Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[brodski]

Someone who is better with language than I am should write a translation based on the hypocritical I/You; sexy when I do it/sexist when you do it idea. For example:

I express my justified anger using robust language / You are an abusive *******

preferably using real examples of things A+ers have said.

I can't decide if this post is Humfry-Applebynormative or Mandarinsplaining.

 

[squealpiggy]

That's kinda ironic considering the discussions we've had about the A+ forums expecting people to waste hours of their lives on their basket 'o links.

There's a difference here though. Nobody is saying that prior to joining in the discussion you MUST read the following. My suggestion was in response to the challenge to produce examples of problems with A Plus. Considering zzrhhee made this challenge in a thread about that very subject I thought my response was worthy.

 

[d4m10n]

I have doubts as to whether the proponents of atheism+ and all the bad behavior will ever be welcome fully back into the larger movement.

I'd happily welcome any Plussers or Pitters to have lunch with me and talk **** over. Hell, I'd buy the nachos. The path to reconciliation requires only a firm commitment to civility and a willingness to move past talk of personal grievances to discuss debatable propositions in the usual skeptical way. Rule 0 and all that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Atheism Plus forums, originally launched with much fanfare from the womb of the behemoth FtB mothership and once feared as the greatest collection of godless social justice keyboard warriors on the intertubes, will sometime later today fall forever behind the dreaded SlymePit in overall post count: http://bit.ly/WJK7zw

I wonder why it turned out this way?

I think there's some key information missing there, perhaps because it's assumed that people already know. Namely, which forum was started first? A better indicator of popularity than total number of posts would be number of posts per month.

But, then, that still doesn't tell you anything about the number of individual posters, the content of posts, etc., so it's a pretty useless measure in any case. But, even given that, the numbers given without context are utterly meaningless.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Personally, I agree that social justice can be paired with skepticism, but it does mean you (the general you, not you personally) have to be willing to examine and accept the evidence that goes against your mission as well as with it.

My biggest issue with Atheism+ wasn't that they were trying to pair social justice with skepticism, but that their original statements were about pairing social justice with atheism. To me, that is a weird fit.

The problem is that skepticism and social justice are processes. Atheism is a conclusion.

 

[d4m10n]

I think there's some key information missing there, perhaps because it's assumed that people already know. Namely, which forum was started first? A better indicator of popularity than total number of posts would be number of posts per month.

But, then, that still doesn't tell you anything about the number of individual posters, the content of posts, etc., so it's a pretty useless measure in any case. But, even given that, the numbers given without context are utterly meaningless.

The context was given in an earlier post in which I predicted that the SlymePit would rapidly close the gap from well behind based on the respective number of posts per day.

As to posters, it's fairly easy to track registered users logged in but not how much they are posting. The Pit usually has 2-3x as many logged in.

As to the content, well, that's really hard to quantify. Even the hottest hate cannot be measured in Scoville units.

 

[Hokulele]

The problem is that skepticism and social justice are processes. Atheism is a conclusion.

Eh, I disagree. I would say that social justice is also a conclusion, which is why pairing it with atheism seems a bit strange. To me, it would be like pairing social justice and the support of Manchester United. Yes, there is the problem of defining what is meant by "social justice", but that can be done for a small enough group focusing on one or two particular issues.

To use an analogy, when talking about scientific discoveries, there are several processes that come into play. The conclusion is the discovery itself. Prior to the discovery, there is the process of hypothesizing. To confirm the discovery, one can use the process of the scientific method. To popularize the discovery, one can use the process of marketing. For social justice, the corresponding processes could be hypothezising, skepticism (looking at what is wrong with the hypothesis and the facts supporting it), and activism.

 

[theprestige]

Because of? I mean I get this is your opinion but seriously no source, that is just supposed to be really, super obvious?

Hi o/

You can blame Recursive Prophet for inviting me over.

Hello and welcome, ApostateltsopA!

120 pages into this thread, some consensus has been reached about the defining characteristics of the A+ forum and movement. Specific examples have been presented and discussed throughout the thread, and opinions like the above represent the mainstream thought here.

You're still welcome to ask for evidence, of course. I'm sure there's many here who won't mind re-hashing our "A+ 101 material" for you. You're also welcome to read the thread and resume discussion on any of the incidents already cited here.

If you'd rather not crawl through all 121 pages (and counting), here's my recommended starting point:


PZ: if Soc&Pol are off agenda "well then, **** skepticism" (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3830)

I think that thread is an excellent example of everything that's wrong with the A+ forums, and is a microcosm of the poisonous SJW movement overall.

As someone who participated in that thread, I think your feedback would be quite fascinating to many members here, and would result in a lot of engagement.

A trigger warning, though: The JREF forums most certainly are "debate club".

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Eh, I disagree. I would say that social justice is also a conclusion, which is why pairing it with atheism seems a bit strange.

How do you know when you have achieved it? What is the conclusion?

To me, it would be like pairing social justice and the support of Manchester United. Yes, there is the problem of defining what is meant by "social justice", but that can be done for a small enough group focusing on one or two particular issues.

Agreed. I think this is why it was doomed from the beginning.

ManU Supporters+
Plumbers+
Accountants+

 

[Hokulele]

How do you know when you have achieved it? What is the conclusion?

To continue to abuse my analogy, "social justice" is a large category, much like "scientific theories". In other words, you never really finish it all, just keep working at the various bits and pieces. For example, I consider myself a feminist, and my biggest personal hero is Patsy Mink. Very few people know who she was, but many people do know of her biggest contribution to US feminism: Title IX. That was a social justice issue, the dearth of funding and options in women's college athletic programs, which had a conclusion that was reached. Personally, I doubt that we could ever reach a point where all social justice issues could be considered dealt with, but I do believe that is no excuse for working away at the ones that can be identified and potentially solved.

Agreed. I think this is why it was doomed from the beginning.

ManU Supporters+
Plumbers+
Accountants+

Yep!

 

[theprestige]

Depends on how one defined social justice.

That's the rub, isn't it?

The A+ forums defines social justice in their "101 material", which is accepted dogmatically.

I would expect a real skeptical organization to spend a lot of time questioning the 101 material of social justice--rejecting some parts, improving others, etc.

I'd expect SJ skeptics to spend a lot of time actively challenging the philosophy of privileged dead white dudes, not simply rejecting it as Setar has done.

The A+ in-group makes a big point of ostracizing anyone who hasn't already learned the 101 material, but they make an equally big point of not bothering to learn anyone else's 101 material either. When Mr. Samsa tried to explain that many of the philosophical questions being raised WRT science and values had already been discussed at length, and that some interesting conclusions had already been reached, he was almost banned, and the discussion was summarily closed. This was followed shortly thereafter by Setar's vehement rejection of humanity's entire body of work in philosophy to date.

That is not skeptical. I think skeptics could do good work in the area of making society more just, but I don't think the mainstream Social Justice meme is at all compatible with skepticism.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's the rub, isn't it?

The A+ forums defines social justice in their "101 material", which is accepted dogmatically.

I would expect a real skeptical organization to spend a lot of time questioning the 101 material of social justice--rejecting some parts, improving others, etc.

I'd expect SJ skeptics to spend a lot of time actively challenging the philosophy of privileged dead white dudes, not simply rejecting it as Setar has done.

The A+ in-group makes a big point of ostracizing anyone who hasn't already learned the 101 material, but they make an equally big point of not bothering to learn anyone else's 101 material either. When Mr. Samsa tried to explain that many of the philosophical questions being raised WRT science and values had already been discussed at length, and that some interesting conclusions had already been reached, he was almost banned, and the discussion was summarily closed. This was followed shortly thereafter by Setar's vehement rejection of humanity's entire body of work in philosophy to date.

That is not skeptical. I think skeptics could do good work in the area of making society more just, but I don't think the mainstream Social Justice meme is at all compatible with skepticism.

You mansplained that very well.

 

[kbonn]

Yes. No for Flew, maybe for Ceepolk. Probably - I did say things privately using the report system.

I should be banned for demanding that the double standard at that place shouldn't apply to moderation? I had ZERO issue with not being in a secret forum or whatever, I just suggested that it shouldn't be used for mod discussion since there were non-mods in it. Then I insisted that they stop letting the in-group get away with things that everyone else can not. That justifies permanent banning?

And really? Ceepolk's "Your friend that told you this is really trying to hurt you, let me explain how we can save you, just tell me what I want to know" Gaslighting posts were "appropriate"?

That kool-aid must taste good.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I think the whole original idea behind A+ was putting politics back on the skeptic table?

Allegedly, yes. But if you read Jen McCreight's original post, where she unveils Atheism+, what she really wants to do is "clean house", and throw out everybody who disagrees with her:

I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift. I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement. I want the misogynists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and downright trolls out of the movement for the same reason I wouldn’t invite them over for dinner or to play Mario Kart: because they’re not good people.

But, "misogynist", "racist", "homophobe"...according to who? Who gets to decide who's not politically correct, and should be kicked out of the movement?

Then, later she says:

It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime.

"Sure. I just apply my social justice views to everything, and... What do you mean, that's not skepticism? My viewpoint came out of a completely logical, skeptical process! You disagree with me? What, are you defending misogyny? Are you defending racism?

Look, this is 101 stuff. Go educate yourself, and then come back and talk to me."

The fact is, we already have atheists who are skeptical and concerned with social justice. They're called humanists. (Specifically, secular humanists.) That's not good enough for Jen, though, who says:

Dear smug humanists: My critique of the atheist movement included you. Your groups are infamous for being mostly old, white, men

The problem is, nobody wants to co-opt humanism. It's not hip, or sexy. Atheism is. (Skepticism's not hip or sexy, either...That's why it's not called "Skepticism+".) Atheism is the new cause du jour. In a way, Atheism+ is a good sign. You know that you're becoming successful when the radical left tries to co-opt your movement.

 

[brodski]

ManU Supporters+

Are they in charge of implementing social justice but only in areas outside of the M60 ring-road?

 

[Wildy]

There's a difference here though. Nobody is saying that prior to joining in the discussion you MUST read the following. My suggestion was in response to the challenge to produce examples of problems with A Plus. Considering zzrhhee made this challenge in a thread about that very subject I thought my response was worthy.

I'm threadsplaining (that's probably the wrong -splaining, any ideas?) here but I've held the rule that one should read the entire thread before commenting just to make sure that you don't rehash stuff and disrupt the discussion. If I came to this thread now I'd probably not bother joining the discussion because of the amount I'd have to read.

Hopefully you can understand my viewpoint here, which explains why I said what I said.

I will admit that your response was worthy.

 

[theprestige]

I'm threadsplaining (that's probably the wrong -splaining, any ideas?) here but I've held the rule that one should read the entire thread before commenting just to make sure that you don't rehash stuff and disrupt the discussion. If I came to this thread now I'd probably not bother joining the discussion because of the amount I'd have to read.

Hopefully you can understand my viewpoint here, which explains why I said what I said.

I will admit that your response was worthy.

See, I like it when people read threads, but I'd hate to see anyone silence themselves because of all the backstory material. I'd rather people felt welcome to jump in wherever, and be willing to accept a little schooling from the old-timers, if they haven't bothered to read up first.

Take the Julian Assange thread: it's hilariously tragic that every few weeks, a new conspiracy theorist jumps in without reading the thread, and promptly brings up old and busted talking points that have already been addressed repeatedly. But that doesn't stop the other thread participants from addressing them again (though there is some understandable complaining about not reading the thread first).

You see this dynamic writ large in the 9/11 CT subforum. Lots of "read the material", but also lots of "okay, fine, I'll go over it again for you".

It also depends on the newcomer's attitude. Someone who sails in proclaiming a debunked "truth" and ridiculing everyone else for not getting it, will be pointed and laughed at, and told that their debunking is on Page 1 of the thread or whatever. Someone who just needs to be brought up to speed on the current state of play is given a very different kind of welcome.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I keep dipping in to that moderator thread, for as long as I can take in one go, and it's just bizarre.

It's a little ironic that Apos rhetorically asks the question of whether it should be against the rules to attack ideas but not people, in a way which heavily implies that that is a bad idea. That, however, is a great idea. It's that kind of rule which, on many forums which are party to adult debates, allows those debates to be productive.

However, as Atheism+ is a forum on which debate isn't allowed and which bans people who disagree with the conclusions of the core members, it seems that the rule there is "attack people, but not ideas". I can't see how that's at all compatible with atheism, scepticism, or critical thinking.

 

[Zelenius]

They don't appreciate the irony of believing so strongly in equality that they think they are better than everyone else.

 

[kmortis]

As I sit here and read all this, the only thing that goes through my mind is, "I thought Harrison Bergeron was fiction, damnit!".