Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[devnull]

I always thought of a sockpuppet as more of a vehicle to increase the number of posters agreeing with you?

 

[Diogenes]

Hello,

I'll say one thing for A+...guessing there are more people like me that are now more aware of Atheism that are currently isolated atheists.

In my opinion there are 3 major problems with A+...which are obvious to the most casual observer I expect and I'm not claiming these as original ideas.

1. They're trying to be a movement when they're really a support group. Their heavy-handed modding makes a lot more sense in a support group.

2. Since their major presence is via a forum thusfar they completely inequitably mod "agree" v. "disagree" posts. I would have had thought they would reject ad hominem arguments absolutely, they obviously do not.

3. Adopting social justice appears to bring a lot of baggage. Maybe my brief googling the topic is skewed as I didn't spend a lot of time perusing the topic but my observation is that the bulk of "social justice internetivism" is flat-out in crazyland. (Like people self-identifying as other than human expressing feeling like victims when "speciesist" point out that they're humans.)

Anyway, hello, again. I don't know how active I'll be but I'm glad to have found forums like this.

 

[Foolmewunz]

FWIW, they (A+) do seem to be contrite about the Cuduggan2k2 affair.

Contrite? Or full of ******? I think you're just seeing Phase III. The mods (and there seem to be about four hundred of them) are the problem* in both the threads recently examined, here. First they bully and pile-on, then they defend, then when they get handed their arses, they get contrite. But worry not, they've found another nice diversion to take everyone's mind of the fact the Piegasm is a complete idiot... Someone else who mis-spoke trying to (IMHO) make a lame joke, so they're re-setting for strafe mode. Each of them is flying a sortie over Hello10's post. They really are predictable.... I started to comment that this might happen and then noticed that it already had.

*ETA: In the rape thread, it's a mod who utters the most objectionable phrase, along with a one-week's suspension. What kind of a forum allows moderators to A. (as Westprog pointed out) moderate someone in a thread they're arguing in or B. hand out a suspension while flinging insults at the suspendee. Do they have no perspective, whatsoever? And in the Matt thread, it's just a complete and total cluster **** of mis-management.

 

[squealpiggy]

Contrite? Or full of ******? I think you're just seeing Phase III. The mods (and there seem to be about four hundred of them) are the problem* in both the threads recently examined, here. First they bully and pile-on, then they defend, then when they get handed their arses, they get contrite. But worry not, they've found another nice diversion to take everyone's mind of the fact the Piegasm is a complete idiot... Someone else who mis-spoke trying to (IMHO) make a lame joke, so they're re-setting for strafe mode. Each of them is flying a sortie over Hello10's post. They really are predictable.... I started to comment that this might happen and then noticed that it already had.

*ETA: In the rape thread, it's a mod who utters the most objectionable phrase, along with a one-week's suspension. What kind of a forum allows moderators to A. (as Westprog pointed out) moderate someone in a thread they're arguing in or B. hand out a suspension while flinging insults at the suspendee. Do they have no perspective, whatsoever? And in the Matt thread, it's just a complete and total cluster **** of mis-management.

Linky?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Hello,

I'll say one thing for A+...guessing there are more people like me that are now more aware of Atheism that are currently isolated atheists.

In my opinion there are 3 major problems with A+...which are obvious to the most casual observer I expect and I'm not claiming these as original ideas.

1. They're trying to be a movement when they're really a support group. Their heavy-handed modding makes a lot more sense in a support group.

2. Since their major presence is via a forum thusfar they completely inequitably mod "agree" v. "disagree" posts. I would have had thought they would reject ad hominem arguments absolutely, they obviously do not.

3. Adopting social justice appears to bring a lot of baggage. Maybe my brief googling the topic is skewed as I didn't spend a lot of time perusing the topic but my observation is that the bulk of "social justice internetivism" is flat-out in crazyland. (Like people self-identifying as other than human expressing feeling like victims when "speciesist" point out that they're humans.)

Anyway, hello, again. I don't know how active I'll be but I'm glad to have found forums like this.

Welcome to the JREF Forums, Diogenes. I like your analysis in Point 1. That had occurred to me, but I'm a snarky old cynic and I was thinking it sounded more like the outpatient clinic at the behavioral therapy wing of a Free Clinic.

If I ran the zoo, er,... A+ forums, I think I'd appoint a licensed therapist and require that anyone claiming serious "victimhood" have their claims vetted. Yeah, that sounds Draconian, but individual members play that card on so many occasions and the mods and admins use it as their excuse for Orwellian moderation and their creation of the "safe space", that I'd ask for a doctor's note. (To be honest, I've thought of that around here, a couple of times. That's a helluva debate advantage when you can trump someone with the "I was raped", "I was abused" or "I was murdered"(okay that's less common ) card.

 

[Krikkiter]

This thread has finally turned in to a blog. Bloody drama.

 

[Diogenes]

...
If I ran the zoo, er,... A+ forums, I think I'd appoint a licensed therapist and require that anyone claiming serious "victimhood" have their claims vetted...

Thanks!

I think this would be a great idea, would be better than what they're doing now. I suggested they add "safe space" hidden forums that only "approved" participants could see and post in. The only way, it seems, to be "safe" is to lock the gates.

I also liked integralmath's argument about their claim of "heavy trolling". By their public ban list they're somewhere around 1.6% troll...which works out to an average of almost 2 trolls/mod total.

 

[zooterkin]

I've never understood Meyers' popularity either. The guy is 55 years-old and is an associate professor, presumably tenured, at provincial university and as far as I can find out has never published a single scientific paper or anything else.

Could be because you're spelling his name wrong. It's Myers, not Meyers. His CV lists a number of papers.

 

[Diogenes]

...His CV lists a number of papers.

Most recent was 2002, his current position started in 2000, I'm guessing he got tenure in 2002/2003? He's credited on "Zietsch & Santtila's study is not evidence against the by-product theory of female orgasm" from this year which is a review, of sorts, apparently.

I like his science-related blog posts in general.

 

[Paulhoff]

This video says what I believe.............





Done by potholer54


Paul

 

[Humes fork]

This video says what I believe.............





Done by potholer54


Paul

I will not waste words on you infidel!

 

[westprog]

Contrite? Or full of ******? I think you're just seeing Phase III. The mods (and there seem to be about four hundred of them) are the problem* in both the threads recently examined, here. First they bully and pile-on, then they defend, then when they get handed their arses, they get contrite. But worry not, they've found another nice diversion to take everyone's mind of the fact the Piegasm is a complete idiot... Someone else who mis-spoke trying to (IMHO) make a lame joke, so they're re-setting for strafe mode. Each of them is flying a sortie over Hello10's post. They really are predictable.... I started to comment that this might happen and then noticed that it already had.

*ETA: In the rape thread, it's a mod who utters the most objectionable phrase, along with a one-week's suspension. What kind of a forum allows moderators to A. (as Westprog pointed out) moderate someone in a thread they're arguing in or B. hand out a suspension while flinging insults at the suspendee. Do they have no perspective, whatsoever? And in the Matt thread, it's just a complete and total cluster **** of mis-management.

They've now rewritten history to make the incident a matter of Piegasm making an innocent mistake, apologising at once, and being unfairly attacked for it. Actually, most of the criticism was over the procedures they follow, not against Piegasm personally at all. And of course, the whole thing was an example of a conspiracy to bring down the forum.

They moved discussion of the incident out of the original thread into a new one. Then they shut down the discussion thread. It's as if they're using the Ministry of Truth as an operations manual.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They've now rewritten history to make the incident a matter of Piegasm making an innocent mistake, apologising at once, and being unfairly attacked for it. Actually, most of the criticism was over the procedures they follow, not against Piegasm personally at all. And of course, the whole thing was an example of a conspiracy to bring down the forum.

They moved discussion of the incident out of the original thread into a new one. Then they shut down the discussion thread. It's as if they're using the Ministry of Truth as an operations manual.

Figured that would happen

 

[Acleron]

Thanks!

I think this would be a great idea, would be better than what they're doing now. I suggested they add "safe space" hidden forums that only "approved" participants could see and post in. The only way, it seems, to be "safe" is to lock the gates.

I also liked integralmath's argument about their claim of "heavy trolling". By their public ban list they're somewhere around 1.6% troll...which works out to an average of almost 2 trolls/mod total.

By what characteristic do they identify trolls? Disagreement?

 

[westprog]

By what characteristic do they identify trolls? Disagreement?

Pretty much. I dare say there are people looking to disrupt, but there are plenty of other people just interested in the topics.

The modus operandi seems to be to run a discussion for a while, shut it down, and if anyone refers to the subject again, tell them to look at the original discussion and not to raise points already dealt with. This is enough to kill off any discussion they want to choke.

 

[Sledge]

What kind of a forum allows moderators to A. (as Westprog pointed out) moderate someone in a thread they're arguing in or B. hand out a suspension while flinging insults at the suspendee.

In my experience of forums? Most of them.

 

[Stout]

I think this would be a great idea, would be better than what they're doing now. I suggested they add "safe space" hidden forums that only "approved" participants could see and post in. The only way, it seems, to be "safe" is to lock the gates.

You could always register an account claiming to be an indigenous, one legged, transgendered, polyamorous single mother whose raising a racialized immigrant child that your "rescued" from Africa. You might mention that you're a survivor of the mental health industry and your experiences with that industry have left you addicted to crack, a habit that you can only support by working as a prostitute against your will and since you weigh 450 lbs, your customers are not only few and far between but are more likely to be found posting in the comments section of YouTube than not.

See if they invite you into the inner sanctum.

Seriously though, I doubt they have one. I'd guess that their desire is to attract trolls ( aka normal people ) just to shoot them down before banning them so they can have a good ole' meta about how much work they have to do.

 

[Diogenes]

By what characteristic do they identify trolls? Disagreement?

It looks like, and I could be wrong, the basic tactic is to bait someone that disagrees by going ad hom-ish then the mod will take action...if it wasn't the mod doing the baiting. This way the resulting ban isn't explicitly for disagreeing.

 

[Diogenes]

You could always register an account claiming to be a...

Seriously though, I doubt they have one. I'd guess that their desire is to attract trolls ( aka normal people ) just to shoot them down before banning them so they can have a good ole' meta about how much work they have to do.

I was thinking left-handed lesbian Eskimo midget albino* then one word of it would be true. I also considered waving the banner of "First World Privilege" or "Sentient Privilege".

I think you're right, though, they're less interested in truly "safe spaces".




*from a Dead Milkmen song in case that's a lost reference these days

 

[Stout]

I think you're right, though, they're less interested in truly "safe spaces".

Yes, they could easily turn the main forum into one. Just run a couple of threads in the educational forum and if a new poster passes muster, then they can go to the ball.

You know, I never knew the whole atheist community thing existed. I'm not a blogger and don't read any. Sure, the occasional link but the only time I've run across PZ is when he's referenced in these forums.

As of the start of this thread I've clicked on a billion ( approximate estimate ) links/blogs and come to the conclusion that the greater atheist community is better off without extremist politics hijacking the agenda.

Example ? That whole Amy Surly thing. I read her intro on Skeptchick where she's described as "kicks ass on a daily basis" and end up wondering just who's ass she's kicking and whether some of those asses she's kicking just might be kicking back.

It fits with the A+ format, level criticism, then ban those being criticised when they try to defend themselves. I've also noted a trend among political extremists to assume that their "opponents" are every bit as politically extreme as they are. A man questioning just where his male privilege is because he's working a crappy job and paying child support for a child he didn't want becomes either a MRA activist or an anti-feminist, not just some guy who's ended up with the short end of the stick, so to speak.