Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Diogenes]

It's finally happening, Setar is getting called on his made up reasons on both A+ and Ophelia Benson's blog...

That's "Setár, genderqueer Elf-Sheriff of Atheism+"...hm.

Did I read OB's opinion on Islam correctly?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

This caused me to shoot Coca-Cola out of my nose, coming from a representative of the most fascist board I have ever encountered on the Internet. Of course people are being censored at A+. Any opinion that runs counter to the hivemind there is stamped out ruthlessly. And that's exactly why you'll never see Setar or ceepolk or any of the other A+ mods here; they simply haven't got the spoons to participate in a discussion they do not control.

Did you readanything in the context of that quote mine? It was not about the forum,but the block bot. I will take your evasion here to mean you can not criticize the block bot, or apparently even the forum, without naked hyperbole.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

I will let someone else with more time on their hand deconstruct the above. However this statement is false equivalency. One is an app designed to stop people from having a conversation. The other is a thread on a message board designed to facilitate people having a conversation.

And to take your tact a bit,

Are you honestly saying you can't tell the difference?

So. Then no you can't. As to false equivilancy, had I compared them in the sense you are doing that would be alid criticism, however I did not. I specifically pointed out the comparison was that both locations house negatie opinions of users of some form of social media. Do you really think comparing internet opinions to internet opinions is false equivalincy?

That should also answer your last question.

 

[jhunter1163]

Did you readanything in the context of that quote mine? It was not about the forum,but the block bot. I will take your evasion here to mean you can not criticize the block bot, or apparently even the forum, without naked hyperbole.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intention; to me, the phrase "or any other" implied any other medium, and much of this thread has been devoted to providing examples of A+ forum censorship (which is clearly a "medium").

To address the blockbot specifically, though, the obvious question is "why even have it"? What purpose does it serve other than an attempt to control debate through public shaming of people as "abusers" or "annoying", or as an attempt to keep out the ideologically impure?

 

[qwints]

It's finally happening, Setar is getting called on his made up reasons on both A+ and Ophelia Benson's blog.

People, including me, have strongly disagreed with her before on other issues. Setar's reasoning is not made up, but, in this case, it's wrong. And people have had no problem telling her she's wrong.

 

[Myriad]

This caused me to shoot Coca-Cola out of my nose, coming from a representative of the most fascist board I have ever encountered on the Internet. Of course people are being censored at A+. Any opinion that runs counter to the hivemind there is stamped out ruthlessly. And that's exactly why you'll never see Setar or ceepolk or any of the other A+ mods here; they simply haven't got the spoons to participate in a discussion they do not control.

It's important to note that by "stamped out ruthlessly" you're not talking about simply being contradicted by a substantial (and possibly voluminous) consensus of contrary opinion, as might happen on any forum (such as, advocating atheism on a Christian forum, or advocating homophobia here). You're referring to those contrary opinions being hidden from view, replaced by sarcastic and uncharitable re-phrasings by moderators, and/or the people posting them prohibited from any further posting.

The reason it's important to make that distinction is because there appears to be a doctrine, which ApostateA appears to be employing and advocating here, that expressing disagreement with someone (criticizing, questioning, or contradicting them) is somehow equivalent to silencing them.

If that were so, "you made a post disagreeing with me so I banned you" as practiced at the A+ forum would become a fair and equitable transaction!

And "how is your criticizing A+ on this thread any different from A+ putting your name on a block bot and declaring on national media that those whose names are on the block bot are abusers?" would actually be a reasonable question.

How bizarre.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[luchog]

It's finally happening, Setar is getting called on his made up reasons on both A+ and Ophelia Benson's blog.

It seems the poor guy is insisting that the Nairobi incident was motivated by "protest" against western colonialism.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...or something like that.

A+ thread here
Ophie's Blog

There are actually some reasonable and intelligent comments in that thread, to wit:
".but it's important to actually make sure that you're looking at the system as it is, not just projecting your own beliefs and causes onto the framework."

Too bad they can't apply that principle more widely.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

Isn't the Setár the A+er who expects the government to pay him or her—what is Setár's gender?—more money to stay at home and smoke weed?

Not that I thing welfare is inherently bad, I've just heard that Setár is abusing it.

For people who decry the entitlement complex of others so much they sure are swimming in it.

 

[jhunter1163]

It's important to note that by "stamped out ruthlessly" you're not talking about simply being contradicted by a substantial (and possibly voluminous) consensus of contrary opinion, as might happen on any forum (such as, advocating atheism on a Christian forum, or advocating homophobia here). You're referring to those contrary opinions being hidden from view, replaced by sarcastic and uncharitable re-phrasings by moderators, and/or the people posting them prohibited from any further posting.

The reason it's important to make that distinction is because there appears to be a doctrine, which ApostateA appears to be employing and advocating here, that expressing disagreement with someone (criticizing, questioning, or contradicting them) is somehow equivalent to silencing them.

If that were so, "you made a post disagreeing with me so I banned you" as practiced at the A+ forum would become a fair and equitable transaction!

And "how is your criticizing A+ on this thread any different from A+ putting your name on a block bot and declaring on national media that those whose names are on the block bot are abusers?" would actually be a reasonable question.

How bizarre.

Respectfully,
Myriad

As usual, you put it better than I did. Thank you for that.

 

[bedlin88]

So. Then no you can't. As to false equivilancy, had I compared them in the sense you are doing that would be alid criticism, however I did not. I specifically pointed out the comparison was that both locations house negatie opinions of users of some form of social media. Do you really think comparing internet opinions to internet opinions is false equivalincy?

That should also answer your last question.

I wouldn't if that was what we were actually comparing. But it's not anyone here is free to express whatever opinion they wish no matter how wrong it may be. With the blockbot that is not the case because it is an app not a forum, the bot is not expressing any actual opinion. Anyone can come here and defend themselves and would be welcome to do so, as both you and quints are. With the bot some group of people are making the decision to put twitter handles into it without having justifying why or how they concluded that person should be there. Leaving the a fore mention twitter user no real recourse but to try to appeal on the A+ forums. I will stick by false equivalency, if the two were like to like, only then would equating the two, the way you are doing, be even remotely passable or plausible.

 

[Stout]

People, including me, have strongly disagreed with her before on other issues. Setar's reasoning is not made up, but, in this case, it's wrong. And people have had no problem telling her she's wrong.

I'll have to take your word on that, I don't read all their threads.

Setar has thrown down the gauntlet with his " if you're not a radical leftist, you're part of the problem" comment, which you can see evidence of in the OP of his mental health in Vancouver thread.

Setar is working from the perspective that everything is wrong with our society and, in this case, failure to cite something, anything, to back up his premise that "the west" is responsible for the Nairobi attack is evidence that he's pulling this theory from his backside.

Colonialism in Somalia ? Yes, sure it happened I can find nothing where Al-Shabab states that they were acting against colonialism.

 

[qwints]

what is Setár's gender?

Setar identifies as a woman.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Putting the blockbot aside for one moment, ApostateltsopA do you consider this thread to be the equivalent of the treatment of those with widely dissenting opinions on the A+ forums?

ETA: Qwints you're welcome to answer as well. In fact, I've found you in particular to be a sane and reasonable person so I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

 

[qwints]

Colonialism in Somalia ? Yes, sure it happened I can find nothing where Al-Shabab states that they were acting against colonialism.

Although an Al-Shabab commander did make comments that can be construed as anti-colonial, it's clear their primary goal is the withdrawal of Kenyan troops from Somalia.

Here's what might be called anti-colonial, but I think it's a stretch:

It is a place where tourists from across the world come to shop, where diplomats gather. It is a place where Kenya's decision-makers go to relax and enjoy themselves. Westgate is a place where there are Jewish and American shops. So we have to attack them.

Contrast that with the clear statements that this and other attacks are about getting Kenya out of Somalia.

Al Jazeera Interview
Article on Al Shabab Statement

AJ: Do you think this attack will make Kenya withdraw its troops from Somalia?

SA: That question is not for us to answer. That is for the Kenyan government to answer. It is up to them to withdraw their soldiers or not. If they don't withdraw, attacks like this will become common in Kenya. It is possible if they don't withdraw attacks like this will happen in Kenyan cities and towns every day.

 

[Empress]

People, including me, have strongly disagreed with her before on other issues. Setar's reasoning is not made up, but, in this case, it's wrong. And people have had no problem telling her she's wrong.

Yeah, I saw your comments over there, and give you a cyber high five.

In other news, Flew seems not to have flounced after all. Or he didn't stick it. Either way, he posted in the thread.

ETA: Re-reading that, it strikes me that it might sound like I was being sarcastic. I wasn't. I genuinely admired your stance in the thread, qwints.

 

[Stout]

Although an Al-Shabab commander did make comments that can be construed as anti-colonial, it's clear their primary goal is the withdrawal of Kenyan troops from Somalia.

Here's what might be called anti-colonial, but I think it's a stretch:


Contrast that with the clear statements that this and other attacks are about getting Kenya out of Somalia.

Al Jazeera Interview
Article on Al Shabab Statement

I agree..it's a stretch. Interesting they said Jewish and American rather than Israeli and American. and I suppose we could try to frame the terrorists letting Muslim captives go as some sort of anti-colonialist action as well.

Since we have no statement from Al-Shabab claiming that they were acting against colonial power we can only conclude that Setar made it up to fit an ideology that Has "the west" being responsible for everything bad that happens in the world.

 

[Kochanski]

Slandered, abused, that is semantics. As for the BBC program, you are going to have to justify that as slanderous. The only difference I see between the conduct here, say how Setar or ceepolk are spoken of, and the block bot is that the bot places a person on a list once and is done with it, wheras here the criticism, and vile insults (amature psychoanalysis anyone?) just keep going on and on.

Slander and libel have specific legal definitions. The way blockbot was presented in the BBC program can be seen that way. It is presenting the information about the blockbot in the show that is the problem. This is what I am addressing.

The individuals on level 1 were labeled abusers, as a level 2 you have been labeled regularly annoying. Why does that bother you so much? A bunch of people don't want to see what you write on twitter, that isn't censorship you can still write things on twitter, and elsewhere. Some people just won't see it. Here read this,

"(Note for those coming here when blocked, nowhere does the bot say you are anything, abusive, an MRA, whatever. Look at the tweet that added you and ask the blocker that blocked you. The levels are from annoying to abusive bigot. Level1 people might have something to complain about in terms of being labelled “abusive, stalker, doxxer or faker”, few have however as it’s a pretty clear cut accusation. Level2 and Level3 are more subjective, are you really that damaged by some people thinking you are an ******* or annoying?)" - From the block bot home page.

Again, I don't care if they choose to include me in the blockbot. If they are that butthurt about the few tweets I have done that might address issues or individuals they care about, fine, they can choose to block me individually or as a group.

I am not out there competing for twitter followers. My concern once again is how blockbot was characterized on the BBC show. And YES I am concerned when they have characterized people on the blockbot list as abusers within the BBC show and YES it could cause damage to me or to others on the list.

So you object to them allowing the BBC to tell others about it? They can not listen to you as long as they are silent about it? Your position makes no sense at all.

Yes, I object to the WAY it was presented on the BBC.

Don't say "Censorship" that is also false. No one is being prevented from saying anything on the medium of Twitter, or any other. Some people are simply refusing to listen to what others are saying.

I speak of censorship generally, I am not referring to twitter, but the whole way that A+ deals with things.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

Setar identifies as a woman.

Then I'll call her a her. And a fifth wheel in the skeptical movement in any case.

 

[qwints]

If you want to argue that atheismplus members refuse to listen to people of dissenting view points, I think you've got a reasonable position. I probably disagree with you on their duty to do so or the extent to which they're actually ignorant of those dissenting view points, but it's certainly true that the forum shuts out a number of view points.

Calling this censorship, on the other hand, is redefining the word beyond recognition. No one on the Blockbot list, and no one banned from the atheismplus forums is prevented from publishing their views on the internet, or anywhere else they'd like to speak. Kochanski is particularly hypocritical in calling it censorship, when she appears to be threatening litigation using the infamously censorious UK defamation regime.

 

[tsig]

I'm sure Greta Christina wouldn't turn them down.

I'm sure she'll wear out many pairs of shoes before you wear out that one.