Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkCorrigan said:
That isn't a cogent reply. It doesn't answer the question, nor does it even attempt to argue against the premise of the question.
Click to expand...

The claim seems to be that everyone on atheismplus defers to Setar. The fact that I don't disproves the claim. The insult doesn't deserve a response.
 
qwints said:
The claim seems to be that everyone on atheismplus defers to Setar. The fact that I don't disproves the claim. The insult doesn't deserve a response.
Click to expand...

Actually, you have been quite reasonable in some of your postings, and understand your point of view on some issues even though I do not always agree. However, it seems that some individuals have taken more extreme positions lately, Setar being one of them.
 
Empress said:
Not sure about that. Nobody's bothered to apply for the grant money. They say that if nobody gets it, it will be donated to Skepticon. :whistling
Click to expand...

First off; HELLO, I AM GRIMALKIN. From the Atheism+ forums. I am going to Skepticon 6- a huge and awesome Skeptical/Atheist convetion
Click to expand...

It sounds like at least one nutwad will be there, and they're trying to raise money for other victims....err....nutwads to join them.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
It sounds like at least one nutwad will be there, and they're trying to raise money for other victims....err....nutwads to join them.
Click to expand...

Ah, I missed that; thank you. How I wish ceepolk and Setar were going. I think we'd see the fallout of that on the news. But alas, ceepolk can't go for fear of seeing white people, and Setar can't go since zizzle can't room alone, because...well, patriarchy, I suppose.
 
qwints said:
The claim seems to be that everyone on atheismplus defers to Setar. The fact that I don't disproves the claim. The insult doesn't deserve a response.
Click to expand...

The point is that A+ is not in the least bit interested in SJ or open debate. It's a place for a few pathetic losers (present company excepted; at least qwints has the spoons to come here and debate openly) to beat their chests about how oppressed they are and go on power trips at the expense of the few hapless n00bs who stop by there.

I'm sorry if I seem harsh on A+, but as a moderator here I find their forum administration appalling. It's exactly what I would not do if I ran a forum, and it's exactly what JREF's mods and admins are told not to do when they agree to the Moderator Agreement.
 
Empress said:
Not sure about that. Nobody's bothered to apply for the grant money. They say that if nobody gets it, it will be donated to Skepticon. :whistling
Click to expand...


What a waste of the money raised if they were to donate it. I'm sure at least one of them could use a new pair of shoes ...
 
Kochanski said:
People on the block bot list ARE victims, did you not see the BBC Newsnight story about it? Did you not see people's names appear on screen and people being called abusers based on arbitrary criteria decided by a small group? This is actual harm to people's reputations.
Click to expand...

So in your world criticism is abuse if it is online. Yet you participate here on the criticize A+ FTB thread... do you think of yourself as abusive or can you now see the patent absurdity of your claim?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Quite.

While there is no doubt in my mind that a number of them are horrible, horrible trolls, sexists, and even rape apologists, that doesn't mean all of them are.
Click to expand...

So if a thing can not be done free of error it should not be done? Don't you think perfection is an unreasonable standard?
 
ApostateltsopA said:
So in your world criticism is abuse if it is online. Yet you participate here on the criticize A+ FTB thread... do you think of yourself as abusive or can you now see the patent absurdity of your claim?
Click to expand...

I think you are confused.

I did not say anything they have done is abuse, I say the people on the blockbot list are now victims of slander. Not because they were added to the list but because of the BBC news program.

I say that I have been added on blockbot as level 2 with no indication why I was put there and at that level and at whose instigation. I say that the levels are arbitrarily decided by a group of individuals using a criteria that is not explained anywhere. I say that they participated in BBC news program speaking about the blockbot with twitter handles shown on screen and individuals on that blockbot list are referred to as abusers. And I say that this is slander and can cause harm in that people who have seen the show and may go to see the blockbot list with the limited information they were given watching the show will see those individuals as abusers.

I have no objection to them creating a blockbot for their own use and as long as it does not violate Twitters TOS they can do as they please.

If anyone equates criticism as abuse it is the individuals who objected enough to people's tweet to feel the need to create a blockbot so that they would not have to see criticism or disagreement with their views.

Blocking someone is not criticism, criticism requires engagement and they have not engaged with me at all. They did not tell me I was added, or why or at whose instigation. They chose to disengage completely.

I am perfectly willing to engage in discussions with any of them if they wish and if they have a problem with anything I have said I will accept the criticism. If I feel they have valid criticisms I may apologize for my words.

This week is banned book week, a good time to reflect on censorship and such.
 
ApostateltsopA said:
So if a thing can not be done free of error it should not be done? Don't you think perfection is an unreasonable standard?
Click to expand...

What do you think is the error rate of the blockbot?

What do you think is a reasonable error rate for such a bot?

What do you think is the amount of resources (time, energy, expertise, spoons, etc.) necessary to achieve a reasonable error rate for such a bot?

Do you think that such a bot should be implemented, if the necessary resources aren't available to maintain a reasonable error rate?

What's the current bot maintainer's attitude towards errors?

What process does the maintainer follow to avoid errors?

What process does the maintainer follow to correct errors?

Is the process transparent? Are the criteria well-defined? Do you think such a bot should be implemented without these things?

It's not a question of perfection or nothing. It's a question of making a serious, good-faith effort to do it well, to listen to criticism, and to make improvements. Nobody is saying the blockbot has to be perfect; they're saying it needs to stop being so badly and gratuitously wrong.
 
ApostateltsopA said:
So in your world criticism is abuse if it is online. Yet you participate here on the criticize A+ FTB thread... do you think of yourself as abusive or can you now see the patent absurdity of your claim?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you got that out of Kochanski's post. There's a world of difference between mild criticism on an Internet forum and publicly labeling people as abusers. Surely, you can see that.
 
I am perfectly willing to engage in discussions with any of them if they wish and if they have a problem with anything I have said I will accept the criticism. If I feel they have valid criticisms I may apologize for my words.
Click to expand...

Let them come over here and engage in debate. Stepping out of the safe zone might be good for them. I promise not to use my mod powers to interfere in any way. I'll even recuse myself from modding any A+er who comes here, just to avoid even the appearance of bias.

I doubt they will, but the door's always open.
 
ApostateltsopA said:
So in your world criticism is abuse if it is online. Yet you participate here on the criticize A+ FTB thread... do you think of yourself as abusive or can you now see the patent absurdity of your claim?
Click to expand...


Please stop trying to further victimize Kochanski with false claims.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
ApostateltsopA said:
So if a thing can not be done free of error it should not be done? Don't you think perfection is an unreasonable standard?
Click to expand...

Sorry...I can't understand whether or not you're making a joke here or if that is what you consider a serious argument. Care to clarify?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom