Re: The other A+ forum: a safe space?

[nullnvoid]

I decided to cease posting at the other site - I've been involved in a few threads and mostly ignored. Although I did jump in on a thread where Setar was abusing some new person and was pleasantly surprised to see the mods (flew and xanthe specifically) did their jobs well. Unfortunately after the thread was brought back on topic by the mods a bunch of apologists for Setar's behaviour jumped in and set about accusing me of going on and on. After that the thread was locked.

I don't see the mods as being the real issue. Mods usually get hated on every forum usually for a mixture of good and bad reasons. I think there is a serious problem with the site definition. It seemed to initially be set up as the place to begin to take part in the "third wave of atheism for people who care about social justice" A+. At some point someone decided it should be a "safe place". At some point after that the definition of "safe place" hardened into "a place where the normal privilege was reversed". In other words there has been an active decision made between the members of the site and the administrators of the site to establish that they are creating a space where the underprivileged feel comfortable and where those who are part of a perceived privileged class are made unwelcome.

The fact that this whole site is promoted as something other than it actually is - just makes me feel like we've been royally trolled.

[uncrystal]

Am I only one here who hasn't been banned? ha. I was only warned about my "ableist bs". Although, I only posted maybe a handful of times in one thread.

I understand how this movement was formed. What I don't understand is the logic behind connecting it to atheism, and more importantly, the logic behind some of the policies.

Mod note: The second sentence in this quote betrays the lie in the first. If you understood anything at all about how and why A+ came to be, you wouldn't be confused about why we think atheism is relevant to social justice or why our policies are what they are. It's time for you to stop talking now.

Responding to this by pointing out that they hadn't provided a rational justification for the things I had mentioned earned me my first ban.

Coming back and responding to the mountain of ad hominem and strawmanning that had built up during my absence earned me my second ban (Doubling down!). Hopefully, once this one wears off and I decide to stimulate their critical thinking by posing another question, they'll lose patience and silence me permanently.

My warning:

"Just a general comment about my experience here. I'm still not sure precisely what the difference is between myself and someone who feels "oppressed", but I'm thankful that I don't walk through life waiting for the next bogeyman.

(Piegasm) Mod note: This? Is some bullshit. And it's where you lose your assumption of good faith. Official warning for being dismissive, ableist and invalidating in a single sentence.

To the other participants in the thread: my apologies for not seeing that sooner.

[Skep tickle]

Really fascinating how this forum is being described on A+safe. Cesspool, trash, buttload of dudes massaging each others egos.

....Hmmm. Wouldn't "buttload of dudes" be considered a slur against gays by the "in crowd" at A+safe, in any other usage except as a (purportedly well-deserved) pejorative about the "out crowd" here?

http://atheismplus.com/forums/search.php?keywords=4rumer

Original "buttload of dudes" post: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1962&p=41025&hilit=4rumer#p41000

[rEvolutionist]

Yeah, I've seen some of their negative comments about us. Doesn't gel with what i've seen going on over here. In their view we are all a bunch of privileged misogynists. Apparently debating the finer points of things like Schroedinger's Rapist and the Dog and Gecko Parable is to be a misogynist. I'm not sure how they describe my current battle with a real misogynist in the SR thread here. Am I still a misogynist? Maybe only a class 2 misogynist?

[rEvolutionist]

I just honestly don't see them taking the lead in fighting for social justice when they completely deny that privilege exists, and that everybody is exactly the same and could get the same results if they just tried harder or wanted things as much as the menz do.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1962&hilit=4rumer&sid=4216e2cb826fb3efc360633c8c9d51be&start=125#p41414

Who is "they"? I'm sure there are one or two here like that, but she shouldn't judge a forum by a small minority. I think most people here agree privilege exists (depending on the precise definition, I suppose), but question the utility of it as a concept as applied by the nutjobs over at A+safe.

[piginthecity]

SCSS stands for 'So-Called Safe Space'.

It's a Meanmeme (which is also a meme)

[rEvolutionist]

That's a good one, as I'm sick of writing "safe space" and putting it in quote marks all the time.

[Matthew Bailey]

Am I only one here who hasn't been banned? ha. I was only warned about my "ableist bs". Although, I only posted maybe a handful of times in one thread.

I'm not "Banned," but they have decided to "moderate" my posts.

Probably because I have tended to have a very good point, and that I happen to have a fairly sizable A+ Facebook group.

From my conversations with one of the mods on the other forum, there seems to be some clarity filtering in that they are not presenting a very good image.

And, their focus entirely upon Identity Politics is showing itself to be a thing of the past. The pathological obsession with "Privilege" - a product of Identity Politics... Or more properly, THE Product of Identity Politics - is hugely problematic, as it creates either contradictions or tautologies in dealing with solutions to Social Issues.

MB

[Westprog]

Who is "they"? I'm sure there are one or two here like that, but she shouldn't judge a forum by a small minority. I think most people here agree privilege exists (depending on the precise definition, I suppose), but question the utility of it as a concept as applied by the nutjobs over at A+safe.

It's a fallacy that goes back to Usenet. If you take part in debates on a forum, you subscribe to all the points of view on that forum, even the ones that contradict each other.

What I find funny is when they dig out posts here that they find offensive, and repost them saying "Look! You could have seen this if we hadn't protected you!" It's like the man walking into the house holding out his hand saying "Look at what I nearly stepped in."

[Matthew Bailey]

I decided to cease posting at the other site - I've been involved in a few threads and mostly ignored. Although I did jump in on a thread where Setar was abusing some new person and was pleasantly surprised to see the mods (flew and xanthe specifically) did their jobs well. Unfortunately after the thread was brought back on topic by the mods a bunch of apologists for Setar's behaviour jumped in and set about accusing me of going on and on. After that the thread was locked.

I don't see the mods as being the real issue. Mods usually get hated on every forum usually for a mixture of good and bad reasons. I think there is a serious problem with the site definition. It seemed to initially be set up as the place to begin to take part in the "third wave of atheism for people who care about social justice" A+. At some point someone decided it should be a "safe place". At some point after that the definition of "safe place" hardened into "a place where the normal privilege was reversed". In other words there has been an active decision made between the members of the site and the administrators of the site to establish that they are creating a space where the underprivileged feel comfortable and where those who are part of a perceived privileged class are made unwelcome.

The fact that this whole site is promoted as something other than it actually is - just makes me feel like we've been royally trolled.

Except that is not what has happened.

Neither are the underprivileged safe in that forum.

And, this brings me back around to my whipping horse... The whole issue of privilege is actually harmful to the cause of A+.

It is a poorly defined label, that is the product of Identity Politics (it actually IS Identity Politics), that is descended from Post-Modernists in the 1960s and 70s.

They have a pathological obsession with "Privilege" as well, which just further compounds the problems.

Then, they have a pathological paranoia, whereby anyone who had good intentions, but didn't conform to their ideology is automatically labelled a "Troll."

MB

[Cuduggan2K2]

And, this brings me back around to my whipping horse... The whole issue of privilege is actually harmful to the cause of A+.
It is a poorly defined label, that is the product of Identity Politics (it actually IS Identity Politics), that is descended from Post-Modernists in the 1960s and 70s.

It’s not poorly defined Matthew, it’s just defined DIFFERENTLY from the way you understand the term. If you actually listened to the definition when it was explained to you, you might see that.

Then, they have a pathological paranoia, whereby anyone who had good intentions, but didn't conform to their ideology is automatically labelled a "Troll."

Not going to deny this one, they are hyper sensitive to trolling there, not without reason, but still hypersensitivity has its upsides and downsides. The upside is that no troll gets through, the downside is that a lot of non-trolls are picked up by the trolldar.

[Matthew Bailey]

And, this brings me back around to my whipping horse... The whole issue of privilege is actually harmful to the cause of A+.
It is a poorly defined label, that is the product of Identity Politics (it actually IS Identity Politics), that is descended from Post-Modernists in the 1960s and 70s.

It’s not poorly defined Matthew, it’s just defined DIFFERENTLY from the way you understand the term. If you actually listened to the definition when it was explained to you, you might see that.

I've read all of their definitions, and they all come back to the same thing.

That it is attempting to create a concept of Epistemic Privilege (especially the one with the Husky and Gecko - that is precisely the definition of Epistemic Privilege).

Defining simple Power-differentials as "Privilege" is hugely problematic. It assumes some Essentialist component that puts one into an "Either-Or," or "Us-Them" category, that does not exist, or, that exists, but which is pointless to worry over (like worrying over the Blue color of a cloudless sky).

Matthew Bailey

[Cuduggan2K2]

Defining simple Power-differentials as "Privilege" is hugely problematic.

It's not power differentials it's experiential ignorance.

It assumes some Essentialist component that puts one into an "Either-Or," or "Us-Them" category,

No, it assumes that different people tend to have different types of expereince, an assumption well evidenced.

that does not exist, or, that exists, but which is pointless to worry over (like worrying over the Blue color of a cloudless sky).

The difference of experience exists and is very much worth worrying over because it is PRECISELY the cause of several issues of social inequality.

You are again making the assumption that the use of priviledge within social jsutice matches your impression of it and yet the conclusions are very different, you are miscommunicating MB, time to realise that.

[Dar]

I think Mathew has some good points, but I also think Mathew is missing a few points.

What is he missing? That privilege as used in the A+ forums means that the 'privileged' party doesn't automatically appreciate things that the 'unprivileged' party does. It isn't a complete inability to appreciate it.

What does he have right? The concept of privilege tends to be used in a blanket form and is often failed to be used in both directions. As such, it tends more to divide than unite. It tends to create or magnify the 'Us vs Them' dynamic instead of helping to resolve it.

It is a simple truism that since I don't have a vagina, I can't know what it is like to have a vaginal yeast infection. It is also a simple truism that since my sister doesn't have testicles, she cannot know what it is like to get kicked in the balls. It is also a simple truism that since Mitt Romney has always been well off, he doesn't know what its like to not be able to afford to buy a gift for a loved one. It is also a truism that since I am poor, I don't know what it's like to ponder investing in real estate or venture capital.

We can try to appreciate what such things may entail, but we don't know them. If that is what privilege is, then the concept of privilege is tautological and doesn't do much. Even so, being aware of privilege, even if its a tautology, is still valuable. You would be amazed at how many people fail to appreciate truisms.

Recognize that your perspective isn't the only perspective. Good advice.

Check your privilege. I rarely see this phrase used by anyone who clearly isn't recognizing that their perspective isn't the only perspective.

In any case, I think the various views on privilege expressed here all have merit in different ways.

[Matthew Bailey]

[quote="Cuduggan2K2"]

Defining simple Power-differentials as "Privilege" is hugely problematic.

It's not power differentials it's experiential ignorance.[/quot1]

Then attack the experiential ignorance, and forget about "Privilege." Occam's Razor. Go for the explanation that requires the least assumptions.

Here, you are saying that Privilege is about Experiential Ignorance.

Then why not simply call it "Ignorance," which is what it is, regardless of where it came from.

The "Experiential" part is just tautology (something that is true because it is true), and makes no difference.

Would it matter if their ignorance was due to the way they were brought up, what they were taught at church, what they were taught at Summer Camp, what they learned at work, or because they were raised by wolves on a desert island?

The ignorance is the problem.

It assumes some Essentialist component that puts one into an "Either-Or," or "Us-Them" category,

No, it assumes that different people tend to have different types of expereince, an assumption well evidenced.

Again, tautological. Of course people have different experiences. That is pretty much the underlying fact of separate and individual minds (i.e. subjective experience).

Why focus on a tautology?

that does not exist, or, that exists, but which is pointless to worry over (like worrying over the Blue color of a cloudless sky).

The difference of experience exists and is very much worth worrying over because it is PRECISELY the cause of several issues of social inequality.

You are again making the assumption that the use of priviledge within social jsutice matches your impression of it and yet the conclusions are very different, you are miscommunicating MB, time to realise that.

No... I am pointing out that the assumptions that people HERE are using leads either to Tautology (as in this case) or Contradiction (in other cases).

This is not the first time the issue of Privilege has been raised.

Again from the [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/"]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[/url]:

Individuals are oppressed by virtue of their membership in a particular social group—that is, a collective whose members have relatively little mobility into or out of the collective, who usually experience their membership as involuntary, who are generally identified as members by others, and whose opportunities are deeply shaped by the relation of their group to corollary groups through privilege and oppression (Cudd 2006). Oppression, then, is the systematic limiting of opportunity or constraints on self-determination because of such membership: for example, Frantz Fanon eloquently describes the experience of being always constrained by the white gaze as a Black man: “I already knew that there were legends, stories, history, and above all historicity… I was responsible at the same time for my body, my race, for my ancestors” (Fanon 1968, 112). Conversely, members of dominant groups are privileged—systematically advantaged by the deprivations imposed on the oppressed.

This is typically what is meant by Privilege by most of those posting, whether they realize it or not.

If they do not realize it, then they are merely passing on a vocabulary, for which there is a deep history, and a rather specific meaning.

And they are passing on the use of vocabulary that is highly problematic:

One of the central charges against identity politics by liberals, among others, has been its alleged reliance on notions of sameness to justify political mobilization. Looking for people who are like you rather than who share your political values as allies runs the risk of sidelining critical political analysis of complex social locations and ghettoizing members of social groups as the only persons capable of making or understanding claims to justice.

So, if people are using the word "Privilege" that isn't the same as that of the word as created by Identity Politics, then people need to be made aware that the term "Privilege" has a definition created by Identity Politics (although that Definition is HUGELY Problematic, and still argued over, even among those who still cling to Identity Politics), and that it will be treated as much by those who do understand Identity Politics (many of the Posters on the other forum, for instance, are completely about Identity Politics - Their language is loaded with terms from Identity Politics: Privileged, Able-ist, Cisgendered, etc.).

As you said above, experiential ignorance is what is really being talked about, and when you get down to it, it is just plain ignrorance that is the problem.

When you argue with a theist/creationist about evolution, do you attack their privileged position to counter their ignorance of biology, or do you attack their ignorance?

By the same standards, do you argue with Evangelicals who wish to deny women their rights based upon their privilege, or by attacking their ignorance of the consequences of their position?

Matthew Bailey

[Matthew Bailey]

I think Mathew has some good points, but I also think Mathew is missing a few points.

What is he missing? That privilege as used in the A+ forums means that the 'privileged' party doesn't automatically appreciate things that the 'unprivileged' party does. It isn't a complete inability to appreciate it.

What does he have right? The concept of privilege tends to be used in a blanket form and is often failed to be used in both directions. As such, it tends more to divide than unite. It tends to create or magnify the 'Us vs Them' dynamic instead of helping to resolve it.

It is a simple truism that since I don't have a vagina, I can't know what it is like to have a vaginal yeast infection. It is also a simple truism that since my sister doesn't have testicles, she cannot know what it is like to get kicked in the balls. It is also a simple truism that since Mitt Romney has always been well off, he doesn't know what its like to not be able to afford to buy a gift for a loved one. It is also a truism that since I am poor, I don't know what it's like to ponder investing in real estate or venture capital.

Yes, these are all examples of where things about a person's life can affect their ability to know things.

But is it not better to attack that ignorance directly with knowledge about the world, rather than to point out the obvious in a way that might blind the person to that knowledge?

I can guarantee you that when a wealthy person hears someone they see as a social inferior say the word "Privilege" that they almost immediately shut down.

To them, they feel that what follows is going to be an immediate attack upon their wealth, rather than an attempt to open their eyes to a problem.

This is something that I had to learn the hard way.

But, if you say to a person like Mitt Romney "I saw a woman sleeping on the street with her baby." odds are likely that they will ask "Why?" (and then they will probably say something stupid that exposes their ignorance).

But at this point, with the right words, a person like Mitt Romney is open to a learning moment.

Here, it would probably be better to say to him "Why don't we go find the woman and see why she is sleeping on the streets?"

If he refuses, then it might be due to all manner of things. But then it would be easier to just say that he is a callous and selfish bastard than to say he is "Privileged" (which at that point reverts to a tautology).

We can try to appreciate what such things may entail, but we don't know them. If that is what privilege is, then the concept of privilege is tautological and doesn't do much. Even so, being aware of privilege, even if its a tautology, is still valuable. You would be amazed at how many people fail to appreciate truisms.

Recognize that your perspective isn't the only perspective. Good advice.

Check your privilege. I rarely see this phrase used by anyone who clearly isn't recognizing that their perspective isn't the only perspective.

In any case, I think the various views on privilege expressed here all have merit in different ways.

And, yes... Some people are blind to the freaking obvious.

But again, it is better to open their eyes by something that is less pejorative; something that more directly attacks the ignorance in a way that leads them to understanding than attacks them for what is essentially a life that they probably could have lived in no other way. Attacking a person for "Privilege" is attacking them for something over which they have little control.

And...

There is another very important aspect to this:

Most of these people who get labeled and attacked as "Privileged" are also people whom we would prefer to be on our side, as they pretty much control the flow of wealth in the world.

And when it comes down to it, no mater how many blankets I hand out to homeless people (or pay to have handed out to homeless people - as I can't walk very well, or very far, due to being shot in the back twice and then nearly burned to death), nor how many disadvantaged kids I teach logic or critical thinking skills to, nor how much I work for politicians or policy groups trying to change the word, it still comes down to the fact that it is going to take a monumental shift in wealth to correct these problems.

And I would rather see the wealthy make that shift of their own accord (as Bill Gates and others have begun to do) than to have to be forced.

So this latter aspect has little to do with the philosophical implications of the word "Privilege," but like Sam Harris' arguments for attempting to put Morality and Ethics on a Scientific footing, it is something that is a highly desirable consequence and thus a reason for dropping the term.

Matthew Bailey

[rEvolutionist]

@MB... I'm a little confused by what you are saying. You seem to be implying that accepting the definition of "privilege" as quoted in the SEP necessarily leads one to "identity politics". I don't understand the apparent necessity of that link. I can see the necessity going the other way; that is, if you practice identity politics you are subscribing to the concept of privilege. But I don't see why it has to be necessarily so the other way. I don't think there is anything controversial in that 'privilege' definition. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious. Surely it's possible to use the concept of 'privilege' to educate and reform society in a positive way. The other forum certainly practices "identity politics" in spades, but that doesn't mean discussions on privilege can't be used in a positive way. I.e. focusing on the ignorance and the systemic reasons for it, rather than bleating on about "menz can't understand womenz stuff. Full stop."

The other little problem i've got with your reply to Cuduggan is that you keep referencing a hypothetical situation where one might be talking to a religionist and you say that one should address their ignorance, not issues of 'privilege'. While that's true, on an individual basis, that's not really the purpose of the concept of 'privilege' I would imagine. You are never going to change the toxic influence of religion on our societies by addressing each individual and their reasons for ignorance. Like gender issues, it's a systemic problem, and needs to be addressed at that level as well. The concept of 'privilege' would seem to fit that role, IMO.

[Matthew Bailey]

@MB... I'm a little confused by what you are saying. You seem to be implying that accepting the definition of "privilege" as quoted in the SEP necessarily leads one to "identity politics". I don't understand the apparent necessity of that link. I can see the necessity going the other way; that is, if you practice identity politics you are subscribing to the concept of privilege. But I don't see why it has to be necessarily so the other way. I don't think there is anything controversial in that 'privilege' definition. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious. Surely it's possible to use the concept of 'privilege' to educate and reform society in a positive way. The other forum certainly practices "identity politics" in spades, but that doesn't mean discussions on privilege can't be used in a positive way. I.e. focusing on the ignorance and the systemic reasons for it, rather than bleating on about "menz can't understand womenz stuff. Full stop."

The other little problem i've got with your reply to Cuduggan is that you keep referencing a hypothetical situation where one might be talking to a religionist and you say that one should address their ignorance, not issues of 'privilege'. While that's true, on an individual basis, that's not really the purpose of the concept of 'privilege' I would imagine. You are never going to change the toxic influence of religion on our societies by addressing each individual and their reasons for ignorance. Like gender issues, it's a systemic problem, and needs to be addressed at that level as well. The concept of 'privilege' would seem to fit that role, IMO.

I'll need to dig up the reference, but that too has been addressed when dealing with the concept (systemic problem). I seem to recall that the issue of privilege still devolves to speaking about either tautologies or contradictions. And that privilege is not systemically supported by a large apparatus to reinforce dogma (yet religion is). So, the analogy is not perfect when we generalize from the individual case to the larger case.

However, the same problems exist with privilege when you move from the individual to the general case.

But I will have to check on that.

MB

[Dar]

Maybe we can keep discussion of privilege on the privilege thread? Just a thought.

[rEvolutionist]

I was thinking that too. But it's kind of funny how nearly every discussion regarding A+ and it's version of social justice always ends up back at a debate about "privilege". I wonder if we can even avoid that?

[Matthew Bailey]

I was thinking that too. But it's kind of funny how nearly every discussion regarding A+ and it's version of social justice always ends up back at a debate about "privilege". I wonder if we can even avoid that?

Yes... Quit using a term that doesn't apply to the problem.

There is no evidence that "Privilege" is a systemic problem for creating ignorance.

That is simply a narrative put forward by an ideology that failed to support its claims, yet tenaciously clings to existence due to the support of a handful of academics who will not let go of it.


And this issue got raised because it is central to what caused the other forum to be such a toxic place, where abusive members blamed others for their victim identities.

Matthew bailey

[Diogenes]

...
This is typically what is meant by Privilege by most of those posting, whether they realize it or not.

If they do not realize it, then they are merely passing on a vocabulary, for which there is a deep history, and a rather specific meaning.

...

Same problem and corresponding defense for Starling's Rapist. Schrödinger ain't in it and actually induces an essential "misunderstanding" because Phaedra Starling didn't understand the cat. Apparently since she wrote that way way back in 2009 we're expected to accept their SR concept despite how much essential wrongness is conveyed when the cat is invoked.

Words have history and meaning that can't just blithely be rewritten by "internetivism".

Edit: Oh, and I felt for you coming in, excited to be in their "movement" just to get mowed down so voraciously. Weirdly there are sometimes no leaders and sometimes there are leaders, apparently, and the folks on that forum are supposed to be approving things or something.

[Matthew Bailey]

...
This is typically what is meant by Privilege by most of those posting, whether they realize it or not.

If they do not realize it, then they are merely passing on a vocabulary, for which there is a deep history, and a rather specific meaning.

...

Same problem and corresponding defense for Starling's Rapist. Schrödinger ain't in it and actually induces an essential "misunderstanding" because Phaedra Starling didn't understand the cat. Apparently since she wrote that way way back in 2009 we're expected to accept their SR concept despite how much essential wrongness is conveyed when the cat is invoked.

Words have history and meaning that can't just blithely be rewritten by "internetivism".

Edit: Oh, and I felt for you coming in, excited to be in their "movement" just to get mowed down so voraciously. Weirdly there are sometimes no leaders and sometimes there are leaders, apparently, and the folks on that forum are supposed to be approving things or something.

When I first read the "Schrödinger Rapist" I was really confused, and it is probably because they did not understand the concept of superposition.

I got what they were trying to say, but the whole SR thing is something that I avoided until I figured that the whole "Privilege" thing got sorted out, and that people would not use words that could confuse the definitions even further than they already were.

When most people talk about "Privilege" what they are really talking about is Advantage, Ability, Skill, Ignorance, Wealth, Bigotry, Arrogance, or any number of other things. They should be using those words, because the concept of "Privilege" that is being used for what is claimed to be a systemic problem is not what is really happening, nor is it a thing for which there is evidence.

And, yes, I was rather stunned at the reception as well.

Matthew Bailey

[Zampano]

I am now listed in the "banned users" with no reason given. At least they were truthful about that.

Hey, I now have a "reason". Splendid (completely made-up though).

[Westprog]

I am now listed in the "banned users" with no reason given. At least they were truthful about that.

Hey, I now have a "reason". Splendid (completely made-up though).

They are quite open about using spurious reasons for banning. If you were constantly asking someone else questions that they didn't want to answer, then I'd expect that to be a valid reason for the banning as well.

The fundamental dishonesty is in pretending that people are being banned for some kind of technical transgression, when in every case the one thing they've done is to disagree about something. Usually the people who've been banned have been more polite and less aggressive that the people attacking them, and have broken fewer of the formal rules of the forum.

[Sponsored content]