Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[kellyb]

My point is that bloggers get threats. Yes it is a shame that female bloggers get rape threats possibly instead of some if the death or other threats possibly in addition to it. But are these threats coming from the internet or the skeptical community?

So I think there is an error of false attribution going on at least in part as well.

Why attack the skeptic comunity if what you want is to clean up the internet and end trolling? Of course if memory serves Rebecca used to indulge in a good troll now and then.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

 

[RandFan]

And Randfan, I've appreciate your comments more than a little, but no one else seems to be taking any notice of weird arguments like this,

I suspect it's a very small number of people who made rape threats, but hey, fear is the most powerful emotion. The amazing thing is this didn't start with a rape threat. It started with a coffee threat. Watson could have said "no thanks, it's really late, so I'm gonna call it a night." Instead, she took it on the road, being paid to speak about it (with outrageous exaggeration), making herself, literally, a professional victim (and I mean literally literally).

Atheism has more important goals, like stopping religion-based female genital mutilation, or the possibility of nuclear war over who's imaginary friend gave them Palestine. Obsessing over things like T-shirts and coffee invitations, well, that gives comfort to the enemies of reason, don't you think?

...which I read as "Why bother with any overblown complaints of sexism in skeptical communities when it gets in the way of our important work combating FGM?"

Is my reading of this that far off?

I condemn rape threats. Who posted the argument you want me to respond to?

 

[RandFan]

Sorry to be picky, but it's Kurtz from Conrad's ''The Heart Of Darkness''.

The video clip is taken from the movie Apocalypse now. The character in the video clip is Kurtz. Apocalypse now is based on The Heart Of Darkness. ETA: I see this has been adjudicated. Never mind.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Inherently stupid. I am beginning to see the level of discourse here.

This is pretty clearly a sneer without argument.

I wasn't engaging in discourse, just simply stating facts.

Obviously you've never visited their website.

 

[dafydd]

The video clip is taken from the movie Apocalypse now. The character in the video clip is Kurtz. Apocalypse now is based on The Heart Of Darkness. ETA: I see this has been adjudicated. Never mind.

And I apologize to you again.

 

[RandFan]

And I apologize to you again.

No problem.

 

[recursive prophet]

@RF: A couple pages back you mentioned you wished one of the A+ers would log on here to defend some of their claims and actions. Not sure if you are aware of this, but any who make disparaging remarks about the site elsewhere can be banned there for doing so. It's already happened several times.

So while as an A+ member I would like to defend their raison d'etre here, I know you would soon have me at the end of the garden path. For without the capability to concede many of the points you've made itt about flaws in their rationales, I just couldn't pull it off. Defending the fact I'm not free to criticize things at A+ here that explain why every atheist/skeptic site I know of has a thread like this, is just one example.

I will say that like here, no one is forced to read the A+ forums, and if they wish to ban all who disagree with their reasoning in any way they have just as much right to do so as the staff at JREF. Certainly I have disagreed with the mods here on many occasions. But the difference is I wasn't banned for doing so, or what I said about them at TR.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It seems you went into a forum you had a bias against, and got into a tiff.

I've been registered over there for some time. If I wanted to troll, I would have done so by now.

And I am probably one of the JREF posters more sympathetic to the aims of Atheism+.

By your eyes, everyone there was wrong, and you were clear-headed rationality. There seems to be a lot of support for that opinion. I don't necessarily see it.

I don't claim to be clearheaded at all. I just thought the reaction was unbelievable.

I just don't find this an example of what you are saying A+ is missing out on.

I... don't know what you are talking about.

 

[appalling]

I don't know how weird it is, since it's derived from an argument by Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous and respected atheist. It's not even original! You think Dawkins' arguments are, generally, weird?

I notice again your tendency to straw man argumentation.

Okay, I just didn't know this was a parody thread.

This is the first time I've had Richard Dawkins simply thrown at me. It's supposed to be a parody of a skeptic's contribution, right?

As you've since said, you think of this debate as your chew toy and you're using hyperbolic arguments to provoke. I don't find this to be an engaging example of critical thinking.

 

[appalling]

I've been registered over there for some time. If I wanted to troll, I would have done so by now.

And I am probably one of the JREF posters more sympathetic to the aims of Atheism+.

Sure, that wasn't how it seemed to me and I was wrong about that.

I don't claim to be clearheaded at all. I just thought the reaction was unbelievable.

Looking at it, I found it more believable. Not to rehearse it, and you certainly don't need my opinion, but it looked to me like you followed up a moderator warning (whatever degree justified) with an open challenge to the moderator. Then got booted.

That's not something unpredictable in all kinds of forums, not just skeptic-based. As a participant, you might feel differently about the situation. But I outline it here so that you know that this is what I was responding to.

I... don't know what you are talking about.

I was saying this thread hasn't been an example of high-minded discourse either, with a lot of unchallenged talk of "morons", "cults", "inherently stupid".

If I'm being asked to find fault with a forum because of individual threads and individual posts and examples of poor modding, then it's hard to do it in a thread also containing weak or non-existent arguments that go unchallenged by the general membership. A weak argument is one on any forum, of course.

It doesn't matter in a real sense that this thread has been like this, either. But it certainly makes the other forum look more important in the end. Something about "punching down" theory.

 

[RandFan]

I was saying this thread hasn't been an example of high-minded discourse either, with a lot of unchallenged talk of "morons", "cults", "inherently stupid".

If you find a post you think is objectionable then A.) Report it. B.) Call out the poster. You are of course free to express your opinion and I champion that. But I'm not going to feel guilty about things said in this thread given that there is a means to report inappropriate behavior and the folks at A+ are free to come here and debate us. If they feel they are being treated unfairly they can turn to the moderators. So can you BTW.

 

[appalling]

I condemn rape threats. Who posted the argument you want me to respond to?

It's not important. It was a post by Mr. Smith before I looked back at their body of work.

I hadn't realized, being new here, how much of some people's resentment of A+ is founded on their position about what happened with Rebecca Watson.

It's clearer to me now. I also don't think your or some others' positions have much to do with that, but I was more responding to the kind of post where calls to sober critical thinking are undercut by comparing them to the people in the movie FREAKS, then later complaining that A+ members dehumanize. It was getting to be a bit rich for me.

I shouldn't have singled you out for comment, it was based on my appreciation of your other contributions. I don't feel treated unfairly in any way, and I wouldn't report a post because it didn't contain an argument (because, you know how often...) but your thoughts are welcome.

 

[RandFan]

It's not important. It was a post by Mr. Smith before I looked back at their body of work.

I hadn't realized, being new here, how much of some people's resentment of A+ is founded on their position about what happened with Rebecca Watson.

It's clearer to me now. I also don't think your or some others' positions have much to do with that, but I was more responding to the kind of post where calls to sober critical thinking are undercut by comparing them to the people in the movie FREAKS, then later complaining that A+ members dehumanize. It was getting to be a bit rich for me.

I shouldn't have singled you out for comment, it was based on my appreciation of your other contributions. I don't feel treated unfairly in any way, and I wouldn't report a post because it didn't contain an argument (because, you know how often...) but your thoughts are welcome.

Thanks. No problems. I really don't mind you coming to the defense of anyone and I think it fine that we be challenged on our assessments of A+.

BTW: I do very much agree that much of this is simmering resentment over RW's actions following EG. We've not gotten beyond that and won't likely anytime soon. The battle lines have been drawn and trenches and battlements set.

 

[recursive prophet]

@RandFan: Was hoping to get some response from you on my post above.

 

[RandFan]

@RF: A couple pages back you mentioned you wished one of the A+ers would log on here to defend some of their claims and actions. Not sure if you are aware of this, but any who make disparaging remarks about the site elsewhere can be banned there for doing so. It's already happened several times.

So while as an A+ member I would like to defend their raison d'etre here, I know you would soon have me at the end of the garden path. For without the capability to concede many of the points you've made itt about flaws in their rationales, I just couldn't pull it off. Defending the fact I'm not free to criticize things at A+ here that explain why every atheist/skeptic site I know of has a thread like this, is just one example.

I will say that like here, no one is forced to read the A+ forums, and if they wish to ban all who disagree with their reasoning in any way they have just as much right to do so as the staff at JREF. Certainly I have disagreed with the mods here on many occasions. But the difference is I wasn't banned for doing so, or what I said about them at TR.

Sorry, I did read your post. I agree with you. I think that when you try to dam up speech it tends to find other outlets. I don't have a problem with such a group. Personally my humanism isn't informed by my atheism and vice versa. If they want to do that they have every right. Who knows, perhaps they will become a potent advocacy group on behalf of atheism and feminism. If they want credibility though they better clean up their act.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh man, this is just getting funny. The mods love being dramatic when they punish people. They started another thread challenging "vegangelists" with posts literally copypasted from the locked thread, and I pointed out that they didn't seem to have an opponent. I got called more names and kicked out again. But I don't think there was swearing... Progress?

 

[appalling]

Oh man, this is just getting funny. The mods love being dramatic when they punish people. They started another thread challenging "vegangelists" with posts literally copypasted from the locked thread, and I pointed out that they didn't seem to have an opponent. I got called more names and kicked out again. But I don't think there was swearing... Progress?

I took a look.

You're trolling them at this point.

It looks like you were sent to their version of Abandon All Hope. "A locked thread to fall into obscurity".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I took a look.

You're trolling them at this point.

It looks like you were sent to their version of Abandon All Hope. "A locked thread to fall into obscurity".

Yes, they want it to fall into obscurity so much that they post and create titles to announce how horrible I am . Well, they did remove all my posts from the threads, so it is partly true.

And you must have a very odd definition of trolling if you think that noting a thread is "challenging" a non-existant strawman is trolling. It was completely honest.

 

[appalling]

Yes, they want it to fall into obscurity so much that they post and create titles to announce how horrible I am . Well, they did remove all my posts from the threads, so it is partly true.

Which title announces how horrible you are? I don't see it.

How do you feel about the Abandon All Hope system? Your posts seem to be at a comparable level. They don't seem to be erased.

And you must have a very odd definition of trolling if you think that noting a thread is "challenging" a non-existant strawman is trolling. It was completely honest.

If you were just noting, then it would certainly not be trolling. Ask anybody, "just saying" is often considered a completely valid thing.

 

[appalling]

As far as the thread goes, you do seem to be reading a lot of "Veganism is not for everyone"-comments as having an intention of promoting "Veganism is garbage" in a lot of exchanges that don't seem overwrought otherwise.