Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm a bit late to the discussion here and I don't know if ApostateltsopA is still around, but if so I wanted to respond to this:

Without reading this whole thread I can say only that I saw people here calling him the very light of reason (paraphrase). Personally I found him frustratingly unwilling to engage in direct points, at least those I raised,

Demonstrable nonsense. I responded to every point as directly as possible in that thread. When the quality of my response was questioned (always without specifics and always with a vague direction for what form of reply would personally suit that person), I apologised and attempted to explain the same point in a different way. This process continued for the entire thread, ad nauseam, wash, rinse, repeat.

The idea that I was unwilling to engage in any point, direct or indirect, is a claim you cannot possibly support.

and incoherent in his actual position on the value of evidence once some core values have been philosophically established. (If you check this was consensus pretty early on) He kept vacillating between science informs philosophy and science is useless in philosophical discussion.

You'll note that at no point in that entire thread (or anywhere else in documented existence) will you find me claim, or even vaguely hint at the possibility, that science is useless in philosophical discussion.

This was the exact problem with that thread - people were tilting at windmills, and then blaming my refusal to defend a position I didn't hold on me.

Then again he also seemed to refuse to acknowledge applied sciences (like medicine) as science, so there were problems all through out the thread.

You'll note that I refer to medicine as an applied science. I distinguish it from experimental science.

A skeptical thinker also needs to be aware of the context of their messaging and the communication which occurs through implication, as well as specific meaning of text. In the thread you mention, people were specific and detailed about how the posts, even though the text said one thing, communicated something entirely different through implication. Mr.Samsa was not open to that feedback and dismissed it out of hand.

I dismissed it out of hand because they were quoting my words and then attributing the polar opposite position to me.

I accept that errors in communication can occur and, particularly on the internet, messages can become lost in translation. In such situations, I apologise for being unclear and then I try again to explain my position. When people are actively twisting my words, and they are even quoting what I said which shows that I reject the very position they are attributing to me, I can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt. I cannot accept that they were making their horrible mistakes in good faith.

The fact that he has a disability does not create a free pass to erase the experiences of others or claim a thing was not communicated when it was.

No one claims that it is. But when you intentionally swap the position expressed by someone and you end up accusing a minority of loving and supporting a system of abuse that they have had to live with their whole lives, you had better at least apologise.

At the very least, the mods should have stepped in and said, "Stop gaslighting mr.samsa, his words are right there on the screen and you can't try to convince him that he's wrong based on repeating your assertion". In a safe space, I was hoping that I would get some support from the mods on that issue. But nothing.

It was a horrible mod error and I still have not received a single apology from any of the members in that thread, nor the mods.

Whatever you may think of me, you must admit that there were some serious errors from the mods in that thread. Telling me not to explain concepts to people because it's patronising, telling me to explain concepts because it's privileged to assume everyone has the same level of education, telling me to use the technical terms to avoid confusion, telling me to stop using big words because not everyone understands them, telling me to reply to the points being directed at me, telling me to stop replying to every point being directed at me, etc.

All the while Setar is farting about destroying my safe space, and they face no mod action. It was ridiculous.

 

[s_pepys]

I'm not getting involved in the fight about A+ on the whole. It's complicated and way too much effort to even bother with.

That said, anyone who states that putting your Autistic child into therapy so that they can better cope with the world is not only a bad thing but also abuse? They're absolutely insane.

There's a campaign in the UK that for the past few years has been running the occasional televised adverts telling people that those with mental illnesses are normal people and should be treated like normal people, not viewed as some scary monster that could attack at any time or as a curious exhibit at a human zoo. This attitude is exactly the correct attitude to have, because Joe Bloggs your friend doesn't magically become a different person because he now has (or has now been diagnosed with) a mental illness. However here seems to be a growing idea that the factual statement "Joe is a human being and there's nothing wrong with treating him like one" = "There's nothing wrong with Joe". No, sorry that isn't the case. It isn't Joe's fault he's got the mental illness he has, but it's still something that should be treated.

I have spoken before at length on this forum about my paranoia issues, and how I used to believe that some of the students from my school had installed a video camera in my bedroom and watched me to make fun of me. It became almost crippling to how I reacted in the safety of my own bedroom, and it turned me into an absolute backbiting monster for years because I thought that hey, these people are laughing behind my back and selling me out so why not do the same to them? I was a wreck, ruining my friendships and pointing to the inevitable collapse and saying that see, I was right about them not being my friends! My life was hell, and although I got little therapy and recovered pretty much on my own (with the help of very understanding Uni friends) I realised even at the time that I needed help.

Am I saying Autism is the same as paranoia issues? No, of course not. But I have seen Grimalkin saying things that basically boil down to "I'm seriously paranoid...but everyone should bend over backwards to accommodate that and I don't need any therapy because I'm a special little snowflake."

No. No that's crap. Should people be respectful? Yes. Should they be accommodating? To a certain extent. The world doesn't revolve around you and your mental illness should not be left untreated. It isn't able-ism to make sick people better and it isn't able-ism to help those with social disorders cope better in society. It benefits the individual and it benefits society. Infantalising them by claiming that they need to make no effort to get on in society hurts everyone involved and just oozes condescending douchebaggery from every pore. If you have a mental illness for dog's sake get it treated. If you have a social or emotional problem for dog's sake get help and adapt to your surroundings and teach those around you to be respectful, helpful and understanding, don't expect everyone to prostrate themselves before you just because you are different.

i agree wholeheartedly with this.

i cant help worrying a bit for Grimalkin though, as iirc he is a 17 year old kid with issues he needs to address.

 

[s_pepys]

mr samsa.

well, stone the crows!

 

[squealpiggy]

Except there is a not so small chunk that doesn't think that, and quite often the rest of society seems willing to jump aboard their mischaracterizations and straw men when reasonable demands are made. A woman asks to not have her breasts grabbed, some douchenozzle reacts with "oh, so you're saying sex is bad!" , and a mob forms to hang the man-hating she-beast. Almost no one in the mob would ever otherwise support sexual assault, but the net effect is the same

This is a straw-man in and of itself. A woman saying "I dislike being sexually assaulted" never resulted in her being called a man hater. Instead of the breast grabbing example you gave a more realistic one would be a woman claiming to dislike being "hit on" or "objectified" (by which she means men look at her in public or men she is not attracted to asking her out or trying to talk to her) resulting in the accusation of man-hating she-beast. If the Birkenstock fits...

You'll note that I refer to medicine as an applied science. I distinguish it from experimental science.

A bit pedantic of me here but you infact said that medicine was not science. You said that it was the application of science. It's a subtle difference but it is a difference. And one I happen to agree with.

 

[jhunter1163]

At the very least, the mods should have stepped in and said, "Stop gaslighting mr.samsa, his words are right there on the screen and you can't try to convince him that he's wrong based on repeating your assertion". In a safe space, I was hoping that I would get some support from the mods on that issue. But nothing.

It was a horrible mod error and I still have not received a single apology from any of the members in that thread, nor the mods.

Whatever you may think of me, you must admit that there were some serious errors from the mods in that thread.

As a mod of some tenure here, I find what passes for moderation at A+ absolutely appalling. There's not even the pretense of fairness or objectivity; your chance of facing mod action is completely based on your standing within the in-group. For a group that is ostensibly about free-thinking, that type of moderator fascism ought to be utterly unacceptable. That it isn't shows just how divorced the in-group is from the concepts they (supposedly) espouse.

 

[Myriad]

At the very least, the mods should have stepped in and said, "Stop gaslighting mr.samsa, his words are right there on the screen and you can't try to convince him that he's wrong based on repeating your assertion". In a safe space, I was hoping that I would get some support from the mods on that issue. But nothing.

Reading that thread gave me a lingering sense of horror, and it wasn't until later that I figured out why. As badly as you were treated (in a post just two pages back I called your performance in that thread heroic), someone else there was treated far worse. I won't name a name, but imagine taking what you do in ADA therapy and doing essentially the reverse (such as, responding to each escalation of tantrum behavior with additional approval and coddling), and doing that to an already barely functional individual. It's insidious, and horrifying.

Gaslighting you was just collateral damage from that effort. Your disagreement provided the impetus for the (metaphorically) vampiric approval-feeding in progress, but the rational content therein could not be permitted to distract from it. Hence, the persistent alteration of your arguments into something else.

As objectionable as how they treat perceived enemies can be, the actual harm (excepting the cases where careers have been attacked) is usually minimal. What they're doing to one another is in some cases far worse.

My advice remains: leave them alone.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[recursive prophet]

I'm a bit late to the discussion here and I don't know if ApostateltsopA is still around, but if so I wanted to respond to this:

Oh he's around MS, last time I looked. He has posted on other JREF threads; just not here. This despite my repeated requests he address some questions directed at him by Myriad and Luchog way back on page 79 in this thread. And btw I quoted and linked your classic rendition of the visiting orator at the asylum for the deaf and dumb several times, earlier itt. That was a truly awesome performance!

If you go to that link in his sig to his elevatorgate video, you will see the last 3 comments there are from me asking why he dropped out of the discussion. Scroll down a bit and you will also see our convivial series of replies before he just stopped responding. I wanted to post a link for you but at 11:20 PST A+ is once again down. Must be all the traffic overload on their server.

I dismissed it out of hand because they were quoting my words and then attributing the polar opposite position to me.

Were you really surprised this happened? It's par for the course there. The A+ staff and Apostate specialize in kicking butt while ignoring all the straw on the floor when they're done. Apos certainly isn't stupid, and I suspect he quickly realized without staff backing him up with censorsplits and ban threats, many of his positions were simply untenable. Check out page 79.

Really glad you decided to join the discussion here, Mr. Samsa. Rest assured there are those from the A+ inner circle who monitor what is said said here, where you are beyond the reach of their control. But know that there may be consequences there for anything you say here! My 1 month ban there was made permanent based solely on critical comments itt, as were those of quite a few others. Big Sister is always watching you, dude.

 

[RandFan]

But my original point was also ignored, derailed, strawmanned, and now everyone seems intent on analyzing to death one exasperated comment I made 4 degrees of separation away from it's proper context. Since this is essentially what I'm accusing you of doing to A+, bravo for making my point.

But there also seems to be a bad assumption being made that I'm here to defend A+. I'm not part of their thing and I don't care that much. I saw a bad argument and I pointed it out. If you want to make a case for why I'm wrong, fine, but if you just want to sit around and argue over who cited what improperly, I don't have that kind of time. If you're saying A+ people make a lot of other arguments that are really bad, I probably believe you? What happened now with Matt Dillahunty?

Hang on there Captain, you said:

Quite a few examples have been brought up, and every time I take the time to fact check carefully, I find that the atheism plus people have been been badly mischaracterized.

This is a claim. The onus is on you to verify the claim. To do that you need to stop attacking others and making further unsubstantiated claims and instead focus on demonstrating the claim.

Please to focus on this claim and support it. Show your work. Argument by assertion is simply fallacy.

 

[recursive prophet]

Whoops. Another lapse in the synapse! That was page 129, not 79, that contains the 2 posts I mentioned above in my last post.

Also, as A+ is back online, here's a link to Apostate's video on elevatorgate. The one on his sig doesn't show you the comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbTkqq023nA

 

[Rrose Selavy]

As a mod of some tenure here, I find what passes for moderation at A+ absolutely appalling. There's not even the pretense of fairness or objectivity; your chance of facing mod action is completely based on your standing within the in-group. For a group that is ostensibly about free-thinking, that type of moderator fascism ought to be utterly unacceptable. That it isn't shows just how divorced the in-group is from the concepts they (supposedly) espouse.

Although he may have been heading for a fall eventually, one of the reasons cited for banning "Brother Edward", was a link in his signature.
Well , do they have a policy on signatures or links already which was violated or were they just, as usual, making it up as they went along?

 

[jhunter1163]

Although he may have been heading for a fall eventually, one of the reasons cited for banning "Brother Edward", was a link in his signature.
Well , do they have a policy on signatures or links already which was violated or were they just, as usual, making it up as they went along?

I don't doubt that he would have been swiftly banned anyway, as soon as the regular crowd got tired of playing with their new chew toy. It would be interesting to poke around there and see if there actually is a policy regarding links in signatures. I suspect, though, that he was banned for having a link in his sig that the in-group didn't like. Quite enough justification in their minds.

 

[RandFan]

I don't doubt that he would have been swiftly banned anyway, as soon as the regular crowd got tired of playing with their new chew toy. It would be interesting to poke around there and see if there actually is a policy regarding links in signatures. I suspect, though, that he was banned for having a link in his sig that the in-group didn't like. Quite enough justification in their minds.

IIRC, in Forum Management Feedback, Darat made the point that links in signatures that are of an advertising nature or promote a for profit site are against the rules. The fix is to delete the link though and not ban anyone for a single transgression.

At least that's what I remember. It could have also been an alien war lord I imagined during a chemically altered state.

Carry on and eat at Al's. Best meat loaf made by ex convicts who have been lobotomized. Don't tell anyone but the secret sauce is cheez whiz with anchovies.

 

[jhunter1163]

IIRC, in Forum Management Feedback, Darat made the point that links in signatures that are of an advertising nature or promote a for profit site are against the rules. The fix is to delete the link though and not ban anyone for a single transgression.

At least that's what I remember. It could have also been an alien war lord I imagined during a chemically altered state.

Carry on and eat at Al's. Best meat loaf made by ex convicts who have been lobotomized. Don't tell anyone but the secret sauce is cheez whiz with anchovies.

I meant the policy for links in sigs at A+, not here. I know what the policy is here. I helped write it.

 

[The Greater Fool]

From the 2nd definition, which the bottom 2/3 is a quote from Jen McCreight, I rather like this part:

"Atheism Plus is essentially an answer to the "now what" question that focuses on treating prejudice as woo." (Emphasis mine).

I object to that redefining of the word "woo." It should not be a catch-all term for anything you disagree with. It was coined to refer to magical explanations for things like psychokinesis, telepathy, homeopathy, etc. and it should not be expanded to refer to partisan politics of human relations.

Just a point or four, in no particular order:
1) The phrase was "treating prejudice as woo", woo in this case premably meaning nonsense, not "redefining woo to include prejudice;"
2) Not that I'm totally convinced that much/most prejudice is based on wooish concepts as much as many things we commonly refer to as woo. Prejudice is not scientifically defensible, though many attempt to use woo arguments for support;
3) Such wooish support for prejudice being Biblical, pseuodo-scientific references about brain and gland sizes, appeals to dieties and their writings;
4) If belief in god or gods is woo, and belief that their supposed pronouncements are woo, then certainly those pronouncements that have to do with female roles, for non-cisgendered roles and god's or gods' feelings about those roles are about as woo as they come.

Yes, certain forms of prejudice are politically motivated. Amazingly, some forms of other woo are politically motivated, and some politcial motivations are based on woo, such as allowing prayer in school, or in some countries, allowing women IN school.

Enhancing the idea that prejudice is, or is based on, woo seems like a very defensible idea, that any person of any political affiliation could benefit from knowing this and acting on that belief.

I really don't like Aplussers' attack on the dictionary. They are in Humpty Dumpty fallicy land.

Nor do I. Then again, A+ seems to be creating their own dictionary, their own languange, even their own realities. It seems obvious that A+ is closer to woo than criticial thinking, and proud of it. They may be wrong on 95% of their approach, but just because they are vastly wrong on most things, and not understandable on much of the remaining, doesn't mean that "treating prejudice as woo" is necessarily doing anything but accidentally hitting upon a good thought.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Just a point or four, in no particular order:
1) The phrase was "treating prejudice as woo", woo in this case premably meaning nonsense, not "redefining woo to include prejudice;"
2) Not that I'm totally convinced that much/most prejudice is based on wooish concepts as much as many things we commonly refer to as woo. Prejudice is not scientifically defensible, though many attempt to use woo arguments for support;
3) Such wooish support for prejudice being Biblical, pseuodo-scientific references about brain and gland sizes, appeals to dieties and their writings;
4) If belief in god or gods is woo, and belief that their supposed pronouncements are woo, then certainly those pronouncements that have to do with female roles, for non-cisgendered roles and god's or gods' feelings about those roles are about as woo as they come.

No. Certain ideas that support prejudice may be woo, but prejudice itself is not woo.

I question your statement that prejudice is not scientifically defensible. That strikes me as bald assertion. Can you support that statement? I personally hate prejudice. I just won't take that at face value without some supporting argument or reference to scientific studies. I want it to be true, but just haven't seen the purported scientific foundation. Would you mind supplying it? This seems to be a cornerstone of A+ ideology.

 

[RandFan]

I meant the policy for links in sigs at A+, not here. I know what the policy is here. I helped write it.

I was giving general info. It wasn't directed at you particularly.

 

[AdMan]

As somewhat of an aside, since I know this thread is now mostly about the Atheism Plus forum, Richard Carrier gave a talk today at the American Atheists convention in Austin. His topic was “Atheism…Plus What?”. Turns out it's "Atheism + Humanism + Skepticism".

ETA: Notably, IIRC he didn't mention atheismplus.com and actually downplayed "atheism plus" as just a "clinical label".

 

[Mr.Samsa]

As a mod of some tenure here, I find what passes for moderation at A+ absolutely appalling. There's not even the pretense of fairness or objectivity; your chance of facing mod action is completely based on your standing within the in-group. For a group that is ostensibly about free-thinking, that type of moderator fascism ought to be utterly unacceptable. That it isn't shows just how divorced the in-group is from the concepts they (supposedly) espouse.

I think there are certainly teething issues with how moderation is supposed to work there but it is important to remember that it's a safe space, not a regular forum. What that means is that the aim of moderation is explicitly not about being "fair and objective" - such a moderation style cannot work in a safe space. Instead it can only work by ignoring things like "intention" and actively stamping out anything that even hints at threatening a safe space.

This appears "unfair" and over-the-top to people who don't need a safe space because it doesn't allow "freedom of speech", but it's good to keep in mind why safe spaces are so important - because people have to put up with a lot of unsavory comments in the rest of their lives (especially on internet forums). This leads to situations where, if someone has demonstrated themselves to be a non-bigot, then they will necessarily be awarded more leeway than someone whose beliefs and intentions are unknown. So if someone in the "in-group" (if you want to call it that) says something ambiguous, then they are given more room to explain themselves, whereas newcomers are given a much harsher treatment.

This obviously makes perfect sense but I think some problems are starting to arise where some people are being trusted as good people and given leeway due to their history and relationships with others, and not actually because their behavior is conducive to the aims of social justice and a safe space. Setar is a good example of this - they've made racist comments in the past and refused to apologise or admit they were wrong for pages, they gaslighted me without any sanction (and someone who called Setar out on their crappy behavior got banned as a result), they've started a thread immediately after mod instructions not to do so, etc. So I don't think the usual accusation of "in-group mentality" is valid for the most part, but there are undeniably instances where members have become trusted when the actual evidence suggests that maybe they shouldn't be.

The bottom line is really: If they want a space where they can go to for a few mins a day and they don't have to put up with the usual bigotry then that's their choice and they've set up the forum to work for them. There will be bad eggs on the forum (as with every forum), there will be bad mod decisions (as with every forum), but I think it's a bit unfair to criticise their overall mod style based on the fact that it would be unfair and unobjective to apply on debate forums.

Just my thoughts though.

Were you really surprised this happened? It's par for the course there. The A+ staff and Apostate specialize in kicking butt while ignoring all the straw on the floor when they're done. Apos certainly isn't stupid, and I suspect he quickly realized without staff backing him up with censorsplits and ban threats, many of his positions were simply untenable. Check out page 79.

I was surprised that the gaslighting and misrepresentation of my position was allowed to continue, and was even supported by the mods, without any punishments for those engaging in it. The moderation isn't perfect but for the most part they do do a good job of identifying disturbing behavior and cracking down before serious damage is done, but in this instance they just didn't.

I think it was tough for them because it was clear that I wasn't doing anything wrong (hence the need to make up rules and demands to try to make it look like I was behaving inappropriately), and all they could do was to shut down the discussion. Their final decision was a good one, it was clearly getting out of hand and they needed to step in - the problem was that they offered me no support at all, and even tried to suggest that the problems in the thread were caused by me.

Really glad you decided to join the discussion here, Mr. Samsa. Rest assured there are those from the A+ inner circle who monitor what is said said here, where you are beyond the reach of their control. But know that there may be consequences there for anything you say here! My 1 month ban there was made permanent based solely on critical comments itt, as were those of quite a few others. Big Sister is always watching you, dude.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not planning on saying anything particularly bad about A+ so I would hope that the mods wouldn't ban me simply for joining in this discussion.

 

[RandFan]

As somewhat of an aside, since I know this thread is now mostly about the Atheism Plus forum, Richard Carrier gave a talk today at the American Atheists convention in Austin. His topic was “Atheism…Plus What?”. Turns out it's "Atheism + Humanism + Skepticism".

That's HIS take. My take is that it is first and foremost radical feminism + narcissism + power trips + whatever the "in-crowd" feels is in fashion at the moment. If and when they ever decide that atheism and skepticism are counter to the rest you can kiss those good bye.

I like Carrier BTW.

 

[AdMan]

That's HIS take. My take is that it is first and foremost radical feminism + narcissism + power trips + whatever the "in-crowd" feels is in fashion at the moment.

I like Carrier BTW.

Oh, I agree. But Carrier's talk was mostly conciliatory, saying "Atheism Plus" was just a label for a movement that existed way before the term was coined, and that you didn't have to call yourself an A-plusser if you didn't want to.

Basically, his point was that atheists and atheist organizations should be more focused on and attuned to social issues, which will also have the side benefit of attracting more people to atheism/organized atheism as well as serve as good PR.

I like Carrier for the most part too.