Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Nodin

orubiru wrote: »

I had to watch this in installments but it's a very interesting take on the whole situation.

I don't necessarily disagree with the goals of "Atheism+" but their methods and their attitude towards disagreement were appalling.

The idea is that the Slyme Pit people are supposed to be these evil villains but they don't really seem all that extreme.

If anything it's the people who are the self-styled "good guys" here that are behaving terribly.

(Though I bet the truth is that people on both sides have been behaving terribly)

From 1:24:40 to 1:26:33. That's actually really horrible stuff if true. You basically have people using false allegations to try and push themselves into positions of power.

Part of the problem with these situations is that you don't really get to hear both sides of the story before being ordered to pick a side.

I guess most of this stuff is confined to the internet, thankfully.

The + people seem to have faded a good deal. Or found their true calling in amateur dramatics, perhaps.

orubiru

Nodin wrote: »

The + people seem to have faded a good deal. Or found their true calling in amateur dramatics, perhaps.

Yeah, that was my understanding. I think the recent outrage over that Richard Dawkins tweet seems to have brought some of them back into it.

I reckon there's a definite need to get a few more prominent women, and other marginalized groups, out there in the Atheist movement but it should have been done without the fanfare and without the personal attacks.

Nodin

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, that was my understanding. I think the recent outrage over that Richard Dawkins tweet seems to have brought some of them back into it.

I reckon there's a definite need to get a few more prominent women, and other marginalized groups, out there in the Atheist movement but it should have been done without the fanfare and without the personal attacks.

Real issues, not Götterdämmerung over coffee in rooms, essentially.

JPNelsforearm

"Atheism+ is 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."


Because atheism needs to go beyond the scope of non belief into a social "justice" movement.... Painful stuff, poison, this "atheism as substitute for a belief system/moral code" is ridiculous.

silverharp

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, that was my understanding. I think the recent outrage over that Richard Dawkins tweet seems to have brought some of them back into it.

I reckon there's a definite need to get a few more prominent women, and other marginalized groups, out there in the Atheist movement but it should have been done without the fanfare and without the personal attacks.

Is there just a lack of interest? The only prominant female atheists that come to mind are ex Muslim whereas in the west the Christian churches can be ignored as they don't affect the daily lives of women ?

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

Is there just a lack of interest? The only prominant female atheists that come to mind are ex Muslim whereas in the west the Christian churches can be ignored as they don't affect the daily lives of women ?

Maybe there is a lack of interest but all of the Atheist conventions or Skeptic conventions have many female attendees.

It's a tough one because you can't force people to get up there and speak or to make youtube videos. So if they don't want to do it then that's fine. On the other side you can't expect people to accept poor speakers, and who are actually not very nice people, just because they are female.

I'm all for better, more equal, representation but I'm not in favour of seeing it implemented loudly, by force, or at the expense of others.

I was wondering if Free Though Blogs would have a problem with Jaclyn Glenn (very popular Youtube Atheist) outside of the whole plagiarism thing. Yes they do. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6048

So actually it seems like their push was for more prominent feminist Atheists rather than simply more prominent female Atheists.

The Black Oil

So, talk of no-platforming bollocks re Peter Tatchell, apparently. These people really need to take a day off from this nonsense.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchell-snubbed-students-free-speech-veteran-gay-rights-activist

Nodin

The Black Oil wrote: »

So, talk of no-platforming bollocks re Peter Tatchell, apparently. These people really need to take a day off from this nonsense.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchell-snubbed-students-free-speech-veteran-gay-rights-activist

He went out and took a fair few thumps for his cause. I doubt the other shower would put down their fair trade coffee for theirs.

The Black Oil

Away, you, with your coffee micro aggressions.

JPNelsforearm

Shocker... I believe disability toilets are not gender specific, problem solved. More special snowflake lunacy causing problems where there were none.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/17/transgender-rule-washington-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/

Seattle Parks and Recreation is facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules.

Last week, a man undressed in a women's locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.

Around 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 8, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room at Evans Pool and took of his shirt, according to Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."

As far as policy to protect everyone, Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami says they're still working on the issue. Right now, there's no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom. Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither.

Links234

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

More special snowflake lunacy causing problems where there were none.

The only ones causing problems are conservative activists

Conservative Trolls Have Been Suggesting Men Go into Women's Restrooms to Help Legislators Discriminate Against Trans People

It's one thing for conservative legislators to throw out specious arguments about the possibility of men abusing an anti-discrimination rule that protects transgender people in bathrooms.
It's another thing to try and goad male conservatives into using women's restrooms in order to prove a point. Over the last two months, Facebook users who support the anti-trans discrimination bills in the state legislature have been suggesting that men invade those spaces in order to drum up support for the legislation.

This has nothing to do with "special snowflake lunacy" and everything to do with religious conservatives on the right trying to push through discriminatory laws by any means necessary, to the point where they're now creating the problems themselves. As they lost the fight against marriage equality, those groups have started targetting transgender people instead, and trying to pass discrimatory bills such as recently in South Dakota. This is pure conservative spoofing right here.

JPNelsforearm

It is a special snowflake problem, just designate the disabled bathroom, the issue is gone, now you have another episode of the culture wars.

I believe every private individual/company/business has a right to do what they want as regards their restroom gender policies. If thats a large mixed area or stalls whatever, its your choice to enter that establishment, you cannot dictate to anyone about how they conduct their business.

The government should stay out of this, have male female and a third non specific bathroom in government funded areas, then there is no problem. Every state owned facility has three toilets anyway..


I disagree with the South Dakota thing, yeah its, a bit much

JPNelsforearm

lol, is this some s&m ploy?

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

lol, is this some s&m ploy?

What's an "s&m ploy"?

silverharp

its not a good day for the cookies

http://order-order.com/2016/02/18/anti-racism-campaigner-dubbed-racist-by-nus/

Hot on the heels of the no platforming of Peter Tatchell by right-on students, a group of NUS activists have decided to go one better and bar Hope Not Hate coordinator Nick Lowles from speaking at an event. Lowles, a left-wing anti-racism campaigner, is apparently too racist for the students, who have accused him of Islamophobia.

Links234

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

just designate the disabled bathroom, the issue is gone

You know, I think those accessible facilities have an existing purpose... and forcing all trans people to use 'em could possibly cause an issue for the folks they're already designated for!

Or you know, a bit of cop-on might solve the issue? The fact that there are trans people the world round using appropriate facilities without issue, and that there's legal protections for trans people all over Europe and in some US states, that should kinda clue you in to who's creating the problem in the first place. It's the conservatives!

And as if forcing trans people to use the facilities based on the gender at birth wouldn't cause a problem...

https://twitter.com/_michaelhughes1/status/575659231841378304/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I disagree with the South Dakota thing, yeah its, a bit much

Yet that is the same kind of bill that a conservative representative introduced in Washington State, that wants to restrict public bathroom use for trans people, and not just students. The person you're calling a "special snowflake" is likely a conservative activist trying to create a problem right before there's a hearing on this very bill. Hmm... Very suspicious. Two Days Before a State Senate Vote on an Anti-Trans Bathroom Bill, Pool Employees Say a Man Showed Up in a Women's Locker Room

This bull**** belongs in the "Fruitcakes" thread

I'm not sure it's as easy as Michael Hughes suggests.
Which bathroom should Danielle Muscato
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/17/today-im-saying-goodbye-to-my-old-self/

use?

I worked with a trans woman when she used to be Sean and he used the male facilities at the work place without any issues as far as I can recall. (I also have no idea of the correct way of identifying her in the past tense, so if I've committed a massive faux pas by writing 'he' there, please let me know. We never discussed it)

I do believe that she would now use female facilities following several stages of her physical transition.

The issue is nuanced, I don't think it's fair to portray it otherwise.

Links234

Funny, that's the second time I've seen that person being brought up here in relation to trans issues (first time around the poster who brought them up went on a mad rant about a character from MASH, so, make of that what you will), and I wasn't biting then either. Is this gonna be a talking point every time trans issues come up here now?

But you're right about one thing, it's certainly a nuanced issue.

It's not just trans people who are at risk from self-appointed bathroom police.

Woman Sues Restaurant That Ejected Her From Bathroom for Looking 'Like a Man'

Cortney Bogorad says an innocent trip to the bathroom ended with public humiliation and injuries from being physically thrown onto the street by a security guard.

Lesbian couple: Cineworld kicked us out of women’s toilets thinking we were men

Tracey Seaton and Keira Williams told the Standard that they were shouted at in front of a crowd during the “humiliating” incident which took place at a Cineworld in Ilford, east London. The couple had gone to see ‘Annie’, at the cinema, but now say they are now scared to use public toilets after they were kicked out at Cineworld for looking “less than feminine”.

I've heard more than my fair share of horror stories from lesbian friends who've been shouted at, had security called on them, and sometimes even physically assaulted for going to the bathroom. The pure black & white thinking on the part of the religious right is far from nuanced, that's for sure, folks don't fit neatly into two separate pink and blue boxes (though I wouldn't be surprised if the Iona lot come out with another hilariously bad video telling us that girls are made from sugar and spice and all things nice and boys are made from slime and snails and puppy dog tails because GOD).

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

Funny, that's the second time I've seen that person being brought up here in relation to trans issues (first time around the poster who brought them up went on a mad rant about a character from MASH, so, make of that what you will), and I wasn't biting then either. Is this gonna be a talking point every time trans issues come up here now?

It's not just trans people who are at risk from self-appointed bathroom police.... .

So I see you're still dodging the question relating to the actual issue, while going on some mad strawman rant about lesbians....

Links234

:rolleyes:

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

What's an "s&m ploy"?

Sadomasochism...s&m... a joke, turkeys voting for christmas is kind of worn out:pac:

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sadomasochism...s&m... a joke, turkeys voting for christmas is kind of worn out:pac:

Ahhh. "humour".

JPNelsforearm

Links234 wrote: »

You know, I think those accessible facilities have an existing purpose... and forcing all trans people to use 'em could possibly cause an issue for the folks they're already designated for!

Or you know, a bit of cop-on might solve the issue? The fact that there are trans people the world round using appropriate facilities without issue, and that there's legal protections for trans people all over Europe and in some US states, that should kinda clue you in to who's creating the problem in the first place. It's the conservatives!

So why the sudden push for legislation? I first heard about this in the Guardian, as the "next social issue", the dont ask dont tell approach suits everyone. You look like a woman use the womens, look like a man use the mens. If you are a man who "feels" like a woman on a particular day, just use the mens or the disabled, which is genderless anyway.

Personally I dont care if women use the mens toilets or male toilets become genderless, so long as we keep the urinals lol.

This is a low support issue, surveys back that up, support for "choose whatever bathroom you feel like" is consistently in the low twenties. This isnt an issue that enjoys popular support if it comes down to a legislative battle.

Links234

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

So why the sudden push for legislation?

It's anything but sudden. If we're talking the US alone, there have been legal protections in place for years in many states, Minnesota has laws that cover discrimination based on gender identity in employment, housing and public accomodations since 1993 (and the city of Minneapolis itself had such a law since 1975). Washington State, where this "special snowflake" of yours pulled his little stunt, has had laws covering discrimination on the basis of gender identity in effect since 2006. Trans people have been pushing for equality for years, the only thing that's happening suddenly is the push from far right organizations to strip away existing protections, and put discriminatory laws that restrict trans people into effect.

The only thing that has changed is that the far right religious groups lost when it came to marriage equality, so they've turned on transgender people instead. Last year the staunchly anti-LGBT group Family Research Council published a diatribe responding to "the transgender movement" which you can read more about here: And Then They Came for Transgender People. It's particularly chilling. And if you don't remember who the FRC are, they're a listed hate group who've backed Proposition 8 in California, funded lobbying for anti-LGBT laws in Uganda, and oh yeah, Josh Duggar (yeah, that guy!) was an executive director before it came to light he was duggaring children. So, pretty much an all-round unsavory bunch altogether, and now they've got their sights set on trans people. Lovely.

support for "choose whatever bathroom you feel like"

Eh, this is nonsense. It's a conservative christian talking point that's got no basis. If we look at the existing laws in Washington state, we can see that it does not cover people just choosing whatever bathroom they feel like. Just read the Washington State Human Rights Commission frequently asked questions regarding these laws:

Q: Can men now go into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms?
A: No. Only females can go into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms in a gender segregated situation. This includes transgender females who identify as female. The rules do not protect persons who go into a restroom or locker room under false pretenses. For example, if a man declares himself to be transgender for the sole purpose of entering a women’s restroom or locker room, then the rule would not protect him.
Q: How does a business know if someone is really transgender or is just pretending to be transgender in order to gain access to gender segregated facilities?
A: The rules do not prohibit asking legitimate questions about a person’s presence in a gender segregated facility. It is suggested that these questions be asked in a polite and nonconfrontational manner. In addition, it is extremely unlikely that someone who is pretending to be transgender, and who is ejected from a facility, will take the steps of filing a complaint or a lawsuit against that facility. If they do so, then the investigation conducted by an enforcement agency will uncover the fact that the person was not being honest about their status, and thus is not protected under the law against discrimination. Any individual who fraudulently claims to be transgender for the purpose of entering a gender segregated facility in order to engage in illegal activity may also be subject to criminal prosecution.
Q: What will about the potential for increased crime, such as child molestation, sexual assault, and voyeurism?
A: This rule does not protect behavior that is criminal or inappropriate. Anyone, regardless of their transgender status, who is behaving inappropriately in a restroom or locker room, can be required to leave. Law enforcement should be called whenever criminal behavior is observed or suspected. There are many states and cities that have enacted similar rules related to use of gender segregated facilities. There is no evidence that criminal activity has increased or personal safety has decreased in these jurisdictions. However, there is evidence that requiring transgender individuals to use restrooms or locker rooms contrary to the gender with which they identify does increase their own personal safety risks. They are much more likely to be victimized or assaulted when forced to use the facility that does not conform to their gender identity.

recedite

The Washington rules place an unfair burden on staff to act as gender police..

The rules do not prohibit asking legitimate questions about a person’s presence in a gender segregated facility. It is suggested that these questions be asked in a polite and nonconfrontational manner.

And they seem to acknowledge that such confrontations will result from the application of these rules. That's not good for the staff, and not good for the person whose gender is ambiguous.



The Dakota rules avoid confrontation by placing "gender neutral" facilities at their disposal. At the same time, if the person in question was using the facilities in a place where they were anonymous (eg a shopping centre as opposed to the school or workplace) then they would normally be able to use the facilities appropriate to the gender they "looked like" provided they did not deliberately draw attention to themslves.

The bill does not force transgender students to use facilities based on the sex they were assigned at birth but calls for school to make “reasonable accommodations”, such as setting aside unisex or staff bathrooms and locker rooms.

stunmer

Interesting chat on the Polite Conversations podcast with John Semley in regards to an article he wrote about the book - Open Letter, written by Charb of Charlie Hebdo (assissinated in shootings January 2015)

Podcast:
https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations/episode-4-john-semley-is-charlie-hebdo-racist

John Selmey's article :
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/review-charlie-hebdo-editor-charbs-open-letter-is-problematic/article28050654/

Charb's book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Open-Letter-Blasphemy-Islamophobia-Expression/dp/0316311332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456096371&sr=8-1

Eiynah as an ex Muslim feels John has made her position and other minorities within Muslim majority countries much more difficult with his attack on Charlie Hebdo calling them racists and bigots.

JPNelsforearm

LOL, buzzfeed.......................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52M2_c42eQY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFY0dqC0Ks

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

LOL, buzzfeed.......................

Enlightening as that insightful bit of brevity is, you might expand on it a bit.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

Enlightening as that insightful bit of brevity is, you might expand on it a bit.

Well, its a large media corporation putting out blatantly racist content... I know white people are just the worst, but still.:rolleyes:

White=Bad, racist, take advantage, male, white privilege etc etc etc

Black=Good, beautiful, intelligent, strong, innovative etc etc etc

This is PC stormfront stuff dressed up in the usual coded language

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well, its a large media corporation putting out blatantly racist content... I know white people are just the worst, but still.:rolleyes:

White=Bad, racist, take advantage, male, white privilege etc etc etc

Black=Good, beautiful, intelligent, strong, innovative etc etc etc

This is PC stormfront stuff dressed up in the usual coded language

So its you and your racist agenda in yet another thread on yet another forum. Grand.