Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm getting tired of being falsely accused of dishonesty here when I've repeatedly linked to or referenced my sources. I'm deliberately ignoring what I perceive as rhetorical questions, but feel free to re-ask them if you want a response.

recursive prophet said:
Of course it is Fool, that's why she's been spending a lot more time posting here than she ever did at A+.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to me? I'm curious to know why people are referring to me as "she." Not a big deal, but I'm 27/M/Austin in the old parlance.

recursive prophet said:
Show me where I ever questioned the trigger concept or 'made clear' unsolicited PM's couldn't be painful to anyone.
Click to expand...

The "recursive prophet's post" I referred to was this post. I didn't say you "questioned the trigger concept" or " 'made clear' unsolicited PM's couldn't be painful to anyone." I said you were mocking the idea of being triggered (based on the e-motes you posted) and didn't believe people who said unsolicited pm's were painful (based on asking ceepolk how she justified her claim after several posters, including sun countess, specifically said unsolicited claims were hurtful.) There's nothing wrong with talking about how to best accommodate varying needs - you weren't attacked for bringing up the point and neither were the other people who'd suggested other permutations of the rule when it was first implemented.
 
qwints said:
I'm deliberately ignoring what I perceive as rhetorical questions, but feel free to re-ask them if you want a response.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside for the moment that this announcement would get an outsider banned at A+ forums, I have one question that I don't consider rhetorical at all: Post #3220.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8960299#post8960299

It's actually a bit of exposition, followed by a couple questions. I'd very much like to know your answers, and your thoughts.

Thanks!
 
qwints said:
I'm delberately ignoring what I perceive as rhetorical questions, but feel free to re-ask them if you want a response. <snip>
Click to expand...



theprestige said:
Leaving aside for the moment that this announcement would get an outsider banned at A+ forums.... <polite snip>
Click to expand...

<dons A+theism mod hat> No! You don't get to do that! Not *********** here! Deliberately ignoring what YOU perceive to be rhetorical questions is just *********** wrong ok? And you won't get away with it. How you missed the memo that you're required to answer every question put to you regardless of your *********** lack of intelligence is *********** beyond me. Have a permanent ban for not understanding that.

And by the way, I just started a thread on the way in which the word 'ass-hat' is misogynistic and oppresses underprivileged women. I provide links to the NoThoughtBlogs to back up my assertions<removes A-mod hat>

How did I do?
 
Last edited:
Krikkiter said:
<dons A+theism mod hat> No! You don't get to do that! Not *********** here! Deliberately ignoring what YOU perceive to be rhetorical questions is just *********** wrong ok? And you won't get away with it. How you missed the memo that you're required to answer every question put to you regardless of your *********** lack of intelligence is *********** beyond me. Have a permanent ban for not understanding that.

And by the way, I just started a thread on the way in which the word 'ass-hat' is misogynistic and oppresses underprivileged women. I provide links to the NoThoughtBlogs to back up my assertions<removes A-mod hat>

How did I do?
Click to expand...

Not condescending enough.
You also didn't lace the post with enough vague suggestions of bad intentions for other members to take the bait and follow up with.
 
kellyb said:
Not condescending enough.
You also didn't lace the post with enough vague suggestions of bad intentions for other members to take the bait and follow up with.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh yes, yes I see that now. Thank you.


Note to all those aspiring to be A-mods: never, ever ban a person without ensuring that there's enough dog-pile ammo for the sooper-sekret-inner-circle-privelidged-one's.

And yeah, I had a feeling I wasn't being condescending enough. Maybe our resident A-Plusser could help us out? Oh wait, I think s/he already has ;)
 
Worth a read IMO:

http://musingsbysoggymog.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/atheism-plus-last-rites.html

Love this part:

"Devising a product then manufacturing the need is a time-honoured method in business - just look at mouthwash. But A+ don't seem to have grasped the idea terribly well; what they've done is try to sell us a mouthwash to cure dog-breath we don't have, then force-feed us garlic when we didn't want to buy it. Then wonder why we told them to get the **** off our property."
 
qwints said:
I'm curious to know why people are referring to me as "she."
Click to expand...
Maybe you're dog-whistling misanthropic vaginocentrism, and some members of the audience don't even realize they're picking up on it?

Or maybe nobody cares, and they're not putting a lot of thought or effort into figuring out irrelevant gender questions.

Do you really feel it's important for people to think hard about whether you're a man or a woman or something else entirely? Does it really matter if people refer to you as "she" instead of "he"?

These are non-rhetorical questions.

Thanks!
 
theprestige said:
Do you really feel it's important for people to think hard about whether you're a man or a woman or something else entirely? Does it really matter if people refer to you as "she" instead of "he"?
Click to expand...
'

No and no. I meant it when I said it wasn't a big deal.

theprestige said:
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?

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?
Click to expand...

People who take the time and effort to debate and educate people repeating long debunked arguments should be commended for their work. I don't, however, think that is the only valid use of one's time.

Not every critique can be dismissed out of hand, but many can easily be recognized as repetitions of ones that have already been thoroughly debated and rejected decades ago.

Unpacking and refuting dissenting arguments is a very useful process. The problem comes when it's the same dissenting argument that has already been refuted a dozen times before.

Dissenting arguments are obviously possible and some should be considered.
 
qwints said:
Not every critique can be dismissed out of hand, but many can easily be recognized as repetitions of ones that have already been thoroughly debated and rejected decades ago.

Unpacking and refuting dissenting arguments is a very useful process. The problem comes when it's the same dissenting argument that has already been refuted a dozen times before.

Dissenting arguments are obviously possible and some should be considered.
Click to expand...
And THIS is the problem. The JREF could presume that truthers, the religious, creationists etc., etc., are wrong and therefore their time here is a waste of time. But that requires presupposition. And that's wrong. As I've quoted Hitchens, when you start supposing the absolute truth and restricting speech that is not conducive to your truth you ensure that there will not be free thinking. You've just established a dogma.

That's what we object to.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Because of this, I'm inclined to forgive qwints for reading the phrase "street thugs" and immediately thinking it was a reference to black people.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I have to wonder about projection, which often occurs at A+. Also, it's only relevance to the topic at hand would have been as an ad-hom to call my credibility into question wrt my impression of A+. But glad to see us move on from this one. Never cared for herring. ;)

theprestige said:
Was it simply to provide a clear object lesson in how thoroughly hateful, toxic, and chilling the A+ in-culture actually is?
Click to expand...

Some powerful points made in your analysis, and was a bit shocked at the conclusion as it so resonated with my own impression but one I'd never put into words. It also explains why I'm fascinated with qwints attempt to show they have an actual purpose behind all the malice.

qwints said:
I didn't say you "questioned the trigger concept" or " 'made clear' unsolicited PM's couldn't be painful to anyone."
Click to expand...
qwints said:
Do you understand what people mean when they say they're being triggered? recursive prophet's post seemed to be mocking the very idea of being triggered as well making clear he didn't believe the people who said that receiving unsolicited pms was painful to them.
Click to expand...

Do you see how you contradicted yourself above? :rolleyes:

I said you were mocking the idea of being triggered (based on the e-motes you posted) and didn't believe people who said unsolicited pm's were painful (based on asking ceepolk how she justified her claim after several posters, including sun countess, specifically said unsolicited claims were hurtful.) There's nothing wrong with talking about how to best accommodate varying needs - you weren't attacked for bringing up the point and neither were the other people who'd suggested other permutations of the rule when it was first implemented.
Click to expand...

So you find ceepolk's interpretation of my intent-it ain't magic ya'know-in posting one emoticon justifies my being silenced? Do you have any doubt that I will be banned there for my posts here? Quite a few disappeared for less said 'out of school.'

Sorry for the gender gaff qwints. I originally viewed you as a male in his twenties. But I saw another refer to you as she and figured as you didn't correct him/her I had once again assumed a woman was a man. Do it all the time. Thanks for clarifying. Alas I don't speak xir/xie. :)
 
Last edited:
Krikkiter said:
<dons A+theism mod hat> No! You don't get to do that! Not *********** here! Deliberately ignoring what YOU perceive to be rhetorical questions is just *********** wrong ok? And you won't get away with it. How you missed the memo that you're required to answer every question put to you regardless of your *********** lack of intelligence is *********** beyond me. Have a permanent ban for not understanding that.

And by the way, I just started a thread on the way in which the word 'ass-hat' is misogynistic and oppresses underprivileged women. I provide links to the NoThoughtBlogs to back up my assertions<removes A-mod hat>

How did I do?
Click to expand...

9.6

:clap:
 
Last edited:
Are "spaces" and "triggers" and "tone trolling" and "mansplaining" etc. new magic words introduced by the same old losers who can't seem to manage to function independently in the real world?

Or are they just recycled versions of the old magic words used by the same old losers who can't seem to manage to function independently in the real world?

Just wondering.

ETA: That said, the entirety of the 'atheismplus' website appears to be a complete and utter cesspool of nothing but crap. Gahh. I won't be clicking on that ever again. The stupid, it burns.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom