Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwints said:
No need, it's clear that the existence of private threads there is no longer a secret. There's nothing sinister going on in those threads. Honestly the only thing I'd be embarrassed about anyone seeing is the mutual support stuff.

For the record, I'm extremely deferential to your critique of North American social justice even if I think what atheismplus does is valuable.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks. I actually have learned a thing or three from some of their threads, if only in terms of different ways to look at situations. If it weren't for the screaming, dogmatism and us/them goggles they might actually get things spread to a wider audience. I thought of joining up ages ago, but I wouldn't last longer than ten minutes, because I won't take crap from the neurotics who are running the place.

And that's kinda too bad, because there are people out there (in the world) and in here (on these forums) who are beyond merely being sympathetic to the things they espouse. We've actually fought for those things and literally (real meaning of the word) have the scars to prove it.
 
qwints said:
No need, it's clear that the existence of private threads there is no longer a secret. There's nothing sinister going on in those threads. Honestly the only thing I'd be embarrassed about anyone seeing is the mutual support stuff.

For the record, I'm extremely deferential to your critique of North American social justice even if I think what atheismplus does is valuable.
Click to expand...

What does atheismplus actually do? How is it, and to who is it, valuable?
 
qwints said:
For the record, I'm extremely deferential to your critique of North American social justice even if I think what atheismplus does is valuable.
Click to expand...

What they do is trying to politicize atheism in the US. It doesn't work. They essentially want to make atheist synonymous with being on the far left, and seem excessively worried about libertarians hiding under their beds. Well, in my impression, many, if not most, American and Canadian libertarians are atheists, but they tend to be rather indifferent to religion and therefore not interested in organized atheism.

And they are extremely USA-centered. In other Western democracies atheism is mostly not a political issue and to try to tie it to one political group seems laughable. I'd bet all my life's savings that the majority of atheists in the world has never heard of Rebecca Watson, Richard Carrier, and PZ Myers, or any of the stars of plusserism.

Where I live atheism is extremely common among everyone from communists to libertarians.
 
Humes fork said:
Are Dawkins and Watson really all that hostile to each other due to Elevatorgate?

I'm suspecting the SGU will never, ever interview Dawkins.
Click to expand...

I think being called an over-privileged rich old white rape apologist made him bitter or something.
 
qwints said:
No need, it's clear that the existence of private threads there is no longer a secret. There's nothing sinister going on in those threads. Honestly the only thing I'd be embarrassed about anyone seeing is the mutual support stuff.

For the record, I'm extremely deferential to your critique of North American social justice even if I think what atheismplus does is valuable.
Click to expand...
I'm not personally opposed to the concept of A+ or FTB. I'm not opposed to any group that seeks to further dialog. I am opposed to the way in which they moderate and the group think that IMO seems to permeate the board.

I disagree with a number of arguments and feminist positions but even many feminists do. Many anti-porn feminists are opposed to many sex-positive feminists. Oddly enough they both use much of the same rhetoric.

Thanks Qwints for your input.
 
Mr. Scott said:
What does atheismplus actually do? How is it, and to who is it, valuable?
Click to expand...

The forum provides a space for certain people to talk with each other in a way that's different from other internet forums. Specifically, the mods discouraging and/or banning certain forms of discourse allow conversations and sharing that might be disrupted in a more open forum. It also serves as a gathering point for posters who broadly share certain values but might not otherwise meet because they care about different causes.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that the forum isn't providing benefits outside of its members - with the possible exception of providing exposure of views in forums like this where people are reading the posts. While many people on atheismplus engage in various forms of advocacy or charitable work, I don't think there are any active efforts taking place because of the forum.

Humes fork said:
What they do is trying to politicize atheism in the US.
Click to expand...

I thought I've read people criticizing them for not caring about atheism enough to be able to use the name.

Humes fork said:
And they are extremely USA-centered.
Click to expand...

I think Canada's decently represented, but a fair point in spirit.
 
squealpiggy said:
I think being called an over-privileged rich old white rape apologist made him bitter or something.
Click to expand...

I's think so.

For some reason I get the feeling they are driven partly by envy at Dawkins' success and fame. Who is going to remember Rebecca Watson, Richard Carrier or PZ Myers in 200 years?
 
s_pepys said:
Greta Christina also jumps in with the Dawkins bashing. They also seem to be happily repeating allegations against shermer and krauss with no come back at ftb.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/09/06/on-being-disillusioned-by-heroes/
Click to expand...
Here Greta commits a fairly common human fallacy when it comes to individuals intention (want). In split brain experiments we learn empirically what we've known for centuries (if not mellenia) that the human mind is not a unified intention. The neurotic nature of the human mind was popularized in the Movie 2001 with the use of a computer stand in, Hall 9000. Greta's argument is ad hoc rationalization (as is Mr. Deities BTW). Absent brain pathology or the intentional severing of the corpus callosum, its difficult to falsify such claims and if we could it is likely that both intentions would in fact exist. A good example is wanting the opposing political party to fail so that we can say "see I told you", but also not wanting things to get worse (which is difficult if the opposing party fails). That's not to say that the rationalizations are entirely without some value. They both exist as possible and worth considering. But Greta's is a false dichotomy. She assumes that she can only either wish these things to be true or not. That's simply not the human condition.
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
...

I thought I've read people criticizing them for not caring about atheism enough to be able to use the name....
Click to expand...

Humes fork is representative of an implied majority of people here?

I suggested there, back in October, I think it was, that having "PR" public boards where the modding is only for simple trolling (ad homs and such) where people there only for the "safe space" aspect (which, honestly, has read more like a "no tag-back" rant fest) would be able to hide that from their view while having discrete "safe space" boards which would basically be run how the public boards are now run...the shouting-down of ideological "trolls".

In my opinion the refusal of accepting the mantle of being representative of or responsible for the budding "movement" and instead using the "safe space" for lots of profanity-laced (expletives likely being triggering for anyone from an abusive home life (de novo hypothesis, so could be wrong and getting accepted subgroup members to admit that if true would be very unlikely at this point, anyway)) rants initiated the "dying on the vine" of what, maybe could have had been something pretty positive overall. (Periodically I check the unique visitors stats for the domain...going to guess FtB has been promoting it recently over Shermer & co. if that August spike is real.)

I can't remember which mod or mods informed me that they're not responsible for the movement and that the forum was only meant for "safe space"...which is still in quotes because their connotative definition of "safe space" is miles and miles away from mine and, I'm guessing, the majority of generally reasonable people not already part of the SJW subculture.
 
I'm not sure I've heard mere profanity labeled as anyone's trigger, but I've certainly heard people explain that the insults and personal attacks were problematic. It may be impossible to reconcile people's need to express anger with a safe space, and the mods at atheismplus have chosen to allow the former perhaps at the expense of the latter.
 
qwints said:
Specifically, the mods discouraging and/or banning certain forms of discourse allow conversations and sharing that might be disrupted in a more open forum.
Click to expand...

I don't see how banning discourse that's contrary to the accepted norms at A+ does anything but encourage insularity and groupthink, but maybe that's just me.
 
qwints said:
The forum provides a space for certain people to talk with each other in a way that's different from other internet forums.
Click to expand...
I completely accept your premise and I agree. So long as you don't use the term "safe space" as it is in large part, IMO, a space for certain people to not have to be exposed to certain arguments and critiques. FWIW: As time goes on I'm less and less impressed with the notion of a "safe space". I think the idea is a noble but impossible ideal. It is inherently divisive and, IMO, patronizing to its members.

qwints said:
I'm not sure I've heard mere profanity labeled as anyone's trigger, but I've certainly heard people explain that the insults and personal attacks were problematic.
Click to expand...
Whose insults and problematic for whom? From my perspective, personal insults are allowed so long as those insults are directed at outsiders or those who do not conform to A+ priorities.

Places like A+ commit the only real cardinal sin against the dialectic, prior restraint of opinion. This creates an echo chamber effect. I'll be honest, most if not all forums (including the JREF) suffer this to some extent. Once a mindset gains a majority it becomes easy for members to gang up on minority voices, even if they do so civilly. The problem, as I see it, is that the policies of A+, as well as FTB, significantly exacerbate the problem. Instead of simply raising awareness of social injustices and creating an atmosphere conducive to social justice they create a dichotomy of us vs them. Good guys and bad guys. The problem is that the world isn't nearly so black and white.
 
qwints said:
I'm not sure I've heard mere profanity labeled as anyone's trigger, but I've certainly heard people explain that the insults and personal attacks were problematic. It may be impossible to reconcile people's need to express anger with a safe space, and the mods at atheismplus have chosen to allow the former perhaps at the expense of the latter.
Click to expand...

I remember it coming up. The person was mocked for being anti-working class, among other things. I think that is another example of leftists taking on a false working class identity, but that is another matter.

I disagree with the concept that "justifiable anger" means one should be permitted to spew verbal diarrhea. One can be angry because of oppression and communicate in an effective and helpful manner. Swearing and ad homs are less desirable because they give little to no information beyond the writer's emotional state, they have a chilling effect for people who are triggered by such things, and they leave little room for further, productive discourse.

Sometimes we really want to swear or name call, but denying that desire is not the same as erasing a person or their oppression.
 
For one thing, I predicted that, once A+ was finished battling their "trolls" (people who disagreed or questioned them) they'd turn on each other, as per Setar and Ceepolk. They are addicted to drama (the "I'm better than you" game).

Also, I observed earlier in this thread that a space visible to the outside world could not really safe, even if thickly shielded, because the visibility invited attack. This also took on a prophetic nuance once the existence of the secret forum was discovered.

I really hate it that, though at one time "troll" meant an anonymous person on the Internet who said horrible things just to set people off, it means anyone who disagrees with you.

There is no free thought on FreeThoughtBlogs or A+. I see the antithesis of skepticism and critical thinking. I'd be really interested to know how qwints reconciles this which, to me, must require epic cognitive dissonance.
 
qwints said:
The forum provides a space for certain people to talk with each other in a way that's different from other internet forums. Specifically, the mods discouraging and/or banning certain forms of discourse allow conversations and sharing that might be disrupted in a more open forum. It also serves as a gathering point for posters who broadly share certain values but might not otherwise meet because they care about different causes.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that the forum isn't providing benefits outside of its members - with the possible exception of providing exposure of views in forums like this where people are reading the posts. While many people on atheismplus engage in various forms of advocacy or charitable work, I don't think there are any active efforts taking place because of the forum.

I thought I've read people criticizing them for not caring about atheism enough to be able to use the name....
Click to expand...
jhunter1163 said:
I don't see how banning discourse that's contrary to the accepted norms at A+ does anything but encourage insularity and groupthink, but maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...
I agree with jhunter and the groupthink is particularly entrenched when it comes to this group's specific beliefs about "feminism 101".

Some of us don't buy the claims of rampant sexism within the ranks of atheist and skeptic organizations. Is there some? Sure, but it's not reflected by every guy's simply approaching a woman. Where is the misogyny in that? How liberated is a woman who can't handle a guy coming on to her with a simple, "no thanks"? And claiming all the hate emails that Skepchik blogs attract is coming from within the community? Not only is that not skeptical, but if you haven't noticed, it's a widespread defective-humans-are-everywhere phenomena that grew up out of the anonymity of the Net.

The groupthink at ftbs is that this is all coming from within the community. That's just nuts with a heavy dose of confirmation bias. People have been banned right and left from the A+ forum and from posting comments on the ftbs, not because they post profanity, but because they post opinions which are not held by the group thinkers. Meyers claims this is because they don't want to give these other views a platform, and I have heard him directly say that in response to a question about it when PZ was last here in Seattle.
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
The forum provides a space for certain people to talk with each other in a way that's different from other internet forums. Specifically, the mods discouraging and/or banning certain forms of discourse allow conversations and sharing that might be disrupted in a more open forum. It also serves as a gathering point for posters who broadly share certain values but might not otherwise meet because they care about different causes.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that the forum isn't providing benefits outside of its members - with the possible exception of providing exposure of views in forums like this where people are reading the posts. While many people on atheismplus engage in various forms of advocacy or charitable work, I don't think there are any active efforts taking place because of the forum.
Click to expand...

So, its nice for the 10 or 20 regular members?

I'm really not sure its doing most of them any favors, either. That sort of insular, "burn the witch!" echo chamber environment (and you have to agree that yes, it really is the quintessential internet echo chamber - perhaps one of the most extreme cases anywhere publicly visible on the internet) is antithetical to critical thinking.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I don't see how banning discourse that's contrary to the accepted norms at A+ does anything but encourage insularity and groupthink, but maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...


I think they've made it pretty clear that insularity and groupthink are what they're all about, and they'll do whatever is necessary to keep from having it disrupted. Of course that's entirely their right, and they're welcome to it. But as long as they continue that behavior while flying the flag of atheism and critical thinking, they'll continue to generate criticism and ridicule from the outside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom