Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[dasmiller]

There has been some sound rational criticism of Atheism Plus and the Atheism Plus forums on this thread. I hope that I've helped to provide some of it.

But talking about trolling them for lulz is more than a little distasteful.

Read this thread first: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=864.

Got the picture? Some of them, you might see as whiners with no real problems. But all of them are in pain. Might some of that pain be self-inflicted, such as by convincing one another that any perceived slight to them whether deliberate or not is an expression of personal hatred and contempt? Perhaps. But that doesn't make it any less painful.

Now that it's clear that they're not about to come boiling out of the Freethought Blogs like some kind of army ants, and force you to start believing in God again unless you use gender-neutral pronouns... let them be.

For the love of humanity, let them be.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Concur.

ETA: Granted, A+ is not my sort of thing, and I feel a bit of resentment for their assertions that I must be a misogynist racist victim-blaming etc simply because I think that A+ is misguided. I suppose I even take a bit of satisfaction and entertainment from their ongoing absurdities, though I admit that that's not particularly good or healthy on my part. But, as individuals, I don't wish them ill, and I don't see the world being made a better place by deliberately antagonizing them. Sure, it's fun to speculate about . . . but that's where I think it should end.

 

[StankApe]

that may be, but their method isn't going to make one iota of improvement in their lives. it's akin to having a drinking problem and wondering why you can't quit when all of your friends are bartenders.


that being said, I'm not going to go join and troll them (never was, but the prospect of doing it was funny enough)

 

[dasmiller]

that may be, but their method isn't going to make one iota of improvement in their lives. it's akin to having a drinking problem and wondering why you can't quit when all of your friends are bartenders.

Oh, I definitely concur with this, too.

that being said, I'm not going to go join and troll them (never was, but the prospect of doing it was funny enough)

Yeah, I didn't think anyone here was really going to, but you know that some blog is going to go off on how the JREF forum was actively scheming about how to troll A+ . . .

 

[Stout]

that being said, I'm not going to go join and troll them (never was, but the prospect of doing it was funny enough)

No, neither am I, even with my next door neighbour's wireless network unsecured and a yahoo email account. It is fun to think about though. I'm just tired of social justice activists preaching from their moral high ground about how everything, and everyone, sucks all the while gobbling up their privilege just like the people they profess to hate.

I'll leave A+ alone in their anger and pain, I'll leave them to their "safe space" but should they decide to leave that safe space and go public with their self righteous proselytizing, well, that's different.

 

[Mad Dilla Huntter]

For the love of humanity, let them be.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well, if you go trough my posts on A+, you can see that none of the stuff i posted there qualify as trolling or any rule breach on any forums with normal rule set. Unfortunately, A+ forums are run but caprice and whimsy mods and rules are just there for decoration.

And that is the reason why A+ wont be left alone. A+ has made itself in to a punching bag - and there is a line forming to take a swing. I, myself, am not going to directly participate in any trolling or so, however i will cheer and advocate the marginalization of that group. A+ is no place for people that have been wronged. A+ forums is last place any victim of rape or so on should get help.
And "being hurt" is no excuse to do what A+'s at large are doing when it comes to online interactions.

 

[westprog]

There has been some sound rational criticism of Atheism Plus and the Atheism Plus forums on this thread. I hope that I've helped to provide some of it.

But talking about trolling them for lulz is more than a little distasteful.

Read this thread first: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=864.

Got the picture? Some of them, you might see as whiners with no real problems. But all of them are in pain. Might some of that pain be self-inflicted, such as by convincing one another that any perceived slight to them whether deliberate or not is an expression of personal hatred and contempt? Perhaps. But that doesn't make it any less painful.

Now that it's clear that they're not about to come boiling out of the Freethought Blogs like some kind of army ants, and force you to start believing in God again unless you use gender-neutral pronouns... let them be.

For the love of humanity, let them be.

Respectfully,
Myriad

As I said before - the reason that much of what goes on in A+ is distasteful is that there are vulnerable people there, and they are not treated carefully or with respect. It's one thing to go there to honestly discuss issues - though I think it's now established that there won't be much actual discussion. Just poking them to see what happens is pointless. They'll produce the action whether poked or not.

 

[westprog]

A+ forums is last place any victim of rape or so on should get help.

If you analyse why I was banned from A+, it comes down to my reaction to the taunting of a rape victim by a moderator. When emotional over-reaction to triviality is the standard response, it's very far from being a "safe space".

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That's it. Though I don't want to have a go at someone who's banned and can't answer back. That's a bit A+-ish.

I'll have a go at her: She was great! I had some private discussions with her. She is very smart and fun to chat with. It was a sad day for the JREF when she left.

Her acid tongue, of which she was inordinately and unwarretly proud kept getting her into trouble here. When her lack of self-control had finally reached the "body of work" threshhold, she started her schtick at Richard Dawkins Forum and was banned within 6 months.

 

[Mad Dilla Huntter]

If you analyse why I was banned from A+, it comes down to my reaction to the taunting of a rape victim by a moderator. When emotional over-reaction to triviality is the standard response, it's very far from being a "safe space".

I did analyze it, and many others post like that. Ergo, i said, it is the last place.

If you were just reinforcing my point, disregard this message. There may be misunderstanding here.

 

[Quinn]

Every time I read something on the A+ forum, I end up feeling the need to go cleanse myself by watching some Tony Clifton footage. I recommend this as an effective way to rinse off all the misery, righteousness and utter, unrelenting humorlessness that pervades the place (and tends to stick to you after visiting).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Dude. Bro. Dudebro.

You don't troll a forum like this with GNAA. Half the time they've got their heads so far up their asses they won't see it for what it is anyway, and when they do clue in they'll just ban you.

You troll them by leading the chorus. By being the voice of unreasonable zealotry. Your goal is to provide and encourage viewpoints and "solutions" so offensive and over the top that about half of the established members start thinking it's going too far. Then you get the other half to happily turn on them for being privileged and bigoted, and kick back with some popcorn to watch the fireworks.

But after they ban a rape victim for not wishing she was killed instead how is this possible.

 

[WillyWonka]

If you analyse why I was banned from A+, it comes down to my reaction to the taunting of a rape victim by a moderator. When emotional over-reaction to triviality is the standard response, it's very far from being a "safe space".

I am not sure if it is amateurism or sheer cluelessness, but any open forum never was or will never going to be a "safe place". Anyone posting for more than 5 minutes realize that, and since this is the same people as FtB and Skepchicks, they ought to know better. I participate on another forum of a different subject and there are two closed areas of the forum, one on financial, and the other on body weight issues, and to get in you need to ask permission to access. They were designed for confidentiality and for participants to discuss issues without being judged.

 

[AbsurdWalls]

I don't know why anyone would want to start a splinter group, anyway, though.

The guy who is starting the splinter group is someone who has been burned by the hostile insular nature of the forum, despite the fact that he is one of the people they were supposed to be making comfortable with their "safe space" in the first place.

It is also worth saying that they are "happy" with this splinter group forming, and nobody is going crazy at him like they did at the guy who made the Facebook group.

 

[Diogenes]

I am not sure if it is amateurism or sheer cluelessness, but any open forum never was or will never going to be a "safe place"...

As an alternative hypothesis I think maybe they know this and they want to keep it open to "fight". They need "privileged" targets in the arena so they can "Children of the Corn" all over their faces. Without out-group villains they'll turn on themselves and pit marginalized women against marginalized autistics against marginalized transsexuals...and will therefore be sacrificing the faithful to INRI rather than outsiders.

The only response I'd seen to "why not make closed areas specific 'safe spaces'" was that the whole thing is supposed to be a "safe space".

And maybe I'm clueless but I would have had thought one of the first things that wouldn't be allowed in a "safe space" would be ad hominem attacks. Obviously ingroup ad homs on outgroup (which is everyone else) are not only allowed but encouraged.

 

[AbsurdWalls]

As an alternative hypothesis I think maybe they know this and they want to keep it open to "fight". They need "privileged" targets in the arena so they can "Children of the Corn" all over their faces. Without out-group villains they'll turn on themselves and pit marginalized women against marginalized autistics against marginalized transsexuals...and will therefore be sacrificing the faithful to INRI rather than outsiders.

The only response I'd seen to "why not make closed areas specific 'safe spaces'" was that the whole thing is supposed to be a "safe space".

And maybe I'm clueless but I would have had thought one of the first things that wouldn't be allowed in a "safe space" would be ad hominem attacks. Obviously ingroup ad homs on outgroup (which is everyone else) are not only allowed but encouraged.

It is not so much a discussion forum as it is a test. If you are able to uncritically subscribe to their values then you will become a member of the ingroup ("ONE OF US! ONE OF US!"), if you question the values or oppose them you are in the outgroup and you will be marginalised or banned.

The ingroup then serves two functions. Firstly you get your list of who is a "good" A+ atheist. Secondly the people in that group can then do the housework of interpreting new events according to the group mentality. It is, depressingly, similar to a religion in that regard.

 

[couchsloth]

Every time I read something on the A+ forum, I end up feeling the need to go cleanse myself by watching some Tony Clifton footage. I recommend this as an effective way to rinse off all the misery, righteousness and utter, unrelenting humorlessness that pervades the place (and tends to stick to you after visiting).

Funny that you should mention Tony C.
Since all this controversy about Atheim+ came up, I keep thinking about Andy Kaufman's challenge for any woman to beat him in a wrestling match. Kaufman's misogynist character was pretty hilarious, e.g. He said that women were just as intelligent as men... except that it was a different type of intelligence=best used by women when they were in the kitchen making a sandwich for their man.
The whole upshot of this group of skits was to point out that the rules were often stacked against women.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

it's a foolish concept that with atheism comes a set belief system. I'm an atheist and I bet I would disagree with many fellow atheists on an number of things.

Just because we are of the opinion that there was no "creator" doesn't mean we are all social liberals, or anti-capitalists or pro-communist or anti-religion or whatever.

That was the point. It was always meant to be an exclusive subset of atheists.

"We are atheists, plus we care about these specific social issues".
and
"If you're not with us you're against us"

 

[Hokulele]

after reading that I am sorely tempted to join their forum and use my opening post to say :

WHICH ONE OF YOU HOT TAMALES WANTS TO MAKE DADDY A SANDWICH?

While I disagree with their methods and their moderation techniques, and, if you read back to pretty much the first page of this thread, I never felt like this would be a group I would have any interest in joining, this kind of post just makes it look like their original mission statement had a real point.

Just sayin'.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

While I disagree with their methods and their moderation techniques, and, if you read back to pretty much the first page of this thread, I never felt like this would be a group I would have any interest in joining, this kind of post just makes it look like their original mission statement had a real point.

Just sayin'.

It's the same reason why I don't hurl epithets at street preachers. There's no point, and it makes you look like a jackass. But it is also what they expect and want you to do.

 

[Hokulele]

It's the same reason why I don't hurl epithets at street preachers. There's no point, and it makes you look like a jackass. But it is also what they expect and want you to do.

Bingo.