Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Axiom_Blade]

From my perspective reacting angrily to something is less productive than reacting in a non-angry way. If you react angrily, you'll tend to raise hackles, and people who disagree with what you say are less likely to listen and more likely to become more entrenched and respond in kind. So you end up with 2 sides, both yelling at each other to "[Rule 10] off".

Conversing in a more reserved tone may well have an equally unproductive result, but it's more likely to end up productive. It's more likely to end up with reasonable discourse with both sides listening to the other and taking their points on board.

That, as far as I'm concerned, is why it's better to try not to post angrily. It's highly unlikely to achieve anything. Hell, it's not even anywhere near as satisfying on an emotional level as thrashing something out with someone civilly and finding common ground.

I think that there actually is something to the whole "tone policing" concept. Nothing bugs me more than when religious people (or even other atheists) complain that atheists are just a bunch of rude snobs. That's usually just a red herring. Nobody can prove or disprove that; you can always find some atheist, somewhere, who is nice and polite, and one who is a jerk, and at the end of the day we can all agree that it's better to be nice and polite. This is just a distraction to keep from talking about the real issues, which are: Do you need god(s) to be moral (as the religious claim)? What are the arguments for god(s)' existence, and what are the problems with them?

So, when Christians go on and on about how rude/conceited/nerdy atheists are, it's essentially a tone argument. "We might listen to you...if you were nice." Of course, there is nothing the atheist can do to be "nice enough" to satisfy them, except to not ever question religion, or to never "come out of the closet" as an atheist.

Now, I don't think that you should verbally attack religious people. There are times to be passionate and outspoken, and there are times not to be. You have to pick your battles. But just keeping silent is not acceptable. I think that atheists should look at these criticisms critically, on a case-by-case basis, and see if they have merit. In my opinion, most of the time they do not. I'm sure the religious would love it if atheism, while bending over backwards to be nice to the religious, just wound up wasting a bunch of time on tone arguments against each other.

But my concern is a pragmatic one. I think that we should look at this not as a matter of etiquette, but of rhetoric. A+'s thesis seems to be that rhetoric doesn't matter. I would have to vehemently disagree.

Rhetoric uses logic as a component, but it also uses other tactics. It is the art of persuasion. When you use it, you have to consider who you are trying to win over: the person you are arguing with, or your audience? Sometimes the person you are arguing with is a lost cause, so you must appeal to your audience...the people listening in.

In A+'s case, there is no persuasion, either for the person being argued with, or the audience. There's just venting of emotion. While venting of emotion certainly feels good, the only people who are going to wind up agreeing with you are the ones who already agree with you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I agree that there is a need for such spaces.

I also think that such spaces are existentially inimical to skeptical discussion of social justice issues. By the rules or conventions of such a space, victims of social injustice are entitled to derail or end the discussion by claiming to have been affected by the subject matter.

Obviously this has a chilling effect on debate. And this is exactly what we see on the A+ forums: No new ground is being broken. The state of the art is not being advanced. Discussion is restricted to a few approved "301" viewpoints, and these viewpoints characteristically feed the membership's feelings of victimhood and outrage.

It's a safe space for certain kinds of feelings, but a dangerous place for any kind of skeptical thought. The A+ forum's main problem is that they've billed themselves as a place for skeptics to discuss social justice issues, but in reality they're a safe place for self-described victims to have social justice feelings.

That, and their orthodox, doctrinaire approach to their subject matter...

ETA:

"You can't talk about rape because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't talk about native americans because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use conventional pronouns because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't post limericks because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't send PMs because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't give virtual hugs without disclaimers because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use big words or compound sentences because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use hypothetical examples because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use real-world examples because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't restate your argument because it hurts my feelings."

"You can't use science, evidence, or facts, because it hurts my feelings."

You know what? Here's a crazy straw: Suck it up.

One wonders how these people manage to make it through the day. I mean, what do they do when someone laughs at them on the street? They can't ban them.

 

[tsig]

The thing that I don't get is how any group that self-identifies as "free thought" can advocate so hard for censorship.

Most people don't mind jackboots as long as they're wearing them.

 

[tsig]

Rules governing what takes place on a private internet forum aren't the same kind of thing as government censorship.



That's certainly possible. There are also situations where people are really hurt by an otherwise innocuous behavior because of past traumas. I'm not going to risk harming people by investigating whether they're "really" hurt by what I've said. And I think there's a need for spaces that ban that sort of interrogation because of the harm it can do.



And if it's used

What if it's used because what someone said really hurt you or triggered you, and you just want to avoid that happening again?



That's a correct statement of atheismplus forum rules.

Posting on the internet isn't mandatory.

 

[tsig]

There you go.

It's some interesting reading.

Yes it is:

are you an oppressed minority in some way? can you ostensibly prove that widespread bigotry and prejudice affect your day-to-day life negatively? if so, your offense deserves to be taken seriously.

are you a member of a social majority group? are you catered to in media/selected preferentially over other groups/generally a step above on the economic ladder? are you offended that a minority group is complaining about underrepresentation, or that they want to not be excluded from an institution that confers benefits on them? then **** off.


What if you happen to qualify in both groups? Do you trigger yourself? Probably the best option would be to curl into a fetal ball and moan "woe is me" while flagellating yourself.

 

[chillzero]

A+ is NOT a safe space for everyone. It's only a safe space for the in-group.

And as typical you ignore the rest of my post.

I agree that there is a need for such spaces.

I also think that such spaces are existentially inimical to skeptical discussion of social justice issues. By the rules or conventions of such a space, victims of social injustice are entitled to derail or end the discussion by claiming to have been affected by the subject matter.

This is all very similar to the discussion earlier, when the question was posed about what harm is done by asking people to refrain from using anything that might potentially trigger an epileptic fit. This is all well and good, but needs to be applied consistently, and be noted clearly.

If you want a site where you can encourage epileptic people to come without their various web filters, then you have to ensure that everybody knows what colours, icons, etc, cannot be used, and ensure that the site is admined accordingly. If you want a site that you can encourage people to use as a safe place, free from triggers of any kind, then you need to make a decision. Either the trigger warnings on threads is sufficient, and anyone feeling offended after that point should be encouraged to leave the thread, or you inform people clearly of all the topics that cannot be discussed in any way, so as not to upset those people being protected.

You can't have it both ways. You can't state that you will use a trigger warning system and then allow people to shut down threads because they feel offended at the content.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Rules governing what takes place on a private internet forum aren't the same kind of thing as government censorship.

Correct. But I still can't understand how people who dub themselves "free thought" can be so pro-censorship. The government stepping in is a red herring. They are tearing down the posters of organisations that they don't like. That's not advocating freedom of thought, or at least not of being able to express those thoughts.

You cannot claim to be a free speech advocate while simultaneously actively attempting to silence those you disagree with.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It is an Orwellian thing I guess.

One of the real StormTroopers (in the 1940's sense) posts there, and I find his stuff completely unreadable because of the cognitive dissonance

Sorry, are you saying that an actual ex-Nazi has an atheist blog? I'm not sure I'm reading your post right.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What if it's used because what someone said really hurt you or triggered you, and you just want to avoid that happening again?

If you are triggered by, for example, discussion of rape, then I'd say that the sensible thing to do would be to avoid conversations about rape, rather than ban everybody from talking about rape.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Rules governing what takes place on a private internet forum aren't the same kind of thing as government censorship.

Sure, it's not the same as government censorship...but it's still censorship. Are you saying that it can only be considered "censorship" if the government does it?

 

[kellyb]

It's just so sad.
I put the lives of my family on the line for justice. And I'm told to eff off and die by supposed fellow advocates of justice. This was not just an internet thing I/we did. I was actually out there WITH MY CHILDREN.

No, the A+ movement can and should wither away. And it is doing so. And it should keep on doing so.

The ACTUAL political left thrives. And THAT'S what I and we will support. NO WHERE besides Aplus have I been told to die.

 

[qwints]

Not to mention that privileging passion erases everyone who responds to stress by crafting dispassionately-articulated complex arguments.

That's a very good point. Figuring how to reconcile conflicting access needs can be a challenge. Some of the biggest failures of atheismplus moderation have come from misinterpretations of people's responses.

They are tearing down the posters of organisations that they don't like. That's not advocating freedom of thought, or at least not of being able to express those thoughts.

You cannot claim to be a free speech advocate while simultaneously actively attempting to silence those you disagree with.

Tearing down the posters of organisations you don't like is incompatible with claiming to be a free speech advocate, I agree. Having rules on an internet forum and banning people who break those rules, however, is not analogous to tearing down the posters you disagree with. Free speech doesn't require that every space be an open forum. Although I'm glad open forums exist, atheismplus is explicitly not an open forum.

 

[kellyb]

I doubt that any one of these people have ANY experience with dealing with SWAT cops. None of them have been arrested for protesting. NONE. Not a single one. They haven't even looked down the barrel of a SWAT gun. They're full of crap.

 

[kellyb]

qwints, how can you justify it being ok for me to be told to die? How is that ok? Is it "tone policing" to say "oh, that really hurts my feelings when you say I should die?"

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Don't worry, A+ is going to save us from ourselves:

Don't let it get you down. A few decades ago the slymepitters and jref posters would have been the worst of the worst religious misogynists. The first step was curing their religion, now we're this close to helping them become decent human beings.

Imagine being an atheist in the 40's. We have it easy in 2013.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Tearing down the posters of organisations you don't like is incompatible with claiming to be a free speech advocate, I agree.

Okay, so all of those who responded positively to Setar's tearing down of posters, as well as Setar himself cannot be advocates of free speech.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Anyone who mocks the concept of free speech by calling it "freeze peach" probably isn't a very big fan of it to begin with.

 

[qwints]

qwints, how can you justify it being ok for me to be told to die? How is that ok? Is it "tone policing" to say "oh, that really hurts my feelings when you say I should die?"

'

It was absolutely wrong for people to say that. It's not tone policing to say you're being hurt. I'm sorry I didn't say anything publicly about the abuse.

Okay, so all of those who responded positively to Setar's tearing down of posters, as well as Setar himself cannot be advocates of free speech.

I don't know a lot about the situation, but tearing down legally placed posters is inconsistent with advocating free speech, sure.

 

[d4m10n]

It's not tone policing to say you're being hurt.

Do you suppose that anyone would fail to feel (at least somewhat) hurt upon being told to "**** OFF AND DIE" or "CHECK YOUR *********** CISBINARY PRIVILEGE" or else being instructed to forcibly suppositorize themselves with a porcupine?

 

[recursive prophet]

This rift caused several boards to spin-off some of which had a culture of intolerance, aggressive positing behavior and immature biased moderation (TalkRational for example). All of which are common traits in the atheism+ forums and FtB.

Umm, while I agree basically with your description of TR, it is still a far cry from A+. Most significantly you would have to really make a concerted effort to ever get suspended there, and I only know of one who was ever banned. That makes a major difference! You won't be protected from bullying, but nor will you ever be silenced for pushing back and there is total transparency. All staff discussions are public, and anyone can easily start a recall vote for any mod or admin to be removed. These core traits have nothing in common with A+. For me the A+'ers most flagrant flaw is how quickly they will move to silence any who disagree with them, even extending it to other sites like this one.

Most of these "long-form" forums have declined and have been replaced by social media, news aggregators and blogs, which further reduce the sense of community and right/responsibility for good behavior toward fellow posters

Astute observation, and I totally agree. Twitter is a classic example.

My point is that this rift seems like a break down in civility sparked by histories of animosity across several boards over the last decade rather than on the social justice issues which I suspect most people align with generally.

Any thoughts?

Like others have stated here, I don't think it's old grudges that are the problem; there are plenty of new ones. I do concur that all the factions have far more in common than the trite differences that have come into focus lately, and they only provide fodder for theists to use against us. Also I applaud your effort here Adam to address these issues right out of the gate.

Personally the divide I see as most problematic is the one between atheists and skeptics. I can see how one could be an atheist without being a skeptic, but not how a skeptic can embrace theism. I don't want to derail this topic, but if anyone could perhaps direct me to a thread where this is discussed it would be much appreciated.

@qwint: Speaking of appreciation, I just wanted you to know your continued efforts to explain A+ have garnered a lot of mine. It's the kind of discussion I'd hoped to initiate when I joined A+. Why don't you ask Apostate to join in as your wing man here, qwint?

And speaking of Apostate, did anyone watch his video I posted a link to? Having given it a second review, I think he has made the most plausible case yet for the A+ view on RW's elevation of what constitutes 'sexualization.' This doesn't mean I accept it, but I think it is at least worth examination. Anyone??