Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[qwints]

Agreed. But then this is counter to skepticism and critical thinking. It is the very basis of religion. Congrats, A+ has essentially become a religion with dogma.

Have you heard about this crazy new religion called math? I hear they use theories by mere reference rather then prove them every time they use them. I even hear they use postulates!

It is true that the atheistforum does not prioritize constantly justifying its beliefs about reality. I agree that it does not provide a tabula rosa environment for discussing the validity of various facts and theories about society.

In other words I'm saying that it is consistent to both "apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything" and not provide a space for debating the validity of well-established facts. The forum provides links to a great deal of material explaining the reasoning and evidence behind various conclusions that are used as short hand. It is true that people who start arguing against those conclusions without addressing those justifications tend to get short shrift and quickly be labeled trolls. It's probably true that there have been false positives as the result of the high frequency of new members explicitly claiming they were trolling us either on the atheismplus forum or another forum.

Isn't 'reality' open to debate? If it isn't, then I gotta agree, it's just an echo chamber and doesn't do a whole lot of good for the skeptic community. They can't say they're critical thinkers and willy-nilly cut off debate at the same time.

This sounds a little bit like the "teach both sides" fallacy. The theory of evolution by natural selection is falsifiable and should be tested, but that doesn't mean that everyone who wants to assert an alternative explanation has to be given a platform to explain why it was done by gods or aliens. Some kinds of oft-refuted arguments can be excluded from some spaces without turning those spaces into echo chambers.

For example, if people are talking about the racial disparity of New York City's "Stop and Frisk" policy and someone decides to start asserting that racial minorities have a higher tendency to commit crimes, then I think excluding that person from the discussion improves the discussion without compromising the critical thinking of that discussion.

The fact is, the A+ forums bans anyone who questions in civil terms the established belief system, and welcomes anyone who defends in uncivil terms the established belief system.

Sure. I think the "established belief system" is justified, and I think that someone arguing in good faith that it was not would not be banned. I just think that "in good faith" is independent of civility.

@dasmiller -

You're still considering civility in teleological terms. The point of not enforcing civility is not because it results in more persuasive arguments. The point is arguing civilly does not come as easily to some people as others. Some restrictions that appear neutral on their face can have a disproportionate impact.

 

[kellyb]

If you understand that the goal of the forum is to create a community based around certain beliefs about reality rather than a place for open discussion or debate, then I think most of it makes sense.

Agreed. But then this is counter to skepticism and critical thinking. It is the very basis of religion. Congrats, A+ has essentially become a religion with dogma.

Have you heard about this crazy new religion called math? I hear they use theories by mere reference rather then prove them every time they use them. I even hear they use postulates!

Math is what landed man on the moon and brought us the computers we're communicating with right now. That's one hell of a religion!

 

[Rrose Selavy]

For example, if people are talking about the racial disparity of New York City's "Stop and Frisk" policy and someone decides to start asserting that racial minorities have a higher tendency to commit crimes, then I think excluding that person from the discussion improves the discussion without compromising the critical thinking of that discussion.

Terrible analogy, among many other very weak arguments you're making here.
The next step would be to try to, as objectively as possible, establish factually if racial minorities do or do not commit proportionally more crimes, and then ask why. Disproportionate poverty, drug use, lack of education or whatever might be factors.
What you don't do is exclude the questioner to somehow improve critical or sceptical thinking.
One of the worse arguments I've read any where. I'll leave it for now for others to unpick your other attempts at justification.

 

[RandFan]

Have you heard about this crazy new religion called math? I hear they use theories by mere reference rather then prove them every time they use them. I even hear they use postulates!

It is true that the atheistforum does not prioritize constantly justifying its beliefs about reality. I agree that it does not provide a tabula rosa environment for discussing the validity of various facts and theories about society.

In other words I'm saying that it is consistent to both "apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything" and not provide a space for debating the validity of well-established facts. The forum provides links to a great deal of material explaining the reasoning and evidence behind various conclusions that are used as short hand. It is true that people who start arguing against those conclusions without addressing those justifications tend to get short shrift and quickly be labeled trolls. It's probably true that there have been false positives as the result of the high frequency of new members explicitly claiming they were trolling us either on the atheismplus forum or another forum.

I'm sorry but I'm not at all impressed with the excuse. Prior restraint. You are free of course to do anything you please but don't think this is in anyway compelling to skeptics in this forum. JREF doesn't censor truthers, creationists, psychics and their proponents, etc., etc. (even though the evidence against all of these is overwhelming). The reason JREF doesn't do that isn't because James Randi is simply being nice. It's because skepticism precludes absolute thinking. All truth is provisional. If someone wants to come here and argue against gravity they are welcome to do so.

It’s always worth establishing first principle. It’s always worth saying what would you do if you met a Flat Earth Society member? Come to think of it, how can I prove the earth is round? Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it’s supposed to be true. Here’s someone who says there’s no such thing; it’s all intelligent design. How sure am I of my own views? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the felling that whatever you think you’re bound to be OK, because you’re in the safely moral majority.

So, by all means, conduct your affairs as you please but understand that you are simply creating an echo chamber AKA circle jerk.

 

[dasmiller]

@dasmiller -

You're still considering civility in teleological terms. The point of not enforcing civility is not because it results in more persuasive arguments. The point is arguing civilly does not come as easily to some people as others.

Then - and I know this is anathema for A+ - maybe those who find it difficult to be civil need to work on that. Berating and insulting others is simply bullying. It's deliberately hurtful. At A+, inadvertently causing hurt (by, say, using a limerick rhyme-scheme) is unacceptable, but deliberately causing hurt is okay?

Some restrictions that appear neutral on their face can have a disproportionate impact.

In my experience, the incivil posters are NOT the ones who have trouble bringing themselves to post, so they are not underrepresented. Rather, the underrepresented posters are those who shy away from conflict and are easily deterred by bullying.

YMMV

 

[qwints]

Rrose Selavy, my point is that you don't always have to start from scratch every time someone brings up a long debunked point, specifically that race itself- rather than factors correlated with race - is a cause of crime.

 

[RandFan]

Rrose Selavy, my point is that you don't always have to start from scratch every time someone brings up a long debunked point, specifically that race itself- rather than factors correlated with race - is a cause of crime.

That's called prior restraint. It's antithetical to skepticism and critical thinking. The forum isn't govt so they are free to censor. But it's not skepticism and critical thinking, see my Hitchens' quote above. And let me take this opportunity to post another.

But before they do that they must have taken, as I’m sure we all should, a short refresher course in the classic texts on this matter. Which are John Milton’s Areopagitica, Ariel Pogetica being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression. Thomas Paine’s introduction to the age of reason. And I would say John Stuart Mill’s essay on liberty in which it is variously said — I’ll be very daring and summarize all three of these great gentlemen of the great tradition of, especially, English liberty, in one go: What they say is it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.

You have the right to console yourself with the knowledge that you are special and that you know the truth and bury your head in the sand. It's still not skepticism. It's still not critical thinking.

 

[kellyb]

Thinking more about this:

For example, if people are talking about the racial disparity of New York City's "Stop and Frisk" policy and someone decides to start asserting that racial minorities have a higher tendency to commit crimes, then I think excluding that person from the discussion improves the discussion without compromising the critical thinking of that discussion.

It doesn't just compromise critical thinking in the discussion; it obliterates it and might even promote flat-out misinformation. In reality, there is a strong relationship (that most rational people conclude is complex but causative) between marginalization, unemployment, poverty, and crime. You don't get to the heart of the matter and thus position yourself to advocate realistic solutions by hopping into denialism-mode. Denialism isn't skepticism and it's antithetical to social justice objectives, as well.

Excluding facts wreaks of fear, which is ironic especially in this hypothetical example, because a strong if not irrefutable case can be made that S&F is not only racist, but also counterproductive in every way imaginable.

 

[qwints]

Then - and I know this is anathema for A+ - maybe those who find it difficult to be civil need to work on that. Berating and insulting others is simply bullying. It's deliberately hurtful. At A+, inadvertently causing hurt (by, say, using a limerick rhyme-scheme) is unacceptable, but deliberately causing hurt is okay?
...
Rather, the underrepresented posters are those who shy away from conflict and are easily deterred by bullying.

You're right that posters have been deterred by harsh language and personal attacks. That's a problem I and others have posted about. The question becomes how to differentiate mere profane or harsh language with "deliberately hurtful" aka abusive language. Some members you've cited in this thread have been moderated for some of their language, and I've seen a real change in their posting over the last few months. They've also demonstrated a willingness to listen and adapt when confronted by moderators in a way that many banned posters have not.

 

[kellyb]

Rrose Selavy, my point is that you don't always have to start from scratch every time someone brings up a long debunked point, specifically that race itself- rather than factors correlated with race - is a cause of crime.

Not everybody silently nodding in agreement (or even contributing!) understands the basics. The forum is hardly a refuge for scholars (self-taught or otherwise) of inequality research and other areas of research relevant to social justice.

So, unless you're going to put up some sort of qualification test to gain access to read there, you have to have room for education and yes, debate.

ETA: "Have to" if you want to honestly call it anything remotely close to using skepticism or critical thinking, that is.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Rrose Selavy, my point is that you don't always have to start from scratch every time someone brings up a long debunked point, specifically that race itself- rather than factors correlated with race - is a cause of crime.

That isn't the point you made.

 

[qwints]

In reality, there is a strong relationship (that most rational people conclude is complex but causative) between marginalization, unemployment, poverty, and crime. You don't get to the heart of the matter and thus position yourself to advocate realistic solutions by hopping into denialism-mode.

Fair point. But consider the context I was talking about in the example: there is an undeniable racially disparate impact in that specific policy. If a poster says in response to that "minorities tend to commit more crime", I don't think it's denialism to remove that person from that thread. There should be a place to discuss the complex relationship you bring up, but it's not that particular thread.

Many of the posters who've been banned on atheismplus have insisted that any discussion of one issue must involve the discussion of a related issue and have refused to accept moderator's instructions to take it up in another thread. Someone who simply tried to assert long discredited assertions like "certain races are inherently more violent" would also be banned because allowing people a platform in a space to assert racism can make that space uncomfortable for others.

 

[qwints]

Prior restraint. You are free of course to do anything you please but don't think this is in anyway compelling to skeptics in this forum. JREF doesn't censor truthers, creationists, psychics and their proponents, etc., etc. (even though the evidence against all of these is overwhelming).

I'm glad a space like this exists. I'm also glad a space exists that excludes some view points to allow people alienated or marginalized by those view points to more fully participate. I'm unfamiliar with any prior restraint on atheismplus beyond the 3 non-spam posts required for all new members. I don't think it's necessary that every space be an open forum (in the legal sense).

That isn't the point you made.

Then I made the wrong point and did indeed make a terrible analogy.

 

[RandFan]

I'm glad a space like this exists. I'm also glad a space exists that excludes some view points to allow people alienated or marginalized by those view points to more fully participate. I'm unfamiliar with any prior restraint on atheismplus beyond the 3 non-spam posts required for all new members. I don't think it's necessary that every space be an open forum (in the legal sense).

And I've said that is your right. Just don't try and tell us that it is skepticism and critical thinking when it's nothing of the sort. Look, if the forum were restricted to professionals discussing topics relative to their field I could accept certain restrictions while maintaining a commitment to skepticism and rationality. Outside of that it is too problematic and highly presumptuous. In short, I'm not buying what you are selling.

Now, if this were my forum I could ban you because I'm so certain as to my position and I want this thread to concentrate only on my agenda of criticizing A+. If this were my forum I would NOT ban you precisely because I hold that all truth is provisional and I'm not so arrogant as to presuppose that I cannot be wrong.

 

[kellyb]

Fair point. But consider the context I was talking about in the example: there is an undeniable racially disparate impact in that specific policy. If a poster says in response to that "minorities tend to commit more crime", I don't think it's denialism to remove that person from that thread. There should be a place to discuss the complex relationship you bring up, but it's not that particular thread.

Many of the posters who've been banned on atheismplus have insisted that any discussion of one issue must involve the discussion of a related issue and have refused to accept moderator's instructions to take it up in another thread. Someone who simply tried to assert long discredited assertions like "certain races are inherently more violent" would also be banned because allowing people a platform in a space to assert racism can make that space uncomfortable for others.

Auto-banning in example #2 in the context of a skepticism+SJ forum makes perfect sense to me, so no arguments there.

With #1, by removing the sub-discussion, you're missing the cycle of how the impact of S&F exacerbates the root cause(s).

Racist profiling catching more nonviolent offenders of X ethnic group>>jail>>exposure to trauma and deeper criminal elements>>exclusion from employment upon release because of "criminal record">>resorts to crime more frequently to survive>>OMG MINORITIES ARE COMMITING CRIMES!>>more racist S&F like programs with "justifications">>rinse and repeat.

What other conversations (besides organized protests against it) are worth having about something like S&F?

You said originally: "For example, if people are talking about the racial disparity of New York City's "Stop and Frisk" policy"...

Which discussion is more basic/starting from scratch?

1) the demonstrating/saying "Hey! S&F disproportionately targets minorities!" discussion

or...

2) the "S&F targets minorities, sending nonviolent offenders to jail, etc CYCLE"

...discussion.

And why and how can the people still stuck on discussion #1 claim to be more "advanced" and "not needing to start from scratch" than the advocates of discussion #2?

 

[Diogenes]

...
So, unless you're going to put up some sort of qualification test to gain access to read there, you have to have room for education and yes, debate.

ETA: "Have to" if you want to honestly call it anything remotely close to using skepticism or critical thinking, that is.

The even renamed the "Education" board to "Information and Answers"

...I'm also glad a space exists that excludes some view points to allow people alienated or marginalized by those view points to more fully participate. ....

Except that it fosters and even enables people that communicate poorly to continue to communicate poorly. Yelling-down people that disagree isn't terribly condusive to actual progress on social justice issues, is it?

If you're new there you can see how they reacted to Matt Dillahunty and see some of these things in action.

 

[kellyb]

And I've said that is your right. Just don't try and tell us that it is skepticism and critical thinking when it's nothing of the sort.

I'd say it's the enemy of both skepticism and social justice.

Sort of like those (hopefully rare?) atheists who just go around wanting to call theists idiots and child abusers. While that behavior might allow them personaly to bask in hedonistic feelings of self-righteousness, they ain't actually doing atheism any favors.

They're actually making the rest of us look like a merry band of lunatics, at first glance, at least.

 

[RandFan]

I'd say it's the enemy of both skepticism and social justice.

Sort of like those (hopefully rare?) atheists who just go around wanting to call theists idiots and child abusers. While that behavior might allow them personaly to bask in hedonistic feelings of self-righteousness, they ain't actually doing atheism any favors.

They're actually making the rest of us look like a merry band of lunatics, at first glance, at least.

Agreed.

 

[Piscivore]

After some little cogitation, I've reached the following conclusions:

• That the A+ forum is intended to be an asylum (in the sense of a safe haven) for those emotionally defective who style themselves as "skeptics".
• Some people, being more emotionally defective than others, have difficulty expressing themselves calmly, coherently, or even civilly.
• It would be the height of callousness to berate a mental patient for their mental defects; so to is it offensive in the extreme to take a member of the A+ forums to task for uncivil nature of their rants.
• Thus the A+ forums take on the character of an asylum (in the sense of a facility catering to the insane), full of inmates and their caretakers.
• Only, their caretakers are some horrible, fascinating montage of Nurse Ratched, the asylum staff from Sucker Punch, and the inmates themselves.
• As asylums go, it ends up being something like Arkham with the Joker in charge.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2150/2150-h/2150-h.htm#link2H_4_0005

 

[qwints]

If you're new there you can see how they reacted to Matt Dillahunty and see some of these things in action.

I was there for that.