Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[AlBell]

...

Like I said earlier, the jokes write themselves.

Written by jokes who don't know that's what they are.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Well, it's awkward, grammatically but I think the OR is the key word. It should, I believe, be two sentences.

You may not post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated material. You may not post any material that may violate the laws of.... your/our country.

It's catchall boilerplate legal disclaimerese. They probably got it from the software vendor.

 

[Stout]

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.

Does that ever happen, where you bring together a bunch of "special interest" groups for an extended period of time and nobody attempts to use one -ism to trump another -ism ?

Say, on your example about gay marriage, we all know why the gay community wants to get married, it's to normalize homosexual relationships rather than remaining outliers by holding something like a commitment ceremony. But...a feminist is bound to barge in to try delegitimize the concept of marriage and, of course, the fireworks are bound to result.

Take what happened on Aplus's "backpacker girl" thread where a feminist came in looking for feminist input on a topic and was instantly jumped by trans/genderqueer activists and, no doubt left in disgust. One -ism vs another.

Great entertainment for the onlookers however in the long run, nobody benefited from that conversation.

 

[luchog]

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?

From what I can see, quite a few of the A+ in-group could stand to exercise their intellects a bit more, they seem to be atrophying.

 

[Daald]

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.

Asking you to change your behavior because of some logic is an external claim. They are imposing their will on the world around them by externalizing their internal belief. In other words their belief is informing their action. You are not a critical thinker or a skeptic if you accept that on just the person's words.

Imagine religious people started asking you to do mundane things. How about bowing your head every time you pass one of their institutions so you do not offend them. You do not have to believe in god but you not bowing your head is offensive to them. By your logic you have to accede to that request.

ETA: When I say you are not a critical thinker or skeptic, I mean you are not a critical thinker or skeptic toward that claim. Of course we can't all be critical thinkers and skeptics about everything but we should respond when it is pointed out to us.

 

[luchog]

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.

If nothing else, it's one of the best illustrations of the GIFT currently available. One wonders how these people actually interact in real life.

 

[qwints]

I think the difference is that mathematicians are able to prove their conclusions when challenged.

That's a key issue - but refusing to address every challenge to one's conclusions or not giving space to some types of challenges means does not indicate a lack of ability to prove one's conclusions. Do you think biologists who refuse to debate creationists are unable to give evidence for evolution by natural selection?

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.

You choice of syntax makes me think you were specifically talking about people who talk in African-American English. References to the "vernacular" of "street thugs" are also common among people disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.

I would like your opinion on some who were silenced like nullnvoid, wind, mood2, and myself to name just a few.

I don't really have an opinion on nullnvoid or mood2. You were ignoring other poster's talking about their personal experiences and attacked a moderator who called you on it, so I thought moderation was appropriate. 3 months seems overly long to me.

I feel bad about what happened with wind(kellyb). Kellyb, I understand why you made people uncomfortable, and I also heard what you said about feeling betrayed and excluded. I felt the response towards you was harmful, and I privately messaged the mods about it.

Generally, I agree that there have been a number of false positives - people who've been warned or banned by moderators who probably had good intentions. Most members aren't willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to new arrivals. That's a direct result of unequivocal trolling from the beginning of the forum

How about bowing your head every time you pass one of their institutions so you do not offend them. You do not have to believe in god but you not bowing your head is offensive to them. By your logic you have to accede to that request.

I do believe them when they say it's offensive to them. A related example is the person who makes a claim that something external causes an internal experience when it demonstrably does not - I believe the reports of what a dowser's internal experience is but I don't believe them when they say what it means. And of course, people could be lying.

But believing their personal experiences in no way implies I have to accede to any of their requests based on those experiences. I know there are people offended by the very fact of my atheism, I believe they are offended and I feel no obligation to do anything to prevent them from being offended.

 

[Mashuna]

That's a key issue - but refusing to address every challenge to one's conclusions or not giving space to some types of challenges means does not indicate a lack of ability to prove one's conclusions. Do you think biologists who refuse to debate creationists are unable to give evidence for evolution by natural selection?

No, but I do think that creationists who refuse to debate biologists are unable to support their assertions. They're much more likely to just shout them down and then ban them from their forums.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You choice of syntax makes me think you were specifically talking about people who talk in African-American English. References to the "vernacular" of "street thugs" are also common among people disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.

This certainly proves you're really from A+. This sort of self-righteous, vapid deconstruction of a user's posts to try to create racism that isn't there is exactly what demonstrates that you guys are evil bullies rather than posting in "good faith."

Also, good job putting words in quotes that he didn't actually say. You couldn't be more dishonest if you took a course in it.

 

[Daald]

I do believe them when they say it's offensive to them. A related example is the person who makes a claim that something external causes an internal experience when it demonstrably does not - I believe the reports of what a dowser's internal experience is but I don't believe them when they say what it means. And of course, people could be lying.

But believing their personal experiences in no way implies I have to accede to any of their requests based on those experiences. I know there are people offended by the very fact of my atheism, I believe they are offended and I feel no obligation to do anything to prevent them from being offended.

Then why do you accede to the people in the A+ forums who say that they find PMs disturbing and as such you have to go through this process to talk to anyone else in their forums? I see a double standard.

 

[Senor_Pointy]

Atheism Plus

The question becomes how to differentiate mere profane or harsh language with "deliberately hurtful" aka abusive language.

But hasn't this question already been answered? You said it yourself:

(Intent is not magic just means that harm is harm regardless of whether it was intended to be harmful).

Is intent magic in this case? Shouldn't any hurtful language be treated the same as deliberately hurtful language?

I fully realize that these are their definitions and not necessarily your own personal views, and I appreciate the time and effort you've put into arguing for them here. I agree that they can run their forum however they want, but they seem to have fallen into the same traps that plague a lot of Internet social justice activism.

For many months I was an avid follower of "social justice culture" on the Internet, largely on blogs, tumblr, and livejournal, but in the end it had the exact same problems people here are taking issue with. When I initially heard about A+ I was unaware of any of the history behind it (as far as RW, JM, "Elevatorgate" a TAM), and I was honestly hopeful that it could help bring some skepticism to the issue and do real good. It's disappointing that the same behavior seems to have infected it early on.

Have you had any experiences with internet social justice activism before A+? If so, how would you compare them to it?

 

[Doctor Plop]

One -ism vs another.

Now you're just being ismist.

 

[The Big Dog]

This certainly proves you're really from A+. This sort of self-righteous, vapid deconstruction of a user's posts to try to create racism that isn't there is exactly what demonstrates that you guys are evil bullies rather than posting in "good faith."

Also, good job putting words in quotes that he didn't actually say. You couldn't be more dishonest if you took a course in it.

Specially, because Dat is da way everbawdee talks in Chi-cawgo

Sounds to me like somebody is Chicago-splaining

 

[qwints]

Avalon, I've underlined the parts I was referencing. Why do you think recursiveprophet is talking about street thugs and changing his syntax when he mocks the atheistplus site?

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.

...
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!

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.

Then why do you accede to the people in the A+ forums who say that they find PMs disturbing and as such you have to go through this process to talk to anyone else in their forums?

Asking permission before pm'ing doesn't bother me. Receiving pm's without permission bothers some. Obsequiousness to religion in the public square does bother me. I've concluded that the offense caused by members of a religion not having their religion deferred to in public spaces is outweighed by the harm deferring to religion in public does. I do respect some religious customs when I enter into private spaces or choose not to enter those spaces rather than comply with those customs.

Is intent magic in this case? Shouldn't any hurtful language be treated the same as deliberately hurtful language?

No, it's not a special case. Hurtful language should be stopped regardless of whether it was intended to be hurtful. Later responses to the speaker may be influenced by the speaker's intent, but the immediate response should be to stop the hurtful language.

The question is: what's hurtful? Expressing anger or passion is not inherently hurtful nor is profanity in general. Members have been called out for personal attacks on others. Personal abuse is hurtful, and I've spoken out when I've seen the moderators fail to address it.

Have you had any experiences with internet social justice activism before A+? If so, how would you compare them to it?

Not a lot, no.

 

[kellyb]

Hey quints, could you respond to this? (I'm honestly curious what you think):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8959107&postcount=3195

 

[AvalonXQ]

Atheism Plus

Avalon, I've underlined the parts I was referencing. Why do you think recursiveprophet is talking about street thugs and changing his syntax when he mocks the atheistplus site?

He already explained that "language of street thugs" was in reference to ceepok's aggressive, profanity ridden bullying while the slang comment was a reference to Southern Baptist congregational preaching. Your assumption that either is distinctively black is simply a show of ignorance on your part and a blatant attempt to accuse RP of racism.

It's dishonest, nasty, and highly characteristic of A+ thuggery. Give it up; it won't work here.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Minor derail: I found a solution that works for me. Anytime I see a blog post or a forum entry that starts with the words 'Trigger warning' (or similar A+ jargon) I know to skip. Its a trigger warning to avoid... nonsense.

 

[qwints]

Which discussion is more basic/starting from scratch?

1) the demonstrating/saying "Hey! S&F disproportionately targets minorities!" discussion

or...

2) the "S&F targets minorities, sending nonviolent offenders to jail, etc CYCLE"

...discussion.

I think it's important to learn and talk about both issues, and I don't think those conversations have to stay separate. But, to move away from my poorly chosen example, can you understand how someone explaining the causes of a problem doesn't make that problem go away? And can you understand why someone who is talking about how a problem personally affects them could be alienated by people without personal experience changing the subject to a dispassionate analysis of the system?

 

[kellyb]

I think it's important to learn and talk about both issues, and I don't think those conversations have to stay separate. But, to move away from my poorly chosen example, can you understand how someone explaining the causes of a problem doesn't make that problem go away? And can you understand why someone who is talking about how a problem personally affects them could be alienated by people without personal experience changing the subject to a dispassionate analysis of the system?

Regarding #1 - Not entirely. In order to enthusiastically advocate real solutions, people have to understand what they're working for and why.


#2 - In theory, yes. But have you ever seen that happen? IME, the most passionate, effective activists for any cause are the most knowledgeable about the issue. To affect real change, you have to change the conversation. Tavis Smiley and Cornell West are excellent examples.
Previously arrested journalists also are at their best and most effective when
"ranting" about the chilling of dissent and freedom of information. The people who are personally affected are usually the biggest supporters of the dissemination of as much accurate information as possible.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

And can you understand why someone who is talking about how a problem personally affects them could be alienated by people without personal experience changing the subject to a dispassionate analysis of the system?

In that case, I think you have to decide whether the forum is a support group or a discussion/critical thinking group. Its very difficult to be both, unless you designate some areas for discussion/critical thinking and others for support.