Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I would say that the posts per hour comparison could only be used to determine whether dissent leads to conversation if it took into account membership numbers and was posts per hour per member. Otherwise it's just saying "forums with fewer members will have fewer posts", which seems fairly obviously and trivially true.
Click to expand...

Except as a comment on the efficacy of their "movement", which, yeah, is obvious. The hidden v. public postings seems relevant to the root insular nature of their group, maybe?

Looks like their blockbot is there one attempt at a "public" campaign and we can see how obviously it has gone wrong. Maybe I should start a twitter account and ask on the A+ forum to be banned...since they lack a way to delete your own account (unless that has been added in the last 8 months or so).
 
Struck some gold:

ceepolk said:
And I'm going to tell you flat out that I do not care for criticisms of Islam that erase the fact that you can point to similar criticisims of Judaism and Christianity, and as such, aren't really a fit here.

Most people who frequent the forum are generally uninterested in talking about religion and how silly it is, just generally. But the particular fixation on talking about Islam is more about talking down brown people.

Moderator notice

I'm going to ask you to stop talking about Islam in a vaccuum, because racism is not a thing we encourage. if you want to criticize one abrahamic religion, you better criticize them all.

If you can't do that, then I suggest that you not bother in the first place, because white christian folk criticizing brown people is going to punch down no matter how hard you try not to, and I will come down on you for it, as I have come down on every other white person who has done this on this forum since not long after it started.

So if you want to have this conversation, have it somewhere else, please.

If you're sincerely interested in social justice for Muslim people, I want the sources you talk about to be from Muslims. Not white people who have not and have never been Muslims. And if you don't happen to know of any, I suggest you start hunting them out.


ETA: Q pointed out that I didn't explictly include ex-muslims. That is a silly oversight. I explictly include them just to be certain that is clear.
Click to expand...

What if ceepolk and the groupies could be directed to Richard Carrier's criticism of Islam from the past...? I generally like Carrier, and if the plussers excommunicate him, maybe he will realize what madness they are into.
 
If my IronyMeter hadn't already been painfully explodiated by all viscous dog-piling, snark, and general jerkwadery going on in a "safe space", this sentence would surely have done it in :

Most people who frequent the forum are generally uninterested in talking about religion and how silly it is, just generally.
Click to expand...


Most people are generally uninterested in talking about religion on a forum called ATHEISM Plus !!!1!
 
Setar is at it:

Setar said:
yeah, consider me definitely out of the skeptical community, and furthermore strongly advocating that decent atheists just go YOU SHALL NOT PASS and keep the libertarians and other assorted society-deniers on the other side of this Deep Rift.
Click to expand...

I must be blind, because I can't find those libertarians. Shermer is, as well as Penn Jillette and Teller. But who else? Dawkins is not a libertarian, neither is Harris or Dennett or any prominent skeptic or scientist I can think of.

And most importantly, Shermer, Jillette and Teller have never said that all skeptics must be libertarians. The plussers are the ones calling for politically based excommunication. "If that smelly libertarian is allowed to stay, I'm out!"
 
Instead of asking to be banned I made my very first twitter account and have followed some lvl 2 and 3s so I can see if I can get blocked without posting a single tweet.
 
Humes fork said:
Struck some gold:



What if ceepolk and the groupies could be directed to Richard Carrier's criticism of Islam from the past...? I generally like Carrier, and if the plussers excommunicate him, maybe he will realize what madness they are into.
Click to expand...

That's some open-minded, inclusionary thinking right there, huh?

And posting a mod box like that here would incur the full wrath and might of the Big Cat. I shudder to think about it. He'd have someone's ears as a trophy.
 
Mr. Scott said:
She [Ceepolk] made it quite clear she pretty much hates white people.
Click to expand...

Ceepolk is probably the most annoying privilege-bearing individual on Atheism +.

There is a certain segment of Canadian society that never contributes anything useful to society, but continues to criticize everything that government do. Ceepolk is the poster child.

On the "Margaret Thatcher" thread, she remarked that she was happy that Ralph Klein (an ex Alberta premier) died (about the same time as Thatcher), and then went on that the Alberta health care system is abominable. As all Canadian, she is covered through the provincial health care system. Alberta's system is world-class and she does not have to contribute nothing. She probably pay no taxes since she does not seems to have a job, or at least one paying enough.

On the "Housing Angst" thread, she posted:

And if you're in canada, the number of people waiting for housing subsidy drives aquisition of subsidised housing. so even if you puut your name on the list and you don't actually need it, your application adds weight to the need for more affordable housing. so if you have to life with shady flaky unrealiable unsafe roommates, apply for subsidy on your rent. when they say the waiting list is eight years, say "well, i'll bring you a cupcake when my name comes up."

it took three years for my number to come up. worth it. totally worth it.
Click to expand...

Not only she does not contribute, but as an able body, she chose to take a subsidized spot from someone who need it.

I despise this type of people who abuse the system and then want to give you a lesson on social justice. Patriarchy is allowing her to live the lifestyle that she chose.

Now off the soapbox.
 
Empress said:
ceepolk is brown and therefore CAN'T BE RACIST!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Only white people are racist, and if you can't accept that, I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting in our safe space.
Click to expand...
She can't be sociologically™ racist. Practically I'd say she's about as racist as people get. But maybe we should just agree to call her a bigot in stead, so as not to offend or confuse all the sociologists.
 
Last edited:
WillyWonka said:
...the "Housing Angst" thread...
Click to expand...
Oh God, why did you have to mention this thing?

Euonymus Al said:
I am a bully/toxic people magnet -- especially in terms of living situations.

[O]ther people can't seem to stand living with me.

Cannot remember ever feeling safe at home.

...PTSD layers build up...
Click to expand...

ceepolk said:
I never realized how *much* stress and ******** I endured living with people until I didn't have to live with them any more.
Click to expand...
That's right. Everyone else is the problem.

:hb:
 
I live on my own, and I much prefer it to living with others. I keep my own hours (well, job excepting), I don't have to compromise on what to watch on TV, I can wander round nude in warm weather, etc. I absolutely love it.

This does not, however, mean that I was previously a victim for living in shared housing. It certainly doesn't mean that living with others gave me PTSD. IT means that there were times when I had to compromise, and it means that there were times when I was involved in conflicts I didn't want to be, and it means that there were times when I had to make the best of being in close proximity to people I didn't like. But you know what? That's part of being an adult. Life isn't always exactly what you want it to be, and sometimes you have to deal with things that you don't want to deal with. That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you a human being.
 
H'ethetheth said:
She can't be sociologically™ racist. Practically I'd say she's about as racist as people get. But maybe we should just agree to call her a bigot in stead, so as not to offend or confuse all the sociologists.
Click to expand...

Problem is, they never make that distinction. On A+, only whites can be racists. Full stop. Only men can be sexist. Full stop. Ad nauseum. The actually started in on, IIRC, the admin for making the mistake of claiming that any race could be racist, and finally s/he had to concede to being mistaken and withdraw the previous posts. I agree you could make an argument for sociological racism/sexism/etc being in the hands of those on top, but they never use sub-context or nuance. They just trot out their statements and ban anyone who disagrees with their newspeak. It's revolting.

/rant
 
Empress said:
Problem is, they never make that distinction. On A+, only whites can be racists. Full stop. Only men can be sexist. Full stop. Ad nauseum. The actually started in on, IIRC, the admin for making the mistake of claiming that any race could be racist, and finally s/he had to concede to being mistaken and withdraw the previous posts. I agree you could make an argument for sociological racism/sexism/etc being in the hands of those on top, but they never use sub-context or nuance. They just trot out their statements and ban anyone who disagrees with their newspeak. It's revolting.

/rant
Click to expand...
I know, because it's 101 material. No one can question the 101 material. To question the 101 material is to not understand the 101 material. To not understand the 101 material is to not want to understand the 101 material.
To not want to understand the 101 material is to be "part of the problem".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom