Talk:Freethought Blogs/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 June 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Delinked, not deleted

Both Greg Laden's and Thunderf00t's blogs are available at their URLs despite having been de-linked from the front page. In Thunderf00t's case, this may be quite useful. :) I tried the same trick with Loftus' blog, but it redirects to his current one.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor Quality of article.

Far too much opinion on this page:

"the present state of the software used to target ads often leads to hilarious juxtapositions.[2][3] Also, they've chosen an ad network so eyegougingly obnoxious"

"quickly fired after repeatedly and somewhat incoherently blogging"

"sexism (a result of unexamined prejudices) is treated as just as much woo as any other"

"The vocal group of FtB anti-fans gleefully took this as another confirmation that FtB isn't about free thought at all because something-something-something-evo-psych-something girls are stinky"

Srsly, this level of expression belongs in YouTube comments, not on 'RationalWiki'

Peter Wright. (I wasn't going to create an account just to comment on a site i've never visited before to my knowledge.)^{— Unsigned, by: 78.146.75.133 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

Drinking games aside, I suggest looking at some of the other articles on RW. Articles here are written from a "snarky point of view". Consider it a house style.

Specific instances of snark and jokes can be debated, if they are found to be unjustified or make the text unclear. The general existence of such things is non-debatable, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Snarky and arrogant ignorance are not that close.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalized by Mikal

Please quit editing this page to force subjective and irate personal issues into the RationalWiki community. Statements as discussed below, such as "somewhat incoherantly" and "because something-something-something-evo-psych-something girls are stinky" do nothing other than ruin the credibility of this wiki. Your refusal to allow a more objective editorial presence should be considered vandalism among the atheist community.

As ZooGuard said, the tone of this website is not dry and (completely) objective—though there was somebody running around the other day complaining that we were refusing to allow subjective points of view, so we must be doing something right. I should add that "vandalism" is not the term you are looking for, as you edited first and Mikal simply reverted. Peter ^mqzp 06:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're essentially willfully behaving in the same manner as every other organized religion in the world. "Believe what we believe, if we're wrong, we'll censor you." I'm amazed that this site is run by such a bunch of hypocrites.

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! EVDebs (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"something-something-something-evo-psych-something girls are stinky"

This should probably be discussed by someone other than Mikal and a surly BoN. Personally, I find it an amusing and truthful summary, but it's also a little incoherent, and it may be hard to understand. It seems better suited for a standup routine than for written word--"Shut up, Brx." 15:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

SPOV, my man. I intended the phrase to be just as coherent as the beliefs it describes. EVDebs (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Enough with the cargo cult maturity already." Just in case you are under the wrong impression, the last version of that passage was (re)written by me, not Brxbrx, to avoid the tedious edit-warring. And I really don't appreciate that the new material I introduced was mindlessly reverted to someone's favorite version. If you are going to do it, at least remove the "citation needed" tag.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I shall arrange a merger. Sorry about the slash and burn. EVDebs (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh the idiocy

"The vlogger Thunderf00t briefly joined Freethought Blogs in summer 2012, but was quickly fired after repeatedly and somewhat incoherently blogging that those pushing for protection for women at atheist/skeptic events were wrong, or overreacting, or whatever. The vocal group of FtB anti-fans gleefully took this as another confirmation that FtB isn't about free thought at all because something-something-evo-psych-something girls are stinky, and who have taken as a hobby attacking the most vocal feminist bloggers."

By far the greatest answer to all of Thuderf00t's criticisms. Seriously, I've never seen a better answer. I especially like the complete lack of argument against Thuderf00t's comments and the beautiful strawmen. And of course the almost religious devotion to defend FTB against anyone who might say something against it. Quite awesome, I must say.^{— Unsigned, by: 152.13.55.31 / talk / contribs}

See the Thunderf00t article for more details.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

See Thunderf00t article for more strawmen.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You know putting whiny in-articulate non-specific "arguments" in more places isn't going to convince anyone of anything you know. I mean... I get it: you can't stand to see your views deconstructed with anything resembling honesty, but if you want to protect yourself from that kind of thing, focusing on actually making a single meaningful point might work better than babbling incoherently about fallacies that aren't really present. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

TBH that doesn't look too much like deconstruction and more like a not quite coherent rant.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Confimed.--C

Cristina Rad

She doesn't seem to be at Freethoughtblogs anymore.^{— Unsigned, by: 46.37.62.241 / talk / contribs}

The link to her blog on the main page has been removed. I think it happened this week, because I noticed that the banners no longer formed even columns. Her blog's still accessible here though. The last post is from November 2012.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

She's not listed in the list of the blogs on the left side of the front page of FreeThoughtBlogs, either.

Feminist relativity

FTB is accused of taking a "radical" feminist stand in recent edits. I disagree. I don't see radicalism, and would like evidence of such. I also can't quite parse "vociferously disagreeing with the absolutism and perspectives of Atheism Plus," vs "repeatedly (and somewhat incoherently) blogging that those pushing for protection for women at atheist/skeptic events were wrong, or overreacting, or whatever," given that the first isn't what happened and the second is. Hipo^crite 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Quoth: " Those who don’t, those who aren’t shamed by being exposed as liars or hypocrits, those who persist in being dishonest or inconsistent even when their dishonesty or inconsistency has been soundly proven, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with." From here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/comment-page-2 That seems like a pretty radical position. It means that they feel no obligation to engage those who disagree, and who have offended by *their* moral standards. Moral absolutism is a pretty radical position. Shall I also link to the Block Bot, being used to automate censorship of twitter? Or maybe the quote where Carrier says that men are "testosterone damaged women"? Wackyvorlon (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you know what wp:Radical Feminism is. Hipo^crite 19:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I do, and evidently you haven't been paying attention to FtB. From your link: "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy[1] oppresses women." I think it's safe to assume that you agree with this, since you linked to it. So, a number of posts focusing on patriarchy would tend to indicate that they are into radical feminism, right? https://www.google.ca/#q=site:freethoughtblogs.com+patriarchy&safe=off It seems like a pretty popular topic for them. Wackyvorlon (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a few more words and you would have caught the main part of the definition - that radical feminism " calls for a radical reordering of society." Where do you see such calls? Also, please cite someone named "Carrier" saying "testosterone damaged women." Hipo^crite 20:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *snort* Yep, clueless and (deliberately?) obtuse.

Protip: using the term "patriarchy" in a feminist context is not limited to radical feminism, kiddo.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That pompous windbag Carrier != the entirety of Freethought Blogs, or Atheism+. Yes, his remarks did contribute to the initial backlash to A+, and this should be written up properly, not used as an ammunition in the ongoing slyming efforts.

"Radical feminism" has an established meaning. Labeling with it people who do not idenitfy as radical feminists is usually a sign that the labeller has no clue about feminism, and may be actively anti-egalitarian.

The BlockBot is the Twitter equivalent of a shared killfile. Calling it "a tool for censorship" is a tell-tale sign of either the FtB Hater Club, or someone who have drunk their Kool Aid.

Oh, and as far as I can remember the last one should be pinned on Greg Laden, not Carrier. Try to keep your villains right. :p --ZooGuard (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Or maybe the quote where Carrier says that men are "testosterone damaged women"? " Gotta love your obtuseness. The whole thing has been discussed to death and the people who have said the things explained multiple times that it was a joke and no, they don't believe that men are damaged women. It's funny that even Emil Karlsson has accepted that he was off-point with his criticism and the whole context did appear to be just joking, instead of ad-hoc rationalization and damage control. http://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/07/22/some-falsehoods-about-the-y-chromosome-and-male-brains/ Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, ZooGuard, I'm going to quote you: "*snort* Yep, clueless and (deliberately?) obtuse." We have a term for trying to debate that way. It's called ad hominem. It's a favourite tool of individuals like Rebecca Watson(along with privilege) to shout down those who disagree with them. Wackyvorlon (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You know what it's called when you ignore the strongest arguments of your opponents and attack only the weakest? I do! Again - you attribute "radicalism," which is mainly defined by a radical restructuring of society to them, but you haven't shown they support said radical restructuring. You attribute a quote to a guy named "Carrier," that I purport he never said. Those are fundamental flaws in your argument for the word "radical." Hipo^crite 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to apologize for mis-remembering it before you guys resorted to the ad hominem bullshit. So, why is it impossible for us to have any approaching a civil discussion? You launch into invective almost immediately, with no willingness to give my the benefit of the doubt. That's hardly appropriate, and very dangerous. If one is incapable of calm discussion of an issue, one becomes insulated against criticism - and insulated against the possibility of having the flaws in one's beliefs identified. This is the path of the fundamentalist, and unworthy of anyone who would call themselves atheist or skeptic. Wackyvorlon (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You deserved the benefit of the doubt right up until you decided not to figure out why I assumed you didn't know what radical feminism was and instead decided to ignore my arguments entirely. I'm not an atheist, and I don't identify with the revolting "skeptic" movement, so sticks and stones and all. Now, back to feminism. Do you see them advocating a radical restructuring of society? If so, where? Hipo^crite 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was being generous and ignoring your use of the no true scotsman fallacy. Wackyvorlon (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you know what that is. I believe radical feminists are feminists, but FTB seems to be liberal feminists on the whole to me. Perhaps some are extreme liberal feminists, but yeah, I'll end this with a quick . Carry on! Hipo^crite 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Being a RadFem means holding a specific set of values, the most basic of which that separates them from other feminists is the desire for a radical restructure of society. Non-RadFems want incremental changes in things like work place relations and pay and punishment for things like rape, while RadFem want to completely throw all of that away and start over. This is, by definition, what it means to be a RadFem. Requiring that people actually fit the definition of what you're calling them is not the NTS fallacy. If you can actually find evidence that Watson or whoever wants a radical restructuring of society, you will not be able to legitimately claim that she is a radical anything. Just saying "she is a RadFem because I say so" means that I can now proudly proclaim myself a member of the The Red Pill while not agreeing with them on anything.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 21:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

pfff

Why does it seem like so many of our debates about feminism on this wiki get bogged down in arguments over semantics and definitions?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because there is little of substance to back up many people's extremely negative and hostile feelings about feminism?

I can see how clueless newbies tapping into the "womanosphere" and coming into contact with FtB for the first time can (probably will) come away with the superficial impression that those feminists are all very bitter, aggressive and hateful people, or just insane "harpies" and SJWs constantly "throwing tantrums" about and "crusading" against some irrelevant and petty issue. I was similarly confused initially (Elevatorgate puzzled me for a long time; fun fact: initially I thought that Elevator Guy had really been Dawkins himself!). MRAs (and many others who are not nearly as extreme, such as persumably most LessWrongians, some of which actually identify as progressive themselves) clearly never move past that stage. But once you dig a little deeper and actually try to understand the key concepts feminism is built on and the associated slogans, and see the vitriol and bullshit their opponents spew, things very soon start to become so much clearer. RationalWiki is a great resource and help on that quest. I've actually started to try and "check my privilege" for real. I could easily have become an MRA with my background (although I think certain quirks of mine, and some other factors, have had a significant role in preventing that), but for various reasons (including my general leftist-liberal outlook and social science background), I have not gone the blame-the-women route.

I completely agree with what was said above. FtB is far from radical feminism, they're overall liberal and sex-positive. Once you learn more about feminism, you can begin to separate the (probably) majority of essentially sane activists from true extremists, for whom the brand of feminism that dominates FtB is far too liberal and men-friendly, hence the label "fun-fem". And those aren't even the really nutty ones; they make some good points, but others (such as outlawing prostitution or porn completely) are ... just not good ideas.

Even when it comes to FtB, I may still feel that demanding a public excuse for wearing a T-shirt with half-naked cartoon women on it in public is a tad overblown, and I may not be a big fan of gender-inclusive language when it becomes unnatural and cumbersome-sounding (I prefer the generic feminine, actually!), many euphemistic neologisms and other language planning, but reasonable people can disagree on such details. The right wing has its code-speak, neologisms and "politically correct" euphemisms too, so I see no reason to reject liberal feminism because of that. My opinion for Dawkins especially has diminished considerably ever since I learned of his MRM sympathies and assorted awkward and tone-deaf moments. --84.151.186.112 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That may have something to do with that fact that you are incompetent to Judge Dawkins in the first place. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)