Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
StankApe said:
number one, i didn't troll them
Click to expand...
I'm glad. If you didn't intend to, what did you bring it up for?

number two, can't we have a little fun with something without der skeptic gestapo getting their panties in a bunch?
Click to expand...
It's got nothing to do with skepticism. It's just "not being a dick". Can't you listen to a suggestion that the behaviour you proposed is ill advised and maybe not so much "fun" as "cruel and unecessary" without getting your panties in a bunch?

number three- if I was concerned with the perceptions I don't think that any of this harmless goofing would have occurred. It's obvious that nothing is going to change their perceptions regardless, hence the mockery.
Click to expand...
Where we differ is whether your "goofing" would really be "harmless" or not. Regardless of their perceptions, the actions you suggested would make you, and by extension this forum and atheism/skepticism, look bad to others, and would serve to confirm to others that what A+ are saying about the rest of the atheist/skeptic community is correct.

That doesn't look "harmless" to me.
 
Last edited:
CynicalSkeptic said:
To be fair, I think that's only the case if the In Crowd are the ones doing the attacking.
Click to expand...

Of course. It's not a matter of what you say - it's who's saying it to whom. They are quite explicit about this. If you are nobody important, you're considered impertinent for voicing an opinion.

The odd thing is that if you question any of the base assumptions, it's simply taken for granted that you must be a well off white man. Mad Dilla had this experience, I believe. They've missed the fundamental point of the internet - people aren't judged on the basis of gender, race or sexual orientation - because these things aren't visible. They just assume that anyone who disagrees is an honorary white man.
 
AbsurdWalls said:
My new game is to attempt to determine which members are genuine and which are elaborate trolls that have infiltrated the movement in order to discredit it and cause havoc.

Current most likely trolls: The Laughing Coyote, HyperB
Click to expand...

laughing coyote has to be. theyre on every thread, spewing at fellow members!

lxxx
 
The social justice bit that I can't tell if they're addressing at all is the marginalization of self-identified atheists. If self-identified atheists are at 3%-ish of the population and you get "oppressed" by self-identifying isn't that a social justice issue? I imagine running for Congress as an atheist is pretty much a non-starter...why have they chosen to ignore that?

I think I've seen where they specifically dismiss any significance to atheism in-and-of-itself with respect to social justice, essentially calling atheism "done" and talking about it "boring" yet seem to have had completely missed marginalization of atheists in a society where most declare some kind of religious affiliation...even if only something like "protestant, no pref" as are on my dog tags. (Doing it again I'd probably choose atheist now or agnostic.)

Maybe this is what bothers me and maybe others? They're taking a population that is already marginalized in the US and mainly use ad homs to marginalize the non-otherwise marginalized peoples.
 
Diogenes said:
The social justice bit that I can't tell if they're addressing at all is the marginalization of self-identified atheists. If self-identified atheists are at 3%-ish of the population and you get "oppressed" by self-identifying isn't that a social justice issue? I imagine running for Congress as an atheist is pretty much a non-starter...why have they chosen to ignore that?
Click to expand...
Early on all pretence that it is anything other than a rather extreme feminist organisation disappeared. Atheism must have seemed like a good idea after it's profile was raised by others.

...
Maybe this is what bothers me and maybe others? They're taking a population that is already marginalized in the US and mainly use ad homs to marginalize the non-otherwise marginalized peoples.
Click to expand...

It does seem to be a mainly American idea anyway. Or perhaps my impression comes from just the well known figures.
 
Piscivore said:
Where we differ is whether your "goofing" would really be "harmless" or not. Regardless of their perceptions, the actions you suggested would make you, and by extension this forum and atheism/skepticism, look bad to others, and would serve to confirm to others that what A+ are saying about the rest of the atheist/skeptic community is correct.

That doesn't look "harmless" to me.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that they've been snowed under with people prodding them to get a reaction. They clearly can't tell the difference between gentle teasing and violent threats. They just add it all to the martyrdom pile. There's no end of people signing up to A+ just to say something provocative and get banned. They're constantly on edge and angry and defensive and over-reacting. This fire doesn't need any more petrol.

Of course, one way to provoke them is to be deliberately sexist or racist - actually, probably sexism is the safest bet. The other is to say "calm down, I only meant..." - which will get a huge angry reaction.
 
westprog said:
The trouble is that they've been snowed under with people prodding them to get a reaction. They clearly can't tell the difference between gentle teasing and violent threats. They just add it all to the martyrdom pile. There's no end of people signing up to A+ just to say something provocative and get banned. They're constantly on edge and angry and defensive and over-reacting. This fire doesn't need any more petrol.

Of course, one way to provoke them is to be deliberately sexist or racist - actually, probably sexism is the safest bet. The other is to say "calm down, I only meant..." - which will get a huge angry reaction.
Click to expand...


Agreed, which is why I believe it would be more useful to post constructive criticism in places such as the JREF, rather than posting additional provocation. If, and sure, it's a big if, there are people who are trying to get a clearer idea of what happened and why, it would be nice for there to be caches of reasonable dialog on A+ specifically, as well as atheist-centered activism in general.

That isn't to say that there isn't a place or time for "goofing off", I certainly do not want anyone banned here or posts deleted, everyone should be free to express their opinions. I just want to be able to explain why I find a post ill-considered without it degenerating into a flame war, or having my points dismissed as mere "panty-bunching". That to me sounds a bit too A+ish.

I have actually found some of the general discussion on this thread to be interesting and, for me, a learning experience. I like learning! And if anyone does want a flame war, just go look up some of the older threads between me and Tricky and decide for yourself whether you can take the heat. :cool:
 
Hokulele said:
I have actually found some of the general discussion on this thread to be interesting and, for me, a learning experience. I like learning! And if anyone does want a flame war, just go look up some of the older threads between me and Tricky and decide for yourself whether you can take the heat. :cool:
Click to expand...
Your heat or Tricky's heat? It's important to be specific, because that's like a choice between receiving a lava enema and touching a toaster you used last week.
 
Wow, this thread. I very much hope this is not some official A+ stance on abortion (i.e. that it should always be legal at any stage of pregnancy):
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1088

So, the child has no bodily autonomy while it's in the womb, even if it is developed enough to live outside it?
Click to expand...
Not while it is in someone elses body, no. It is not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom