Atheism+, wtf?!

decimatio

Matt Dillahunty took up a challenge to prove A+'ers are open to reasonable argument so he made a new username and went to their forums and tried to start a discussion. His post was disapproved for being nitpicky, off-topic, and inflammatory. He tried to argue there should be some kind of appeal system and long story short he then got banned for posting under a psuedoname, some users claim he made them feel unsafe, and he's been asked to apologise before they consider allowing him back.

It's hilarious.

Sarky

I know I said I hoped it all went tits up (ooh, how misogynistic of me!) sooner rather than later, but I have to admit to finding this all amusing enough, in a morbid sort of way, to kinda hope they keep at it. I just want to see what crazy sh*t they do next.

Rev Hellfire

Its real train wreak TV.

Nodin

decimatio wrote: »

Matt Dillahunty took up a challenge to prove A+'ers are open to reasonable argument so he made a new username and went to their forums and tried to start a discussion. His post was disapproved for being nitpicky, off-topic, and inflammatory. He tried to argue there should be some kind of appeal system and long story short he then got banned for posting under a psuedoname, some users claim he made them feel unsafe, and he's been asked to apologise before they consider allowing him back.

It's hilarious.

.....fucken classic, isn't it.

decimatio

It's hilarious but it annoys me to no ends at the same time. These people have created a cult as dogmatic as any religion and they can't even see it. Or maybe they can see it and just don't care because they honestly do believe that their beliefs are unquestionably correct.and anything else is heretical.

I am only becoming more convinced that this is largely due to American politics where liberal (I hate using that word in the American political sense but you know what I mean) ideas are taught as the right and correct position on everything.

Non-Americans tend to view American politics in a simplified view of conservative vs liberal, wrong vs right. But the reality is far more complicated. Just because the left is correct, or at least less wrong, on most issues doesn't mean that they are correct on all issues and unquestionably so.

It might frustrate people to try to talk about something like gay marraige or evolution or church state relations with an American right winger but try criticising Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, Affirmitive action, or even approaching, not arguing for or against, the subject of torture of terrorists or racial profiling to a left winger and you're likely to meet the same frustration. They might well have rational views on the subjects but they arrived at those views through indoctrination just as much as any religious extremist.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that many people in A+ and FtB in particular are the left wing version of the tea party.

I wonder if Michael Nugent or others here have changed their minds.

yawha

What do you base your assertion that they arrived at this via indoctrination on?

decimatio

yawha wrote: »

What do you base your assertion that they arrived at this via indoctrination on?

I wrote that on my phone and I see the error now. I didn't mean to imply they all arrived at such views through indoctrination.

I also don't think it's relevant to point out how people can be indoctrinated into a political or socialogical ideology. The 'I'm voting for party X because my father did before me' crowd are well known to Irish people are they not ?

What I do think is relevant to this issue is instead pointing out how certain people defend such positions like the position is sacred (regardless of whether or not the position is 'right' or 'wrong') and they will stoop to any level to attack anyone who disagrees. I need only point you to PZ Myers blog and his vicious and ridiculous attacks on Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris to name but two.

I also need only remind you of one of our posters here who went to the A+ forums and questioned an aspect of their position on abortion. He was pro-choice but he disagreed or at least questioned a certain aspect of it and that wasn't acceptable to them.

Doctor DooM

decimatio wrote: »

Matt Dillahunty took up a challenge to prove A+'ers are open to reasonable argument so he made a new username and went to their forums and tried to start a discussion. His post was disapproved for being nitpicky, off-topic, and inflammatory. He tried to argue there should be some kind of appeal system and long story short he then got banned for posting under a psuedoname, some users claim he made them feel unsafe, and he's been asked to apologise before they consider allowing him back.

It's hilarious.

I feel for those who don't know it should be pointed out that for a couple of years prior to this Matt Dillahunty has been producing a podcast which features his wife. Its topic? Feminist Atheism.

Clearly he's just not + enough for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7dqSPaI4ZA

That's him defending them prior to this. Lol.

Nodin

decimatio wrote: »

It's hilarious but it (..............) changed their minds.

I've no idea how they got where they are ideologically tbh. My observation is based on the fact that if you set up a type of goalpost, thats what people will aim for. "I feel threatened.....", "I feel unsafe..." are now not the cause for questions as to what caused such feelings and whether they are valid or not, but an end in themselves.

And on a note echoing Dawkins, some shower whinging about a post making them "feel unsafe" - when you consider the lives facing women in Guatamala, India, Afghanistan and other developing countries - is fucking pathetic stuff.

Zombrex

decimatio wrote: »

Matt Dillahunty took up a challenge to prove A+'ers are open to reasonable argument so he made a new username and went to their forums and tried to start a discussion. His post was disapproved for being nitpicky, off-topic, and inflammatory. He tried to argue there should be some kind of appeal system and long story short he then got banned for posting under a psuedoname, some users claim he made them feel unsafe, and he's been asked to apologise before they consider allowing him back.

It's hilarious.

Actually that is quite mild to some of the stuff that goes on. There is a thread where a rape victim posted a comment that he found it rather objectionable that another poster claimed murder was better than rape because your life is over. The objecting poster said this was to him ridiculous because if the rapist had murdered him he would have missed all the wonderful moments in his life that happened despite the rape.

He was banned and insulted by a moderator who read the post wrong and believed that the person was speaking hypothetically rather than literally (I'm not quite sure why that difference deserves a banning). When others pointed out that the person was talking about their actual rape and how they genuinely were glad they weren't also murdered, the moderator unbanned the person and apologised but the whole incident really highlights the hyper-sensitive and agressive nature of the regular posters and some of the moderators. As an aside I still don't follow why you have to be an actual rape victim to say that personally you would rather be just raped, not raped and murdered.

This is an extreme example since the poster met an instant banning, but less extreme examples are common. Regularly you see posters dismissing other posters as trolling idiots until they find out that the poster belongs to some minority group, such as being gay, and then attitudes change, apologies are dealt out and the person who was some how posting idiotic responses is now welcomed with open arms and has their posts re-evaluated (I though you were a privileged idiot but now I know you are gay all your points make perfect sense)

Now it could be argued that since a lot of the regular posters are victims of abuse themselves that they are justifiably angry and wary having spent a great deal of time dealing with people in the wider world who have dismissed or diminished their experiences. But frankly such attitudes make for a poor discussion forum. If you are constantly looking for the alterier motive behind posts that you find disagreeable, if you constantly view different opinions as attempts at oppression until you find out that they are also victims, then it will have no other consequence than to stifle debate and discussion.

Of course huge sympathy with anyone who has suffered abuse, but if you are too close to something so that facing opposing, even offensive views means it triggers an instant response to derail the discussion over how that person has made you feel by expressing their views, then again this wil have n other consequence than to stifle debate and discussion.

mewso

It seems to help that they have an "[insert word here] troll" term for every occasion that they can throw at anything they don't like. Argue in a calm and sensible manner - tone trolling. How about A+ Trolling? Screaming abuse and crying foul at any opposing view.

Zombrex

mewso wrote: »

It seems to help that they have an "[insert word here] troll" term for every occasion that they can throw at anything they don't like. Argue in a calm and sensible manner - tone trolling. How about A+ Trolling? Screaming abuse and crying foul at any opposing view.

Don't get me started about tone trolling. It is an actual thing with a clear definition but it is the most over used and abused accusation on FtB, Skepchick, Atheism+ etc

It is supposed to be applied to people who say they cannot understand a point unless it is presented in a way they find satisfactory pleasant.

It is abused by applying to anyone who objects to have a tone of aggressive personal abuse hurled at them for daring to express an opinion that others object to or claim is offensive.

mikhail

mewso wrote: »

...How about A+ Trolling? Screaming abuse and crying foul at any opposing view.

Oh, they didn't invent that one.

robindch

mikhail wrote: »

mewso wrote: »

...How about A+ Trolling? Screaming abuse and crying foul at any opposing view.

Oh, they didn't invent that one.

No, but they do seem to have figured out how useful a claim of persecution is.

Galvasean

decimatio wrote: »

Matt Dillahunty took up a challenge to prove A+'ers are open to reasonable argument so he made a new username and went to their forums and tried to start a discussion. His post was disapproved for being nitpicky, off-topic, and inflammatory. He tried to argue there should be some kind of appeal system and long story short he then got banned for posting under a psuedoname, some users claim he made them feel unsafe, and he's been asked to apologise before they consider allowing him back.

It's hilarious.

'A man disagreed with me on the internet. Now I don't feel safe.'
Really? Are they that bad now?

Doctor DooM

Galvasean wrote: »

'A man disagreed with me on the internet. Now I don't feel safe.'
Really? Are they that bad now?

I went and read the thread, it's pretty hilarious tbh.

There's one person leaving because it took 2 days for the mods to sort it, and indeed there are people complaining they were made feel unsafe. The feedback thread, as a moderator, is frankly incredible. Then again, they'd say that's my priviledge showing...

All from a situation where someone was just trying to prove that new people were welcome. He was banned before he even got to try.

equivariant

It really does get a bit ridiculous, For example this guy saying that he doesn't mind if women just presume without any evidence that he is a potential rapist

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1642

It's the best work of fiction I've seen since Landover Baptist.

Genghiz Cohen

equivariant wrote: »

It really does get a bit ridiculous, For example this guy saying that he doesn't mind if women just presume without any evidence that he is a potential rapist

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1642

That is the most beta thing I have ever read.
Thank you sir!

Ah, Beta-Ben.
A meme is born.

fitz0

equivariant wrote: »

It really does get a bit ridiculous, For example this guy saying that he doesn't mind if women just presume without any evidence that he is a potential rapist

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1642

I really can't fathom that post or all those responses like 'Potential rapist here.' What is wrong with these people? Are they so inculcated intot he A+ mentality that they label themselves as potential rapists to appease the Safe Space Brigade? F*ck sake! Why would you possibly accept a label based on your appearance? If someone were labelling women 'potential rape victims' based on their trim build or personality there would be actual internet war over it.

I don't like to use the word that much but, in the correct use of it, what retarded behaviour!

Nodin

Its hard to believe anyone wrote that seriously, tbh.

coffee_cake

t's another easily misunderstood term, I guess. 'All men are potential rapists' doesn't mean all men have the potential to rape

wat

decimatio

bluewolf wrote: »

t's another easily misunderstood term, I guess. 'All men are potential rapists' doesn't mean all men have the potential to rape

wat

All men/women are potential murderers/physchos/child molesters/teachers/clowns/idiots/suicides/thieves/fishermen etc.

It's a meaningless expression except for how it's used to emphasise one of these possibilities and in so doing make it seem like this possibility has some special status over any others.

Delirium

fitz0 wrote: »

I really can't fathom that post or all those responses like 'Potential rapist here.' What is wrong with these people? Are they so inculcated intot he A+ mentality that they label themselves as potential rapists to appease the Safe Space Brigade? F*ck sake! Why would you possibly accept a label based on your appearance? If someone were labelling women 'potential rape victims' based on their trim build or personality there would be actual internet war over it.

I don't like to use the word that much but, in the correct use of it, what retarded behaviour!

Wonder how long the safe space will survive if folks start showing up in Potential Rapist t-shirts? :rolleyes:

koth

koth wrote: »

Wonder how long the safe space will survive if folks start showing up in Potential Rapist t-shirts? :rolleyes:

If they have a conference that just has to happen.

Galvasean

I want a 'Potential fisherman' T-shirt now.

€10 says someone will interpret me as fishing for something to rape and therefore feel 'unsafe'

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I want a 'Potential fisherman' T-shirt now.

€10 says someone will interpret me as fishing for something to rape and therefore feel 'unsafe'

Fishing -> Fisting.
Or.
Fishing -> Trawling.

I don't know which you were getting at but you're making me feel unsafe.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

It really does get a bit ridiculous, For example this guy saying that he doesn't mind if women just presume without any evidence that he is a potential rapist

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1642

In fairness most people objected to that down the thread. Thought a worrying number didn't.

equivariant

Galvasean wrote: »

I want a 'Potential fisherman' T-shirt now.

€10 says someone will interpret me as fishing for something to rape and therefore feel 'unsafe'

How about a "Potential Theist" T-shirt?

Does anyone else think that some of the guys on threads like that are trying for the most impressive pick-ups ever? :pac: