Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[qwints]

Let them come over here and engage in debate.

Hi, have you met ApostateltsopA and myself?

 

[jhunter1163]

Hi, have you met ApostateltsopA and myself?

Why, yes, I have, and am happy to see you both here. Are you good gentlemen carrying the flag for A+ here? If so, I'm sure we'll have a friendly and lively debate. I'm sure lots of folks have lots of questions and comments for you.

I'd like to extend a welcome to any other A+ers who care to join; I know they read this thread. Come on over; it'll be a blast.

 

[qwints]

I'm a regular poster over there, and I've answered quite a number of questions in this thread about that forum as has ApostateltsopA.

 

[qwints]

Activating the time machine - this was my first post on this thread back in January.

Wow, that's a pretty disturbing hypothetical plan you've got.

Hey, I'm a regular poster over at the atheismplus forums. Haven't posted on here for quite a long time, but I thought I might serve as another person for you to talk to rather than have y'all continue kibitzing on our forum.

A brief summary of my thoughts on this thread so far:

There are lots of spaces for more or less open debate online, including several large ones specifically catering to skeptics and/or atheists. The existence of a space with different goals is not a threat to those spaces.

No one is immune to criticism. People, including moderators, have said things they've regretted saying or that they should regret saying. You're well within your rights to criticize them (or me) for that. They have no duty to explain their actions to you when you do so.

I'm willing to accept some limitations and obligations in my participation on that forum to increase that forums accessibility to others - even when I don't understand the need for those limitations - because the cost is generally so low.

Diagnosing the mental health of forum members based solely on their posts is both laughable and contemptible.

 

[Quinn]

Please stop trying to further victimize Kochanski with false claims.

Not just false claims, but false claims that deny someone's lived (and in this case, documented on national TV) experience. I thought that went by the colloquial name of erasing someone, and was frowned upon rather heavily?

 

[Fizil]

Some of the results there are interesting. Only slightly more people consider lesbians to be less privileged than bisexuals, and apparently Atheists are more privileged than Hindus.

I think it is pretty stupid. Perhaps that is the point, I don't know. However when 20% of the respondents think someone earning minimum wage is less privileged than someone who is incarcerated in prison, I have a hard time thinking anyone really understand what the hell they are measuring.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think it is pretty stupid. Perhaps that is the point, I don't know. However when 20% of the respondents think someone earning minimum wage is less privileged than someone who is incarcerated in prison, I have a hard time thinking anyone really understand what the hell they are measuring.

Which is kind of what makes the "privilege" argument so stupid. You can't measure it.

 

[qwints]

Privilege as a quantifiable attribute that determines someone's moral superiority is unworkable. Privilege as a sociological framework for examining differences in experience is useful.

 

[Joe Random]

Which is kind of what makes the "privilege" argument so stupid. You can't measure it.

But you can rape refill someone's glass with it :

 

[Foolmewunz]

Privilege as a quantifiable attribute that determines someone's moral superiority is unworkable. Privilege as a sociological framework for examining differences in experience is useful.

This is a quite accurate assessment, IMHO. The problem is that a machete can be a practical tool, also but in the hands of someone incapable of hefting its weight, it's a clunky and dangerous weapon. You get neophytes trying to use the term "privilege" and instead of applying it to the center of the underlying thoughts of the person or persons they're addressing, they swing it over their heads like a cudgel. If that were the machete, they would likely cut their pinkie toe off - much the same figurative result of some of their stupid arguments using "privilege" as a hand-waving discussion stopper.

The thing is... thinking people recognize this. No one over yonder is willing to point out to them.... "Uh, Kassi... you're using buzzwords and not using them properly and frankly, you sound like an idiot."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Privilege as a quantifiable attribute that determines someone's moral superiority is unworkable. Privilege as a sociological framework for examining differences in experience is useful.

No, it's really not. "Privilege" is a horrible meme and it needs to die.

Anything you can express in terms of "privilege" you can also express in terms of discrimination. Instead of saying "X are privileged" you just say "non-X are discriminated against". It's not hard.

However if you do that, it's harder to use "check your privilege!" and "stop privilegesplaining!" as tools to avoid rational discussion.

 

[Diogenes]

No, it's really not. "Privilege" is a horrible meme and it needs to die...

That would be nice.


As an aside I wonder if RW and fans have tried to purge Dawkin's meme idea from their own vocabularies...surely they know it came from The Selfish Gene?

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

In my experience, "privilege" is a sort of rhetorical football that is ultimately construed by those who use it to mean: "My clique and I have it far worse than you do. You need to defer to us. And, if you don't, you're a reactionary pig."

No one ever seems to want to quantify privilege in a systemic way, either as a single index, or a set of related privilege indices if one number just can't capture it all. In fact, I'd be satisfied with ordinal rankings that aren't completely ad hoc. But these SJWs will never attempt to make them. Because, like I said, privilege is a rhetorical gimmick. And to that end, it needs to remain sufficiently vague so as to make sure that those who invoke it always have the least amount of it.

 

[Empress]

Hmm, the board is closed for maintenance. Putting in more sooper-sekrit places?

They've moved servers, so I suppose all the links in this thread will no longer work.

Their new home.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

I think you are confused.

I did not say anything they have done is abuse, I say the people on the blockbot list are now victims of slander. Not because they were added to the list but because of the BBC news program.

Slandered, abused, that is semantics. As for the BBC program, you are going to have to justify that as slanderous. The only difference I see between the conduct here, say how Setar or ceepolk are spoken of, and the block bot is that the bot places a person on a list once and is done with it, wheras here the criticism, and vile insults (amature psychoanalysis anyone?) just keep going on and on.

I say that I have been added on blockbot as level 2 with no indication why I was put there and at that level and at whose instigation. I say that the levels are arbitrarily decided by a group of individuals using a criteria that is not explained anywhere. I say that they participated in BBC news program speaking about the blockbot with twitter handles shown on screen and individuals on that blockbot list are referred to as abusers. And I say that this is slander and can cause harm in that people who have seen the show and may go to see the blockbot list with the limited information they were given watching the show will see those individuals as abusers.

The individuals on level 1 were labeled abusers, as a level 2 you have been labeled regularly annoying. Why does that bother you so much? A bunch of people don't want to see what you write on twitter, that isn't censorship you can still write things on twitter, and elsewhere. Some people just won't see it. Here read this,

"(Note for those coming here when blocked, nowhere does the bot say you are anything, abusive, an MRA, whatever. Look at the tweet that added you and ask the blocker that blocked you. The levels are from annoying to abusive bigot. Level1 people might have something to complain about in terms of being labelled “abusive, stalker, doxxer or faker”, few have however as it’s a pretty clear cut accusation. Level2 and Level3 are more subjective, are you really that damaged by some people thinking you are an ******* or annoying?)" - From the block bot home page.

I have no objection to them creating a blockbot for their own use and as long as it does not violate Twitters TOS they can do as they please.

So you object to them allowing the BBC to tell others about it? They can not listen to you as long as they are silent about it? Your position makes no sense at all.

If anyone equates criticism as abuse it is the individuals who objected enough to people's tweet to feel the need to create a blockbot so that they would not have to see criticism or disagreement with their views.

Because all that happens on twitter is friendly discourse and there is no stalking or harassment. You are severely misrepresenting the situation the block bot was created to stop.

Blocking someone is not criticism, criticism requires engagement and they have not engaged with me at all. They did not tell me I was added, or why or at whose instigation. They chose to disengage completely.

Nonsense, I criticize people all the time without engaging them. You are making up new ways to use the language, or some kind of special case.

I am perfectly willing to engage in discussions with any of them if they wish and if they have a problem with anything I have said I will accept the criticism. If I feel they have valid criticisms I may apologize for my words.

This week is banned book week, a good time to reflect on censorship and such.

Or they can just decide you are a lost cause and refuse to engage with you. It seems that is what they have done.

So if this thread received coverage on BBC would that be slander against ceepolk and setar, as well as Atheism + and FTB in general? Quite frankly nothing on the Block Bot is a lie, they represent honestly held opinions, thus slander is not possible.

What do you think is the error rate of the blockbot?

I am aware of exactly one block removed as an error. However I lack data to do more than guess. So I don't know what the error rate would be, based on the unblocks I know of, very low.

What do you think is a reasonable error rate for such a bot?

Whatever rate the users and admins accept. No one needs anyone's permission to block someone on twitter, all the block bot does is keep a list and automate blocking.

What do you think is the amount of resources (time, energy, expertise, spoons, etc.) necessary to achieve a reasonable error rate for such a bot?

Whatever those running it choose to assign, the blockees are not harmed by being blocked. Not significantly at any rate.

Do you think that such a bot should be implemented, if the necessary resources aren't available to maintain a reasonable error rate?

I think that users of social media should block each other with exactly the frequency and precision that they deem healthy for their use of social media.

What's the current bot maintainer's attitude towards errors?

What process does the maintainer follow to avoid errors?

What process does the maintainer follow to correct errors?

You must have mistaken me for a block bot admin, as opposed to a supporter. I have no idea what the answers to these questions might be. I also don't see them as relevant to the operation of the bot. If the quality of the blocking becomes a problem people will stop using the service, in the same way that I refuse to fly with Delta Airlines.

Is the process transparent? Are the criteria well-defined? Do you think such a bot should be implemented without these things?

Yes, but admittedly gaining transparency from less transparency in the past, as well as they need to be and yes. The bot is open source code, anyone can use one. It is no different ethically than the block feature which is also standard on social media interfaces.

It's not a question of perfection or nothing. It's a question of making a serious, good-faith effort to do it well, to listen to criticism, and to make improvements. Nobody is saying the blockbot has to be perfect; they're saying it needs to stop being so badly and gratuitously wrong.

Where is it badly and gratuitously wrong? It reflects the opinions of it's creators and users. I understand that a lot of people don't like it, I just can not understand why.

I'm not sure how you got that out of Kochanski's post. There's a world of difference between mild criticism on an Internet forum and publicly labeling people as abusers. Surely, you can see that.

"Mild" /chuckles

Aside from the BBC coverage how is there any difference from negative comments about a person on one web forum or another? Because the criticism is indexed on the block bot?

Let them come over here and engage in debate. Stepping out of the safe zone might be good for them. I promise not to use my mod powers to interfere in any way. I'll even recuse myself from modding any A+er who comes here, just to avoid even the appearance of bias.

I doubt they will, but the door's always open.

Hello, perhaps you've looked at my avatar, or searched the A+ site, I post rather regularly there, as does quints.

Please stop trying to further victimize Kochanski with false claims.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It was a direct, and honest, presentation of my understanding of his statements. I'm still waiting to see how this thread is substantially different from an organized blocking tool on twitter as a comparison of harm. Quite frankly participation in one while rejecting the other seems like hypocrisy to me.

Sorry...I can't understand whether or not you're making a joke here or if that is what you consider a serious argument. Care to clarify?

It was a direct response to the criticism that even though the poster believed that lots of the people blocked were bad trolls and such the block bot was not perfect.

Specifically they said,
"While there is no doubt in my mind that a number of them are horrible, horrible trolls, sexists, and even rape apologists, that doesn't mean all of them are. "

That strongly implies that if they are not all such nasty people they should not all be on the block list. It is referring to a standard of perfection. At least that is how I read it, I'm open to a explanation with more depth than the original comment.

Seriously on the topic of the block bot, what is a non-hyperbolic objection to the thing? Do the same objections apply to someone keeping a list online of the folks they have blocked, such as the banned user list on A+? Do the people objecting to the block bot think blocking should not be a thing?

Don't say "Slander" that is a legal term which requires there to be a falsehood spread intentionally. How is the block bot significantly different from the negative comments here? For instance, if Settar were to sign up here I believe quite a lot said about them would be in violation of the user agreement.

Don't say "Censorship" that is also false. No one is being prevented from saying anything on the medium of Twitter, or any other. Some people are simply refusing to listen to what others are saying.

 

[bedlin88]

It was a direct, and honest, presentation of my understanding of his statements. I'm still waiting to see how this thread is substantially different from an organized blocking tool on twitter as a comparison of harm. Quite frankly participation in one while rejecting the other seems like hypocrisy to me.

I will let someone else with more time on their hand deconstruct the above. However this statement is false equivalency. One is an app designed to stop people from having a conversation. The other is a thread on a message board designed to facilitate people having a conversation.

And to take your tact a bit,

Are you honestly saying you can't tell the difference?

 

[Dissolution]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23510635

Have a read of that, ApostateltsopA.
What conclusion do you think that anyone unfamiliar with the situation will come to about those on the blockbot's blacklist?

 

[jhunter1163]

Don't say "Censorship" that is also false. No one is being prevented from saying anything on the medium of Twitter, or any other. Some people are simply refusing to listen to what others are saying.

This caused me to shoot Coca-Cola out of my nose, coming from a representative of the most fascist board I have ever encountered on the Internet. Of course people are being censored at A+. Any opinion that runs counter to the hivemind there is stamped out ruthlessly. And that's exactly why you'll never see Setar or ceepolk or any of the other A+ mods here; they simply haven't got the spoons to participate in a discussion they do not control.

 

[Diogenes]

...
It was a direct response to the criticism...

So, serious argument...thanks!

 

[Stout]

It's finally happening, Setar is getting called on his made up reasons on both A+ and Ophelia Benson's blog.

It seems the poor guy is insisting that the Nairobi incident was motivated by "protest" against western colonialism.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...or something like that.

A+ thread here
Ophie's Blog