Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism atheism plus
- Status
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,395
Think a particular ban by a mod decision was too subjective or plain wrong? Debate the issue here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=99
Last edited:
Atheism Plus
I strongly disagree with A+ and see that it is a group of evil people. I certainly don't hate them; hating people is counterproductive.
I strongly disagree with A+ and see that it is a group of evil people. I certainly don't hate them; hating people is counterproductive.
No problem. So, just to be clear, when I say that I have disagreed with people there and not been banned, you think I'm lying?
I've done my best to answer your questions in detail (and like I said, I couldn't post links right now if I wanted to - but no, I'm not going to rush to 15 posts so I can get some for you) and all you are doing is repeating "A+ bad!" without any elaboration at all.
appalling
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 320
Maybe you're missing my point, I'm not saying they were right, just that they believed they were right.
Atheism Plus
No, I think you are probably overstating the level of allowed disagreement in order to make the place seem like more of a forum and less of the groupthink cult that it is.
No, I think you are probably overstating the level of allowed disagreement in order to make the place seem like more of a forum and less of the groupthink cult that it is.
appalling
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 320
Again, I agree with this.
I can see that there is an equivalent forum for members to discuss moderation on A+. It looks pretty active.
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,395
No I know the point you're making but its irrelevant.
If the mods were correct in their action, in any reasonable interpretation, eg abusive message, sockpuppet etc then they are doing their job. What the person banned thinks is irrelevant. Believing an abusive message or deliberate sock puppetry after a previous ban is Ok is irrelevant. People are not banned for disagreements or rational point making by most reasonable interpretations of that. As said, it's actually quite hard to get banned from here.
People get suspended but they generally don't argue the reasonableness of their suspension but they can.
Last edited:
What makes it a groupthink cult besides "AvalonXQ says so"?
ETA: And if my intent is to "hide" that fact, does that mean I am a groupthinking cultist?
Last edited:
Atheism Plus
The point is that there are two groups.
One believes they are right while still saying all sorts of things contrary to JREF. They are not banned.
Another group believes they are right while sending abusive PMs and doing other things that have nothing to do with personal or substantive disagreement but are actually malicious. They are banned.
The difference is that at A+ people in the first group are also banned. The existence of banned people on both forums does not equate the two.
The point is that there are two groups.
One believes they are right while still saying all sorts of things contrary to JREF. They are not banned.
Another group believes they are right while sending abusive PMs and doing other things that have nothing to do with personal or substantive disagreement but are actually malicious. They are banned.
The difference is that at A+ people in the first group are also banned. The existence of banned people on both forums does not equate the two.
Atheism Plus
Insistence of conformity of opinion, suppression of dissenting views.
No, just someone who thinks the best of his/her friends.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
I can only assume that you aren't familiar with AvalonXQ (which is understandable). While he is a well-known and generally respected member of the community, there are certainly some key areas where his viewpoints are very, very different from the majority of the forum.
And, to me, this quickly gets to one of our issues with A+. While a great many of us disagree with Avalon on some key points, we feel that the forum is stronger for having him here because we value the diversty of viewpoints and attitudes. A+, which theoretically prides itself on diversity, seems to eschew any diversity of thought.
ETA: okay, I was a little late with that
I just gave you some examples of my non-conforming opinions. So am I lying, or would you like to clarify?
What "dissenting views" do you think are not allowed there? Be specific. I can think of a few - someone who is openly racist or anti-feminist would probably be banned quickly. So in that respect, it's less permissive than here, maybe, but like I said, they have set the forum up as a place where people don't have to deal with bigots and trolls. That's not censorship, and even if you think every place on the Internet should allow every opinion to be expressed freely (I don't agree), it still wouldn't make them a "groupthink cult."
I wouldn't call any of them my friends - I haven't been a member there long and never have private conversations with any of them nor know any of them offline. So, no.
Atheism Plus
A very good point - a person like me could never join an organization like A+.
Also that was very kind; thank you.
A very good point - a person like me could never join an organization like A+.
Also that was very kind; thank you.
Atheism Plus
And in the absence of links, I choose not to accept your examples at face value.
Can we confirm, though, that these examples represent your best examples of what level of dissent is allowed among A+ members?
And in the absence of links, I choose not to accept your examples at face value.
Can we confirm, though, that these examples represent your best examples of what level of dissent is allowed among A+ members?
Okay, so I'm lying.
Nowhere really to go from there. Maybe someone else will actually articulate their grievances with A+.
appalling
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 320
Great, everything's good then.
I believe the mods are doing a good job deciding what is a rational point, and I agree that there are forums for whoever's left to discuss and debate it.
How is the bolded part decided? Because my reading is that there is someone (who I most likely agree with in the broadest way) still deciding if something is civil and polite.
I'm just trying to see if people are arguing form (a "moderators have some powers to shape the civility of a conversation" form) or if it's just bickering about the standard of what's civil (a "not-pro-feminism criticism should be allowed on your forum" standard of civility).
If it's the form, then I think it's more in common with JREF than presented here. If it's the standard, I think people have plenty of place to argue their points.
Atheism Plus
You seem pretty insistent to create a false dichotomy here.
There are many reasons that your claim may be inaccurate other than intentional deceit on your part. A refusal to accept a claim as insufficiently supported isn't the same as rejecting a claim as not possibly true, nor is it the same as calling the claimant a liar.
I think your time at A+ may have harmed your reasoning skills. Hang out here a while and you may find you learn something.
I'll ask again - are you claiming your description above provides your best example of the extent of divergence of opinion that is permitted on A+?
You seem pretty insistent to create a false dichotomy here.
There are many reasons that your claim may be inaccurate other than intentional deceit on your part. A refusal to accept a claim as insufficiently supported isn't the same as rejecting a claim as not possibly true, nor is it the same as calling the claimant a liar.
I think your time at A+ may have harmed your reasoning skills. Hang out here a while and you may find you learn something.
I'll ask again - are you claiming your description above provides your best example of the extent of divergence of opinion that is permitted on A+?
Walter Ego
Illuminator
You are confusing the JREF (the James Randi Educational Foundation) with the JREF discussion forum which is a service hosted by the JREF. People get suspended or banned, after fair warnings, for repeatedly violating the forum rules which are part of the membership agreement, not for expressing opinions.
Suspensions or bans and the reasons for them are announced here.
I've already done it comrade, you just chose to ignore it.
There are no racists, there are no anti-feminists on A+, there never has been. Only ordinary people who mistakenly sign up thinking that A+ might be something good for them only to find themselves labelled, dogpiled and banned when they try to defend themselves from ridiculous attacks
Check the last page of their "Are The Moderators...." thread. Another flame out of a long term member complete with a parting shot at chairman ceepolk.
- Status