Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by adamwho

The Aplus crowd on reddit is currently going crazy over a Dawkins tweet

Ah, there's ceepolk.

Originally Posted by ceepolk

after how many times he's been told? subconscious misogyny carries about as much water as a clean sieve at this point.

Yeah, Dawkins! How many times did the feminists tell you not to talk about women? How many times?

Sheesh, it's like the guy doesn't know his place, or something.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Personally, I love the idea that the way to a more equal society is through having a black friend, not because you like them or think they're a nice person, but purely so that every time you do something they can say "well, that wouldn't have been as easy to accomplish, had you not been white".

Some comedian on TV the other day was noting it's more racist to have just one black friend than to have none.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Stout

Reddit and join the online "I hate men" female supremacist rally they're currently holding.

Wow. There's so much about that Reddit and thread to comment on (ArchaengelleDworkin? Really? ), but I this post by ceepolk caught my attention:

I don't want them to die slowly and painfully. I want them to stop trying to talk to me while I'm listening to something on my headphones while reading, working on my phone, or knitting.

I want them to stop {bleep} bothering me because I happen to be out in public and they think they have the {bleep} right to bother me. If I wanted to talk to strangers I'd make eye contact and smile, for {bleep} sake.

Sounds like she's pretty hot if men can't help themselves and have to accost and chat her up constantly. What a terrible burden.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Daald

I do not know how reputable they are but considering the topic I wouldn't be surprised if it is true.

Conservative News Service founded by Brent Bozo.. Bozell is not a reputable news outlet as they editorialize every news "story" they report.

Checking the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, and the VISTA portal page
https://sites.google.com/a/dpi.wi.go...me/vista-forum
does, however, provide a link to the "Power and Privilege" links page (all of which appear to be external links).
https://sites.google.com/a/dpi.wi.go...lege-resources

[jhunter1163]

Love this gem from ceepolk:

Quote:

No, I won't forget who is speaking.

No, I will not accept this argument.

No, I will not even consider it for a moment, as I reject it.

Sounds like a free-thinker to me...

[Quinn]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I this post by ceepolk caught my attention:

I don't want them to die slowly and painfully. I want them to stop trying to talk to me while I'm listening to something on my headphones while reading, working on my phone, or knitting.

I want them to stop {bleep} bothering me because I happen to be out in public and they think they have the {bleep} right to bother me. If I wanted to talk to strangers I'd make eye contact and smile, for {bleep} sake.

Wow, for once I agree! In fact I have that same reaction when any stranger, regardless of their gender, tries to strike up a conversation when I'm obviously reading, working or listening to something. Does that mean I get to be twice as morally outraged and righteously indignant?

[s_pepys]

thunderf00t with a rebuttal to anita sarkeesian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

bout time he showed up.

[s_pepys]

pz is on again. this guy is a kook of the worst kind.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...ense-of-shame/

horrible anti-skepticism.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Eh. I'm more curious if this is an actual trend (I.e Evidence?) Or..?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by s_pepys

thunderf00t with a rebuttal to anita sarkeesian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

bout time he showed up.

I watched the first 5 minutes, and he seemed to be deliberately missing the point and strawmanning her.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by s_pepys

pz is on again. this guy is a kook of the worst kind.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...ense-of-shame/

horrible anti-skepticism.

Originally Posted by PZ Myers

What can I do better?

I think that what we should do is appoint PZ the first Pope of Atheism. Obviously, somebody's going to have to decide who is "in" atheism, and who is "out"...who better than him?

We will keep official membership rolls. If anyone is found exhibiting anti-feminist or politically incorrect behavior, they run the risk of being excommunicated.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I watched the first 5 minutes, and he seemed to be deliberately missing the point and strawmanning her.

Not the impression I got from the first 2, but I admit I plan to watch at home since I think he kinda was missing the point.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Ah, there's ceepolk.

Her lack of self-awareness in this one is priceless.

new rule: if you start a sentence with your unwanted opinion about a group you're not in and then write a comma and the word but, slap yourself, find a member of that group to slap you, and then delete that sentence unfinished.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Wow. There's so much about that Reddit and thread to comment on (ArchaengelleDworkin? Really? ),...

Looks like someone has discovered the joys of SRS.

Quote:

...but I this post by ceepolk caught my attention:

I don't want them to die slowly and painfully. I want them to stop trying to talk to me while I'm listening to something on my headphones while reading, working on my phone, or knitting.

I want them to stop {bleep} bothering me because I happen to be out in public and they think they have the {bleep} right to bother me. If I wanted to talk to strangers I'd make eye contact and smile, for {bleep} sake.

Sounds like she's pretty hot if men can't help themselves and have to accost and chat her up constantly. What a terrible burden.

Personally I'm imagining a montage of situations like a man saying "excuse me" when trying to get past her, or "do you happen to have the time?", or "pardon me, you dropped this".

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Without offering a position on abortion itself, I just wanted to comment on this comment:

Quote:

What he argued was "if fetal suffering is present, a person's right to bodily autonomy no longer applies." This argument can only possibly be applied to strip rights from anyone with a uterus[...]

[...]or to protect the rights of foetuses. Surely that's the point under discussion - at which point whose rights trump whose and/or at which point the foetus becomes a person whose rights need protecting.

Quote:

[...]and given that no equivalent legal dispute exists targeting cis men (no mandatory blood/organ donation? no mandatory insemination? no mandatory adoption?), the end result is oppression and privilege like whoa.

Seems to me that that's an inevitable consequence of biology. I think we're getting into protecting Loretta's right to have babies territory, here.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And this one is just ironic:

Quote:

They both fall very firmly in the "you're not helping. stooooop" category.

Isn't that the whole of FTB/A+?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also, how do the A+ers feel about the fact that by using Reddit they're supporting a site which protected child pornographers? Isn't child pornography a big social justice no? Or is it okay because it suits their purposes?

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by s_pepys

pz is on again. this guy is a kook of the worst kind.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...ense-of-shame/

horrible anti-skepticism.

I see that Dawkins' whole "pig pain/abortion" argument is still flying over their heads and being misunderstood. I wonder if they're even really reading it, or just bouncing indignation and anger off each other in their echo chambers.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Also, how do the A+ers feel about the fact that by using Reddit they're supporting a site which protected child pornographers? Isn't child pornography a big social justice no? Or is it okay because it suits their purposes?

Actually, I've seen them point that out more than once, and they still rail against a lot of the sites there. They just go where the action is, and can't resist a lot of the juicy white male oppression. It's like blood in the water.

[s_pepys]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I watched the first 5 minutes, and he seemed to be deliberately missing the point and strawmanning her.

really? can you expand a bit on that please. after watching the full vid.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Actually, I've seen them point that out more than once, and they still rail against a lot of the sites there. They just go where the action is, and can't resist a lot of the juicy white male oppression. It's like blood in the water.

They may rail against it, but they still use the site.

Originally Posted by s_pepys

really? can you expand a bit on that please. after watching the full vid.

I probably won't watch the whole video, but I will comment more in-depth on the part I did watch when I'm not posting during my lunch hour, if you'd like.

[s_pepys]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I probably won't watch the whole video, but I will comment more in-depth on the part I did watch when I'm not posting during my lunch hour, if you'd like.

thanks

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by brodski

yes, pretty much so.

It's pretty close to being less likely to hire a black employee, and in those rare cases you do paying them less than your white employees. You will have to make a very strong case for me to consider that non-racism- even though I understand why these things made business sense.

If I hired two salespeople and paid them both on commission but one got a lot more sales because that person fit prevailing stereotypes better, is this discriminatory?

This can be black/white, facial tattoos/no facial tattoos, what ever.

[kbonn]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I watched the first 5 minutes, and he seemed to be deliberately missing the point and strawmanning her.

The Double Dragon defense is weak, and pointless, it is a perfect example of old games(or carbon copy remake) that fit the mark Anita is aiming at.

The later parts of the video are much better and point out how flimsy Anita's Research is, and how hypocritical she is.

[kbonn]

Originally Posted by brodski

Originally Posted by Myriad

Okay, though experiment about the record company.

Suppose the company is organized into two departments. Department A evaluates the potential market for each project (artist and album) pitched to them by artists' agents. They take all factors into account including the artist's race, insofar as it affects the market estimates. They then produce a breakdown for each project: most likely range of cost, and most likely range of revenue, presented as 90% confidence intervals, over a whole range of marketing scenarios. Let's say they're pretty good at this, and historically, 90% of their estimates have in fact turned out to fall within the projected 90% confidence interval, regardless of the music style.

This information is then passed along to Department B, but only the financial projections. The names, backgrounds, music styles, appearances, and races of the artists, and even what the music sounds like, are withheld from the dossier. Department B makes the decisions on which projects to fund and which marketing scenarios to choose, taking into account the various offered risks and returns, and the company's current financial position.

Let's then say that the result is similar to the actual historical period in question; that is, black artists are less likely to have their projects funded because overall, though there are specific exceptions, the (accurate) market analysis of Department A predicted higher risk or lower revenues for black artists' projects, so the money decisions made in Department B less often went that way.

Which department contains the racists: A, B, both, neither?

Respectfully,
Myriad

For a decision to be racist does not require anyone with individual racist motives.

Lots of discriminatory business decisions are about maximising profit or minimising risk- that doesn't make them any less discriminatory. Refusing to hire staff from ethnic minorities as it will scare away your customers is racist- but it could easily be done by a person who abhors racism yet needs to maximise profit to keep their business afloat- refusing to hire a young married woman as that may incur added costs if she decides to leave to start a family is sexist, but may also be a rational business decision takes by an person who is not sexist. It is because these decisions can be rational business decisions that we have laws against them, changing social attitudes is not enough to stamp them out.

I can agree with this. However, this distinction that is never considered by many. One of the largest issues I have with the A+/FtB is that they forever brand PEOPLE as racist/sexist/whatever, without considering the above. The other being that once, branded, you are forever the enemy.

We have all said something stupid or without thought to how it affects certain groups we are largely ignorant about. That doesn't always and forever make someone a racist, misogynist, etc...

[luchog]

Not directly an A+ reference; but a good article on the failure and absolutely ridiculous priorities of the left wing/SJ crowd:

Quote:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-co...gainst-terror/

Privileged white westerners are not allowed to say anything against those poor oppressed brown folks, even when they're oppressing someone else.

[Mr. Scott]

Has anyone else noticed that FSB/A+ has built a system of thought and ideology that has built-in features that make it unfalsifiable? Much like religion?

[s_pepys]

Originally Posted by kbonn

The Double Dragon defense is weak, and pointless, it is a perfect example of old games(or carbon copy remake) that fit the mark Anita is aiming at.

The later parts of the video are much better and point out how flimsy Anita's Research is, and how hypocritical she is.

i agree that the beginning part is the weakest argument. i still dont think double dragon"fits the mark" anita is aiming at though. i also think the "7 seconds to introduce the narrative" was a fresh point to.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

If I hired two salespeople and paid them both on commission but one got a lot more sales because that person fit prevailing stereotypes better, is this discriminatory?

This can be black/white, facial tattoos/no facial tattoos, what ever.

clearly it is discriminatory- but it's the customers who are discriminating. Now if you want to talk about being less likely to hire someone who didn't fit prevailing stereotypes, and when you did hire them offering them a less favourable deal that would be you directly discriminating in a manner which is more directly analogous to the situation we are discussing.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by kbonn

I can agree with this. However, this distinction that is never considered by many. One of the largest issues I have with the A+/FtB is that they forever brand PEOPLE as racist/sexist/whatever, without considering the above. The other being that once, branded, you are forever the enemy.

We have all said something stupid or without thought to how it affects certain groups we are largely ignorant about. That doesn't always and forever make someone a racist, misogynist, etc...

The irony being that the whole point of discussion of "sociological" racism (and other isms's) discussions of privilege and of kyriarchy is to separate the discriminatory act from the intentions of the actor (this is why "intent is not magic").
The idea is that as we live in a kyriarchy- a society which forces oppression on most people on one or more axis and forces everyone to a greater or lesser degree into the role of an oppressor- then the vast majority of people will behave in a discriminatory manner unless they are on constant guard not to (and even then they are likely to fall short)- therefore the answer is to change society rather than label individuals as deliberate oppressors (racists, misogynists etc.). If racism/sexism etc are societal rather than personal problems the it makes no sense to think that the solution (or even diagnosis) operates at a personal level.

That is not so say that there are no racists, misogynists, abelists, cissexists etc. there clearly are those people who hate certain groups and want to maintain or increase the ways in which society makes things difficult for them (at the very least), but these people are very different from the vast majority of people who make up a society which happens to be based along lines which happens to be far from perfect in achieving equality of access/ opportunity (let alone equality of outcome which may be the goal of some anti-kyriarchy proponents).

The either for us or against us- part of the problem or part of the solution binary thinking which infects so many left wing identity politics movements is a betrayal of the intellectual underpinnings of most of those movements.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Also, how do the A+ers feel about the fact that by using Reddit they're supporting a site which protected child pornographers? Isn't child pornography a big social justice no? Or is it okay because it suits their purposes?

Irony meters explode because:
- IIRC in the thread in response to this one they cheer the hits/posts/members, whatever, I'm still not hip enough to get Reddit, on the A+ Reddit feed as if it changes the fact that A+ forums are atrophying as the days go by.
- Saint Becky + SXWS + Reddit = Why the hell is A+ still on Reddit?
- It's o.k. to use social media the protects child pornographers as long as it gets the message out just like "F YOU" is a legitimate expression of righteous anger while "I disagree with your claims about X because of study A, B and C" is worthy of banning.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Looks like someone has discovered the joys of SRS.

Well, schadenfreude at least.

Originally Posted by Wildy

Personally I'm imagining a montage of situations like a man saying "excuse me" when trying to get past her, or "do you happen to have the time?", or "pardon me, you dropped this".

Indeed. And Quint made a great point. It doesn't sound like ceepolk is being accosted because she is a woman that mangry cisrapists can't control themselves, but because she is in a public place and far too many people in some societal situations (read big cities) don't have any social grace/hope their fellow citizens might be able to help them with directions or what time it is.

[Doctor Plop]

The most unsettling recent development at A+ is news that the ceepolk knits in public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Defarge

[Rrose Selavy]

Quote:

Quote:
Find a person of color who is willing to hold you accountable for addressing privilege.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/57ba9f243399973

[Stout]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Wow. There's so much about that Reddit and thread to comment on (ArchaengelleDworkin? Really? ), but I this post by ceepolk caught my attention:

I don't want them to die slowly and painfully. I want them to stop trying to talk to me while I'm listening to something on my headphones while reading, working on my phone, or knitting.

I want them to stop {bleep} bothering me because I happen to be out in public and they think they have the {bleep} right to bother me. If I wanted to talk to strangers I'd make eye contact and smile, for {bleep} sake.

Sounds like she's pretty hot if men can't help themselves and have to accost and chat her up constantly. What a terrible burden.

Fascinating isn't it ?

SJWs give themselves a pass to entertain the same bigoted thoughts they claim to abhor in "the enemy" (white cis straight males ) by wrapping it up in their mumbo jumbo about privilege and oppression.

They may be all bent out of shape about free speach and how it allows the enemy to express their opinions but turn the tables, and start accusing the SJWs of hate speech and look how fast they'll run and hide behind their asinine definitions of racism and sexism in order to justify their hate.

I'll have to save that Reddit thread for the next time some SJW brings up the concept of straw feminist.

Ceepolk once describe the city she lives in as a "white wasteland" so I can't help wondering whether the race of these ( assumed to be male ) people trying to talk to her might not be meeting her skin colour ideals.

But who knows, maybe it's her hot exotic imported underwear that's causing her to put out subconscious flirtatious vibes that's drawing all that unwanted attention ? Bras, those oppressive tools of the patriarchy that the ceepolk constantly obsesses over, I figure she would have burned them long ago.

Quote:

just because I would be running around squeaking with joy at getting something from aubade and snapping phone selfies to send with SOOOOO pretty look how pretty and the day i put on my masquerade Lula Mae set puts a little pep in my step because under these quietly elegant classic clothes I am pushing the hot damn factor past 11

Link

Speaking of the "wrong" people looking I might as wel drop this little gem written by some maroon with a PhD who goes on about how grossed out she is when "old guys" look at her.

Quote:

I may be too old for you at 32 (gross!), but many old men stare at me regardless. I hate it. It makes me want to punch them. So stop. Please. I guarantee your penis will survive."

and

Quote:

I'd like to walk down the street in a dress without feeling like some 60-year-old dude is *********** me with his eyes. It's gross, not flattering. I don't need the gaze of a 60-year-old man to validate my existence. All that gaze does is make me hate 60-year-old men.

Link

The Oh-So-Sanctimonious hard left ought to do the world a favour and take a long hard look in the mirror before it climbs up on it's pedestal and jacks itself raw accusing those-that-are-not-them of hate.

[kbonn]

Originally Posted by brodski

Originally Posted by kbonn

I can agree with this. However, this distinction that is never considered by many. One of the largest issues I have with the A+/FtB is that they forever brand PEOPLE as racist/sexist/whatever, without considering the above. The other being that once, branded, you are forever the enemy.

We have all said something stupid or without thought to how it affects certain groups we are largely ignorant about. That doesn't always and forever make someone a racist, misogynist, etc...

The irony being that the whole point of discussion of "sociological" racism (and other isms's) discussions of privilege and of kyriarchy is to separate the discriminatory act from the intentions of the actor (this is why "intent is not magic").
The idea is that as we live in a kyriarchy- a society which forces oppression on most people on one or more axis and forces everyone to a greater or lesser degree into the role of an oppressor- then the vast majority of people will behave in a discriminatory manner unless they are on constant guard not to (and even then they are likely to fall short)- therefore the answer is to change society rather than label individuals as deliberate oppressors (racists, misogynists etc.). If racism/sexism etc are societal rather than personal problems the it makes no sense to think that the solution (or even diagnosis) operates at a personal level.

That is not so say that there are no racists, misogynists, abelists, cissexists etc. there clearly are those people who hate certain groups and want to maintain or increase the ways in which society makes things difficult for them (at the very least), but these people are very different from the vast majority of people who make up a society which happens to be based along lines which happens to be far from perfect in achieving equality of access/ opportunity (let alone equality of outcome which may be the goal of some anti-kyriarchy proponents).

The either for us or against us- part of the problem or part of the solution binary thinking which infects so many left wing identity politics movements is a betrayal of the intellectual underpinnings of most of those movements.

Well said, totally agree.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Stout

<snip>
Ceepolk once describe the city she lives in as a "white wasteland" so I can't help wondering whether the race of these ( assumed to be male ) people trying to talk to her might not be meeting her skin colour ideals.

But who knows, maybe it's her hot exotic imported underwear that's causing her to put out subconscious flirtatious vibes that's drawing all that unwanted attention ? Bras, those oppressive tools of the patriarchy that the ceepolk constantly obsesses over, I figure she would have burned them long ago.


</snip>

As was previously established, it seems that Ceepolk and I live in the same city. I'm still waiting for an invite for a drink of her choice. I just don't want to offend by sending an unsolicited email or PM.

I guess the only thing worse than being wanted is being unwanted.

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

As was previously established, it seems that Ceepolk and I live in the same city. I'm still waiting for an invite for a drink of her choice. I just don't want to offend by sending an unsolicited email or PM.

I guess the only thing worse than being wanted is being unwanted.

Sounds a bit like Oscar Wilde's "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

[Stout]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

As was previously established, it seems that Ceepolk and I live in the same city. I'm still waiting for an invite for a drink of her choice. I just don't want to offend by sending an unsolicited email or PM.

I guess the only thing worse than being wanted is being unwanted.

If you really want to get together with her you can join some of her meetup groups eg knitting, cycling, mental health or start following her on that twitter thing to get into her potluck group.

Maybe a few inspirational comments on her blogs. Her Tumblr is private, I think, but maybe there's nothing in there however her livejournal ( or whatever it whatever site she mirrored that blog on, is wide open.

Or join up at A+ and start complaining about living in a city that filled with monster truck driving rednecks all flush with climate destroying oil patch cash misogynist, racist attitudes and big silver belt buckles who enjoy the spectacle of hosting a large event where poor defenceless animals are tortured as "sport"

She'll put the pieces together and maybe, just maybe, she'll take the initiative and invite you out for a drink. She's up for meeting guys, I read it somewhere on reddit however I don't have the spoons to go searching for a link.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by zeggman

I am pretty sure that @atheism+ is a parody account. I have no other way to explain tweets like "When dealing with dissent, the atheist+ should examine the person making the argument, not the argument itself. #atheismplus #privilege".

Not to say the parody (if that's what it is) doesn't reveal some truth about the thinking swirling around in the group, but I think it's deliberately taking things to the extreme.

Meh . . . if the shoe fits.