Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

No not good post. It presumes an awful lot, primarily the unevidenced claim that the purpose of the A+ boards is to lure in unsuspecting people so they can be bashed and banned. Pure hyperbole there.

The links are there to cover all the bases in detail. If you don't like that, don't participate. Heck, I never received or read the basket. Though I am sure I have read many of the things it links to. I've also taken an active role in crafting the rules, like "Don't be an ass" and my personal favorite "Check your ego at the door"

Not because I want to bash people, but because failing to adhere to those two has been the reason I see most at fault for all the folks who show up, crash and burn.

(and now I really must go to bed. I'll get to the rest as I am able.)

My narcissistic senses are tingling. You could have addressed the post directly and avoided the formatting BS, but for going that extra mile to include me I thank you.

That said I would only like to reiterate my previous comments. There is plenty of ego and bashing to go around. You just have to have the right deficit of traditional privilege to engage in that behavior. And before you demand evidence I point you to the many documented instances here of mods and others being downright douchenozzles with nary a slap on the wrist.

 

[qwints]

That sounds a lot like the "Dear Muslimina" defense.

It's not. I'm responding to Stout's implicit claim that we shouldn't worry about marginalizing Muslims because we don't worry about "Hollister wearers" by pointing out a failure of the analogy. I don't think anyone hear things that such criticism of "Hollister wearers" is problematic. The Dear Muslimina defense is the claim that the existence of a more severe problem negates the existence of a less severe problem.

More plainly: in the US, there is both a significant amount of criticism towards Muslims and/or Islam as well as discrimination and violence against Muslims or people perceived to be Muslim. I think we should be careful to ensure that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is accurate and focused.

 

[Stout]

qwints

The Hollister analogy was just to illustrate that *we* can demonize just about anybody for anything but if we want to go with actual hate crimes committed against, yes the Muslims have the numbers.

Who gets to decide what's Islamophobia and judge others by their standards when Muslim issues come up ? Over here in rationalland we're all pretty much on the same page when it comes to criticizing a cultural phenomenon and very rarely do shouts of -phobia come up as part of a discussion. Israel vs Palestine threads exempt of course.

At A+ they're cranking the standards as to what constitutes hate speech so high, as applying those standards to a huge majority of the population in order to feel morally superior to that population that they've alienated themselves from anyone with Joe/Jane average political sensibilities.

They have to know what they're doing and why they're doing it.....and why they need a safe space to do it in.

OK maybe the Hollister analogy wasn't the most effective but the other two the gender and school ones were real world with accusations of Islamophobia surrounding them. Were someone to announce they don't want prayer in schools or gender discrimination in business do you thing the Aplussers would but that argument from anyone outside the core group ?

 

[luchog]

It's not. I'm responding to Stout's implicit claim that we shouldn't worry about marginalizing Muslims because we don't worry about "Hollister wearers" by pointing out a failure of the analogy. I don't think anyone hear things that such criticism of "Hollister wearers" is problematic. The Dear Muslimina defense is the claim that the existence of a more severe problem negates the existence of a less severe problem.

No, it's not. That is a gross misinterpretation of the "Dear Muslimina" response.

"Dear Muslimina" was about the ridiculously overblown and incredibly egotistical response to the Elevatorgate situation, and the massive amount of energy and hyperbole put into it by Watson and her supporters, when contrasted with actual atrocities committed against women worldwide. It was a call to re-examination of the actual impact of a "First-World Problem" compared to the plight of women in less developed parts of the world; and highlighted the pettiness of their hostility and self-aggrandizement in response to critics like Stef McGraw.

It doesn't "negate" the problem, it merely puts the problem in it's proper context.

 

[qwints]

Who gets to decide what's Islamophobia and judge others by their standards when Muslim issues come up ?

I don't understand that question. What do you mean by "gets to decide?" I get decide whether I think something is objectionable and judge other for what they do by my standards all the time. You do too. We can talk about it, change what we think and reach a consensus or not. I'll accord your opinion the weight I think it deserves based on your experiences, your citations to credible sources and your internal logic (and, unfortunately, how closely your writing style corresponds to my personal preference).

At A+ ... they've alienated themselves from anyone with Joe/Jane average political sensibilities.

Agreed, which isn't surprising given that most of us see those average political sensibilities where we live as instruments of oppression.

OK maybe the Hollister analogy wasn't the most effective but the other two the gender and school ones were real world with accusations of Islamophobia surrounding them. Were someone to announce they don't want prayer in schools or gender discrimination in business do you thing the Aplussers would but that argument from anyone outside the core group ?

I don't know what would happen, but it would depend on the context. I would be quite surprised at a negative reaction to an opposition to prayer in school or gender discrimination in general. On the other hand, I'm certain someone listing examples like that as an example of why all muslims are bad would be criticized and banned.

 

[kbonn]

Agreed, which isn't surprising given that most of us see those average political sensibilities where we live as instruments of oppression.

Exactly which average political sensibilities do you see as instruments of oppression?

 

[Stout]

qwints

Who, over at A+ gets to decide whether someone is writing from an Islamophobic perspective ? From what I can see, there's some sort of consensus in the community as to who might be expressing -ist sentiments with the full weight of the A+ discipline machine coming down on the accused. Self defense is useless in fact it only makes matters worse with the sentence usually being "go away for a while" and think about it.

Somebody gets to decide be it Admins, Moderators or those complaining about how their pet issue is being framed, which is fine to do in the name of social justice but not acceptable in the name of atheism and critical thinking.

Maybe the problem lies with the Aplussers and how they view the way people think rather than with the society they appear to despise.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

qwints

Who, over at A+ gets to decide whether someone is writing from an Islamophobic perspective ? From what I can see, there's some sort of consensus in the community as to who might be expressing -ist sentiments with the full weight of the A+ discipline machine coming down on the accused. Self defense is useless in fact it only makes matters worse with the sentence usually being "go away for a while" and think about it.

Somebody gets to decide be it Admins, Moderators or those complaining about how their pet issue is being framed, which is fine to do in the name of social justice but not acceptable in the name of atheism and critical thinking.

Maybe the problem lies with the Aplussers and how they view the way people think rather than with the society they appear to despise.

I think it's demonstrably the case, given that it's exactly this mindset of knowing what's right and what's wrong, coupled with the mindset of starting off by assuming the worst of people, which led to a rape victim being banned for not agreeing with the moderators that he would be better off dead. Were the culture one of either being open to being wrong, or of giving people the benefit of the doubt, then that would never have happened.

Sure, after it was pointed out that what had actually happened was that a rape victim had been banned for not agreeing with the moderators that he would be better off dead, the banning was rescinded and the victim was magnanimously given the opportunity to explain himself. But there is no indication that anybody learned from that episode at all. It's still "we're right and you're wrong" and "you're guilty until proven innocent until you've progressed up enough levels".

As could be seen by a deaf person being threatened with banning for disagreeing with an able-bodied person about what it's like to be a deaf person. And then, after pages of straw manning, when the moderators finally conceded that the deaf poster actually hadn't said what they'd been threatening the banhammer for, it was made out to be his fault in some unspecified way that he should go away and think about.

 

[RandFan]

IMO:

To function effectively and fairly the administration and moderation should:

1. Not be presuppositional.
2. Employ the principle of charity.
3. Not play favorites

From all I've seen the mods at A+ have a SJ agenda to push rather than ensure civility and to foster productive discussions.

 

[recursive prophet]

Lets put the BS aside and talk mano-a-mano qwints and Apos. You're both youngsters, and Schrodinger's cat is out of da bag wrt what drives you. So just between us guys, hasn't your whole A+ routine really just been a ploy to help you promote some rad/fem pussy at teh conventions?

 

[Lorentz]

I agree, that there are dogmatic tenants of safe spaces. Off the top of my head the ideas that racism/sexism and such exist and are problems.

Those examples are ambiguous, phrased like that. Do they mean that racism and sexism are bad? If so, enough agree that it can be called “settled”. Or do you mean something like ‘racism/sexism and such are rampant throughout Western society.’? If the latter, then suddenly many, possibly most, would disagree.

If you were to arrive at A+ trying to dispute those things you would not last long. However it is dogma in the sense that the debate is settled, not that there is no underlying reason or data for these things. Dogma in the sense that natural selection is real, not in the sense that god made the world because the bible says so. Dogma is not necessarily bad.

You name the least contentious parts of A+ dogma, but from what we’ve seen so far, there’s a lot more. It seems to consist of parts of some more extreme forms of feminist theory, a few cherry-picked (and frequently misapplied) theories from sociology and anthropology and a few concepts that seem to have been made up to make the world fit better into the framework, like “punching up” (I could be wrong; anyone been able to find the concept in sociology?). You claim that concepts like “Rape culture” and “Schroedinger’s rapist” are “settled”, in the way that some of the strongest scientific theories are? Sorry, but that’s complete nonsense. Natural selection has been confirmed by tens of thousands of experiments and observations, thousands of bright scientists eager to make their name, unable to shoot it down. Rape culture and Schroedinger’s Rapist? Those aren’t even theories; they’re “nicht eben Falsch”, as Pauli would’ve said. They’re ways of framing a debate rather than theories with explanatory and predictive value.

In short, most of A+ dogma is not science, not comparable to science and definitely not “settled” anywhere outside the A+ forum itself.

As for dogma not necessarily being bad, I disagree (even if that’s also a “settled” issue). None of my beliefs should be free from challenge, no scientific theory should be free from challenge, no matter how settled it is and how many times it’s been confirmed. When it comes to the A+ dogma, the situation is doubly bad because a) it’s unclear what exactly is covered by the dogma, and b) it definitely contains some highly unusual ideas about our society. If the A+ forum is not the place to explicate and defend such ideas from challenges, what is?

 

[zooterkin]

Lets put the BS aside and talk mano-a-mano

How would sign language help?

 

[Lorentz]

Lets put the BS aside and talk mano-a-mano qwints and Apos. You're both youngsters, and Schrodinger's cat is out of da bag wrt what drives you. So just between us guys, hasn't your whole A+ routine really just been a ploy to help you promote some rad/fem pussy at teh conventions?

In my opinion it's hard enough to have a constructive discussion on this without such excessive snark.

 

[recursive prophet]

In my opinion it's hard enough to have a constructive discussion on this without such excessive snark.

I was just attempting a little levity Lorentz, not snark. Sorry if it came across that way. It's just at times I truly wonder if it's even possible to have a constructive discussion about a site as destructive in nature as A+.

 

[Lorentz]

I was just attempting a little levity Lorentz, not snark. Sorry if it came across that way. It's just at times I truly wonder if it's even possible to have a constructive discussion about a site as destructive in nature as A+.

I've been finding the discussion with Qwints and Apostle quite productive of late. I still have no idea how they can hold to those worldviews without gravity-bending amounts of cognitive dissonance, but I'm slowly getting closer to understanding some of their basic ideas now.

I've spent hundreds of hours chasing a better understanding ever since Elevatorgate, but discussions on that subject are, to put it mildly, mostly very unproductive. The linked sites and papers from those discussions I've found mostly flawed in obvious ways, ranging from almost believable to obvious crackpottery.

In the end I expect we'll all agree to disagree, but it would be nice to understand where exactly the huge differences in worldview arise, given that some adherents of A+ appear both intelligent and well capable of logical reasoning.

 

[qwints]

Lets put the BS aside and talk mano-a-mano qwints and Apos. You're both youngsters, and Schrodinger's cat is out of da bag wrt what drives you. So just between us guys, hasn't your whole A+ routine really just been a ploy to help you promote some rad/fem pussy at teh conventions?

I'm 27, married, and haven't been to a skeptic/atheist convention since 2006.

 

[Diogenes]

I'm 27, married, and haven't been to a skeptic/atheist convention since 2006.

Therefore youngster = true.

 

[qwints]

Somebody gets to decide be it Admins, Moderators or those complaining about how their pet issue is being framed, which is fine to do in the name of social justice but not acceptable in the name of atheism and critical thinking.

I agree that there is often a consensus about various posts.I also agree that posters on atheismplus respond negatively to people who either try to justify posts that have been criticized or assert their good intent. Ultimately, the people who critique others decide to do so, and the moderators who edit posts or ban posters decide to do so. Their decision is most likely based on their reaction and what others have said.

From all I've seen the mods at A+ have a SJ agenda to push rather than ensure civility and to foster productive discussions.

I wouldn't phrase it that way, but that's reasonably accurate. I would say that the mods at atheismplus try to foster discussions that advance social justice rather ensure civility or provide an open forum.

 

[RandFan]

I've been finding the discussion with Qwints and Apostle quite productive of late. I still have no idea how they can hold to those worldviews without gravity-bending amounts of cognitive dissonance, but I'm slowly getting closer to understanding some of their basic ideas now.

I've spent hundreds of hours chasing a better understanding ever since Elevatorgate, but discussions on that subject are, to put it mildly, mostly very unproductive. The linked sites and papers from those discussions I've found mostly flawed in obvious ways, ranging from almost believable to obvious crackpottery.

In the end I expect we'll all agree to disagree, but it would be nice to understand where exactly the huge differences in worldview arise, given that some adherents of A+ appear both intelligent and well capable of logical reasoning.

I find EG and its fallout to be both a good and bad thing. It highlights so well how well intentioned reasonable people on two sides of an issue can be so at odds. Which is why I think A+ silly to begin with. It is from the start divisive. It attempts to delineate those who are a subset of socialy conscious atheists and those who aren't (most atheists IMO are socially conscious but don't identify with A+).

If you really want to understand read Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. It explains quite well how atheists can be at odds over this subject.

 

[recursive prophet]

I'm 27, married, and haven't been to a skeptic/atheist convention since 2006.

Christ on a pogo stick qwints! It was a joke!! Lighten up! I didn't even get into my conjecture about you having fantasies of being raped by RW in an elevator during a power failure.

@Lorentz: I applaud your efforts to create a rational dialogue, and agree there are some very intelligent members there like qwints and Apos. That's why I tried to get them to change the ridiculous PM rule they have to get permission to send one on the boards. I wanted to be able to question some of the brighter bulbs comments in private. They ain't runnin a debate club their and all. It still boggles my mind we can see what is happening at A+ so very differently.