Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
recursive prophet said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you apologizing for? You used a syntax that you don't normally use by omitting a verb and changed the spelling of "that" to a phonetic spelling of "dat". What were you trying to sound like?
 
RandFan said:
Stout posted it above.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

And... Ow.

I forced myself to get to the end of the first page, but after that... I couldn't read any more couldn't stop myself from Tone Policing the rest of the thread.

ETA: Though I must admit I was stricken by Eowyn's assertion of privilege, at having a more correct analysis due to her multilingual/multicultural childhood experiences.

I guess on A+, some privilege is more equal than others. I, too, had a multilingual/multicultural childhood, but what it gave me was a broader, more flexible, more adaptable, more productive approach to linguistic/cultural idiosyncrasie. I guess I was privileged by the experience, but Eowyn was vicimized*.

I guess if this were A+, I'd need a trigger tag for UK members who think "victimised", and a full-paragraph disclosure in my sig, explaining that while I prefer the American spelling, I don't mean to assert Ugly American Privilege, and I fully respect anyone who prefers the UK spelling.

On second thought, I should probably just spell it "victimise", and avoid the whole problem of UAP in the first place. Plus, as a South African, Buckle probably uses the UK spelling anyway, so me adopting it would certainly soothe Eowyn's ruffled feathers.

Wait, am I allowed to suggest that another member might have certain preferences, based on their apparent cultural/ethnic background? Eowyn certainly is, but she seems to be part of the in-group. Maybe I should just shut up. That seems to suit A+ just fine.













Incidentally, what would happen if I registered, lurked for six months, and then started posting in line with the in-group's values? Would I be welcomed? Or would I be called out as some sort of bad-faith noob who has been lurking for six months before posting, clearly for nefarious purposes?
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
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?
Click to expand...

What lured me there was the idea that it would be a great place to delve deeper into issues because there is a certain amount of base agreement. That is to say, hear all the voices in LGBT, feminist, anti-racist, etc. concerns without the constant need to debate those commitments in the first place.

For whoever said I was a troll, this was my first and only thread over there from back in November. The only feedback I received was the classic doctrine of "marriage historically treats women as property" and then a polygamy sidetrack. I didn't feel that anyone cared about non-Eurocentric history or critically examining the established standard-bearers of The Movement or deeply looking at the issues beyond what was already agreed upon.

And then I stopped posting until the vegan thread. The place is dreadfully slow.
 
From the A+ Membership Agreement

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Atheism+” is hosted or International Law.
Click to expand...

Insert non-threatening laughing-dog-doing-a-jaw-drop smiley.
 
qwints said:
You're right that posters have been deterred by harsh language and personal attacks. That's a problem I and others have posted about. The question becomes how to differentiate mere profane or harsh language with "deliberately hurtful" aka abusive language. Some members you've cited in this thread have been moderated for some of their language, and I've seen a real change in their posting over the last few months. They've also demonstrated a willingness to listen and adapt when confronted by moderators in a way that many banned posters have not.
Click to expand...

You need to check your privilage and quit bansplaining.
 
Qwints,
Evidently A+ recognizes that people "argue" or "debate". Piegasm even saw fit to publish a guideline on how to not "avoid giving the appearance of arguing in bad faith". (I do love that "giving the appearance" part, when one thinks about it.)

Ah but...., under Item 3b, it's pretty clear that they're not broking debate, argument or even discussion. You're assumed to be wrong by the mere fact that you're arguing with the opinions of the holy or holies, evidently.

Bolding mine.

The A+ Guide to Good Faith
by piegasm » Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:01 pm

The following are some guidelines for how to avoid giving the appearance of arguing in bad faith based on suggestions made in this thread. These are not rules per se; just a list of things that are likely to set off troll alarm bells. Arguing in bad faith is grounds for moderator action so these items should be regarded as strong suggestions.

DO:
1. Ask questions rather than spout opinions.
2. Lurk Moar. Learn the standards and conventions of our community before getting involved in conversations, especially ones that are already contentious.
3. a) Explicitly state what you would deem acceptable evidence.
b) When your criteria have been met, accept that you are likely wrong and try to reformulate your opinion based on this new information.
Click to expand...

I've seen cults that are less dogmatic than these folk!

ETA: In terms of the diversion factor, I find it like that TV/Movie Memes site. You think you're going to look up one thing, but keep getting distracted by reference to something else and go looking for that, and pretty soon another hour has gone by. (Luckily I'm baking, so I have 40/50 minute periods when I have that time on hand. If I was back in an office environment, I'd be getting nothing done.)
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read and very much enjoyed Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers that delved quite deeply into secularist and atheist involvement with various social justice movements since the founding of this nation. Never once, however, did she refer to anyone a troll, mansplainer, human urinal or any of various permutations of epithets starting with the letter F.
--------------------

Trigger Warning: Coy Disingenuousness!

qwints said:
What are you apologizing for? You used a syntax that you don't normally use by omitting a verb and changed the spelling of "that" to a phonetic spelling of "dat". What were you trying to sound like?
Click to expand...

These "questions" are so transparent you're not fooling anyone, least of all RC.
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
What are you apologizing for? You used a syntax that you don't normally use by omitting a verb and changed the spelling of "that" to a phonetic spelling of "dat". What were you trying to sound like?
Click to expand...

How A+ will read after they have driven off all who in any way disagree with them, that's all. The implication is it will start to look like a Baptist revival with everyone saying amen and nodding in agreement.

How about addressing some of my other points? I know you're getting kind of bombarded here, but I would like your opinion on some who were silenced like nullnvoid, wind, mood2, and myself to name just a few.

Stick around A+ long enough and your time may come. All there are only a off comment or 2 away from being deemed a troll. Seems A+ draws them like flies. ;)
 
qwints said:
Have you heard about this crazy new religion called math? I hear they use theories by mere reference rather then prove them every time they use them. I even hear they use postulates!
Click to expand...
I think the difference is that mathematicians are able to prove their conclusions when challenged.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Trigger warning: Insensitive comment ahead
Click to expand...
You need a trigger warning on your trigger warning ... posted in a colour other than red. ;)
 
Language tangent: What's with spelling "more" as "moar" when it's the last word in a two-word command? "Lurk moar," "Read moar," etc.? Is it some social justice meme that I'm too old, too unhip,* or too privileged to get?

*ETA: What's the social justice stance on the Oxford comma? Is it a good thing because it makes comma distribution more egalitarian? Or is it a bad thing because it brings to mind Oxford University, the OED, and other such bastions of privilege and status quo?
 
Last edited:
Quinn said:
Language tangent: What's with spelling "more" as "moar" when it's the last word in a two-word command? "Lurk moar," "Read moar," etc.? Is it some social justice meme that I'm too old, too unhip or too privileged to get?
Click to expand...

It's the same idea as "pwn" or "teh" and probably came from 4chan.

Check the "know your meme" website.
 
Quote:
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Atheism+” is hosted or International Law.
Click to expand...

So, according to that, if you read it one way, you may not post any sexually orientated material that may violate the laws of your country. So if you are gay posting from a country where that sexual orientation is illegal you may not post about it.


Who writes this stuff? It doesn't even make grammatical sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom