Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
KoihimeNakamura said:
Wait, what? .. No. Not hardly.
Click to expand...
It's a beautiful dream though isn't it. A world free of wrong thinking. It's too bad the founding fathers didn't prohibit wrong thinking in the constitution. No need for argument just re-education web sites.
 
On a semi-related note, does anyone have a secret decoder ring for reading this stuff? "Abelist"? "Cisbinary"?


Is anyone else bothered by exclusion via jargon?
 
I noted something else:

They basically argue that others are coming around to their views, which, sure, but they forget that the views that say Dr. Hall espoused are considered mainly mainstream in liberal circles. It's.. not really their progress. Or even a general SJ progress.

I mean, I'd like to say that sure, they've convinced me, but its' hard to convince me of something I already think I should behave and believe in.
 
KoihimeNakamura said:
I noted something else:

They basically argue that others are coming around to their views, which, sure, but they forget that the views that say Dr. Hall espoused are considered mainly mainstream in liberal circles. It's.. not really their progress. Or even a general SJ progress.

I mean, I'd like to say that sure, they've convinced me, but its' hard to convince me of something I already think I should behave and believe in.
Click to expand...
Agreed. They've mostly created straw man and false dilemmas when in fact most of us are for women's rights and social justice. We just don't like the tactics and the presumption that you must think exactly as they do or you are a misogynist.
 
KoihimeNakamura said:
I noted something else:

They basically argue that others are coming around to their views, which, sure, but they forget that the views that say Dr. Hall espoused are considered mainly mainstream in liberal circles. It's.. not really their progress. Or even a general SJ progress.

I mean, I'd like to say that sure, they've convinced me, but its' hard to convince me of something I already think I should behave and believe in.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is they straw-man your position, and then when you state your real position, they say "Ah hah! So now you agree with us!"
 
kellyb said:
NO WHERE besides Aplus have I been told to die.
Click to expand...

I guess this means you've never posted at TR. :D Not making light of your points though Kelly. The way you were treated is beyond any rational explanation.

qwints said:
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.
Click to expand...

But ostensibly it is open. Anyone can join. And can you really not see how capriciously the rules are applied? Look at my posting history there and tell me I deserved to be suspended for a month for telling ceepolk I didn't wish to continue responding to her insults. Or find me a comment I made here that would justify making it a permanent ban?

qwints said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what's stopping you from doing so now? You might also ask why mood2 wasn't told I couldn't answer the question she posed on my PM rules thread because I had been banned? Ask why they haven't updated the banned list in months. Was it's size finally becoming an embarrassment?

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

Didn't you watch the video? It was pretty clear what was happening, especially after they threatened to call the police then quickly faded into the background when they appeared. Wasn't that proof they knew what they were doing was wrong as opposed to what they were saying??
 
qwints said:
'

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.
Click to expand...


Thanks, qwints. (seriously.)
 
recursive prophet said:
Didn't you watch the video? It was pretty clear what was happening, especially after they threatened to call the police then quickly faded into the background when they appeared. Wasn't that proof they knew what they were doing was wrong as opposed to what they were saying??
Click to expand...

There are 2 things that befuddle me about the incongruity between their actions, as seen in that video, and their claimed aims. The first is the aforementioned free speech advocacy (or, at least, free thought which I don't think I'm interpreting too liberally as including the right to express that thought), and the second is the claim to be rational and critical thinkers while arguing that emotional arguments are superior to logical arguments.

I suppose a possible third would be the weird way that the group in the video divided itself neatly along gender lines with the males doing the taking down of posters and arguing, while the females stood back and documented it while refusing to engage with the person whose posters they were taking down. Perhaps that's just the way the chips fell, but it's very strange to see a group ostensibly fighting against sexism unthinkingly falling into stereotypical gender roles, and seemingly not even noticing.
 
kmortis said:
On a semi-related note, does anyone have a secret decoder ring for reading this stuff? "Abelist"? "Cisbinary"?


Is anyone else bothered by exclusion via jargon?
Click to expand...

I'm not bothered. I love jargon. I habitually collect snippets of other disciplines' special words and use them with joyous abandon whenever I think they may be even remotely applicable.

Introducing new vocabularies is the best way to include me in.

ETA: You can't imagine how excited I was to discover that "normal" also means "perpendicular to [a tangent]".
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
I could argue that 32 accounts might not represent 32 people (Patrick1000, for example, has had several socks), but 32 bans in a year is consistent with what we've done in the past. Less than a month's work at A+.
Click to expand...


Yes, but remember, unlike here, people keep showing up there who want to argue about things.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I could argue that 32 accounts might not represent 32 people (Patrick1000, for example, has had several socks), but 32 bans in a year is consistent with what we've done in the past. Less than a month's work at A+.
Click to expand...

I only counted the ones with the Ban prefix, not with the Sockpuppet prefix - but I didn't check whether any of the ones marked ban were actually sockpuppets (because I'm not that bored).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom