Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[recursive prophet]

Contrast this to the way "moderation" is conducted at A+, and draw your own conclusions.

Wowsers, talk about setting the bar low, j!! I doubt any here-even a long time critic like myself-would compare it with A+. I could say more, but not here, and I've learned to avoid FM. But there are a few similarities, just not taken to the extremes we've seen at A+.

I nominated Myriad's post on Atheism± as I think it really does a great job of summarizing the differences between here and there. Qwint? Apostate? I'd really like to see your response to Myriad's post. Here's a link to it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9049759&postcount=4854

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I'm not a frequent poster here, but I've had many posts moved to AAH. I haven't received a yellow card or a warning in a long time. The mods don't have time to review every post when they move 30+ comments on a thread that's gone off-track. I understand that if I have one innocuous post in a thread that has two or three people arguing about things that are OT, I realize that my post was not singled out. (and posts that are involved in those threads would be impossible to understand if they were taken out of the context of the running argument.)

 

[RandFan]

I'm not a frequent poster here, but I've had many posts moved to AAH. I haven't received a yellow card or a warning in a long time. The mods don't have time to review every post when they move 30+ comments on a thread that's gone off-track. I understand that if I have one innocuous post in a thread that has two or three people arguing about things that are OT, I realize that my post was not singled out. (and posts that are involved in those threads would be impossible to understand if they were taken out of the context of the running argument.)

I used to get my panties in a bunch when it happened to me. Thanks to A+ I learned how to stop worrying and love our moderators. Though I reserve the right to get my panties in a bunch in the future.

 

[Wildy]

We try to make it so. We'll usually say "As mod" when we've got our Mod Hats on. Or use the scary mod box.

By the way, which subforum do I go to to complain about the mod boxes triggering me? If I see a mod box I go into the foetal position for a month and am unable to function in society.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Replies

Apologies for the heap of text, but this seems like the best way to get back to all the people who commented to me.

Welcome aboard. If you're unbanned over there, avoid saying anything bad about the head inmates. They don't cotton to no bad-mouthing on other boards (unless it's "in good faith", whatever that loaded expression means).

I am unbanned, nothing I do here will affect me there, save we may talk about it if some of them are interested. I will not be answering any questions, or making comments which would be translations of hostility from one site to the other, but I'm happy to talk about my opinions and my perceptions, and none of them would deny me that.

Here were some of your other points, if I miss something that was important to you please bring it up and we'll go over it too.

*They do not allow dissent.

This is false. Dissent is allowed, and often encouraged to move a discussion along. What is not allowed is questioning of certain basic assumptions in the areas where those assumptions are accepted and the conversation is trying to move on to a higher level. For instance if there is a discussion about how a new anti-rape campaign is pro feminism and really generally awesome, a commenter who brings up "I don't think there is any such thing as rape" is not going to be welcome in that thread and will quickly be ejected from it. If they take the same spiel to the I&A section and try again they will likely still get moderated because the evidence for rape is overwhelming and debate over that is not conducive to maintaining a safe space for rape victims. (just as one of many examples).

*The discussion on allies.

Ignoring the hyperbole, you were subjected to a very different experience with your charity work because you arrived with and were identified to have previous experience in heavy lift cargo. You were not the newbie that is being discussed on that thread.

Now imagine if you wanted to help at an abuse counseling center, but you believe that parents are allowed to hit their children. How do you expect to be greeted in that place?

...I like the discussions about Schrodinger's Rapist personally.

I like that topic too, once I got my head around it I found that it did not bother me. I will look up the discussion, eventually, but I think that's a worthy topic for it's own thread.

I am sure that they CAN, but it has happened over and over again that they do not.

I've been on A+ since October and I haven't seen it. From what I have seen it takes a pretty entitled attitude to get kicked off. I went back and checked the situation on your ban and I can't say it wasn't justified. It wasn't nice, but that isn't the same thing.

Very briefly, you started by defending Wind, (Kelly B?) and that opened a conversation which I read as, you were ok with how Xie behaved, however you wanted all the people Xie was triggering with Xer behavior to not be triggered back? (That may not be what you meant but it's how it reads to me.) Your last post completely ignored the post by piegasm clarifying the point. Given the escalating hyperbole in your posts from the start to the end, epically in non-specifically vilifying TLC and Setar.

I will say that I didn't see mod warnings in that thread, were you warned elsewhere?

Hello and welcome, ApostateltsopA!....A trigger warning, though: The JREF forums most certainly are "debate club".

Thank you, I'm not triggered by debate, I have a lot of spoons. I will however call out debate tactics, if someone jumps for a gotcha or engages in rethoric w/o substance expect me to call them on it and be largely done with that person.

As to the off agenda thread I assume you are referring to the end with Mr.Samsa and the eventual shutdown.

Without reading this whole thread I can say only that I saw people here calling him the very light of reason (paraphrase). Personally I found him frustratingly unwilling to engage in direct points, at least those I raised, and incoherent in his actual position on the value of evidence once some core values have been philosophically established. (If you check this was consensus pretty early on) He kept vacillating between science informs philosophy and science is useless in philosophical discussion. Then again he also seemed to refuse to acknowledge applied sciences (like medicine) as science, so there were problems all through out the thread.

@RP, I will look at your link, but in another post. (Cauze LOOOONG)

@Squeegee Beckenheim, I will admit to a bit of hyperbole, however I was asked to read the whole thread if I wanted to comment, another member pointed out the hyprocracy of mocking a links basket and asking folks to read large amounts of info here. Are you seriously that upset about calling this a demand? "You could read the thread. There are plenty of examples of the failure to apply scepticism by A+." It contains instruction with no "please". I think pushing on this front is a trip down pedantry lane personally. If nothing else this thread keeps growing which means that someone who wants to join will need to do an ever increasing amount of reading to participate.

[examples and]... But it's a matter of degree. You'll have to reach your own subjective conclusions.

(edited fore brevity)

My take is pretty simple, internet forums are private spaces, not public ones. They are semi-public in that many are open to folks looking in, or joining up, but they are still not like a public park or a publicly owned community center. The ownership is private. Because of the last point the owners get to set rules, more or less indiscriminately. I may disagree with some rules, like the no swearing here as a case in point, but since I came here I will abide by that rule. If there was a rule on having to read the whole post before commenting I'd comment much more carefully, and after a lot more carefully or not at all. The links at A+ aren't required in the sense that you have to prove you read them to be allowed to post, but they do contain fundamental ideas to the site, which are not up for debate in the main section. There is the whole rest of the internet to debate those ideas, and posting in ignorance of them or against them requires folks to come back to basic stuff and re-refute the claims. (Not a crime, but not a right either). Demanding that one be allowed to interrupt a conversation with their own derailing agenda is entitlement.

@kmortis Cool mod sign. I will spin off a thread, I didn't want to take that action w/o checking first though since I'm new here.

@squealpiggie, How is that different from directing someone to a link to arguments to avoid though? As opposed to giving a specific rebuttal.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Wowsers, talk about setting the bar low, j!! I doubt any here-even a long time critic like myself-would compare it with A+. I could say more, but not here, and I've learned to avoid FM. But there are a few similarities, just not taken to the extremes we've seen at A+.

I nominated Myriad's post on Atheism± as I think it really does a great job of summarizing the differences between here and there. Qwint? Apostate? I'd really like to see your response to Myriad's post. Here's a link to it: [edit I have to remove the URL /Apos]

It read to me like someone who has a lot of time and doesn't mind rehashing the same ground over and over, while still being condescending. As though any other way of doing things is inherently inferior and people who don't have the energy or spoons, for endless debates on the same topic, especially when it comes to abelism and slurs, are doing something wrong.

I think that attitude also contributes to the false notion that opinions are equal and that if an argument has multiple sides, the sides must be equal.

Specifically,

We're Atheism Plus, minus personalized politics.
We're Atheism Plus, minus demonizing and scapegoating.
We're Atheism Plus, minus opaque jargon as in-group badges.
We're Atheism Plus, minus the tribalism.
We're Atheism Plus, minus exclusion and censorship.
We're Atheism Plus Minus!

*I'll admit I'm not sure what is meant by personalized politics,
*Demonizing and skapegoating? I can get behind the later, though I think we'd disagree on wether an individual was skapegoated or hoisted on their own petard. (Just a feeling I have) However demonizing? Why would we not lambast people who are advocating evil? I will call bad people, bad people when I see them.
*Jargon and badges? Meaning we won't recognize a black woman's opinion as better in regards to racism and feminism than a white mans? Sure there will be exceptions to the lady being more informed, but they will be rare. As for Jargon, why should A+ abstain when all other groups don't? Find a group of organized people and you will find jargon. We should all be able to grok that. e.g. "Modbox" <-- Jargon
*tribalism? Going to need a bit more detail here, does this mean that the new group won't define any out group as bad? I will resist racists, and organized racism, I will call that out.
*exclusion (This is not a safe space, and it does exclude. My first attempt to gain access was denied because the name I provided was not good enough, meaning my anonymity was denied) and censorship, (except swear words, and personal attacks)

At A±, we encourage people who disagree with us to "'splain" their position, because if you're wrong, understanding your perspective helps us figure out how to change your mind. And if we're wrong, we want to understand why so we can change our minds.

And if you are unreasonable and continue to insist on the same dogmatic points despite their sound, and thorough rebuttal, we will tolerate you even though your mind is not up to changing and you continue to disrupt the conversation others are having? (I'm just saying such people are beyond obnoxious and should be ejected; they prevent conversation.)

At A±, we believe that it is our responsibility to help educate you about social justice issues, as part of the process of making changes happen instead of just demanding them.

Because you are entitled to your backward ideas of gender and race and ability until someone comes along and teaches you. You have no obligation to learn on your own. (Or another way, this is fine if the members have the spoons for it, not everyone does and it is wrong to demand that someone with few spoons spend them on you when you are fully capable of pulling up Google and reading a bit yourself)

At A±, intent is important to us (even though it is not magic) because it defines the distinction between actual opponents, and allies or potential allies who currently disagree about methods or have different priorities or perceive the issues from a different perspective.

I'm fine with this.

tl;dr version, it looks entitled and condescending.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Last reply and I must sleep,

RP can you please create a topic for the video? I was thinking to call it Elevatorgate revisited: with guest star Shrodinger's rapist.

That looks like it will cover the bits, and then we can keep that discussion moving forward w/o lots of unrelated stuff in between,

I no can link so it would be silly for me to open it.

 

[Krikkiter]

By the way, which subforum do I go to to complain about the mod boxes triggering me? If I see a mod box I go into the foetal position for a month and am unable to function in society.

Depends how much dribble is involved. It's all about the dribble.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

@Squeegee Beckenheim, I will admit to a bit of hyperbole, however I was asked to read the whole thread if I wanted to comment, another member pointed out the hyprocracy of mocking a links basket and asking folks to read large amounts of info here. Are you seriously that upset about calling this a demand?

I'm not upset about anything. I was correcting your factual error.

I think pushing on this front is a trip down pedantry lane personally.

And you're free to think that. I think that using terms like "demand" and "upset" where they're not accurate is mischaracterising those you're speaking with, attempting to make a discussion of fact into an emotional discussion, and acting in bad faith. All of which you're welcome to do, as long as you understand that posting in that manner is less likely to be conducive to friendly and constructive debate than not engaging in such hyperbole would and, instead, is more likely to lead to bad-tempered and irrelevant derails.

 

[Krikkiter]

Last reply and I must sleep,

RP can you please create a topic for the video? I was thinking to call it Elevatorgate revisited: with guest star Shrodinger's rapist.

That looks like it will cover the bits, and then we can keep that discussion moving forward w/o lots of unrelated stuff in between,

I no can link so it would be silly for me to open it.

Pretty sure there's no restriction on starting a thread yourself though I don't think having "EG revisited" and "Shrodinger's Rapist" in the same thread would be a good idea.

Also, welcome to JREF Forums. Please note the E.

 

[Foolmewunz]

ApostateltsopA, do you mind if we call you AA? Mirror writing not being our forte, it might be easier.... and I just got the name, anyway.

(And that's not a facetious question - e.g. not making a word play on "triggering". Most of us do try to only use nicks that people are comfortable with.)

And can I get a word in to all:
I'm sort of on an anti-dogpiling campaign this month. (Greatly inspired by the tactics at A+, to be honest.) ApostateltsopA is making an effort to respond to a lot of points raised, but that can be a daunting task as any of us know who've been the lone voice in any situation. Can we try to allow the poster some breathing room. I, for one, appreciate the effort being made.

My high horse needs to be brushed down and fed, so I'll get off of it, now.

 

[Krikkiter]

ApostateltsopA, do you mind if we call you AA? Mirror writing not being our forte, it might be easier.... and I just got the name, anyway.

(And that's not a facetious question - e.g. not making a word play on "triggering". Most of us do try to only use nicks that people are comfortable with.)

And can I get a word in to all:
I'm sort of on an anti-dogpiling campaign this month. (Greatly inspired by the tactics at A+, to be honest.) ApostateltsopA is making an effort to respond to a lot of points raised, but that can be a daunting task as any of us know who've been the lone voice in any situation. Can we try to allow the poster some breathing room. I, for one, appreciate the effort being made.

My high horse needs to be brushed down and fed, so I'll get off of it, now.

It hasn't happened yet and I'll get on my high horse and say that if people feel like responding to anything they should. Why should we back off on the skepticism just because someone's from A+? As you know, there are many, many posters here who do quite well responding to questions regardless of the fact that they are the lone voice for say Ufology, 9/11 truth, climate change skepticism, Scientology, Bigfeet, mind reading, sugar pills and the like.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It hasn't happened yet and I'll get on my high horse and say that if people feel like responding to anything they should. Why should we back off on the skepticism just because someone's from A+? As you know, there are many, many posters here who do quite well responding to questions regardless of the fact that they are the lone voice for say Ufology, 9/11 truth, climate change skepticism, Scientology, Bigfeet, mind reading, sugar pills and the like.

Actually, no. They don't. Most windmill tilters have at various points either given up and departed or actually voiced their frustration at the incredible number of posts. Sometimes they do it by ranting and calling names, sometimes by putting people on ignore - or threatening quite often to do so, and sometimes they just take their volleyball and go home. The ones with staying power are the exception rather than the rule.

Anyhow... that's just my .02 ! Y'all are gonna behave like y'all are gonna behave. I just thought I'd enter the thought for consideration. ApostateltsopA didn't ask for any special treatment and I doubt any is needed. I just thought it might be a welcome contrast to the shenanigans at A+.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And if you are unreasonable and continue to insist on the same dogmatic points despite their sound, and thorough rebuttal, we will tolerate you even though your mind is not up to changing and you continue to disrupt the conversation others are having? (I'm just saying such people are beyond obnoxious and should be ejected; they prevent conversation.)

I suspect that a major bone of contention here would be the definition of what constitutes a sound and thorough rebuttal. The thread posted earlier about science and how it can and cannot inform or be the basis of values was mainly people misrepresenting what was being said, and even claiming that the poster was saying the exact opposite of what they had explicitly said in order to take offence and scream "STOP ERASING THE GENOCIDE OF BABIES!" at the other side. And when it was pointed out, with quotes, that the poster had explicitly said the opposite of what it was being claimed he said, and that, far from "erasing" deaf people mistreated by the current medical model, he was a deaf person who has been mistreated by the current medical model, ceepolk framed her not paying attention to his posts and going off half-cocked as him being in the wrong.

Surely any sceptical thinker has to be open to the possibility that they are wrong, rather than blaming any faults or mistakes on their part on others?

Because you are entitled to your backward ideas of gender and race and ability until someone comes along and teaches you. You have no obligation to learn on your own. (Or another way, this is fine if the members have the spoons for it, not everyone does and it is wrong to demand that someone with few spoons spend them on you when you are fully capable of pulling up Google and reading a bit yourself)

It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

But, really, the point here is what the A+ forum/movement hopes to achieve. If an increase in social justice and equality and fairness for all is the goal, then that might require a bit of effort put in to educating people. If all that's desired is a space where people can sit around agreeing with each other about what is wrong with the world without actually doing anything to change it, then shouting obscenities at anyone who doesn't agree with or is ignorant of the issues and never stepping outside the forum is just fine.

I'm fine with this.

In the moderation thread posted a page or two back it was explicitly said that at A+ if a newbie says something that's disapproved of that the default position is to assume that they're the enemy.

 

[Krikkiter]

Actually, no. They don't. Most windmill tilters have at various points either given up and departed or actually voiced their frustration at the incredible number of posts. Sometimes they do it by ranting and calling names, sometimes by putting people on ignore - or threatening quite often to do so, and sometimes they just take their volleyball and go home. The ones with staying power are the exception rather than the rule.

Anyhow... that's just my .02 ! Y'all are gonna behave like y'all are gonna behave. I just thought I'd enter the thought for consideration. ApostateltsopA didn't ask for any special treatment and I doubt any is needed. I just thought it might be a welcome contrast to the shenanigans at A+.

Well, yeah, the ones with staying power are the ones that don't mind their arguments being subjected to honest and sustained scrutiny even though the vast majority are without any substance at all). And though I do think you're right when you say that most of them can't handle it, the ones that can tend to do quite fine - I'd say they quite enjoy all the attention.

Thing is, if anyone comes here with right on their side, their arguments will stand on their own merits and as we all know, that's what we look forward to.

I do appreciate the sentiment though and I'm looking forward to seeing whether the A+ arguments stand on their own merits.

 

[squealpiggy]

It read to me like someone who has a lot of time and doesn't mind rehashing the same ground over and over, while still being condescending.

The "lack of time" meme was discussed a couple of pages back. The whole issue of responding with "I don't have the time right now to prove that you're wrong, but you're wrong".

If you don't have the time then wait until you do or just let it go. Suggesting that you could debunk a claim if you really wanted to but you don't want to right now is not the same as actually doing so

As though any other way of doing things is inherently inferior and people who don't have the energy or spoons, for endless debates on the same topic, especially when it comes to abelism and slurs, are doing something wrong.

The biggest issue with A+ is that they have a tendency to see ableism, privilege and slurs where none exist. See the Limerick discussion in which the author of a completely harmless limerick was dogpiled because some limericks are sexist and therefore all limericks are sexist.

I think that attitude also contributes to the false notion that opinions are equal and that if an argument has multiple sides, the sides must be equal.

And of course JREF doesn't hold that all opinions are equal. But at the same time it holds that no opinions are untouchable.

*I'll admit I'm not sure what is meant by personalized politics,

Declaring anyone who disagrees with your politics to be an enemy and therefore attacking the arguer and not the argument. For example if somebody asks for a reliable source for the unreasonably high statistics on rape that are offered by some feminists as proof of rape culture they are declared to be a misogynist and therefore too contemptible to respond to.

*Demonizing and skapegoating? I can get behind the later, though I think we'd disagree on wether an individual was skapegoated or hoisted on their own petard. (Just a feeling I have) However demonizing? Why would we not lambast people who are advocating evil? I will call bad people, bad people when I see them.

What you are declaring to be "bad people" could be "misinformed people" or they could just arrive at a different conclusion. Usually the differences in opinion are minor. The issue with looking for "bad people" means that everywhere you look there are "bad people". Or witches. Or communists. Or Suppressive Persons.

*Jargon and badges? Meaning we won't recognize a black woman's opinion as better in regards to racism and feminism than a white mans?

It depends on the opinion, not the person holding it. Who has a more valid opinion, a white man in a relationship with a black woman with mixed race children or a black woman who believes that all white people are devils who should be murdered?

Sure there will be exceptions to the lady being more informed, but they will be rare.

But they're essentially ireelevent when discussing ideas. Bad ideas are bad ideas, no matter who they belong to.

*tribalism? Going to need a bit more detail here, does this mean that the new group won't define any out group as bad? I will resist racists, and organized racism, I will call that out.

How about declaring skeptics who are not part of your specific movement to be the enemy as Greg Laden did?

*exclusion (This is not a safe space, and it does exclude. My first attempt to gain access was denied because the name I provided was not good enough, meaning my anonymity was denied) and censorship, (except swear words, and personal attacks)

JREF does not exclude anybody. And the reason that the swear filter exists is to allow participation by people behind firewalls that block sites for profanity, therefore increasing inclusivity. It is not more inclusive to ban opinions that differ from your own.

And if you are unreasonable and continue to insist on the same dogmatic points despite their sound, and thorough rebuttal, we will tolerate you even though your mind is not up to changing and you continue to disrupt the conversation others are having?

Tolerance is not something I've seen a lot of from the A+ forum. Unless you're part of a mysterious inner circle.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The biggest issue with A+ is that they have a tendency to see ableism, privilege and slurs where none exist. See the Limerick discussion in which the author of a completely harmless limerick was dogpiled because some limericks are sexist and therefore all limericks are sexist.

I missed that kerfuffle. I used up my yearly quota of "for ****'s sake" just reading the first page. I daren't read the rest, for fear of causing a global "for ****'s sake" shortage.

It depends on the opinion, not the person holding it. Who has a more valid opinion, a white man in a relationship with a black woman with mixed race children or a black woman who believes that all white people are devils who should be murdered?

I would say more than that, even. Say you've got a white guy who is concerned about racism and, as such, keeps up-to-date on all the latest statistics and figures. And you've got a black woman who knows nothing of the statistics and figures, but lives in a particularly bad area for racism and also suffers from extreme confiramtion bias. Whose opinion should we give more weight to on the subject of statistics on racism throughout the UK? The person who knows the statistics, or the person whose perspective is skewed?

If we're talking about personal experiences, then personal experience is the relevant thing. In that instance, the black woman's view trumps the white man's by a country mile. However, personal experience is a bad tool for determining the truth about the world. Humans have all kinds of biases and cognitive and perceptual flaws. This is one of the main reasons why critical thinking is so important - it's a method by which the influence of these biases and flaws can be minimised. You cannot value critical thinking while simultaneously giving more weight to personal experience than empirical data, because the one is the antithesis of the other.

Furthermore, this standard seems to be applied inconsistently. If the members of the in-group's experience necessarily trumps the members of the out-group's experience, then why is PZ Meyers allowed to tell Stef McGraw that she's wrong about Rebecca Watson calling her out in a public speech during Elevatorgate? He's a man, she's a woman, so her opinion should have more value than his. More to the point, she's Stef McGraw and was sitting in the audience when it happened, and he's not and was not. How come, in the the thread about science and values, the non-disabled Setar can tell the deaf Mr. Samra* that he's "erasing" the experience of deaf people?

*I can't remember the poster's actual name, and am posting during my lunch hour so can't really check. It's close.

 

[squealpiggy]

I missed that kerfuffle. I used up my yearly quota of "for ****'s sake" just reading the first page. I daren't read the rest, for fear of causing a global "for ****'s sake" shortage.



I would say more than that, even. Say you've got a white guy who is concerned about racism and, as such, keeps up-to-date on all the latest statistics and figures. And you've got a black woman who knows nothing of the statistics and figures, but lives in a particularly bad area for racism and also suffers from extreme confiramtion bias. Whose opinion should we give more weight to on the subject of statistics on racism throughout the UK? The person who knows the statistics, or the person whose perspective is skewed?

If we're talking about personal experiences, then personal experience is the relevant thing. In that instance, the black woman's view trumps the white man's by a country mile. However, personal experience is a bad tool for determining the truth about the world. Humans have all kinds of biases and cognitive and perceptual flaws. This is one of the main reasons why critical thinking is so important - it's a method by which the influence of these biases and flaws can be minimised. You cannot value critical thinking while simultaneously giving more weight to personal experience than empirical data, because the one is the antithesis of the other.

Furthermore, this standard seems to be applied inconsistently. If the members of the in-group's experience necessarily trumps the members of the out-group's experience, then why is PZ Meyers allowed to tell Stef McGraw that she's wrong about Rebecca Watson calling her out in a public speech during Elevatorgate? He's a man, she's a woman, so her opinion should have more value than his. More to the point, she's Stef McGraw and was sitting in the audience when it happened, and he's not and was not. How come, in the the thread about science and values, the non-disabled Setar can tell the deaf Mr. Samra* that he's "erasing" the experience of deaf people?

*I can't remember the poster's actual name, and am posting during my lunch hour so can't really check. It's close.

And let's not forget the woeful treatment of a rape victim for saying that (s)he was glad to be alive following his/her ordeal.

These are the examples of how the rules are applied injudiciously and dissent is crushed at Atheism Plus.

 

[kbonn]

She could have expressed an opinion about the encounter and offered a suggestion that men consider that women might fee vulnerable in an enclosed space.

How did that work out?

Some people (women in particular) had a different opinion. That's it. No reason to call anyone out at a conference. That's the good thing about dialectics. RW expresses her opinion. Other people express an opinion and we move society forward. People are allowed to have an opinion different than RW, right? People have the right to express that opinion, right?

I've no idea what this is about. It looks like a hasty generalization and straw man but tough to tell.

I don't know why my quotes your quoting disappear when I try to quote it, but if there is a way, perhaps someone could help me out.

Also, let me clarify, what Rebecca did AFTER posting her first video, and they way she treated people with honest disagreement(IE Steph Mcgraw(sp?)) is shameful and a disgusting bully tactic. However, her initial video, I didn't think was that bad when taken in isolation.

The dawkins thing, I figured most people here are aware of his "Dear Muslima" letter posted in the comments to RW's post. Basically, he was telling her that her priorities were off and she shouldn't complain about X(being hit on/propositioned in an elevator), because group Y(women in many muslim countries) has to deal with Z(Genital mutilation).

Many times on FtB and less so on A+, people expressing concern for certain issues that are more isolated to men, or affect men in a lesser degree are given the brush off or mocked with a comment similar to "Oh here we go again 'What about teh menz'".

 

[zooterkin]

Personally, I think we're going about it arse backwards.

Is that a bad thing where you are? Seems to be normal round here.