(Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[qwints]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Why did it sound "off"? Isn't that a form of tone trolling?

The language sounded off because it's language that I've heard used by bigots in a racist way. I'm unfamiliar with people using "street thug" as a reference for writing or speaking style in a non-racialized way.

It certainly could be a form of tone trolling. If I was just trying to provoke a reaction rather than engage in a discussion, it would be. If you conclude that no reasonable person could hear "vernacular" of "street thugs" as racially insensitive, then it's perfectly reasonable to believe that my raising the point was trolling.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Would you not agree that some web sites are better than others at propagating truth? If so, do you think that prior restraint and rudeness are a good way to foster social progress?

I don't think that there's one way to prorogate truth. Different methods are better for different audiences. I'd certainly agree that atheismplus is almost wholly ineffective at propagating truth to some groups - e.g. it makes almost no effort to interact with people who come their to challenge whether it should exist.

I've explained why I think enforcing politeness shuts some people out of the conversation, and people here have explained why they disagree with me.

I don't think either the 3 post non-spam requirement or heavy moderation constitute meaningful prior restraint.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, that's just a Burden we White Men must bear.

You mean:

Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.


Whoops, trigger alert:
Rampant sexism.

[tsig]

[del

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by qwints

I don't think that there's one way to prorogate truth. Different methods are better for different audiences. I'd certainly agree that atheismplus is almost wholly ineffective at propagating truth to some groups - e.g. it makes almost no effort to interact with people who come their to challenge whether it should exist.

I've explained why I think enforcing politeness shuts some people out of the conversation, and people here have explained why they disagree with me.

I don't think either the 3 post non-spam requirement or heavy moderation constitute meaningful prior restraint.

Having thought about it for awhile I'm going to stop accusing A+ of prior restraint. Though not because of what you said. The definition doesn't quite fit. But there are ideas and perceptions, ideas, etc., that are out of bounds that are not potentially criminal, obscene, demonstrate a clear and present danger and/or are copyrighted that are not welcome at A+.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by qwints

I've explained why I think enforcing politeness shuts some people out of the conversation, and people here have explained why they disagree with me.

I don't think you've ever demonstrated that politeness was ever enforced. There's a concept that giving offence can be a banning matter, but the use of obscenities is apparently fine, so this isn't related to politeness at all.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by qwints

The poster doth protest too much, methinks.

If "the poster" to whom you refer is yourself, I would agree. It appears, at least to this disinterested and objective observer, that the poster 'protesting too much' is actually you.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It's first world privilege. It completely ignores posters from third world countries like Uganda, Bangladesh and Australia.

You forgot New Zealand. Like everyone does.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

I was under the impression that social justice took a lot of time, effort, and money. It's good to know that all you have to do is create a web forum and be rude to people.

And here lies the rub.

I tried to put forward this viewpoint on PZ's blog. I had recently worked with a collegue to identify the reasons behind the prevalence of male management in the large Australian company I was working for. (As it turns out, its just a horrible boys-club run by horrible people, but I digress). The way these things are removed from society is by the sustained effort of many people, not by bitching on a blog about people's use of the word "bitch".

I was told by many people, whose sole effort against sexism was whining on a blog, a whole bunch of crap that culminated in me being told to sodomise myself with various dead animals. Apparently I *wasnt* helping, nor was I helping when I engaged the prime minister of australia in an email exchange about gay marriage. These things don't matter.

What *does* matter is posting on forums. Yessiree.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by qwints

An exceedingly fair point. I invite you to google "street thug" and count the blatantly racist things you see, but I'm not familiar with the words use in other Anglophone cultures.

I did, in order to assess the validity of your point. I found a racehorse, no idea what colour it is though but other than that I came up blank on trying to define street thug as being racialized.

Some more possibly problematic terms

Calling a spade a spade

The word....denigrate.

We could make them racialized if we try hard enough however it would involve a lot of pounding a square peg into a round hole.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by devnull

And here lies the rub.

I tried to put forward this viewpoint on PZ's blog. I had recently worked with a collegue to identify the reasons behind the prevalence of male management in the large Australian company I was working for. (As it turns out, its just a horrible boys-club run by horrible people, but I digress). The way these things are removed from society is by the sustained effort of many people, not by bitching on a blog about people's use of the word "bitch".

I was told by many people, whose sole effort against sexism was whining on a blog, a whole bunch of crap that culminated in me being told to sodomise myself with various dead animals. Apparently I *wasnt* helping, nor was I helping when I engaged the prime minister of australia in an email exchange about gay marriage. These things don't matter.

What *does* matter is posting on forums. Yessiree.

What matters is as much discussion and debate as possible. And let's not forget the power of adversarial debate AKA dialectic.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Stout

I did, in order to assess the validity of your point. I found a racehorse, no idea what colour it is though but other than that I came up blank on trying to define street thug as being racialized.

Some more possibly problematic terms

Calling a spade a spade

The word....denigrate.

We could make them racialized if we try hard enough however it would involve a lot of pounding a square peg into a round hole.

Let's not forget that David Howard was fired for using the word "niggardly" and Anthony Federico was fired for saying "chink in the armor".

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by qwints

Asking someone why they chose a particular phrasing is not a leading question. A leading question is one that suggests its own answer. I was asking because I thought the language sounded off, and I wanted to hear why he chose it. More broadly the goal was to get people to think about their language use. I believe recursive prophet when he says he doesn't believe in the biological reality of race.

You were a bit more specific about the implications of your question, a few pages ago:

Originally Posted by qwints

You choice of syntax makes me think you were specifically talking about people who talk in African-American English. References to the "vernacular" of "street thugs" are also common among people disparaging racial and ethnic minorities.

As far as I've been able to tell, contrary to Foolmewunz's claims and despite his further claim that any doubt would be silly, "street thugs" is not a common synonym for "gangsta" and is not a very common phrase at all. Besides self-selected proper names, it has no meaning other than the combination of its two words: violence-prone people who are encountered on a street. There is no special definition for the phrase in any online dictionary that I can find, not even Urban Dictionary which is very profligate and up-to-date with phrases and neologisms.

The first two Google links for the phrase are, nonetheless, to Urban Dictionary (those links go to phrases and definitions in the UD that include one or the other word), and the third is for a race horse by that name. (Note: the kind of race where horses try to run faster than other horses, so please refrain from accusations of problematic language there.) The total number of hits for the phrase is about 400,000, which is consistent with it being used from time to time just as "street dog" and "street cat" (over 1 million hits each) are used primarily to describe creatures of the canis and felis varieties that are encountered in the street. For another comparison, the phrase "thug life" -- a phrase that was adopted by ethnic minorities and does have a meaning distinct from the concatenation of its two words -- gets 7.1 million hits.

Now, Foolmewunz's point does have some validity, if applied not to the phrase "street thug" but to the single word "thug" itself. The word is several hundred years old, and originated in India; my sympathy, however, for the Indian victims of this "appropriation" is more than a little tempered by the fact that they were organized cultists practicing cold-blooded murder.

Nonetheless, it is true that in recent decades, in the U.S., some cultures such as the rap music world have adopted the term, as evidenced by (among many other things) the number of Google results for "thug life." That hardly nullifies hundreds of years of more general uses of the word, but it is out there.

Because of this, I'm inclined to forgive qwints for reading the phrase "street thugs" and immediately thinking it was a reference to black people.

However, I have not seen any evidence for the claimed use of the word thug, or phrases containing that word, as a code to secretly signal fellow racists. That claim, furthermore, flirts with being unfalsifiable, if this lack of evidence ends up being offered as evidence of how insidiously secret the alleged dog-whistle code is.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[qwints]

Originally Posted by RandFan

But there are ideas and perceptions, ideas, etc., that are out of bounds that are not potentially criminal, obscene, demonstrate a clear and present danger and/or are copyrighted that are not welcome at A+.

Absolutely, and I completely agree that this reduces that amount of discussion and debate on atheismplus. I'm glad spaces like this forum exist for such discussion and debate. I also think there's a need for spaces that shut out some voices to allow those marginalized in open forums to be heard. I'd imagine we have quite different views on restrictions on political speech through campaign finance law.

Originally Posted by Myriad

However, I have not seen any evidence for the claimed use of the word thug, or phrases containing that word, as a code to secretly signal fellow racists. That claim, furthermore, flirts with being unfalsifiable, if this lack of evidence ends up being offered as evidence of how insidiously secret the alleged dog-whistle code is.

If your point is that there's no evidence recursive prophet intended to use street thug to subtly make a racist point, I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd agree with you that there's good evidence he didn't. But I disagree that there's no good evidence that "street thug" is used by some bigots to do so. I'd point to Alexander Lamis's The Two-Party South as a good source. Its quotes from Lee Atwater about the Republican southern strategy are direct evidence of dog whistle politics. See also "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant" - an opinion piece from the times in 2005.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by qwints

If your point is that there's no evidence recursive prophet intended to use street thug to subtly make a racist point, I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd agree with you that there's good evidence he didn't. But I disagree that there's no good evidence that "street thug" is used by some bigots to do so. I'd point to Alexander Lamis's The Two-Party South as a good source. Its quote's from Lee Atwater about the Republican southern strategy are direct evidence of dog whistle politics. See also "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant" - an opinion piece from the times in 2005.

So, to recap:

• You don't think RP was being racist;
• In fact, you think the evidence is against RP being racist;
• You've had to fall back on a privileged position of citesplaining, to support any sort of racist interpretation;
• Which interpretation you now admit was irrelevant all along.

Why did you bring it up, again? If you think RP wasn't being racist, and you agree that nobody else here probably knew or cared about the potential racist connotations, why did you mention it?

Was it simply to provide a clear object lesson in how thoroughly hateful, toxic, and chilling the A+ in-culture actually is?

[16.5]

Originally Posted by qwints

I don't think either the 3 post non-spam requirement or heavy moderation constitute meaningful prior restraint.

The 3 post what now? Who mentioned that? Well I agree, I don't think the completely irrelevant no one has mentioned 3 post minimum requirement IS a big deal.

The hilariously *********** ridiculous, the god damn ***********, *******, *********** over the top gestapo like *********** Nazi style psycho moderation by a bunch of *********** gutter punks? Slightly over the top.

But thanks for *********** posting.

/full disclosure: gutter punk is NOT racist. Oh crap, pointing that out is probably Awesomesplaining.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by qwints

Absolutely, and I completely agree that this reduces that amount of discussion and debate on atheismplus. I'm glad spaces like this forum exist for such discussion and debate. I also think there's a need for spaces that shut out some voices to allow those marginalized in open forums to be heard. I'd imagine we have quite different views on restrictions on political speech through campaign finance law.

Thanks for responding. Your idea is interesting but it's not convincing to me.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by qwints

Trying to make society more just does require enormous amounts of collective effort. One very small part of that effort can be creating a web forum. I'd rank posting on the forum somewhat below writing to my representatives in terms of efficacy.

Well, at least you acknowledge that it's a "very small part". But, you do realize that they've described posting on their special place as "Social Justice in Action" in a post in the Let's Ban the Newbs If They Come Here and Complain thread? This was a bit of Plussplaining as to why someone's street cred for having put his/her ass on the line against apartheid didn't amount to anything!

Of course, this was because the person who'd actually done something about injustice was a non-favored poster and the person doing the Plussplaining was a member of the inner sanctum (henceforth know as the Illumi-notty), but it was actually 'splained that the devotees of A+ converse on the forums then apply what they've learned in meatspace... and as it was put in that post... "Social Justice in Action". (Somehow, I think we're supposed to cue up a blare of trumpets at that point.)

I'd imagine that for people who've actually been arrested at sit-ins, hustled black voters around the obstacles created by the racists to keep them from the polls, been beaten on by cops, and been involved in assorted real-world activities, that sort of self-congratulatory crap would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so stomach churning.

Activists act. Applying what one learns on a bully-board by taking a tentative verbal stand against the office misogynist bully may seem like "action' to the weenies on A+, but I'll take Occupy or even the Tea Party more seriously. They actually put their money where their mouths are, whether I agree with them or not.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by qwints

Then hopefully the other moderators will deal with it. We've had at least one moderator step down after pressure from other mods over concerns she was being abusive. But your point is taken - quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Are you talking about maiforpeace?

Quote:

atheismplus absolutely has problems being US-centric with most of the non-US posters being from Canada or the UK.

But are they working on it? Or are they too busy complaining about being oppressed by the "patriarchy"?

Originally Posted by theprestige

Now that should come with a warning tag!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[qwints]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why did you bring it up, again? If you think RP wasn't being racist, and you agree that nobody else here probably knew or cared about the potential racist connotations, why did you mention it?

First, it wasn't initially clear to me that recursive prophet wasn't intentionally being racist. His eventual response that he doesn't believe in race convinced me it wasn't intentional. That position is wrong, but it's not likely to lead to someone making subtle racist comments.

Second, because talking about the language we use is important. Word choice matters, and we can discuss it without losing the overall point. That overall point - several posters here dislike the amount of cursing at atheismplus - has been plainly made repeatedly. The discussion hinges on distinguishing profanity and passion from abuse, and I think there's a clear consensus that 1) abuse is wrong and should be stopped; and 2) although we disagree about what constitutes abuse, some members have abused others at atheismplus. Finally, we clearly disagree about the need to enforce rules of civility on an internet forum as opposed to focusing on preventing harm.

Finally, I think it's been a great way of making clear different approaches to dealing with the connotations of language. Some posters here seem to think that finding a non-bigoted usage or definition ends the conversation. Others feel that raising the issue is a red herring or a nasty personal attack. I do think there's something to the argument that people overreach and call out language that is neither intended to be nor would come across as harmful but for someone not personally affected seeking the opportunity to be righteously indignant.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

I'd imagine that for people who've actually been arrested at sit-ins, hustled black voters around the obstacles created by the racists to keep them from the polls, been beaten on by cops, and been involved in assorted real-world activities, that sort of self-congratulatory crap would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so stomach churning.

I see your point. The reaction to Occupy Atlanta's treatment of John Lewis is instructive. We absolutely should honor people who've worked hard for causes we believe in. I think small efforts and changes are worth celebrating but not at the expense of appropriating others' sacrifices.

@Wildy, Yes I am, and yes, we're working on it.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by qwints

First, it wasn't initially clear to me that recursive prophet wasn't intentionally being racist. His eventual response that he doesn't believe in race convinced me it wasn't intentional. That position is wrong, but it's not likely to lead to someone making subtle racist comments.

Second, because talking about the language we use is important. Word choice matters, and we can discuss it without losing the overall point. That overall point - several posters here dislike the amount of cursing at atheismplus - has been plainly made repeatedly. The discussion hinges on distinguishing profanity and passion from abuse, and I think there's a clear consensus that 1) abuse is wrong and should be stopped; and 2) although we disagree about what constitutes abuse, some members have abused others at atheismplus. Finally, we clearly disagree about the need to enforce rules of civility on an internet forum as opposed to focusing on preventing harm.

Finally, I think it's been a great way of making clear different approaches to dealing with the connotations of language. Some posters here seem to think that finding a non-bigoted usage or definition ends the conversation. Others feel that raising the issue is a red herring or a nasty personal attack. I do think there's something to the argument that people overreach and call out language that is neither intended to be nor would come across as harmful but for someone not personally affected seeking the opportunity to be righteously indignant.



I see your point. The reaction to Occupy Atlanta's treatment of John Lewis is instructive. We absolutely should honor people who've worked hard for causes we believe in. I think small efforts and changes are worth celebrating but not at the expense of appropriating others' sacrifices.

Well, I think you'd certainly be in the minority at FTB or A+. The only person who stood up to the whinge warrior was on the road to banning, I believe, anyway. (Someone who keeps scorecards can correct me if it's significant.) No one else, as we've oft noted, stands up to the b.s.

It's not just the bullying, but the fact that their definitions of reality all change based on the perceptions of the particular privileged poster who's making the claim. The RP lesson is that one with fewer stripes can't claim to be triggered by irrational angry posts if the one making the irrational angry post is part of the Old Xi Network and can trump that claim with being triggered by people refusing to respond to their acrimony.

Be honest if you would (not implying that you're not being honest, but leading into a totally new question from a different slant). You seem to be enjoying a rather free conversation here with a number of people who are rather against your safe harbor, but who do not fly off the handle and make suggestions as to which carnal acts you should go perform on yourself because you support a site that breeches our own requirement of free exchange of ideas and open discussion on just about any topic. Isn't this both more conducive to making progress and getting your message out than hovering in an echo chamber of holier-than-thou sycophants? Isn't the conversation here actually more "enjoyable"?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Let's not forget that David Howard was fired for using the word "niggardly" and Anthony Federico was fired for saying "chink in the armor".

Big Bruhaha here in Dallas when Co. Comm. John Wiley Price took offense to the use of "black hole" during a budget debate.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by qwints

I also think there's a need for spaces that shut out some voices to allow those marginalized in open forums to be heard.

How does someone become "marginalized in open forums"? And how does shutting up other voices allow them to become heard?

I don't see how this applies to a web forum.

[Stout]

qwints...you're getting there

The swearing really has very little to do with it the focus is on the abuse and argument by personal attack MO that defines A+ culture. A+ itself is hung up on the idea that their critics are hung up on the swearing as well while being blind to the fact that they're abusive.

Passion has very little bearing on critical thinking, after all I've never heard anyone accuse a truther of being dispassionate. For an A+ example see Setar's current thread where he tries to paint Canada as a "police state" based on transit rider fare checks and some "passionate" article on the police.

I wonder what your average North Korean would think of Setar's assessment about living in a police state ? Righteously indignant ?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Stout

qwints...you're getting there

The swearing really has very little to do with it the focus is on the abuse and argument by personal attack MO that defines A+ culture. A+ itself is hung up on the idea that their critics are hung up on the swearing as well while being blind to the fact that they're abusive.

Passion has very little bearing on critical thinking, after all I've never heard anyone accuse a truther of being dispassionate. For an A+ example see Setar's current thread where he tries to paint Canada as a "police state" based on transit rider fare checks and some "passionate" article on the police.

I wonder what your average North Korean would think of Setar's assessment about living in a police state ? Righteously indignant ?

And you'll likely just be accused of channeling Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" meme.

I've lived in Canada and I've lived in countries during periods of marshal law. (Heck, I was living in Canada when Trudeau invoked the WMA, come to think of it.)

Has anyone noticed the massive drop in postings. After the Wind excitement died down, apparently more and more people are getting the message. I hope that they're now content in their little coccoon. They're down to something around 5 posts an hour over the past 24 hours. I'll have to go back and check, but not on the JREF Forums, but ONLY IN THIS THREAD, I think there are more posts in 24 hours than the entire A+ forums.

ETA: No. It's about half (this thread) of their total posts. (approx 50 in this thread and approx 100 over there)

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

And you'll likely just be accused of channeling Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" meme.

I've lived in Canada and I've lived in countries during periods of marshal law. (Heck, I was living in Canada when Trudeau invoked the WMA, come to think of it.)

Has anyone noticed the massive drop in postings. After the Wind excitement died down, apparently more and more people are getting the message. I hope that they're now content in their little coccoon. They're down to something around 5 posts an hour over the past 24 hours. I'll have to go back and check, but not on the JREF Forums, but ONLY IN THIS THREAD, I think there are more posts in 24 hours than the entire A+ forums.

ETA: No. It's about half (this thread) of their total posts. (approx 50 in this thread and approx 100 over there)

[Krikkiter]

And here's a small taste of the kind of "safe space" we're dealing with:

https://unbelievesteve.wordpress.com...e-of-swearing/

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

And here's a small taste of the kind of "safe space" we're dealing with:

https://unbelievesteve.wordpress.com...e-of-swearing/

The sad part is that most of these emotionally stunted 'tards will ever actually go to a skeptics conference. They're not safe zones, you see. Women who do go are routinely raped.

I do hope at least one does show up. I'd like to point and laugh in person.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

The sad part is that most of these emotionally stunted 'tards will ever actually go to a skeptics conference. They're not safe zones, you see. Women who do go are routinely raped.

I do hope at least one does show up. I'd like to point and laugh in person.

Yeah there is that. But you know they'll talk a lot about wanting to go to a conference but in the end they won't be able to because <insert stupid excuse>

Like the time the A+ers all banded together to try to get some donations to the families of the victims of the shootings in the States. Well, they tried really hard but apparently someone else was already doing it so....

[qwints]

Originally Posted by Stout

qwints...you're getting there
The swearing really has very little to do with it the focus is on the abuse and argument by personal attack MO that defines A+ culture. A+ itself is hung up on the idea that their critics are hung up on the swearing as well while being blind to the fact that they're abusive.

I actually agree that the latter is a problem. I think it's a result of so many critics focusing on the mere fact of profanity or anger rather than addressing abuse.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

The RP lesson is that one with fewer stripes can't claim to be triggered by irrational angry posts if the one making the irrational angry post is part of the Old Xi Network and can trump that claim with being triggered by people refusing to respond to their acrimony.

Do you understand what people mean when they say they're being triggered? recursive prophet's post seemed to be mocking the very idea of being triggered as well making clear he didn't believe the people who said that receiving unsolicited pms was painful to them.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

You seem to be enjoying a rather free conversation here with a number of people who are rather against your safe harbor, ... Isn't this both more conducive to making progress and getting your message out than hovering in an echo chamber of holier-than-thou sycophants? Isn't the conversation here actually more "enjoyable"?

This space is much more conducive to an exchange between people who have very fundamental disagreements. I'm glad it exists. I admire people who have the patience to continue discussions with people who repeat long debunked arguments. atheismplus allows me to better hear people who might be silenced in an environment like this.

[Rrose Selavy]

Maybe they'll have a special conference of their own.
I hear they're working on the Conference Official Safety Policy.
First draft will be ready about 2033.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Maybe they'll have a special conference of their own.
I hear they're working on the Conference Official Safety Policy.
First draft will be ready about 2033.

Everyone will be required to be in plastic bubbles... wearing blindfolds and with earplugs. That way no-one will be offended by anything.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

The sad part is that most of these emotionally stunted 'tards will ever actually go to a skeptics conference. They're not safe zones, you see. Women who do go are routinely raped.

I do hope at least one does show up. I'd like to point and laugh in person.

No need to be so aggressive. Just wear an innocuous t-shirt and they'll flee in tears.

I understand that Skepchick has a cafepress account. It would make such an action be all the more ironic.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by qwints

I actually agree that the latter is a problem. I think it's a result of so many critics focusing on the mere fact of profanity or anger rather than addressing abuse.

Blaming the victim?

Quote:

Do you understand what people mean when they say they're being triggered? recursive prophet's post seemed to be mocking the very idea of being triggered as well making clear he didn't believe the people who said that receiving unsolicited pms was painful to them.

Well, while we're on the topic, do you really believe it is a problem? There are actually people who would be out of action for days, I believe it was claimed, simply because they received an unexpected PM?

Quote:

This space is much more conducive to an exchange between people who have very fundamental disagreements. I'm glad it exists. I admire people who have the patience to continue discussions with people who repeat long debunked arguments. atheismplus allows me to better hear people who might be silenced in an environment like this.

Sorry, you've lost me. Which people are they? The only people who get silenced here are those who break the MA. Opinions and beliefs may be challenged, but they are not forbidden.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Maybe they'll have a special conference of their own.
I hear they're working on the Conference Official Safety Policy.
First draft will be ready about 2033.

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Everyone will be required to be in plastic bubbles... wearing blindfolds and with earplugs. That way no-one will be offended by anything.

It will be like this, only not as funny.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It will be like this, only not as funny.

So basically, ****.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by qwints

I also think there's a need for spaces that shut out some voices to allow those marginalized in open forums to be heard.

I think this is the biggest issue I have with Atheism+ and the stark difference between its claimed aims and its apparent ones: the forums appear to be a haven for those who believe they have been marginalized by society, rather than those who actualyl have been.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Well, while we're on the topic, do you really believe it is a problem? There are actually people who would be out of action for days, I believe it was claimed, simply because they received an unexpected PM?

I don't.

Especially since it takes exactly 3 clicks to disable receiving PMs on a PHPBB forum.
Go to user Control Panel, then board preferences, then click "no" in the button that asks "Allow users to send you private messages".
Uploading an avatar is considerably more difficult.

So, I think it has nothing at all to do with PMs inducing anxiety attacks. This is about limiting the communication options of non-inner-group members.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It will be like this, only not as funny.

I've been looking for a youtube clip of that for a couple of weeks to make the same point.

Alternatively, they could come full circle and require the wearing of a burka.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by qwints

This space is much more conducive to an exchange between people who have very fundamental disagreements. I'm glad it exists. I admire people who have the patience to continue discussions with people who repeat long debunked arguments. atheismplus allows me to better hear people who might be silenced in an environment like this.

Huh? Do you want to hear people who refuse to abide by the Membership Agreement? That's the only thing that gets people banned here. Unlike A+, no one gets banned here by the hair-trigger sensitivities of the thought police.

You can hear arguments/points from KellyB here. There? Not so much, since she's made the target list and will be shouted down if she shows herself.

Or did you mean that you have a need to hear foul language and ad hom attacks? Those aren't allowed here.

But differing views? We've got Holocaust Deniers, racists, Nazis, 911 Conspiradroids, Fundies, bigfooters, Apollo hoaxers, theists of every stripe, liberals, conservatives, anarchists, communists, libertarians, Libertarians, and just about every position you can think of on any topic. Trolling is not a bannable offense, either. So who, over there (other than the ones who can't control their potty-mouths) would be unable to speak out in a forum as open to differing opinions as this one?

And please don't try to sell me that "ooh, I'm so sensitive" crap. (The argument goes,... well there are misogynists over there and I just can't deal with that sort of oppression.) Puh-lease! These are warriors for Social Justice and they can't deal with a Neanderthal making boob jokes? Even numerous Neanderthals making numerous boob jokes? Ya gotta wonder what would've happened with the SCLC if King had said, "Oooh, I can't deal with the oppression of police dogs and fire hoses. Let's stay here and discuss things in the church instead of marching this week."

Here's my bottom line on A+... If the members want a safe space and to dwell in an echo chamber with mutual hugs (if you want them) and back-patting, that's fine. And if they want to limit it to their own little circle of 301 level uber members, that's fine, too. But make it a closed community like many "professional" boards. Make it so you can't go past the welcome page or index if you're not a member and put as many restrictions you want on membership. That's their right and if that's what they want, then I have no say on the topic, whatsoever. But if they announce themselves as a forum, that connotes the exchange of ideas and someone ought to be out there trying to figure out how to best go about exchanging ideas with all levels of posters, including (IMHO) neophytes, apprentices, journeymen, and even people who disagree with them.

[recursive prophet]

Must say reading this thread this morning has blown my mind in so many ways. I have many quotes I'll be posting later today, but for now will limit it to the ones below and this observation. I had never even read anything in this forum until being made aware of this thread by Sun Countess at A+. ALL my time at JREF previously was spent in science and later forum management.

It should come as no surprise those participating in a forum like this would be more adept at articulation and rhetoric than the science crowd. The latter isn't exactly renowned for their communication skills. Still, I'm stunned to see just how much better quite a few of those here are at formulating and expressing their positions. Myriad is one of those exceptions who is bilingual ; math and language. No big surprise there, but reading so many in one thread who can express so much in so few words is awesome and has made my morning. Many thanks.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

You seem to be enjoying a rather free conversation here with a number of people who are rather against your safe harbor, but who do not fly off the handle and make suggestions as to which carnal acts you should go perform on yourself because you support a site that breeches our own requirement of free exchange of ideas and open discussion on just about any topic. Isn't this both more conducive to making progress and getting your message out than hovering in an echo chamber of holier-than-thou sycophants? Isn't the conversation here actually more "enjoyable"?

Of course it is Fool, that's why she's been spending a lot more time posting here than she ever did at A+. I believe I've pointed this out before, along with the rapidly declining numbers at A+. We might now be in the process of writing their requiem.

Originally Posted by qwints

Do you understand what people mean when they say they're being triggered? recursive prophet's post seemed to be mocking the very idea of being triggered as well making clear he didn't believe the people who said that receiving unsolicited pms was painful to them.

Show me where I ever questioned the trigger concept or 'made clear' unsolicited PM's couldn't be painful to anyone. When you make charges like this they should be accompanied with links to where I made the comments. You've been called out many times for that qwints. You have ignored many questions I've put to you, and have yet to present a plausible explanation for how seeing the PM request in public wouldn't also trigger someone like SC. I suggested a poll-remember? To determine if there was anyone other than SC, who had them blocked anyway, that would find a PM harmful. Also explain why when by just blocking PM's the paranoid would never even know someone sent one. As opposed to seeing it in public. Please do galsplain me that one.