Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The thing that I don't get is how any group that self-identifies as "free thought" can advocate so hard for censorship.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The thing that I don't get is how any group that self-identifies as "free thought" can advocate so hard for censorship.

As long as you don't express thoughts that their power elite disagrees with, you are free to think any thoughts you want to think.

Then again, if the A+ insiders had a device that indicated someone thinking politically incorrect thoughts, that had a button to push that would eliminate those thoughts, I think they'd use it.

They're always right, and whoever opposes them is always wrong.

 

[qwints]

Rules governing what takes place on a private internet forum aren't the same kind of thing as government censorship.

And that kind of thing doesn't just happen in movies: People manufacture hurts and assign scapegoats all the time in real life.

That's certainly possible. There are also situations where people are really hurt by an otherwise innocuous behavior because of past traumas. I'm not going to risk harming people by investigating whether they're "really" hurt by what I've said. And I think there's a need for spaces that ban that sort of interrogation because of the harm it can do.

If it is used as a rhetorical device it is a fallacy. If it's used to make one a martyr then it's just boorish behavior and tends to distract from the discussion and not further it.

And if it's used

If it is used as a rhetorical device it is a fallacy. If it's used to make one a martyr then it's just boorish behavior and tends to distract from the discussion and not further it.

What if it's used because what someone said really hurt you or triggered you, and you just want to avoid that happening again?

Aye, and there's the rub because telling someone that their vulgar and irrational posts are disturbing your thought processes and making it impossible to take them seriously is evidently beyond rude, it's tone policing and it's verboten.

That's a correct statement of atheismplus forum rules.

 

[Krikkiter]

I'm not a part of the project, and I'm unaware of what the original policy was, but that's the current policy.

You mean you don't care what the original policy was? Try educating yourself on the *tone*, language and intent that was used when the idea was first brought up. Links in this thread - in case you hadn't noticed. Your mates weren't exactly open to change or being fair.

Though I'm sure you could find a way to twist the whole thing into some kind of minority v majority/misogyny/patriarchy whinge.

Please, go ahead, if you could be bothered to look at the crap your mates throw around like a pack of monkeys in a zoo, have a look and take a step back for a minute or two. If you have a rational bone in your body you'll be critical - critical of one of your biggest hero's and the horse she rode in on.

 

[Krikkiter]

Rules governing what takes place on a private internet forum aren't the same kind of thing as government censorship.



That's certainly possible. There are also situations where people are really hurt by an otherwise innocuous behavior because of past traumas. I'm not going to risk harming people by investigating whether they're "really" hurt by what I've said. And I think there's a need for spaces that ban that sort of interrogation because of the harm it can do.



And if it's used

What if it's used because what someone said really hurt you or triggered you, and you just want to avoid that happening again?



That's a correct statement of atheismplus forum rules.

You mean to say that we must assume that when someone says they are "triggered" on the internet it's a given that they are?

Ok well, you've just triggered me. I've suffered from depression in the past and what you're doing now is triggering that. I feel *********** terrible.

Now where's that ban hammer?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

You mean to say that we must assume that when someone says they are "triggered" on the internet it's a given that they are?

Ok well, you've just triggered me. I've suffered from depression in the past and what you're doing now is triggering that. I feel *********** terrible.

Now where's that ban hammer?

Ah, but it only applies to the in-group. If anyone else claims to be triggered (by being told to go **** themselves etc), then they are obviously trolls who are making it up.

 

[Zelenius]

Readers Digest as I recall:
- Joined the forum.
- Was inspired by our use of skepchick to co-opt the name and form an org.
- Gained a reputation a popular speaker, blogger and podcaster.
- Also gained a reputation as a party girl that didn't sit well with some of her fellow skepchicks (see rejection of "skepchick" appellation and bordello party threads).
- Was made a mod here, stepped down(?) and was suspended for having a sock puppet account "radial tyre".
- Came back off suspension and discovered her account reset to her mod status and abused those powers (except for banning Scrut, which was widely applauded).
- Was banned from the forum and continued her marketing elsewhere.



As a number of us have noted a number of times, the vast majority of skeptics/people advocating critical thinking (and while you know this, I just want to note it - JREF has always had that mission and is not an atheist organization) and atheists (and whatever crossover groups fall on that Venn diagram) have never heard of these groups, fewer are familiar with the big names involved and fewer still give a **** about them or what they have to say.

Personally I don't think the intercene fighting is due to old grudges or grievences across fora or social media, but that over time some people came to realize that others were a-holes, bullies and in a few cases borderline mentally ill. The reaction a lot of people who liked PZ have had to his antics over the last two years isn't because he posted something back in '08 they still take umbrage towards, it's because of what he's done, said and written over the past two years.

Excellent summary. This is why some folks call her the "Kim Kardashian" of the skeptic community. The key difference though is that Kim is probably a lot more honest and at least has some class. At least Kim isn't pretending to be a member of a certain community to hijack or destroy it.

At least Kim, who has made her "living" off of being sexually objectified doesn't turn around and tell everyone how wrong, and horrible it is that men sexually objectify her.

If this is the person largely responsible for the "rift" that lead to the creation of A+, no wonder it's a joke and is going no where fast.

 

[qayak]

Rules governing what takes place on a private internet forum aren't the same kind of thing as government censorship.



That's certainly possible. There are also situations where people are really hurt by an otherwise innocuous behavior because of past traumas. I'm not going to risk harming people by investigating whether they're "really" hurt by what I've said. And I think there's a need for spaces that ban that sort of interrogation because of the harm it can do.



And if it's used

What if it's used because what someone said really hurt you or triggered you, and you just want to avoid that happening again?



That's a correct statement of atheismplus forum rules.

People are not responsible for your past trauma nor your inability to deal with your past trauma. If there is a discussion about rape and one of the participants was a victim of rape, it doesn't mean the discussion ends because they are "triggered" or take offense with someone else's view.

Everyone has trauma in their lives. Some people just refuse to allow it to control who they are and how they live. They do not see their personal trauma as a licence to become an asshat everytime they feel the urge.

A+ members on the other hand wallow in their victimhood. It IS their life and who they are. It is all the excuse they need to allow their asshattery to surface. A+ members don't need a safe place to discuss their victimhood further . . . they need hospital wards with drugs and counselling.

 

[Krikkiter]

It all makes sense now. I've heard some of this before, but that was an excellent summary. <polite snip>

I second this.

 

[The Big Dog]

The thing that I don't get is how any group that self-identifies as "free thought" can advocate so hard for censorship.

It is an Orwellian thing I guess.

One of the real StormTroopers (in the 1940's sense) posts there, and I find his stuff completely unreadable because of the cognitive dissonance

 

[RandFan]

What if it's used because what someone said really hurt you or triggered you, and you just want to avoid that happening again?

A.) grow a thicker skin or get off of social networking. B.) You could try the principle of charity, don't assume the worse, if you are still upset you could ask nicely and don't condescend.

Hope that helps but I've not a clue what that has to do with A+ where the offense is had easily and then is used for rhetorical advantage.

Notice we at JREF don't spend a lot of time crying in our coffee. I think it's because most of us are grown ups and can navigate social situations. Don't get me wrong. I'm a hot head. I've gotten yellow cards (infractions) because someone upset me and I fired back (or I started it but I'd like to think that isn't typical). In any event, I find a way to have civil discourse or I put the people who upset me on ignore. Not all that difficult.

If we can do it here they can do it over at A+. I'm sorry but you just are not making your case.

 

[RandFan]

The thing that I don't get is how any group that self-identifies as "free thought" can advocate so hard for censorship.

The Righteous Mind. We all think we are the ones that are righteous. It's a form of solipsism. In a professional setting or one like JREF where free thought is encouraged and rules of civility are evenly enforced there is less of a tendency for an in-crowd to dominate the conversation with rhetorical device and gotchas.

 

[Wildy]

I don't do Reddit. Can you cross post anything here that is particularly indicative of their frustration?

There you go.

It's some interesting reading.

 

[qwints]

You mean you don't care what the original policy was?

As far as I can tell it's been the official policy since 9/28/12, and was mentioned as part of the official code of conduct as early as 8/28/12. The only references I can find in this thread to another policy are secondary sources citing this post. The only reference to permission involves encouraging content owners to request transcription. The founder of the project, trinolier, says the following in a comment:

Hiya Anna. I’m the founder, etc of A+scribe. If someone doesn’t want their work transcribed, we won’t do so. This would be quite unfortunate.

However, if its one hostile person of a whole group of people, say an interview of a creationist, we would go ahead and transcribe it anyways; the greater good is served by the transcription than respecting one person’s attempt at screwing things over.

I read that as saying that, while content owners could object to transcription, people who appear in someone else's work do not have a veto right. This comment, unlike the policy in place at the time, does not make clear that permission is opt-in and not opt-out. A dispute broke out in the comments over questions such as whether captioning is fair use under US law, and the problems with subordinating accessibility to other concerns, but the point was repeatedly made that A+scribe's policy is only to transcribe open works or with permission. I can see no evidence that A+scribe ever had a policy of transcribing protected works without permission.

People are not responsible for your past trauma nor your inability to deal with your past trauma.

What does responsibility have to do with avoiding hurting people?

A.) grow a thicker skin or get off of social networking.

That attitude is exactly why safe spaces are needed.

 

[RandFan]

There you go.

It's some interesting reading.

I have to admit it's funny that we are talking about A+ and the folks at redit are talking about us. Love it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

People are not responsible for your past trauma nor your inability to deal with your past trauma. If there is a discussion about rape and one of the participants was a victim of rape, it doesn't mean the discussion ends because they are "triggered" or take offense with someone else's view.

Everyone has trauma in their lives. Some people just refuse to allow it to control who they are and how they live. They do not see their personal trauma as a licence to become an asshat everytime they feel the urge.

A+ members on the other hand wallow in their victimhood. It IS their life and who they are. It is all the excuse they need to allow their asshattery to surface. A+ members don't need a safe place to discuss their victimhood further . . . they need hospital wards with drugs and counselling.

This.

 

[RandFan]

That attitude is exactly why safe spaces are needed.

Nonsense. What's needed is for people to grow up and stop playing victim. And A+ is NOT a safe space for everyone. It's only a safe space for the in-group.

And as typical you ignore the rest of my post.

B.) You could try the principle of charity, don't assume the worse, if you are still upset you could ask nicely and don't condescend.

 

[theprestige]

That's certainly possible. There are also situations where people are really hurt by an otherwise innocuous behavior because of past traumas. I'm not going to risk harming people by investigating whether they're "really" hurt by what I've said. And I think there's a need for spaces that ban that sort of interrogation because of the harm it can do.

I agree that there is a need for such spaces.

I also think that such spaces are existentially inimical to skeptical discussion of social justice issues. By the rules or conventions of such a space, victims of social injustice are entitled to derail or end the discussion by claiming to have been affected by the subject matter.

Obviously this has a chilling effect on debate. And this is exactly what we see on the A+ forums: No new ground is being broken. The state of the art is not being advanced. Discussion is restricted to a few approved "301" viewpoints, and these viewpoints characteristically feed the membership's feelings of victimhood and outrage.

It's a safe space for certain kinds of feelings, but a dangerous place for any kind of skeptical thought. The A+ forum's main problem is that they've billed themselves as a place for skeptics to discuss social justice issues, but in reality they're a safe place for self-described victims to have social justice feelings.

That, and their orthodox, doctrinaire approach to their subject matter...

ETA:

"You can't talk about rape because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't talk about native americans because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use conventional pronouns because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't post limericks because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't send PMs because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't give virtual hugs without disclaimers because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use big words or compound sentences because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use hypothetical examples because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use real-world examples because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't restate your argument because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use science, evidence, or facts, because it hurts my feelings."

You know what? Here's a crazy straw: Suck it up.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Preventing harmful slurs and arguments isn't tone policing. Tone policing is the idea that passionate or angry responses are less valid than flat responses.

That sounds suspiciously like a matter of opinion. ("My response is passionate, yours is harmful!")

 

[theprestige]

That sounds suspiciously like a matter of opinion. ("My response is passionate, yours is harmful!")

Not to mention that privileging passion erases everyone who responds to stress by crafting dispassionately-articulated complex arguments.