Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[d4m10n]

The Atheism Plus forums, originally launched with much fanfare from the womb of the behemoth FtB mothership and once feared as the greatest collection of godless social justice keyboard warriors on the intertubes, will sometime later today fall forever behind the dreaded SlymePit in overall post count: http://bit.ly/WJK7zw

I wonder why it turned out this way?

 

[Somthing Witty]

Define "social justice".

...and this is where I get hung up.

I think, if we define social justice as equality before the law, then there's broad acceptance...and even the large pockets of resistance that exist in some areas are rapidly withering.

However, if social justice is equated to something nebulous like 'fairness'...well that's a movable term. Attempting to get skeptics to jump on a bandwagon with something that can't be quantified seems to be a doomed effort.

 

[kbonn]

kbonn's posts on the topic start here

Thanks. Do you feel my ban was appropriate? Do you think Flewellyn and Ceepolk were acting appropriately in dealing with Kelly? Do you think you could actually bring this up without being warned/banned?

 

[d4m10n]

I think the whole original idea behind A+ was putting politics back on the skeptic table?

So long as the questions were such that the answers were staunchly progressivist. If on any particular question the preponderance of evidence pointed to free markets as the best option to further human well-being, the A+ adherents would have to discount evidence in favour of ideology.

 

[Zelenius]

The A+ mentality really isn't any different from creationists who claim to be "skeptics" or "critical thinkers". The internal contradictions between being extremely dogmatic on one hand, and supposedly "skeptical" on the other make the project unsustainable. This is why it self-destructed so quickly.

On the other hand, A+ and possibly FTB may still prove useful for breeding and training RW's and PZ's vicious attack dogs. I'm guessing their next generation of attack dog will be even more vicious and blood-thirsty than the last. I think this "mess" within the skeptical community is far from over, because RW and PZ and allies desperately need conflict, they thrive off of it. If everyone around them were to try to make peace, they would do everything possible to sabotage it. Recent events seem to be indicating this.

 

[Wildy]

You could read the thread. There are plenty of examples of the failure to apply scepticism by A+.

I like the discussions about Schrodinger's Rapist personally.

That's kinda ironic considering the discussions we've had about the A+ forums expecting people to waste hours of their lives on their basket 'o links.

 

[Wildy]

The Atheism Plus forums, originally launched with much fanfare from the womb of the behemoth FtB mothership and once feared as the greatest collection of godless social justice keyboard warriors on the intertubes, will sometime later today fall forever behind the dreaded SlymePit in overall post count: http://bit.ly/WJK7zw

I wonder why it turned out this way?

But the A+ person on their reddit said that they were winning because the SlymePit wasn't updating their reddit subgroup-thing-that-isn't-their-official-group as often as they were.

 

[chillzero]

Thanks. Do you feel my ban was appropriate? Do you think Flewellyn and Ceepolk were acting appropriately in dealing with Kelly? Do you think you could actually bring this up without being warned/banned?

Wow, for being in a group of people so obsessed with meanings of words, ceepolk has no clue as to the meaning(s) of 'moderate'.

 

[chillzero]

That's kinda ironic considering the discussions we've had about the A+ forums expecting people to waste hours of their lives on their basket 'o links.

I think there's a difference between the basket o' links, and reading a thread you intend to participate in.

 

[qwints]

Thanks. Do you feel my ban was appropriate? Do you think Flewellyn and Ceepolk were acting appropriately in dealing with Kelly? Do you think you could actually bring this up without being warned/banned?

Yes. No for Flew, maybe for Ceepolk. Probably - I did say things privately using the report system.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Someone who is better with language than I am should write a translation based on the hypocritical I/You; sexy when I do it/sexist when you do it idea. For example:

I express my justified anger using robust language / You are an abusive *******

preferably using real examples of things A+ers have said.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

The Atheism Plus forums, originally launched with much fanfare from the womb of the behemoth FtB mothership and once feared as the greatest collection of godless social justice keyboard warriors on the intertubes, will sometime later today fall forever behind the dreaded SlymePit in overall post count: http://bit.ly/WJK7zw

I wonder why it turned out this way?

Because it is far easier to not think and to ignore issues of social justice? Because it is far easier to fall victim to fallacies like ad populum rather than think things through?

I'm just guessing here, since there seems to be nothing to go on in this thread or this sub-forum in general. It really is pretty disgusting in here.

 

[d4m10n]

Because it is far easier to not think and to ignore issues of social justice? Because it is far easier to fall victim to fallacies like ad populum rather than think things through?

The fallacy requires claiming that some proposition be true because it is popularly thought to be true, e.g. "Ten thousand PZ fans can't be wrong, therefore, he is a wonderful blogger."

Merely mentioning that a given forum or a blogger has become (more or less) popular, without attaching any other propositions to that claim, is not an example of the fallacy.

It really is pretty disgusting in here.

Your moral outrage is too generalized to be helpful.

 

[Myriad]

Although the political stances might be an issue for Atheism Plus in general, the problem with the Atheism+ forum was simpler: "You can talk to us after you've been re-educated into agreement." (And all the corollaries, e.g. "If you disagree you're insufficiently re-educated.") 1984 meets Lord of the Flies. Doublepluskill the (sexist) pig!

But, aren't there ideas in Atheism Plus worth salvaging? If so, it appears to me that many of the people best qualified to do so are right here in this thread. So...

ANNOUNCEMENT

We're Atheism Plus, minus personalized politics.
We're Atheism Plus, minus demonizing and scapegoating.
We're Atheism Plus, minus opaque jargon as in-group badges.
We're Atheism Plus, minus the tribalism.
We're Atheism Plus, minus exclusion and censorship.
We're Atheism Plus Minus!

At A±, we encourage people who disagree with us to "'splain" their position, because if you're wrong, understanding your perspective helps us figure out how to change your mind. And if we're wrong, we want to understand why so we can change our minds.

At A±, we believe that it is our responsibility to help educate you about social justice issues, as part of the process of making changes happen instead of just demanding them.

At A±, intent is important to us (even though it is not magic) because it defines the distinction between actual opponents, and allies or potential allies who currently disagree about methods or have different priorities or perceive the issues from a different perspective.

We're Atheism Plus Minus!

If you're not with us, maybe we can persuade you otherwise!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Although the political stances might be an issue for Atheism Plus in general, the problem with the Atheism+ forum was simpler: "You can talk to us after you've been re-educated into agreement." (And all the corollaries, e.g. "If you disagree you're insufficiently re-educated.") 1984 meets Lord of the Flies. Doublepluskill the (sexist) pig!

But, aren't there ideas in Atheism Plus worth salvaging? If so, it appears to me that many of the people best qualified to do so are right here in this thread. So...

ANNOUNCEMENT

We're Atheism Plus, minus personalized politics.
We're Atheism Plus, minus demonizing and scapegoating.
We're Atheism Plus, minus opaque jargon as in-group badges.
We're Atheism Plus, minus the tribalism.
We're Atheism Plus, minus exclusion and censorship.
We're Atheism Plus Minus!

At A±, we encourage people who disagree with us to "'splain" their position, because if you're wrong, understanding your perspective helps us figure out how to change your mind. And if we're wrong, we want to understand why so we can change our minds.

At A±, we believe that it is our responsibility to help educate you about social justice issues, as part of the process of making changes happen instead of just demanding them.

At A±, intent is important to us (even though it is not magic) because it defines the distinction between actual opponents, and allies or potential allies who currently disagree about methods or have different priorities or perceive the issues from a different perspective.

We're Atheism Plus Minus!

If you're not with us, maybe we can persuade you otherwise!

Respectfully,
Myriad

Do we have t-shirts yet?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Now that's a position I can get behind.

 

[Hokulele]

Again, what I find sad about the whole thing is that SJ CAN be paired with skepticism. It's not a bad match.

Personally, I agree that social justice can be paired with skepticism, but it does mean you (the general you, not you personally) have to be willing to examine and accept the evidence that goes against your mission as well as with it.

My biggest issue with Atheism+ wasn't that they were trying to pair social justice with skepticism, but that their original statements were about pairing social justice with atheism. To me, that is a weird fit.

 

[d4m10n]

But the A+ person on their reddit said that they were winning because the SlymePit wasn't updating their reddit subgroup-thing-that-isn't-their-official-group as often as they were.

I think it's pretty much fair to compare A+ Reddit to the anti-A+ Reddit, and SlymePit phpBB to A+ phpBB, but I've not spent enough time on either of those subreddits to grok what's happening on there.

 

[adamwho]

...and this is where I get hung up.

I think, if we define social justice as equality before the law, then there's broad acceptance...and even the large pockets of resistance that exist in some areas are rapidly withering.

However, if social justice is equated to something nebulous like 'fairness'...well that's a movable term. Attempting to get skeptics to jump on a bandwagon with something that can't be quantified seems to be a doomed effort.

The difference is between favoring equal opportunity (which nearly everyone does) and equal outcomes (which some see as inherently unfair).

The second wave feminists one, there generally is equality of opportunity, the door is open and a woman has to choose to walk through it.

This newer version of feminism wants the rewards but not the work. They see something like TAM not having 50% female participation and demand a different outcome. The result is that some women get to go for free but that still isn't enough.

The underlying fallacy is the assumption that 'equality' means 'exactly alike'.

 

[adamwho]

I think it's pretty much fair to compare A+ Reddit to the anti-A+ Reddit, and SlymePit phpBB to A+ phpBB, but I've not spent enough time on either of those subreddits to grok what's happening on there.

The anti-atheism+ reddit folded because of the moderator. I suspect he was doing it for the wrong reasons and starting to act as badly as the atheism+ mods.

The reddit atheism+ has about 8 moderators who are constantly logged in and instantly upvote any approved submission, thus giving the appearance of activity but they are really the only ones there.

All the 'anti' activity will go away the instant atheism+ either apologies and fixes their mistakes or goes away. I have doubts as to whether the proponents of atheism+ and all the bad behavior will ever be welcome fully back into the larger movement.