Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Axiom_Blade]

There's something else: You get a threatening email report it to their ISP. Someone tells you you should be raped on Facebook then report it to Facebook. All it takes is a single click.

Police will get calls for someone sending them harassing messages on Facebook and yet they haven't taken the simple step of clicking Block/Report.

There's a lot you can do to protect yourself.

The last time I pointed this out, I was told that I had no business telling other people how to respond to their threats. For a bunch of alleged skeptics, I find it interesting that anybody is taking this seriously, when the whole thing easily could've been completely fabricated (or hugely exaggerated) by RW. There's also no explanation as to why RW is the focus of these threats, and not other women in the movement like Eugenie Scott or Harriet Hall...you know, people who actually do things besides being an Internet celebrity. Presumably, it's because RW is one of the few brave enough to "speak truth to power" and be a troo feminist, or something like that.

I think that being a skeptic does not imply intelligence. It is a very attractive movement for people who like to consider themselves more intelligent, more enlightened, than the mainstream sheeple. In other words, much the same crowd that social justice courts. Being a member of A+ means you can look down your nose at people who use homeopathy, read tarot cards, etc., as well as straight white males, "dictionary" atheists, etc.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

And it's hard to advance your cause when people are not ignoring or disagreeing with you, but literally laughing at you.

Cause? There is no cause. A+ has no stated goals or agenda, and its biggest concerns are bickering and backbiting. It's the epitome of holier-than-thou leftism.

If I had to sum up the problems with leftism in the US, I'd say it's the focus on being "correct", not on getting results. Ideology, not pragmatism (e.g. Occupy Wall Street).

 

[recursive prophet]

Here's the end of Limerick-gate.

They never give any explanations for their suspensions. This is just another example of someone being banned simply for requesting one.

The traffic chart TCS posted on the precious page is worth a thousand pages of sitesplaining. Whole lotta privilege checkin goin on.

 

[kellyb]

PSA regarding epilepsy:

I'm epileptic, and know a lot about epilepsy. Flashing lights is probably the most common seizure trigger, but the incidence of even that is only around one in a hundred among epileptics. Seizures can be triggered by almost ANYTHING.

This is an interesting example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20220445

One of my seizure triggers is listening to a one sided headset and hearing loud environmental music out of the other ear (interesting fact I might never have discovered if I hadn't worked in concert production running lights.)

When I used to hang out on epilepsy support boards, usually the top stickie was a how-to on adjusting your browser monitor settings to avoid triggering seizures for photosensitive epileptics.

 

[squealpiggy]

The last time I pointed this out, I was told that I had no business telling other people how to respond to their threats. For a bunch of alleged skeptics, I find it interesting that anybody is taking this seriously, when the whole thing easily could've been completely fabricated (or hugely exaggerated) by RW. There's also no explanation as to why RW is the focus of these threats, and not other women in the movement like Eugenie Scott or Harriet Hall...you know, people who actually do things besides being an Internet celebrity. Presumably, it's because RW is one of the few brave enough to "speak truth to power" and be a troo feminist, or something like that.

I can imagine it being an unwelcome response to Social Justice princesses like RW when they complain about these tragic woes and all they hear is "So what did you do about it?"

I'm glad you brought up Harriet Hall. She is someone who faced incredible resistance to women's liberation in an extraordinarily misogynist environment and she blazed a trail through it anyway. No wonder she awoke the ire of the A-Plus FTB crowd, who are more content with saying "But it's not FAIR!"

 

[Foolmewunz]

They never give any explanations for their suspensions. This is just another example of someone being banned simply for requesting one.

The traffic chart TCS posted on the precious page is worth a thousand pages of sitesplaining. Whole lotta privilege checkin goin on.

Ceepolk, that icon of modern moderation, just threatened MarineRachel with banning if she didn't respond to a specific question. That's right... you answer or your going to get banned for not answering.

HyperDeath, who I must say has been a voice of reason in the discussion of moderators actioning members while they're in the process of fighting with them, chimed in and said, "Or you could just drop the subject".

Is it just me, or are they unable to read. I think MarineRachel has made very specific complaints about general behavior. Like the "Wind Incident", though, they don't want to talk about general guidelines. They want the naming of the names and specific complaints about specific individuals.

I think it should be noted that PTB dynamics can work that way in many organizations. "Let's not talk about the general condition of all the litter in the halls or the dirty restrooms. You name names of who's at fault or stop complaining!" Our moderators here often fall back on that same faux defense when someone doesn't want to put specifics in a complaint, but wants to talk about general unfairness or perceptions of general bias. I don't think it's any more seemly here than over there. For mods to pretend that they know of no instances of such behavior when there are numerous posts and threads calling out such transgressions is one of those butter-won't-melt-in-my-mouth disingenuos gambits. I know at least one poster in this thread knows that of which I speak.

 

[Stout]

The amount of resources devoted by law enforcement to tracking down people who make threats is proportional to the threat they represent. A message from Germany to the US saying that someone deserves a raping is not going to warrant much investigation, whereas a message from an ISP in Las Vegas saying "I am going to rape you at TAM" probably is. A message saying "I am going to bomb TAM" is likely to garner an even greater response.

There's something else: You get a threatening email report it to their ISP. Someone tells you you should be raped on Facebook then report it to Facebook. All it takes is a single click.

Police will get calls for someone sending them harassing messages on Facebook and yet they haven't taken the simple step of clicking Block/Report.

There's a lot you can do to protect yourself.

Understood

I'm not a facebook user however it's my understanding that they control their accounts closely. For example a friend of mine set up a FB profile in the name of her dog and FB deleted it. So there has to be some sort of link back to a real person which would make law enforcement's job just that much easier.

So out of those hundreds of rape threats a few have got to be relatively easy to track down no ? I'd be expecting blog updates outing, or doxxing as the cool kids like to say the people who sent those "threats"

I imagine it would be tough to block people if you're a celebrity of sorts, until after the threat is recieved but reporting it to the company FB, etc would seem to be a logical first step.

 

[Stout]

I think that being a skeptic does not imply intelligence. It is a very attractive movement for people who like to consider themselves more intelligent, more enlightened, than the mainstream sheeple. In other words, much the same crowd that social justice courts. Being a member of A+ means you can look down your nose at people who use homeopathy, read tarot cards, etc., as well as straight white males, "dictionary" atheists, etc.

That's an interesting observation. If we take the whole political correctness/social justice idea as an extension of that teenage meme of rebelling against your parents and extend it into adulthood, then compare it with that teenage adage of question authority and extend that into adulthood as well, not only do we have an apt comparison of the two ideals but we have a huge run on sentence as well.

A huge difference between the two is that, with skepticism, there's an opportunity to learn a lot whereas with SJ, the concepts are simple ( regardless of this 301 crap they go on about ) with actual knowledge about a subject taking a backseat to the politics.

Still, combining the two is a very, very weird idea. As we've seen, over at A+ the politics is the dominant force with knowledge being a distant second.

 

[Stout]

When I used to hang out on epilepsy support boards, usually the top stickie was a how-to on adjusting your browser monitor settings to avoid triggering seizures for photosensitive epileptics.

Out of curiosity was that bit of real world advice mentioned on A+. I missed that discussion. I know what they're trying to do with the whole safe space thing but it seems to me that anyone triggered by photosensitivity would appreciate that knowledge assuming, of course they didn't already have it.

A+ itself may be a safe space, but what about the links, more specifically what about the ads in the links. If an A+ link requires someone to navigate away from the forum then could it still be considered a safe space ?

 

[kellyb]

Out of curiosity was that bit of real world advice mentioned on A+.

No, but, I don't think that's a fault at A+. (although A+ certainly has other faults.)

For one thing, there aren't any photosensitive epileptics there (although there are 2 or 3 non-photosensitive epileptics there,) afaik.
2) if it were mentioned, it would get quickly lost in the forums, and would be inappropriate to stickie.

 

[recursive prophet]

Ceepolk, that icon of modern moderation, just threatened MarineRachel with banning if she didn't respond to a specific question. That's right... you answer or your going to get banned for not answering.

They've been doing that a lot lately. ANSWER THE QUESTION!! Or beat it. I bet the Inquisitors thought they were protecting the marginalized also. And remember; intent ain't magic and A+ ain't a debate forum.

HyperDeath, who I must say has been a voice of reason in the discussion of moderators actioning members while they're in the process of fighting with them, chimed in and said, "Or you could just drop the subject".

I did a couple PM exchanges with HD and really wish I'd made asking him some key questions a higher priority. He may soon be a target. Remember 1 admin was already harassed into resigning, and having silenced all murmurs of dissent they'll inevitably begin to challenge each other's less privileged than thou cred. It began last month.

Is it just me, or are they unable to read. I think MarineRachel has made very specific complaints about general behavior. Like the "Wind Incident", though, they don't want to talk about general guidelines. They want the naming of the names and specific complaints about specific individuals.

That little drama was A+ on steroids. Lives were said to be at risk as a result of someone in the sooper sekret forum leaking to wind that some there were putting her down. That one really shook up the troops. Much pressure was put on her to reveal her source. I tried giving reason a shot, but to no avail. Here's a link to one post where I tried to state the bloody obvious. Click here and hit page down once.

I think it should be noted that PTB dynamics can work that way in many organizations. "Let's not talk about the general condition of all the litter in the halls or the dirty restrooms. You name names of who's at fault or stop complaining!" Our moderators here often fall back on that same faux defense when someone doesn't want to put specifics in a complaint, but wants to talk about general unfairness or perceptions of general bias. I don't think it's any more seemly here than over there. For mods to pretend that they know of no instances of such behavior when there are numerous posts and threads calling out such transgressions is one of those butter-won't-melt-in-my-mouth disingenuos gambits. I know at least one poster in this thread knows that of which I speak.

To be sure I've had my run-ins with Darat and a couple others. But while I agree bias is no more seemly here, you have to admit the mods/admins at A+ really make the JREF staff look stellar in contrast. Might it be intentional? Is piegasm really Darat in drag? Would xir actually do that?

 

[Quinn]

with actual knowledge about a subject taking a backseat to the politics.

They don't need you factsplaining from your information-privileged position.

 

[zooterkin]

Here's a link to one post where I tried to state the bloody obvious. Click here and hit page down once.

That links to a graph, not to the A+ forum.

 

[recursive prophet]

No, but, I don't think that's a fault at A+. (although A+ certainly has other faults.)

For one thing, there aren't any photosensitive epileptics there...

Yabut A+ staff would argue since you never know when one might show up, so why miss an opportunity to bust some newbie for using a smiley that moves or has red in it?

Oh, and if you scroll down further on that link I posted in my last post, you'll see my most extensive exchange on A+. It gets quite funny a little further down the page when they accuse me of infantilizing because I accidentally called Sun Countess, Sun Princess.

That links to a graph, not to the A+ forum.

Thanks for the heads up Zoot. I just fixed it. Still have to laugh at how blown away I was when I saw your picture. So different from how I imagined you all those years.

 

[chillzero]

Chill's comment is certainly good general advice, but how is it specifically relevant to the A+ forum? I cannot see any conflict between on the one hand an e.g. epileptic Internet user taking various general precautions and on the other hand a specific web site offering e.g. epileptics a chance to relax with their precautions and experience that forum's communication more fully.

That would be fine if a)you assume epileptics do not use any other part of the web at all, and b)precautionary steps to block triggers are easy to set/unset.

That forum is thus, AFAICS, simply taking some extra steps to welcome e.g. epileptics in particular. If the people who own/run the forum want to do that and the membership in general does not mind, what's the harm?

Here's the harm.
If you set up a site that you want to be friendly for epileptics, then you need to VERY clearly, VERY prominently announce what precautions every single member needs to take in order to enable each epileptic to 'relax with their precautions', to ensure that there are no triggers left anywhere. If you tell an epileptic that they can undo any precautions they have taken in order to use your site, and you don't manage those precautions yourself by background code, then you are responsible for any damage done to an epileptic when another member posts a flashing red image.

It is ridiculous to select disabilities at random that you decide will be protected disabilities on the site, if you are unable to fully control everything that will will have an impact on that disability.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The crux of the situation is simple:

A man has the right to hit on a woman whenever he wants, wherever he wants and in any way he wants, anything less will lead to the extermination human race because they'll be no sex.

If a woman disagrees with this it's OK to harass her with threats of violence, insults and taunts.

Okay, who are these people who are threatening, insulting, and taunting? Call them out. Name some names. Show me what they have written.

I tell you, if these hooligans and ruffians do speak to a lady like depraved curs, indeed I will scorn and denounce them as the most basest and vile of rubbish!

 

[squealpiggy]

Oh, and if you scroll down further on that link I posted in my last post, you'll see my most extensive exchange on A+. It gets quite funny a little further down the page when they accuse me of infantilizing because I accidentally called Sun Countess, Sun Princess.

A Sun Countess is at least two noble ranks below a Sun Princess. Why simply naming her a Sun Princess could have her suspected of sedition!

 

[zooterkin]

Oh, and if you scroll down further on that link I posted in my last post, you'll see my most extensive exchange on A+. It gets quite funny a little further down the page when they accuse me of infantilizing because I accidentally called Sun Countess, Sun Princess.

Did you ever get an apology for them calling you "Recursive Profit"?

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[recursive prophet]

Did you ever get an apology for them calling you "Recursive Profit"?

See, now the way you caught that is part of why I always thought you were in you early twenties, Zoot. Were it not a jab aimed at me I would have never noticed it.

I did write a reply right after he posted that, but knowing it would likely get me banned I just filed it. At that point I still had hope of gaining some insight on wtf some of the seemingly more aware members there were thinking via PM's. That's why once I saw that door closing I let loose.

You can read that unposted reply below. See if you don't agree they would have punted me after reading it. You're supposed to learn from their in your face criticism, you see, not challenge it. Can handling snakes and speaking in tongues be far way?

The appropriate response is to understand why it's a problem, not to complain that the problem was pointed out.

Simply pointing out an error would be for me to politely inform you my user name is actually recursive prophet, not profit. The problem occurs when I imply you did so to portray me as some kind of heartless mercenary seeking to profit somehow from disparaging others. Some have previously made the same easily understood mistake, and I've never taken offense over it. Yet my accidentally conflating countess with princess is a problem worth mentioning here?

Read what I said again, only more charitably. As in, without saying that I was talking about your intent when I did not say anything about your intent, or anyone's for that matter.

While you didn't use the word intent, again I fail to fathom how "it's kind of disrespectful to assign someone a nickname all on your own" could possible be interpreted in any other way then you were implying I did so intentionally.

Think I'll say goodnight now before any others from the in-crowd pile on this trivial error and I'm again accused of derailing this thread full of happy campers. I mean, it's all going so splendidly I don't want to be the only dissenting voice amid the friendly exchange of pleasantries. I'm sorry I failed to understand you and piegasm were just trying to help me achieve the proper tone of submission to fit in. It will be a while before I attempt to express my thoughts in this forum again. My mistake, to be sure.