Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
What I'm having trouble with is the fact that people condone any amount of abusive comments.

I'm having trouble with the unremitting hate directed to other humans who are trying in their own way to do what they think is best.

Note: I do not post at A+ and am not registered there nor am I a regular poster at PZ,s place. I'm sure that you read more of A+ than I do.
Click to expand...

Unremitting hate? May I ask what planet you're posting from? If you're not an A+er, and I believe you're not, you're certainly imitating their hyperbole. Most of what I see in this thread is ridicule, mockery and heavy criticism of their hypocrisy, intolerance, sanctimony and the way they treat outsiders, e.g. bullying. The Chinese have an expression that is very apt for them - syau ren. It literally means "small person" but is meant to be a contrast to the way the person acts - like a big shot. This is the A+ and FTB crews to a T.

If you want to see unremitting hate, try discussing Elevatorgate with them and not taking the PZ line.
 
tsig said:
What I'm having trouble with is the fact that people condone any amount of abusive comments.

I'm having trouble with the unremitting hate directed to other humans who are trying in their own way to do what they think is best....
Click to expand...

Guess I'll ask as well...who is condoning what?

You seem to be assuming that they're getting some kind of statistically significant trolling level based only on their particular expression of their belief system?

I don't think I'm alone in concluding they're getting "background" levels which only spike because they're complaining about it and has pretty much nothing to do with their cause.
 
Diogenes said:
Guess I'll ask as well...who is condoning what?

You seem to be assuming that they're getting some kind of statistically significant trolling level based only on their particular expression of their belief system?

I don't think I'm alone in concluding they're getting "background" levels which only spike because they're complaining about it and has pretty much nothing to do with their cause.
Click to expand...

By saying it's only a "background" level you excuse it, condone it, trivialize it and explain it away.

This seems to be a subject with no neutral side if you don't constantly reinforce the group then you are automatically labeled as "one of them". Statements are twisted and the worst possible meaning is inferred then that is used as a stick to beat "the other".
 
tsig said:
By saying it's only a "background" level you excuse it, condone it, trivialize it and explain it away.

This seems to be a subject with no neutral side if you don't constantly reinforce the group then you are automatically labeled as "one of them". Statements are twisted and the worst possible meaning is inferred then that is used as a stick to beat "the other".
Click to expand...

UnrepentantSinner said:
The condoning exists only in your fevered imagination which is why you were so tempted by a non-sequitorial response. Noting that an "avalanche" of such comments consisting of three or four a week is a rather small "avalanche" is not condoning the comments.



Does this have something to do with the fact that an "avalanche" of abusive comments (whether from fellow skeptics or bored teenagers trolling Youtube videos) consisting of three or four a week is a rather small "avalanche", or another non-sequitor and you trying once again to subtly be a Skepchick/FtB/SJW apologist while pretending to be an dispassionate observer?



What this has to do with the fact that I was explaining why your "how many abusive PMs here" question was a complete non-sequitor to the fact that an "avalanche" of abusive comments consisting of three or four a week was a rather small "avalanche", I have no idea. That you would introduce another non-sequitor in responding to me since I haven't mentioned A+ in quite a while and your "look over there" PZ,s place distraction won't change the fact that you've been a Skepchick/FtB/SJW apologist for many months now in this thread. Again, your "dispassionate observer" Jedi mind tricks won't work because we've all seen your posts in this thread over that time.

And just for the record Uri, I don't read A+ nor FtB. I checked out both a couple of times due to morbid curiosity, but decided not to give either site any more hits. The last time I checked out a cultist website was St. Becky's hysterics about CFI, which I mostly ignored and read about 50 of the comments. More than enough to know the cult of personality amongst "skeptics" is as bad now as it was amongst Objectivists and Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

qed
 
Rebecca Watson has reached the bottom now. Memetics is bad because I don't like Dawkins.

Chris Mooney and Indre Viskontas are leaving Point of Inquiry due to the Ron Lindsay debacle, and are going to launch a new podcast with Mother Jones. It shows what I have always suspected, namely that Mooney is only interested in science and atheism in as much as it can be used as a stick to beat Republicans with. Hence his call for atheists to shut up about being atheists, many Democrats are religious after all!

Unfortunately I think this will be the beginning of the end for Lindsay as head of the CFI. The feminists are too powerful, or at least able to bark loudly.
 
tsig said:
By saying it's only a "background" level you excuse it, condone it, trivialize it and explain it away.

This seems to be a subject with no neutral side if you don't constantly reinforce the group then you are automatically labeled as "one of them". Statements are twisted and the worst possible meaning is inferred then that is used as a stick to beat "the other".
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation, I suppose. If you have some evidence that can clearly demonstrate that the A+/FtB crowd is being specifically targeted by "hate groups" I'll certainly consider it.

Otherwise...well, people, especially anonymous people, sometimes make fun of other people, moreso if it is remote and evokes a response. I'm pretty sure there are psychology/sociology papers that support this if you can't accept that as "common knowledge".

Where it breaks from just being a human thing that happens to everyone is when it becomes criminal behavior...as that's where a line is drawn.

You're not going to change this human behavior. It happens. How could I be endorsing that by just recognizing it? I recognize that I'm going to die and that everyone I know is going to die at some point in their lives but that sure as heck isn't "trivial".

They seem to like to think they're civil rights advocates in the 1960's when it really looks like they're just people getting flak from other people.
 
Humes fork said:
Rebecca Watson has reached the bottom now. Memetics is bad because I don't like Dawkins.

Chris Mooney and Indre Viskontas are leaving Point of Inquiry due to the Ron Lindsay debacle, and are going to launch a new podcast with Mother Jones.
Click to expand...

Along with Point of Inquiry producer Adam Isaak, who is apparently Watson's current boyfriend.
 
tsig said:
Statements are twisted and the worst possible meaning is inferred then that is used as a stick to beat "the other".
Click to expand...

Kettle, meet pot.

I've not seen you do anything other than this here, even while some of us - in between giving parts of A+ some well-deserved mocking - were trying to also have a serious discussion.
 
Humes fork said:
Rebecca Watson has reached the bottom now. Memetics is bad because I don't like Dawkins.
Click to expand...

Memetics is bad, but the reasons have nothing to do with Dawkins...

Chris Mooney and Indre Viskontas are leaving Point of Inquiry due to the Ron Lindsay debacle, and are going to launch a new podcast with Mother Jones. It shows what I have always suspected, namely that Mooney is only interested in science and atheism in as much as it can be used as a stick to beat Republicans with. Hence his call for atheists to shut up about being atheists, many Democrats are religious after all!
Click to expand...

Really? Really?
I read the same speech that everybody else did. What makes Lindsay so evil?
Has everybody lost their minds?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
I read the same speech that everybody else did. What makes Lindsay so evil? Has everybody lost their minds?
Click to expand...

No, no. You've got to get into the proper mindset. You are women - a persecuted disadvantaged minority. You get RAPE THREATS! The patriarchy rules the world, is intent on systematically oppressing you and you have very few weapons with which to fight back. One of them that seems to work sometimes is the "SHUT UP AND LISTEN!" theme. It shocks some men into stopping long enough to listen and perhaps try to empathise with those they so systematically persecute and disadvantage. Of course some middle-aged privileged men are fighting back, but that's only to be expected, the bastards.

Now your group finally, FINALLY, get their own conference for and about just women. It's Women in Secularism. All for you, about you, all yours. Nobody can take that away from you.

And... a middle-aged white guy gets up on stage and tells you to be reasonable, to not try to silence opponents and not to use "SHUT UP AND LISTEN!" anymore.

RAGE!

p.s. None of this is necessarily related to reality, but I'd be surprised if this didn't catch some of the salient aspects of the reaction.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4958

Seems like they've got another squirrel for the stew. Guy shows up. He's probably interesting and someone should invite him over here but it took him a short walk through the Basket O' Links to realize this might not be the place for him.
Click to expand...

Wow. That thread is something.

And then, inch by inch, the gloves start coming off and the piranhas come in smelling blood. He held his own (and he sure pegged their groupthink, I feel) and might actually survive there if he learns to kiss-ass-'splain a little better.
Click to expand...

Well it looks like that's already happening.

Is that the same Sun Countess who's a member here? So I'll try to put this politely, but .... her first post is a JOKE! Assumptions coming out of the wazoo, particularly funny in a thread where he already noted (and the sainted SubMor argued against) the constant ad hom attacks and insults. And I love the "hey, some of our best friends are privileged CIS-gendered white people" arguments. They don't realize how funny it is to see them trotting out those old racist - sexist - misogynist justifications!
Click to expand...

Weren't you paying attention? It's only an ad hom when you dismiss the unprivileged for character traits. Just like how racism, sexism and misogyny can only come from having prejudice and power (although in the case of misogyny "power" is defined in terms of penis-havingness). So as long as they consider themselves powerless overall they can never be any of those things, no matter how much power they wield in their little club.
 
Wildy said:
Weren't you paying attention? It's only an ad hom when you dismiss the unprivileged for character traits. Just like how racism, sexism and misogyny can only come from having prejudice and power (although in the case of misogyny "power" is defined in terms of penis-havingness). So as long as they consider themselves powerless overall they can never be any of those things, no matter how much power they wield in their little club.
Click to expand...

Ok, it is Friday and my brain has gone weirder than usual, I am now imaging a super hero with misogyny power :D There is a comic strip in there somewhere....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom