernicious side of the privilege concept. It presupposes that rather than groups having various privileges, that there's a simple hierarchy, and that the people on top of the hierarchy inherently cannot be disadvantaged in any way, and particularly not by their classification.

This is true.

On the more practical side, blanket opposition to all men's rights interests by women's rights groups appears to rely on the vain hope that people who accept the claim that women are inherently more capable of raising children will also accept the claim that, apart from that and actual child bearing, men and women are equally capable in all other important aspects of life.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:29 PM   #205
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
Anyone read Carrier's books? I don't mind intellectual arrogance when it's earned, but those must be some fine books he wrote?

I haven't read Richard Carrier's books (except for the beginning of Bayes' Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus), but I have met him (Richard, not Jesus) and talked with him one-on-one, and his online and in-person personae are quite different. In person he doesn't come off as arrogant at all, as he often seems to online; he's personable, he listens, and above all, he's incredibly knowledgeable. So, I'd have to say that the online arrogance is earned, though I'd enjoy his online writing more if he would make his points less imperiously.

Jay

Last edited by jt512; 25th August 2012 at 06:32 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 07:32 PM   #206
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I haven't read Richard Carrier's books (except for the beginning of Bayes' Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus), but I have met him (Richard, not Jesus) and talked with him one-on-one, and his online and in-person personae are quite different. In person he doesn't come off as arrogant at all, as he often seems to online; he's personable, he listens, and above all, he's incredibly knowledgeable. So, I'd have to say that the online arrogance is earned, though I'd enjoy his online writing more if he would make his points less imperiously.

Jay
That's one of the features of this kind of debacle. Basically decent people tearing at each other over nuances. If Carrier has a pompous public persona, that may be due to shyness rather than arrogance.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 04:20 PM   #207
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
That's one of the features of this kind of debacle. Basically decent people tearing at each other over nuances. If Carrier has a pompous public persona, that may be due to shyness rather than arrogance.
Or he could be just be an irritating, self-righteous know-it all.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 05:11 PM   #208
squareone
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 91
Have you heard about the revolutionary new Skepticism + ?

We require Others to employ reason and provide evidence (that's the skeptic-y part).

Plus, We get a free pass from being questioned and thereby victimized (that's the plus-y part).

If you act now and get in on the ground floor, you will also receive bonus Shunning Privileges!

This offer not available in stores.
squareone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 05:13 PM   #209
squareone
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 91
Have you heard about the revolutionary new Skepticism + ?

We require Others to employ reason and provide evidence (that's the skeptic-y part).

Plus, We get a free pass from being questioned and thereby victimized (that's the plus-y part).

If you act now and get in on the ground floor, you will also receive bonus Shunning Privileges!

This offer not available in stores.
squareone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 05:22 PM   #210
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Or he could be just be an irritating, self-righteous know-it all.
That's certainly his public persona, but I'm quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt when chatting in private. Not that that lets him off the hook.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 06:53 PM   #211
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,478
Originally Posted by squareone View Post
Have you heard about the revolutionary new Skepticism + ?

We require Others to employ reason and provide evidence (that's the skeptic-y part).

Plus, We get a free pass from being questioned and thereby victimized (that's the plus-y part).

If you act now and get in on the ground floor, you will also receive bonus Shunning Privileges!

This offer not available in stores.
A post so nice you posted it twice.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 08:03 PM   #212
six7s
veretic
 
six7s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 8,711
Originally Posted by squareone View Post
Have you heard about the revolutionary new Skepticism + ?

We require Others to employ reason and provide evidence (that's the skeptic-y part).

Plus, We get a free pass from being questioned and thereby victimized (that's the plus-y part).

If you act now and get in on the ground floor, you will also receive bonus Shunning Privileges!

This offer not available in stores.
Have you heard about the revolutionary new Anti-theism + ?

We require theists of all persuasions to STFU and stop meddling in our lives until they can provide ANY evidence that isn't demonstrably stupid (that's the anti-theism-y part).

Plus, we get a free pass from being questioned and thereby victimized (that's the plus-y part).

If you act now and get in on the ground floor, you will also receive bonus Steak Knives and a 12-month supply of babies!

This offer not available in stores.
__________________
Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!
six7s is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 09:49 PM   #213
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 47,377
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
This thing has reached the media!

Their symbol is very similar to that of Non-Believers Giving Aid, the creation of their arch-villain Dawkins.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jIMkicp0fW...Giving+Aid.jpg
I smell a lawsuit!
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 07:15 AM   #214
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Isn't this just Secular Humanism?
No, old white men need not apply.

(Click on thumbnail to enlarge.)
Attached Images
File Type: gif A+.gif (12.4 KB, 32 views)
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 08:55 AM   #215
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
No, old white men need not apply.

(Click on thumbnail to enlarge.)
PZ is an old, white, male?
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 09:10 AM   #216
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,319
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
I smell a lawsuit!
It's the stench of old white men.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 09:18 AM   #217
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,319
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
PZ is an old, white, male?
Maybe he doesn't know he's white. It has been known to happen!

"Sir, you are talking to a ******!"

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
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 10:28 AM   #218
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
PZ is an old, white, male?
Myers is middle-aged (b. March 9, 1957). Dawkins, RW's bête noire, is triple bad, however, because not only is he old and white but he's (gasp!) rich! And hetrosexual to boot!

Last edited by Walter Ego; 27th August 2012 at 10:31 AM.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 10:35 AM   #219
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,447
So Pharyngula has a lengthy post about Atheism Plus following some sort of Google+ discussion. The blog post includes this exchange (PZ Myers' response in bold text):

Quote:
"My whole point is that not everyone dismissed as a “misogynist” or “hate and rage filled *******” by the Atheism+ crowd is actually anything of the kind. Sometimes that kind of response is aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, rather than the genuine trolls who are sending threats and abuse."

We get that a lot. In fact, I’d say it’s the source of most of the anti-atheist+ reaction: It’s a whole lot of cranky people saying that they aren’t sexist at all…they just think it’s fine to call women “c- [rule 10]”, that Jim Jeffries is a hilarious comedian when he riffs on his contempt for women, that they just hate feminists, that we’re all just killjoys and cockblockers who want to interfere with their right to hit on women whenever they feel like it. But oh, no, they’re not misogynists. How dare we challenge their masculine privilege?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...sm-discussion/

"We get that a lot, people who say we accuse anyone who doesn't agree with us of misogyny. That's because they are misogynists!"

I don't use gender slurs, I have never heard comedian Jim Jeffries and I have no real strong opinions on feminists. But apparently the crime of thinking that this Atheism+ thing is half-baked and embarrassing (just like "brights" - see, I can criticize old white men too! Oh wait, PZ Myers is what?) makes me a torrid hater of women.

Vive le révolution?
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 10:59 AM   #220
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,384
Quote:
It’s a whole lot of cranky people saying that they aren’t sexist at all
Sexism is discrimination based on sex (generally accepted to exclude things like who you want to sleep with--no one would call a heterosexual male sexist, for example--and generally only applied to sexism against women). If you don't discriminate on the basis of sex, you're not a sexist. It's really that simple.

Quote:
they just think it’s fine to call women “c- [rule 10]”
I didn't know that everyone did. In certain circles I'm fine with it--you get a bunch of people drinking and playing poker and things get said that are unthinkable outside of those conditions, by the men and women of the group--but generally I try to not refer to people by their sexual organs. Yet I still object to Atheism+.

Quote:
that Jim Jeffries is a hilarious comedian when he riffs on his contempt for women
Not familiar with this guy, but in fairness I'm not a huge fan of comedians and stand-up comedy.

Quote:
that they just hate feminists
This is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well regarding any criticisms of Feminism--something that a rabid anti-theist like Dr. Myers should know better than to do.

Quote:
that we’re all just killjoys and cockblockers who want to interfere with their right to hit on women whenever they feel like it.
Again, this is nothing more than poisoning the well against any criticisms against Feminism.

As far as hitting on women goes, I acknowledge that women have an apparently greater risk of sexual assualt in our culture than men ("apparently greater" because no hard data on this exists, at least as far as I know--it's widely acknowledged that sexual assualts on males go largely unreported). However, there's a difference between a guy who's guilty of sexual assault and a guy who's guilty of being socially inept. A charge of sexual assualt can ruin a person's life--don't we owe it to them to make sure they're actually guilty before we convict them? If they are guilty, yeah, castrate 'em--but it's not sexist at all to argue that we should be sure they're guilty of an actual crime, rather than simply being inept, prior to doing that.

Quote:
But oh, no, they’re not misogynists. How dare we challenge their masculine privilege?
I lose more and more respect for Dr. Myers every time he opens his mouth about sex. I guess looking at the other side in a rational manner, trying to understand what they're actually saying (because none of it is this bovine by-product straw-man he's set up), and responding to that is simply too "misogynistic" for him.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 11:09 AM   #221
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
So Pharyngula has a lengthy post about Atheism Plus following some sort of Google+ discussion. The blog post includes this exchange (PZ Myers' response in bold text):



http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...sm-discussion/

"We get that a lot, people who say we accuse anyone who doesn't agree with us of misogyny. That's because they are misogynists!"

I don't use gender slurs, I have never heard comedian Jim Jeffries and I have no real strong opinions on feminists. But apparently the crime of thinking that this Atheism+ thing is half-baked and embarrassing (just like "brights" - see, I can criticize old white men too! Oh wait, PZ Myers is what?) makes me a torrid hater of women.

Vive le révolution?
One little thing that I find bizarre is the word chiefly used to describe the opposition. The word has a specific meaning - it's a container for fluid used to clean women's genitalia. Using the word as an insult has an obvious implication - that women's genitals are a particularly disgusting thing, to the extent that anything in contact with them is loathsome.

I'm not the language police, and I don't feel the need to tell other people what they should or shouldn't say. The word is not one that I would usually use, and I certainly would consider that it's something that most women I know would find somewhat offensive. Yet for some reason, it's almost a rallying cry for A+.

If you have a movement which has as its raison d'etre the ethical treatment of women, and which demands that language be purged of words and phrases that denigrate women, to use this particular term as a designation for ones opponents seems to reflect a complete confusion as to what they want.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 11:10 AM   #222
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...sm-discussion/

"We get that a lot, people who say we accuse anyone who doesn't agree with us of misogyny. That's because they are misogynists!"

I don't use gender slurs, I have never heard comedian Jim Jeffries and I have no real strong opinions on feminists. But apparently the crime of thinking that this Atheism+ thing is half-baked and embarrassing (just like "brights" - see, I can criticize old white men too! Oh wait, PZ Myers is what?) makes me a torrid hater of women.

Vive le révolution?
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists misogynists.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 11:29 AM   #223
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 785
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
So Pharyngula has a lengthy post about Atheism Plus following some sort of Google+ discussion. The blog post includes this exchange (PZ Myers' response in bold text):

Quote:
'My whole point is that not everyone dismissed as a “misogynist” or “hate and rage filled *******” by the Atheism+ crowd is actually anything of the kind.'
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...sm-discussion/

"We get that a lot, people who say we accuse anyone who doesn't agree with us of misogyny. That's because they are misogynists!"

I don't use gender slurs, I have never heard comedian Jim Jeffries and I have no real strong opinions on feminists. But apparently the crime of thinking that this Atheism+ thing is half-baked and embarrassing (just like "brights" - see, I can criticize old white men too! Oh wait, PZ Myers is what?) makes me a torrid hater of women.

Vive le révolution?
You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.

Walter Ego makes the same mistake: "You are either with us or you are with the misogynists."

Jay
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 11:48 AM   #224
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,747
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.

Walter Ego makes the same mistake: "You are either with us or you are with the misogynists."

"Jay
No they are not. Not even remotely. To someone stating this:

"Sometimes that kind of response is aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, rather than the genuine trolls who are sending threats and abuse."

PZ states this:

"It’s just those uppity, aggressive, rude feminist women that they think need to be raped into submission.

And that’s you, guy. And it’s all those other anti-feminists who turn apoplectic with fury whenever the issue of treating women as diverse human beings with personalities and intellectual interests and ambitious goals beyond worshipping your penis is brought up."

So "a guy" states that PZ's baseless accusations of misogyny are sometimes aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with him and PZ states that the guy wants to "rape women into submission."

OK PZ, nice apoplectic fury there, sport.

By the way, he is the worst writer I have ever seen.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory

Last edited by 16.5; 27th August 2012 at 11:49 AM.
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 12:00 PM   #225
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,319
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.

Walter Ego makes the same mistake: "You are either with us or you are with the misogynists."

Jay
Of course Myers is dismissing Squealpiggy and anyone else who disagrees with his clique out of hand.

The A+ crowd hasn't addressed any of the issues people bring up, they simply lump them all together as misogynists and therefore not worth addressing.

By definition, people who are truly interested in skepticism would address issues, ie.- logical fallacies, in their arguments. This crowd doesn't. In their narcissistic view, their work is so important that anyone disagreeing with them is the enemy, to be attacked instinctively and without thought.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)

Last edited by qayak; 27th August 2012 at 12:02 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 12:14 PM   #226
franklinveaux
Scholar
 
franklinveaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
That's the pernicious side of the privilege concept. It presupposes that rather than groups having various privileges, that there's a simple hierarchy, and that the people on top of the hierarchy inherently cannot be disadvantaged in any way, and particularly not by their classification.
Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. There is not a single "privilege," nor a single hierarchy of privilege; instead, it takes the form of a complex set of overlapping advantages that give members of some groups an advantage over members of another group in ways that can change according to context.

For example, men generally have a lot of advantages over women in many jobs; it's no accident that women make up 50% of the population but a single-digit percentage of CEOs at large companies. A black man might have an advantage over a white woman if they're both seeking a job at an auto mechanic, whereas a white man might have an advantage over both. On the other hand, a woman has an advantage over a man when seeking custody of children in child court.

The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.
franklinveaux is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 12:19 PM   #227
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,599
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. There is not a single "privilege," nor a single hierarchy of privilege; instead, it takes the form of a complex set of overlapping advantages that give members of some groups an advantage over members of another group in ways that can change according to context.

For example, men generally have a lot of advantages over women in many jobs; it's no accident that women make up 50% of the population but a single-digit percentage of CEOs at large companies. A black man might have an advantage over a white woman if they're both seeking a job at an auto mechanic, whereas a white man might have an advantage over both. On the other hand, a woman has an advantage over a man when seeking custody of children in child court.

The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.

Okay. Who has the privilege when commenting on an Internet forum or socializing at a conference? Because so far all the recent discussion of privilege in the atheist community has been completely focused on those two contexts.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.

Last edited by Myriad; 27th August 2012 at 12:21 PM. Reason: grammar
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 12:28 PM   #228
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,319
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
... much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.
Ummm, no. That one's true.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 12:58 PM   #229
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.
Seems to me that feminists 10:1 use it to mean the simple hierarchy-- esp when dismissing what someone says because of his protected class status.
__________________
Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.
bpesta22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 01:20 PM   #230
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. There is not a single "privilege," nor a single hierarchy of privilege; instead, it takes the form of a complex set of overlapping advantages that give members of some groups an advantage over members of another group in ways that can change according to context.

For example, men generally have a lot of advantages over women in many jobs; it's no accident that women make up 50% of the population but a single-digit percentage of CEOs at large companies. A black man might have an advantage over a white woman if they're both seeking a job at an auto mechanic, whereas a white man might have an advantage over both. On the other hand, a woman has an advantage over a man when seeking custody of children in child court.

The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.
And privilege is never presented as a hierarchy? It's always a straw man?

This wasn't plucked out of the air. The quote was
Originally Posted by @Atheism_Plus
"@TimNeale65 mens rights are for the most part already assured. Campaigning for them usually means, in reality, campaigning against women"
I agree with your definition of privilege. I think in that form it can be useful. However, the idea that it's never used in a hierarchical sense, and that it's a pure strawman doesn't seem to be supported by quotes like the above.

I've noticed that it's fairly easy to find lists of male privilege and white privilege. Finding lists comparing gender privileges is a bit harder. Female privilege, if mentioned, is parenthesized or assumed to be comparatively trivial, almost by definition.

Of course there are sites, books and lists that attempt to provide a non-hierarchical definition of privilege. However, I would suggest that not only are they not the only point of view, they are in fact a minority.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

Last edited by westprog; 27th August 2012 at 01:44 PM.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 01:36 PM   #231
franklinveaux
Scholar
 
franklinveaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Okay. Who has the privilege when commenting on an Internet forum or socializing at a conference? Because so far all the recent discussion of privilege in the atheist community has been completely focused on those two contexts.

Respectfully,
Myriad
It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats. It's rare in the extreme that women who say something controversial on an Internet forum don't.

Part of the sneaky thing about privilege is that it tends to be invisible to folks who have it. It is easy for men to shrug and say "Well, that's just trolls being trolls" when women receive rape threats, because men don't live in a world where the odds are in the double digits that they will be raped. It's common for Internet trolls to issue death threats, but we shrug them off because it's so astonishingly rare that anyone follows through on one. If we lived in a world where 17% or so of people who'd ever received a death threat were actually murdered, we might have a different attitude about it.

Similarly, in social settings, men don't have the awareness that they can be assaulted in the same way women do. A lot of folks wrongly claim "oh, all these feminists are saying that all men are rapists!" when the reality is very different: they're saying that NOT all men are rapists, but rapists don't wear special hats or have an insignia tattooed on them, so there's no way to tell who is the potential threat and who isn't.

All of that can be really tough to grok when you're a guy; it's a bit like trying to see your own back, or trying to see the air you live in.

It still surprises me, though, that more men don't pay attention to what women say when women talk about these things. I mean, even if you're a totally narcissistic, self-absorbed sociopath with absolutely no empathy or remorse whatsoever, it would still make sense to listen to the women who talk about social environments that make them uncomfortable, because at a fundamental level these women are telling you how to approach them successfully, and what approaches aren't going to be successful.

Of course, if that's the only reason someone listens, that person is likely a horrible human being, but still. I don't get the OMG defensive reaction.

Originally Posted by westprog
I agree with your definition of privilege. I think in that form it can be useful. However, the idea that it's never used in a hierarchical sense, and that it's a pure strawman doesn't seem to be supported by quotes like the above.
The quote doesn't necessarily imply that privilege is a simple hierarchy. Even given the overlapping nature of privilege, it's still pretty plain to me that straight white cisgendered men have more than the lion's share of advantages. While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.
franklinveaux is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 01:53 PM   #232
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
The quote doesn't necessarily imply that privilege is a simple hierarchy. Even given the overlapping nature of privilege, it's still pretty plain to me that straight white cisgendered men have more than the lion's share of advantages. While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.
It might be the case that men, in general, in society, are advantaged over women as a whole. However, if one is to take that seriously, it's necessary to look in prisons as well as boardrooms, to look at life expectancy, to look at healthcare, to look at suicide.

In fact, I suggest that the same criteria which are used to evaluate racial privilege should be applied to evaluate gender privilege. If whites live longer than blacks and hispanics, are less likely to be in prison, are viewed with less suspicion by the police - we don't dismiss this form of privilege. When comparing men and women we tend to do so.

In fact, for much of the disadvantage suffered by black men in western society, one could strike out black and many of the statements would remain valid - just to a lesser extent.

Yes, women are far more likely to suffer threats of violence on internet forums. That's disgusting and wrong, and should not be tolerated. However, men are far more likely to suffer actual violence, in the real world. An honest evaluation of women's status in society would take account of both facts.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 01:59 PM   #233
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,364
Don't get me wrong, I generally like Richard Carrier, despite some of his more odd ideas. Look at this post:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier
Atheism and skepticism should embrace diversity (and not just be a bunch of white guys reading a bunch of white guys). In fact, we should be really keen on expanding our experience and horizons in that regard, aiming to learn as much as possible, and provide resources to help all our comrades in arms.
And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors. Silly me. But I guess Richard Carrier's books are also out, given that he is such a white male.

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier
Atheist and skeptic communities should encourage everyone to apply skeptical analysis not just to religion, pseudoscience, and woo, but to social, moral, and political policies, theories and activists.
I'm at a loss at who is against this. But what should not happen is that skeptical groups as such endorse political candidate X. Greta Christina wants skeptics to advocate a political platform, that just happens to be her personal politics. That should not happen.

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier
Considering the history of religion and how it has even warped secular life and thought in countries around the world, atheists and skeptics should spend as much time and energy deconstructing illogical and/or inhumane secular policies and claims as they do actively fighting religiously-based interference. We have to be as critical of ourselves and each other as we would expect anyone to be of religion, so we can be sure we don’t make the same mistakes. We must police the rot within, if we are to stand strong against our foes without.
Again, I'm at a loss to who is opposed to this. If anything, alternative medicine is a secular issue.

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier
In the field of education, atheists and skeptics should help promote courses and curricula that include logic and abstract thought rather than focusing all efforts on science. We need to train kids with a universal toolkit of skeptical and critical thinking about all issues in their lives, not just the scientific, but the social, political, and ideological as well. And we need to take seriously the effort to push for that and make it happen at the fundamental and national level.
Carrier has evidently not looked very deeply.

The comment field has idiocies of its own.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 02:05 PM   #234
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.
Considering at least one member of Atheism+ has dismissed ALL non-members as misogynists, your argument is irrelevant whether or not it's the correct interpretation.

Originally Posted by franklinveaux
It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats.
Really? You and I have been on different forums, then. Ever go to Xbox Live? Sure, women recieve more than their fair share, but men aren't exactly immune to it, nor is it rare by any means (I'd go so far as to say that it's the major form of communication, in fact). It's just that in our culture what counts as a rape threat when directed towards a woman counts as nothing more than harmless banter when thrown at men.

If you examine what's said, rather than the reaction to it, you'll find that jackasses are jackasses no matter their audience. It's our culture, not the speaker, that treats genders differently.

Quote:
Even given the overlapping nature of privilege, it's still pretty plain to me that straight white cisgendered men have more than the lion's share of advantages. While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.
Maybe. In this context, so what? I don't mean that we shouldn't fight for more gender equality--rather, I mean that this is utterly beside the point. The point is that Atheism+ (or at least spokespeaple of the group) is arguing that all non-members are guilty of discrimination and sexism, merely by virtue of being non-members. The nature of sexism in today's society is a non-issue here; the issue is whether or not membership in a new, exclusive, divisive club that utilizes the most vicious rhetoric they can come up with is the only way to demonstrate that one is not a sexist pig. I hold that the views Atheism+ holds are insane, and the product of magical thinking.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 02:14 PM   #235
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Humes fork
And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors.
That's really the heart of my view on gender and race equality. To make the races and genders equal you IGNORE THEM. Feminism and the modern way of dealing with race in the USA do the opposite--they force these traits into the forefront and demand that we consider them to be of overwhelming importance. It's not enough that a speaker be wise--they also have to be of hte right skin color. It's not enough that they present a logical argument--they have to have the right plumbing.

To do the opposite of a thing is to be controlled by the thing. You don't eliminate a privilaged class by making another class privilaged. You eliminate it by ignoring classes entirely.

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier
In the field of education, atheists and skeptics should help promote courses and curricula that include logic and abstract thought rather than focusing all efforts on science. We need to train kids with a universal toolkit of skeptical and critical thinking about all issues in their lives, not just the scientific, but the social, political, and ideological as well. And we need to take seriously the effort to push for that and make it happen at the fundamental and national level.
It's astounding how often people who start by saying "We need to look critically at social, political, and economic issues" end by saying "People need to agree with me in order to be rational." Not that this disproves his point--of course it's a good idea to examine all aspects of life logically and rationally--I'm just saying that this sends up all sorts of warning flags in my mind.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 02:17 PM   #236
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Don't get me wrong, I generally like Richard Carrier, despite some of his more odd ideas. Look at this post:



And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors. Silly me. But I guess Richard Carrier's books are also out, given that he is such a white male.



I'm at a loss at who is against this. But what should not happen is that skeptical groups as such endorse political candidate X. Greta Christina wants skeptics to advocate a political platform, that just happens to be her personal politics. That should not happen.



Again, I'm at a loss to who is opposed to this. If anything, alternative medicine is a secular issue.



Carrier has evidently not looked very deeply.

The comment field has idiocies of its own.
On the face of it, teaching critical thinking and scepticism seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, it's important to know what words mean in practice. Are children to be taught a methodology which they can apply for themselves, or are they to be tested according to the conclusions they arrive at? I get a strong impression from reading Carrier that there are right and wrong answers to certain societal questions, and that people who don't arrive at the correct answers can be assumed to have not applied critical thinking - and those who have the correct answers can be assumed to have somehow reasoned correctly. This certainly seems to pervade the Atheism Plus discussions. Critical thinking to be judged on results.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 02:41 PM   #237
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,319
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors. Silly me. But I guess Richard Carrier's books are also out, given that he is such a white male.
With the exception of Carrier's books, there is money to be made. Double if you are black and female.

Just rewrite all these bestsellers and members of A+ will be morally obligated to buy them to get your perspective based on race and gender.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 04:01 PM   #238
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
 
lopeyschools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: West Coast - BC
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.
I also play with the cheat codes: born into stable western democracy and born into middle-class family.
lopeyschools is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 04:08 PM   #239
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by lopeyschools View Post
I also play with the cheat codes: born into stable western democracy and born into middle-class family.
Being born in a Western democracy into a middle-class family is like having the easiest settings. Being white, hetero and male is like having lottery tickets. You have more lottery tickets than black, gay, female, but there's no guarantee they'll come up. She might only have one ticket, but if it wins, she gets the prizes.

That's not to say that an uneducated poor white guy from a broken home with family members in prison and on drugs doesn't have any privilege - but most of it was in those lottery tickets, and if they don't come up, they're just waste paper. Taunting someone in that situation with all the CEO's who look just like him isn't really any consolation.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2012, 07:23 PM   #240
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,599
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats. It's rare in the extreme that women who say something controversial on an Internet forum don't.

I did expect that answer, and of course it's absolutely correct. However, those rape threats are pretty darned rare here, right? Direct threats will get you banned; indirect "teasing" will be infracted as personal attacks (and get you banned if you persist); and the forum has registration procedures that make banning mean something.

Of course that's not true elsewhere. That's one major reason I choose to post here almost exclusively. In that way, voluntarily, I give up whatever gender-based posting privilege I have. Privilege problem erased -- unless someone can persuade me that I have sort of moral responsibility to go clean up YouTube or somebody else's blog.

There is an argument out there that attempts to do exactly that, under the guise of not "blaming the victim." It claims that if I don't regard YouTube comment threads as my problem, that could imply that I'm blaming women and girls who do participate in YouTube comment threads, or Tweeter or Deface-A-Book or whatever the kids are into nowadays, for the pain they suffer when they get threatened or verbally abused there.

But I don't. I blame the people who threaten and verbally abuse people in those channels.

But there's not much I can do about them. I can lay a mean verbal smackdown, but scolding trolls is worse than ineffective. I could help FtB fix their broken culture e.g. by setting up rule-based and evidence-based moderation, but I'm pretty certain they don't want that. I could urge my government to enact more Internet regulation, but I doubt that would make me many friends. I could treat the women I interact with as equals, and not associate with any misogynists, but I already do that. Rape threateners are a superstitious cowardly lot, so if I dressed up as a bat... wait, no, the Wayne fortune went to somebody named Wayne instead of to me.

So, re privilege, I'm left where I started. Sure, there is such a thing and it has real effects. And if I make an argument that is invalid because of my privilege, I would expect and invite a refutation that includes an explanation of what my privilege has caused me to get wrong. (Go ahead and talk about the privilege if you wish, but the actual reason I'm wrong will be of more interest to me.) On the other hand, saying I'm wrong because of my privilege, without such an argument, is fallacious.

(I realize there was more to your post that I haven't addressed yet, but it's getting late.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.