Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[kellyb]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the one who was complaining about getting not being able to get time off from boarding school to do or attend to something? Or am I mixing my misfits?

.

The person who said that is a teen. I do know that, and that's part of why I'm not mad.

But jeez.

I mean, jeez, really? Die? I need the death penalty? For...telling the truth?

Damn. Those teenagers and TLC really are hard core over there.

 

[Wildy]

Clearly you're a jerk kellyb. What else can people say to someone who has ruined a secret safe space that only a select group of people can see by turning it into a private safe space that everyone knows about but only a select group of people can see.

Revealing that secret was bad and you should feel bad. /sarcasm

 

[brodski]

Is "as trustworthy as a Nigerian prince" an allowed .SJ term now? I would have thought it brought up massive issues of racism and colonialism.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Is "as trustworthy as a Nigerian prince" an allowed .SJ term now? I would have thought it brought up massive issues of racism and colonialism.

All privilage is equal, but some privilage is more equal than others.

 

[Wildy]

Social Justice Warriors are allowed to say whatever they want. It's us regular people who have to police our language around them.

 

[jhunter1163]

It's kind of pathetic, really. A little band of warriors crusading bravely for social justice... until one of them gets an unsolicited PM in their "safe space" and is forced to lie curled up in the fetal position on their bed for two days and all the rest of the SJ warriors are forced to tend to that person and celebrate hir victimhood and shake their fists ineffectually at teh eeeeeebil Internet for its privilege and its patriarchy.

 

[d4m10n]

Come on, honestly, haven't you ever pictured yourself going full setar on someone, just to watch the reaction. You can do that in a safe space

Oh, Stout, you should NEVER go full Setar. CHECK YOUR *********** NON-SAFESPACE CIVILITY PRIVILEGE!!!

 

[qwints]

The latter part first... Not in the least creeped out by people who know how to read and who read the material they post on the internet. It's there for all to see. No one's stalking them at home or trying to Do A Watson (i.e. rallying friends who try to get debating opponents fired). Did that creep you out? Did that creep out any of the uber-sensitive. Imagine if Ceepolk showed up at work in whatever town she's in and found that someone was launching an email campaign to her boss to get her fired? Wanna bet that if you start a thread over there about what Rebecca's minions did (and Rebecca has been seen bragging about) that every one of them would think it was Social Justice In Action?

So, no. I'm not in the least creeped out that they're being called to task in a freewheeling but moderated forum of an organization that's done more for skepticism than they've ever dreamed of doing.

I'm fine. I have a very public presence on the internet, and I've been consciously choosing to do that for a decade. People googling me isn't strange. I just didn't understand what the point was of posting what amounted to "I know where you work".

Does your standard for whether or not something's creepy depend on how you think someone would respond to a different action?

 

[jhunter1163]

If someone really wanted to find me, just based on my posts here, they could, and fairly easily. I doubt that anyone takes anything I say seriously enough to go to the trouble.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm fine. I have a very public presence on the internet, and I've been consciously choosing to do that for a decade. People googling me isn't strange. I just didn't understand what the point was of posting what amounted to "I know where you work".

Does your standard for whether or not something's creepy depend on how you think someone would respond to a different action?

No, my standard for something creepy is when it's creepy. But creepy doesn't really bother me. Bullying does. What Rebecca's posse did was real. They made a concerted effort to get someone fired because they didn't agree with that person on a point of personal politics. If anyone did that in my name, I'd be horrified and I'd tell them in so uncertain terms to cease and desist. I would've regained some respect for Rebecca or PZ if they had said, "Don't be that guy" to the people dropping a dime.

I'm not sure about your comment about someone posting "I know where you work". I saw a post after/during this exchange, but if there was something earlier or on A+, I missed it. I don't approve of it as a threat any more than I approve of the real-time action of the people who did it to get even with Watson's detractor.

Meh? I used to post anonymous but just because I often posted on China business and I would've put my company in violation of various NDAs if I was identifiable as an employee or if I named the clients I was using as first-hand examples. Now that I'm self-employed, I am not even close to anonymous. (I was even thinking of changing my name here to my own, but I'm known here by Foolmewunz and anyone who's ever PMd me and needed it has gotten my email address, which is my full name.)

ETA: I take it you're referring to Stout's post? I think the point being made is valid. I was pretty sure that a casual investigation couldn't have revealed me in my anonymous years, unless one of very few members here who know me was to turn on me. I simply made sure I didn't give out actual names of companies or associates and never posted anything that would be search-engine-friendly. I think Stout's point is that with some sense of self-preservation, you can do so. I sincerely doubt that it was in any form meant as even a hint of a threat.

 

[d4m10n]

A thread discussing what is going on in another forum. It should have died off long ago. Really, why are you so obsessed with those people?

Speaking only for myself, A+ represents one extreme pole in the freethought movement, the SlymePit represents the other extreme. Both of them mostly reject calls for civil engagement with the other side, because they are completely convinced that the other side isn't just wrong, but actually evil. Haidt's thinking is especially relevant and instructive here.

Why to I find them fascinating? Because the process of polarization and taking sides is precisely the last thing that I'd've expected from people who self-identify as freethinkers. My goal is to find a third way, rooted in the principle of charity, which allows us to move forward. Not that I'm having any luck with that.

 

[dasmiller]

If someone really wanted to find me, just based on my posts here, they could, and fairly easily. I doubt that anyone takes anything I say seriously enough to go to the trouble.

One never knows; I wouldn't have thought that my posts would cause much passion, either. But then a poster launched a thread in which he referred to some people (using language he'd used to describe me) as a tumor* on humanity, "and what do we do with a tumor?"

That creeped me out. I'd already reached my layman's conclusion that he was paranoid schizophrenic and I had no idea how seriously to take statements like that.

That got me to thinking about how difficult it would be for someone to track me down for someone starting with "dasmiller at the JREF site," and maybe I'd want it to be pretty difficult.

Of course, he was banned shortly after that; AFAIK the banning was for other reasons.

*It may have been "cancer" instead of "tumor." I can't find the thread now, but it may have been (appropriately) moved into deep storage.

 

[RandFan]

Skepticism seems in a bad shape if it can be ********** up the ass that easily by a few dozen people who don't even pretend to be concerned with skepticism but their own dogma.

What's with the straw men? I never said that the A+ forum can screw up all of skepticism. They have no more of a chance of that than does John Edward.

All that matters is that they are doing it wrong. I have every right to respond. If you don't like it you are in the wrong forum. Sorry but I get a hair up my ass when people who claim to be skeptics and critical thinkers bastardized the entire process. I reserve the right to criticize them. No one is off limits and particularly not this group of clowns.

 

[jhunter1163]

One never knows; I wouldn't have thought that my posts would cause much passion, either. But then a poster launched a thread in which he referred to some people (using language he'd used to describe me) as a tumor* on humanity, "and what do we do with a tumor?"

That creeped me out. I'd already reached my layman's conclusion that he was paranoid schizophrenic and I had no idea how seriously to take statements like that.

That got me to thinking about how difficult it would be for someone to track me down for someone starting with "dasmiller at the JREF site," and maybe I'd want it to be pretty difficult.

Of course, he was banned shortly after that; AFAIK the banning was for other reasons.

*It may have been "cancer" instead of "tumor." I can't find the thread now, but it may have been (appropriately) moved into deep storage.

I'm a mod; I've had anti-me threads launched before, and no doubt will again. No one's ever gone the extra step to try and harass me IRL though*.

* - And, just so everyone knows, it's a banning offense to harass someone IRL here, not just a mod but anyone. So, to quote something I heard somewhere else once, guys, don't do that.

 

[d4m10n]

Just tried to interact on the A+ forums again, having been called in by name: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3974#p70119

Apparently I just haven't got the knack of it yet.

 

[AbsurdWalls]

Remember my comments about perceptual set? The first thing an employer sees is the name on the resume. The name colours everything else they see on that document. If they're looking at two equally qualified applicants, one called Andrew and one called Billy-Bob they're going to be more inclined to take Andrew seriously.

I have a mathematics textbook written by a man named "Cletus". I can't say I wasn't surprised.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Just tried to interact on the A+ forums again, having been called in by name: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3974#p70119

Apparently I just haven't got the knack of it yet.

I can't blame you for not getting the exact meaning of "you're done with this thread." It's unclear and poorly worded. If they meant "you are forbidden to post again in this thread" why don't they say "you are forbidden to post again in this thread?" Does a subtly worded mod threat do any good? Unless it's to trap you? They expect you to read their minds? Even sounds like they're infantilizing you. That's the way parents talk to children who are bending vaguely stated and continuously improvised rules.

 

[recursive prophet]

Yeah, they never cease to amaze me. For a brief period when Submor agreed with qmartin in questioning the omnipotent wisdom of Setar, I wondered if some reason might slip into the madness. Well, I knew it was a long shot. They would definitely lose face at this juncture if the gurus started attacking one another, so it was quickly brushed over and not pursued.

And doncha just love the way they will ban someone either from the site on a specific forum and then go on to talk **** about them? Ceepolk especially seems to love flaunting her power to silence those she doesn't like-a long list indeed-and she is usually ambiguous about the ban as she was also with me. As I've noted before I think they are finally seeing how others view all the 'capricious and biased' mod actions. It won't change their behavior, but they will try and cover it up. That's why they haven't updated the banned list for so long.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, you can learn something there. I just learned that there are racist overtones to the Pistorius murder case. You know the one... white local hero and international darling murders white supermodel.

It seems,... now bear me out, here... that fans were tweeting based on the initial news reports that it was an accident and offering support for Pistorius with stuff like "Oh, how horrible he must feel" and other sympathetic fanboy twitter-worthy material.

And what is really behind this? Well, the argument is that he only got those tweets because he was white - no one would even think to send such a tweet if the shooter had been black.

You really have to have a special mindset to go looking for such underlying themes in every story about every event that happens.

 

[d4m10n]

That's the way parents talk to children who are bending vaguely stated and continuously improvised rules.

I'd ask the mods to be specific about which rules that I transgressed prior to my last post, but that would be an exercise in futility. My real crime was daring to stick up for Dan Fincke’s approach to online interaction, which could hardly be more perfectly opposed to the approach taken by the Plussers.