Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This illustrates the problem with tone policing. Emoting about an issue is completely compatible with carefully considering an issue. Careful consideration can evoke emotions. If people directly affected by an issue are more likely to express emotion on a subject, then banning displays of emotion is more likely to keep out people who've been directly affected by an issue.

From my perspective reacting angrily to something is less productive than reacting in a non-angry way. If you react angrily, you'll tend to raise hackles, and people who disagree with what you say are less likely to listen and more likely to become more entrenched and respond in kind. So you end up with 2 sides, both yelling at each other to "[Rule 10] off".

Conversing in a more reserved tone may well have an equally unproductive result, but it's more likely to end up productive. It's more likely to end up with reasonable discourse with both sides listening to the other and taking their points on board.

That, as far as I'm concerned, is why it's better to try not to post angrily. It's highly unlikely to achieve anything. Hell, it's not even anywhere near as satisfying on an emotional level as thrashing something out with someone civilly and finding common ground.

I wouldn't say that the Atheism+ers shouldn't make their primary method of communication telling people to "[Rule 10] off". I think they're free to express themselves however they should wish. It's just if they want to be effectively communicate their ideas to others and bring people round to their way of thinking that they should attempt to present their arguments in a less barbed manner.

But, from what I can tell, it's not about communicating ideas and making the world a better place, it seems to primarily be about masturbating in public in an environment where others are only going to say "my, what an almighty impressive set of sexual organs you have".

 

[adamwho]

Just to let you know that the Reddit atheism+ (/r/atheismplus) crowd has finally noticed your thread and they are beside themselves with the fact that they cannot ban all dissent here too.

Note: It is a closed forum ANY attempt at dissent, no matter how mild or reasoned, will be banned.... seriously, they are are worse than /r/pyongyang

 

[RandFan]

Matt Dillahunty's new favorite pastime, straw manning. I actually like Matt but please would he stop with the straw men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snGuJVTk5q8

 

[RandFan]

Just to let you know that the Reddit atheism+ (/r/atheismplus) crowd has finally noticed your thread and they are beside themselves with the fact that they cannot ban all dissent here too.

Note: It is a closed forum ANY attempt at dissent, no matter how mild or reasoned, will be banned.... seriously, they are are worse than /r/pyongyang

They are free to come here anytime. Of course we don't start with any presumptions about anything here. If you want to argue for Big Foot or chem trails or advocate feminism, men's rights, pro or anti-GMO, pro or anti-AGW, etc., so long as you are civil you have as much right to speak your mind as anyone.

The water is warm folks, we invite anyone who to come and have a dialog. I prefer this venue because everyone has the same footing and we respect free speech.

 

[Empress]

Just to let you know that the Reddit atheism+ (/r/atheismplus) crowd has finally noticed your thread and they are beside themselves with the fact that they cannot ban all dissent here too.

Note: It is a closed forum ANY attempt at dissent, no matter how mild or reasoned, will be banned.... seriously, they are are worse than /r/pyongyang

Someone named bournemouth weighs in on the notion that the right to free speech ends when you offend someone. Turns out that's only true if you're privileged and you're offending a victim (which presumably is code for Inner Party member of the A+). If the situation is reversed, and a plusser is offending someone else, why that's just peachy.

What a surprise.

 

[Daald]

The water is warm folks

Sorry That was me. I will get out of the pool next time. I promise.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry That was me. I will get out of the pool next time. I promise.

Okay, that made my day.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Just to let you know that the Reddit atheism+ (/r/atheismplus) crowd has finally noticed your thread and they are beside themselves with the fact that they cannot ban all dissent here too.

If they're reading this thread, one of them might take my pointing out that a Ferenghi is a Jewish stereotype to heart and actually call out that mod on his avatar.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oooh! Ooooh! One of them has responded to one of my posts!

I said:

I've been thinking about this whole "your right to freedom of speech ends where me being offended starts" thing. I really hope that none of the atheists on Atheist+ have ever, say, criticised Islam in any way. Or spoken negatively about the God of the Bible. Or, indeed, expressed the thought that atheism is a more logical position than theism.

Because, you know, there are plenty of religious people who get offended by things like that. By their own logic, therefore, they should never voice those opinions.

Bournemouth said:

the factor that unobfuscates all of this is the use of critical thinking (you know, the thing we all purport to like so much) and empathy to decide whose offense is worth considering.

Ah, everyone is equal, it's just that some are more equal than others.

are you an oppressed minority in some way? can you ostensibly prove that widespread bigotry and prejudice affect your day-to-day life negatively? if so, your offense deserves to be taken seriously.

So you do agree that the actions of Muslims in the Western world shouldn't be criticised, and that their wishes re suppression of speech should be respected. Muslims are certainly an oppressed minority in the UK, Europe, US, and Australia. They can ostensibly* prove that widespread bigotry and prejudice affect their day-to-day lives in the US, UK, Australia and Europe.

Therefore the cartoons of Mohammed should never have been published in any newspaper. That video of people counter-protesting a Muslim protest by pointing out the oppression of women in Islam should never have happened. Nobody should speak out against Muslim clerics who preach homophobia.

*I'm copying the word Bornemouth used. I'm not sure it means what they think it means, but I'll use it nonetheless.

If s/he wants to come here, we can discuss it, of course. This seems like a silly way to carry on a dialogue.

 

[d4m10n]

Careful consideration can evoke emotions. If people directly affected by an issue are more likely to express emotion on a subject, then banning displays of emotion is more likely to keep out people who've been directly affected by an issue.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rules 0 and 12.

 

[kmortis]

Oooh! Ooooh! One of them has responded to one of my posts!

I said:



Bournemouth said:



Ah, everyone is equal, it's just that some are more equal than others.



So you do agree that the actions of Muslims in the Western world shouldn't be criticised, and that their wishes re suppression of speech should be respected. Muslims are certainly an oppressed minority in the UK, Europe, US, and Australia. They can ostensibly* prove that widespread bigotry and prejudice affect their day-to-day lives in the US, UK, Australia and Europe.

Therefore the cartoons of Mohammed should never have been published in any newspaper. That video of people counter-protesting a Muslim protest by pointing out the oppression of women in Islam should never have happened. Nobody should speak out against Muslim clerics who preach homophobia.

*I'm copying the word Bornemouth used. I'm not sure it means what they think it means, but I'll use it nonetheless.

If s/he wants to come here, we can discuss it, of course. This seems like a silly way to carry on a dialogue.

And you're treading perilously close to importing arguments from other forums. If they don't want to come here, don't engage in dialogue, k?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And you're treading perilously close to importing arguments from other forums. If they don't want to come here, don't engage in dialogue, k?

Fair enough.

I'll just hope that one of them has the courage to actually try to defend their ideas and statements in a forum in which dissent is allowed.

 

[kmortis]

Fair enough.

I'll just hope that one of them has the courage to actually try to defend their ideas and statements in a forum in which dissent is allowed.

Agreed.

 

[Kid Eager]

As a result of this thread, I visited the subject blogs. For a very short while.

When did a claim to victimhood become such an exalted state that it endows the occupant with a free pass to perpetually be a dick thereafter? (dick is a metaphorical term and is in no way related to male genitalia, perish the though).

 

[hodgy]

And you're treading perilously close to importing arguments from other forums. If they don't want to come here, don't engage in dialogue, k?

Why is it different from the rest of this thread? Its essentially quoting from / reporting on activity there. I think its quite informative and amusing.

I can't see any difference here with threads that are debating BFF, UFO forums etc.... I'll own that I might have missed some nuance and am happy for you to draw the relevant distinctions. Please elaborate.

 

[kmortis]

Why is it different from the rest of this thread? Its essentially quoting from / reporting on activity there. I think its quite informative and amusing.

I can't see any difference here with threads that are debating BFF, UFO forums etc.... I'll own that I might have missed some nuance and am happy for you to draw the relevant distinctions. Please elaborate.

It's one thing to quote from somewhere else for the purpose of discussing the material brought forth. It's quite another to carry on an ersatz dialogue between a member here and a member there. It borders on posting by proxy and importing arguments from other fora.

To be honest, I'm not overly concerned just because the cost/benefit is pretty low. I'd just prefer some thought to go into it prior to opening that can o'worms.

 

[qwints]

When did a claim to victimhood become such an exalted state that it endows the occupant with a free pass to perpetually be a dick thereafter? (dick is a metaphorical term and is in no way related to male genitalia, perish the though).

Never. But telling someone that their words or actions are hurting you isn't being rude.

 

[theprestige]

But telling someone that their words or actions are hurting you isn't being rude.

Maybe not always.

On the other hand, the sherrif in First Blood took great offense at John Rambo's presence in town. Who was being rude in that scenario? The sherrif, or Rambo?

And that kind of thing doesn't just happen in movies: People manufacture hurts and assign scapegoats all the time in real life.

How many wife-beaters take great pains to express how much they love their spouse, and how much it hurts them when she makes them do the things they do?

Some people do take victim status as a license to be a dick. Some people even invent victim status for themselves, in order to get that license.

ETA: And another thing. The above example of the wife-beater would be off-limits on the A+ forums. Using an example that overlaps with someone else's experience is a no-go. The thread would be derailed, and the culprit would be browbeaten into recanting their entire line of argument, until they could find a better example. I've seen it happen there on more than one occasion.

And I've seen the converse happen there as well: people manufacturing hurt and being rude, when hypothetical examples are given that don't trespass on anybody's experience. The hypothetical itself is alleged to be hurtful.

In fact, one consistent through-line of our discussion in this thread has been that for a large part of the A+ forum members, manufacturing hurt and using it to justify rudeness is considered to be the optimal method of argumentation.

 

[RandFan]

Never. But telling someone that their words or actions are hurting you isn't being rude.

If it is used as a rhetorical device it is a fallacy. If it's used to make one a martyr then it's just boorish behavior and tends to distract from the discussion and not further it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Never. But telling someone that their words or actions are hurting you isn't being rude.

Aye, and there's the rub because telling someone that their vulgar and irrational posts are disturbing your thought processes and making it impossible to take them seriously is evidently beyond rude, it's tone policing and it's verboten.

If they would apply these rump rules fairly across the board, I could agree fully with their rights to do so, just as I don't agree with some of the rules here that I do feel are enforced rather fairly. Fair-haired posters on the JREF Forums don't get a pass to abuse people, argue with ad hom attacks or dance around the rules. They get modded for the same behavior that blatant woo trolls get modded for,... if/when they act accordingly.

The problem with A+ is that excess in defense of victim rights is no vice. Strange bedfellows those social liberals keep when their philosophy parrots that of Barry Goldwater, I think.