Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's also worth pointing out that the biggest way to eliminate prejudices against people is for those with prejudices to encounter ideas which are contrary to those prejudices. We see it often in one way on this forum with members who once believed in all kinds of nonsense but now no longer do, due to discussing them here. With direct prejudice, I have an example from real life.

I once fell in with a group of friends who were all homophobic. My flatmate at the time was gay. They started off distrustful of him but, though spending time with him, they ended up liking him and re-thought their prejudices. Similarly, I once knew someone who was horribly racist. Through circumstances he ended up spending time with people of different races, and he ended up marrying an Indian girl.

If you shut the bigots off into their own echo chamber of bigotry, then all they will do is reinforce each other's ideas. If you engage them and allow them to see that the people they're prejudiced against are people too, then there's a possibility you may change their minds.

That's how you change the world - by being a part of it. Not by shutting yourself off somewhere where nothing you disagree with can enter.
 
Myriad said:
That opinion about how this forum should be run is the reason that I, and I believe most members here, did not want and do not want the ideas and practices of Atheism Plus put into effect in any systematic way across the skeptical community.

(snip)

At the same time, we also acknowledge that a lot of homophobia does exist in the world. If it didn't, there would be no need to talk about it. We don't pretend otherwise or attempt to shelter anyone from being reminded of it. We talk about where it comes from and what to do about it. When a Bible literalist bigot comes along and rants about Leviticus, it helps us to address those questions, and it reminds us that we still have a long way to go. So, we let them rant.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Nominated! Do moderators qualify for the language award?
 
Quinn said:
The fact that you do means you still have at least the theoretical option of eating solid food, which not everyone does. Check your gastrotypical privilege!
Click to expand...

Ok, I think we are all starting to take these checking privilege jokes to far. You all need to start checking your sarcastical privilege!
 
ApostateltsopA said:
...I'm rather disapointed it doesn't here moreso that said fact is a point of such pride for so many of you. Someone who thinks there is something unethical about being gay is evil. That opinion is disgusting and vile. The idea that they could spew their hatefilled excrement here and I would be punished for calling them what they are is absolutly backwards.
Click to expand...

Then you've completely missed the point of a forum "for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime."

You can do that on JREF. You can't do that on atheismplus.com/forum

ETA: Myriad explained it much better and I missed that this AA reply was prior to Myriad's post.
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Then you've completely missed the point of a forum "for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime."

You can do that on JREF. You can't do that on atheismplus.com/forum

ETA: Myriad explained it much better and I missed that this AA reply was prior to Myriad's post.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Here, you can express opinions without fear of reprisals from mods.

You can't say bad words or insult other posters.
 
Howdy,

Y'all may remember some time back I asked why everyone here hates A+ so much. After having spent some time on the A+ forums, I confess I also found many of them wearying if not outright dysfunctional (and a few individuals I consider truly toxic) so I don't post much there anymore. So, to a degree, I have walked back my opinion a bit and am a little closer to your perspective.

I am still not sure, however, what the purpose of this thread is other than an extended exercise in pointing and laughing. Which, you know, go on with your bad selves if that's what you want to do (it's hard for me to resist the temptation to add in my own two cents, I just don't think it's very noble). But I think the arguments that you are motivated by a principled opposition to evil censoring fascists who are trying to take over skepticism are pretty weak. They're a handful of people on a tiny board and no one pays them much attention except to mock them.

I still believe the majority of A+ members are intelligent good-hearted people, who are unfortunately too susceptible to being guilted by "privilege" arguments and thus prone to being walked over by a handful of manipulative and entitled individuals.
 
ApostateltsopA said:
As an example advocating homophobia will lead to a quick ban on A+. I'm rather disapointed it doesn't here moreso that said fact is a point of such pride for so many of you.
Click to expand...

Do you genuinely not understand that suppressing alternate viewpoints, even despicable ones, does nothing to quash them?
ApostateltsopA said:
Someone who thinks there is something unethical about being gay is evil. That opinion is disgusting and vile.
Click to expand...
We all think that though.

ApostateltsopA said:
The idea that they could spew their hatefilled excrement here and I would be punished for calling them what they are is absolutly backwards.
Click to expand...
This is wrong in two ways. Firstly, you can say that someone's ideas are sick or hate filled and that's fine.

Secondly, suppression of a viewpoint, even a horribly wrong one, is thoughtcrime. That's not a good thing.
 
It's also the difference between a safe space and a discussion forum...

Since I really only want to add this: Privilege exists, but is really only a thing in sociological terms, like quints suggested a while back. A good example of such was low-income loans circa 1990's. I'd look up the cite but I should be tablecrafting or sleeping, and I think sleep's winning.)
 
As I've said before in this tread, I've got no opposition to the existence of open forums. I also see a place for forums that are moderated in different ways - safe spaces for various people who tend not to get heard in an open forum.
 
qwints said:
As I've said before in this tread, I've got no opposition to the existence of open forums. I also see a place for forums that are moderated in different ways - safe spaces for various people who tend not to get heard in an open forum.
Click to expand...

And I'm pretty sure as has been said in some form before in this thread...claiming a forum is "for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime." yet not really doing that at all is a trap to catch people that can be "safely" yelled-at then banned.

Is that thread listing the people banned and subsequently mocking them after they're banned still going?
 
qwints said:
As I've said before in this tread, I've got no opposition to the existence of open forums. I also see a place for forums that are moderated in different ways - safe spaces for various people who tend not to get heard in an open forum.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't think that the A+ forum is one of those safe spaces.
The rules aren't applied evenly and some people are clearly safer than others.
 
qwints said:
As I've said before in this tread, I've got no opposition to the existence of open forums. I also see a place for forums that are moderated in different ways - safe spaces for various people who tend not to get heard in an open forum.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a place for both, and sometimes an organization can have both at the same time. BCSkeptics had both a public and a private forum. The former was for socializing (like the JREF Forum) and the latter was for operations.

Winston Wu was on the public forum, but I would never let him join the private forum. He'd be so distracting we'd never get anything done.


Another member posted earlier that discipline is for behavior rather than for ideas, but the distinction is not that clear. Particularly if the ideas in question are about what constitutes appropriate or respectful behavior. ie: I have a skeptical colleague who acts like a douche, but that's because it's consistent with his strongly held idea that acting like a douche is the only effective way to get a message across. Sanctioning his behavior is sanctioning his values.
 
Mayhaps this thread should be saved? So that that the world world will no how not to go about atheism and skepticism.
 
Empress said:
Here's chemgeek actually saying that the only reason s/he hasn't issued bans is because s/he is stressed from real life and doesn't have the spoons (how I loathe the "spoon" thing) to moderate. Of course s/he has the spoons to post and say that s/he doesn't have the spoons to mod properly. I don't know if that was a warning or a demand for appreciation and/or pity.

A+ is the weirdest board I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Whenever I read something on the A+ board, this is what I'm thinking of

nature-is-amazing.jpg
 
TeapotCavalry said:
Whenever I read something on the A+ board, this is what I'm thinking of

[qimg]http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/nature-is-amazing.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Really? You live in a world where people with long hair and facial hair who shop in natural food stores are considered freaks - and not in the sense that we "freaks" use it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom