Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
It's fascinating and a little scary to watch otherwise sane and skeptical people turn into "storm the castle, kill the monster" zealots. The other side suddenly becomes demons and 'my' side all turn into heroes and saints while anyone who doesn't spout the dogma is stoned and cursed.

When the subject of actually disrupting a meeting is brought up it's greeted with cheers and approval, nobody seems to want to admit that they are acting in the very way they are condemning.
Click to expand...

You do realize, since you're addressing actual skeptics here and not the personality cult minions who comment on FtB or Skepchick, that your Jedi mind tricks won't work on us... right?

Kudos on the faux "dispassionate observer" schtick in the first paragraph in the above quote btw.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I've had the suspicion for over a year that all of these supposed rape and death threats from "skeptics" were bored teenagers trolling something they saw on a Twitter feed or 4chaners responding to a thread there.
Click to expand...

There are A LOT of bored teenagers online (and some adults with the mentality of teenagers). And they like to taunt people who are prone to flipping out, or to create more drama or lulz.

I've been very reluctant to call all of them "trolls", though. No matter how unlikely those threats are, those are still serious crimes they're threatening them with, and that goes above and beyond mere teasing and taunting. When you threaten somebody with death or rape, you've gone beyond troll territory. It does come with the territory of being a controversial public figure, though.
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
I've had the suspicion for over a year that all of these supposed rape and death threats from "skeptics" were bored teenagers trolling something they saw on a Twitter feed or 4chaners responding to a thread there.

Who knows. Perhaps the desire to threaten women who dare to speak up is endemic amongst skeptics and atheists... but Occam's Razor tells me it's a bunch of douchebags with too much on-line time on their hands having fun at the expense of drama queens.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not all, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant fraction. Drama queens do tend to attract trolls. As for me personally, I have been watching the A+ers bully hapless schmucks who wander onto their board for months. I think a taste of their own medicine might do them some good. I am not by any means advocating death threats or rape threats, but getting shouted down by a bunch of bored teenagers might make a few of them a bit more introspective about how they treat others.
 
Humes fork said:
Now they are going to have a (online) conference:

[qimg]http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/06/FtBConscienceShadow.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
You would expect that someone with a conscience ever showed signs of regret and shame. You'd expect that someone with a conscience ever apologized when he's treated someone wrong or went over the top. But they don't. Ever.

It is not conscience that they have too much of but a sense of entitlement and ruthlessness. They feel entitled to manipulate others into submission and themselves into positions of power. They cater to the most vulnerable people because those are the easiest to control. Once those in need of empowerment dare to have an opinion of their own and disagree with the leaders, they are quickly put in their places. Empowerment? Oh yes, they are totally for empowerment. Their own, that is. They hide their greed for power behind altruistic masks while applying manipulation tactics such as shaming, guilt-tripping, and victim-playing.

One might wonder how this can happen in movements that deem themselves rational. With all that rationality and debating skill around, it surely would be impossible to get hijacked by covert-aggressive manipulators, wouldn't it? Well, perhaps it is that very desire to rationalize and debate everything that makes these movements vulnerable to emotional blackmailing. They try hard to understand their manipulators, they rationalize their behavior. They try to figure out what could have hurt the manipulators so much, and what they themselves might have done wrong. Their rational thinking hasn't prepared them to deal with emotional manipulation tactics, and perhaps they even think that, being all smart and knowing it, they are immune to manipulation. They are in defense mode, and the manipulators press the right buttons to keep them in that state.
 
Last edited:
Melody Hensley's comment on Ron Lindsay's apology:
I’m sure it will not be satisfactory to everyone. I know that I wish more was said. I know Ron. I know that not everyone does, though. This was written after an day and evening of intense discussion and debate. Sometimes there was yelling and tears, but I think we made a breakthrough. I believe this type of personal apology doesn’t come easy to him. I believe that he is sincerely sorry for his speech and further actions at Women in Secularism 2. This is coming from his harshest critic.
Click to expand...
While this description suggests that CFI board conferences resemble episodes from a marriage with an emotionally abusive partner, Paul Fidalgo reports this:
We just finished up our conference for CFI branch leaders, and part of that conference was a frank discussion between branch leaders, staff, and our CEO Ron Lindsay about the controversy and anger surrounding his talk and actions around Women in Secularism 2. There, Ron offered a sincere and deeply heartfelt apology to CFI folks, and on Saturday posted this apology to everyone else.
Click to expand...
So, what was it like, a day and evening of debate with yelling and tears, or a frank discussion? Either way, Melody Hensley makes sure to get a threat across: In case you criticize the "shut up and listen" feminism, be prepared to get the full drama package.
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
...When you threaten somebody with death or rape, you've gone beyond troll territory. It does come with the territory of being a controversial public figure, though.
Click to expand...

Not excusing bad behavior but I think there's a difference between stupid talk and legitimate threats of violence. I've never taken a death threat from some anonymous internet entity seriously, I've only had a couple or three direct threats, probably total. The only action I've ever taken is to report them when on facebook. (I don't include "I hope" x "happens to you." or "burn in hell" kinds of comments as threats, personally.)

Isn't that pretty normal? Just thinking that if I were prone to feel truly threatened or become damaged by anonymous speech then maybe I'd avoid getting exposed to it rather than expect anonymous people to act differently.
 
Diogenes said:
Not excusing bad behavior but I think there's a difference between stupid talk and legitimate threats of violence. I've never taken a death threat from some anonymous internet entity seriously, I've only had a couple or three direct threats, probably total. The only action I've ever taken is to report them when on facebook. (I don't include "I hope" x "happens to you." or "burn in hell" kinds of comments as threats, personally.)

Isn't that pretty normal? Just thinking that if I were prone to feel truly threatened or become damaged by anonymous speech then maybe I'd avoid getting exposed to it rather than expect anonymous people to act differently.
Click to expand...

I've never gotten a death threat, but I've gotten some pretty vitriolic responses to infractions I've given here. Some people need to step away from the keyboard and go outside, knowhatImean?
 
Diogenes said:
Not excusing bad behavior but I think there's a difference between stupid talk and legitimate threats of violence. I've never taken a death threat from some anonymous internet entity seriously, I've only had a couple or three direct threats, probably total. The only action I've ever taken is to report them when on facebook. (I don't include "I hope" x "happens to you." or "burn in hell" kinds of comments as threats, personally.)

Isn't that pretty normal? Just thinking that if I were prone to feel truly threatened or become damaged by anonymous speech then maybe I'd avoid getting exposed to it rather than expect anonymous people to act differently.
Click to expand...

Didn't all this start with Rebecca Watson saying something like she was receiving an avalanche of sexual harassment online, as much as three posts/emails a week?

This was at the elevatorgate conference, on mike, beside Dawkins IIRC. I'm feeling too lazy right now to look it up.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'd say it's more likely to entrench them further.
Click to expand...

I try not to persecute people with a persecution complex. Sure, it's funny when people taunt and argue with street preachers. But, seriously, no matter how "offensive" or blasphemous you are, remember...they love it. If you really wanted to upset them, you'd just ignore them. If 4chan did raid FtBCon, the next day they'd be beating their chests about how "fellow skeptics and atheists attacked us at our conference!!" Don't feed into the bad trip that they're on. They want to be martyrs.

Finally, it could gloriously backfire. Just look at Anita Sarkeesian! She got attacked by 4chan, and made $150,000 from it in sympathy dollars. (For a project that originally had a goal of $6000!) This probably wouldn't happen for FtB, since nobody cares about them, but...you never know. It's best to not give them any justification.
 
Mr. Scott said:
Didn't all this start with Rebecca Watson saying something like she was receiving an avalanche of sexual harassment online, as much as three posts/emails a week?

This was at the elevatorgate conference, on mike, beside Dawkins IIRC. I'm feeling too lazy right now to look it up.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how small some avalanches can be.
 
Humes fork said:
Now they are going to have a (online) conference:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/06/FtBConscienceShadow.png

Yeah, as if all other atheists lack conscience. Pretentious.
Click to expand...

Imagining...

July 19 Afternoon Sessions:

1:00pm - KEYNOTE - P.Z. Myers - Future of Free Thought: Read the Blog post along when it is posted at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ and imagine the future. After you read it, be sure to post your comments or perhaps post a question.

2:00pm - SPECIAL - Miri Mogilevsky - Atheist Misogyny and Rape Culture: It's rampant, but Atheist misogyny need not bog down true Atheist Social Justice advancements. After reading this blog, share your comments or perhaps post a question.

3:00pm - PANEL - Atheism + Safe Social Justice Activism. - Thrill to each post the panel makes in a Special Atheism + thread about being a Social Justice Warrior from the relative safety of your home. TRIGGER WARNING: Actual Human Interaction. Share your thoughts, after you've read the "basket of links".

4:00pm - SPECIAL VIDEO BLOG - Rebecca Watson - Boycotting Unsafe Conventions - Remember, it is not enough that we declare our success, we must declare everyone else's failure. Rebecca names targets based on comments to the earlier sessions of the conference. A MUST SEE to be on the cutting edge of what we do!


I'm not sure how this differs from every other day on the internet, reading blogs, viewing video blogs, trolling comment sections, cruising safe A+ spaces, but there must be something!
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I've had the suspicion for over a year that all of these supposed rape and death threats from "skeptics" were bored teenagers trolling something they saw on a Twitter feed or 4chaners responding to a thread there.

Who knows. Perhaps the desire to threaten women who dare to speak up is endemic amongst skeptics and atheists... but Occam's Razor tells me it's a bunch of douchebags with too much on-line time on their hands having fun at the expense of drama queens.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
tsig said:
How many abusive PMs does it take to get banned here.
Click to expand...

It depends on your definition of "abusive". If you're just spewing some vitriol at someone, you could probably get two or three in before you got suspended. We probably wouldn't ban you for that, at least not right away. If you went directly to threatening someone's safety, though, that's generally an insta-ban.

And of course, if you send a member of the Mod Team an abusive PM whilst on suspension, you can be pretty confident that you will be banned forthwith.
 
Myriad said:
Or you could, you know, leave them alone.

Come on now. I've been as critical of their arguments and conduct as anyone. And I don't think there would be anything wrong with, say, attending their conference because you're actually curious about what they're saying although you expect to disagree. But what would you hope to gain by poking at them?

(Not responding to the previous post but to several from before that.)
Click to expand...

A fun as poking an anthill can be, I agree with you.
Better to give them as little ammunition for claims of "harassment" or "stalking" as possible. When nobody outside the circle-jerk gives them any attention anymore, they're gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom