Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Axiom_Blade]

If there's a forum where racist jokes are common, and people frequently use racial slurs, can we agree that some people might not feel welcome there?

Similarly, if there's a forum where sexist jokes are common, and people frequently use gendered slurs, can we agree that some people might not feel welcome there?

Now not every person who feels unwelcome is going to be from a marginalized group, and not every person of a marginalized group will feel unwelcome, but the nominally level playing field is not actually going to be equally easy for everyone to access.

The internet is interesting. Say, you're an African-American, and you want to find out, first-hand, how White Nationalists think. Going to a real world meeting of these people could be very dangerous. But you could easily go to one of their web forums. Hell, you could even pretend to be one of them!

Similarly, there are all kinds of people on the internet that you wouldn't encounter in the Real World (or wouldn't want to encounter), with all kinds of ideas and attitudes. Early on, the internet was hailed as a great equalizer because of this. Everyone could hear everyone else's thoughts on everything.

However, what actually happened is people cordoned themselves off into little groups, among others who held the same thoughts and attitudes that they did. Sometimes, though, people will go to other forums, which may be hostile to their viewpoints, in order to see how others think. In order to become challenged. Atheists will visit Christian forums. Skeptics will visit 9-11 Truth forums. A+ers will visit the JREF. And so on. Often, these people are derided as trolls, and often they are. But some of them are just genuinely curious.

Here's the thing. There are racists in the world, and there are sexists in the world. Those people have a right to meet, and talk, and be jerks as much as we do. (That's what A+ doesn't get with their whole "Freeze Peach" thing.) Now, sure, if you're in one of the groups that those people are making jokes about, you're not going to feel welcome if you go to their space, anonymity or not. You're probably going to be offended. You're probably going to think that they are horrible people. But wouldn't you rather talk to the horrible people over TCP/IP than in person? And, maybe, if you talk to the horrible people enough...you'll see that some of them aren't so horrible. Maybe some of them can be convinced to be less horrible. Maybe some bridges can be built, some communication could be made, which wouldn't otherwise be possible.

This was the dream that some of the pioneers of the internet had. It didn't turn out quite the way they'd hoped, but some of it has. I think the internet is still quite young, and there will be some astounding developments with it in our lifetimes. I see some terrible things in the future, too, but the free and open internet is some small bit of hope for humanity.

Now, we don't get to that brighter future by silencing people, no matter how disgusting or offensive they are. There are spaces like A+, and they get to police it however they want, and that's their right. (Just like it's our right to call them out when they're hypocrites, or whatever.) And there are spaces like JREF forums, Reddit, 9-11 Truth, Stormfront, 4Chan, and on and on and on.

The level playing field is that everyone has the same amount of speech on the internet. It is very difficult to shout someone down or intimidate them. I could say things to a 100-kg bodybuilder online that I would never say to them in person! This has its downsides, too. But the upside more than makes up for it.

 

[RandFan]

Is anyone here a little creeped out by how much some posters here seem to know about atheismplus posters?

Oh hell no. That's what it is to be a skeptic and critical thinker. You could ask the same question about skeptics knowing a lot about Mormons, Catholics, Psychics, UFO proponents, Bigfoot proponents, truthers, etc., etc.

IMO A+ and FtB are antithetical to the skeptic/atheist movement.

 

[d4m10n]

I find A+ fascinating because of the blatant abuse of power by the administration there. For such a supposed bunch of free-thinkers, they have a surprisingly low tolerance for free thought. A+ has a lot in common with the fundies in that regard. Maybe that comes with advanced-level free-thinking; you become more and more certain that your dogma is the correct one and nobody else's ideas or thoughts are worth considering.

I've often found myself wondering whether it is possible to promote the original stated agenda of A+ without going down this road. Perhaps a forum founded on Dan Fincke's principles of civility could pursue all manner of social justice issues without falling prey to callout culture and banhammer bingo. Who knows?

 

[Wildy]

Battered womens' shelters advertise. Why not this secret forum, if its purpose is as alleged?

I'll have to double check, but I don't think they believe that's the case in their world.

Just remember these are the people who make a facebook group that's unsearchable and then attack someone who makes a facebook group in an attempt to increase the awareness of the group because they couldn't find a facebook page on them.

I feel compelled to point out that neither Mr. Samsa nor I have been banned for pushing our point.

Yet.

Additionally, there have been a lot of jokes/references from people in this thread talking about trolling the atheismplus forums. I don't blame anyone who stays away from a place where people routinely talk about doing such things. Is anyone here a little creeped out by how much some posters here seem to know about atheismplus posters?

Not really. These posters put information about themselves out there on a publicly accessible part of the internet. And since some of the posters there actually like playing the oppression olympics you can get quite a bit of information about them.

I still don't see how a level playing field on the internet can exclude people from marginalized groups. No one knows who you are on the internet if you choose to keep your personal information to yourself. It is the ultimate disguise. How does this exclude marginalized groups?

You can't force people to check "privileges" when you don't know anything about them because you might oppress someone less privileged than you or something.

Whatever the reason the effacing nature of anonymity plays a part in it.

 

[RandFan]

I've often found myself wondering whether it is possible to promote the original stated agenda of A+ without going down this road. Perhaps a forum founded on Dan Fincke's principles of civility could pursue all manner of social justice issues without falling prey to callout culture and banhammer bingo. Who knows?

And/or they could adopt the principle of Charity.

 

[qwints]

You are here to defend A+, right?

Can you tell me who feels welcome at A+?

More or less, yes.

Not very well. I can say that I do, and others who post there seem to.

Now, we don't get to that brighter future by silencing people, no matter how disgusting or offensive they are. There are spaces like A+, and they get to police it however they want, and that's their right. (Just like it's our right to call them out when they're hypocrites, or whatever.) And there are spaces like JREF forums, Reddit, 9-11 Truth, Stormfront, 4Chan, and on and on and on.

I oppose most governmental restrictions on speech, and I'm glad that there are a variety of spaces for people to interact. As I've said, I admire the people here who interact with people spouting discredited or obviously wrong theories (e.g. the people who have the patience to talk to no-planers or YEC). I also see the value for having a space dedicated to making it easier for people who feel alienated or excluded from spaces, like the JREF, that are open to all ideas.

You can't force people to check "privileges" when you don't know anything about them because you might oppress someone less privileged than you or something.

Telling someone to check their privilege is basically telling them to think if they're commenting on a subject that lack personal experience in or to consider that their words might mean something different to someone with different personal experiences.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

If there's a forum where racist jokes are common, and people frequently use racial slurs, can we agree that some people might not feel welcome there?

Similarly, if there's a forum where sexist jokes are common, and people frequently use gendered slurs, can we agree that some people might not feel welcome there?

So those white able bodied Cis etc etc commentors on A+ are akin to racists now , are they ?
Another one of your unconvincing analogies.

If there's a forum where visitors genuinely looking to discuss social progress etc but don't know the jargon or happen to have a different viewpoint , so get verbally abused, called stupid etc and have their posts put into hider boxes with sarcastic dismissive moderator titles added, can we agree that some people might feel unwelcome there?

 

[bedlin88]

Just a throw away comment, but if the folks at the A+ forums represent 301 level, or graduate level people on social issues. Then I want to see the schooling transcripts or the degrees because I want to know what institutes of learning to avoid.

 

[Kochanski]

Telling someone to check their privilege is basically telling them to think if they're commenting on a subject that lack personal experience in or to consider that their words might mean something different to someone with different personal experiences.

No, telling people to check their privilege is a way to stop the conversation on a topic they don't want questioned. It is pretentious,presumptive and dismissive. They assume that the person has no experience, they assume that the person has no empathy, they assume that the person is speaking in bad faith, all from a few sentences posted on a forum.

 

[Doubt]

No, telling people to check there privilege is a way to stop the conversation on a topic they don't want questioned. It is pretentious,presumptive and dismissive. They assume that the person has no experience, they assume that the person has no empathy, they assume that the person is speaking in bad faith, all from a few sentences posted on a forum.

This! But you may even be understating the problem.

Privilege might be a useful concept for making generalizations about populations. It is useless for explaining or discounting anyone persons experiences or understanding of a situation.

If an opinion is dismissed because of the gender/race/sexual preference of an individual then the person dismissing that opinion is a bigot. It does not matter if either person is part of any marginalized group. Telling someone to check their privilege and not addressing any substance in their statements is an act of bigotry.

 

[RandFan]

Telling someone to check their privilege is basically telling them to think if they're commenting on a subject that lack personal experience in or to consider that their words might mean something different to someone with different personal experiences.

• In doing so, the only thing you will accomplish is to seize rhetorical advantage.
• Everyone should say to everyone else "check your privilege". We all have privilege.

The statement is provocative and polemic even if it isn't intended for it to be. No good intent can overcome the condescending and/or patronizing nature of such a statement.

Saying "check your privilege" is a very douchebag thing to do. The statement violates the principle of charity. It violates Phil Plait's dictum, "don't be a dick".

 

[qwints]

So those white able bodied Cis etc etc commentors on A+ are akin to racists now , are they ?
Another one of your unconvincing analogies.

No, there's nothing wrong with having privilege.

If there's a forum where visitors genuinely looking to discuss social progress etc but don't know the jargon or happen to have a different viewpoint , so get verbally abused, called stupid etc and have their posts put into hider boxes with sarcastic dismissive moderator titles added, can we agree that some people might feel unwelcome there?

Sure.

 

[Stout]

I've often found myself wondering whether it is possible to promote the original stated agenda of A+ without going down this road. Perhaps a forum founded on Dan Fincke's principles of civility could pursue all manner of social justice issues without falling prey to callout culture and banhammer bingo. Who knows?

Last time I looked, earlier today between server meltdowns, they were slagging that piece off as being something like a tool of the oppressor. They want to reserve their moral right to be douchbags because they're, you know, fighting the whole world as "the little guy/gal" and need every weapon at their disposal.

Which includes freaking out.

Plus it's fun. Come on, honestly, haven't you ever pictured yourself going full setar on someone, just to watch the reaction. You can do that in a safe space

 

[theprestige]

I feel compelled to point out that neither Mr. Samsa nor I have been banned for pushing our point.

You're qmartindale over there, right? I like your work.

Is anyone here a little creeped out by how much some posters here seem to know about atheismplus posters?

Why? Their information is public knowledge, and it's clear that there's a small but loyal fanbase here that enjoys watching A+ the way some people enjoy watching soap operas.

I'm not creeped out by how much my wife knows about the cast of Supernatural. I'm not creeped out that my best friend can, after all these years, still rattle off the names of all the bounty hunters we see on the Executioner's bridge in Empire. I'm not creeped out by how much A+ members know about Social Justice studies, or how much the old-timers at JREFF know about prominent figures of the skeptical movement. I'm not creeped out by how much the folks over at ApolloHoax know about the Apollo Project, or even how much they know about the common hoax claims and their rebuttals. I'm not creeped out by how much some people in the General Skepticism subforum know about the Patterson-Gimlin film.

So, no: I'm not creeped out by how much some people here know about atheismplus posters. The information is easily and openly available to anyone with even a passing interest in the trainwreck schadenfreude entertainment that the A+ forums provide to the rest of the skeptical community.

 

[qwints]

Aside from the following difference in standards of conduct:

This may make them feel frustrated and intimidated from speaking frankly, as well as more sensitized to potentially silencing and Othering implications of my language and ideas. I will be as sensitive to this reality as possible and as careful as possible with my language to reduce rather than exacerbate their feelings of social disempowerment.

versus

I will also be sensitive to preempt counter-productively defensive feelings and reactions of people in traditionally advantaged groups by carefully avoiding even the appearance of prejudicially disparaging them all as malicious oppressors.

and a few other problems with some of the internal reasoning, I'm pretty much okay with the main elements of the pledge as an aspirational goal.

You're qmartindale over there, right? I like your work.

Thanks. I'm also qwints on mafiascum, and I wonder if the TCS is here is the same one as on that site.

 

[dasmiller]

You're qmartindale over there, right? I like your work.

I'll second that. I've usually agreed with that I've seen from qmartindale, and even when I haven't agreed, it's been what I consider reasonable disagreements.

(notice that I left myself that "what I've seen" excuse )

 

[Stout]

There's a trick, a very simple trick, to preserve your online anonyity.

Don't use the same username all over the internet.

Moreso don't use your real name as your username. Quinn, I could show up at your office monday morning, maybe we could play some poker. It's that easy.

ceepolk is C.Polk, want a first name ? it's all out there for the perusing if you want to get to know your actors and all she does, all day is post on the internet.

Want to know how I know setar, lordsetar, setarelven, looks like an emo version of Michael Jackson ? GIYF

Heck I even ended up with a naked photo of maiforpeace ( hint set that photo to private in your flickr account )

Don't link to your blok where you pour out all your woes, if you write it, they will read it.

ischemgeek, now she plays her cards close to her chest, she's doing it right, a little to right ( hint, if you're Canadian, spell like a Canadian ). And if she is Canadian, and working in a university, quit pissing around on A+ when your on my taxpayer funded time, it gives government employees a bad reputation.

 

[qwints]

And what, Stout, was the point of that post?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Apparently someone wrote a SJ-friendly call to civility. Well, we can't have that!

Basically, the rebuttal is that some jerks act nice when they are being jerkish... Which has nothing to do about how you should act when you have good motives!

Rephrased:

Civil + Kind = Awesome, persuasive, bringing together
Uncivil + Kind = Okay, divisive, unpersuasive, makes people defensive, leads to misunderstandings
Uncivil + Mean = Jerk
Civil + Mean = Jerk that makes you really angry

And don't you love it how the 301 level discussions always seem to end up as them agreeing with one another? That is not my idea of how things should work out. Once we've settled the banal arguments that the common filth offer about gay marriage, we should be free to disagree about the deeper issues!

 

[Stout]

And what, Stout, was the point of that post?

That if we want to know our actors all we need do is open the tabloids ?