Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Savant]

So he's at boarding school, he's 16 years old and he's an ex-MRA ?

at 16, an ex-MRA ?

Horsehockey !

Looks like this kid is trying too hard to fit in.

Well, considering that, over on A+, you are an MRA simply for holding the view that some men might possibly not be 100% privileged/wrong at all times, it seems possible that a 16 year old could chance onto the forum and be convinced by the sterling rhetoric there that he is indeed an evil MRA. He immediately repents of his former misdeeds (that he just learned he was guilty of) and is now an ex-MRA.

Or he's just trying too hard to fit in - he is 16, after all. Of course, if he hopes to avoid the stigma of privilege that boarding school (and, presumably, a penis) brings with it, he had better be a transsexual amputee with a severe anxiety disorder.

 

[recursive prophet]

Can these people really be serious? It's got to be a joke!

Or performance art, as suggested. Can't believe I didn't think of that before. Interesting conjecture. Are we all being trolled? I'd actually like to think so. It would mean these folks quite intelligent to have pulled it off. Every atheist/skeptic site I frequent has a bulging thread on them. Meanwhile they average about 20 online, counting guests.

Even humber wasn't that successful, though to be fair physics ain't social science, viewed by many as an oxymoron. It certainly offers a lot more wiggle room for experiential authorities. But I love the idea this has all been a long con. It makes a lot more sense thanen you take these people seriously.

I managed to PM a few of those who didn't seem to be following the script, but finally hit one that must have just taken her meds before the post I read. She told me it was against the rules to send a PM without permission. Knowing it would likely be reported, I started that thread questioning the logic behind the rule. I got a 1 month ban for my last post there. I knew the smug smiley would trigger ceepolk's banrage, but without the ability to PM I didn't care. Nothing to be learned about what's really happening on the boards for sure, but what a lolcow.

Good times. A- is the best atheist dramatic net comedy in ages. You guys are going to have to leave it all on the net to compete.

 

[theprestige]

For those of us not TLA-privileged, what does "MRA" mean?

 

[devnull]

Men's Rights Advocate I think.

 

[devnull]

I should clarify - if you hold the position that men should have equal rights to children in the event of a marriage dissolution (for example), you are by definition an MRA and ergo, a douchebag that needs to be sodomised with various dead animals.

Who says you cant learn anything from A+.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Or performance art, as suggested. Can't believe I didn't think of that before. Interesting conjecture. Are we all being trolled? I'd actually like to think so. It would mean these folks quite intelligent to have pulled it off. Every atheist/skeptic site I frequent has a bulging thread on them. Meanwhile they average about 20 online, counting guests.

Even humber wasn't that successful, though to be fair physics ain't social science, viewed by many as an oxymoron. It certainly offers a lot more wiggle room for experiential authorities. But I love the idea this has all been a long con. It makes a lot more sense thanen you take these people seriously.

I managed to PM a few of those who didn't seem to be following the script, but finally hit one that must have just taken her meds before the post I read. She told me it was against the rules to send a PM without permission. Knowing it would likely be reported, I started that thread questioning the logic behind the rule. I got a 1 month ban for my last post there. I knew the smug smiley would trigger ceepolk's banrage, but without the ability to PM I didn't care. Nothing to be learned about what's really happening on the boards for sure, but what a lolcow.

Good times. A- is the best atheist dramatic net comedy in ages. You guys are going to have to leave it all on the net to compete.

I've known a lot of marginal and dysfunctional people in my life and each of them is rather unique (self-reported to the redundancy policy) but several posters over there do seem like an amalgam of various types carrying various associative disorders. If Setar is not doing street theater then I can see why the inner sanctum would treat him/her with kid gloves - there's like a fuse burning and going to be an explosion any second.

Oh, and it also dawned on me this morning... The reason none of the fierce warriors will come over here and speak up, I mentioned in an earlier post on their sooper sekret forum... They Do Not Provide Real and Verifiable Names. One can imagine Cipher filling out the registration screen for the JREFF and when it gets to the part that asks for a working email address and verifiable name,... !!!111 OMG TRIGGER WARNING. I'M OPENNESS CHALLENGED. WHERE'S MY TEDDY BEAR AND HUGGIE BLANKET!!!

That relieves me of one quandary. Some of those folk love nothing better than a good flame war and I'm sure would drool at the opportunity to give us a figurative piece of their minds, but getting out of their little cocoons would be too risky. I cannot believe that it hasn't been discussed in the sooper sekret area. The upshot is probably that giving away their Diana Prince disguise would be detrimental to the movement.

 

[RandFan]

I should clarify - if you hold the position that men should have equal rights to children in the event of a marriage dissolution (for example), you are by definition an MRA and ergo, a douchebag that needs to be sodomised with various dead animals.

Who says you cant learn anything from A+.

I want to go on record to say that I'm against sodomizing people with various dead animals without their consent... the animals I mean.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

MRA is I think Male Rape Apologist, rather than Men's Rights Advocate.

Now, what is TLA? All these acronymns are really GMG..

 

[devnull]

MRA is I think Male Rape Apologist

My god, are you kidding?

Does such a thing actually exist?

 

[The Man]

Or performance art, as suggested. Can't believe I didn't think of that before. Interesting conjecture. Are we all being trolled? I'd actually like to think so. It would mean these folks quite intelligent to have pulled it off. Every atheist/skeptic site I frequent has a bulging thread on them. Meanwhile they average about 20 online, counting guests.

Perhaps if the "+" was meant to represent crappy social performance art and not social justice.

Even humber wasn't that successful, though to be fair physics ain't social science, viewed by many as an oxymoron. It certainly offers a lot more wiggle room for experiential authorities. But I love the idea this has all been a long con. It makes a lot more sense thanen you take these people seriously.

Nope, it ain't, though, while social science could have a field day there, it still ain't social justice. As I have said before, I've got no problem with a safe space for like minded people to congregate, but segregation (let alone intentional) can not enact social justice. Further it makes a 'leave us alone' don't 'trigger us' predilection the exemplification of the only apparent social justice they want to enact.

Now, I must admit have quite a bit of personal bias. If I didn't find society engaging, at times confrontational and more than willing to take me to task, I doubt I'd be a willing participant. Perhaps relegating myself to some unsafe space where unlike minded people abound.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

For those of us not TLA-privileged, what does "MRA" mean?

It's these guys...the Mens' Rights Movement.

The men's rights movement (MRM), a subset of the larger men's movement, is focused on addressing discrimination against men in areas such as reproductive rights, divorce settlements, domestic violence laws, and sexual harassment laws. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s, differing from that movement in its focus and rejection of pro-feminist principles.

There aren't very many of them, and they have zero power, but feminists have to have a boogeyman, and MRAs are it. MRAs are the ones that (supposedly) want to take away women's right to vote, their right to choose abortion, "get 'em back in the kitchen", etc. etc. And they're everywhere!!!

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

I'd assume that the A+ forum will probably limp along in the same way Conservapedia does. With an overly strict set of mods and a select in-group that can get away with pretty much anything.

That's an interesting parallel. I try to avoid anything to do with Conservapedia, but I've got the impression that it's trapped in its own Poe. Any n00bs or people outside the in-group are either hounded out for being too liberal, or else are viewed with deep suspicion because anyone who's that extremely conservative is almost certain to be a parody.

But I can't imagine A+ ending up like that.

 

[squealpiggy]

Men's Rights Advocate I think.

Yes, Men's Rights Advocate is the term. Anyone who thinks that there are some areas in which men may suffer or be marginalised and anyone who thinks that in some ways the promotion of women's rights has gone beyond equality and into privilege.

In short they are an unholy amalgam of Adolf Hitler, Josef Mengele and the Evil Emperor from Star Wars.

 

[Stout]

Well, considering that, over on A+, you are an MRA simply for holding the view that some men might possibly not be 100% privileged/wrong at all times, it seems possible that a 16 year old could chance onto the forum and be convinced by the sterling rhetoric there that he is indeed an evil MRA. He immediately repents of his former misdeeds (that he just learned he was guilty of) and is now an ex-MRA.

Or he's just trying too hard to fit in - he is 16, after all. Of course, if he hopes to avoid the stigma of privilege that boarding school (and, presumably, a penis) brings with it, he had better be a transsexual amputee with a severe anxiety disorder.

I think I may have figured that one out, strange things happen when I'm sitting on the toilet with nothing to read, guess I must have been producing inspiration, or something.

Aplussers like to equate the MRA ( yes, men's rights advocates ) with PUAs ( pick up artists) and quite often use things like "the MRA/PUA community and I figure this kid watched a few PUA videos, maybe tried out some of the tips and tricks, and is to embarrassed to admit it. I know if I was 16, I'd be "doing research" into that field.

I don't think A+ is fake in any way and I'm basing it on having seen this exact same thing before on another SJ forum. so called "normal" people wander in, the forum was and still is attached to a progressive media outlet, see something that begs to be questioned, ask that question and be set upon by the wolves, torn to shreds and banned.

The most extreme posters quickly rose to the top of the heap with respect to their opinions and knowledge and it still functions like that today however there new registrations are way down so there's a distinct shortage of prey.

It's all about power and I know our friend Setar reads the site I'm talking about, he's linked to that news outlet before, and has no doubt learned his trade from reading those forums. More extreme=more power and respect as a keyboard activist.

The only way to effectively troll an outfit like A+ is to go in posting hardcore SJ stuff, earn their "trust" by proving to them that you hate western society as much as they do then, after a month or so, fire off a bunch of abusive PMs, put up a bunch of abusive posts and flee. This is what they fear most, being sold out and, quite frankly, it's a heck of a lot of work even if you want to do copy/paste from another SJ site.

Too much work.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I'm thinking that the "Shot heard 'round the world^WP" 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:



(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+?

Well she clearly isn't letting it go. While she may have distanced herself informally from A+ (or the forum, which is all it is at the moment)

In reply to an originally uncharacteristically generous mention of the RD Foundation among other organisations by Pz Myers in his blog of Jan 20th ( I won't link to it you can easily find it)
The first comment reply is:

rebeccawatson
20 January 2013 at 8:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I guess if you’ve never been called a “feminazi” by Paula Kirby or had your inbox explode with rape threats thanks to Richard Dawkins, RDF wouldn’t look out of place on that list.

After which Myers edits his post and adds:

Rebecca Watson has a different perspective. She’s less sanguine about organizations (and particularly the RDF), and I’m not going to argue with someone who has been the target of so much hatred, some of it inspired by Richard Dawkins’ remarks.

I am no great fan of Dawkins, but when he made his certainly sarcastic but IMO certainly non-misogynist comments which were partly a reaction to the earlier comments to RW's video , when he saw the reaction to them, he did actually say he was willing to to be persuaded otherwise, he asked for dialogue.
"someone tell me what I am missing" or words to that effect. It could have been an ideal opportunity to maturely head off any misunderstandings.
What he got was a personal/public boycott, more misleading conflating of issues and accused of being some kind of online hate enabler.
Ironically it was at the last conference when they sat in the same table that RW was joking that her own ansaphone message greeting could (or did) contain clips of Dawkins reading out excerpts of the regular email/phone abuse he gets, in his non doubt to some "quaint/posh British accent", because she found them so amusing.

=

 

[RandFan]

I am no great fan of Dawkins, but when he made his certainly sarcastic but IMO certainly non-misogynist comments which were partly a reaction to the earlier comments to RW's video , when he saw the reaction to them, he did actually say he was willing to to be persuaded otherwise, he asked for dialogue.
"someone tell me what I am missing" or words to that effect. It could have been an ideal opportunity to maturely head off any misunderstandings.
What he got was a personal/public boycott, more misleading conflating of issues and accused of being some kind of online hate enabler.
Ironically it was at the last conference when they sat in the same table that RW was joking that her own ansaphone message greeting could (or did) contain clips of Dawkins reading out excerpts of the regular email/phone abuse he gets, in his non doubt to some "quaint/posh British accent", because she found them so amusing.

I think Dawkin's false consolation unfortunate but we make mistakes. Dawkins is not above admitting when he is wrong. I saw him in a debate once being accused of special pleading and after a moment of contemplation he agreed that it was.

Watson's outrage was entirely unnecessary. Sadly it was her ego that got the best of her. I live in a glass so I can't fault her simply for going off on Dawkins (as stupid as it was). What is IMO unforgivable is not coming to her senses and trying to have a discussion.

Thing is, all of Watson's actions as far as I can tell in this debacle have been atrocious. How and why she is being asked to speak at conferences at all is beyond me. She has been terribly unprofessional and provocative.

 

[qwints]

The only way to effectively troll an outfit like A+ is to go in posting hardcore SJ stuff, earn their "trust" by proving to them that you hate western society as much as they do then, after a month or so, fire off a bunch of abusive PMs, put up a bunch of abusive posts and flee. This is what they fear most, being sold out and, quite frankly, it's a heck of a lot of work even if you want to do copy/paste from another SJ site.

Wow, that's a pretty disturbing hypothetical plan you've got.

Hey, I'm a regular poster over at the atheismplus forums. Haven't posted on here for quite a long time, but I thought I might serve as another person for you to talk to rather than have y'all continue kibitzing on our forum.

A brief summary of my thoughts on this thread so far:

There are lots of spaces for more or less open debate online, including several large ones specifically catering to skeptics and/or atheists. The existence of a space with different goals is not a threat to those spaces.

No one is immune to criticism. People, including moderators, have said things they've regretted saying or that they should regret saying. You're well within your rights to criticize them (or me) for that. They have no duty to explain their actions to you when you do so.

I'm willing to accept some limitations and obligations in my participation on that forum to increase that forums accessibility to others - even when I don't understand the need for those limitations - because the cost is generally so low.

Diagnosing the mental health of forum members based solely on their posts is both laughable and contemptible.

 

[The Big Dog]

Diagnosing the mental health of forum members based solely on their posts is both laughable and contemptible.

Jref response: You are certainly entitled to your strong opinion on this subject, although I believe that if further investigated, you would certainly be more sensitive to an opposing view point.

An Actual A+ Response: "Shut the **** up and lurk for a while, or you're going to get your ignorant ass banned. And yes, wah, I'm a meanieface. I'm not going to cut you slack for being a newbie anymore unless you show some *********** signs of actually trying to figure out what the **** this space is for and why you're getting the responses you are."

 

[recursive prophet]

I'm willing to accept some limitations and obligations in my participation on that forum to increase that forums accessibility to others - even when I don't understand the need for those limitations - because the cost is generally so low.

Glad you showed up here qwints. As searches at A+ are difficult for me during my month long ban, could you please provide a couple links to comments you've made there aimed at increasing the forum's accessibility?

I joined primarily to learn what some of the more rational sounding people there thought about how the site was being moderated. As I'm sure you would concede, I could have never really had that conversation in the mod thread there. The pile on and banning would be fast and furious. So I do hope you will stick around and answer some questions. I'll start with whether or not you think the way the site is currently being moderated is problematic? Why? How? tia for your reply.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Not to mention that banning people for expressing ideas that are contrary to your own sort of defeats the whole purpose of a "forum" in the first place. You may as well just host a moderated blog by that point.

Considering the origins of A+, maybe blogs are all they know.