Ratskep on Atheism+

Billy Liar · **#5681** by **Billy Liar** » Jan 15, 2013 12:42 am

There are too many threads on there where someone just says 'OMG, I saw this outrageously offensive thing on the internet', followed by four million people piling in to show how much they agree. Then one lone Winston Smith figure eventually pipes up and says 'Actually, there is another way of looking at this, because...'

And you know what happens then.

Trouble is, a lot of the time they haven't really got any arguments. So you end up with these threads with a sort of self-destruct timer on them: you're allowed one or two vaguely dissenting opinions, but any more than that and it's 'Mod note: you're treading on a lot of toes here' and you're as good as gone.

Reeve · **#5682** by **Reeve** » Jan 15, 2013 1:18 am

RationalSkepticism.com "A lifeboat for the rational mind" "A safe space to be fascinated by bile"

Atheist Dude · **#5683** by **Atheist Dude** » Jan 15, 2013 1:48 am

Billy Liar wrote:How many Atheism+ mods does it take to change a lightbulb?
None - they just ask everyone else to disengage.

How many Atheism+ mods does it take to change a lightbulb?
They don't, they start a new thread complaining about the light privileged.

Sinde · **#5684** by **Sinde** » Jan 15, 2013 3:59 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Taking the piss or not Orenda does raise a valid point if you are going to trigger warning things you have to be prepared for people to want their particular triggers to be put behind such warnings. I see little point in them at all but what is good for the goose must be good for the gander.

And that's the thing about A+. I can look at every thread of theirs posted here and see how they came to the conclusion that they need to act that way, but even though I think that they take it too far once you start down that road it's difficult to find a reason to stop.Why can't she have trigger warnings? It's arbitrary. They've already started using them for other things. Why should someone be allowed to be defensive and thus put others on edge? After all, it's a safe space where people are supposed to be free from the constant questioning and minimization of the mainstream etc, etc. And down the slippery slope you go.

scott1328 · **#5685** by **scott1328** » Jan 15, 2013 4:13 am

A strange game this Atheism+. The only winning move is not to play.

nullnvoid · **#5686** by **nullnvoid** » Jan 15, 2013 4:34 am

Hi people,

Null here. I've not read through this whole thread - just the bits about me and secularsocialjustice.com. Hai Scott.

Would you believe I was thinking about that exact quote from War Games about A+ yesterday too?

We're like twins.

Great movie that War Games....just don't watch the special features on the DVD....total bummer.

Null

nullnvoid · **#5687** by **nullnvoid** » Jan 15, 2013 4:36 am

Atheist Dude's here too? Nice.

Imagination Theory · **#5688** by **Imagination Theory** » Jan 15, 2013 4:41 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Taking the piss or not Orenda does raise a valid point if you are going to trigger warning things you have to be prepared for people to want their particular triggers to be put behind such warnings. I see little point in them at all but what is good for the goose must be good for the gander.

Yes, I'm surprised some people were against it, it isn't their place to say what triggers anyone else (from the rules of the place)and once someone says "x triggers me" every member there is suppose to respect that and put x behind spoilers or not talk about x at all.

nullnvoid · **#5689** by **nullnvoid** » Jan 15, 2013 6:44 am

Paula wrote:
Nicko wrote:
Corneel wrote:But it is even more the discarding of an entire field of scientific enquiry because well POOR!

The standard at A+ is that the views of a person who "lacks privilege" in a particular area automatically trump the views of a person who "has privilege" in that area when discussing topics related to that area. Setar identifies as poor, therefore any attempts to tell him/her that he/she is wrong about economics is "classplaining".

Exactly what we were talking about yesterday. nullnvoid and qmartindale are expected to make themselves humble, take all the abuse and be apologetic as they are the privileged ones. They may well have a degree in economics but that can never trump the oppressed/marginalised.

I don't know how anyone can be arsed putting themselves through it to be honest

I'm that same nullnvoid. I think it's a form of masochism. That or I was just totally caught up in the whole someone is wrong on the internet fever.

That being said, after a few months of occasional posting, I have somehow managed to avoid being banned. I have much thicker skin now.

juju7 · **#5690** by **juju7** » Jan 15, 2013 8:13 am

Animavore wrote:The limerick thread

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... -5600.html

Animavore · **#5691** by **Animavore** » Jan 15, 2013 12:12 pm

juju7 wrote:
Animavore wrote:The limerick thread

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... -5600.html

You have got to be fucking kidding me?! This is a joke, right? A sick joke?

Scarlett · **#5692** by **Scarlett** » Jan 15, 2013 2:42 pm

Animavore wrote:
juju7 wrote:
Animavore wrote:The limerick thread

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... -5600.html

You have got to be fucking kidding me?! This is a joke, right? A sick joke?

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3586&start=75

You offended me. And other people, but let's start with me.

You offended me by making sexually charged remarks about someone you hardly know, the remarks being the same degree of thing as any microaggression and the same kind of thing as male-on-female sexual harassment. I don't know whether you're male and I don't care--I don't know whether Buckle's female either--but your limerick is a shining example of that pattern.

I clearly fucked up. I apologize to everyone I hurt. I admit I am not clear on how I fucked up, and I would appreciate it if someone would explain it to me, so that I do not repeat the error.

Such sensitive souls :rofl:

Horwood Beer-Master · **#5693** by **Horwood Beer-Master** » Jan 15, 2013 4:11 pm

If they think that limerick was bad, I hope none of them saw this spoof Advertisement in Private Eye last week,

YES! It's the new wildly popular craze that is sweeping through Asia

GANG-RAPE STYLE! by Psy-co

It's an extraordinary Cultural Phenomenon blending medieval misogyny and Third-World lawlessness to create a deeply unpleasant (That's enough, Ed.)

It wasn't even "trigger warninged" or anything! :shock:

interested · **#5694** by **interested** » Jan 16, 2013 6:11 am

nullnvoid wrote:Atheist Dude's here too? Nice.

Hey Null. I lurk at the Secular Social Justice website. Also used to post on A+. You took the non-safe-space forum thread like a champ. :cheers:

scott1328 · **#5695** by **scott1328** » Jan 16, 2013 6:29 am

I am unclear why Null bothers. The Aplussers have always hated that forum--calling it a cess pool and a slime pit.

A few of the A+ regulars signed up over there, but none have posted since cuduggan gave it up.

Mr.Samsa · **#5696** by **Mr.Samsa** » Jan 16, 2013 8:08 am

juju7 wrote:I have been looking at that site and it appears that hardly anyone can say anything controversial without being visciously attacked.

What is going on?

It's a designated "safe space", which is a term which means that any sexist, racist, homophobic, or any other attacks on marginalised groups, are not tolerated. The problems arise when: a) people are not aware that it's a safe space and go there to "debate" issues, and b) people are not aware that the comments they are making are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc, and instead of accepting that they fucked up, they start telling marginalised people how they should feel about the bigoted remarks they've made. Most people who go there aren't even interested in social justice, or atheism+, and they're just going there to tell them that they should do things differently, and usually refuse to educate themselves on the basic issues involved in social justice before jumping into discussions.

So the "anger" and "vicious attacks" you see are just instances of marginalised people trying to carve out and maintain a tiny corner of the world where they don't have to put up with the constant shit that is thrown at them by society. When people who don't understand what it's like to be marginalised go in there and start making bigoted comments, it might appear to them to be a "vicious attack" to be told to "fuck off" or whatever but obviously there is nothing vicious about getting angry at someone who has walked into a house that has a sign outside saying "Please don't shit on my carpet", and they've gone in and had explosive diarrhea all over the place.

Importantly, it's explicitly not a forum dedicated to educating people (it makes that clear all over the place). So sometimes people feel "unfairly treated" because "they didn't know" and expect people to explain to them what is wrong with their comments and how they should change. But that's obviously not the point of a safe space - they haven't set up a sanctuary in order to spend all their time and energy confronting the very issues that they're trying to not deal with for a few moments in a day (before, of course, they have to log off and deal with them practically every second of the rest of the day).

I think the better question is why people get so angry and launch vicious attacks against people on the atheism+ forum. How can people saying, "Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, to us because we want a small area where that shit doesn't happen" invoke such hatred from people? Why would people so vehemently argue that that forum should allow bigoted remarks for the sake of some vague and inaccurate conception of "free speech"? It's pretty moronic but people still try.

Thommo · **#5697** by **Thommo** » Jan 16, 2013 8:55 am

My guess would be that they don't see polite disagreement or asking for hugs as bigotry.

There's also a secondary consideration of the A+ label being touted as Atheism plus social justice, a concept appealing to many, rather than as Atheism plus a safe space, a concept appealing to a different and probably less numerous group.

I'm surprised you mention their labelling of themselves as educators though, Mr Samsa, that's an interesting point - what does the research say about hysterically hurling abuse at people and silencing them whilst pointing to a list of doctrines to learn about as an effective educational technique?

Precambrian Rabbi · **#5698** by **Precambrian Rabbi** » Jan 16, 2013 9:02 am

Thanks Mr Samsa. Now I understand why, when a gender-unspecified survivor of brutal oppression and apartheid writes a friendly, encouraging, note to another member (who takes it exactly as it was intended), they must be hounded off the site for having used the wrong poetic structure.

In serious mode, I'm genuinely intrigued to hear the torturous spin you use to square that particular one in your head. Was the apartheid victim too privileged, too bigoted, to consider that someone on the forum might once have heard a sexist joke in that poetic form? Was that why the safe space wasn't for hir?

I'm also genuinely interested to learn why you would expect the long term A+ forum members to be immune from succumbing to any of the unpleasant behavioural patterns recognised in the last 60 years of psychology. Because they iz marginalised? Amirite? (To - probably imperfectly - employ the infantilising rhetoric I learnt over there.)

Onyx8 · **#5699** by **Onyx8** » Jan 16, 2013 9:26 am

It also explains why your comments were so warmly welcomed by the A+ denizens too, doesn't it Mr. Samsa?

Mr.Samsa · **#5700** by **Mr.Samsa** » Jan 16, 2013 9:27 am

Thommo wrote:My guess would be that they don't see polite disagreement or asking for hugs as bigotry.

There's also a secondary consideration of the A+ label being touted as Atheism plus social justice, a concept appealing to many, rather than as Atheism plus a safe space, a concept appealing to a different and probably less numerous group.

The "plus" in atheism+ does not refer to the safe space. It's only the forum which is a safe space, not the movement. If people don't need a safe space or don't think it's a good idea, but they like the idea of atheism and social justice combined, then just identify as part of atheism+ and don't sign up to the safe space forum.

Thommo wrote:I'm surprised you mention their labelling of themselves as educators though, Mr Samsa, that's an interesting point - what does the research say about hysterically hurling abuse at people and silencing them whilst pointing to a list of doctrines to learn about as an effective educational technique?

I think you've misread me - I said it's not a forum dedicated to educating people.

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:Thanks Mr Samsa. Now I understand why, when a gender-unspecified survivor of brutal oppression and apartheid writes a friendly, encouraging, note to another member (who takes it exactly as it was intended), they must be hounded off the site for having used the wrong poetic structure.

In serious mode, I'm genuinely intrigued to hear the torturous spin you use to square that particular one in your head.

I don't know what you're talking about so I can't weigh in on it.

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:I'm also genuinely interested to learn why you would expect the long term A+ forum members to be immune from succumbing to any of the unpleasant behavioural patterns recognised in the last 60 years of psychology. Because they iz marginalised? Amirite? (To - probably imperfectly - employ the infantilising rhetoric I learnt over there.)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Of course they will make mistakes and be subject to various biases and cognitive confabulations - they're just people. If we're going to criticise them for making human errors then I'd suggest that the problem lies with us and not them. If you're referring to the idea that the forum is similar to something like the "Stanford Prison Experiment", then that would be the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. To make a long story short, the first problem is that the SPE is one of the most flawed and confounded studies in all of science and ultimately tells us nothing about human behavior, but even if it were a valid study, it would have to be so broadly interpreted in order to apply to the A+ forum that it would apply to all forums, even this one.

Onyx8 wrote:It also explains why your comments were so warmly welcomed by the A+ denizens too, doesn't it Mr. Samsa?

I wondered how long it would be until you attempted to derail another discussion with off-topic personalisations. Thanks for not disappointing.

Ratskep on Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+ hits the MSM

Re: Atheism+ hits the MSM

Re: Atheism+ hits the MSM

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+ hits the MSM

Re: Atheism+ hits the MSM

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Re: Atheism+

Who is online