Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
kellyb said:
Well, sorta yeah. But if I hadn't previously admined a phpbb forum (and set up private mod forums, and set up a test account as a non-admin to make sure the mod forum was private), I would have thought it was a link to a deleted thread or something like that. There could have been alternative explanations. I was already pretty suspicious, tho. The way the PM exchange started was me PMing the other person asking why I was apparently on [/shun] suddenly, and I was sent a bunch of links demonstrating how "hostile" I was, only one of which ended in the "you do not have access" message.

The person who sent the link never admitted it was a link to a secret forum, tho.
I even asked directly and was given the runaround. But the non-answer was duly noted.
Click to expand...


So the links were postings by people saying how hostile you were? Funny, 'cause one of the mods there was insisting that no-one was whinging about you.
 
kellyb said:
Nobody told me anyone was trashing me! Swear to god! I PMed someone there that I'd grown to respect and trust and got a semi/non-answer confirmation that yes, there was a secret forum there, but I figured it out just by observing the freakishly stark in-group behavior. It's not something you see to such an extreme degree on forums without private subforums for chosen members.

Just to set the record straight. Again. There were no moles involved.
Click to expand...

I had a feeling it was something like that kelly. That's why in my post linked here I said: "Just as wind will not reveal the name of the person who told her these things, assuming that is what happened, I feel quite sure there is no danger she will post anything she learned from her friend other than the fact the forum exists and that she was being discussed there."

So it turns out it wasn't even that much. Interesting point about the flagrant in-group behavior signifying hidden subforums. As I'm generally part of the out-group I'd be the last to know about such. Now I'm wondering how many sites I belong to have them. :crowded:
 
Krikkiter said:
So the links were postings by people saying how hostile you were? Funny, 'cause one of the mods there was insisting that no-one was whinging about you.
Click to expand...

The threads I read that were linked to were threads in the open forum where people called me hostile, intense, etc to my face. (Which is fair enough.) I still have no idea what was said in the thread I didn't have permission to access. The mod might or might not be correct/truthful. I suspect there's some clever wordplay going on with that claim, though.
 
recursive prophet said:
So it turns out it wasn't even that much. Interesting point about the flagrant in-group behavior signifying hidden subforums. As I'm generally part of the out-group I'd be the last to know about such. Now I'm wondering how many sites I belong to have them. :crowded:
Click to expand...

Large forums basically never do. Small forums that have them never get a chance to become large forums. A sure sign of a private forum existing is noob-eating and a small group of people that joined early on going around attacking newer members.
 
kellyb said:
The threads I read that were linked to were threads in the open forum where people called me hostile, intense, etc to my face. (Which is fair enough.) I still have no idea what was said in the thread I didn't have permission to access. The mod might or might not be correct/truthful. I suspect there's some clever wordplay going on with that claim, though.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

ETA: I suspect you are right.
 
kellyb said:
Large forums basically never do. Small forums that have them never get a chance to become large forums. A sure sign of a private forum existing is noob-eating and a small group of people that joined early on going around attacking newer members.
Click to expand...

Intriguing. I'll have to ponder it further, but now that you mention it, I think I can see how that might happen. I don't have much involvement with fora aside from JREF, so I don't have a lot of perspective.

I suppose it makes sense that A+ didn't find a new way to self-destruct.
 
Krikkiter said:
The condescending language is enough "... dude, no. don't *********** use that word, full stop." and "You need to... and you also need to..."
Click to expand...


You forgot:

• Prefacing statements with "Um" or "Hello?", or in the most severe cases, "Um, hello?"
• The use of [expletive that rhymes with "ducking"] as an adjective or adverb roughly every fourth word.
• Ending sentences with the phrase "because [noun]", as though that construction made actual sense.
 
Last edited:
Quinn said:
You forgot:

• Prefacing statements with "Um" or "Hello?", or in the most severe cases, "Um, hello?"
• The use of [expletive that rhymes with "ducking"] as an adjective or adverb roughly every fourth word.
• Ending sentences with the phrase "because [noun]", as though that construction made actual sense.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Also add: "You don't get to do that."

Anyone feel free to add to the list.
 
Quinn said:
You forgot:

• Prefacing statements with "Um" or "Hello?", or in the most severe cases, "Um, hello?"
• The use of [expletive that rhymes with "ducking"] as an adjective or adverb roughly every fourth word.
• Ending sentences with the phrase "because [noun]", as though that construction made actual sense.
Click to expand...

Get off my foot.
 
Re: Atheism Plus

recursive prophet said:
Good synopsis John. I just took a glance and there were 14 users, counting guests at A+, lol. We should start a pool on when the lights go out there. I'll take April 1. :)

I'd also like to read what others here think is going on there. I mean, it is SO over the top the way the clique there marginalizes so many others in the name of protecting the marginalized. They've truly entered the realm of the surreal at this point. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Hmm this has me wondering if it performance art.
 
Rrose Selavy said:
A forum supposedly about social justice that is er...socially unjust.
Among the many ironies.

-
Click to expand...

Maybe somebody who knows the board well should put together a "social justice warrior" privilege list to go along with the male privilege list.

An example:

1. I cannot be a hypocrite because my assumptions about non-social justice types are true even when I have no evidence.
 
Doubt said:
Maybe somebody who knows the board well should put together a "social justice warrior" privilege list to go along with the male privilege list.

An example:

1. I cannot be a hypocrite because my assumptions about non-social justice types are true even when I have no evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm on my phone so no link, but Google "Social justice Sally" for a tumblr page which collects examples of that kind of thinking.
 
I'm thinking that the "Shot heard 'round the worldWP" for A+ was indeed Elevatorgate.

After reading Rebecca Watson's blog entry The Privilege Delusion I realized that their drumbeat against "privilege" is really about glorifying the viewpoint of the underprivileged, and is therefore thinly disguised and prejudicial class conflict.

Watson's statements about Dawkins made this stand out in bold relief to me:

Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!

[snip]

So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.

[snip]

I’m sure Dawkins will continue to be stinking rich until the end of his days.
Click to expand...

(BTW Rebecca engages in straw manning Dawkins in other parts of her post)

That Rebecca mentions Dawkins' wealth three times in her entry reveals her basic jealousy. This keeps making me flash back to the Russian Revolution and seeing A-plussers as shape-shifted Bolsheviks. Maybe she thinks he can't be toppled because of his wealth, but his sturdy standing is really due to his brilliance and body of work.

Someone tell me what Dawkins has actually done to harm the Atheist and Skeptic movement one can attach to his age, race, and wealth that justifies the treatment he's getting from RW and A+?
 
Mr. Scott said:
Someone tell me what Dawkins has actually done to harm the Atheist and Skeptic movement one can attach to his age, race, and wealth that justifies the treatment he's getting from RW and A+?
Click to expand...
Those are all just ad hominem. To the extent that privilege exists, and I firmly believe it is, it's about groups not individuals. Most of the books I read are sociobiological. Anyone who deals with statistics and groups understand the specious nature of stereotypes and generalizations to individuals. The "privilege" claim has been bastardized beyond recognition. I've actually had people tell me that I have far more privilege than Oprah Winfrey by virtue of being a white male. There are people on this forum who will tell you with a straight face that all white heterosexual males have more privilege than blacks, women and LGBT. As a group, yes. Comparing indviduals with other individuals, no. Utter nonsense.
 
recursive prophet said:
Good synopsis John. I just took a glance and there were 14 users, counting guests at A+, lol. We should start a pool on when the lights go out there. I'll take April 1. :)

I'd also like to read what others here think is going on there. I mean, it is SO over the top the way the clique there marginalizes so many others in the name of protecting the marginalized. They've truly entered the realm of the surreal at this point. :boggled:
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the forum started by ArcticPenguin when he left here (old timers will remember) along with someone else (I forget her name). I think it was called Skeptic Pie maybe? Anyhow, it was literally just the two of them. They started all the threads, and would reply to their own posts. It eventually faded away.

I suspect the A+ forum will end in a similar fashion.
 
Re: Atheism Plus

RandFan said:
Those are all just ad hominem. To the extent that privilege exists, and I firmly believe it is, it's about groups not individuals. Most of the books I read are sociobiological. Anyone who deals with statistics and groups understand the specious nature of stereotypes and generalizations to individuals. The "privilege" claim has been bastardized beyond recognition. I've actually had people tell me that I have far more privilege than Oprah Winfrey by virtue of being a white male. There are people on this forum who will tell you with a straight face that all white heterosexual males have more privilege than blacks, women and LGBT. As a group, yes. Comparing indviduals with other individuals, no. Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is also useful in understanding how someones background influences their views. For example my wife a white woman has been arguing with her best friend a black man about how much abuse vs need there is for social safety nets. Now he is priviliged in this argument to come from an upper middle-class background, while she comes from a very poor background. So privilige helps explain their different perspectives. He has a family capible of a lot more support than she did.

But broadly it is blaming the advantaged instead of looking at how to remove the disadvantage from those unfairly discriminated against.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It is also useful in understanding how someones background influences their views. For example my wife a white woman has been arguing with her best friend a black man about how much abuse vs need there is for social safety nets. Now he is priviliged in this argument to come from an upper middle-class background, while she comes from a very poor background. So privilige helps explain their different perspectives. He has a family capible of a lot more support than she did.

But broadly it is blaming the advantaged instead of looking at how to remove the disadvantage from those unfairly discriminated against.
Click to expand...
We can make probabilistic statements that can help us understand people's biases. If you were to state that this gentleman's opinion was likely influenced by his privilege then I would have no problem with that. However, it would be fallacious to assert that his opinion is the result of privilege (it's post hoc and it's unfalsifiable.)

Let me give you another example. I grew up a staunch conservate raised in a very patriarchal conservative community (small town almost exclusively Mormon). Is that why I was conservative? If so it doesn't explain my cousin. He was raised in the same community by conservative parents and he has been liberal his entire life.

Otherwise I agree with your post. :)
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I'm reminded of the forum started by ArcticPenguin when he left here (old timers will remember) along with someone else (I forget her name). I think it was called Skeptic Pie maybe? Anyhow, it was literally just the two of them. They started all the threads, and would reply to their own posts. It eventually faded away.

I suspect the A+ forum will end in a similar fashion.
Click to expand...

Sounds like that forum for Buffy where one obsessed fan made 37k posts on hundreds of threads. And was the only member.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom