Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

I have a great idea. Why not strip out all of the superfluous (+) and create a forum where we let people bring with them their own ideas and preconceptions. Kind of a democracy of thought and speech without prior constraint (excepting of course illegal or obscene posts or those where there is no attempt at being civil). Where anyone who was interested in discussing a subject could start a thread on that subject. We could let those who are interested in that subject decide for themselves if they wanted to participate and thereby perpetuate the discussion. There would be no presumptions about truth or the validity of ideas. We could usher in a new age where the truth of propositions were based on arguments that attempted to establish definite propositions by the means of a series of connected agreed on statements leading via inference to a logical conclusion. A place where the compelling nature of the argument due to its cogent and coherent nature trumped sophistry and rhetorical device.

What's that? JREF already does that? Oh, never mind.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We are speaking about personal responses to posts.

I'm speaking about how you claimed that a demand was made of you, yet no demand was. I don't know why you would contest this after you already admitted to engaging in hyperbole.

Fact is so heavily colored by emotion in this place that I am amazed you can't see it.

I wouldn't assume what my opinions are, were I you. If you want to know my opinion on something, please ask.

More importantly why are you rejecting emotional bandwidth in this, or any, conversation?

A straw man which directly contradicts something I explicitly said in the portion of my post that you quoted.

That looks to me like a rejection of emotion as a valuable intellectual tool.

I have no control over what you infer from my posts, but you inferring something does not mean that I implied it. You would do better to stick to what I explicitly said, rather than making up your own narrative in your head and attempting to reply to that.

A skeptical thinker also needs to be aware of the context of their messaging and the communication which occurs through implication, as well as specific meaning of text. In the thread you mention, people were specific and detailed about how the posts, even though the text said one thing, communicated something entirely different through implication.

Again, you appear to be confusing inference and implication.

The fact that he has a disability does not create a free pass to erase the experiences of others or claim a thing was not communicated when it was.

He did neither of those things.

A+ is not an outreach, or teaching, or even an action forum.

Okay, then.

However they also explained why it was sexist and inappropriate. Glob's reaction was to refuse to acknowledge that input and instead insist that noting of the sort had happened, and after doubling down on that, they were moderated.

See, this is the thing. They "explained" it was sexist. He disagreed (as I do). Rather than agreeing with them, he continued to disagree. Therefore he was moderated. How is that not banning someone for dissent?

A limerick is not sexist just because it's a limerick. And the inclusion of a British euphemism for masturbation does not make it sexual in nature, any more than the repeated use of sexual swear words on the A+ forum makes the entire forum sexual.

I think we are in fundamental agreement that unless the specifics are very abnormal the person with the lived experience will know more than the person without.

They will know more about what it's like to live under those circumstances. They will only know more that's factual if they have more knowledge of the facts.

The plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", and the singular of "anecdotes" is not "datum".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They also edited the post where Cuduggan2K2 calls piegasm things that are a violation of the MA here to get rid of some of the dirty words.

Actually, if you look at who edited the post last, it looks like Cuduggan edited out the swearing himself.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here at JREF, if you want to discuss the existence of Bigfoot, there is no presumption that Bigfoot does not exist and therefore we are not going to treat that subject differently than other subjects.

I'm not sure that's true. There are plenty of threads started by newbies who then get a tonne of replies which are either mocking or which just say "no". I think that's one of the worst traits of this forum, to be honest.

 

[Daald]

The dawkins thing, I figured most people here are aware of his "Dear Muslima" letter posted in the comments to RW's post.

Just as an FYI. That is not true.

Dear muslima was typed as a comment to PZs blog which was talking about RWs situation:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php

I think Dawkins was responding to the rhetoric in the comments section with a hasty generalization. The thing is that he replied in context to the comments but only his comments stand out. The people that were blowing it out of proportion in the comments have been forgotten and only his comment stands on his own looking silly.

ETA:
It seems the comments are gone from that link

Here is the link to the timeline again:

http://theismatheism.blogspot.com/2011/07/elevatorgate-timeline.html

 

[bedlin88]

Originally posted by ApostateltsopA

This point has had a lot of mileage with quontir in the mods forum. The response is yes there is bias. Absolutely yes, bias exists and favors those who have spent time on the boards and built a reputation.

Why should that not be the case? A+ is not a judiciary, the posters are not citizens. It is a community, specifically meant to be safe for those who are residing there and using it. Bias towards those who have earned trust is natural and good. Suspicion of those who have not earned trust is also normal, and good. This is why schools require doors locked and guests to sign in, wear identifying stickers and be specific about where they will be traveling and why.

The core assumption to this argument is that favoritism is bad, but I do not see any argument for why. Especially I don't see it for why a safe space would not use favoritism and multiple layers of trust.

I think I would just point out that the whole concept of the Patriarchy is wrapped around favoritism. So advocating the one use is bad and another is good is a double standard. Personally I think it depends on the circumstances in which it is used that makes it good or bad. Life is very rarely black and white.

 

[dasmiller]

I'm not sure that's true. There are plenty of threads started by newbies who then get a tonne of replies which are either mocking or which just say "no". I think that's one of the worst traits of this forum, to be honest.

I view that as a cultural problem here, and I agree about it being one of the worst traits of this forum.

In the forum's defense, I'd point out that the mocking and dismissal are not official forum policy, and those threads aren't mocked or dismissed by the mods (at least, not while wearing their mod hats).

Which merely means that it could be worse, and saying "it could be worse" is a pretty poor defense.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure that's true. There are plenty of threads started by newbies who then get a tonne of replies which are either mocking or which just say "no". I think that's one of the worst traits of this forum, to be honest.

Thank you. I will concede your point. That does happen from time to time, perhaps too often and it is frustrating. I've probably been far too dismissive myself at times.

When I start a new thread I try to anticipate the dismissive attitudes of a percentage of the posters who will behave in mob like fashion to dismiss my question. You are correct and that can and does happen.

I was speaking of JREF officially (the moderation) and official stance.

 

[bedlin88]

I just had a thought, when society engages in favoritism towards Men it's called the Patriarchy. So I think when the A+ community engages in favoritism it should henceforth be referred to as Cistriarchy.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Dissent

To Kbon,

I recall that thread. Your comentary was that the crime was covered up because of the protected class of the football players. Do you think they would have been sheltered from a murder investigation? What about child pornography? Their fame undoubtedly helped them, it is true that a member of a distinct out-group would likely have not been helped as much, but claims of rape are dismissed regularly. To state that rape culture was not involved in the coverup of a rape is erasing rape culture. If you had acknowledged the culture and made the point that it didn't hurt for them to be football players I think things would have gone differently.

To H'ethetheth (How would you pronounce that?)
No I don't think denying rape culture exists would go well on a thread. A safe space is not the place to bring that up, and if you want to deny rape culture, which is a well established thing, you will need some serious evidence. This seems to be a complaint along the lines of "Why aren't people allowed to call into question fundamental concepts of feminism/ableism/racism...? The answer will always be that you can, but not in a safe space protecting the victims of those things, find some other corner of the internet for those discussions.

Disallowing questions on the core values of the site is not the same as disallowing dissent. Would you enter an AA meeting and say you don't think there is any addictive property of alcohol and they are all over reacting?

[Quote="H'ethetheth]Or let's say someone opens a thread discussing the privileges that women have over men.
How long before the thread is locked and the user banned, you think?
How many men's rights advocates are active on the forum there?
How many people are there who agree with feminists like Paglia or Hoff Sommers? [/quote]

What is your point? How many feminists are active on the MRA boards? Is your point that the A+ board is a very chilly climate for MRA types? I agree, it's a bad place to post those ideas. I don't believe anyone there makes any bones about that. Why do you believe there should be MRA people contributing to the discussion at A+? Do you really think we need to make things more even for men as a priority right now? That the scale isn't slanted enough against women? Or perhaps that it's not slanted at all?

@rustypouch Why? What is it about freeze peach that makes you so upset? Do you demand frozen peaches everywhere you are banned? Why are you not demanding the rights to swear and attack people here? (Unless you are, then I will pick a different example.) Do you demand to be allowed to talk about bombs and hjackings on airplanes?

I really don't get the whole, no speech should be disallowed anywhere ever thing. It just looks like entitlement to me.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I really don't get the whole, no speech should be disallowed anywhere ever thing. It just looks like entitlement to me.

Wow.

 

[squealpiggy]

I think these touch on a fundamental point of misunderstanding between those active at A+ and those who have tried to be active and got ejected, or those who saw the ejections and decided not to join. A+ is not an outreach, or teaching, or even an action forum.

This is clear.

The primary reason for that board is to create a safe space where marginalized voices can be heard.

And the more marginalised you can make yourself seem the more clear your voice?

A+ is pretty far from a safe space.

This is placing undue onus on minorities to have to respond to majorities.

You're excusing the making of assertions without the wherewithal to support them.

Especially since we are discussing the behavior at a site created for and dedicated to those minority voices.

And here's me thinking it had something to do with Atheism Plus.

The idea coming from this place is also hypocritical; look at the anti-spam protocols of this board. You have to be a member to post, and your membership application has to survive moderation based on only the application. No posting is possible until after the moderator has signed off on you, and even then posting is limited. Contrast that with a policy like FTB where anyone can post on any topic immediately, or A+ where member posts, not members themselves, are moderated. The bar to even start a conversation here is much higher.

I think you're misrepresenting the process of posting on the A+ forums. You have to be a member to post and your initial posts are moderated. You can be banned permanently based on the content of the initial post. As for "member posts, not members themselves, are moderated", well this is clearly untrue.

Also, "I don't have the time right now to prove that you're wrong, but you're wrong" is not the same as, "Your argument is fallaciously reasoned, here is a link describing why." (If you want to get a specific argument, I'll see if I can dig up the argument to avoid that fits it and we can talk about why that AtA fits.)

This one is a technique often put to use by Ophelia Benson. It's not "I don't have time right now, here's a link". It's "I don't have time right now to debunk your silly argument again but I could do easily".

The see these things where others do not, I have learned to recognize a lot more of the privilege and subconscious bigotry that our societies reinforce. However you are misrepresenting that situation. Glob, was not dogpiled for the limerick, if you go back and look nearly every posted objecting to it was clear, and repeatedly so, that they did not attribute the sexism to any intentionality on Xir behalf. However they also explained why it was sexist and inappropriate. Glob's reaction was to refuse to acknowledge that input and instead insist that noting of the sort had happened, and after doubling down on that, they were moderated.

On other words they were told something they didn't agree with and were punished for not obeying the masters of the forum.

The limerick directly referenced sex,

No it didn't.

and there was no intimation that all limericks are about sex,

Yes there was.

though it was pointed out that sex is often a context that comes with limerick. As an example an old episode of STTNG has Data saying, "Captain there is an odd limerick playing in the shuttle bay, there once was a woman from Venus whose body was shaped like a...DATA!" No one had to tell the audience why that was sexual, or what the next word was going to be.

Did you feel oppressed by such ribaldry?

A+ holds very few opinions as untouchable, an example of one would be "Women are people and deserve exactly the same rights as non-women people"

You've chosen one of the mildest positions that A+ holds. How about this one: It is reasonable to assume that all male strangers are planning a violent sexual assault against you.

Or the Schrodinger's rapist argument. Can I argue against that position or will you

call you monster for it should be self evident.

Imagine I had found evidence that zebras are the product of magical incantations involving eye of newt. If I barge into a biology lecture with this data I will be thrown out. It's not the place for it.

But Atheism Plus is not a teaching forum. A biology lecture would be.

*Personalized politics and Declaring enemies.

I don't see that behavior as problematic. To use your example, there is a host of material easily available online about the prevalence of rape and rape culture.

Yes there is. It's also horribly biased and unreliable, as well as being self contradictory. That's why there's a debate and why debate is important.

Someone in denial of these things has not done their homework. If you want to make the case that the US is not male dominated I am going to dismiss you out of hand, unless you bring some serious evidence to the table.

The US is indeed male dominated. That's not the same as the US having a rape-culture.

The onus is on the person entering the space to prove there assertion, not on those in the place to prove them wrong.

Except for on A-Plus in which case the onus of the space to silence the dissenting newcomer by any and all means without even considering that they may be wrong.

And? Remember the matrix film? Neo was the hero, but he had a gun aimed at his head for the safety of the others in the car. Until you unplug and oppose the system you are part of it.

I'm going to assume that you didn't just reference a Keanu Reeves movie to make a point. I don't want to lose respect for you so I'll pretend it didn't happen.

If you are in denial of the patriarchy, you are reinforcing it.

If by "the Patriarchy" you're referring to the massive male conspiracy that benefits all men to the detriment of all women then yes, I'm in denial of it. Reality is more complicated than that.

So a person whose opinion is not defined or a person who has sociopathic tendencies? Unknown does the white guy also think white people are devils? Do you see how you reinforced the white guy with a spouse and kids just to get him in the ballpark with a black sociopath?

You're missing the point. The point is that bad ideas are bad ideas no matter who holds them. A black woman with bad ideas about race is not more right than a white man with good ideas about race just because she has "lived racism" whatever that means.

I have informational knowledge of racism, I can see it, sort of, but I have never lived it. A black person has lived it. Do you disagree that the burned hand teaches best? Would you not agree that someone with 3rd degree burns is better able to talk about the consequences of fire than the person who read about third degree burns in a book?

Already been addressed. It depends on the book and the context and exactly what consequences you're talking about. Does a person with the burns have a better understanding that fire burns than, say, an experienced fire Marshall?

*Bad ideas, I agree, but recognizing them requires that weight be given to opinions and source counts towards that weight.

Sounds hyperbolic to me, if that is the quote I believe it is, it's also not widely endorsed.

It's not hyperbole. His "if you're not with us you're against us" was the moment when I realised that A-Plus was heavy on insanity and light on reason. And despite claiming that it wasn't widely endorsed you only need to read the A-Plus forums to get the feeling that these comments had popular appeal.

*Exclusion, I never claimed that A+ is more inclusive.

We're getting somewhere if you're admitting that A-Plus is not inclusive.

I pointed out that this place excludes, and censors. As to your reasoning, if it were accurate then the rule would be only about the specific words, however we are also banned from getting around the filters and innuendo towards those words.

Innuendo is tolerated as long as there is context to it. For example it's tough to have a discussion about the C-Bomb without being able to refer to it in some way. Getting around the auto-censor can still trigger firewalls.

So no, there is censorship here. To claim otherwise is naive or disingenuous and you just lost naive now that I have explained it.

Thanks for censorsplaining.

I know that there is censorship here. Of a mild type with reference to swears. Unlike at A-Plus where the censorship is of opinions and ideas.

Also, I was excluded. My first application for membership was denied. I had to jump through specific hoops to be allowed to post.

Why was it denied?

@Squealpiggy - "Rape Victims trauma" Have you followed your link? There are huge red letters of apology all over the misconduct. Perhaps you think that moderators at A+ are deities and should be incapable of error? It looks to me like they acknowledged their mistake, and made amends.

Put yourself in the shoes of an actual rape victim, heading to a self-declared "safe space" only to be told that as a victim of rape you are supposed to feel nothing but self pity and loathing.

The A-Plus forums are distinctly unfriendly and unwelcoming. An after-the-fact apology does not change that.

 

[Krikkiter]

Wait... "rape culture" is a "well established thing"?

Where, pray tell, is the undeniable evidence for rape culture?

 

[kbonn]

I am definately not going to be able to keep up with this. Happily I am home from work today and don't have to be phone posting.

It is a lot, I appreciate you taking the time.

If this conversation convinces me you will be an honest and aware contributor I'll use my voice to bring up your issue.

Please do not feel that you have to do that, though if you want to do that, I wouldn't turn down the help. Mainly I don't appear to have any way to discuss it with anyone other than creating a sockpuppet to post and ask, which is against the forum rules.

I disagree with you on some of these points. I think we can talk them out here if you are amenable.

Sure. I don't have any reason to not discuss them, though I can't make any promises as to how often I can drop in to post. Seems to come and go in waves.

Why? I'm not aware of any moderation discussions that involve non-moderators what is a moderator? It seems to me that anyone involved in a discussion about moderation is a moderator, and what you are really objecting to is secret moderators. Why?

So why then was ischemgeek "promoted" to moderator? If xe was presumably part of the "secret" mods, being made a public mod is possibly a demotion? The issue is that secret mods have no accountability. We have no idea how much influence they have on the mods and when/if the mods are carrying out the will of the secret mods. We already have one situation where the only recourse is to post in a public thread, where many people there are mocked(whether they deserve to be or not is another matter) for their complaints. Any other issue would be to PM a different mod or Hyperdeath, who seems to have less authority than the mods do. So are the "secret" forum members the people really in charge of the forum? Who knows. It is about accountability. Without a reasonable amount of transparency, there isn't any accountability.


Also, I would seriously question the judgement of anyone would trust Setar to fairly moderate anything, and xe was/is certainly part of the "secret" forum.

First, gaslighting. To gaslight someone you have to know the information you present to someone is false and be doing it to manipulate them. We could argue that when Flew denied the existence of the secret forum that was gasligting, but I see no evidence that ceepolk was acting disingenuously. It seemed to me that she was responding to what she perceived to be the truth.

Perhaps I am not using the right term. Ceepolk presented information she couldn't possibly know (The motivations of the "mole") as fact in order to try and get the information she wanted. Ceepolk was also incredibly dishonest about her motivations for what she was saying. It seemed very obvious that she was solely interested in finding out who the source was, and not interested in helping Wind or showing any genuine concern for her.

Second, accountability. What kind of accountability? Flew apologized for lying. Ceepolk tried to engage with Wind, unsuccessfully. It turns out she was wrong about someone feeding Wind information and that Wind set the whole thing off on a guess to confirm the guess. Wind's behavior was execrable on that thread. Filled with accusations and disruptions to a lot of people's sense of safty, and for what? To confirm that there was a channel of communication that was not open to xir?

You mean this attempt yet again to try to get Wind to name her source?
An apology should be just that, what is the saying again? Intent isn't magic, just apologize, don't try to justify what you did. I think this is often called a notpology over there.

Wind, I just want to say here, I am sorry that I had to misdirect you. But, I really, really had to.

None of the things I said to you were outright lies. The most that could be said is that I was lying by omission, really. But that's still not a comfortable or kind thing to do. I do regret that, however necessary it was.

My reasons? I was privy to a confidence that I had an obligation to hold in confidence. As a mod here, and as a member of the private forum, I had made a promise to keep its existence and contents strictly secret. Until the membership of the private forum decided as a group that it was okay to admit to its existence, I was still bound by that promise.

Surely you have been told things in confidence before, wind? And had an obligation to keep that confidence? Same thing.

I think it's wrong to be dishonest, to not tell someone the truth when I can. But it's also wrong for me to break promises I've made to people, to violate the trust they've placed in me.

So my desire to answer you forthrightly was at war with my obligation to keep the secret. So I had no choice. I had to respond with, at the very least, misdirection. The other restricted forums that I mentioned do all exist, and are all as I described them. Regardless, I was misdirecting you, and for that I am sorry.

But now, you see, you have a conundrum. Because you have objected to us keeping a confidential forum confidential, yet insist on keeping your source for how you knew about it confidential despite the direct contradiction this implies. And, frankly, despite the fact that your source is guilty of betraying everyone's trust, and putting some of our members at risk of serious harm, while the most you can claim on those of us who used the private forum is that we didn't invite you. Do you see the problem?

Come clean, wind. We have.

To be charitable, I think at best Flew just mishandled the situation here. To try to both the apology and to tell Wind it is a problem if she doesn't reveal her source in the same post was a mistake, and makes the apology seem less sincere. The last paragraph and sentence make it seem like Flew is being less honest about his motivation for apologizing earlier in the post.

Ceepolk seemed to constantly reply with, "My secrets are ok to keep from you, I don't owe you any answers, but YOU must tell US now." Ceepolk can also be an ass, frankly. I wouldn't blame wind for not responding to Ceepolk for anything other than an apology first. Isn't that how it works, people apologize, THEN start to re-engage?

The entire thing was a hot mess. It seems very one sided to expect only some of those involved not to react emotionally.

Certainly agree. Though its odd that only one side of this discussion was moderated or banned during the whole situation. Only one side was allowed to be emotional and vulgar and abusive. The receipient of the abuse was actually told they HAD to respond. There was also a point when Setar asked an open question that the mods said everyone on the opposite side has to respond to. I happen to have Setar blocked, basically at xis request. I guess I am "tone trolling" setar all the time.

This is exactly what many of us there were talking about. It is a safe space for a small group of likeminded people who have a large presence there. It is also safe for less regular people who are 100% on board with the small group. To those of us who are like 80% on board, it is not safe. This is a problem, and if the main group there doesn't think so, then it is probably going to remain a small main group.

This point has had a lot of mileage with quontir in the mods forum. The response is yes there is bias. Absolutely yes, bias exists and favors those who have spent time on the boards and built a reputation.

I am not saying reputations that are earned shouldn't help you as a poster. I am suggesting that the bias AGAINST others is too high.

Why should that not be the case? A+ is not a judiciary, the posters are not citizens. It is a community, specifically meant to be safe for those who are residing there and using it. Bias towards those who have earned trust is natural and good. Suspicion of those who have not earned trust is also normal, and good. This is why schools require doors locked and guests to sign in, wear identifying stickers and be specific about where they will be traveling and why.

This is not "the walking dead" the consequences for being too trusting of new posters is not that severe. I am not suggesting letting people into the secret forum after 10 posts, but you know what I mean. I was always fine with the idea of a secret forum, as long as it wasn't moderation discussions between mods and non-mods. Even if you disagree with me on that point, I always was supportive of a secret forum for support. You can achieve a solid balance without being allowing things to reach the level they have at A+.

The core assumption to this argument is that favoritism is bad, but I do not see any argument for why. Especially I don't see it for why a safe space would not use favoritism and multiple layers of trust.

Also there have been some updates to the don't be an ass rule, there is a long discussion about it if you go look in Forum matters.

I am hopeful that they changed it based on my argument about it. It wasn't really a rule. To me, it seemed that it was a rule that was not applied to everyone. I am a big, big fan of rules being written very clearly and applied to everyone equally. If there are going to be different rules for different people, make it publicly part of the rules!

Mods are often picked to BE impartial, a little bit of favortism is ok, but it seems to be overboard at A+.

I have no idea, I'm not a moderator.

****What I think got you banned***

I mentioned this last time but here are the specific quotes. All from page 72 of the capricious thread



Your post was three days after piegasm had clarified with this


How is that not stirring the pot? You ignored the relevant portion of the conversation and reacted hyperbolically to only half of what was being said. You completely misrepresented the argument piegasm was making. At no point did piegasm insist that a person must sit and accept verbal abuse. Expletives are also not abusive. They are words. How they are used is what matters.

More later, have to run.

I imagine that I saw Piegasms post and replied to it after being away for a few days, or I just missed that other post where xe clarified. Either way, as tone trolling is not allowed on the A+ forums, if ignoring someone who is swearing at you is tone trolling, you can't ignore them, you are compelled to answer. Seems like bad precedent to me. Regardless, I can concede I over-reacted.

Seems like a permanent ban for that post is rather over the top.

I think what I have been trying to say can boil down to this, the degree to which favoritism is often displayed and the "in groups" dogpiles and lack of charity in reading posts by newcomers/outgroup people can set the barrier to entry too high.

I don't want to feel like an 'enemy' for only agreeing with 80-85% of what the common opinion on the forum is. I am very liberal in my politics, but Setar thinks I am a libertarian because I am further right than xe is(almost everyone is) and because I (partially)defended Micheal Shermer once because I thought Ophelia Benson (Or PZ, I don't recall) quotemined him to a degree in their recent spat. So because I am defending someone, I suddenly agree with all their politics, or statments, or positions? No, obviously not, but because some people view me as "out group" or "other" or "enemy" they automatically think they are going to disagree with what I am saying before they read it. If in any case something is ambigous or unclear, it automatically gets the least charitable reading.

I can concede I made some errors in the posting about rape culture I made(as to how I expressed my opinion), but I wasn't dismissing rape culture as an idea or a whole. But I was almost immediately dogpiled and temp banned. So then what, any further discussion on the topic isn't about the topic, it is about my post, and why I am "dismissing" rape culture. I wouldn't dare go back to clarify my posts a third time, because anything less than full agreement with the "in group" there would result in me being accused of "doubling down" and probably permanently banned.

 

[RandFan]

I really don't get the whole, no speech should be disallowed anywhere ever thing. It just looks like entitlement to me.

Taking a page from Scalia? It's amazing when fundamental principles are disparaged as "entitlements".

For those who don't get it I recommend reading Sharansky's The Case for Democracy and/or listening to Hitchens' magnum opus on speech. The free exchange of ideas is one of humankind's greatest tools for social and moral progress and particularly for social justice.

BTW: You have every right to start a forum and restrict it anyway you please. That is your right. Have at it. Just understand that some of us are critical of such efforts as being counter productive to skepticism, critical thinking and free expression. And we reserve that right to say so.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I view that as a cultural problem here, and I agree about it being one of the worst traits of this forum.

In the forum's defense, I'd point out that the mocking and dismissal are not official forum policy, and those threads aren't mocked or dismissed by the mods (at least, not while wearing their mod hats).

Which merely means that it could be worse, and saying "it could be worse" is a pretty poor defense.

Thank you. I will concede your point. That does happen from time to time, perhaps too often and it is frustrating. I've probably been far too dismissive myself at times.

When I start a new thread I try to anticipate the dismissive attitudes of a percentage of the posters who will behave in mob like fashion to dismiss my question. You are correct and that can and does happen.

I was speaking of JREF officially (the moderation) and official stance.

You're both right, of course.

 

[kbonn]

Yea, I don't care for that attitude. I understand where it comes from. I tend to be dismissive of those with first world problems (I forgot my pin) or with complaints exclusive to white people. So I get it. But it's not likely to engender good faith discussions. I realize that sometimes it can seem a fine line. When it comes to men and women's relationships I don't think any sincere position ought to be marginalized.

I get it too, but don't demonize someone for using the same argument that you use against someone else. RW experiences in the elevator, regardless of any of our opinions on it, are first world problems in comparison to what Dawkins was talking about. I mean, if he just replied to her vid with #first world problems, its the same argument. Yet, because a man said it about a woman, comparing her to less privileged women, it is automatically misogynistic and sexist. Where as if a woman from one of those countries actually said the exact same thing, it is suddenly valid.

I think it was a stupid thing to say, but I don't think it makes Dawkins sexist or anything like that. We all have different priorities as to which issues are most important to us. Dawkins likely just felt that RW was harming his message about the issues he cares about with something he feels is less important. We all do this. Let us not forget, the day of EG's invite, RW was on a panel that had nothing to do with sexism and decided to turn it into a discussion of sexism, you can even see Richard looking rather annoyed while she goes on about it.

 

[kbonn]

To Kbon,

I recall that thread. Your comentary was that the crime was covered up because of the protected class of the football players. Do you think they would have been sheltered from a murder investigation? What about child pornography? Their fame undoubtedly helped them, it is true that a member of a distinct out-group would likely have not been helped as much, but claims of rape are dismissed regularly. To state that rape culture was not involved in the coverup of a rape is erasing rape culture. If you had acknowledged the culture and made the point that it didn't hurt for them to be football players I think things would have gone differently.

I can admit I didn't come across as I meant to, I just thought presenting it as "This is rape culture"(tm) was a bit much. There are many factors. I personally felt(and still feel), that the local celebrity of the boys played a large(the largest actually) factor in the coverup(and likely the sense that they could in fact get away with it before the fact and during, as they have probably gotten away with other things). I made a mistake in implying that it was the only factor. do you think that justifies an immediate ban? I had no chance to reply for over 24 hours. When I attempted to clarify this I was banned for a week.

 

[d4m10n]

A+ holds very few opinions as untouchable, an example of one would be "Women are people and deserve exactly the same rights as non-women people" If you want to debate that, I shall call you monster for it should be self evident.

Please pardon my monstrosity, but do you really mean to say "exactly the same" as if there are no significant differences between men and women which legal systems should take into account? To take one very obvious example, what rights did Roe v. Wade grant to non-women people? To take a less obvious one, what rights did United States v. Seeger grant to women people?

 

[Mr. Scott]

We are speaking about personal responses to posts. Fact is so heavily colored by emotion in this place that I am amazed you can't see it. Frog in slowly boiled water I suppose. More importantly why are you rejecting emotional bandwidth in this, or any, conversation? That looks to me like a rejection of emotion as a valuable intellectual tool. I will freely admit too much emotion is likely to shut down cognitive processes but I'm not a vulcan and won't pretend to be one.

I would really like to read a succinct and convincing explanation of how emotion is a valuable intellectual too, especially as applied to the context in which this is raised.