Savant
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 137
Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism atheism plus
- Status
Your unstated idea might very well be on the mark.
Here's one possibility. I'm reminded of a typical scene in high school movies: a dramatic turning point in which the jock/popular girl/rich kid/bully and the nerd/plain-looking girl/gay kid/poor kid, having been forced into highly unusual circumstances, have a bit of conversation, and the former looks puzzled and says to the latter something that amounts to, "What, you mean you actually don't like it when I abuse or humiliate you every day? You don't just accept it as the natural order of things?"
But in reality, one such conversation doesn't amount to much. Strange as it may seem, we all need to have that conversation over and over, and we all need to be on both sides of it at various times. It's difficult to be good spouses or relationship partners, citizens, workers or bosses, or even forum correspondents without it. We're all defendants and plaintiffs, offenders and victims, privileged and oppressed. As a result, nothing can be accomplished by simple role reversal. That just creates a mirror image of the exact same wrongs and pains you're fighting against. Instead, there must be accommodation and forgiveness. Those things are not barriers to change, they're essential for change.
The leadership of A+ might figure that out, with experience. They've waited so long to be one one particular side of that conversation, to point out what they do not and should not have to accept as the natural order of things, that they're only now experiencing how easy it is to slip into the role of the bullying privileged offender -- and then be called into account in your turn. If that community can learn from that experience, it could transform into something positive, valuable, and necessary in the long run.
Respectfully,
Myriad
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
Whoops. That will teach me not make a post before I get to the end of the thread. It was a parody reply from p. 70 and I'll save it for later as the conversation has again turned serious. Sorry Myriad, didn't mean to interrupt the flow here.
And thanks for as always being the voice of calm reason itt. If only those running A+ could understand how adroitly you've summarized in your posts here how wrong a direction they have pursued. It's getting down to the 'more marginalized than thou' game and having driven off all the 'outsiders' they are going at each other. Quite a train wreck to observe.
And thanks for as always being the voice of calm reason itt. If only those running A+ could understand how adroitly you've summarized in your posts here how wrong a direction they have pursued. It's getting down to the 'more marginalized than thou' game and having driven off all the 'outsiders' they are going at each other. Quite a train wreck to observe.
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Yes.
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
Well stated. I think it was inevitable that after they'd driven off or banned any who didn't harmonize with the right tones within the choir, they would be out of soft targets and begin marginalizing the experiential authority of those on the edge of the inner circle. If you go back just a few pages in the mods thread there was wind and julian, and before that another drama that resulted in the resignation of an admin. But as you say, they know the newspeak and thus given deference beyond the horizon of those who don't.
Below is a link to a thread I started there yesterday. I was suspended for a month last night by ceepolk, ostensibly for telling her I wouldn't be responding further to her abusive comments. Do check it out. I remained civil and didn't respond in kind to her insults. No warnings, just proclaiming me a troll and bye. I've seen her do this many times before, and it is quite obvious shes enjoying herself. Apparently any mod can ban a member there without any kind of review process. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735
I would really like to read appalling's defense of ceepolk's comments and actions in that thread. And while you're there do check out my other posts. I joined last October, and I have to tell you things are going from bad to worse there rapidly. I know I won't be posting there again, but watching the melodrama unfold is intriguing. We're up to lives being at stake over deception now, with meltdowns a daily occurrence.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
If the JREF were ever like that I'd leave permanently. If any of you mods out there are reading this, THANK YOU!Well stated. I think it was inevitable that after they'd driven off or banned any who didn't harmonize with the right tones within the choir, they would be out of soft targets and begin marginalizing the experiential authority of those on the edge of the inner circle. If you go back just a few pages in the mods thread there was wind and julian, and before that another drama that resulted in the resignation of an admin. But as you say, they know the newspeak and thus given deference beyond the horizon of those who don't.
Below is a link to a thread I started there yesterday. I was suspended for a month last night by ceepolk, ostensibly for telling her I wouldn't be responding further to her abusive comments. Do check it out. I remained civil and didn't respond in kind to her insults. No warnings, just proclaiming me a troll and bye. I've seen her do this many times before, and it is quite obvious shes enjoying herself. Apparently any mod can ban a member there without any kind of review process. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735
I would really like to read appalling's defense of ceepolk's comments and actions in that thread. And while you're there do check out my other posts. I joined last October, and I have to tell you things are going from bad to worse there rapidly. I know I won't be posting there again, but watching the melodrama unfold is intriguing. We're up to lives being at stake over deception now, with meltdowns a daily occurrence.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Thanks for being honest and stating what most of the others on this thread seem to think but are afraid to admit it.
Reading that made me heartsick. I'm glad this forum isn't that way.
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,395
Some advice.
I wouldn't apply for the Randi Million Prize, your mind reading powers aren't very good.
-
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 3,395
I'm not sure what I'm thinking is what you're thinking here. My thought is partly technical and it isn't positive. It's the way it could go if it continues on the current path. But if what either of us thinks , actually looks like happening we can say what we meant. I'm boasting no great powers of precognition here.
appalling
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 320
Well stated. I think it was inevitable that after they'd driven off or banned any who didn't harmonize with the right tones within the choir, they would be out of soft targets and begin marginalizing the experiential authority of those on the edge of the inner circle. If you go back just a few pages in the mods thread there was wind and julian, and before that another drama that resulted in the resignation of an admin. But as you say, they know the newspeak and thus given deference beyond the horizon of those who don't.
Below is a link to a thread I started there yesterday. I was suspended for a month last night by ceepolk, ostensibly for telling her I wouldn't be responding further to her abusive comments. Do check it out. I remained civil and didn't respond in kind to her insults. No warnings, just proclaiming me a troll and bye. I've seen her do this many times before, and it is quite obvious shes enjoying herself. Apparently any mod can ban a member there without any kind of review process. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735
I would really like to read appalling's defense of ceepolk's comments and actions in that thread. And while you're there do check out my other posts. I joined last October, and I have to tell you things are going from bad to worse there rapidly. I know I won't be posting there again, but watching the melodrama unfold is intriguing. We're up to lives being at stake over deception now, with meltdowns a daily occurrence.
From the link it looks like you suggested that they consider changing the rule where someone has to publicly ask the first time they want to PM someone.
You were thanked for your suggestion and it was discussed. You got them to run around doing research for you, which they seem to have done. This seemed generous to me.
It came up that the rule was there to protect people from getting anxiety spikes form unsolicited and unexpected PM's. Specific people in that thread said it would make them uncomfortable. So it's also not completely abstract at that point.
Faced explicitly with the idea that actual people would be made uncomfortable and that some might have an even harder time of it, you asserted your original suggestion with the rationale that it would be just as easy because you couldn't see a reason why it wouldn't be.
This seems to be where you were challenged. Someone brought up an objection (that unsolicited PM's cause anxiety attacks and discomfort) and you hand-waved the objection. You continued hand-waving it till you flounced. You never offered a rationale that wasn't based on either the premise that the problem couldn't exist or that it was, surely, easily avoidable.
You didn't get up people's nose for "ostensibly for telling her I wouldn't be responding further to her abusive comments". You got on the wrong side of it by carefully, and with great consideration of your language and in measured cadence, explaining that you saw no problem with a single person being inconvenienced as long as there was a majority rule. This comes across as cynical when the inconveniences being discussed were more serious panic attacks.
But people continued responding, and your suggestion was still being discussed even after you flounced. Your last post is not as civil and careful and considered as your others. You tell them their rule is lame, and you announce your leaving with a snark at people who ask for any concern for their anxiety.
You were temporarily suspended as you were burning out your exit and you seem to be characterizing it as having a lot to do with more permanent bans, arbitrarily applied. It seems around here, that characterization would mostly be accepted without challenge. You weren't "temporarily suspended" until you snarked at a mod whilst leaving.
I side this 100%
I signed up on a forum like A+, know knowing what it was like but because it was the only game in town when it came to a substantive discussion on a somewhat local topic.
It was an eye opener to say the least.
*Hoists one to the mods and admins*
Yes, this is true. Some people do rather transparently play the "you are triggering me!" gambit.
There are some members who are very demanding and very much want the board to be a safe place for themselves. If anything kills the board, it will be that. But I have very few complaints about the mods.
Reading the past few pages, though, it seems the biggest objection to A+ is still the damn elevator thing? Jeez.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Re: Atheism Plus
No read the whole thread. People gave up on them when a rape victim got banned from the a+ forum for taking any joy in life.
No read the whole thread. People gave up on them when a rape victim got banned from the a+ forum for taking any joy in life.
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Well stated. I think it was inevitable that after they'd driven off or banned any who didn't harmonize with the right tones within the choir, they would be out of soft targets and begin marginalizing the experiential authority of those on the edge of the inner circle. If you go back just a few pages in the mods thread there was wind and julian, and before that another drama that resulted in the resignation of an admin. But as you say, they know the newspeak and thus given deference beyond the horizon of those who don't.
Below is a link to a thread I started there yesterday. I was suspended for a month last night by ceepolk, ostensibly for telling her I wouldn't be responding further to her abusive comments. Do check it out. I remained civil and didn't respond in kind to her insults. No warnings, just proclaiming me a troll and bye. I've seen her do this many times before, and it is quite obvious shes enjoying herself. Apparently any mod can ban a member there without any kind of review process. http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735
I would really like to read appalling's defense of ceepolk's comments and actions in that thread. And while you're there do check out my other posts. I joined last October, and I have to tell you things are going from bad to worse there rapidly. I know I won't be posting there again, but watching the melodrama unfold is intriguing. We're up to lives being at stake over deception now, with meltdowns a daily occurrence.
Seems to me that hypersensitivity is the order of the day. Seriously, people have panic attacks when they realise they have a message in their inbox? That's pathetic.
Also seems like the general idea is that every single need of every single person has to be met otherwise it's discrimination. That'll work well.
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
First I would like to thank appalling for being willing to partake in a discussion here that could never take place a A+. It's a debate I've wanted to have for a long time with one of the cognoscenti there, and I look forward to seeing some things I missed evaluating the site gestalt.
Which of course is a rule you will not find on any other site that has a PM system. As they all offer a block option it's a non-problem everywhere else.
If asking for a link-you'll find this is standard procedure at JREF and most skeptic forums to support your claims-and then asking what terms Stephen had used in his google search constitutes asking them to do my research for me, than yes. Actually his response-site:atheist+-is easily the most useful info I ever attained there.
Clicking on block PM's is difficult? So what I'd like you to mansplain for me here is how getting a request in a PM which you can block altogether if you're super sensitive and never even know was there is somehow more threatening than a request made on a public forum? That is what nobody there could respond to without giggling.
There was one person-Sun Countess-who made that claim on a site with 2400+ members. And she herself admitted it was a moot point as she had wisely clicked the block option for PM's. And even if there were a couple others we didn't hear from, I really want to read your argument that literally thousands should be denied the ability to PM others because a couple folks are really paranoid about receiving PM's but for some unfathomable reason don't want to simply block them like SC? And again, the point none dared touch, is just why requesting permission to PM them in private would be a bigger trigger than having the request made in public.
And have you pondered the logistics at all? I make the request on a thread and then what? Do they then have to let me know it's ok on the thread? Do they need to have my permission to PM a reply? And if I don't get one, how can I be sure the person saw it? None read everything, even in the pup-tents lol. Can I post the request in a thread again to be sure or start a new thread and risk cries of harassment you can bet would be made? Schrodinger's PM Stalker?
Did you read what that mod-ceepolk-said to me before I made that last reply, and after she suspended me for a month? I couldn't even quote it here because of language/civility rules! Yet I'm not allowed to break off responding to her abuse while protecting someone from getting a single PM is somehow a high priority? Sure looks to me like the sensitivities of a few are highly protected while others are suspended as trolls for daring to even question the logic of such a policy.
But I'll let others decide for themselves. Here is a link to the second page of that thread that covers my final exchanges with ceepolk if you scroll down: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735&start=25
In closing (phew) I invite you to also look at my previous posts on A+ and make the case I was a troll there as claimed by ceepolk, and that my snarky response to her abuse warranted a one month suspension. I would also point out that I never said I was leaving the site; just that discussion as it was clearly degenerating thanks her.
Which of course is a rule you will not find on any other site that has a PM system. As they all offer a block option it's a non-problem everywhere else.
If asking for a link-you'll find this is standard procedure at JREF and most skeptic forums to support your claims-and then asking what terms Stephen had used in his google search constitutes asking them to do my research for me, than yes. Actually his response-site:atheist+-is easily the most useful info I ever attained there.
Clicking on block PM's is difficult? So what I'd like you to mansplain for me here is how getting a request in a PM which you can block altogether if you're super sensitive and never even know was there is somehow more threatening than a request made on a public forum? That is what nobody there could respond to without giggling.
There was one person-Sun Countess-who made that claim on a site with 2400+ members. And she herself admitted it was a moot point as she had wisely clicked the block option for PM's. And even if there were a couple others we didn't hear from, I really want to read your argument that literally thousands should be denied the ability to PM others because a couple folks are really paranoid about receiving PM's but for some unfathomable reason don't want to simply block them like SC? And again, the point none dared touch, is just why requesting permission to PM them in private would be a bigger trigger than having the request made in public.
And have you pondered the logistics at all? I make the request on a thread and then what? Do they then have to let me know it's ok on the thread? Do they need to have my permission to PM a reply? And if I don't get one, how can I be sure the person saw it? None read everything, even in the pup-tents lol. Can I post the request in a thread again to be sure or start a new thread and risk cries of harassment you can bet would be made? Schrodinger's PM Stalker?
Did you read what that mod-ceepolk-said to me before I made that last reply, and after she suspended me for a month? I couldn't even quote it here because of language/civility rules! Yet I'm not allowed to break off responding to her abuse while protecting someone from getting a single PM is somehow a high priority? Sure looks to me like the sensitivities of a few are highly protected while others are suspended as trolls for daring to even question the logic of such a policy.
But I'll let others decide for themselves. Here is a link to the second page of that thread that covers my final exchanges with ceepolk if you scroll down: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3735&start=25
In closing (phew) I invite you to also look at my previous posts on A+ and make the case I was a troll there as claimed by ceepolk, and that my snarky response to her abuse warranted a one month suspension. I would also point out that I never said I was leaving the site; just that discussion as it was clearly degenerating thanks her.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
At www.mylittlepony.com we don't have in-boxes. Just pastel colors, rainbows and ponies. There's lots to see and do and no white male privilege.
Savant
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 137
I think, friend Krikkiter, that you are doing a disservice to the hypersensitive - even they realize that some things are taking it too far.
It seems to me to be about power. All you have to do to get others to accede to your wishes is to claim that their behavior "triggers" you and, soon, others will leap to your defense. If the poor "offender" dares defend his/her self, or even if they simply aren't contrite enough, claim "privilege" makes their views irrelevant. This authority is likely a far cry from the average Plusser's daily life of choking back the rage at how unfair life is.
This power dynamic is my main problem with the A+ forum. It isn't a forum, it's a clubhouse. No effective change can ever come out of that place, because no dialog of a meaningful nature can take place. Oh, perhaps among themselves they talk about making things better, but how is it going to happen without welcoming others and convincing them that change is, not only necessary, but good?
Social justice won't be achieved with a minefield of unintuitive rules (pronouns anybody? you can call yourself xie, xer or xipidee-doo-dah, but getting upset with people who don't get it derails your point, IMHO), finger-pointing and cursing at people who aren't immediately on board with your agenda.
And please, take some responsibility for yourself. I have a severe anxiety disorder (generalized/social), and I know how brain issues can make life challenging. It is, however, my brain that has created the situation, not your likely harmless-seeming actions. Most people are happy to accommodate reasonable requests - I can't remember ever being refused - but there are limits. If you own, say, a restaurant, it is perfectly reasonable for wheelchair-bound individuals to ask you to install a ramp; it is not reasonable for them to insist everyone eating there must use a wheelchair when dining there.
TL;DR: I am not saying they are bad people, but I do believe it is a bad place.
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
Jesus I feel dumb. Getting to know myself better? I actually clicked on that link without looking at it. Thought you were actually talking about some new site.
BTW I couldn't use that smiley at A+ as TPTB have ordained some of the epileptic are triggered by the color red. Swear to Bokonon, I only wish I could make this kind of stuff up! Been locked out of the great comedy A+ has on offer hoping to figure out just wtf some very sane sounding people were doing there. But without the ability to PM it was a lost cause; to wit, that thread I started. Now at least I can join in the skeptic chorus of laughter. It's either that or cry.For any interested there is a spin-off site created by burned A+ers trying to engage in a more sane attempt to promote secular social justice. It's got a really friendly atmosphere which makes it stand apart from A+ like a California redwood in Death Valley. http://www.secularsocialjustice.com/
Here's a post I made earlier and deleted to not distract from a serious and insightful reply by Myriad, my all time favorite JREF mod.
You better check your privileges right there xirxster! I'm a recovering coffoholic and just the mention of that evil drug can cause me to go into remission and go through living hell for days! I speak with all the authority of my very personal experience, so don't come in here spouting your homophobic, female infantisizing, racist BS!
A+: "The strut of irrelevance. The pomp of ineffectuality."
- Status