Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[recursive prophet]

Everyone who posted in, and survived, the Schrodinger's rapist thread was insisting that this assumption is necessary to remain safe.

The overall message was not "be wary of strangers". It was specifically you might be violently sexually assaulted by male strangers, so assume that all male strangers are going to.

That was also the general message I got from that thread qwints. So lets put it to the test. Ask at A+ how many would agree with that assessment. Not in those exact words though. How about "Should all male strangers be treated as potential rapists?" You know that would get a clear "amen" (axir?), and is why so many are put off by A+. It says nothing about the myriad factors that go into our perception of strangers, and focuses on gender alone.

Is it in any way helpful for feminists to deepen the divide between the sexes by taking extreme positions and alienating potential allies? The number of bans at A+ and their 'eschew big tents' philosophy offers ample evidence that they are far more interested in division than any form of reconciliation. You are doing them no favor by agreeing in part with this strategy, qwints.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

That was also the general message I got from that thread qwints. So lets put it to the test. Ask at A+ how many would agree with that assessment. Not in those exact words though. How about "Should all male strangers be treated as potential rapists?" You know that would get a clear "amen" (axir?), and is why so many are put off by A+. It says nothing about the myriad factors that go into our perception of strangers, and focuses on gender alone.

Is it in any way helpful for feminists to deepen the divide between the sexes by taking extreme positions and alienating potential allies? The number of bans at A+ and their 'eschew big tents' philosophy offers ample evidence that they are far more interested in division than any form of reconciliation. You are doing them no favor by agreeing in part with this strategy, qwints.

Hey RP,

How are those two messages actually different? "Don't trust strangers" and "That man may be a rapist so don't trust him"?

What I see is basically the same message except one has a lot more hyperbole. I participated in the Shrodinger's topic, and your interpretation was rather aggressively opposed, including by me.

As to division, what do you mean? That they are not looking for abig community hang out? I agree, we aren't. Big tent can not coexist with safe space. Why does that bother so many people? I don't understand this thread, what is the point of a sub forum on a subforum spending all it's time discussing a group that is on another forum entirely? I see the messages that somehow movement atheism is threatened by A+ and also that A+ will explode any day now repeated a lot, but never with anything substantial.

(On a side note real life got very interesting, I'll look back now and see what I've missed)

 

[Mr. Scott]

This little article made me think of this thread:

Liberal University of Wyoming Activist Meg Lanker-Simons Caught in Alleged Rape Threat Hoax

Meg Lanker-Simons, a student at the University of Wyoming, was cited for misdemeanor interference for allegedly posting a fake rape threat on a Facebook page

Aplussers wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Ok, looking back to page 160 for these, if that's too much of a necro feel free to ignore.

A collection of anecdotal observations from a skewed and biased sampling population makes for poor data in my opinion...a lot like the Bible.

Natural selection is not "dogma". It is the current best explanation as is open to criticism, experimentation and discussion. The moment is not no longer open for debate it is no longer science.

1. I agree with the assertion, but not with it's use as a label for the A+ group.

2. Context. Natural selection is not dogma in the very basic sense of all science being up for debate. However, it is dogma in advanced discussions about biology. If you walk into a meeting where they are deciding the placement of some tier of reptile, or one where the evolutionary predictions of NS are being observed on modern rabbits and spout off about the proof you have of intelligent design, do you think that your response will be welcoming or hostile? (This question is rhetorical). Dogma refers to that which is pratically setteled, as well as that which is unquestionable. If your undergoing surgery do you want dogmatic adherence to cleanliness or are you ok with sharing knives because germ theory is "just a theory?"

I would agree that any mutilation is wrong. However I don't believe I've ever said that brown people should never be criticized. I don't believe anyone at A+ has made that assertion either.

Ceepolk declared that there was way too much colonialism to criticise the religion of brown people. The exact quote is very similar to what I've written there.

She/he/xenomorph declared criticising the religion of "brown people" off limits because colonialism.

I think you are misrepresenting Ceepolk. I read that comment in context with the thread it was nested in, and that context alone. Not as a broad edict about all conduct everywhere always. Why do you see comments from Ceepolk as being both indicative of everyone at A+ and also as universal edicts?

I'd be interested in hearing your views on why A+ has been unable to grow themselves as a "movement", as to why they've never progressed beyond that core group who showed up on opening day. Why most new atheist posters who show up on the site are either banned or driven away.

I'm not sure what you mean, I know about lots of people showing up and flaming out. I also have seen an increase in core participation. I'm not aware that A+ is a "Growing movement". Hell, I am not a member of the "core movement" I certainly didn't show up on day 1. There are several regular posters who joined after I did. Where are you getting your data that most new posters are banned?

'check your ego at the door" is nothing but a meaningless platitude. A+ is all about moral superiority, how everyone should behave in their ideal fantasy world and is all about ego. Under the 10 post prejudgement program, A+ mods let thing through that they know are going to be problematic, just so they can let the community have a go.

I'm not a mod, I don't know what posts are allowed through and which are banned, I do know that some posts get hidden for triggers, or trolling. Contrast that to the moderation policy here. Nothing, at all, can be posted until you get authorization from a mod. All that is based on is the limited information provided by the application process. I was up and running on the A+ site much faster than I was able to post anything here. In fact getting access to post here took days, my first application was denied.

My narcissistic senses are tingling. You could have addressed the post directly and avoided the formatting BS, but for going that extra mile to include me I thank you.

You are welcome. The post would have been just one more of the A+ is bad threads <insert hyperbole> without your endorsement. I'm ignoring most posts like that because there are simply too many to address them all. However you were so very reasonable on another thread, it seems to me that you have a critical thinking blind spot where A+ is concerned. Call it a negative bias. I almost certainly have a positive one.

On narcissism though, don't you think everyone participating on a discussion board has some element of narcissism? To paraphrase an author, you have to have some level of narcissist in you to write in public, because you believe that the public is interested in what you have to say.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Aplussers wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

I don't know. Do you have any evidence that they have? If not, then I fail to see the relevance of an unrelated incident involving unrelated people.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Lets put the BS aside and talk mano-a-mano qwints and Apos. You're both youngsters, and Schrodinger's cat is out of da bag wrt what drives you. So just between us guys, hasn't your whole A+ routine really just been a ploy to help you promote some rad/fem pussy at teh conventions?

I'm not sure what you mean by "youngster" I'm married with children and have not attended any atheist conventions. Prior to joining A+ I had never heard of FTB and was only barely aware of PZ Meyers. However I did have a pass time of talking to movement atheist followers on YouTube. I ran into Matt Dillahunty's video about being banned off A+ and started lurking.

Quite simply it was an extension of the same social forces I first became aware of when they jumped all over Rebecca Watson on Elevatorgate. I think there are some serious problems with our culture, and I can learn a lot more about them participating at A+ than I can here. (Though my sample set here is admittedly small).

@ Lorentz

I agree, that there are dogmatic tenants of safe spaces. Off the top of my head the ideas that racism/sexism and such exist and are problems.

Those examples are ambiguous, phrased like that. Do they mean that racism and sexism are bad? If so, enough agree that it can be called “settled”. Or do you mean something like ‘racism/sexism and such are rampant throughout Western society.’? If the latter, then suddenly many, possibly most, would disagree.

If you were to arrive at A+ trying to dispute those things you would not last long. However it is dogma in the sense that the debate is settled, not that there is no underlying reason or data for these things. Dogma in the sense that natural selection is real, not in the sense that god made the world because the bible says so. Dogma is not necessarily bad.

You name the least contentious parts of A+ dogma, but from what we’ve seen so far, there’s a lot more. It seems to consist of parts of some more extreme forms of feminist theory, a few cherry-picked (and frequently misapplied) theories from sociology and anthropology and a few concepts that seem to have been made up to make the world fit better into the framework, like “punching up” (I could be wrong; anyone been able to find the concept in sociology?). You claim that concepts like “Rape culture” and “Schroedinger’s rapist” are “settled”, in the way that some of the strongest scientific theories are? Sorry, but that’s complete nonsense. Natural selection has been confirmed by tens of thousands of experiments and observations, thousands of bright scientists eager to make their name, unable to shoot it down. Rape culture and Schroedinger’s Rapist? Those aren’t even theories; they’re “nicht eben Falsch”, as Pauli would’ve said. They’re ways of framing a debate rather than theories with explanatory and predictive value.

In short, most of A+ dogma is not science, not comparable to science and definitely not “settled” anywhere outside the A+ forum itself.

As for dogma not necessarily being bad, I disagree (even if that’s also a “settled” issue). None of my beliefs should be free from challenge, no scientific theory should be free from challenge, no matter how settled it is and how many times it’s been confirmed. When it comes to the A+ dogma, the situation is doubly bad because a) it’s unclear what exactly is covered by the dogma, and b) it definitely contains some highly unusual ideas about our society. If the A+ forum is not the place to explicate and defend such ideas from challenges, what is?

Hidden for length

Different concepts are more or less adhered to and in different sections of the board. Asking questions about the fundamentals, even large ones, is tolerated quite a lot more in the I&A section than other locations, case in point the post where some person wanted to state they didn't think there was any reason to have an A+ board.

This is a bad place to get a feel for the A+ board. There is a decided slant against through this whole thread. The elements here are cherry picked and often badly out of context. You are right that "punching up" or more accurately the concept of axis of privilege is not a theory. That would be like calling cultural bias a theory. Instead they are words used to describe aspects of the world we live in.

On dogma. Context matters, a lot. See my above examples about germ theory, and dogmatic hand washing. Alternately you could ask yourself if the dentist is dogmatic about the benefits of flossing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you are misrepresenting Ceepolk. I read that comment in context with the thread it was nested in, and that context alone. Not as a broad edict about all conduct everywhere always.

The quote is "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." I suppose you could modify it to say "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture [within this thread] to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end.", but that doesn't make much sense. Could you perhaps expand on how you believe it could be parsed in order to better convey her meaning?

Why do you see comments from Ceepolk as being both indicative of everyone at A+ and also as universal edicts?

The answer to the first half of your sentence is because her statements go unchallenged over there and she can and does have the power to capriciously ban people. The answer to the second, in this particular case, is because she ended her statement with "the end". More generally, it's because she usually offers short statements which are phrased as if they are universal edicts.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Apparently Pee Zero has divorced himself from skepticism.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

This little article made me think of this thread:

Liberal University of Wyoming Activist Meg Lanker-Simons Caught in Alleged Rape Threat Hoax



Aplussers wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

I certainly wouldn't and I don't know any who would. If she created the name and thus lied, that is abominable. What is also abominable is the 2,714 likes the rape threat post received. Do you think they were faked?

Or this little gem,

A “Meg Lanker-Simons Is Innocent” page has also appeared on Facebook.

It had 33 ‘likes’ as of noon Thursday, but there were hundreds of outraged comments by detractors slamming everything from Lanker-Simons’ professed innocence to her looks and her patriotism. Supporters were few and far between.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

The quote is "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." I suppose you could modify it to say "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture [within this thread] to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end.", but that doesn't make much sense. Could you perhaps expand on how you believe it could be parsed in order to better convey her meaning?

I can't read xir mind but from that, and other discussions on the topic I read it as stating attacking the cultures of marginalized people is bad. Not a decree that anything problematic done with "brown people's religion" cast over the top as a mask, becomes permissible. I also take it in context with the discussion of "calling your folk". If a friend of mine who is in a marginalized group does something I think further marginalizes that group I will walk damn carefully before I criticize them. I focus my social justice activism (such as it is) on those like me. That way I'm not attacking anyone along an axis of privilege.

Why do you see comments from Ceepolk as being both indicative of everyone at A+ and also as universal edicts?

The answer to the first half of your sentence is because her statements go unchallenged over there and she can and does have the power to capriciously ban people. The answer to the second, in this particular case, is because she ended her statement with "the end". More generally, it's because she usually offers short statements which are phrased as if they are universal edicts.

I take it you have not seen the threads where people disagree with ceepolk. I have seen cee apologize, and have had lengthy, and heated, conversations with xir. However Cee does a lot of the mod heavy lifting. That allows for quite a lot of fodder when selectively quoted.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Apparently Pee Zero has divorced himself from skepticism.

Yep.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...lly-divorce-myself-from-the-skeptic-movement/

Didn't the skeptic movement lodge the divorce papers ages ago?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Didn't the skeptic movement lodge the divorce papers ages ago?

Yeah, probably about the time he divorced himself from reality.

 

[Diogenes]

...Dogma refers to that which is pratically setteled, as well as that which is unquestionable. If your undergoing surgery do you want dogmatic adherence to cleanliness or are you ok with sharing knives because germ theory is "just a theory?"...

Only if you're going to change the definition of dogma. That's a ridiculous example and, to me, brings your good faith into question with poor attempts at glibness like this. (You're not even referring to "germ theory" like you think you are.)

 

[Mr. Scott]

I don't know. Do you have any evidence that they have? If not, then I fail to see the relevance of an unrelated incident involving unrelated people.

It's just something to keep in mind. Since the first conversations about A+ I've been on the watch for false flag.

I'm reminded of the doubt that Elevator Guy exists at all, and Ms. Watson's claim that she received an avalanche of rape threats, amounting to "two or three a week" IIRC. Besides the possibility of complete fabrications, there's evidence of exaggeration.

Does anyone know of a single rape threat or harassment against an A+ figure that was actually formally reported to police?

 

[Jono]

Does anyone know of a single rape threat or harassment against an A+ figure that was actually formally reported to police?

Barking up the wrong tree with that question though, as they regard cops (in general) equivalent to nazi scum.

 

[jhunter1163]

I just had to jump in on this one:

Contrast that to the moderation policy here. Nothing, at all, can be posted until you get authorization from a mod. All that is based on is the limited information provided by the application process. I was up and running on the A+ site much faster than I was able to post anything here. In fact getting access to post here took days, my first application was denied.

There's a brief delay (usually 24 hours) between when you register and when you're permitted to post; that's to give us time to check your registration information (to try and screen out sockpuppets). Once your registration is approved, it's 15 posts before you can post links (although you can post them in truncated form before then) and 50 posts before you can have an avatar. After that, you're free to do and say what you want (within the MA).

 

[Lorentz]

Different concepts are more or less adhered to and in different sections of the board. Asking questions about the fundamentals, even large ones, is tolerated quite a lot more in the I&A section than other locations, case in point the post where some person wanted to state they didn't think there was any reason to have an A+ board.

I can understand if you get confused with all the flak from people with different viewpoints and priorities. Mine have little to do with the A+ board, I'm only interested in discussion of the intellectual differences - and possibly learn something I did not know before, about the world or about myself.

This is a bad place to get a feel for the A+ board. There is a decided slant against through this whole thread. The elements here are cherry picked and often badly out of context. You are right that "punching up" or more accurately the concept of axis of privilege is not a theory. That would be like calling cultural bias a theory. Instead they are words used to describe aspects of the world we live in.

I understand axes of privilege (more than one; I presume "axis" was a typo?). I find that in some situations this concept has explanatory value. I contrast this with "punching up", which is merely an excuse for bad behaviour, based on belonging to some subdivision of humanity which on average has or has had less privilege than another.

On dogma. Context matters, a lot. See my above examples about germ theory, and dogmatic hand washing. Alternately you could ask yourself if the dentist is dogmatic about the benefits of flossing.

When you talk about context, I take you to mean that A+ would be the wrong place to question concepts like patriarchy, much as one wouldn't (well, I wouldn't) interrupt a pastor's sermon in church to question the real existence of Jesus? If so, yes, I understand that A+ is not the place for it (or for me, anymore than a church is). My earlier question still stands though, what would be the place to discuss such things? The concepts that are "settled" within A+ are far from settled, to put it mildly, elsewhere. Where is the discussion happening as to how settled they should be?

As for a dentist being dogmatic about flossing, if he's so convinced he won't hear about new developments that might contradict previous findings on flossing, that's a bad dentist; a dogmatic one. This strikes me as a weak analogy though, as the A+ dogmas seem to lack anything even faintly comparable to the evidence for flossing being beneficial. I've been reading up on this - apparently like you - since Elevatorgate. I've become pretty solidly convinced that it's unsubstantiated woo. I am of course, still open to being shown the error of my ways. Which is my motivation for posting here.

 

[Diogenes]

...
As for a dentist being dogmatic about flossing, if he's so convinced he won't hear about new developments that might contradict previous findings on flossing, that's a bad dentist; a dogmatic one. This strikes me as a weak analogy though, as the A+ dogmas seem to lack anything even faintly comparable to the evidence for flossing being beneficial...

I think he's using a connotative definition for "dogma" that is unique to his community or whatever.

Is this not a reasonable denotative definition?

Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. They can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.

If A+ rejected the patriarchy concept would that not remove a primary support for A+'s very existence?...therefore isn't patriarchy centrally dogmatic to A+?

 

[squealpiggy]

Hey RP,

How are those two messages actually different? "Don't trust strangers" and "That man may be a rapist so don't trust him"?

One of them is the general good advice of being aware of your surroundings and take steps to reduce your chances of being victimised by people, including other women. The other one is stressing a crime that is vanishingly rare (stranger rape) and insisting that this is likely enough to assume that every male you meet is planning a violent sexual assault.

I know there's an aversion to giving safety advice which can be construed as "victim blaming" (for example don't get very drunk and stagger home through a deserted alleyway) but I fail to see how invoking an absolute terror of a rare crime is in any way empowering.

Especially if you get swarmed and robbed by a group of women.

As to division, what do you mean? That they are not looking for abig community hang out? I agree, we aren't. Big tent can not coexist with safe space. Why does that bother so many people?

As a safe space Atheism + is not very safe, unless you are already a crony of the major players.

 

[Empress]

Yep.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...lly-divorce-myself-from-the-skeptic-movement/

Didn't the skeptic movement lodge the divorce papers ages ago?

*wince* Someone on the thread actually mentions A+ as the solution for all the problems they see inside skepticism:

Scepticism where the menu of items to apply critical thinking to is not limited, also its clearly atheist centred so no accomodationalism to contend with.

...yeah...not so much.