Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
zooterkin said:
That may be changing. There is already technology (e.g. IDOL from Autonomy (now part of HP)) which can index audio and video.
Click to expand...

It seems an elaborate way to get to where one would be in the first place just by writing the stuff down, but it's better than nothing. As you say, the problem with many of the video essays is that they lack the structure that writing them out would possibly give them.
 
Walter Ego said:
Because I'm from the South? We make two quarts of it (fresh brewed, never canned or instant) in my three-person household every day. I'm drinking some right now... with lemon. ;)
Click to expand...

Bags or loose leaf?

*you choose if that's a euphemism*
 
The Atheists+ don't seem to understand that "allies" are not people who will mindlessly endorse what ever they do:

ischemgeek said:
Michael McG said:
The construction you used did minimize persuasion as an aim of marginalized persons, so don't pretend that I am being ignorant her.
Click to expand...

Dude, ffs, you have many people here saying that persuasion isn't our primary goal here. Yes, you are being ignorant, and willfully obtuse to boot. As ceepolk an the others have said, this is our base. This is our safe space. This subforum, specifically, is a space where those who want to be allies (i.e., those who've already decided that social justice is important) can come to ask for resources for self-education. The rest of the forum is a space where we can talk about issues, work towards bigger goals, and otherwise engage in community building. It is not a space where we want fight to 'convince' those who've already made their minds up about us. Sorry, dudebro, but our basic goals and humanity ain't up for debate here. Deal.

Would you expect the ACLU to debate with every racist yahoo about whether or not racial profiling is bad on their main site? **** no. Same here. We are not debating our basic tenants because those are why we got started in the first place. If someone doesn't give a **** about that stuff, there's a whole wide Internet out there for them to play in. They don't have to take this space. And we are not going to give them this space. Full stop.
Click to expand...

ETA: How does one advance a "social justice movement" without persuasion?
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
The Atheists+ don't seem to understand that "allies" are not people who will mindlessly endorse what ever they do:



ETA: How does one advance a "social justice movement" without persuasion?
Click to expand...

I'd have no problem with this position if they were honest about it. Their refusal to say "Before posting here, you have to accept certain views about privilege, rape culture and so on. If you put forward views opposing this, you will be banned." I explicitly asked them to do this.

Instead, they find themselves in the position of wanting to ban people for holding opposing views, but can't do so. Instead, they have to just make reasons up. They have a list of banned people on the site, together with the supposed reasons for the banning. In most cases, the reasons given are clearly a lie. People are not banned for inappropriate language, or harassment, or disputing with moderators. They are banned for putting forward alternate viewpoints.

I don't see anything wrong with a site that restricts discussion within certain parameters. A site discussing evolutionary biology is quite within its rights to stop people discussing creationism. A structural engineering site should not have to deal with people claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, together with back-of-the-envelope calculations to prove it. Conversely, creationist and conspiracy sites should be able to have their own place where they can exchange views.

If the A+ site did this, then we'd have nothing to complain about. When someone puts forward views that were deemed unacceptable, then they could be politely warned that the topic wasn't open for discussion. If they persist, they could simply be asked to leave. This would obviate the need for all the angst and anger and misunderstanding. Instead, when confronted with a polite, reasonable person who disagrees with the A+ point of view, they have to make up reasons to ban them - and often, to try to provoke them into an angry response. This has turned the entire forum into a thoroughly unpleasant environment. Paradoxically, if they had a far more rigorous and draconian set of rules, enforced honestly, then much of the rancour would simply disappear. However, I think they like the rancour. They want the confrontation.
 
westprog said:
I'd have no problem with this position if they were honest about it. Their refusal to say "Before posting here, you have to accept certain views about privilege, rape culture and so on. If you put forward views opposing this, you will be banned." I explicitly asked them to do this.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem with it is the conceit exhibited by the forum royalty claiming that they have all already identified all of the problems and arrived at the one true solution for them - hence there is no need for any meaningful discussion.
 
Acleron said:
Who won the sweepstake?
Click to expand...

Not me. I gave them until the end of the year. Looks like I was off by 2 months.

I had cooked up a scheme to mock them at Skepticon and CSIcon, but since I couldn't make either, my plans fell apart. Which is probably good, because no one would have cared anyhow. It's dead.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Not me. I gave them until the end of the year. Looks like I was off by 2 months.

I had cooked up a scheme to mock them at Skepticon and CSIcon, but since I couldn't make either, my plans fell apart. Which is probably good, because no one would have cared anyhow. It's dead.
Click to expand...

With the exception of Skepticon, don't (American) skeptic conferences take pains to distance themselves from atheism?
 
Humes fork said:
With the exception of Skepticon, don't (American) skeptic conferences take pains to distance themselves from atheism?
Click to expand...

Whereas the with the exception of A+ forum, atheist fora don't tend to take pains to distance themselves from skepticism.
 
As soon as any Organization becomes an Us and Them, drop it.


Paul


:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
Whereas the with the exception of A+ forum, atheist fora don't tend to take pains to distance themselves from skepticism.
Click to expand...

They've pretty well adopted an anti-skeptic stance now. They'll use the tools of skepticism when someone says something they don't like, but any attempt to direct them the wrong way and they don't like it at all.
 
RebeccaBradley said:
Damion (who also posts on JREF) has just finished a good 3-part series on his Skeptic Ink blog, contrasting his experiences on the A+ forum and the Slymepit. A brave soul, Damion. :D ETA: Here is the link to Part 1.

http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2012/10/30/a-tale-of-two-communities-part-13/
Click to expand...

Can't say I've ever ventured into the skymepit however I have been entertaining myself with A+ since it's inception and I'd say the assessment of that place is spot on. Great link to The Guardian article in part three, yep, social justice in a nutshell.

Interestingly, on A+ they're quite open about their mental health issues.
 
Feminism and skepticism

westprog said:
They've pretty well adopted an anti-skeptic stance now. They'll use the tools of skepticism when someone says something they don't like, but any attempt to direct them the wrong way and they don't like it at all.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in seeing an attempt to apply the tools of skepticism to the theories of academic feminism. For example, can we test the rape culture hypothesis? Has this sort of thing already been tried here or elsewhere?
 
Stout said:
Can't say I've ever ventured into the skymepit however I have been entertaining myself with A+ since it's inception and I'd say the assessment of that place is spot on. Great link to The Guardian article in part three, yep, social justice in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

I find the Slymepit rather too in love with its own transgressive nature. There's discussion going on there, but it seems far too prone to scatological outbursts.

Interestingly, on A+ they're quite open about their mental health issues.
Click to expand...

There's a strong feeling that any objective examination of principles is a deeply wounding personal attack.

There are often stories of personal trauma which according to the narrator, leave the person unable to leave the house, or in constant fear of attack. I have no reason to doubt that these are real, and immensely distressing. However, there's never any questioning that the subjective views of a person who's so circumscribed by their mental state would necessarily correspond with objective reality.
 
d4m10n said:
I'd be interested in seeing an attempt to apply the tools of skepticism to the theories of academic feminism. For example, can we test the rape culture hypothesis? Has this sort of thing already been tried here or elsewhere?
Click to expand...

The general response to any kind of querying to any claim, whether it's something vague like the "rape culture" concept, or specific, like the Superbowl domestic abuse statistic, is to query the bona fides and agenda of the person making the query. If you cared about rape or domestic abuse, you wouldn't be nitpicking about mere facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom