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 28th August 2012, 11:26 AM   #281
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acleron
You cannot be welcoming to people who do not argue with us and also be welcoming to people who argue with us. They choose only non-arguers.

Ah, I see how reasonable and inclusive they are.
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Textbook straw man fallacy.
The New Atheism + by Richard Carrier
Quote:
1. We believe in being reasonable. This means, first, that we believe in being logical and rational in forming beliefs and opinions. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument and, when shown that they have, does not admit it, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.
So paraphrasing one of the new prophets is a strawman?
Acleron 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 28th August 2012, 11:37 AM   #282
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
 
lopeyschools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: West Coast - BC
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post

I am a she, you misogynist pig!

ETA: And a non-white one for bonus points!
Alas, I let my privlege show! I apologize.
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 28th August 2012, 11:52 AM   #283
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,528
You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to people we accuse of being misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals we accuse of being opposed to inclusivity.
__________________
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
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 28th August 2012, 01:34 PM   #284
Humes fork
Illuminator
 
Humes fork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,174
What's the whole point with atheism plus? It seems they use atheism as a vehicle for their political agenda more than anything else. Why simply not sign up for the political groups that already advocate their political positions?

I remember Internet atheism back in the days. It was Internet Infidels, Harris, Dawkins, Freethought Mecca, and mocking of religion as well as scholarly critiques of it from scientific, philosophical, moral, and historical points of view. That was fun. Very different from the FTB nonsense.

The atheist=liberal moniker is false. Libertarians are if I'm not mistaken one of the least religious political demographics. It would be absurd not to cooperate with them on issues like secularism.

Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Dillahunty is firmly in the Skepchick/FTB camp.
That's too bad.
__________________
"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fantasies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in later years relieved of them." - Hypatia
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 28th August 2012, 01:55 PM   #285
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
What's the whole point with atheism plus? It seems they use atheism as a vehicle for their political agenda more than anything else. Why simply not sign up for the political groups that already advocate their political positions?

I remember Internet atheism back in the days. It was Internet Infidels, Harris, Dawkins, Freethought Mecca, and mocking of religion as well as scholarly critiques of it from scientific, philosophical, moral, and historical points of view. That was fun. Very different from the FTB nonsense.

The atheist=liberal moniker is false. Libertarians are if I'm not mistaken one of the least religious political demographics. It would be absurd not to cooperate with them on issues like secularism.



That's too bad.
Yes, it was fun, enlightening to easily see others with views and experiences similar to my own and vastly educational.

What I particularly like about the writings of Dawkins is that whether he is writing on religion, atheism or evolution he always hopes to persuade the reader of his point of view. Atheism+ appears to want to tell you what you should accept. I've reacted badly to that attitude the whole of my life and I'm not going to change now.
Acleron 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 28th August 2012, 02:04 PM   #286
franklinveaux
Scholar
 
franklinveaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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.
You know, I've been on the Internet since it was called the Arpanet, and before that, on bulletin board systems extending all the way back to CBBS Chicago. In that time, I've received countless death threats (including one that had a photograph of me attached to my street address, sent by a spammer named Art Schwartz), threats to burn down my house, and even, once, a threat against my cat.

But I've never been threatened with rape.

On the other hand, one of my girlfriends is a vocal atheist who receives rape threats almost on a daily basis.All she has to do is...well, is open her email inbox, really.

Now, I can't speak to the Xbox Live forums; I've never been there. Maybe the Xbox community simply breeds an exceptional strain of ********, I don't know. But if you're maintaining that men and women both receive such threats in roughly equal amounts, that absolutely isn't my experience.

And again, if we lived in a world where 17% or so of all the men who ever received death threats were murdered, well, we might be inclined to take them a bit more seriously, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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.
Like I said, that hasn't been my experience.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
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.
That certainly would be a strange claim to make. If someone made such a claim in front of me, I'd disagree with it quite strongly...that is, if I didn't simply laugh and walk away.

I haven't seen much about the Atheism + community, so I don't know if that is actually the claim they make or a straw man representation of it. If it is the claim they make, then it's ridiculous on the face of it--so ridiculous, in fact, that it's barely even worthy of a response.

Originally Posted by Dinwar
That's really the heart of my view on gender and race equality. To make the races and genders equal you IGNORE THEM.
That works, except when it doesn't. If you live in a society whose structures and institutions provide an advantage to some groups and disadvantages other groups, ignoring it does not make it go away.

The problem with privilege is that it is invisible to the folks who have it.

Originally Posted by Myriad
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.
Agreed without reservation.

The conversation about privilege and social advantage is necessary only as a starting point to a conversation, because of its tendency to be invisible to those who have it; "this affects me more than it affects you because you are blessed to belong to a group that doesn't have to deal with these particular issues" is often part of the 'actual reason that you're wrong' bit.

On the other hand, using it as a silencing tactic--"You are privileged and therefore what you say is invalid"--is beyond silly; it's actually detrimental.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles
Can we just clarify what you are saying:

1. Almost all (not a few, not some, not even many but almost all) women internet users who use an internet forum receive rape threats online?

2. A significant percentage of those women who receive online rape threats actually go on to be raped by their threatener? You are not clear on what number goes here as you quote an unrelated statistic - do you have a figure in mind, did you mean to imply 17%?
Ah, no that's not actually what I'm saying, though I see how you arrived there. Let me try to clarify:

1. Almost all women Internet users who regularly blog or write about emotionally charged, controversial topics--religion, abortion, atheism, and so on--are quite likely to receive rape threats at some point in their writing. The more prominent they are and the more controversial the topics they write about, the more often this happens.

2. A significant percentage of women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Not as a result of what they say online, or (necessarily) by the folks who threaten them online; it's simply a sad matter of course that women are sexually assaulted in numbers that, if it were any other crime, would be quite jaw-dropping.

The connection between the two is that many men seem to trivialize or dismiss the idea of posting rape threats online; if men had to deal with murder on at the rate that women had to deal with rape, it might be possible that men might deal with death threats as seriously as women take rape threats.

Originally Posted by ocelot
I happen to think that your description of privilege makes a certain amount of sense however when trying to educate myself on the issues I have discovered that there is no such thing as female privilege in any context. What you're discussing there is actually benevolent sexism http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress....ale-privilege/
I think, if I squint hard enough, I can kind of get where the author of that piece is trying to go with the notion of 'benevolent sexism,' but it also seems to me that the argument runs off the rails pretty quickly. It might be possible to argue that exemption from the draft is sexism rather than privilege, in that it is actually a constraint on women's freedom of action (women who WANT to serve in combat units aren't permitted to), but it's really, really, really hard to make a case that the legal system does not, in fact, privilege women.

Originally Posted by Humes fork
The atheist=liberal moniker is false. Libertarians are if I'm not mistaken one of the least religious political demographics. It would be absurd not to cooperate with them on issues like secularism.
Well, kind of. In the US at least, social conservatives do tend overwhelmingly to be highly religious, and to claim a religious justification for their beliefs. Some of these people--including, it must be said, some people in political office--even go so far as to advocate for a theocratic government in the US. So it's tough to be atheist and also see eye-to-eye with those folks; particularly given that atheists are often used as generic 'evil people we are against' monsters in their rhetoric. See, for example, George H.R. Bush's famous comment on the notion that atheists should not be citizens.

There's more than one kind of 'liberal' and more than one kind of 'conservative.' In my experience, Libertarians don't fit neatly into the liberal OR conservative camps in US politics, as they tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
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 28th August 2012, 04:21 PM   #287
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
I think, if I squint hard enough, I can kind of get where the author of that piece is trying to go with the notion of 'benevolent sexism,' but it also seems to me that the argument runs off the rails pretty quickly. It might be possible to argue that exemption from the draft is sexism rather than privilege, in that it is actually a constraint on women's freedom of action (women who WANT to serve in combat units aren't permitted to), but it's really, really, really hard to make a case that the legal system does not, in fact, privilege women.
I think there's an underlying assumption that
  • The system is run by the patriarchy
  • The patriarchy are men
  • Therefore the powerful assign privilege to those like themselves
  • The men in charge will favour men over women
  • When they don't, they are doing so really, in an exercise of power

However, even if we accept that the people running everything are rich old white men, it's quite obviously not true that they will set up society to favour poor young black men over their own wives and daughters. So when the draft is set up for 'nam, the young black men bear the brunt.

That's not to say that the young black men don't also benefit from male privilege. They still get the same advantages that apply to men in general. However, I don't see how the way the power structures capriciously favour one group in one way and another group in another can be reasonably divided into privilege on one side and benevolent sexism on the other. There is no monolithic male consensus.

The racial analysis that presupposes that because white people are in charge that they will structure society to favour white people has considerable merit, though it might be an oversimplification. However, in the case of gender discrimination that model simply doesn't apply. From 1914 to 1918 there were ditches dug across France, which were filled up with young men, who were then killed. That's not privilege.
__________________
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 28th August 2012, 04:24 PM   #288
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
Well, kind of. In the US at least, social conservatives do tend overwhelmingly to be highly religious, and to claim a religious justification for their beliefs. Some of these people--including, it must be said, some people in political office--even go so far as to advocate for a theocratic government in the US. So it's tough to be atheist and also see eye-to-eye with those folks; particularly given that atheists are often used as generic 'evil people we are against' monsters in their rhetoric. See, for example, George H.R. Bush's famous comment on the notion that atheists should not be citizens.

There's more than one kind of 'liberal' and more than one kind of 'conservative.' In my experience, Libertarians don't fit neatly into the liberal OR conservative camps in US politics, as they tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
This doesn't apply in other countries, however. In the UK, the churches are probably economically left of centre, insofar as they have a position. Tony Blair was a vaguely religious leader. Cameron somewhat less so.
__________________
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 28th August 2012, 05:31 PM   #289
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
So, how do they filter out these undesirables? Serious question. Is there a form you get that says stuff like "Are you a misogynist? Y/N"? Or, after you've shown your "true colors", they declare you a misogynist and excommunicate you?

(I guess what happened to Thunderf00t is a good indication of how this would be handled. After excommunication, they'd write nasty blog posts about you for weeks afterward!)
Axiom_Blade 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 28th August 2012, 06:17 PM   #290
WillyWonka
Thinker
 
WillyWonka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
This doesn't apply in other countries, however. In the UK, the churches are probably economically left of centre, insofar as they have a position. Tony Blair was a vaguely religious leader. Cameron somewhat less so.
In Canada, most churches are aligned with with unions and social organizations. The most leftist party is lead by Elizabeth May, an ordained church minister. Nobody cares what religion the prime minister is, or if he goes to church.
WillyWonka 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 28th August 2012, 06:23 PM   #291
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
So, how do they filter out these undesirables? Serious question. Is there a form you get that says stuff like "Are you a misogynist? Y/N"? Or, after you've shown your "true colors", they declare you a misogynist and excommunicate you?

(I guess what happened to Thunderf00t is a good indication of how this would be handled. After excommunication, they'd write nasty blog posts about you for weeks afterward!)
The strategy seems to be for everyone to be wound up to such a hysterical pitch that the racism and misogyny comes seeping out.
__________________
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 28th August 2012, 07:08 PM   #292
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 738
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Right, so in the Venn diagram, those in the overlapping area are:

a) Women
b) Pancakes

You see, you set up your post I originally responded to as if there were no overlap.

No, you just assumed that there was no overlap.


Quote:
Your statement, "you can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists" fails if one is indeed a female misogynist and is not welcomed, because then the groups is clearly not choosing "women" as a class, just non-misogynists.

Your conclusion is wrong and your argument is silly, but I'll play along for another round. Clearly, if we exclude misogynists, then women who are not misogynists are welcomed, which does not contradict my original claim.
jt512 is online now   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 28th August 2012, 07:27 PM   #293
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,893
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Your conclusion is wrong and your argument is silly, but I'll play along for another round. Clearly, if we exclude misogynists, then women who are not misogynists are welcomed, which does not contradict my original claim.

My bolding. That is exactly my point. That group isn't welcoming to women (your claim), they are welcoming to non-misogynists. The fact that they also happen to be women has nothing to do with their welcome.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele 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 28th August 2012, 07:41 PM   #294
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,664
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
My bolding. That is exactly my point. That group isn't welcoming to women (your claim), they are welcoming to non-misogynists. The fact that they also happen to be women has nothing to do with their welcome.
Plus the fact that they've redefined the term "misogynists" to mean anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the FTBullies. Which is pretty much why they're the laughing stock of Skepticism right now.
__________________
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 28th August 2012, 07:47 PM   #295
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belfort
Posts: 5,669
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Plus the fact that they've redefined the term "misogynists" to mean anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the FTBullies. Which is pretty much why they're the laughing stock of Skepticism right now.
Yep. From what I've seen from them and FTB, often when someone mentions that things aren't perfect for men and there are some areas where they're lagging and could use some help, there's calls of misogyny and sarcastic 'think of teh poor menz' posts.
rustypouch 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 28th August 2012, 07:54 PM   #296
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 4,183
I'm in a model airplane club, and until recently, we had about 200 members and we'd welcome pretty much anyone.

But then we realized the truth about inclusiveness, and we knew that if we were going to grow the club, we'd have to be more selective.

We couldn't be welcoming to Democrats and also be welcoming to Republicans.

We couldn't be welcoming to Catholics and also be welcoming to Protestants.

We couldn't be welcoming to those who support abortion rights and also be welcoming to those who feel that abortion is murder.

We couldn't be welcoming to Big Ten fans and also be welcoming to Pac-10 fans.

And so on.

We've had to split the club, of course, because it turns out that 'inclusivity' requires a lot more uniformity than our club originally had.

At last count, the original 200 members had split into 143 clubs, though we suspect that a few of the larger clubs have been acting conciliatory in order to pump up their numbers (I'm looking at you, pro-Israel/anyone-in-the-ACC-except-Miami/Hiroshima-was-a-mistake/MSN/non-Vegetarian/anti-High-Speed-Rail/non-Birther/Nikon/Less-filling Valley Flyers. 5 members? Shyeah, right).

My particular club, which I consider to be the 'real' club, has 2 members, though Bob mentioned that he might be buying a Mustang, and you know what Ford's environmental record has been, so one more split may be needed.

So empowering, this inclusiveness! I can only imagine what we'll be able to accomplish now that we're not encumbered by the other 198 people.

Or the other 199, if Bob buys that Mustang.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller 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 28th August 2012, 08:05 PM   #297
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 12,053
I know there is a Christian saying that goes like this, but I don't know my divisions that well, so we will go with this version:

One day a priest goes on a stroll. While crossing a bridge, they notice a person clinging on for dear life. They rush up and grab their hand. The person exclaims "Oh, thank Buddha!"

"Ah, you are a Buddhist as well? Mahayana or Theravada?"

"Mahayana."

"Me as well!"

"Are you Japanese, or mainland?"

"Japanese."

"So am I! Are you Pure Land, or Zen?"

"Zen."

"Me too!"

"Are you Soto, or Rinzai?"

"Rinzai."

"Die scum!" And with that, the priest let them fall.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha 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 28th August 2012, 08:18 PM   #298
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,673
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Except if they did, it would then be "groupthink."




Except that they've explained exactly what they're doing and why they need to do it, and they're right.

You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals who oppose inclusivity.
This seems to be the fallacy of excluded middle. Some (many?) reasonable feminists disagree with A+'s version of feminism. Does this therefore make them misogynist?

I think the whole reason some people are smacking heads on desks over A+ is that topics like feminism (much like politics) are nuanced / not black and white such that skeptical thinking alone dictates which of the many sides are correct. Worse, disagreement with their brand immediately makes you a douche-bag women hater. It's very fundie-like in my perception.
__________________
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 28th August 2012, 08:21 PM   #299
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
I wonder how he reconciles his preference for the term "douchebag" with his strident feminism, but not enough to read more of his stuff.
I remember reading somewhere (FtB?) that some feminists defend using the term "douchebag", because they consider douching unhealthy, and (perhaps more importantly) it's an insult that's always used against a certain type of man (never a woman). If you do a search for douchebag feminism, there are actually quite a few articles on this topic. I think this one is fairly representative:

Quote:
Unlike a lot of other common insults...“douchebag” actually insults something that deserves to be insulted. Douching is terrible for women; it can lead to infection and irritation. Even teen magazines will tell you this! Douches exist only because women have been told that our bodies are unclean. Douches, and the bags that reportedly accompany them, are terrible, no-good products. Insulting douches doesn’t insult women — the existence of douches insults women.

Last edited by Axiom_Blade; 28th August 2012 at 08:23 PM.
Axiom_Blade 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 28th August 2012, 08:55 PM   #300
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 738
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
My bolding. That is exactly my point. That group isn't welcoming to women (your claim), they are welcoming to non-misogynists. The fact that they also happen to be women has nothing to do with their welcome.

Please go take a class in formal logic.
jt512 is online now   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 28th August 2012, 10:37 PM   #301
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 738
Originally Posted by bpesta22 View Post
This seems to be the fallacy of excluded middle. Some (many?) reasonable feminists disagree with A+'s version of feminism. Does this therefore make them misogynist?

I think the whole reason some people are smacking heads on desks over A+ is that topics like feminism (much like politics) are nuanced / not black and white such that skeptical thinking alone dictates which of the many sides are correct. Worse, disagreement with their brand immediately makes you a douche-bag women hater. It's very fundie-like in my perception.
The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay
jt512 is online now   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 28th August 2012, 10:43 PM   #302
qayak
Philosopher
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,993
Originally Posted by franklinveaux View Post
The conversation about privilege and social advantage is necessary only as a starting point to a conversation, because of its tendency to be invisible to those who have it;
This is true but it is also true that there is also a tendency for people who are looking for it to see it when it doesn't exist. As an example, someone mentioned, on this forum or another, I don't recall, about whites paying lower rates on mortgages than blackes is privilege in action.

And if you go look, it is true. Fewer whites than blacks pay high mortgage rates but it is also true that even fewer Asians do.

Quote:
Remarkably, the Fed found that in 2005, for conventional home-purchase loans, 54.7% of blacks and 46.1% of Hispanics paid high rates, vs. only 17.2% of non-Hispanic whites. (Asians, by the way, were even less likely than whites to pay high rates for loans.)
So this "white privilege" suddenly isn't but people still use it as the example.

Personally, I think there is something to the theory of privilege but I also think that Western society is doing a pretty good job of changing things to make everything more equal. If we have learned anything though, it is that you can't do it over night. Nothing you do today will end privilege tomorrow, but it might end it in fifty years so by all means do it.

And there is the disconnect with Atheist+. That group doesn't care about privilege. That's why they misrepresent it to attack people who disagree with them.
__________________
"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 28th August 2012, 10:46 PM   #303
qayak
Philosopher
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,993
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay
You have to do some throwing out of real juggling with the facts to come to that conclusion.
__________________
"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 28th August 2012, 11:07 PM   #304
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,340
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay
If the "almost universal" impression of Atheism+ is that it defines misogynists, racists, homophobes etc as "anyone not in the group" then perhaps those involved need to look at the message instead of blaming the recipient for not understanding.
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 28th August 2012, 11:13 PM   #305
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 738
Originally Posted by squealpiggy View Post
If the "almost universal" impression of Atheism+ is that it defines misogynists, racists, homophobes etc as "anyone not in the group" then perhaps those involved need to look at the message instead of blaming the recipient for not understanding.

I guess that would depend on how seriously they want to justify themselves to a group with such a strong bias against them that they are rendered incapable of objective reasoning.
jt512 is online now   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 29th August 2012, 12:07 AM   #306
RebeccaBradley
Critical Thinker
 
RebeccaBradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ootischenia
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I guess that would depend on how seriously they want to justify themselves to a group with such a strong bias against them that they are rendered incapable of objective reasoning.
It is not bias if it has been arrived at with good reason. I, for one, was excited when FtB started up, and initially read a number of the blogs with interest and pleasure. Red flags started to go up pretty quickly, though, and disillusionment was complete within about three months. Given the general FtB track record for intolerance and tribalism, it is perfectly reasonable to view their A+ initiative with suspicion.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
The Lateral Truth: Writings of a Mild-Mannered Apostate
http://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/
RebeccaBradley 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 29th August 2012, 01:09 AM   #307
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,893
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Please go take a class in formal logic.

How would that help with your error? But just for fun, let's take a look at your second example:

Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

This demonstrates the problem with your argument even more clearly. The main issue with this particular example is that it assumes that racism only applies when it is directed towards non-whites. That is in itself, well, racist. For all you know, a group might be more appealing to a particular non-white minority because it excludes the white people. In other words, being welcoming to racists would be welcoming to non-whites.

By setting up your arguments as a series of false choice fallacies, you are demonstrating the precise lack of logic Atheism+ decries.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele 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 29th August 2012, 02:46 AM   #308
NearlySane
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 34
My initial reaction to the idea was 'nonsense on stilts', in that I think much of New Atheism has too much effort trying to shoehorn values into a value neutral position. But I think that there may be some aspects which I see as positive in that it seems an attempt (if a feeble one) to break out of the idea that seems to underpin New Atheism that if one is a proper atheist one should be antitheist.
NearlySane 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 29th August 2012, 03:22 AM   #309
Ocelot
Illuminator
 
Ocelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,156
http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2012/...-and-certaint/
If ever there were a ^This that needed ^Thissing then ^This is it. The more I read from Barbara Drescher the more I want to read more.
__________________
EDL = English Disco Lovers
Ocelot 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 29th August 2012, 03:54 AM   #310
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,095
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I guess that would depend on how seriously they want to justify themselves to a group with such a strong bias against them that they are rendered incapable of objective reasoning.

What is your justification, rationalization, explanation, or excuse for PZM's responding to this:

Quote:
My whole point is that not everyone dismissed as a “misogynist” or “hate and rage filled asshole” 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.

...by telling the questioner that he personally ("and that's you, Guy") thinks women should be raped into submission?

In what way can that possibly be considered acceptable rational discourse? Is PZM claiming mind reading powers to know that the questioner thinks women should be raped into submission? Can he cite the questioner somewhere stating that women should be raped into submission?

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.
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 29th August 2012, 05:48 AM   #311
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
What is your justification, rationalization, explanation, or excuse for PZM's responding to this:

..by telling the questioner that he personally ("and that's you, Guy") thinks women should be raped into submission?

In what way can that possibly be considered acceptable rational discourse? Is PZM claiming mind reading powers to know that the questioner thinks women should be raped into submission? Can he cite the questioner somewhere stating that women should be raped into submission?

Respectfully,
Myriad
I asked that yesterday or the day before. Never got an answer.

It appears that the Athiesm Plus apologists have failed to note that the people at A plus are unilaterally labeling their detractors.

"Not everyone who disagrees with you hates women."

Response: "People want to rape people into submission. That is you guy."

The A+ folks are a joke.
__________________
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; 29th August 2012 at 07:06 AM. Reason: Converted that sentence into English
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 29th August 2012, 07:03 AM   #312
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,664
Originally Posted by Ocelot View Post
http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2012/...-and-certaint/
If ever there were a ^This that needed ^Thissing then ^This is it. The more I read from Barbara Drescher the more I want to read more.
Same here.
__________________
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 29th August 2012, 07:04 AM   #313
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,664
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
The A+ folks are a joke.
We have the correct answer.

Mods, you may close the thread.
__________________
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 29th August 2012, 08:12 AM   #314
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field.
Posts: 10,230
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Intellectual artillery?

"In the meantime, I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

Sounds like a Beer Hall in Munich.

By the way, nice of Mr. Carrier to co-opt Jen's idea, with a false dichotomy no less.

Typical male.

Shun me Mr. Carrier, because I am with you AND with them.
He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.
__________________
Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+
More Atheism+ stuff

Wildy 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 29th August 2012, 08:22 AM   #315
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.
Wow, and overnight I have become sexist, cruel and irrational. I suppose I have to be thankful I haven't become racist, intolerant and stupid. Yet!
Acleron 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 29th August 2012, 08:38 AM   #316
NearlySane
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.
I'll stick with just atheism - I'm perfectly well aware that there are atheists who are unpleasant - it's a value neutral position - atheism tells you nothing about what a person's values will be be, what they will be like. It adds nothing to their values and takes nothing away.

The clarification seems to imply that there there are agnostic atheists plus allowed now.
NearlySane 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 29th August 2012, 08:58 AM   #317
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
 
bpesta22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,673
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
The almost universal fallacy in this thread is transposing the conditional. People here are claiming that the Atheism+ crowd is saying, "If you are not one of us, then you are a misogynist," whereas all the Atheist+ crowd is saying the converse: "If you are a misogynist, then you are not one of us."

Jay
But what makes you a misogynist? Not towing exactly their party line, at least in my perception. It's not transposing a conditional. The whole thing seems to be a bi-conditional (not that there's anything wrong with that...)
__________________
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 29th August 2012, 09:16 AM   #318
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 45,664
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
He's changed the "living document" as he's called it, to now say:

"Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?

Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."

I've highlighted the change. Of course this change isn't mentioned on the original blog post, but on a different one.
I think A+ just became even more stupid.
__________________
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 29th August 2012, 09:36 AM   #319
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
I remember reading somewhere (FtB?) that some feminists defend using the term "douchebag", because they consider douching unhealthy, and (perhaps more importantly) it's an insult that's always used against a certain type of man (never a woman). If you do a search for douchebag feminism, there are actually quite a few articles on this topic. I think this one is fairly representative:
I think the quotes justifying the term show exactly how this thing works. Any objective observer would consider that the term was anti-woman. Of course it's a term applied to men - the insult is that he's so pathetic that he's like the disgusting object that comes into contact with a woman's supposedly filthy genitals. That's what the term is about, and the attempts to pretend that it's a reference to some kind of health guidelines is nonsensical. It's the kind of word used by teenage boys, and hearing it from adults is a bit disconcerting.

The justification, at heart, comes down to "I want to use the word, and I'm a feminist, so it's OK. Plus these women aren't offended, so to hell with the ones who are. They are probably the wrong sort of women."

Personally, I wouldn't try to set up a set of rules as to what words can and can't be spoken, but I would have thought that the people who do try to set up such rules would do so with some sort of objectivity.
__________________
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 29th August 2012, 09:49 AM   #320
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
You can't be welcoming to women and at the same time be welcoming to people we accuse of being misogynists. You have to make a choice. They choose women.

You can't be welcoming to non-whites and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being racists. You have to make a choice. They choose non-whites.

You can't be welcoming to gays and also be welcoming to people we accuse of being homophobes. You have to make a choice. They choose gays.

And so on.

So, it's true. If you want to be more inclusive, you have to exclude those individuals we accuse of being opposed to inclusivity.
We simply won't tolerate intolerance.

What if a woman is a racist homophobe? Can't choose women.

What if a non-white is a misogynist homophobe? Can't choose non-whites.

What if a gay is a misogynist racist? Can't choose gays.

I choose to be pragmatic. I'll even choose PZ on occasion, or Rebecca. While this is the first time I can recall Richard on my radar, I wouldn't rule out choosing him.

I'll work with Baptists, racists, misogynists, homophobes, and garden-variety ******** if we're working toward a common goal. I don't have a problem with people shunning me, but I'm not going to let anybody tell me who to shun. I'm happy to be a movement of one.
zeggman 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 02:25 AM.
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.