Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

jank · 26-06-2015 5:38am

Peregrinus wrote: »

What other examples? I haven't read the Chait article you mention, or the responses to it, so I have nothing to say about them. If I were to read them, I would approach them with the same scepticism that I encourage you to adopt. And that scepticism should be applied both to the Chait article and to any rebuttals of it that others offer.

Scrutiny is good and skepticism is welcome however, at some stage one has to $hit or get off the pot and call a spade a spade. If one is to permanently put forward an uber-skeptic thought process to every experience they encounter in the world, fine by me but it is not something I want to perpetually entertain.

Those articles are in this thread if you want to knock yourself out.

Peregrinus · 26-06-2015 6:02am

Absolam wrote: »

Let's say one had an unconscious bias against members of the opposite gender, acting on which would be illegal, with the potential defence of being unconscious of ones bias. Training staff to recognise their bias would remove (or at least reduce) their defense, enabling the company to take reasonable action to defend their employees from the illegal bias of their other employees. The company (or institution as it is here) doesn't need to change your bias necessarily, it just need to protect it's employees from it.

Well, just to pick nits, if you act on foot of a bias towards or against one gender over the other and get sued as a result, "being unconscious of one's bias" wouldn't provide any defence. Your actions either are discriminatory in a way that gives rise to a legal claim or they are not, but this doesn't depend on whether you recognised that they were discriminatory. Thus training staff to recognise the bias doesn't remove or reduce any defence. The hope would be, though, that it would reduce instances of discrimination, and so reduce legal claims against the institution. (I doubt that the primary motivation here is to reduce legal claims against UCG, but it could be a very welcome side-effect.)

Peregrinus · 26-06-2015 6:05am

jank wrote: »

Scrutiny is good and skepticism is welcome however, at some stage one has to $hit or get off the pot and call a spade a spade. If one is to permanently put forward an uber-skeptic thought process to every experience they encounter in the world, fine by me but it is not something I want to perpetually entertain.

And there's your problem. You shouldn't call a spade a spade until you have satisfied yourself that it is, in fact, a spade. The mere fact that some bozo on the internet, calls it a spade isn't conclusive. Particularly if he has an axe to grind about spades.

(If indeed it is an axe that he is grinding.

)

jank wrote: »

Those articles are in this thread if you want to knock yourself out.

I abhor violence of any kind.

Absolam · 26-06-2015 6:47am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, just to pick nits, if you act on foot of a bias towards or against one gender over the other and get sued as a result, "being unconscious of one's bias" wouldn't provide any defence. Your actions either are discriminatory in a way that gives rise to a legal claim or they are not, but this doesn't depend on whether you recognised that they were discriminatory. Thus training staff to recognise the bias doesn't remove or reduce any defence. The hope would be, though, that it would reduce instances of discrimination, and so reduce legal claims against the institution. (I doubt that the primary motivation here is to reduce legal claims against UCG, but it could be a very welcome side-effect.)

Fair point; perhaps more accurate to look at it as a visibly proactive way of reducing the potential for lawsuits, which even if ultimately ineffective demonstrates an employers commitment to combating illegal workplace bias, which does reduce an employers liability

robindch · 27-06-2015 12:53am

jank wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

[...] I don't believe that "tolerance" is well-served by indulging the famously intolerant.

Therefore it is not tolerance, no matter how you dress it up.

You seem to have a definition of tolerance which includes intolerance.

Black is white, eh?

jank · 27-06-2015 1:10pm

robindch wrote: »

You seem to have a definition of tolerance which includes intolerance.

Black is white, eh?

Nope, but London Pride seem to have that definition.

robindch · 01-07-2015 10:02pm

jank wrote: »

Nope, but London Pride seem to have that definition.

Well, so far as I can understand your position, not only do you believe it's "tolerant" to tolerate the intolerance of intolerant groups, but the act of refusing to tolerate intolerance constitutes "intolerance" itself.

I'm surprised the organizers simply didn't just evaporate in a puff of self-contradiction-by-proxy.

01-07-2015 10:20pm

What exactly is wrong with that position?

It is tolerant to put up with the ideals/thoughts/idiocy of others
It is intolerant to outright refuse to

That's an insane post.

jank · 02-07-2015 4:34am

Yes, because of course its 'tolerant' to ban a political party who have openly gay members and elected officials'.

jackofalltrades · 03-07-2015 4:42pm

Seems like they joined the parade anyway and there was no trouble.
Good to see that people who use threats to exclude people of differing opinions weren't successful.
I'm guessing that even if UKIP had the same policies towards the LGBT community say as Labour, there would still have been resistance towards them taking part in this Pride parade.

12-08-2015 10:25pm

Trigger Warnings, Microaggressions and over-sensitivity.
American Colleges and Vindictive Protectiveness

Brilliant article imo.

For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American.

In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression.

examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”

More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable.

In a particularly egregious 2008 case, for instance, Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis found a white student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book honored student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan when it marched on Notre Dame in 1924. Nonetheless, the picture of a Klan rally on the book’s cover offended at least one of the student’s co-workers (he was a janitor as well as a student), and that was enough for a guilty finding by the university’s Affirmative Action Office.

eannie Suk’s New Yorker essay described the difficulties of teaching rape law in the age of trigger warnings. Some students, she wrote, have pressured their professors to avoid teaching the subject in order to protect themselves and their classmates from potential distress. Suk compares this to trying to teach “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.”

In an article published last year by Inside Higher Ed, seven humanities professors wrote that the trigger-warning movement was “already having a chilling effect on [their] teaching and pedagogy.”

If campus culture conveys the idea that visitors must be pure, with résumés that never offend generally left-leaning campus sensibilities, then higher education will have taken a further step toward intellectual homogeneity and the creation of an environment in which students rarely encounter diverse viewpoints. And universities will have reinforced the belief that it’s okay to filter out the positive.

“The presumption that students need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual.”

BuilderPlumber · 12-08-2015 11:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with that position?

It is tolerant to put up with the ideals/thoughts/idiocy of others
It is intolerant to outright refuse to

That's an insane post.

Fully baked leftwing cookies v half baked rightwing fruitcakes. To me, they are 2 sides of the same coin. The ideologies of PC and free speech are used as arguments for either certain groups not to be criticised and for others to vent racist, warmongering lies. The same person or group will use the FS argument when it comes to a right to vent a horrid opinion and they will use the PC argument if someone else says it about them! Donald Trump v ISIS. Bush v bin Laden. Hitler v Stalin. All these left/right cookie/fruitcakes have the same bad ingredients.

robindch · 13-08-2015 11:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

Brilliant article imo.

Indeed, was going to post it just now. Most things with or by Jonathan Haidt are worth checking out and this one's no exception.

One thing I'd like to see is a new term for people who currently call themselves "liberal", but who want everybody else to self-censor lest they're offended. That stance is the opposite of what "liberal" actually means, but people who self-identify as such haven't really been called out on it yet. And by careless association by people with problems with the label "liberal", can cause traditional liberal people no end of pointless trouble.

13-08-2015 12:49pm

Here's a little bit on the authors behind the piece, and why they chose to write it
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg-lukianoffs-story/399359/

PopePalpatine · 13-08-2015 6:15pm

robindch wrote: »

Indeed, was going to post it just now. Most things with or by Jonathan Haidt are worth checking out and this one's no exception.

One thing I'd like to see is a new term for people who currently call themselves "liberal", but who want everybody else to self-censor lest they're offended. That stance is the opposite of what "liberal" actually means, but people who self-identify as such haven't really been called out on it yet. And by careless association by people with problems with the label "liberal", can cause traditional liberal people no end of pointless trouble.

Loathe as I am to use a term beloved of middle-class white guys who complain of sexism from feminists and reverse racism, but I think "SJW" fits the bill.

jackofalltrades · 13-08-2015 9:08pm

eannie Suk’s New Yorker essay described the difficulties of teaching rape law in the age of trigger warnings.
Some students, she wrote, have pressured their professors to avoid teaching the subject in order to protect themselves and their classmates from potential distress.
Suk compares this to trying to teach “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.”

Scratching my head at this one.
There actually limiting their own learning so as not to be risk being distressed.
What do they think is going to happen when they actually start practising law.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Loathe as I am to use a term beloved of middle-class white guys who complain of sexism from feminists and reverse racism, but I think "SJW" fits the bill.

If ever there was a term that needs to be throw into the sea.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-08-2015 9:55pm

The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses
into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded
from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable.reality

fyp

If campus culture conveys the idea that visitors must
be pure, with résumés that never offend generally left-
leaning campus sensibilities, then higher education will
have taken a further step toward intellectual
homogeneity and the creation of an environment in
which students rarely encounter diverse viewpoints.

Same problem, in mirror image, that the fundie pseudo-colleges have. Both short-change their students and you couldn't call an unchallenging conformist bubble an education.

silverharp · 13-08-2015 11:19pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Loathe as I am to use a term beloved of middle-class white guys who complain of sexism from feminists and reverse racism, but I think "SJW" fits the bill.

the whole SJW is a funny thing, they do seem to be like the Young Earth creationists of the secular world. Lucky me though I'd never heard of SJW's or Gamergate and all that stuff until amount a month ago, its a strange old corner of the interwebs

orubiru · 14-08-2015 4:25pm

silverharp wrote: »

the whole SJW is a funny thing, they do seem to be like the Young Earth creationists of the secular world. Lucky me though I'd never heard of SJW's or Gamergate and all that stuff until amount a month ago, its a strange old corner of the interwebs

It's doesn't seem to be that unusual that people have discovered these "SJW" and "Gamergate" conversations through people who are putting "Atheist" content out there on blogs and YouTube.

I love watching a good YouTube takedown of creationists once in a while and it was through these videos that I discovered "gamergate" and various other "SJW" related arguments.

I think a lot of these "SJW" people actually just employ similar tactics to those used by Creationists and Fundamentalist Christians. Things like not allowing comments or likes and dislikes on their videos seem to be standard. Also the way that they state their beliefs as absolute fact and then try to dismiss anyone who might put forward an opposing point of view as having "damaging" or "toxic" or "problematic" ideas.

It's not that much different from the Christians you will find banging on about how "Atheists always try to ram Atheism down everyone's throat" and how they try to re-brand skepticism or rational questions as "ridicule" or "disrespect" or "intolerance". How they try to teach people who are maybe becoming interested in religious topics that Atheists are trying to oppress Christians etc etc.

If I had written a blog post or made a video that can be successfully debunked, or at least be shown to be seriously flawed, within the first 10 comments from the public then I would think that I might take some time to reconsider my position or even engage with the people who have opposing views.

Instead it seems like there will always be people who are just intolerant of skepticism. They want to be able to give their opinion unchallenged and will go to great lengths to make sure that they don't even have to hear skeptical voices.

KomradeBishop · 15-08-2015 1:09am

orubiru wrote: »

It's doesn't seem to be that unusual that people have discovered these "SJW" and "Gamergate" conversations through people who are putting "Atheist" content out there on blogs and YouTube.

I love watching a good YouTube takedown of creationists once in a while and it was through these videos that I discovered "gamergate" and various other "SJW" related arguments.

I think a lot of these "SJW" people actually just employ similar tactics to those used by Creationists and Fundamentalist Christians. Things like not allowing comments or likes and dislikes on their videos seem to be standard. Also the way that they state their beliefs as absolute fact and then try to dismiss anyone who might put forward an opposing point of view as having "damaging" or "toxic" or "problematic" ideas.

It's not that much different from the Christians you will find banging on about how "Atheists always try to ram Atheism down everyone's throat" and how they try to re-brand skepticism or rational questions as "ridicule" or "disrespect" or "intolerance". How they try to teach people who are maybe becoming interested in religious topics that Atheists are trying to oppress Christians etc etc.

If I had written a blog post or made a video that can be successfully debunked, or at least be shown to be seriously flawed, within the first 10 comments from the public then I would think that I might take some time to reconsider my position or even engage with the people who have opposing views.

Instead it seems like there will always be people who are just intolerant of skepticism. They want to be able to give their opinion unchallenged and will go to great lengths to make sure that they don't even have to hear skeptical voices.

At the same time it's worth being careful though, as there seems to be a growing trend of conservative views trying to 'co-opt' the Atheist and 'skeptic' label, to try and promote highly ideological or sometimes bigoted views, under the false-brand of being a 'skeptic' - as well as having pro-corporate views masquerade under the banner of 'science', and trying to portray opponents of dodgy practices in certain industries as being 'anti-science'.

On the non-Atheist side, the false-'skeptic' position was used to good effect, with promoting climate change denial, and now we are starting to see some of the MRA movement take up the Atheist/skeptic label, while bringing ideological baggage from the MRA movement with them.

On the pro-corporate groups taking on the banner of 'science', the GM industry is one big area I've been occasionally focusing on, as using accusations of being 'anti-science' to try and browbeat critics, pointing out genuine issues with the GM industry.

You also have to notice as well, that the Atheist movement has been (if I recall correctly) closely tied with the Humanist movement, and there has been a trend in the last half-century or so, where the Humanist movement has been watered-down to be very Pro-Corporate friendly (way back, 'economic justice' issues used to be front-and-foremost with Humanists, now it's nowhere to be seen, effectively) - and I think I recognize a bit of this in the Atheist movement as well; for all the championing of skepticism/critical-thinking and science, official parts of the Atheist movement are pretty much MIA when it comes to economic issues, and way back (with Humanists), it used to not be this way - it was the opposite, 'economic justice' issues were the priority.

So, I'd still check my sources very carefully - I don't know the Atheist movement well yet (the parts of it that are identifiable as official organizations/groups etc.), but I'm starting to get a bit cynical/suspicious of many groups that operate under its banner, and I think it could be partly co-opted to soft-paddle on economic issues.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-08-2015 11:31am

'official' atheist movement?!

why should any sort of socio-economic baggage, beyond secularism, be attached to it anyway? Same with christianity, on the one hand we have the 'sure didn't our lord feed the poor' hand-wringers (annoying, but mostly harmless) and on the other some of the greediest scummiest corporations and individuals grasping for god. There is no 'christian social policy' there are just people who use religion to justify whatever policy they already support. IMHO atheists should be above that sort of misrepresentation, support what you want but don't misuse atheism to try to justify it

* off now to set up 'provisional' atheist 'movement' * :rolleyes:

Pherekydes · 15-08-2015 11:37am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

* off now to set up 'provisional' atheist 'movement' * :rolleyes:

Splitter!

KomradeBishop · 15-08-2015 2:53pm

There are networks of 'official' Atheist organizations all over the world, and in Ireland, and they campaign on all sorts of political issues - and they have a close crossover with 'official' Humanist organizations as well (which also exist in Ireland).

Nobody said "Atheist = part of 'official' Atheist movement" or that "'official' movements views = All Atheists views", so I don't know why you're trying to characterize my post, as if it presented it that way - comes across as trying to discourage discussion and criticism of the 'official' parts of the movement.

Among Humanists and Atheists, promotion of critical thinking and skepticism to all areas of politics, society and science, are very prominent parts of Humanist/Atheist views, and it's not limited to just secularism - so there already is a ton of socio-economic baggage inherent in this, and omitting an entire class of issues (surrounding 'economic justice'), which used to play a defining prominent part in the Humanist movement, is not 'avoiding baggage', it isn't 'politically neutral' - it's taking a defined political position on important social/political/economic issues, through neglect.

That's something that the 'official' parts of such movements are open to criticism on - not something where criticism is being extended to Atheists overall.

silverharp · 15-08-2015 4:28pm

Humanist means very little to me, sounds a bit dusty and something from the 1920's. When it come down to it, the "new Atheists" tend to be people coming either from some science background or having some relevant cultural background Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being well known examples. The goal (as I see it) is to push back against the religious right , Islam and point out the hypocrisy of the Left as they have essentially allied themselves with Islam.
Economics doesnt come into that much, Dawkins comes across as economically centre left in old money and while Penn Jillette for instance is Libertarian.
Then you have some better known Youtubers like Thunderf00t who seem to split their time between dissing Christianity feminists and other SJW's. It seems to just be a bunch of middle of the road types who dislike ideologues where ever they originate from.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-08-2015 10:48pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There are networks of 'official' Atheist organizations all over the world, and in Ireland, and they campaign on all sorts of political issues

Can you provide examples of such political issues which go beyond secularism?

Among Humanists and Atheists, promotion of critical thinking and skepticism to all areas of politics, society and science, are very prominent parts of Humanist/Atheist views, and it's not limited to just secularism - so there already is a ton of socio-economic baggage inherent in this

As above,

and omitting an entire class of issues (surrounding 'economic justice'), which used to play a defining prominent part in the Humanist movement, is not 'avoiding baggage', it isn't 'politically neutral' - it's taking a defined political position on important social/political/economic issues, through neglect.

So not taking a position is the same as taking a position? Have you thought this through?

That's something that the 'official' parts of such movements are open to criticism on - not something where criticism is being extended to Atheists overall.

The term 'official' humanist or atheist is both meaningless and ammunition for the idiot gallery 'atheism is just another religion' type stuff.

One eyed Jack · 16-08-2015 3:48am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

'official' atheist movement?!

why should any sort of socio-economic baggage, beyond secularism, be attached to it anyway? Same with christianity, on the one hand we have the 'sure didn't our lord feed the poor' hand-wringers (annoying, but mostly harmless) and on the other some of the greediest scummiest corporations and individuals grasping for god. There is no 'christian social policy' there are just people who use religion to justify whatever policy they already support. IMHO atheists should be above that sort of misrepresentation, support what you want but don't misuse atheism to try to justify it

* off now to set up 'provisional' atheist 'movement' * :rolleyes:

Atheism Plus got there before you on this occasion unfortunately -

Atheism Plus (also rendered Atheism+) was a movement proposed in 2012 by blogger Jen McCreight. Its original definition was rather nebulous, but in general it is intended to be a subset of the atheism movement that attempts to unite atheists who wish to use their shared atheist identity as a basis for addressing political and social issues and engaging in related activism. Its scope is intended to go beyond the question of (non-)belief to address additional issues, including critical thinking, skepticism, social justice, feminism, anti-racism, and combating homophobia and transphobia. In other words, a place for some of the more liberal (in the American meaning of the word) atheists who are sick of being lumped together with people whose ideals they don't share.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Can you provide examples of such political issues which go beyond secularism?

Two that spring to mind immediately -

http://atheist.ie/2015/03/atheist-ireland-yes-vote-marriage-equality/

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/09/black-atheists-say-concerns-overlooked-long

silverharp · 16-08-2015 10:15am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Atheism Plus got there before you on this occasion unfortunately -

Atheism+ was an example of SJW's infecting a movement and to put it brutally sh1tting the pool.

pH · 16-08-2015 10:46am

silverharp wrote: »

Atheism+ was an example of SJW's infecting a movement and to put it brutally sh1tting the pool.

And it failed horribly - and now Freethought blogs too is on its last legs. In general I guess people want their organisations to focus on the issues at hand and not be co opted to the pet causes of those in charge.

Take animal rights for instance - Michael Nugent (AI chairman) has blogged a number of times on his veganism - which comes from his ethical view on animals and their rights. This is an opinion which I guess if you asked him he'd say he arrived at using some from of critical thinking, in that he didn't just do it on a whim. So should AI campaign for animal rights and veganism? Whats the difference between this as a cause and "economic justice" that a recent poster has said that atheists should be campaigning for? What about the environment, racism, poverty and the corruption in world football?

As much as I supported gay marriage, you could argue that AI supporting it was a mistake, because it had little to do with AI's core objectives (except possibly gay marriage for atheists at a stretch)

KomradeBishop · 16-08-2015 10:47am

silverharp wrote: »

Atheism+ was an example of SJW's infecting a movement and to put it brutally sh1tting the pool.

I suppose people like thunderf00t, bringing the MRA/anti-feminist baggage under the 'atheist' label, wouldn't also be 'infecting' the movement; uh-huh...

I think the Atheist movement, trying to portray itself as focusing purely on secular issues, and apolitical on issues other than secularism, isn't really a sustainable position (especially when its members and people who identify as Atheist, carry much more detailed values, beyond just secularism); from one perspective, it might make sense to try and portray it that way, to maximize the movements popularity, but instead the core of the movement should be the unwavering application of critical thinking and skepticism, to all areas of thought/policy - not just issues involving secularism (it's a bad idea for a movement, to be defined by its opposition to another movement/group - i.e. religion - rather than to have its own defining identity).

Otherwise, the movement just opens itself up to potential co-optation by groups who are faux-'skeptics', who really have disdain for skepticism/critical-thinking, and are trying to push a specific political agenda (this is the new 'Atheist friendly' form of anti-intellectual conservatism these days) - which would undermine the core values that seem to underpin people within the Atheist movement, neutralizing the movements potential - it is precisely those faux-'skeptics' who should be drawing ire and deep criticism/rejection, from the Atheist movement, if critical-thinking/skepticism really are supposed to be defining aspects of Atheism.

It is definitely a mistake to carry such a weak definition of Atheism, in the aim of maximizing the movements potential member base. I think that the Humanist movement has already been partially co-opted to soft-pedal skepticism/critical-thinking on key political issues, and I think the Atheist movement is at risk of the same thing; the 'official' parts of the movement, really needs to grow some balls politically, on issues other than secularism, to avoid being co-opted and sacrificing its values of true skepticism.

It is that, unwavering application of skepticism/critical-thinking to all areas of politics, which should be the defining feature of the movement - not secularism.

KomradeBishop · 16-08-2015 10:50am

pH wrote: »

And it failed horribly - and now Freethought blogs too is on its last legs. In general I guess people want their organisations to focus on the issues at hand and not be co opted to the pet causes of those in charge.

Take animal rights for instance - Michael Nugent (AI chairman) has blogged a number of times on his veganism - which comes from his ethical view on animals and their rights. This is an opinion which I guess if you asked him he'd say he arrived at using some from of critical thinking, in that he didn't just do it on a whim. So should AI campaign for animal rights and veganism? Whats the difference between this as a cause and "economic justice" that a recent poster has said that atheists should be campaigning for? What about the environment, racism, poverty and the corruption in world football?

As much as I supported gay marriage, you could argue that AI supporting it was a mistake, because it had little to do with AI's core objectives (except possibly gay marriage for atheists at a stretch)

What about ruthless application of skepticism to every area of politics/society/economics?

As I've said, skepticism/critical-thinking should be the core defining aspect of the Atheist movement - which secularism is just one logical extension of that principle.

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Comments