Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Humes fork]

Anarcha-feminism [sic!]? Seriously?

 

[Hokulele]

Ok. So it was a bit like Hokulele and Tricky's little sparring matches? I missed that aspect of it I guess, but I was just a fresh-faced kid on the forum in those days.

Sorry if I misrepresented you. Carry on.

Nah, Scrut and Rebecca were always fairly tongue-in-cheek about it, while Tricky and I were deadly serious.

 

[Merton]

Anarcha-feminism [sic!]? Seriously?

What's wrong with that?

 

[WillyWonka]

If it does fall apart, it will be because of the tendency to turn on each other. However, I don't see any reason why it should. They're a self-contained little group, with their own language* and customs. They like to discuss with each other, and to shun people who disagree. There are plenty of like-minded people around, so I expect them to continue to tell each other how right they are for years and years.

This is my reading too. The hippy movement did not died suddenly in the 70's, but slowly disappeared. In the 80's, hippies were kind of seen as a joke. I suspect that the group will slowly dwindle with time, or will be absorbed by another radical feminist group.

 

[Stout]

*I noted with particular interest the discussion on the A+ forum about how we don't use racism to refer to racial prejudice any more - it now only applies to white people. Sadly the thread seems to have gone so I can't link.

Progressive dialogue has always been like that. PoC can't be racist because racism is only practiced by the dominant culture. The same goes for sexism, women can't be sexist seeing how they're oppressed.

I'm not seeing too much in the way of atheism going on over there. I suggest they simply rename themselves to something like Social Justice+ and viola, most of their detractors will suddenly disappear.

Gotta say though, some of their regular posters are some of the best trolls I've ever seen.

 

[Walter Ego]

Is A+ dead? Some observers are already writing the epitaphs.

Not so much dead but DOA, stillborn. It was announced by Jenifer McCreight in August (after which she took a powder) and never got off the ground. If anything "killed" it it was the A+ forum and the Dillahunty incident. How can you form a social movement based on excluding people?

 

[Humes fork]

PZ Myers write a post about freedom of speech which I don't find too objectionable, and look at this comment:

You’ll notice that very often the people using ‘free speech’ as an excuse are men, and those that oppose them are the women they abuse. Men, apparently, can do all kinds of crap to women and girls for years and when they get found out, it’s about how they should be able to continue to prey on women and girls without anybody saying anything.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

PZ Myers write a post about freedom of speech which I don't find too objectionable, and look at this comment:

Yeah, no. I've said it before, I will say it again. Free speech is meaningless if it only protects popular speech. Unpopular speech must be protected because it is unpopular. The popular speech is already safe from censorship, by definition.

The crowd that thinks "free speech is not freedom from responsibility" have twisted the meaning of "free speech"...so if you get punished for saying the wrong thing, you're just "taking responsibility" for using "free speech". In fact, why can't we just beat up anybody who disagrees with us? They're free to say whatever they want...and we're free to beat them up if they disagree with us! Freedom for everybody!

 

[Badger3k]

Yeah, no. I've said it before, I will say it again. Free speech is meaningless if it only protects popular speech. Unpopular speech must be protected because it is unpopular. The popular speech is already safe from censorship, by definition.

The crowd that thinks "free speech is not freedom from responsibility" have twisted the meaning of "free speech"...so if you get punished for saying the wrong thing, you're just "taking responsibility" for using "free speech". In fact, why can't we just beat up anybody who disagrees with us? They're free to say whatever they want...and we're free to beat them up if they disagree with us! Freedom for everybody!

PZs argument reminded me of the "gays are free to marry, since they can marry a woman (or man for lesbians)" argument. His definition of free speech reminds me of the Pope and other religious leaders - I wonder what he will say now to the muslims and blasphemy laws. After all, they are just forcing people to take responsibility for their speech, right? Or would he be a hypocrite?

 

[Walter Ego]

PZs argument reminded me of the "gays are free to marry, since they can marry a woman (or man for lesbians)" argument. His definition of free speech reminds me of the Pope and other religious leaders - I wonder what he will say now to the muslims and blasphemy laws. After all, they are just forcing people to take responsibility for their speech, right? Or would he be a hypocrite?

You are always free to agree with PZ.

 

[brodski]

PZs argument reminded me of the "gays are free to marry, since they can marry a woman (or man for lesbians)" argument. His definition of free speech reminds me of the Pope and other religious leaders - I wonder what he will say now to the muslims and blasphemy laws. After all, they are just forcing people to take responsibility for their speech, right? Or would he be a hypocrite?

there is a difference between facing social consequences for speech and facing legal consequences.

 

[Hokulele]

there is a difference between facing social consequences for speech and facing legal consequences.

True. The people with social privileges can define the social consequences, while the legal consequences are generally designed with the underprivileged in mind.


(Am I doing it right? )

 

[Axiom_Blade]

there is a difference between facing social consequences for speech and facing legal consequences.

Yes, there's a difference between morality and law. The intersection of the two is a tricky subject.

 

[westprog]

True. The people with social privileges can define the social consequences, while the legal consequences are generally designed with the underprivileged in mind.


(Am I doing it right? )

It should be noted that free speech implies the freedom to criticise other people's free speech. It also implies the right to advocate against free speech. This should be in the realm of the b****ing obvious, but amazingly often this is missed.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

How is what the Gawker journalist did any different from what Thunderf00t is accused of? The only difference is that PZ likes Natalie Reed, so he doesn't think that her personal info should be divulged. Therefore, only those he likes and agrees with deserve pseudonymity or anonymity. People he disagrees with should have their names, addresses, places of work revealed, so that they can be harassed and persecuted.

 

[Badger3k]

How is what the Gawker journalist did any different from what Thunderf00t is accused of? The only difference is that PZ likes Natalie Reed, so he doesn't think that her personal info should be divulged. Therefore, only those he likes and agrees with deserve pseudonymity or anonymity. People he disagrees with should have their names, addresses, places of work revealed, so that they can be harassed and persecuted.

The hypocritical stance is what is really bad - yelling at someone on the "other" side for dropping publicly available info is bad, yet filing false DMCA claims, then tweeting the personal info (not publicly available) when they file the counter-claim...that's ok. When someone who's initials are RW reveals the info of a youtube poster who disagreed with her (apparently, details are a bit sketchy to my memory), not a word was spoken. The law only applies when it's in my favor - that seems to be the way these people operate.

 

[westprog]

I finally got my ban. I was slightly surprised to get it on this occasion, but I expected it to arrive eventually. I suppose it will be made permanent in due course.

Naturally, I was banned for the serious breach of pointing out various breaches of forum rules. Naturally this involved making allegations to which I couldn't reply.

 

[squealpiggy]

I finally got my ban. I was slightly surprised to get it on this occasion, but I expected it to arrive eventually. I suppose it will be made permanent in due course.

Naturally, I was banned for the serious breach of pointing out various breaches of forum rules. Naturally this involved making allegations to which I couldn't reply.

That forum is mental isn't it?

 

[westprog]

That forum is mental isn't it?

I've never encountered people with such absolute certainty that they must be right. It means that they feel able to say things without taking the least effort to verify them. I was told that I only went to that thread to goad somebody because of a personal issue. A few seconds checking would have shown that I was posting in the thread before the person I supposedly followed there as part of my stalking vendetta agenda.

Do I expect an apology and a withdrawal? Yeah, that'll happen.

 

[Tamarillicent]

I finally got my ban. I was slightly surprised to get it on this occasion, but I expected it to arrive eventually. I suppose it will be made permanent in due course.

In reading about your ban, I noticed someone posted a link to this article Liberal Bullying. I thought it was a good article describing the sort of bullying going on in those forums. Has anyone banned the person who posted it yet?