Now making a mental mote that if I ever am witness to this myself to say nothing at all. Am ninety nine per
cent certain that I could take any level of bollocking from anyone trying to educate me if were I in the same
position as the subject herself. I so wish it was one hundred but unfortunately I cannot be absolutely certain

Freethought Blogs and Atheism Plus are very unpopular here. But my days of anger are now mercifully behind
me so I approach them rather differently. And I now understand that as a white male I should be listening and
not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism because I shall never experience either. And so dismissing
those who do experience them can make them quite angry. This is not as obvious as it seems as it is clouded
by the principle of free speech that I believe in. But free speech makes zero allowance for the validity of what
is being said. So when it is something I have no experience of I should just be quiet and say nothing

So a big thank you to Freethought and Atheism Plus for raising my awareness. Keep doing it and while on this
it should be pointed out that I would not be accepted by either of them for I believe in absolute free speech so
am against echo chambers and clique ism. Now we are not immune from this though some of it is unavoidable
but we manage all right except when the topic is any thing about the other side. But I accept that because it is
not possible to eradicate it completely. This was every thread I would not be here. To be fair Freethought does
allow some alternative views so credit to them. Atheism Plus less so but they have a different modus operandi
Anyway I always try to take something positive from others no matter who they are. For me it is what you have
to say that matters and nothing else. And as no one has a monopoly on wisdom logic suggests one should listen
to everyone and anyone. Which is what I do but what others do though is entirely up to them and so beyond my
remit. I am only responsible for what I think. Not anyone else

Atheist conferences are being infiltrated by crazed agenda odd-balls, imo. These nut bars weren't speakers, please?

surreptitious57 wrote:
And I now understand that as a white male I should be listening and
not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism because I shall never experience either

Can you provide a list of topics various groups people should keep their mouths shut about ?
It seems I could not even voice dissenting views about my "race" and gender because that makes me a gender traitor and a "race" traitor in the eyes of the terminally benighted.
edited: spelling

So much wasted energy on silly overblown drama.

surreptitious57 wrote:Now making a mental mote that if I ever am witness to this myself to say nothing at all. Am ninety nine per
cent certain that I could take any level of bollocking from anyone trying to educate me if were I in the same
position as the subject herself. I so wish it was one hundred but unfortunately I cannot be absolutely certain

Freethought Blogs and Atheism Plus are very unpopular here. But my days of anger are now mercifully behind
me so I approach them rather differently. And I now understand that as a white male I should be listening and
not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism because I shall never experience either. And so dismissing
those who do experience them can make them quite angry. This is not as obvious as it seems as it is clouded
by the principle of free speech that I believe in. But free speech makes zero allowance for the validity of what
is being said. So when it is something I have no experience of I should just be quiet and say nothing

So a big thank you to Freethought and Atheism Plus for raising my awareness. Keep doing it and while on this
it should be pointed out that I would not be accepted by either of them for I believe in absolute free speech so
am against echo chambers and clique ism. Now we are not immune from this though some of it is unavoidable
but we manage all right except when the topic is any thing about the other side. But I accept that because it is
not possible to eradicate it completely. This was every thread I would not be here. To be fair Freethought does
allow some alternative views so credit to them. Atheism Plus less so but they have a different modus operandi
Anyway I always try to take something positive from others no matter who they are. For me it is what you have
to say that matters and nothing else. And as no one has a monopoly on wisdom logic suggests one should listen
to everyone and anyone. Which is what I do but what others do though is entirely up to them and so beyond my
remit. I am only responsible for what I think. Not anyone else

Do you think that now because you have confessed and repented of your original sin, you will be found without fault in the eyes of Lord Peezus?

Regina wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
And I now understand that as a white male I should be listening andnot talking
when the subject is misogyny or racism because I shall never experience either

Can you provide a list of topics various groups people should keep their mouths shut about ?
It seems I could not even voice dissenting views about my "race" and gender because that
makes me a gender traitor an a "race" traitor in the eyes of the terminally benighted

It only applies to me. You can say whatever you want to whoever you want about whatever you want
I am not expecting others to do the same as myself. In fact I specifically mentioned it at the end of
the post so either you did not read it or you did but were not paying attention. So which was it Reg ?

surreptitious57 wrote:

Regina wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
And I now understand that as a white male I should be listening andnot talking
when the subject is misogyny or racism because I shall never experience either

Can you provide a list of topics various groups people should keep their mouths shut about ?
It seems I could not even voice dissenting views about my "race" and gender because that
makes me a gender traitor an a "race" traitor in the eyes of the terminally benighted

It only applies to me. You can say whatever you want to whoever you want about whatever you want
I am not expecting others to do the same as myself. In fact I specifically mentioned it at the end of
the post so either you did not read it or you did but were not paying attention. So which was it Reg ?

I'm aware of your habitual disclaimer, surr.
But it does not fly, because you write:

And I now understand that as a white male I should be listening and
not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism...

. This is not about surr, but about a white male.
So to answer your question: neither.

scott1328 wrote:
Do you think that now because you have confessed and repented of your
original sin, you will be found without fault in the eyes of Lord Peezus?

There is no way I would be welcome at Freethought Blogs which is why I just lurk there now
I do not read P Z anyway but I do read Stephanie and Ophelia and Greta and Jennifer though

Regina wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I now understand that as a white male I should be listening
and not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism

.
This is not about surr, but about a white male

The white male is me and only me. I only speak for myself not others. If other white males want to lecture women
and blacks on misogyny or racism that is their prerogative. I am saying that if it was me I would prefer to just say
nothing. That works for me. I do not expect it to work for others. They do what they think is right

surreptitious57 wrote:
I now understand that as a white male I should be listening
and not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism.

Because non-communication is the best form of communication to help all of us to better understand and work though issues.

Oh wait!

Fringe movements try to impose their views on others by trying to shift what's acceptable in terms of diet, sexuality, etc. If you can control the basic needs of people, you control them.

Scarlett wrote:Thanks Scott

Fuck me! Jen McC really is a nasty piece of work

Sinde wrote:The problem I have with FTB is that I can always see their point. Yes it is probably best to be politic. But that can be hard, especially if you immerse yourself in social justice. I notice the same trend elsewhere, after the same argument has been used to derail the feminism discussion 20 times you stop giving the people who do it the benefit of the doubt. You start assuming the worst, and you get rid of them quick, because otherwise you're not discussing anything else but their shitty strawman about how feminism is not about equality. It must be fucking tiring as a minority to get shut down by a tone argument whenever you stray away from strictly polite discourse and then...probably shut down another way when you don't, often by implying that you're hysterical -and delusional- about race anyway.

I totally get why they would seek out spaces where they wouldn't have to deal with questions and myths that can be used to derail the conversation. I get that they don't want to be told by a white man how to deal with the issues they feel intimately. It CAN come off as condescending. But they seem to have gotten to the point where no one is given the benefit of the doubt, no one is is looked at with an eye for nuance. I suppose that, at the very least, it's consistent.

I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that the purpose of these atheist conferences was to bring atheism into the mainstream, to share ideas, information and educate. (particularly poignant as this was a conference in the US)

I get that it might cause real frustration being faced with situations where questions are being asked, basic "101 questions" (as they like to call them), that might even entail hearing the uneducated making some pretty big faux pas', but a conference is NOT the time to be shouting these people down. It's the place where it's imperative that the actual message gets across and the person goes away with an awareness of why she fucked up.

Well, I thought that the point of these conferences was to get people already leaning towards atheism together.

But as for this woman (assuming that she was sincere, which is not at all guaranteed): what makes you think that she didn't get it? There was a five minute rant against the topic right? I would imagine that there was some educational value in the talk, as well as a message ;"This is unacceptable for X reason". Not the way I would go about it but there definitely seemed to be an answer to her question. She went overboard and poured her frustrations with others into the topic but the question was answered.

Yet, we're not really talking about that. Now that the argument has been turned into a discussion about tone we take it for granted that this method of talking did not educate the person in question despite JT acknowledging that she did answer the question.

Because non-communication is the best form of communication to help all of us to better understand and work though issues.

Oh wait!

If you think that you have something important to add then, by all means, do so. The problem is that often the profound answer you thought you had is often worthless or offensive.

It's about realizing that when you walk into a minority arena and try to talk to them about racism or sexism that you have to step lightly. You're not the first or even the thousandth person to walk in there to try to tell minorities how to deal with their problems. You may think that you're being fair, but if you're driven by the same urge that drives a lot of these reactionaries you might not even notice that you're acting in a way they find offensive -with reason.

Don't get me wrong, I can see how this can be abused, but there is a reason for it.

It all seems a bit stifling and dogmatic to me over there. Free thinking my arse, free thinkers should love having their views challenged.

Sinde wrote:

Scarlett wrote:Thanks Scott

Fuck me! Jen McC really is a nasty piece of work

Sinde wrote:The problem I have with FTB is that I can always see their point. Yes it is probably best to be politic. But that can be hard, especially if you immerse yourself in social justice. I notice the same trend elsewhere, after the same argument has been used to derail the feminism discussion 20 times you stop giving the people who do it the benefit of the doubt. You start assuming the worst, and you get rid of them quick, because otherwise you're not discussing anything else but their shitty strawman about how feminism is not about equality. It must be fucking tiring as a minority to get shut down by a tone argument whenever you stray away from strictly polite discourse and then...probably shut down another way when you don't, often by implying that you're hysterical -and delusional- about race anyway.

I totally get why they would seek out spaces where they wouldn't have to deal with questions and myths that can be used to derail the conversation. I get that they don't want to be told by a white man how to deal with the issues they feel intimately. It CAN come off as condescending. But they seem to have gotten to the point where no one is given the benefit of the doubt, no one is is looked at with an eye for nuance. I suppose that, at the very least, it's consistent.

I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that the purpose of these atheist conferences was to bring atheism into the mainstream, to share ideas, information and educate. (particularly poignant as this was a conference in the US)

I get that it might cause real frustration being faced with situations where questions are being asked, basic "101 questions" (as they like to call them), that might even entail hearing the uneducated making some pretty big faux pas', but a conference is NOT the time to be shouting these people down. It's the place where it's imperative that the actual message gets across and the person goes away with an awareness of why she fucked up.

Well, I thought that the point of these conferences was to get people already leaning towards atheism together.

But as for this woman (assuming that she was sincere, which is not at all guaranteed): what makes you think that she didn't get it? There was a five minute rant against the topic right? I would imagine that there was some educational value in the talk, as well as a message ;"This is unacceptable for X reason". Not the way I would go about it but there definitely seemed to be an answer to her question. She went overboard and poured her frustrations with others into the topic but the question was answered.

Yet, we're not really talking about that. Now that the argument has been turned into a discussion about tone we take it for granted that this method of talking did not educate the person in question despite JT acknowledging that she did answer the question.

Because non-communication is the best form of communication to help all of us to better understand and work though issues.

Oh wait!

If you think that you have something important to add then, by all means, do so. The problem is that often the profound answer you thought you had is often worthless or offensive.

It's about realizing that when you walk into a minority arena and try to talk to them about racism or sexism that you have to step lightly. You're not the first or even the thousandth person to walk in there to try to tell minorities how to deal with their problems. You may think that you're being fair, but if you're driven by the same urge that drives a lot of these reactionaries you might not even notice that you're acting in a way they find offensive -with reason.

Don't get me wrong, I can see how this can be abused, but there is a reason for it.

Right, because asking minorities how they are dealing with problems in their own communites went so well.

FtB, where pointing out that a screaming histrionic in a public space isn't professional is now officially racist™ - but only if you're white.

Perhaps they believe in separate-but-not-quite-equal?

I'm still puzzled about how this question is deemed to be so blatantly racist anyway, the phenomena of blacks killing blacks at higher rates clearly exists according to the "debunking" all these bloggers linked to and they all seem to suggest this is a common talking point in the national discourse. How this warrants a 5 minute tirade is beyond me.

james1v wrote:It all seems a bit stifling and dogmatic to me over there. Free thinking my arse, free thinkers should love having their views challenged.

It is stifling in the sense that you cannot say whatever you want and have to tip toe. But then, so is a lot of the discourse out of their little bubble. When people use the Bill O'Reilly method of telling minorities how to deal with racism (ignore it) what do you think that they are doing?

The problem is that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be challenged legitimately without creating a space that allows the people with bad or just useless- intentions-who are probably more numerous- to come in and dismiss under the guise of providing criticism. Well, you can but it's very likely that you fall into the hole that A+/FTB has really,where the philosophy allows you to justify shutting everyone out.

I have to admit, it's fascinating to me how easy it is to justify tribalism under this philosophy.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Regina wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I now understand that as a white male I should be listening
and not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism

.
This is not about surr, but about a white male

The white male is me and only me. I only speak for myself not others. If other white males want to lecture women
and blacks on misogyny or racism that is their prerogative. I am saying that if it was me I would prefer to just say
nothing. That works for me. I do not expect it to work for others. They do what they think is right

But you have drawn that conclusion (that it's appropriate to behave in certain way) based solely on the fact that you are "white" and male, not on the fact that you are surr57. And you have adjusted your behaviour through reading the collected works of a bunch of "white" American middle-class women. You are buying into a sexist and racist view of people, because you feel you have to change your behaviour based on what's between your legs (and not what's between your ears) and the missing pigmentation of your skin.
On top of that you say I should be listening, not I prefer to listen. And not only that, after having listened obediently, you also feel you should not talk. According to that logic, one could be the vilest sexist asshole the world has seen up to this point... if the asshole were the proud owner of a vagina she could weigh in and the surrs of this world would docilely sit back. Yeah, right.

Sinde wrote:

james1v wrote:It all seems a bit stifling and dogmatic to me over there. Free thinking my arse, free thinkers should love having their views challenged.

It is stifling in the sense that you cannot say whatever you want and have to tip toe. But then, so is a lot of the discourse out of their little bubble. When people use the Bill O'Reilly method of telling minorities how to deal with racism (ignore it) what do you think that they are doing?

The problem is that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be challenged legitimately without creating a space that allows the people with bad or just useless- intentions-who are probably more numerous- to come in and dismiss under the guise of providing criticism. Well, you can but it's very likely that you fall into the hole that A+/FTB has really,where the philosophy allows you to justify shutting everyone out.

I have to admit, it's fascinating to me how easy it is to justify tribalism under this philosophy.

So you want to be able to shut down free speech by claiming 'offense.' Feel free to give your right to free speech away to anybody that plays the oppression olympics. You will have to take mine from my cold dead hands.

You're free to speak as you like in public. However, when you enter someone's arena you will be subject to their rules. I am simply dealing with the reasons for those rules and why they're not inherently evil.

I don't see how this is about free speech really. It seems like a non-sequitor that inevitably comes up.

Sinde wrote:You're free to speak as you like in public. However, when you enter someone's arena you will be subject to their rules. I am simply dealing with the reasons for those rules and why they're not inherently evil.

I don't see how this is about free speech really. It seems like a non-sequitor that inevitably comes up.

But wasn't this an "atheist" conference? Not an FTB conference

I'm struggling confirming who hosted it but it may have been the Kansas City Atheists Coalition.