Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Doctor Plop]

The idea that certain posts from certain contributors (let me guess, posts written by those in the A+ in-group) MUST be answered, moves the interaction from one of free discussion to interrogation and gang bullying.

The fact that the Aplussers in question fail to realise this is a direct refutation of their claims to 'expertise' and wide reading in matters such as justice, marginalisation, power dynamics etc..

These people are just dull, unreflective hypocrites.

 

[kellyb]

Members here can express as much anger as they want, in any tone or style they want, as long as the expression does not take the form of a personal attack. (And as long as they don't break the swearing rules, which are imposed by the landlord regardless of the preferences of anyone here.)

If an issue that's personal to you is making you personally angry at the person you're talking to, there's something wrong. You're either shooting the messenger, or lashing out when you should be persuading (metaphorically, fist-fighting on the Senate floor). It's very much human nature to do so, but it is not an application of skepticism, rationalism, or critical thinking, which are held in high regard here.

I don't completely agree.

What if someone is saying something bigoted? I don't think it's a skeptical failure for someone to find that upsetting.

 

[qwints]

Civility isn't necessarily related to the truth or value of a point. As an example, Penn Jillette said some very vile things about John Edward in the first episode of his Showtime show. His profane personal attacks weren't less valid for being uncivil. Similarly, a psychic spouting woo is a psychic spouting woo regardless of how civil their language is.

I've got no problem with there being spaces, like the JREF forum, where civility is enforced to ensure broad access. I also understand that, if you're going to require civility, you have to require it for everyone. On the other hand, it's harder for some people to be civil about a topic than others. I don't see the value in requiring a target of, for example, racism to be civil when responding to a racist who is politely just asking questions about the equality of the races. I don't speak for the atheismplus forum, but it has made clear that it values many things over such civil debate.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I just can't understand the mindset that will accommodate the potential for people to be triggered by receiving unannounced PMs, but not the potential to be triggered by being yelled and sworn at by a bunch of bullies. It smacks of self-justification.

 

[AbsurdWalls]

I just can't understand the mindset that will accommodate the potential for people to be triggered by receiving unannounced PMs, but not the potential to be triggered by being yelled and sworn at by a bunch of bullies. It smacks of self-justification.

There have been several discussions about that and every time the in-group distort the argument into a prudish reaction to swearing, rather than concern about bullying etc.

 

[kellyb]

Civility isn't necessarily related to the truth or value of a point. As an example, Penn Jillette said some very vile things about John Edward in the first episode of his Showtime show. His profane personal attacks weren't less valid for being uncivil. Similarly, a psychic spouting woo is a psychic spouting woo regardless of how civil their language is.

I've got no problem with there being spaces, like the JREF forum, where civility is enforced to ensure broad access. I also understand that, if you're going to require civility, you have to require it for everyone. On the other hand, it's harder for some people to be civil about a topic than others. I don't see the value in requiring a target of, for example, racism to be civil when responding to a racist who is politely just asking questions about the equality of the races. I don't speak for the atheismplus forum, but it has made clear that it values many things over such civil debate.

I don't disagree with any of that. An effective anti-bigotry policy would be possible with the right forum management, and then outside of that, members could be held to the same rules. Whamo-presto, a reasonably safe space that could also promote skepticism. But for numerous reasons, that's not how A+ works.

 

[Myriad]

I don't completely agree.

What if someone is saying something bigoted? I don't think it's a skeptical failure for someone to find that upsetting.

Good point. I misspoke. I didn't mean it was inappropriate for people to feel anger in such circumstances, but that it's counterproductive to lash out with angry speech.

Note that saying "X makes me angry" or even "you make me angry" is not lashing out. But when the chosen means of expressing that anger becomes instead "you're a *****" or "I hope you die" it becomes not only a personal attack, but a waste of time as well. It also plays right into the hands of trolls.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[kellyb]

Good point. I misspoke. I didn't mean it was inappropriate for people to feel anger in such circumstances, but that it's counterproductive to lash out with angry speech.

Note that saying "X makes me angry" or even "you make me angry" is not lashing out. But when the chosen means of expressing that anger becomes instead "you're a *****" or "I hope you die" it becomes not only a personal attack, but a waste of time as well. It also plays right into the hands of trolls.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Gotcha. And I agree.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Atheism Plus

The biggest reason being that A+ is controlled by very bad people, and a fair policy wouldn't let them abuse and bully others the way they want to.

 

[dasmiller]

Civility isn't necessarily related to the truth or value of a point. As an example, Penn Jillette said some very vile things about John Edward in the first episode of his Showtime show. His profane personal attacks weren't less valid for being uncivil. Similarly, a psychic spouting woo is a psychic spouting woo regardless of how civil their language is.

I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise.

I've got no problem with there being spaces, like the JREF forum, where civility is enforced to ensure broad access. I also understand that, if you're going to require civility, you have to require it for everyone. On the other hand, it's harder for some people to be civil about a topic than others. I don't see the value in requiring a target of, for example, racism to be civil when responding to a racist who is politely just asking questions about the equality of the races.

And what would be the benefit of that incivility? Do you think that the racist in question is injured by the incivility? Will the racist think, "gosh, my polite questions pissed someone off, maybe I'm wrong?" Will the myriad third parties watching the exchange decide that the racism must be incorrect because someone responds with a lack of self-control?

I don't speak for the atheismplus forum, but it has made clear that it values many things over such civil debate.

I'm baffled as to why A+'s priorities should be incompatible with civil debate.

As I've oft opined, I think one of the big problems with humanity is that righteous outrage feels good. Righteous outrage feeds on itself, and, being outrage, can lead people to do very bad things. Yes, it can lead people to do good things, but that's not the way to bet. Righteous outrage can incite righteous outrage in its targets, too, causing nearly unlimited escalation. And since it feels good, people seek it.

The JREF civility rules try to keep righteous outrage from going too far, because being 'right' is irrelevant to the JREF mods.

A+, on the other hand, seems to actually encourage righteous outrage.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Atheism Plus

As I've oft opined, I think one of the big problems with humanity is that righteous outrage feels good. Righteous outrage feeds on itself, and, being outrage, can lead people to do very bad things. Yes, it can lead people to do good things, but that's not the way to bet. Righteous outrage can incite righteous outrage in its targets, too, causing nearly unlimited escalation. And since it feels good, people seek it.

The JREF civility rules try to keep righteous outrage from going too far, because being 'right' is irrelevant to the JREF mods.

A+, on the other hand, seems to actually encourage righteous outrage.

An excellent point. It's very much analogous to the Dark Side of the Force.

 

[Zelenius]

I first became aware of PZ thanks to a friend of mine, who is a fan. This was during the whole "Crackergate" thing, and I thought that PZ had some good points, and it was a great stunt. He did an excellent job of pointing out the ridiculousness of the Catholic Church, and showing that the emperor had no clothes.

Unfortunately, it dawned on me eventually that this is PZ's whole MO, and the cracker thing wasn't done wholly to point out the ridiculous, but also to irritate and anger. Apparently, now he's taken to riling up his fellow atheists and skeptics, who have a huge weak spot in the form of political correctness.

Here, he's got a lot in common with RW. Neither of them seem to serve much of a useful purpose. They're both feces-agitators.

In light of all this, it makes more sense, but I believe PZ just as easily could have played the role Dawkins played in the EG mess. He would have gotten the publicity he craves without alienating much of the skeptic/atheist community.

Although I only discovered Myers well after Cracker-Gate(but also well before EG), he didn't strike me as a radical feminist before EG. A leftist, yes, but not a radical feminist claiming there is rampant misogyny in the atheist/skeptical community.

And I agree, he does have a lot in common with RW, except that Myers is actually a scientist who should know better, and, unless I am missing something, can do better. This is why I can understand RW's motivations more than Myers, at least Myers could actually do science to build a reputation in the scientific and skeptical/atheist community, while RW can't. This is also why I hold Myers in lower regard than RW. I'm sure this is just more evidence of my "misogyny".

 

[Stout]

There have been several discussions about that and every time the in-group distort the argument into a prudish reaction to swearing, rather than concern about bullying etc.

There's that....and the claim that the PMee feels trapped or cornered. What was the analogy used ? Something like following someone into an underground parking lot.

I can sort of relate though. When I see that PM signal flashing at the top of my screen, I can be reasonably certain that it's my ole buddy, auto mod action telling me that yet another of my well crafted and brilliantly executed posts has been sent to languish in AAH.

 

[theprestige]

After some little cogitation, I've reached the following conclusions:

• That the A+ forum is intended to be an asylum (in the sense of a safe haven) for those emotionally defective who style themselves as "skeptics".
• Some people, being more emotionally defective than others, have difficulty expressing themselves calmly, coherently, or even civilly.
• It would be the height of callousness to berate a mental patient for their mental defects; so to is it offensive in the extreme to take a member of the A+ forums to task for uncivil nature of their rants.
• Thus the A+ forums take on the character of an asylum (in the sense of a facility catering to the insane), full of inmates and their caretakers.
• Only, their caretakers are some horrible, fascinating montage of Nurse Ratched, the asylum staff from Sucker Punch, and the inmates themselves.
• As asylums go, it ends up being something like Arkham with the Joker in charge.

 

[Zelenius]

After some little cogitation, I've reached the following conclusions:

• That the A+ forum is intended to be an asylum (in the sense of a safe haven) for those emotionally defective who style themselves as "skeptics".
• Some people, being more emotionally defective than others, have difficulty expressing themselves calmly, coherently, or even civilly.
• It would be the height of callousness to berate a mental patient for their mental defects; so to is it offensive in the extreme to take a member of the A+ forums to task for uncivil nature of their rants.
• Thus the A+ forums take on the character of an asylum (in the sense of a facility catering to the insane), full of inmates and their caretakers.
• Only, their caretakers are some horrible, fascinating montage of Nurse Ratched, the asylum staff from Sucker Punch, and the inmates themselves.
• As asylums go, it ends up being something like Arkham with the Joker in charge.

I have nothing to add to this except to say that you summed up A+ perfectly!

 

[recursive prophet]

@stout: lol, I forgot about that. Back when I somehow decided to join the protests in FM was the only time I used to dread seeing my PM light flashing here. Always assumed-and was mostly right-it was an AAH or infraction notice. I learned, and now avoid the games in the basement.

@The Prestige: The best humor always contains elements of truth. Very funny post.

@qwints: Thanks for your replies, both here and at A+. Don't mean to be a nag but I'd really appreciate knowing if you believe A+ is moderated in a rational way. I asked about your overall impressions in my earlier post. You come across as a reasonable person, which is exactly why I want to see how you explain what YOU see going on there. As you can see from reading this thread there are precious few who don't see it as both weird and extremely hostile.

 

[The Big Dog]

Civility isn't necessarily related to the truth or value of a point. As an example, Penn Jillette said some very vile things about John Edward in the first episode of his Showtime show. His profane personal attacks weren't less valid for being uncivil. Similarly, a psychic spouting woo is a psychic spouting woo regardless of how civil their language is.

I've got no problem with there being spaces, like the JREF forum, where civility is enforced to ensure broad access. I also understand that, if you're going to require civility, you have to require it for everyone. On the other hand, it's harder for some people to be civil about a topic than others. I don't see the value in requiring a target of, for example, racism to be civil when responding to a racist who is politely just asking questions about the equality of the races. I don't speak for the atheismplus forum, but it has made clear that it values many things over such civil debate.

BRO! Great *********** post, I was thinking to my *********** self I can't wait until some mother ********** cuts the *********** bull **** and started telling it *********** like it *********** really is. I think to my *********** self, "hey douchebag, when you gonna **** and get off the pot, stop being a *********** hand bag and BRING the *********** logic"! That is what I *********** said because when it comes to civil debate, I say **** that *********** ******

Great *********** post!

 

[Doctor Plop]

BRO! Great *********** post, I was thinking to my *********** self I can't wait until some mother ********** cuts the *********** bull **** and started telling it *********** like it *********** really is. I think to my *********** self, "hey douchebag, when you gonna **** and get off the pot, stop being a *********** hand bag and BRING the *********** logic"! That is what I *********** said because when it comes to civil debate, I say **** that *********** ******

Great *********** post!

16.5 swears in that post.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Atheism Plus

16.5 swears in that post.

Yes he does. That's what the asterisks mean.

 

[qwints]

And what would be the benefit of that incivility? Do you think that the racist in question is injured by the incivility? Will the racist think, "gosh, my polite questions pissed someone off, maybe I'm wrong?" Will the myriad third parties watching the exchange decide that the racism must be incorrect because someone responds with a lack of self-control?


I'm baffled as to why A+'s priorities should be incompatible with civil debate.

My reply to both of these is similar - the benefit of allowing incivility is that enforcing civil debate prioritizes civility over truth. Anger is a valid response to injustice and requiring people to suppress their anger to that injustice distorts discourse. In addition, civility has the potential to favor the status quo.

So the goal of allowing angry and harsh language is not to achieve anything with that language, but rather to avoid excluding or invalidating viewpoints expressed in that language. The weakest part of my argument is probably the claim that people personally affected by a subject are most likely to express their view with harsh language. I don't have good evidence for that claim, but if you accept that premise then I believe that you have to accept that excluding uncivil arguments tends to exclude the very people closest to the problem.

I'd really appreciate knowing if you believe A+ is moderated in a rational way.

I do.The moderation does come from a particular point of view and places a very high value on deterring perceived trolls, but I certainly understand the motivations behind the vast majority of moderator actions. There have been a couple of very major screw-ups that have been extensively discussed both on atheismplus and elsewhere. If you understand that the goal of the forum is to create a community based around certain beliefs about reality rather than a place for open discussion or debate, then I think most of it makes sense.