Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[recursive prophet]

twigger

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.

And how do you determine what is just? You're willing to suppress my preference for PM's, and express my objections to having to respond to insulting questions posed by ceepolk. She suspended me for a month and then went on to disparage my motives and call me excrement after taking away my ability to reply. Is that the kind of justice you're talking about?

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.

So by virtue of having been abused, they now have the right to become abusers? What of those bullied irl being attacked online by a group employing the language patterns of street thugs? I really want to see you defend the idea that getting even a very positive unsolicited PM could cause severe psychic trauma while the aggressive, bullying pile-on's that we see so frequently at A+ are OK.

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.

Could you give me a very specific definition for the word troll as used on A+? I agree with what I bolded above, but how it makes sense alludes me. Do you somehow not see how similar this is to theism? No nibbles from the fruit of knowledge for the faithful, right? You have your beliefs, and they are interpreted daily by your mod pastors with about the same ambiguity and consistency one finds on biblical quote debates.

So please qwint. Explain the above, and also give me the A+ working definition of debate. It's also verboten, but I can give you many examples of how it was interpreted very differently for different people. Likely embarrassed by the size of the ban list now they suspend for long periods and don't really let anyone know. No list of suspensions as is done here and at every other site. And yeah, I know. A+ is special. What escapes me is how you see it going in any positive directions. Roughly 95% of the members there have voted with their mouse/touch-pads. Do you really believe a tent this tiny and shrinking can continue to motivate any to post on forums where everyone thinks exactly as they do?

Yep, yep, right on, amen brother. We all on da same page. Why bother to turn to the next one? Reality is based only on our experience and what we believe is our truth and don't anybody dare question it or you're gone! Keep da faith!

 

[qwints]

Why do you reference "steet thugs"? What is the point of the syntax of this line: "We all on da same page."?

And how do you determine what is just?

Sentimentalism. I compare my moral sentiments about reality with other people's and apply a recursive process to arrive at coherent ethical positions.

You're willing to suppress my preference for PM's

I'm willing to participate in a forum that does so without arguing about it.

So by virtue of having been abused, they now have the right to become abusers?

No. They do not.

I really want to see you defend the idea that getting even a very positive unsolicited PM could cause severe psychic trauma while the aggressive, bullying pile-on's that we see so frequently at A+ are OK.

I see you still don't believe the people who say that getting an unsolicited PM are harmed them. My evidence that people are harmed by pms is the people who say they're harmed by pm's. Even if they're lying about that, so what?

I don't believe that bullying or verbal abuse is ok, and I've posted about that on atheismplus.

Could you give me a very specific definition for the word troll as used on A+?

Someone not engaging in good faith. It's used much more broadly than it is on other sites.

Do you somehow not see how similar this is to theism? No nibbles from the fruit of knowledge for the faithful, right?

No, I do not see how participating in a heavily moderated forum is akin to belief in a diety.

Explain the above, and also give me the A+ working definition of debate.

Arguing as an intellectual exercise to prove your opponent wrong rather than trying to communicate.

 

[hodgy]

qwintz - can you explain why its called 'atheism+'?

Why are you trying to appropriate my general intellectual position on gods (the lack of) for political purposes? Surely you are SJ+ or FTB+ or whatever? This is my main objection to that organisation. A+ deliberately hijacks a real philosophical / logical position for its own dubious ends.

Go and get your own banner that suits your political gesturing but please don't tar the rest of us with it.

 

[hodgy]

Arguing as an intellectual exercise to prove your opponent wrong rather than trying to communicate.

Whereas in the A+ forum any attempt to 'communicate' is simply howled down, no proof or debate required. By the way - what's wrong with 'intellectual exercise', you say it as if its a bad thing? Can you elaborate on that position?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Sentimentalism. I compare my moral sentiments about reality with other people's and apply a recursive process to arrive at coherent ethical positions.

Could you give an example of this, please?

I see you still don't believe the people who say that getting an unsolicited PM are harmed them. My evidence that people are harmed by pms is the people who say they're harmed by pm's. Even if they're lying about that, so what?

I think you're trying to draw attention away from the real issue.

I don't believe that bullying or verbal abuse is ok, and I've posted about that on atheismplus.

Do you believe that bullying/verbal abuse is common on A+?

Someone not engaging in good faith. It's used much more broadly than it is on other sites.

I think that calling them "trolls" is a mistake, because it creates confusion. Besides, how can you tell whether or not someone is engaging in good faith? You can't read their mind? "Intent is not magic", right? (Unless I am misunderstanding what that phrase means...)

Arguing as an intellectual exercise to prove your opponent wrong rather than trying to communicate.

"Trying to communicate" for what purpose? To persuade the other speaker?

 

[RandFan]

No, I do not see how participating in a heavily moderated forum is akin to belief in a diety.

Can you see that it is group think and antithetical to skepticism and critical thinking?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

At A+, inadvertently causing hurt (by, say, using a limerick rhyme-scheme) is unacceptable, but deliberately causing hurt is okay?

What's the limerick thing about? I missed that.

 

[Stout]

What's the limerick thing about? I missed that.

The tl:dr is

Someone wrote a limerick, presumably a man, about another posters frustration with the banking industry. The poster who the limerick was about didn't have any objections to this..

But whoaaaaaaaah there, this is A+ so someone had to go all analytical to find fault.

First, the very concepts of limericks was called out, you know, the sex
Second, the word wanker was used, and yep, the sex
Third someone had to go so far as to whine about the term "young lady" with all the baggage that comes with growing boobs, yeps the sex again.

Five pages of classic A+ awaits your guffaws.

 

[bedlin88]

What's the limerick thing about? I missed that.

Someone made a limerick, that one of the in-group said offended them. There was much hullabaloo about nothing ending with the suspension, (maybe banning I don't remember and am not bothered to look) of the limerick writer.

Edit- Dang Stout beat me to it!

 

[recursive prophet]

Why do you reference "steet thugs"? What is the point of the syntax of this line: "We all on da same page."?

I apologize for my facetious last paragraph on what a site that limits it's membership to those totally in tune with the beliefs of a small group would read like. Earlier I made the reference to street thugs as it is their vernacular with which ceepolk and others there employ when attacking others who's views they find in any way offensive. Very aggressive and full of obscenities.

Sentimentalism. I compare my moral sentiments about reality with other people's and apply a recursive process to arrive at coherent ethical positions.

And having done so how certain are you that the conclusions you reached on what is just in a given situation are in any way absolute? We choose friends who share our values. Echo effect? Misinterpretation of another's intent? Or do you agree with Setar et al that intent is irrelevant?

I see you still don't believe the people who say that getting an unsolicited PM are harmed them. My evidence that people are harmed by pms is the people who say they're harmed by pm's. Even if they're lying about that, so what? I don't believe that bullying or verbal abuse is ok, and I've posted about that on atheismplus.

I bold ed your presupposition above because in fact I can see where some very paranoid folks might be harmed by an usolicited PM on a message board. What I can't grok is why they can't just block PM's and how receiving such a request in public would be a better solution. If they simply blocked all PM's as Sun Countess does they would never even be frightened by knowing someone wanted to 'follow them onto the garage parking lot" lol. So how is it better? Also, do you really believe getting any kind of PM would be as likely to trigger someone's anxiety and do them harm more than being piled on aggressively then banned when they attempt to defend themselves? Did you follow the link to my last post? Agree I deserved to be suspended for saying I wouldn't respond further to ceepolk's insults and then flamed again after it was no longer even possible to respond?

Someone not engaging in good faith. It's used much more broadly than it is on other sites.

Have you won awards in Britain for understatement? More broadly? They are Texas sharp shooters, my friend. They fire off a few rounds into the barn then draw targets around wherever the bullets hit.

No, I do not see how participating in a heavily moderated forum is akin to belief in a diety.

Yet you continue to use the words faith and belief in your rebuttals, as I emphasized in my last reply. Your belief that reality is what you and recursively your friends deem it to be? Arguing in good faith? Do you believe I am doing so here, or just getting my 15 minutes daily of intellectual exercise instead of understanding your reasoning? Why would I and others here do that?

Arguing as an intellectual exercise to prove your opponent wrong rather than trying to communicate.

How can you parse this, or ever be sure? Unless you disagree about something there is no argument. I reject your position that A+ is anything close to a rationally moderated website. For communicating that thought would you ban me if you had the authority to do so? Do you have any doubt that had I tried to make this case there I would quickly be given a vacation and banned if I continued to disagree on my return? Look at the record there and then tell me I'm wrong.

Thanks again qwints for being the only active poster at A+ who supports the staff's methodology who has had the chutzpah to try and defend it here or anywhere within the atheist and skeptic communities. I find the power clique there appalling to the point of becoming a laugh or cry issue, and I generally lean toward humor. So I'll honor you with this first ever Twigger Alert! For here is my prophecy. When someone actually reads all the ongoing parody at TR and word gets out at A+, some-the one PM would devastate me for days crowd for sure-will be so stressed out at seeing the letters TR together as in TRIGGER, that use of them in conjunction will be forbidden in the A+ rules. Twanquility twiangulated.

 

[RandFan]

This would be a good time to promote PCU.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

First, the very concepts of limericks was called out, you know, the sex
Second, the word wanker was used, and yep, the sex
Third someone had to go so far as to whine about the term "young lady" with all the baggage that comes with growing boobs, yeps the sex again.

Five pages of classic A+ awaits your guffaws.

WOW, that escalated quickly! If anybody thinks that you're exaggerating about A+, this is the thread to point them to.

 

[Daald]

My evidence that people are harmed by pms is the people who say they're harmed by pm's.

Do you take people's word for everything? If yes why not the theist word that god exists? If not why this time? How do you defend against the fact that those people have very easy methods to avoid PMs?

Can you not see how such thoughts are counter to skepticism?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The tl:dr is

Someone wrote a limerick, presumably a man, about another posters frustration with the banking industry. The poster who the limerick was about didn't have any objections to this..

But whoaaaaaaaah there, this is A+ so someone had to go all analytical to find fault.

First, the very concepts of limericks was called out, you know, the sex
Second, the word wanker was used, and yep, the sex
Third someone had to go so far as to whine about the term "young lady" with all the baggage that comes with growing boobs, yeps the sex again.

Five pages of classic A+ awaits your guffaws.

WOW, that escalated quickly! If anybody thinks that you're exaggerating about A+, this is the thread to point them to.

Trigger warning: Insensitive comment ahead

Like I said earlier, the jokes write themselves.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Here's what I don't understand. Why would you post in A+ at all unless you were either A) a troll, or B) a social justice nutjob? If you don't know what you're getting into, that's one thing. But I get the impression that these people already know about A+'s reputation...don't they?

If I were Robert_S, I wouldn't have stayed around and argued. I would've thought "Wow, these people are clearly insane. This is a total waste of time.", and then left. When somebody gets called a sexual harasser for posting a fairly innocuous poem on a website, you're not dealing with reasonable, rational people. Nothing good can come out of a debate about this. That kind of crazy is not going to back down or change its mind.

Maybe it's the Internet. People can't bear to feel like they've lost an argument. They can't bear to let the other person have the last word. You've got to make your case!

But if you're in a debate like that, you've already lost. You're not going to persuade the people you're arguing with. Any onlookers who aren't crazy are already on your side. So, just get out of there.

Life is too short.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Atheism Plus

Wow, that limerick thread is classic.

If I were trying to parody them I'd never come up with anything that extreme.

 

[theprestige]

Wow, that limerick thread is classic.

If I were trying to parody them I'd never come up with anything that extreme.

Link?

 

[RandFan]

Link?

Stout posted it above.

The tl:dr is

Someone wrote a limerick, presumably a man, about another posters frustration with the banking industry. The poster who the limerick was about didn't have any objections to this..

But whoaaaaaaaah there, this is A+ so someone had to go all analytical to find fault.

First, the very concepts of limericks was called out, you know, the sex
Second, the word wanker was used, and yep, the sex
Third someone had to go so far as to whine about the term "young lady" with all the baggage that comes with growing boobs, yeps the sex again.

Five pages of classic A+ awaits your guffaws.

 

[qwints]

qwintz - can you explain why its called 'atheism+'? ... Why are you trying to appropriate my general intellectual position on gods (the lack of) for political purposes?

Why "brights?" Why CSICOP? Branding. The idea is that its atheism plus other value beliefs - social justice probably being the most prominent. There's a very long history of the association of atheism with social justice - look at Thomas Paine or Robert Ingersoll. I don't know if I could meaningfully distinguish the values of atheism+ from organized humanism.

By the way - what's wrong with 'intellectual exercise', you say it as if its a bad thing? Can you elaborate on that position?

Absolutely nothing, it certainly has its time and place. But debating and discussion are separate endeavors.

Could you give an example of this, please?

and @recursive prophet:

It's a fairly well known philisophical position going back to Adam Smith and David Hume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimentalism_(philosophy). Basically, it asserts that our moral sense is like our aesthetic sense - we feel wrongness or rightness when we percieve something the same way we perceive beauty. It also claims that we can construct a coherent theory of ethics from our collective moral sentiments. But we don't just stop at initail impressions of events, we are also capable of conducting thought experiments and examining our moral sentiments about those thought experiments. So if I see a person hurting another and feel that it's wrong, and I talk to others and we feel its wrong, and we think about how we'd feel if the situation was altered, then we can come to ethical principles. Then we can examine our intiution about those ethical principles themselves, and try to test them for coherence with other ethical principles. Baier's Moral Prejudices is a great recent work, Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a foundational work.

Do you believe that bullying/verbal abuse is common on A+?

No, if I did I wouldn't post there.

Besides, how can you tell whether or not someone is engaging in good faith? You can't read their mind? "Intent is not magic", right? (Unless I am misunderstanding what that phrase means...)

Fair point. I'd agree that the moderators have been very quick to see ill intent as a result of frequent, obvious trolling when the forum began (as in the posters would either explicity state they were trolling or start posting porn/gore photos). When in Rome. (Intent is not magic just means that harm is harm regardless of whether it was intended to be harmful).

Have you won awards in Britain for understatement? More broadly? They are Texas sharp shooters, my friend.

Stephen Abootman: You'll regret this day, friend!

Phillip: I'm not your friend, buddih!

Stephen Abootman: I'm not your buddih, guy!

Terrance: He's not your guy, friend!

Stephen Abootman: I'm not your friend, buddih!

Terrance & Phillip: We're not your buddih, guy!

Stephen Abootman: I'm not your guy, friend!

Do you take people's word for everything? If yes why not the theist word that god exists? If not why this time? How do you defend against the fact that those people have very easy methods to avoid PMs?

Can you not see how such thoughts are counter to skepticism?

No, I believe people when they report their internal experiences. "god exists" is an external claim. I believe their claims about their internal experiences, just not their conclusions about what it means about the universe. I respect people's request that I ask before I pm them, and I don't see a reason not to.

 

[theprestige]

In other words I'm saying that it is consistent to both "apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything" and not provide a space for debating the validity of well-established facts. The forum provides links to a great deal of material explaining the reasoning and evidence behind various conclusions that are used as short hand. It is true that people who start arguing against those conclusions without addressing those justifications tend to get short shrift and quickly be labeled trolls.

No. Whatever ideal you are trying to express here, it has been badly perverted at the A+ forums.

I offer, for comparison,
a very similar discussion forum

Like A+:

• It has a posted body of scripture that should be read before questioning the established beliefs of the forum.
• It has many dissenters who have not (and usually will not) read the body of scripture.
• It has regulars who will relentlessly question, test, and reject participants who dissent from the established beliefs and posted scriptures.

Unlike A+:

• Having not read the scriptures is not grounds for banning or ignoring a dissenter.
• Instead, the regulars are prompt to bring relevant scriptural passages explicitly into the discussion, both to demonstrate the defects in the dissent, and to educate the membership (who may not all be completely familiar with the holy text entire).
• Persistent, willful ignorance on the part of the dissenter naturally invites a certain amount of open ridicule, but is generally welcomed as an opportunity to further expound on the scriptures and further educate the membership.
• Dissent is usually taken in good faith, for as long as good faith can be charitably imputed. Protestations of good faith are usually accepted at face value.
• Profanity is never considered a useful or even neutral component of a valid argument.

Orthogonal to A+:

• The subject matter is an exhaustively-documented matter of established physical fact. Therefore, unlike the sociological and cultural topics often discussed on A+, it's extremely unlikely that any dissenter will have a valid argument.
• Due to the established nature of the subject matter, good faith dissent is unlikely in the extreme. A typical dissenter is almost certainly not interested in reading the scriptures, not capable of accepting counter-arguments, and willfully opposed to reason and facts.

These last two points bear further consideration. On A+, the topics under discussion are often much less well-established, and still much more subject to further analysis and refinement, than on the forum I allude to.

If the members of that forum are willing to entertain and educate on a topic for which no reasoned dissent is possible; how much more so should A+ be willing to entertain and educate on topics which are far less well-established?

And likewise, if the members of that forum are willing to entertain and educate dissenters who by definition are willful, ignorant trolls; how much more so should A+ be willing to entertain and educate people who may actually be open to reason and teaching?

If I tell you, "orbital mechanics does not work that way, figure it out or get banned", that would, in the context of the immutable science of orbital mechanics, be a harsh but reasonable response.

But if I tell you, "social justice does not work that way, figure it out or get banned", is that really reasonable? Do you really think that the A+ concept of social justice, embodied in their holy scriptures, is so well established that any dissent may reasonably be rejected out of hand?

Do you really think that the A+ concept of social justice is so well understood, that its members would not benefit from further exposition, in the context of unpacking and refuting dissenting arguments?

Do you really think that the A+ concept of social justice is so complete in its development, that no dissenting arguments are possible, and that none should be considered?

Because I don't. As far as I can tell, the A+ scriptures are a subset of the body of knowledge, selected through confirmation bias by people who have already made up their minds, and whose idea of a "safe space" is "a place where nobody questions my understanding".

Compare the role the scriptures play in dealing with dissent on the forum I allude to, versus the A+ forum. I think it's clear that the former is a clear example of skeptical debate, and that the latter is a perversion of skepticism.