Atheism+, wtf?!

Zombrex

Zombrex wrote: »

I actually joined the Atheism+ forums, under my old handle "Wicknight"

Its not as bad as you would think from the initial circumstances of its founding.

Yeah a few weeks later and I take that back, unfortunately it is, lol

Ah in fairness it is a specific group of posters who have taken it upon themselves to be offended by everything and when encountering this offence (which everywhere apparently) feel perfectly happy in simply stopping discussion and telling the person go shut the f**k up and f**k off (STFU&FO).

This group of posters does not seem representative of most of the 900 registered users, but they are by far the most prominent and vocal. As such they are perceived, mostly by themselves I might add, to run the place. Most of them aren't mods but have no problem giving other posters instructions as if they were.

It is difficult to assess if this is or isn't a reflection the founders of Atheism+, and as such if it is evidence of the claim hypocrisy and divisiveness of the movement. I've only had one mod actually act in this manner to me.

If it isn't they certainly don't do very much to prevent it. It has been argued that the mods are very over worked and not as involved as they perhaps need be to successfully mod such an environment. It has also been stated that the movement is evolving, that rules are being established and that this will be a painful process. It is also possible of course that they simply don't give a s**t. Personally I think it is a combination of not giving a s**, not wanting to "police" people who are seen to be the under-privileged people in need of a voice, and not appreciate what it actually means to run an Internet forum, the work involved etc.

Its a pity, I liked the stated goals and generally I don't subscribe to the idea that bloggers such as Blag Hag and Greta and other people who started the forum/movement are as hypocritical and divisive as people think. I'm guessing they themselves didn't envision "safe space for discussion" to mean a core group of people shouting at everyone else to go away when they came up with the idea. In hindsight it should have been obvious that the STFU&FO crowd would simply migrate from places like Skepchick and FtB since they see this as their space.

Pictures or it didn't happen -

Contrast this abortion thread (which wasn't even about abortion but about whether men have the right to comment on abortion), with our abortion threads.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238

Disclaimer, that is me posting as "Wicknight", expressing that horrendously offensive notion of the wrong type of abortion, lol :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

And don't they have the right to do that, decimatio?

I just find the general accusations of censorship that are thrown around bizarre when in essence arguing against the right of people to set up their own forum and to have their own remit for that forum - isn't THAT also censorship? Boards has moderation rules, there is no free-speech here either, there are forums with a very specific remit and ethos for discussion...that's not viewed by many as a bad thing or the site wouldn't exist as it does.

There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of discussion and interest sites on all kind of topics...they each don't have to appeal to everyone, surely? There is no international internet rule that discussion/interest sites must have an open policy on X, Y and Z? If the site doesn't have any support, it will fold. If "atheists" don't want to be involved it will become a small chat clique and fail to become a popular public forum. I'm a bit meh about the whole thing and think in general having topics discussed from a range of perspectives is generally a good thing.

I have to admit to finding the vocal and aggressive response to another forum being set up every bit as irrational and strange as anything taken from the A+ site, it's almost like there's this undercurrent of fear that A+ might get more popular and manage to garner sufficient support and that can't be allowed to happen at any cost...

ETA:

Zombrex wrote: »

This group of posters does not seem representative of most of the 900 registered users, but they are by far the most prominent and vocal.

That's certainly true for both sides on a variety of forums...unless I have a very odd group of friends neither strike me as being representative of the majority, despite both claiming to be.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And don't they have the right to do that?

I just find the general accusations of censorship that are thrown around bizarre when in essence arguing against the right of people to set up their own forum and to have their own remit for that forum - isn't THAT also censorship? Boards has moderation rules, there is no free-speech here either, there are forums with a very specific remit and ethos for discussion...that's not viewed by many as a bad thing or the site wouldn't exist as it does.

Sorry, what?

I'm not saying the shouldn't have set up the site. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have done anything.

I'm saying the stated aims of Atheism+ are ignored by a core set of prominent and vocal posters on their forum and the founders/mods seem to either be powerless to stop this, or simply don't care.

This isn't a censorship issue. I'm going to deal with my annoyance of their behaviour by simply not going to the site any more. Equally I'm not going to censor myself from giving others my opinion on Atheism+

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have to admit to finding the vocal and aggressive response to another forum being set up every bit as irrational and strange as anything taken from the A+ site, it's almost like there's this undercurrent of fear that A+ might get more popular and manage to garner sufficient support and that can't be allowed to happen at any cost...

I think that is a genuine concern given how many of the vocal A+ posters behave. It would be bad for the whole atheism/sceptic community if the hypocritical and divisive nonsense promoted by these posters became the accepted norm because the tactics of shaming people into silence or compliance worked.

You can already see how attacks from Skepchick and FtB members have offence shamed other much larger organisations such as JREF into adopting questionable practices (of course questioning is exactly what you aren't supposed to do).

Ickle Magoo

Zombrex wrote: »

Sorry, what?

I'm not saying the shouldn't have set up the site. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have done anything.

I know - I was responding to decimatio and you posted in the interim...so I added decimatios name to my post and you had responded to my post by then.

Zombrex wrote: »

I think that is a genuine concern given how many of the vocal A+ posters behave. It would be bad for the whole atheism/sceptic community if the hypocritical and divisive nonsense promoted by these posters became the accepted norm because the tactics of shaming people into silence or compliance worked.

You can already see how attacks from Skepchick and FtB members have offence shamed other much larger organisations such as JREF into adopting questionable practices (of course questioning is exactly what you aren't supposed to do).

The trouble is there are clearly two sides indulging in the shaming into silence and compliance tactics and that is forcing organisations to have to question their current policies...both to ensure they aren't part of the PR disaster by publicly endorsing/dismissing the behaviours suggested by A+ but also so they are clear any complaints will be taken seriously and not just dismissed out of hand.

decimatio

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And don't they have the right to do that, decimatio?

Of course they do.

I just find the general accusations of censorship that are thrown around bizarre when in essence arguing against the right of people to set up their own forum and to have their own remit for that forum - isn't THAT also censorship?

I've never once argued against the rights of anyone to do any such thing. On the contrary I consistently argue against such sanctions in whatever form they take. I am not, nor ever have being, arguing against their or anyone else's rights to set up whatever kind of forum they like.

My problem is with what they claim to be and what they actually are.

They claim to be skeptical about everything, they claim to be the humanitarians of the atheist movement, they claim to be Atheists who care about 'X'.

What they actually are are Atheists who have an ideology based on left-wing politics and feminism amongst others. They do care about 'X' in such a way that only their interpretation of what the problems and solutions surrounding 'X' are permitted.

Which is perfectly fine except they hide that behind a veil of scepticism and truth seeking which is laughable considering the records of some of the major players.

Boards has moderation rules, there is no free-speech here either, there are forums with a very specific remit and ethos for discussion...that's not viewed by many as a bad thing or the site wouldn't exist as it does.

I don't think I've ever made any comment regarding the censorship on any internet forums, ftb, boards, or elsewhere.

Rev Hellfire

Zombrex wrote: »

Yeah a few weeks later and I take that back, unfortunately it is, lol

...

Pictures or it didn't happen -

Contrast this abortion thread (which wasn't even about abortion but about whether men have the right to comment on abortion), with our abortion threads.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238

Disclaimer, that is me posting as "Wicknight", expressing that horrendously offensive notion of the wrong type of abortion, lol :rolleyes:

You've the patience of a saint (or are a masochist, the jury is out)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i'd actually get a bus up to dublin for one of the A&A forum beers just to buy wicknight a pint after reading that

ye gods

Zombrex

Zombrex wrote: »

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238

That was hard to read!

It makes me appreciate Boards and how it's moderated, because that thread is as bad as the unmoderated comments section on Youtube.

Sarky

I couldn't even finish reading that. Just more of the same self-righteous bullsh*t from despicable little personalities who think they're heroes, while drowning out any actual discussion.

Zombrex, how do you manage to keep braving ugly hostile places like that? Are you Batman?

Kooli

Zombrex wrote: »

Disclaimer, that is me posting as "Wicknight", expressing that horrendously offensive notion of the wrong type of abortion, lol :rolleyes:

I don't know why the rolleyes. Lots of women find that kind of conversation genuinely offensive, dismissive and condescending.
It seems to me a clear-cut distinction between the ethos of Atheism+ and not-Atheism+, and on this topic I would lean towards their ethos, and I believe they have every right to protect it seeing as your point of view has a voice everywhere else
I'm actually baffled that you would think it's OK to enter a forum identified as a feminist space and tell the women there that theire views should have no special consideration when it comes to their own bodies. To be honest, you're kind of proving the need for Atheism+ in the first place...

Sarky

People need Atheism+ so they can continue to fling abuse instead of actually debating?

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

I don't know why the rolleyes. Lots of women find that kind of conversation genuinely offensive, dismissive and condescending.

So ? They can (or anyone else for that matter) be offended all they like about whatever they like. What exactly do you propose be done about all this offense ?

I don't happen to agree with Wick here but that's not the point.

The point, again. Is that there is no discussion allowed, no position but the one that has already being taken. No dissent permitted. It's dogma.

It's not their position on anything that's the problem. It's the way that no discussion on that position is accepted and the position is defended like any religious adherent defends their religious doctrines.

This question is a complicated one and people can have different opinions on it for quite legitimate reasons. I (presume) that my position is pretty much the same as the A+ position but that doesn't mean it's the 'right' position. These kind of issues have no objective right answer.

Even if the issue was something like Creationism vs Evolution or Holocaust denial vs accepted Historical fact then it is still wrong to hold to a position dogmatically.

It seems to me a clear-cut distinction between the ethos of Atheism+ and not-Atheism+, and on this topic I would lean towards their ethos, and I believe they have every right to protect it seeing as your point of view has a voice everywhere else

Protect it ? And you don't think this is sounding more like a religion why ?

I'm actually baffled that you would think it's OK to enter a forum identified as a feminist space and tell the women there that theire views should have no special consideration when it comes to their own bodies. To be honest, you're kind of proving the need for Atheism+ in the first place

1. So is A+ a 'feminist' space or an Atheists who care about scepticism place ? Because their type of feminism* seems completely incompatible with scepticism. If it's a feminist space then I agree with you and Wick shouldn't expect anything less than the response he got.

2. A sceptic would be willing to discuss this. (or anything else for that matter)

* Are they feminists ? Is this what feminism is these days ?

Kooli

I don't really care if it sounds like a religion or not. I never said anything about that.

I'm speaking from the point of view of a feminist, and I'm speaking from my experience of feminist discussions on the internet.

If it's allowed that men can tell women that they have no say over their bodies, this is what every argument on the internet about abortion will be.

And if men were never allowed to put forward that point of view, then that would suck. But they are. On 95% of message boards and blogs. In most mainstream media.

If a place identifies as feminist, they kind of have to be strict about this rule, because otherwise the male voices will dominate as they do everywhere else. And misogynist voices will dominate, as they do in many other spaces. The purpose of this place is (I presume) to offer something diffferent, and my understanding is that feminism is a big part of that. Most feminist websites I would frequent have to be really stringent on what's permitted, because without that they get flooded by misogynists or trolls or people 'just playing devil's advocate'. If they give equal weight or permission to all opinions, the forum then loses its remit of providing a different voice and a different kind of discussion, and it's just the same as what they left to get away from.

So you can say it's just discussion, or it's just devil's advocate, or whatever you like. But someone's right to argue an anti-woman position (in a feminist space) in the name of free speech does not trump a group's right to defend their own space along feminist lines, particularly when there are a million other places where you can have that discussion.

Kooli

decimatio wrote: »

* Are they feminists ? Is this what feminism is these days ?

Yes, I think they are. Feminism 'these day's takes a lot of different forms. This is one of them. I don't see what would be suprising about this being feminism?

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

If it's allowed that men can tell women that they have no say over their bodies, this is what every argument on the internet about abortion will be.

Allowed to tell ? If it's allowed to say something ? Have you any idea how you sound ?

And if men were never allowed to put forward that point of view, then that would suck. But they are. On 95% of message boards and blogs. In most mainstream media.

I really need to restate this. I think we are pretty much in agreement on the position of abortion. That is not the point of this discussion.

If a place identifies as feminist, they kind of have to be strict about this rule, because otherwise the male voices will dominate as they do everywhere else.

Male voices ? I'm male and I agree with the A+er's on abortion. Should I be silenced ? Or just those who disagree ?

If you don't see anything wrong with this in a forum claiming to be about scepticism than I don't know what to say.

So you can say it's just discussion, or it's just devil's advocate, or whatever you like. But someone's right to argue an anti-woman position (in a feminist space) in the name of free speech does not trump a group's right to defend their own space along feminist lines, particularly when there are a million other places where you can have that discussion.

1. How is Wicks position anti-woman ? There are a lot of women who have the same position. Are they anti-women ?

2. If A+ was just a feminist place then that's fine. It doesn't claim to be.

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

Yes, I think they are. Feminism 'these day's takes a lot of different forms. This is one of them. I don't see what would be suprising about this being feminism?

Because I thought feminism was a movement that strived for equality, not an intolerant ideology that wanted only to push it's own agenda.

Kooli

decimatio wrote: »

Allowed to tell ? If it's allowed to say something ? Have you any idea how you sound ?



I really need to restate this. I think we are pretty much in agreement on the position of abortion. That is not the point of this discussion.



Male voices ? I'm male and I agree with the A+er's on abortion. Should I be silenced ? Or just those who disagree ?

If you don't see anything wrong with this in a forum claiming to be about scepticism than I don't know what to say.



1. How is Wicks position anti-woman ? There are a lot of women who have the same position. Are they anti-women ?

2. If A+ was just a feminist place then that's fine. It doesn't claim to be.

There are a lot of women who are anti-woman, yes.

And actually you're right. I apologise and should replace the word 'men' with 'anti-feminist'. There are lots of feminist men and lots of anti-feminist women, so that's a more important distinction (although I would imagine the majority of anti-feminists are men and the majority of feminists are women).

So i completely take your point on that one, and appreciate the correction.

However I don't see the objection to the phrase 'allowed to'. Every discussion board has things that you are and aren't 'allowed to' say. That's all I'm referring to really.

Kooli

decimatio wrote: »

Because I thought feminism was a movement that strived for equality, not an intolerant ideology that wanted only to push it's own agenda.

Do you mean that feminism should be tolerant of anti-feminism?

Why would it want to push any other agenda apart from it's own?

Would you think the civil rights movement should be tolerant of racist attitudes? Would it be bad for that movement to push it's own agenda? And the same for the gay rights movement? If a group of gay atheists wanted to start their own group, would they have to tolerate anti-gay comments on their threads? Would they have to engage in reasoned discussion with each and every one lest they be called 'intolerant of different opinions'?

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

There are a lot of women who are anti-woman, yes.

How exactly do you come up with that ? How do you define someone who is anti-woman ?

And actually you're right. I apologise and should replace the word 'men' with 'anti-feminist'. There are lots of feminist men and lots of anti-feminist women, so that's a more important distinction (although I would imagine the majority of anti-feminists are men and the majority of feminists are women).

Are we using the same definition of feminism ?

I support feminism in the way I understand it. From dictionary.com;
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

However I don't see the objection to the phrase 'allowed to'. Every discussion board has things that you are and aren't 'allowed to' say. That's all I'm referring to really.

If a discussion board claims to be open to discussion on issues and claims to be sceptical about issues than the very least they need to do is to allow discussion on issues.

If A+ said it is a place for 'feminists' who believe X,Y, and Z and it's a place to discuss how we believe X, Y, and Z than I would have no problem with them.

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

Do you mean that feminism should be tolerant of anti-feminism?

Why would it want to push any other agenda apart from it's own?

Would you think the civil rights movement should be tolerant of racist attitudes? Would it be bad for that movement to push it's own agenda? And the same for the gay rights movement? If a group of gay atheists wanted to start their own group, would they have to tolerate anti-gay comments on their threads? Would they have to engage in reasoned discussion with each and every one lest they be called 'intolerant of different opinions'?

I think you need to go and check up what A+ actually claims to be.

Rev Hellfire

Seems like feminist site first and a atheist/sceptic second which is fine, but somewhat misleading with respect to its title.

Kooli

decimatio wrote: »

I think you need to go and check up what A+ actually claims to be.

Why's that? I'm happy to, but perhaps you could explain what you think I'm misunderstanding. I admit I'm not involved in the movement. But I still stand by what I said in general terms.

Do you want to answer the questions in my post?

And yes, I do agree with your definition of feminism.
But like a gay person can be homophobic, so can a woman be anti-woman or anti-feminist.
Have you never heard a woman say sexist things? Or dismiss other women? Or say that women are not capable of the same things as men?
I would argue that being pro-life (anti-choice) is pretty anti-woman. But I know that's not a clear-cut example. But there are plenty of other ways women can join in women's dismissal/objectification/discrimination/dehumanisation

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Seems like feminist site first and a atheist/sceptic second which is fine, but somewhat misleading with respect to its title.

That would be my only issue with the group. The name is not indicative of the agenda.

Other than that, it's their corner of the Internet to do what they want, afaic.

Ickle Magoo

Dades wrote: »

That would be my only issue with the group. The name is not indicative of the agenda.

Yeah, I dunno why they didn't go with atheist ♀ or summat...seem to have made a[nother] rod for their own back there.

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

Why's that? I'm happy to, but perhaps you could explain what you think I'm misunderstanding. I admit I'm not involved in the movement. But I still stand by what I said in general terms.

I have no problem with anything you've said. My problem is with how A+ are portraying themselves compared to what they actually are.

Do you want to answer the questions in my post?

For what reason ? Do you really expect me to disagree with you on such questions ?

Rev Hellfire

Kooli wrote: »

Why would it want to push any other agenda apart from it's own?

I've seem this attitude in a few other places and I'll be honest I don't get it. Discrimination against one group rarely exists without the root cause(s) facilitating other forms of discrimination.

It just seem to me to lead to a more entrenched mindset.

Kooli

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I've seem this attitude in a few other places and I'll be honest I don't get it. Discrimination against one group rarely exists without the root cause(s) facilitating other forms of discrimination.

It just seem to me to lead to a more entrenched mindset.

I'm not sure I understand the sentence in bold. Can you clarify?

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I've seem this attitude in a few other places and I'll be honest I don't get it. Discrimination against one group rarely exists without the root cause(s) facilitating other forms of discrimination.

It just seem to me to lead to a more entrenched mindset.

I dunno. When you're talking about how people are choosing to spend their spare time I don't think it's outlandish that some people want to be able to have discussion without the current demographics meaning they are out-numbered by the the dog-with-a-bone, circular sometimes inane and aggressive/dismissive style of discussion employed/enjoyed by some...

If you mean in general then the humanistic international equality group is so vague and would require so many resources as to be useless...in most instances it makes sense to have focus groups for specific causes.

Rev Hellfire

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the sentence in bold. Can you clarify?

Certainly. Lets take feminism and disability advocacy both seek equality, which in many cases can come from a lack of education and/or cultural norms.

Those people who promote disability awareness through education by raising awareness of equality and combating misguided cultural norms, in my view also assist the feminist agenda.

This is because an individual who is made more open to the rights of the disabled through education can use that same understanding when examining the issue of discrimination against for women.

imho etc etc.

Rev Hellfire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

in most instances it makes sense to have focus groups for specific causes.

I'm not stating they should not have a primary focus, I'm just disagreeing with the idea they should not support others where it doesn't impact their own activities negatively.

It smacks a bit like "since no one is for me, I'm for no one else".