Talk:Atheism Plus/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 July 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)


I had attempted to make some edits to the page, removing sentences such as "atheism plus was an idea that one could be an atheist without being an asshole" (paraphrased). Such statements, which are to be found throughout the article, make rationalwiki look very unprofessional.

3 hours later my changes (which only involved removing name calling) were scrapped, and someone had reverted the page back to the original.

If you have a strong argument, there is no need to resort to calling people names for disagreeing with you. — Unsigned, by: Gopackgo612 / talk / contribs

Your mistake is thinking this place wants to look professional. Too many people here would rather call names. You are right, but you've come to the wrong place for being right. If you are looking for strong arguments, and substance over style, look elsewhere. (((Zack Martin))) 11:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It's true that many people get in a huff over style rather than substance here at RW (e.g. [1] just earlier today), but on that matter, "this makes RW look unprofessional" sounds much more like a style-argument than a substance-argument. (talk) 11:07, 31 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
It must be stated there is a big difference between being professional and catering to arseholes like Thunderf00t. It is the nature of the goatherd to call a arsehole a arsehole; that is the way we function. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
But do you have to be an asshole to criticize an asshole? Is that racist?Jackinthebox (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand[edit]

At the end of the intro we find:

  • But the phrase remains in use by those implacably opposed to the idea of being an atheist but not being an asshole, particularly Reddit anti-feminists, Gamergate and fans of Thunderf00t.

I find the portion in italics confusing. Perhaps the negatives are twisting my brain. :-( --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's used as a snarl word by people who wish for the regressive side of Atheism to remain prominent, is my guess. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 22:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
What Kitsu wrote is of course nonsense. The Atheism Plus is associated with the Regressives (aka SJW), not the people against them, who are from all sorts of corners and directions, New Atheists, Libertarians, MRA, humanists etc. ~ Aneris 23:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know regressive meant progressive - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Republicans are Pro Life. True Muricans are into Freedom. These people want Social Justice. North Korea is a democracy. ~ Aneris 23:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
"MRA's and libertarians are the real feminists" - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The typical libertarians in the US are actually paleo-libertarians or assorted right wing free market believers. The associations vary from country to country. However, libertarianism is not incompatible with feminism, and there was an important feminist libertarian strain, too, which was pushing for empowerment, bodily autonomy, emancipation and also what was then termed "sex positive" feminism — the idea being that individuals know best what they want. The opposite faction, the "sex negative" are the predecessor of today's SJWs hence they are associated with autoritarianism (that's one reason). ~ Aneris 23:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
We get it. You hate feminism. You're not gonna convince anyone to your side by purposefully misinterpreting a statement that was poking fun at you into one that agreed with you. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 23:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't. I'm a North European green-tinted social democrat, by the way. Most people I know and read are left or left-leaning. You can of course fantasize as much as you want and declare everone a right winger or libertarian. It doesn't make it true. ~ Aneris 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You seem to enjoy categorizing people (yourself included), Aneris Petey Plane (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't. It's a reaction to the othering that was the "welcome!" here. It never matters elsewhere, and my main joke label is Discordian anyway. fnord It's only since certain people began to impose their confused political ideas onto everyone else, which is pretty entertaining also. People say a lot about themselves when they insult with such categories. People who think of themselves smart will go with "stupid". People who identify strongly with feminism will first reach for "misogynist" (etc), SJWs have — by sheer labelling — inflated the 5-man-movement of the MRAs to a global thing, etc. ~ Aneris 00:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't your energy be better directed at fighting things like psuedoscience instead of screaming ineffectually on talk pages and wasting everyone else's time? - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 00:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I am pretty sure I never screamed. The wall of texts were perhaps tedious, where I'd agree. My problems with social justice warriors are precisely because it is pseudo-science. But when I mention the P-word, people here freak out again. That's one issue. My problems with this movement have little to do with actual social justice itself. ~ Aneris 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of madness. What makes you think your 419th essay (conservatively estimated) will have any more impact than your 212th? Lay off the issue, you're devaluing both your time and others. Focus on the things we can actually agree on and make progress with. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 02:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Not really, let me give you a hint. We typically run through a series of steps. The penultimate is when I point out your gang shenanigans, and the last step is your usual complaint, flavoured by othering. Making accusations of conspiracy theories, for example, is a predictable default here. This serves the same function as your frivolous coop case. That was like three days ago, and it didn't work. Now you simply try another route. Your speech is riddled with manipulative terms (another typical thing). Here we have "madness". Why not "unhinged" etc. Typhus does this all the time, too, but apparently nobody takes him seriously. The thing is, let's be honest and I try to keep it fair: your gang is the centre of the drama, your whitewashing/smearing (black/white) thinking pisses off one part of the internet. Your "spergs" amuse the other corner of the internet. None of this has anything to do with me (certain greater trends and zeitgeist things aside). ~ Aneris 04:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I came here to clear up a misunderstanding, which resulted in the page being improved. You came here to push an agenda, as you always do. Now tell me, who is the center of drama? (Hint: it's the one throwing around medical conditions as insults). Also, your entire point is meaningless because it relies on taking my use of "madness" out of context in an effort to deflect the actual point at hand, which was about how you do and say the same things over and over again and expect a different reaction and it's wasting everyone's time. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 05:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You came here to push an agenda, as you always do.- Kitsunelaine That's rich coming from you.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice bait, mate - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 09:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That's spelled "Noice b8 m8", you n00b.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm accommodating for my kiwi accent - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 10:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You from New Zealand? Cool.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's actually mostly dull living here. The tourist stuff is pretty mundane when you're used to it. Get shaken up by the earthquakes a fair bit though. With the way the country's politicians act, you get the sense they care more about NZ's public image than the people actually living here. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 10:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
According to the HDI, New Zealand is on the 9th place worldwide, together with Canada,eh.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
A quick google says seven, but it's not really that important, and the top results aren't always the most recent. As someone living here, it feels like we're getting the rest of the world's sloppy seconds, especially in terms of media services (and the markup on tech can get insane). - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 10:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
have any of you considered going outside? Its rather nice out todayAMassiveGay (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's nearly midnight over here. :) - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 10:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
even the better. Everyone should take a stroll in the middle of the night. Things look so different AMassiveGay (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Aneris, your continued invocation of postmodernism is tedious because a) it demonstrates that you don't understand what postmodernism is and b) it demonstrates that you don't comprehend the points you're arguing against, because they contain no postmodernism. It's obvious Jonanism, and it's particularly telling that once facts start piling up against you, you try to wriggle out by claiming that your opponents are postmodernists (in the face of the evidence) and thus indulge in appeal to bias. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I call this nonsense. First, nobody has seen those supposed “facts” that were “piling up” anywere. I cannot even say whether I would disagree, since I have not seen anything. I've seen plenty of SJW shenanigans instead, i.e. socks to harass, frivolous coop cases, etc. Secondly, it's some sort of joke to deny every description and this can only be called a mental deficit or trolling. Whatever term or perspective one chooses, it's ALWAYS denied, despite that obviously and evidently a “safe-spacer/cultural-appropriation/trigger-warnings etc” ideology exists. Heck, Atheism Plus IS this very thing for the atheist-skeptics movement. Third, evidently “intersectionality” is a key concept, together with "white privilege" and many more.
fnord I bet you can google that yourself, consult geek feminism, feminism 101 articles, and I'm quite sure Aneeda has a tweet prepared for you, too. These things are academically bound together by the framework called "Critical Race Theory". Key people, e.g. Crenshaw have both popularized Intersectionality feminism, as well as CRT which they co-founded (the former is a module of the latter). Not only is this obviously a postmodernist framework, e.g. lived experience, narratives (cf. relativism), it is also a explicitly postmodern. These scholars are also “officially” postmodernists. This is neither a conspiracy theory, nor an insult, nor has this been debunked. What's even there to debunk? This is as obviously true as that Dawkins is an atheist, or the pope a catholic. I never claimed that SJWs know exactly what they promote, in fact, I'm quite sure the most have no clue — but not knowing that ideas are racist, facist, postmodern etc, doesn't make them less these things. Also, these aren't the only ingredients.
  • Intersectionality on Geek Feminism, "When possible, credit Kimberlé Crenshaw for coining the term "intersectionality" and bringing the concept to wider attention."
  • The postmodern feminist page on wikipedia, listing Kimberle Crenshaw. Also bell hooks.
  • random article describing bell hooks (pomo feminist) influence. Article was shared by Leigh Alexander.
  • Critical Race Theory, lists also Kimberle Crenshaw as one founder. It also includes Intersectionality ("The intersections theory is the examination ..."). You will recognize many other concepts, too.
  • Steven Gey argues with Richard Delgado, the other notable Critical Race Theory founder/popularizer. I have no clue about US law, but some aspects are accessible and are usual pomo discussions of the same kind you also find in Sokal/Bricmont (1997). Here the paper This is named, hold onto your fedora: "POSTMODERN CENSORSHIP REVISITED" and an update of "The Case Against Postmodern Censorship Theory". Chance quote "I mean only to take note of the fact that the postmodernists cannot escape the corrosive effect of their own arguments regarding social constructionism and distorted preferences...".
  • So what's missing? You even find postmodernist social constructivism on Pharyngula, or here. Or even explicitly (Natalie Reed). Not that we need explicit references, when the whole ideology is soaked in postmodernism anyway.
So, let us see your impressive evidence for once! And even more, since there is clearly a phenomenon that is observable, how about your idea what this is. How would YOU describe it when you are obviously so unhappy with my approach? What makes yours superior? Again, I'm open to suggestions, but there were none so far. I've only seen ludicrous denialism. ~ Aneris 04:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Must I do this again, Aneris? "safe-spacer/cultural-appropriation/trigger-warnings etc" are not postmodernist. They may claim to be, but they are not. Let's start with your links.
Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another.
Ok, but I see where this is going.
In order to achieve anti-oppression aims, here are some things for geek groups to consider
Annnd there it is. "Achieving aims" doesn't sound relativist to me.
Is... a Wikipedia category page. Which anyone can edit.
An article from a popular source about...wait for it...Anita Sarkeesian. Discussing how she is kinda sorta influenced by Bell Hooks. Who uses some aspects of postmodern models to describe patriarchy. Ok. Anita herself never mentions it, for some reason.
Nice page. Focuses on the origins and usage of the idea in the legal field, regarding institutional racism. Also good criticism section. But it seems this page is focusing on an social model, CRT, used by experts to help them understand a situation so they can achieve a (separately determined) result. Hmm.
  • Some papers regarding "Postmodern Censorship Theory."
I googled the term and found nothing else. So I looked at the papers and noted they were (surprise!) critical of people trying to use a postmodern foundation to reach their legal goals, because the theory got icky when misused in such a way.
These are explaining why gender is a social construct. Is this from Critical Theory? Sure, why not. Then they said sex was a social construct. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean sexuality, and aren't trying to argue that biological sex is a social construct. Once again...sure. I would think sexuality would be included under gender, considering how closely tied gender roles are to sexual behavior, but whatever.
I'm now indebted to Natalie Reed for getting to the point. Her very first words are:
It’s true. I’m a post-modernist. We walk amongst you! OOOoooOOOooo! *spooky fingers*
Okay, but seriously...
One of the things I’ve been thinking about a lot this week is the difficulty of having a set of values, beliefs or personal identifications that don’t always comfortably intersect, and that finding a safe space for one aspect of who you are or what you believe will often leave you vulnerable to having other aspects attacked or demonized.
Wait, what's that?
having a set of values, beliefs or personal identifications
Within this community I frequently see post-modernism straw-manned as some kind of airy-headed, woo-supporting, pseudo-intellectual nonsense that is so wholly committed to radical relativism that it is completely unable to bother taking a stand on anything at all.
Straw man of a strawman? Inception Man! Reed then goes on to explain her Inception Man, and then:
Post-modernism is just that which follows, and moves on from, modernism: the inadequacies and failures of modernism, the critique of modernism, or the expansion of modernism.
No. Well, maybe in art. Maybe.
It’s best understood through historical context. We had the enlightenment, with all it’s enlightenment virtues. Noble is man, knowable is truth, knowledge is virtue, truth is beauty, beauty is truth. Enlightenment proceeds to modernism, which was largely about rejecting the trappings of tradition, the elite, the old ways and old structures, old rules, moving fiercely towards the future, a future filled with utopian promise if we can successfully rid ourselves of all the weaknesses holding us back. Modernism is Nietzsche and “The Rite Of Spring” and Guernica and Artaud and Marienetti and The First World War (to end all wars!) with it’s innovative mustard gas, u-boats and aerial warfare.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm are nukes modernist? Does this mean anti-matter weapons are post-modernist? After all, they follow from modernism. Right? Reed then goes on to list some historical events several decades separated from the rise of Critical Theory, and then makes this astoundingly succinct and clear statement:
Post-modernism, as simply as it can possibly be explained, was just the attempt to figure out where to go from there. How to build a new humanity and new values in the wake of what we could no longer uncritically accept.
Reed than uses some deepities and truisms to explain her own, special definition of post-modernism. Let's call it Reedianism. Basically, Reedianism is critical thinking, recognizing you don't know everything, not dismissing other viewpoints out of hand, and other profound truths no one ever thought of before. By mixing up sociological and anthropological post-modernism with every other field ever labeled as post-modernist, she claims post-modernism means everything profound. Eventually we get to this:
Take for instance my recent run-in with Be Scofield. Be’s argument, more or less, was that it makes me an awful, imperialist, ethnocentric, evil person, colonizing the beliefs and perspectives of others, if I hold the religious beliefs of other cultures to the same standard of critique I hold my own...atheism is not about any special criticism of religion. It is about holding religious beliefs to the same principles to which I hold all beliefs. I will not uncritically accept (or offer deference to) any idea or concept, regardless of the cultural context in which it occurs (“self” OR “other”).In fact, it is the post-modern principle of understanding the danger of certainty that is the underlying foundation on which I base my criticism of religion. Religion is not “another way of knowing” or “another way of thinking”. It is beliefs insulated from thought and critique, and based upon faith. Faith is really just a particular form of certainty, but worse, is one that claims itself above ALL question. Not just that you think you have all the answers, but that everyone else doesn’t even get to ask questions.
Reedianism is starting to make sense. But it's still not post-modernism.
If people like Be were alive when the tragedies that forced us into post-modernity first occurred, do you suppose they’d defend the right of “other cultural perspectives” like Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany to not be “imperialistically” challenged or questioned by The Allies? That their “way of knowing” was just as valid as those who would question their dangerous imperialism There’s no question religious ideas are imperialistic in nature. They have evolved to propagate, convert others, and remain entrenched- by offering comforts and psychological rewards for belief, and exacting sacrifices and psychological costs for rejection.
More sense. Still claiming we were "forced into post-modernity" though.
The occasional over-zealous relativist no more invalidates post-modern theory and the importance of questioning your own perspective and cultural context than did 18th century imperialism invalidate the value of rationality and reason. All human ideas can lead to fuck-ups when accepted uncritically. It doesn’t mean those ideas are innately without value, only that we need to be careful. And knowing all human ideas can lead to fuck-ups when accepted uncritically is a big part of what post-modernism is all about.
So Reedianism is basically taking post-modernism and applying it when it fits Reed's conclusions, and discarding/refining it when it doesn't. All while stridently claiming to be a post-modernist.
I could be wrong, though.
Credit where it's due.
I'm really glad you posted this, Aneris, because it really explains alot. You think Reedianism, and its ever less refined Tumblr variants, are "post-modernism." They are not. Post-modernism, in social sciences context, is the very relativist standpoint Reed so vehemently denies, and the SJWs so selectively employ. I'll bring up the anthropologist in Somalia again. The anthropologist witnesses FGM. What should they do? They should not interfere, but only observe, just like a historian does not judge, only presents. Post-modern framework and it's branches in critical threory and such are models, and in my opinion, good ones. At some level, they are intuitive models, deepities in their own way, emphasizing how everything interacts and how little each observer really knows.
They were meant to help understand the world, never to help draw conclusions. But you, Aneris, make the same mistake Reed does. Either you're redefining post-modernism to find some actionable theory under it, or else ignoring what it is.
Edward Gibbons first complained that Rome fell because they were too tolerant of other cultures; do you really think PC/SJW is new, much less a result of post-modernism? Sure, they get "intersectionality" from CT variants and then painfully shoe horn it into their goals. Does that make them post-modernist? The Nazis claimed they were national socialists, they even had nice models justifying it. They were still fascists. And Natalie Reed is not applying post-modernism, much as she may protest. She may be a post-modernist in theory, but as long as she denies the relativism of anthropology and advocates cultures to change, she is not applying post-modernism. Nor are the SJWs post-modernist, as they openly demand great cultural change. Their tolerance for other cultures is either a faulty application of relativism or else an example"enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic.
Do they have vague basis in post-modernism, when academic theories slipped in the barren wasteland of public thought? Sure. Are they post-modernist? No. They are still populist off-shoots, nothing more. Can't believe I wrote all this, but hopefully it will get through this time. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the spirited defense, yet your conclusion is not that different from my own assessment I posted earlier, namely: "I never claimed that SJWs know exactly what they promote, in fact, I'm quite sure the most have no clue [...] Also, these aren't the only ingredients.". To which degree this counts as True Postmodernism™ is a vain and obscurantist exercise that misses the point altogether. You then confuse relativism with postmodernism, ignore post-structuralism and social constructionism and a host of other features (you curiously pave over that). Then you take one example, Natalie Reed apart, to show — what exactly? That Reed has only a tenuous grasp of the matter? I could have told you that. It's Freethought Blogs, after all.
fnordWe begin with the observation that there is a kind of conflict out there, a flame war that plays out on social media between what is generally called "social justice warriors" against various other groups ranging from GamerGate to New Atheists to opposite-minded SJWs like TERFs or MRAs. There is no name yet, and academics have started to look into the matter, such as Jonathan Haidt. I know of two more authors who have indicated they might write on this. A third big name author might pick this up, too (I'm not naming names). After the disinvite-invite with Richard Dawkins, the NECSS suggests: "We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole." This is obvious. That's why Atheism Plus was a thing.
fnordYet, the RationalWiki however claims this didn't exist. In other words, the ISSUE IS NOT whether this is really 100% pure postmodernism, but whether there is EVEN A THING. But to say that there is a thing you need SOME WAY to approach the matter. Obviously the ideology is not about "God Shave the Queen!". Obviously it's not about "Workers Unite!". Obviously it's not "Save the Rainforest" and so on. But how do we name it then? My suggestion was in response that this is probably a Critical Race Theory offshoot, due to inviduals like Crenshaw, Intersectionality, race/gender identity politics, microagressions, and so on that are also very popular among SJWs. CRT, Crenshaw etc generally belong into the pomo tradition. Anita Sarkeesian's main influence is bell hooks, another postmodernist and she herself said/tweeted things in line with Critical Race Theory. You have many adjacent issues that go into this, too, for example the SSSM assumptions that gel well with the pomo/post-structuralist views (see the Pharyngula link above).
fnord However, the RW tells you that "SJW" was a snarl word only, used merely for people who uphold "politically correctness", which, that article says, is also merely a snarl word. At the end of the day, it evaporates. Andrew Ross' (of Social Text) claimed something similar, that the "science wars" were because conservatives hate progressives. Of course this tactic didn't work for long. Eventually people were tired of postmodernist bullshit games, called a spade a spade and hit bullshitters over the head with it. ~ Aneris 03:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
If either of you had a valid point, you'd be able to make it succinctly. Aeonian, what you may be missing is that Aneris tends to devolve into non-sequitur accusations of postmodernism when discussion on a tlak page is not going with them. That the 'facts piling up' part. There is nothing in modern progressivism that requires or presupposes postmodernism. Aneris' willingness to accuse the world and his dog of postmodernism if someone disagrees with them is the annoying part. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I've previously argued with him about that on my talk page. I'm still doing it because I think I can get through. Not the first time I've been idealistic though. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, it's a thing, Aneris. The problem is you bring it up EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why? Why not just use facts and logic to make your point?
"You then confuse relativism with postmodernism, ignore post-structuralism and social constructionism and a host of other features (you curiously pave over that)." This is blatantly false. From the Encyclopedia Britannica, postmodernism is "characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power." Social constructionism and similar concepts only further the aims of a relativist sociological and anthropological examination. Never is a goal presented, besides accurate observation. I examined Reed thoroughly because the piece you linked was the most academic, and focused entirely on post-modernism. As I said, she gets to the point of what I wanted to address. The SJWs are influenced, perhaps even born of, a populist understanding of post-modernism, and they indeed borrow some models and terminology, but they are no more post-modernist than they are academic. If you campaign otherwise you are adopting Reed's definition - a post-modernism somehow freed of relativism, a now meaningless term anyone could claim for their viewpoints. Your only real argument is that they throw around concepts from critical theory. If I wear a mink coat, am I a mink? The SJW mindset is a populist social phenomena, the latest in an infinite line. And finally, as I said on my talk page, which you never responded to, it is meaningless in the long term. It is not a "deeper issue causing conflict within society." I gave you Jonathan Haidt's sociological examination on the issue precisely to demonstrate that this is not driven by any philosophy or ideology. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I find this unconvincing, for too many tenets appear in (say) Critical Race Theory, which is also taught in these "studies" disciplines. As written many times before, I don't think this explain everything, but it gives a general idea and in fact, I mentioned other aspects, too (e.g. Right Wing Authoritarianism). The reason for this is twofold: a) to differentiate it from other movements or groups (e.g. all the other people who advance social justice causes), and in this context here, to even establish this as its own thing, which is disputed on the RationalWiki. By turning the gaze around, and making IT the subject, it becomes evident that the "drama" here has them as the source, not all these other people from Paravant, Mona to Carpetsmoker who have been bullied away. I agree that Jon Haitds ideas also cover some facts (hence he's on my SJWmedia page, too). However, I doubt that Queex here and other people are very fond of your preferred explanation, i.e. victimhood culture. ~ Aneris 23:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Once again, it does not give a correct "general idea" unless you explicitly say "these movements are offshoots of a populist understanding of post-modernism," which you never do. Instead, you call editors whose ideological agendas are quite authoritarian "postmodernist," and you look silly. As for your reasons;
  1. Differentiate from other movements/groups
  • The problem is that it doesn't. The so called "SJWs" are constantly bickering among themselves due to their incoherent philosophy, whom shall you apply the label to? Anita Sarkeesian uses critical theory but is far from a relativist, is she post-modernist? What about those quick to cry Islamophobia, yet attack Christianity? Or what about Natalie Reed, who takes a firm stand against everything she doesn't like, regardless of cultural and social boundaries? If you say they're all "post-modernists," the term is a meaningless snarl word.
  1. "...establish this as it's own thing"
  • The page you're looking for is probably regressive left, but as this point I really don't know. Despite the talk page nonsense, the editors you complain about admitted it was a real concept, even if the exact term isn't often used correctly. If you mean the Tumblr warriors, their movements are far better understood through the sociological lens then trying to shoehorn them into a philosophical school.
Queex and anyone else may read Haidt's work on the matter, and whether they tend to agree with the SJWs are not, cannot deny the social realities of the movement no more than they could deny that irreligion is concentrated in more successful societies and social groups. If you're really just searching for a name, call it what it is - a niche populist movement. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If not nitpicking, we write past each other. I meant NOT to say that their academical grounding, however shaky, comes from philosophy departments. Postmodernism is a movement that spans the whole humanities and even fine arts, including art and literature departments. If this was your concern. Of course, you could call this “populist offshoot of postmodernism” if that makes you feel better, it's an apt term I can get behind. That wasn't the dispute though, and it doesn't explain why by sheer happenstance many tenets iconic for social justice warriors, such as identity politics, cultural appropriation, narratives and importantly intersectionality are all features of CRT, which is an academical framework you find in parts at least in the different studies (e.g. gender studies, post-colonial studies, yep the anthro people and their Franz Boas' style relativism glue well there, too, of course it comes mainly from law schools ). Of course SJWism is incoherent and notorious for falling apart over disagreements, hence Atheism Plus as a label is no more, and why there are subfactions like the TERFs. It's also a crank magnet, a favourite troll cover and attracts poe's on top of that. Regressive Left has a different connotation and highlights a selective Islam accommodationist aspect on a segment on the left, for a number of reasons. I would say that all SJWs are with strong tendency also Regressive Leftists, but not all RegLefts are SJWs. ~ Aneris 02:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Everything that vaguely resembles a shovel isn't a spade, Aneris. The SJWs use a grab bag of concepts, some of which are related to postmodern theories. I said "these movements are offshoots of a populist understanding of post-modernism" precisely to emphasize how far removed they are. For beginners, here are some major problems with labeling the SJWs postmodernist;
  • Most of the SJWs' opposition comes from other populist movements built around personal narratives, and no postmodernist or critical theorist would lambaste the lived experiences of other popular movements the way SJWs do.
  • Related to the above, the SJWs espouse a militant activism that targets all cultural narratives it deems unsuitable. This is in no way postmodernist.
  • Many of the postmodern elements you mentioned are taken so grossly out of context as to be irrelevant. Postcolonial concepts of cultural appropriation are a good example. The point of postcolonialism was to examine institutional deprecation of minority cultural ideas, as part of larger, overarching oppression. All this as opposed to natural interaction and evolution of cultures in a pluralistic world. The SJWs, by contrast, take an essentialist view of culture, and attack populist cultural exchange with roughly the same criteria the original colonialists did.
  • The SJWs abandon any holistic view by ignoring economic factors. All oppression must have an economic front to be effective, but the SJWs (likely due to lack of expertise) only acknowledge the simplest factors (gender wage gaps).
  • In the SJW grab bag, we find intersectionality and the importance of personal narratives as the only recognizably postmodern ideas, themselves more from critical theory then postmodernism proper. Displayed just as prominently are modernist ideas of cultural essentialism, creating a perfect society, and occasionally the outright clash of civilizations narrative - with the SJWs taking the rather ironic stance that everything "Western" is inherently imperialist.
I could honestly go on, but, again, the SJWs are not postmodernist. If we call them postmodernist, we might as well call them modernist and essentialist and anything else if it shows up in their grab bag. But all this is honestly irrelevant, because even if they were, why bring it up in talk page disputes??? It makes no sense whatsoever, and is why some people think you're a troll. State facts and move on without calling anyone anything. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Maryam Namazie, herself a temporary no-platformee calls the Regressive Left the "Postmodernist Left" (podcast with Sam Harris, ca 22min mark). Jerry Coyne prefers Authoritarian Left. How does it go together? It does. And quite apparently, other people have very similar impressions, which I find unsurprising, since for years now, you can see bewildered people describing this strange new internet lifeform called "SJWs" in very similar ways. And why does it come up? Not only is this apparent from the conversation above, it should also be apparent from the topic at hand (Atheism Plus). ~ Aneris 12:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
How does it go together? It does. HAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah that's how evidence works. Good lord that's bad even for you. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a blatant appeal to authority. Citing Maryam Namazie, Natelie Reed, and anyone else you find is not responding to my points. Especially when you even name someone who uses a different term, and all on a page which refers to it as the "regressive left" and is complete with sources saying as much. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You have so far presented nothing but assertions that stand against the many cited examples, from CRT to concrete cases, assessment of other notable people and from proponents. And there are countless more. Further you yourself (presumably) mentioned postmodernism in the Regressive Left article. You may also profit from reading the classic in this kind of discussion, Sokal & Bricmont's “Fashionable Nonsense”, in particular the epilogue and around page 190s where you find a detailed discussion in which way this has to do with postmodernism. There's a chapter called “the Role of Politics” where they observed:

[…] As we have repeatedly stressed, postmod­ernism is such a complicated network of ideas— with only weak logical links between them— that it is difficult to charac­terize it more precisely than as a vague Zeitgeist. Nevertheless, the roots of this Zeitgeist are not hard to identify, and go back to the early 1960s: challenges to empiricist philosophies of sci­ence with Kuhn, critiques of humanist philosophies of history with Foucault, disillusionment with grand schemes for political change. […] Almost forty years later, revolutionaries have aged and marginality has become institutionalized. Ideas that contained some truth, if properly understood, have degenerated into a vulgate that mixes bizarre confusions with overblown banalities
—Alan Sokal, Fashionable Nonsense, p. 210

Since you also confuse citing people's assessments or own positions with authority, you may want to read up on the detailled (additional) reasons, instead of relying on Sokal's name alone. You may also find many striking parallels to this current movement. Further, Sokal writes, contrary to your assessment on relativism: “Moreover, the relativists’ stance is extremely conde­scending: it treats a complex society as a monolith, obscures the conflicts within it, and takes its most obscurantist factions as spokespeople for the whole.” which is precisely the CRT etc thing, too ~ Aneris 22:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be unable comprehend the phrase "populist understanding of postmodernism." I have debunked the examples you gave, and will once more present the same scholarly definition of postmodern philosophy I have always worked from:
"Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power."
The Sokal quotes you gave agree with me; is "Ideas that contained some truth, if properly understood, have degenerated into a vulgate that mixes bizarre confusions with overblown banalities" not a definition of populist bastardization of an academic concept? And the second quote is merely an example of that: "Moreover, the relativists’ stance is extremely condescending: it treats a complex society as a monolith, obscures the conflicts within it, and takes its most obscurantist factions as spokespeople for the whole." This is an inherent problem of applying relativism with the shoddy parameters the SJWs use.
I'll restate my contention, if it helps you: The odd mishmash of groups referred to as "SJWs," "regressive left," etc. do indeed base some of their philosophy on postmodern (really Critical Therory) ideas, but they also employ foreign concepts and their understanding of the postmodern elements is poor at best. There would no reason to label such groups as postmodernist even if they were academic, but the concept of labeling an incoherent, factious popular movement as adherents of a somewhat esoteric philosophy like postmodernism is simply laughable.
And, once more, all of this is really beating around the bush as to why it is counter-productive and just pointless to bring this whole thing up in a damn edit war. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
In other words, as two replies earlier, we basically agree on the substance but you find it “laughable” to name their thing in the postmodernist corner, but you'll see other people (such as Sokal) do this, too, on for similar reasons. Other than that, you don't even know the context of this usage. ~ Aneris 09:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sokal, nor the others, did not have a time machine to write about the SJWs of today in the 1990s. The popular SJW movement didn't show up unto 2005 at the earliest because all of its adherents are young people with little academic footing. Why do you insist on calling these people "postmodernists?" Why not just call them SJWs, regressive leftists, whatever? I doubted those who say you just want to have a big bad boogy man in postmodernism before, but the more I go around in circles with you that seems to be the case. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Easy. The other terms you suggest led to much complaining, too, but curiously in the exact opposite direction — there was allegedly nothing but snarl word, which is of course ludicrous and little more than a game (but one I'm willing to play for fun). So I ended up pointing out those elements that are relevant in this context (i.e. anti-rational pseudo-science) and noticable at once, which tend to be postmodernist elements. The need for that arose when argument (“constructive discussion”) on the Sarkeesian talk page led to SJW style carpetbombing, talk page spam, delete attempts of personal pages, a mysterious “shadowban” / technical error, stalking and reverts and other such things where virtually everyone knows which group does it. So in a sense this “you cannot name it, because I don't like whatever approach you take, or how you name it” is just an extension of the same conflict, just one meta upwards. The predictable next step upwards would be disputing the dispute of the dispute — been there, too — which I then terminate with “google ry****g” (etc) which then leads to whining that this — too — cannot be named either, this time because these disturbed individuals would face “harassment” if one points to them, i.e. more SJW style games. In other words, even when you rob all names and ban all words, there is still the THING, and it is very visible as internet drama — but approaching it this way leads to doxed information and other things I distaste. I learned about reddit “wiki in action” on the RW itself, which seems a one okayish way to get to the thing. Hence, either we have a name, which I prefer strongly, or I point to the referent and say “this here”. Though, to be honest, I'm only wrapping up. While people, you included, play petty word games, there was an exodus of mods and good core editors, frivolous coop cases jumped up, a schism has formed (now with a fork). You can all pretend it's because of nothing, nada, nix and endorse Sarah Nyberg on twitter and such things. Well, have fun. :) ~ Aneris 11:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll continue to avoid the nonsense pages and the zealots, while referring to them by the commonly accepted and tailor made term "SJW," regardless of whether or not RW (really just the few zealots) agrees they exist. You can continue to edit war and argue with said zealots, while throwing "postmodernism" around as if the whole thing wasn't hilarious enough. Have fun. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)