Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
Well someone pointed out that she only had three abusive comments in a week so it seems fair to point out that that many abusive PMs here would lead to a ban.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but the difference is that posters here aren't throwing their comments out to the whole wide world. You can't reply anonymously here; even under your user handle, you are responsible (and held responsible) for what you post here.
 
tsig said:
Well someone pointed out that she only had three abusive comments in a week so it seems fair to point out that that many abusive PMs here would lead to a ban.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't understand what your point is. What do you think should be done?
 
tsig said:
Well someone pointed out that she only had three abusive comments in a week so it seems fair to point out that that many abusive PMs here would lead to a ban.
Click to expand...
Still a ridiculous non-sequitor. That's all three abusive PMs from the same person. Is RM claiming they are all coming from the same person, or from different people? And what is the population of the viewers they are coming from?
 
Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4958

Seems like they've got another squirrel for the stew. Guy shows up. He's probably interesting and someone should invite him over here but it took him a short walk through the Basket O' Links to realize this might not be the place for him.

And then, inch by inch, the gloves start coming off and the piranhas come in smelling blood. He held his own (and he sure pegged their groupthink, I feel) and might actually survive there if he learns to kiss-ass-'splain a little better.

Is that the same Sun Countess who's a member here? So I'll try to put this politely, but .... her first post is a JOKE! Assumptions coming out of the wazoo, particularly funny in a thread where he already noted (and the sainted SubMor argued against) the constant ad hom attacks and insults. And I love the "hey, some of our best friends are privileged CIS-gendered white people" arguments. They don't realize how funny it is to see them trotting out those old racist - sexist - misogynist justifications!
 
Foolmewunz said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4958

Seems like they've got another squirrel for the stew. Guy shows up. He's probably interesting and someone should invite him over here but it took him a short walk through the Basket O' Links to realize this might not be the place for him.

And then, inch by inch, the gloves start coming off and the piranhas come in smelling blood. He held his own (and he sure pegged their groupthink, I feel) and might actually survive there if he learns to kiss-ass-'splain a little better.

Is that the same Sun Countess who's a member here? So I'll try to put this politely, but .... her first post is a JOKE! Assumptions coming out of the wazoo, particularly funny in a thread where he already noted (and the sainted SubMor argued against) the constant ad hom attacks and insults. And I love the "hey, some of our best friends are privileged CIS-gendered white people" arguments. They don't realize how funny it is to see them trotting out those old racist - sexist - misogynist justifications!
Click to expand...

I think it's ceepolk who wins an award again. The thread goes thusly:

AugustinZ: Hi, I'm new here!
SubMor: Here's your basket of links!
AugustinZ: Oh, having read those, I don't think this is the place for me. I'll stop posting immediately.
SubMor: Sure, you can take the coward's way out, if you like. But it's better to take the non-cowardly route of explaining in excruciating detail why this isn't the place for you.
AugustinZ: *Starts to explain why he thinks posting there isn't for him*
ceepolk: Why are you hanging around explaining why posting here isn't for you? Either you're posting in this forum or you're not. What you're doing right now isn't welcome!
Click to expand...

So, once more, someone is being told off for doing what a moderator asked them to.
 
tsig said:
Well someone pointed out that she only had three abusive comments in a week so it seems fair to point out that that many abusive PMs here would lead to a ban.
Click to expand...

With what part of "avalanche" "three or four per week" and "what the heck does how many abusive PMs here would get you banned have to do with the fact that her 'avalanche' consisted of 'three or four per week', which is a very small avalanche" are you having the most trouble?
 
Two examples of begging the questionWP:

Hitler: What shall we do about the Jewish problem? (when there was none)

A+: What shall we do about the rape problem at secular conferences?

Yes, I know about Godwin's lawWP. This one was too good to pass up.
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
With what part of "avalanche" "three or four per week" and "what the heck does how many abusive PMs here would get you banned have to do with the fact that her 'avalanche' consisted of 'three or four per week', which is a very small avalanche" are you having the most trouble?
Click to expand...

What I'm having trouble with is the fact that people condone any amount of abusive comments.

I'm having trouble with the unremitting hate directed to other humans who are trying in their own way to do what they think is best.

Note: I do not post at A+ and am not registered there nor am I a regular poster at PZ,s place. I'm sure that you read more of A+ than I do.
 
luchog said:
Still a ridiculous non-sequitor. That's all three abusive PMs from the same person. Is RM claiming they are all coming from the same person, or from different people? And what is the population of the viewers they are coming from?
Click to expand...

How many abusive comments to you would you think is too many?
 
jhunter1163 said:
Well, yes, but the difference is that posters here aren't throwing their comments out to the whole wide world. You can't reply anonymously here; even under your user handle, you are responsible (and held responsible) for what you post here.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought the non member sections of JREF was open to the public. Does being anonymous somehow make abuse OK?
 
tsig said:
What I'm having trouble with is the fact that people condone any amount of abusive comments.

I'm having trouble with the unremitting hate directed to other humans who are trying in their own way to do what they think is best.

Note: I do not post at A+ and am not registered there nor am I a regular poster at PZ,s place. I'm sure that you read more of A+ than I do.
Click to expand...

I'm not in any way condoning it. I am saying, though, and others have said it earlier and better, that some amount of this crap comes with the territory when you put yourself out there as a blogger, and you only encourage the trolls if you demonstrate that you are rattled or otherwise disturbed by their trolling. Dawkins probably gets dozens of such messages a week; he'd get far more if he acknowledged them in any way.
 
tsig said:
What I'm having trouble with is the fact that people condone any amount of abusive comments.

I'm having trouble with the unremitting hate directed to other humans who are trying in their own way to do what they think is best.

Note: I do not post at A+ and am not registered there nor am I a regular poster at PZ,s place. I'm sure that you read more of A+ than I do.
Click to expand...

Hate is way to strong of a word. Disgust might not be.

Also I think the root difference of opinion you are having with others here may be that you have concluded that they are trying to to what they think is best and many of us are quite certain that they are trying to do something else.

They may even be convinced that they are trying to do the right thing. My own opinion is that personal bias has clouded their judgement and corrupted their viewpoint. In the case of those that blog for money there is also a profit motive involved. Conflict creates blog traffic. Resolving conflict does not drive blog traffic.

This does not mean that some of their critics are any better, however. Internal politics within the skeptics movement is damaging to any sort of movement.
 
tsig said:
What I'm having trouble with is the fact that people condone any amount of abusive comments.
Click to expand...

The condoning exists only in your fevered imagination which is why you were so tempted by a non-sequitorial response. Noting that an "avalanche" of such comments consisting of three or four a week is a rather small "avalanche" is not condoning the comments.

tsig said:
I'm having trouble with the unremitting hate directed to other humans who are trying in their own way to do what they think is best.
Click to expand...

Does this have something to do with the fact that an "avalanche" of abusive comments (whether from fellow skeptics or bored teenagers trolling Youtube videos) consisting of three or four a week is a rather small "avalanche", or another non-sequitor and you trying once again to subtly be a Skepchick/FtB/SJW apologist while pretending to be an dispassionate observer?

tsig said:
Note: I do not post at A+ and am not registered there nor am I a regular poster at PZ,s place. I'm sure that you read more of A+ than I do.
Click to expand...

What this has to do with the fact that I was explaining why your "how many abusive PMs here" question was a complete non-sequitor to the fact that an "avalanche" of abusive comments consisting of three or four a week was a rather small "avalanche", I have no idea. That you would introduce another non-sequitor in responding to me since I haven't mentioned A+ in quite a while and your "look over there" PZ,s place distraction won't change the fact that you've been a Skepchick/FtB/SJW apologist for many months now in this thread. Again, your "dispassionate observer" Jedi mind tricks won't work because we've all seen your posts in this thread over that time.

And just for the record Uri, I don't read A+ nor FtB. I checked out both a couple of times due to morbid curiosity, but decided not to give either site any more hits. The last time I checked out a cultist website was St. Becky's hysterics about CFI, which I mostly ignored and read about 50 of the comments. More than enough to know the cult of personality amongst "skeptics" is as bad now as it was amongst Objectivists and Ayn Rand.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'm not in any way condoning it. I am saying, though, and others have said it earlier and better, that some amount of this crap comes with the territory when you put yourself out there as a blogger, and you only encourage the trolls if you demonstrate that you are rattled or otherwise disturbed by their trolling. Dawkins probably gets dozens of such messages a week; he'd get far more if he acknowledged them in any way.
Click to expand...

Ironically enough, there is a video of RW asking Dawkins about just that, and saying, if memory serves, that she'd like to use a clip of him reading his hate mail as a ring tone.
 
Some of the claims made in that thread by the ex-Opus Dei member are just ridiculous.
The belief that you can't discriminate against someone that has privilege is bizarre.
I can't get my head around their mindset.
 
tsig said:
What I'm having trouble with is the fact that people condone any amount of abusive comments.
Click to expand...

Really? Who's condoning it?

I'm having trouble with the unremitting hate directed to other humans who are trying in their own way to do what they think is best.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much everybody everywhere is "trying in their own way to do what they think is best". You are talking about people who are openly hostile to anybody who doesn't share what their narrow vision of "social justice" is. The only "unremitting hate" I see is coming from them. These are not people we want in our movement. They enjoy drama and dissention, and are just completely negative, hateful people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom