Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Stout]

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?

All I do is look at the join dates of the posters who aren't getting roasted in a thread, they're not flaming out, they're being flamed out. I'll agree to there being a slight increase in core participation, Sylvia Sybil is an example and new guy Zeitgueist will do well. The moderation issues WRT this forum have already been covered by jhunter. I didn't have the "application process" however I wasn't able to post links for my first 15 posts.

<snip> Cee does a lot of the mod heavy lifting. That allows for quite a lot of fodder when selectively quoted.

The problem here is ceepolk says a lot of highly problematic things and is the most obvious target when it comes to being unable to live up to SJ standards. Here's an example from a few days ago, from the Are The Mods.... thread.

I don't care about your comfort.

I do not care.

When you derail a topic for your selfish desire to have a pointless conversation about a tiny *********** detail, turning all of the attention on yourself while throwing a person of colour who took the time to talk about why they don't hang around atheists under the bus (hint: it's the nauseatingly high levels of whiteness!), I am going to breathe down your neck.

Get used to THAT, while you're getting used to not interrupting other people's conversations to have a little wank over which came first, the sj or the atheism, because that's not going to change.

Emphasis Mine

So here we have ceepolk saying that too many white people make her feel sick or that too many white people make PoC feel sick, there's couple of ways of reading that but this gist of it is outright racism. Yet, it goes unchallenged, Aplussers gobble it up Yes ceepolk, may I have another please.
That thread gets even stupider with the Entwife's post admonishing poster RINCF for replying to white men when, for all intents and purposes, the OP had abandoned the thread. Do Aplussers all have bios listing their privileges, if not it would be funny if RINCF came back and self identified as a PoC.

It's obvious, ceepolk does the "heavy lifting" because she like banning people. Why else would she immerse herself in a movement like social justice that has a characteristically high percentage of nauseatingly white privileged people. It's a power trip.

 

[adamwho]

PZ: I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement 5/5/13

I think he is upset over this 2012 TAM speech from Jamy Ian Swiss (good job keeping with current events PZ)

Basically, it is a speech telling all the people trying to hijack skepticism for their own activism to stop and go work with the appropriate organizations. You like atheism, go do activism with atheists, you like left/right politics go do that, you like feminism, there are organizations for you.... but don't ruin skepticism, we already have a mission.

Either way, the skeptics should have dumped this clown years ago, he isn't even a good scientist.

 

[zooterkin]

PZ: I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement 5/5/13

I think he is upset over this 2012 TAM speech from Jamy Ian Swiss (good job keeping with current events PZ)

Basically, it is a speech telling all the people trying to hijack skepticism for their own activism to stop and go work with the appropriate organizations. You like atheism, go do activism with atheists, you like left/right politics go do that, you like feminism, there are organizations for you.... but don't ruin skepticism, we already have a mission.

Either way, the skeptics should have dumped this clown years ago, he isn't even a good scientist.

I got the impression that Jamy Ian Swiss had just given a version of that speech, that PZed watched. But, yes, you'd think he'd have been aware enough of what happened at TAM last year to have known at the least the gist of the talk. It was one of the presentations that got the biggest audience reaction, and I'm pretty sure it was being dissed on Twitter even as it was going on (by people not present, of course).

 

[adamwho]

I got the impression that Jamy Ian Swiss had just given a version of that speech, that PZed watched. But, yes, you'd think he'd have been aware enough of what happened at TAM last year to have known at the least the gist of the talk. It was one of the presentations that got the biggest audience reaction, and I'm pretty sure it was being dissed on Twitter even as it was going on (by people not present, of course).

Maybe Swiss called him out by name this time.

 

[rustypouch]

All I do is look at the join dates of the posters who aren't getting roasted in a thread, they're not flaming out, they're being flamed out. I'll agree to there being a slight increase in core participation, Sylvia Sybil is an example and new guy Zeitgueist will do well. The moderation issues WRT this forum have already been covered by jhunter. I didn't have the "application process" however I wasn't able to post links for my first 15 posts.



The problem here is ceepolk says a lot of highly problematic things and is the most obvious target when it comes to being unable to live up to SJ standards. Here's an example from a few days ago, from the Are The Mods.... thread.

I don't care about your comfort.



Emphasis Mine

So here we have ceepolk saying that too many white people make her feel sick or that too many white people make PoC feel sick, there's couple of ways of reading that but this gist of it is outright racism. Yet, it goes unchallenged, Aplussers gobble it up Yes ceepolk, may I have another please.
That thread gets even stupider with the Entwife's post admonishing poster RINCF for replying to white men when, for all intents and purposes, the OP had abandoned the thread. Do Aplussers all have bios listing their privileges, if not it would be funny if RINCF came back and self identified as a PoC.

It's obvious, ceepolk does the "heavy lifting" because she like banning people. Why else would she immerse herself in a movement like social justice that has a characteristically high percentage of nauseatingly white privileged people. It's a power trip.

One comment that turned me off was a while back, and I'm too lazy to search for it.

It was a thread about why the suicide rate among white men was so high, and one comment was essentially "good riddance."

And C must have it pretty hard, balancing out her hatred, being oppressed, and banning people. Although I'm still waiting for that invite for drinks...

 

[RandFan]

PZ: I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement 5/5/13

Don't let the door hit you in the ass PZ.

 

[RandFan]

I think he is upset over this 2012 TAM speech from Jamy Ian Swiss (good job keeping with current events PZ)

A great speaker and brilliant skeptic.

"It's about how to think and not what to think" --Jamy Ian Swiss

 

[recursive prophet]

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.

You must have missed my reply to qwints where I told him my post about you and he running the long con to sexualize some rad fems was a joke. Easy to understand you missing this given all the ground you've covered.

As to my calling y'all 'youngsters,' based on the bit in your video of you winking I'd say for sure you're still in your twenties, early 30's tops. To someone 70 that makes you still a youngster, so please don't take that as an insult. Or are you an ageist? I know cpolk is. Did you catch her post about how it pissed her off when some "60 year old guy" was staring at her? Then theres all the talk about fat old white guys.

Will respond to your other post when time permits, or hopefully just quote what some of the sharper knives here put forth. Isn't it kind of nice to be able to discuss our differences in a relaxed, civil atmosphere as opposed to exchanging vulgar insults and then having staff silence those they disagree with? Just look at how very small the A+ tent has become. 3x as many banned as they have active users.

Averaging under 20 users/guests now A+ is no longer even a pup-tent. It's an empty cardboard box under a bridge. Stick around here more Apos, where your voice will at least be heard. Take a look at my posting history there and explain to me why I truly deserved to be banned. Hell son, I knew you could spot me 50 IQ points first time I heard your video. You really got me to view Elevator gate from a different perspective, and maybe you could do the same with A+. I still don't see what you do; only fractals. Enlighten me.

Wish I could get into this more now, but the mighty humber has returned. I actually talked to Mark Drela himself this afternoon and want to compile a series of cart essays and videos and have them in his mailbox anon. I was going to leave him a voicemail, but to my surprise he picked up the phone. It was 3pm at MIT, on a Sunday. Guess that's part of how you get to be a Mark Drela, though humber claims wrt ddwfttw his first name is ironically apropos.

Apologies for derail, but as the humber legend began here at JREF and Apos is familiar with it I wanted to mention it is still raging.

 

[Stout]

Although I'm still waiting for that invite for drinks...

If you go, remember to leave her full name and contact information written next to your computer monitor. This is so the cops can find your body if you go missing. Have your best friend will call or e-mail you the next morning, and you must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or he begins to worry. If he doesn’t hear from you by three or so, he’ll call the police.

/schrodinger's rapist

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here is their "expelled for science experiment" thread. When someone finally points out that the circumstances were different, we are told that that is not the issue because a white person would have gotten lighter treatment. However their only evidence for this is a completely different scenario with a white kid. And the we have long apologies with "from my experience as a girl interested in science" as somehow determining the truth of the matter.

This isn't scientific skepticism, but ordinary skepticism. The claims in the thread cannot be falsified.

 

[dasmiller]

Here is their "expelled for science experiment" thread. When someone finally points out that the circumstances were different, we are told that that is not the issue because a white person would have gotten lighter treatment. However their only evidence for this is a completely different scenario with a white kid.

Well, of course. Because they'd never arrest a white person for making a "works" bomb like she did.

(that was after a quick bit of googling, and includes only the ones for whom I could determine race. In general, there don't seem to be follow-up stories explaining what charges were or weren't actually filed).

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass PZ.

Like an abusive husband who yells "**** you too!" after his wife finally kicks him out.

 

[Jono]

PZ described it as if Swiss railed on him, specifically. As I haven't listened to anything Jamy have said for years, did he?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

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.)

From Dictionary.com

dog·ma
[dawg-muh, dog-] Show IPA
noun, plural dog·mas or ( Rare ) dog·ma·ta [dawg-muh-tuh] Show IPA .
1.
an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma. 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

Hyperbole much? Perhaps you'd like to address my point, context matters, instead of going into attack mode.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

<snip>
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?

I'm not part of that discussion, my personal experience is inline with the concepts of patriarchy and privilege. I would say the place for that discussion is anywhere that the participants want to have it. If you want to have a really serious conversation I'd look to publish a paper on sociology or find places where feminist sociology is being debated.

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.

Why? The evidence for the benefit of flossing is overwhelming. Do you really think your dentist should qualify all their thoughts on flossing with, "Unless I'm somehow inexplicably wrong about everything I've learned in oral hygiene"? To me that approaches the way that creationists (YEC variety) use the word "theory" when talking about whatever scientific finding is inconvenient for their young earth beliefs. Yes any bit of knowledge could be wrong, yes we must do our best to remain vigilant for new and conflicting data, but yes we also get to take things which are substantiated as substantial so we can move on and up.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

One poster said that she, as an atheist, would only ever criticise Christianity. She was asked whether that meant that atheists shouldn't be concerned with criticising Islam or Hinduism. Ceepolk said yes and posted the quote in question.

Nothing to do with culture, a simple, straight-up statement that people should not even think about criticising any religion other than Christianity, because other religions are those of "brown people" (with the underlying assumption being that everybody she was addressing was posting from a 3rd world country in the West).

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.

Citation definitely needed.

The closest I've seen to her apologising was in the thread discussed earlier in which the deaf poster kept being accused of saying the exact opposite of what he was consistently and clearly saying. After many pages and a few days it got to the point where nobody could actually claim he'd said what people were criticising him for saying and ceepolk apologised by saying that she could now see that he hadn't said what she'd been criticising him for saying, but that he ought to think about what's wrong with him that made her think that he'd said the opposite of what he'd clearly and repeatedly said. "I'm wrong, and it's your fault for making me wrong" is the closest I've ever seen. Feel free to provide better examples.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

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.

Emphasis mine. At what point does SR seem like invoking "absolute terror" to you? No one I have spoken to about it gives me that impression, aside from you and some other detractors. Proponents describe it as I have, "Don't trust strangers" combined with "Be aware of the cultural power imbalance involved in gender". (I'll point to the huge amounts of sympathy being thrown towards the convicted rapists in Stubenville as one of many current examples. It's dangerous to be a rape victim, even small odds are non-zero and with consequences like 1, actually being raped, and then 2, being shunned and attacked by your community for reporting it I would sure as hell seek to avoid any situation where the possibility was there.

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

This is not an answer to my question, it's a comment which is unrelated and false. If you had to be a "crony" there would be no new members. There are new members so...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's just something to keep in mind.

If I learn of any of them making a claim I will assess that claim with the same scepticism with which I assess all claims. I don't see what is constructively achieved by pointing to an instance of someone entirely unrelated making a false rape threat claim and saying that you think maybe some unspecified people in the A+ movement might be capable of doing the same thing.

If you note an example of it actually happening, then that's one thing, but I don't know what you hope to achieve by mud-slinging.

 

[Mr. Scott]

One poster said that she, as an atheist, would only ever criticise Christianity. She was asked whether that meant that atheists shouldn't be concerned with criticising Islam or Hinduism. Ceepolk said yes and posted the quote in question.

Nothing to do with culture, a simple, straight-up statement that people should not even think about criticising any religion other than Christianity, because other religions are those of "brown people" (with the underlying assumption being that everybody she was addressing was posting from a 3rd world country in the West).

The Bostom Bombers were white. How does that figure into their calculus? Do the religions of brown people remain immune to criticism when practiced by white people?

Does Ms. Polk vet her racist, bigoted, prejudiced remarks with A+ authorities before running her mouth off?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

<snip>The problem here is ceepolk says a lot of highly problematic things and is the most obvious target when it comes to being unable to live up to SJ standards. Here's an example from a few days ago, from the Are The Mods.... thread.

"I don't care about your comfort."

Emphasis Mine

So here we have ceepolk saying that too many white people make her feel sick or that too many white people make PoC feel sick, there's couple of ways of reading that but this gist of it is outright racism. Yet, it goes unchallenged, Aplussers gobble it up Yes ceepolk, may I have another please.
That thread gets even stupider with the Entwife's post admonishing poster RINCF for replying to white men when, for all intents and purposes, the OP had abandoned the thread. Do Aplussers all have bios listing their privileges, if not it would be funny if RINCF came back and self identified as a PoC.

It's obvious, ceepolk does the "heavy lifting" because she like banning people. Why else would she immerse herself in a movement like social justice that has a characteristically high percentage of nauseatingly white privileged people. It's a power trip.

Am I racist when I am in a group of nearly all white folks and it bothers me then? I'm white, CIS, male, I've got bingo on everything but wealth, and that's just perspective I'm absurdly more well off than the vast majority of humanity. The answer is no. I'm not racist because I don't hate white people. I don't dislike them, what bothers me, and what I read Ceepolk as saying, is that I don't like the absence of diversity. It bothers me when a space is primarily male, or female, or white, or other. Case in point, this thread strikes me as overwhelmingly white and male. There may be some participants who are not, but the feeling of this culture is white, male and intellectual. Consequently it takes me a lot more effort to participate here than in forums where I perceive greater diversity.

RINCF posted problematically and Eowyn broke it down in detail. RINCF has admitted they should have posted their own thread. My guess is you feel that culture does not show through in posting and language use. Having spent time among a more diverse group, I can say it does and I've seen people react to it, apparently without realizing it. Scenerio was one, and you can see me calling him out on it if you go digging.