Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[AdMan]

Atheism Plus

I agree, except the piece you're missing is that theyre using the word "atheist".

So, it would be like starting a forum called "Critical thinkers+" and then banning anybody who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. Sure, you can do it, but it aggravates people's sensibilities

Atheism itself implies *nothing* else in their agenda. Had they chosen a better name, I doubt this thread would exist.

Exactly. "A+" tried to co-opt atheism, which has nothing else in common with them other than a lack of belief in a deity. It's a fringe movement in "atheism" (assuming that is actually a movement), and the fact that their chosen label implies superiority is ludicrous, given their public image so far.

They are a joke.

 

[appalling]

I agree, except the piece you're missing is that theyre using the word "atheist".

So, it would be like starting a forum called "Critical thinkers+" and then banning anybody who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. Sure, you can do it, but it aggravates people's sensibilities

Atheism itself implies *nothing* else in their agenda. Had they chosen a better name, I doubt this thread would exist.

This isn't a bad argument.

I can see how it could be seen as too general branding and how that could be irritating.

 

[appalling]

Exactly. "A+" tried to co-opt atheism, which has nothing else in common with them other than a lack of belief in a deity. It's a fringe movement in "atheism" (assuming that is actually a movement), and the fact that their chosen label implies superiority is ludicrous, given their public image so far.

They are a joke.

Wait, you're saying "they" aren't part of "atheism"?

That's silly.

 

[AdMan]

Atheism Plus

Wait, you're saying "they" aren't part of "atheism"?

That's silly.

Nowhere did I say that. I said they attempted to co-opt (i.e., appropriate) the atheist label (assuming there is an "atheist movement"), and with the "plus" imply superiority.

ETA: And the implied superiority is stupid, given what's been displayed so far.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You definitely got sworn at.



I looked at your posts (which are still there somehow) and this simply isn't true.

If you believe it's true, I could see why you wouldn't understand why people were frustrated, but you were responding multiple times to the words "health or texture or taste issues" as if it was "normal food aversion". I think you were right about a bunch of things, but wrong about the thing you were called out on and warned about. But that's just an opinion, right?

In any case it just seems like a little forum fight. You're right that it wasn't appropriate to assume you meant Europe when you talked of traditional societies but I am not convinced that comments in this thread are more decorous or fairly argued.

I am not convinced that if someone ignored a moderator warning in this thread that there would not be any consequence.

If a mod came in right now and told you to stop posting Objectivist rantings, would you accept it or ask whatever gave them that idea?

 

[appalling]

Nowhere did I say that. I said they attempted to co-opt (i.e., appropriate) the atheist label (assuming there is an "atheist movement"), and with the "plus" imply superiority.

But atheism is just atheism. It has nothing else for them to have in common.

You can be a lot of things and be atheist. Nowhere is it claimed that a person can't be racist and atheist, for instance.

I fully agree their name can be easily interpreted in an irritating way, but they seem to be pretty forward with the idea that the other stuff is additional, if I can say it that way. I can see it on their page as easily as I was informed of the fact that Randi doesn't live here.

 

[appalling]

If a mod came in right now and told you to stop posting Objectivist rantings, would you accept it or ask whatever gave them that idea?

I certainly might ask them.

I wouldn't reply with a post multiply times larger than them explaining how they were mistaken. I would hopefully refrain from saying that everybody on the thread and the moderator were mistaken.

Edit for context,

I should say that I would argue that they were mistaken if I believed it, but later.

I just wouldn't do it directly in response to a moderator's warning that I didn't understand, in place of trying to understand it first.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I certainly might ask them.

I wouldn't reply with a post multiply times larger than them explaining how they were mistaken. I would hopefully refrain from saying that everybody on the thread and the moderator were mistaken.

Length policing .

 

[AdMan]

Atheism Plus

But atheism is just atheism. It has nothing else for them to have in common.

So why choose atheists, rather than "redheads plus", or "non-stamp-collectors plus," or "diverse people plus"?

Why try to appropriate the atheism label, when that is simply a group that lacks a specific belief?

And then why tack on the "plus" label, implying superiority over everyone who doesn't belong?

Do you really not see how this turns so many people off?

 

[appalling]

So why choose atheists, rather than "redheads plus", or "non-stamp-collectors plus," or "diverse people plus"?

Why try to appropriate the atheism label, when that is simply a group that lacks a specific belief?

Umm, because they seem to really like discussing atheism? More than redheads?

And then why tack on the "plus" label, implying superiority over everyone who doesn't belong?

If they didn't tack on the plus, they would really be co-opting, I suppose, but I can see your interpretation.

Do you really not see how this turns so many people off?

Hmm, maybe you missed the parts where I agreed with this.

I'd find it a lot worse if they didn't explicitly say that they are a subset of atheists that have some other common interests and that they don't speak for atheism as a whole.

It's harder for me to get mad at possible temporary brand confusion, even though I can see how it would be annoying. I don't see how it could be long-term confusion for anyone actually seeing that little site. In conclusion, I doubt there's any chance that people will only think atheists are only capable of being committed to social justice issues in the public mind anytime soon.

 

[Krikkiter]

If a mod came in right now and told you to stop posting Objectivist rantings, would you accept it or ask whatever gave them that idea?

I'd be asking for a vowel.

 

[Mr. Scott]

As a new JREFer, who are the best examples who have expressed significant disagreement with JREF who aren't banned?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67385

We argued with creationists, most prominently Dr. Kleinman, for over a year. He tried hard to get banned, but his opinions were never a problem for mods. It was great. I learned so much about evolution from the challeneges of creationists. Kleinman was profoundly uncivil. We suspect he committed suicide by mods, then dishonestly claimed he "wore out his welcome."

I'm reminded of Dillahunty, on The Atheist Experience, who begs callers who begs for theistic callers to disagree with him, and Hitchens, who said he didn't want theism to be eliminated because he enjoyed the battles.

I come from a culture of open, robust debate and diversity of opinions. That's why the group-think tunnel vision of A+ horrifies me, and I consider it an embarrassment for the atheist movement.

I had some hyperbole ready for the thread, but the endorphin hit I've been getting from it is wearing off.

But, I can't resist.

If A+ wants to fret about unwelcome coffee invitations, and A regular wants to fret about the nuclear war that is likely to break out in the Mideast over who's imaginary friend is real, then I'm fine with that division of labor, and I'll stick with A regular. Concern that religion is a threat to civilization has no color or gender.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Re: Atheism Plus

As a new JREFer, who are the best examples who have expressed significant disagreement with JREF who aren't banned?

Avalon is a great example. As a biblical literalist his/her views are rather at odds with the majority. I have never scene anyone banned over a position they take as long as they obey the rules while discussing it. We have long time anti semites and racists who are not banned.

 

[Amadanb]

Speaking for myself:

- While I don't consider myself to be sexist, I also am not a 'feminist' the way that term seems to be defined by those in the A+ movement.

- While I don't consider myself to be a 'conservative' I also don't agree with some of the more liberal ideas expressed over at A+.

- Indeed, pretty much the only thing I have in common with most of the A+ folks, is my atheism. I'm sure on a spectrum, we have some consistencies, but also many differences.

- As has been expressed by a number of self-appointed spokespeople for the A+ movement, this is an 'all or nothing' movement. You are either with A+ or you are against them.

- As such I find the A+ 'movement' to be divisive & counter-productive. 'Atheists' are a difficult enough bunch of people to try to corral and muster in any sense of the words. Behaving in a schismatic manner erodes the overall 'power' any group of like-minded people could have in a public sense (think here lobbying, gaining attention on important matters).

- I find a lot of the A+ rhetoric to be needlessly attacking and hurtful. Just because I am not entirely 100% convinced that a rape joke can NEVER be funny, and ALWAYS is 'sexist', doesn't not immediately make me a <insert your favorite comment here - douchebag seems to be popular> and an enemy. Engage me in conversation. Explain your point of view. I'm rational & capable of being shown the error of my ways.

- For me, being an atheist, AND a 'feminist' as defined by A+, AND a 'liberal' as defined by A+ does not represent how I view the world. That said, I'm interested in other points of view, and I don't think we have to buy a whole set of BIG ideas in a purely consistent fashion in order to get along. However it is been made clear that I am unwelcome to the movement, so I have taken my toys & left the sandbox. Its unfortunate, because I generally think a number of the 'leaders' over there have some interesting ideas, and indeed I still hope we can still be personal friends.

That's reasonable enough. All the people quick to assume I'm ... I don't know what... because I am sympathetic to the A+ movement seem to have missed that I keep saying I disagree with a lot of people there and don't like some of the culture or tone myself. And missing the fact that despite this, I've still managed not to get banned or even a timeout. (Honestly, I expect it will happen eventually. )

The thing is, though, the assumption here (by a lot of people) seems to be that everyone at A+ has to be a Portlandia Bookstore Feminist or else you get banned. Everyone has to be a socialist or you get banned. Everyone has to be comfortable in using gender-neutral neologisms or you get banned. But that's empirically not true.

In terms of specific threads and individuals, I might agree with you that there are some cases where certain people go off the deep end. But those people are generally not mods. There are some very fragile people who are quick to call victim-blaming and *plaining and gaslighting and so on, but in my experience, the mods don't ban you for it. They put stuff behind hidden text, they split threads, they tell you to please knock it off. Is it aggravating sometimes to feel like your knuckles are being rapped because some very sensitive person got their feelings hurt? Yes, it is. But I don't feel like I need to push back and try harder to crap on someone whose life is already hard because otherwise it is the death of free speech.

I can see how if you prefer a more boisterous environment where you get to sling arguments back and forth laced with snark and condescension and put-downs, A+ is not for you. A+ is definitely not the only board I'd want to hang out at. (Maybe I'll like JREF too. Kind of like A+, I agree with your core beliefs/purpose - I've been aware of the main organization for many years - but it's when you get to individual people that I tend to eventually get too weary of dealing with difficult personalities.)

I hardly think A+ is "coopting" atheism, though. There has been no attempt to claim they speak for Atheism, and the fuss over the semantic implications of the + ("How dare they, they think they're better than the rest of us!") are just silly.

 

[Amadanb]

If A+ wants to fret about unwelcome coffee invitations, and A regular wants to fret about the nuclear war that is likely to break out in the Mideast over who's imaginary friend is real, then I'm fine with that division of labor, and I'll stick with A regular. Concern that religion is a threat to civilization has no color or gender.

See, this is a logical fallacy I'd think someone proud of being a skeptic would know better than to think constitutes a rational argument: "I am concerned about X, therefore I am not concerned about (much more important) Y."

That's the same thinking that tries to prioritize all injustice or humanitarian work according to some arbitrary hierarchy of misery, so that if you are devoted to one cause, say, animal abuse, it means you don't care about homeless people, or if you contribute to helping a stranger on the Internet get out of a bad living situation in the U.S., you don't care about starving children in Africa, or if you think harassing women in elevators is bad, therefore you don't care about a nuclear war starting in the Middle East.

 

[tsig]

Because they actually are evil, bad, and stupid. They are malicious, hateful bullies. They are ignorant, privileged, prejudiced narcissists.

Could you please link to these posts/threads where you went against the A+ groupthink?

Unlike this post which is a model of deportment, right?

I'm just answering the question. The vitriol exists because they really are terrible human beings who like to hurt people. It gives them pleasure to hate others and to harm those they hate. They are evil, and so they receive the description they deserve.

So calling others names is OK when you do it because it's the truth but it's "evil, bad, and stupid, and ignorant, privileged, prejudiced when they do it.

It's hard to stay clean when you enter into a poo flinging match.

 

[Krikkiter]

That's reasonable enough. All the people quick to assume I'm ... I don't know what... because I am sympathetic to the A+ movement seem to have missed that I keep saying I disagree with a lot of people there and don't like some of the culture or tone myself. And missing the fact that despite this, I've still managed not to get banned or even a timeout. (Honestly, I expect it will happen eventually. )

You're not trying hard enough.

The thing is, though, the assumption here (by a lot of people) seems to be that everyone at A+ has to be a Portlandia Bookstore Feminist or else you get banned. Everyone has to be a socialist or you get banned. Everyone has to be comfortable in using gender-neutral neologisms or you get banned. But that's empirically not true.

No. There are way easier ways to get banned, as the links in this thread demonstrate. Maybe you should read the thread?

In terms of specific threads and individuals, I might agree with you that there are some cases where certain people go off the deep end. But those people are generally not mods.

I'm sure it happens but really, when is it ok for a mod to "go off the deep end", ever, on a skeptic forum?

There are some very fragile people who are quick to call victim-blaming and *plaining and gaslighting and so on, but in my experience, the mods don't ban you for it. They put stuff behind hidden text, they split threads, they tell you to please knock it off.

From what I've read they are rarely that polite.

Is it aggravating sometimes to feel like your knuckles are being rapped because some very sensitive person got their feelings hurt? Yes, it is. But I don't feel like I need to push back and try harder to crap on someone whose life is already hard because otherwise it is the death of free speech.

Well, obviously, but why is it that some people seem to get away with telling members to **** off or **** you or some such, when they seem to be presenting perfectly valid arguments or at least expressing a valid opinion while the mods look on with some kind of emotion that is probably only revealed in the secret forum?

I can see how if you prefer a more boisterous environment where you get to sling arguments back and forth laced with snark and condescension and put-downs, A+ is not for you. A+ is definitely not the only board I'd want to hang out at. (Maybe I'll like JREF too. Kind of like A+, I agree with your core beliefs/purpose - I've been aware of the main organization for many years - but it's when you get to individual people that I tend to eventually get too weary of dealing with difficult personalities.)

Please, don't compare A+ with the JREF forums. Are you saying that the JREF is "a more boisterous environment where you get to sling arguments back and forth laced with snark and condescension and put-downs"? Certainly seems like that.

I hardly think A+ is "coopting" atheism, though. There has been no attempt to claim they speak for Atheism, and the fuss over the semantic implications of the + ("How dare they, they think they're better than the rest of us!") are just silly.

Yeah but they really want to be able to don't they.

And by the way, what is your position? Sorry but it's a bit hard to work out from this post.

 

[Hillbert]

The thing is, though, the assumption here (by a lot of people) seems to be that everyone at A+ has to be a Portlandia Bookstore Feminist or else you get banned. Everyone has to be a socialist or you get banned. Everyone has to be comfortable in using gender-neutral neologisms or you get banned. But that's empirically not true.

No, and as a leftie myself I tend to agree with a lot of the underlying politics, but it is certainly possible to get banned (at least temporarily) for minor things. It's also possible to get banned for refusing to accept you are wrong.

But in addition to this it's the stuff that I've never seen happen before at other forums. For example the simpleflower/kassiane "hugs" thread, a large section of which was later sanitised and air brushed out. In addition there was the MaiforPeace melt down, the secret forum stuff, the limerick stuff or the "Seeking Stories about Sexism for Article" thread. The latter of which was just ludicrous and had shades of Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" but from the other side of the social justice fence.

It's not like that all the time, but it happens enough so that I would be uncomfortable to continue posting there.

I hardly think A+ is "coopting" atheism, though. There has been no attempt to claim they speak for Atheism, and the fuss over the semantic implications of the + ("How dare they, they think they're better than the rest of us!") are just silly.

True, I don't think A+ (the forum) is, that seems to be more on the side of PZ Myers with the the whole "dictionary atheist" thing.

Perrsonally I really don't like the whole '+' thing, it does have semantic implications of superiority. But it's no more stupid then "Brights".

On a side note I always assumed that if skepticism/atheism were to split, then it would be along the libertarian - moderate/left axis, rather than libertarian/moderate/left - far left. Never underestimate the ability of the left wing to undergo mitosis...

 

[appalling]

Please, don't compare A+ with the JREF forums. Are you saying that the JREF is "a more boisterous environment where you get to sling arguments back and forth laced with snark and condescension and put-downs"? Certainly seems like that.

Are you saying this thread was without snark and condescension and putdowns?

I had to read how A+ was a bunch of Eighth Grade girls. And that they were inherently stupid and also evil.

It's not a snark-free zone. Wait, are you being sarcastic? I'll feel silly if you were just being sarcastic.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

they usually said something stupid, then compounded it by being unwilling to listen.

Unwilling to listen, or kowtow to unreasonable moderator demands.

The limerick was completely harmless and unoffensive. yet some people attacked it because some other limericks are offensive, therefore any piece of writing that starts out with "There once was a person (of undetermined gender) from XXXXXX" is not allowed, or at least must be hidden and labeled with a Trigger Warning. That's unreasonable and ridiculous by normal standards.

There was even a person named in the limerick who stated that xe was not in the least offended, yet the person who wrote the limerick was attacked.