Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Second, no, I am not going to go search the A+ forum collecting links.

Thanks for making that clear.

[Rrose Selavy]

Originally Posted by appalling

JREF has rules about obscenity and indecency, and rightly so for the sake of actually having conversations.

People are banned for violating these rules, I would assume.

When people are banned for Membership Agreement violations on these grounds, aren't they being banned for violating an interpretation of what is obscene, subjectively determined by a JREF mod?

Again, JREF isn't an objective free-for-all either, and shouldn't be, in my opinion.

Think a particular ban by a mod decision was too subjective or plain wrong? Debate the issue here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...splay.php?f=99

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

All I get is that you really hate A+.

I strongly disagree with A+ and see that it is a group of evil people. I certainly don't hate them; hating people is counterproductive.

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Thanks for making that clear.

No problem. So, just to be clear, when I say that I have disagreed with people there and not been banned, you think I'm lying?

I've done my best to answer your questions in detail (and like I said, I couldn't post links right now if I wanted to - but no, I'm not going to rush to 15 posts so I can get some for you) and all you are doing is repeating "A+ bad!" without any elaboration at all.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

+

I doubt it . Perhaps you need to spend a bit more time here and on the other boards and see how many "perfectly rational points" get a warning, let alone a ban.

Maybe you're missing my point, I'm not saying they were right, just that they believed they were right.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

No problem. So, just to be clear, when I say that I have disagreed with people there and not been banned, you think I'm lying?

No, I think you are probably overstating the level of allowed disagreement in order to make the place seem like more of a forum and less of the groupthink cult that it is.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Think a particular ban by a mod decision was too subjective or plain wrong? Debate the issue here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...splay.php?f=99

Again, I agree with this.

I can see that there is an equivalent forum for members to discuss moderation on A+. It looks pretty active.

[Rrose Selavy]

Originally Posted by appalling

Maybe you're missing my point, I'm not saying they were right, just that they believed they were right.

No I know the point you're making but its irrelevant.
If the mods were correct in their action, in any reasonable interpretation, eg abusive message, sockpuppet etc then they are doing their job. What the person banned thinks is irrelevant. Believing an abusive message or deliberate sock puppetry after a previous ban is Ok is irrelevant. People are not banned for disagreements or rational point making by most reasonable interpretations of that. As said, it's actually quite hard to get banned from here.
People get suspended but they generally don't argue the reasonableness of their suspension but they can.

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, I think you are probably overstating the level of allowed disagreement in order to make the place seem like more of a forum and less of the groupthink cult that it is.

What makes it a groupthink cult besides "AvalonXQ says so"?

ETA: And if my intent is to "hide" that fact, does that mean I am a groupthinking cultist?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by appalling

Maybe you're missing my point, I'm not saying they were right, just that they believed they were right.

The point is that there are two groups.

One believes they are right while still saying all sorts of things contrary to JREF. They are not banned.

Another group believes they are right while sending abusive PMs and doing other things that have nothing to do with personal or substantive disagreement but are actually malicious. They are banned.

The difference is that at A+ people in the first group are also banned. The existence of banned people on both forums does not equate the two.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

What makes it a groupthink cult besides "AvalonXQ says so"?

Insistence of conformity of opinion, suppression of dissenting views.

Quote:

ETA: And if my intent is "hide" that fact, does that mean I am a groupthinking cultist?

No, just someone who thinks the best of his/her friends.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by appalling

As a new JREFer, who are the best examples who have expressed significant disagreement with JREF who aren't banned?

I can only assume that you aren't familiar with AvalonXQ (which is understandable). While he is a well-known and generally respected member of the community, there are certainly some key areas where his viewpoints are very, very different from the majority of the forum.

And, to me, this quickly gets to one of our issues with A+. While a great many of us disagree with Avalon on some key points, we feel that the forum is stronger for having him here because we value the diversty of viewpoints and attitudes. A+, which theoretically prides itself on diversity, seems to eschew any diversity of thought.

ETA: okay, I was a little late with that

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Insistence of conformity of opinion, suppression of dissenting views.

I just gave you some examples of my non-conforming opinions. So am I lying, or would you like to clarify?

What "dissenting views" do you think are not allowed there? Be specific. I can think of a few - someone who is openly racist or anti-feminist would probably be banned quickly. So in that respect, it's less permissive than here, maybe, but like I said, they have set the forum up as a place where people don't have to deal with bigots and trolls. That's not censorship, and even if you think every place on the Internet should allow every opinion to be expressed freely (I don't agree), it still wouldn't make them a "groupthink cult."

Quote:

No, just someone who thinks the best of his/her friends.

I wouldn't call any of them my friends - I haven't been a member there long and never have private conversations with any of them nor know any of them offline. So, no.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I can only assume that you aren't familiar with AvalonXQ (which is understandable). While he is a well-known and generally respected member of the community, there are certainly some key areas where his viewpoints are very, very different from the majority of the forum.

And, to me, this quickly gets to one of our issues with A+. While a great many of us disagree with Avalon on some key points, we feel that the forum is stronger for having him here because we value the diversty of viewpoints and attitudes. A+, which theoretically prides itself on diversity, seems to eschew any diversity of thought.

A very good point - a person like me could never join an organization like A+.

Also that was very kind; thank you.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

I just gave you some examples of my non-conforming opinions.

And in the absence of links, I choose not to accept your examples at face value.
Can we confirm, though, that these examples represent your best examples of what level of dissent is allowed among A+ members?

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And in the absence of links, I choose not to accept your examples at face value.

Okay, so I'm lying.

Nowhere really to go from there. Maybe someone else will actually articulate their grievances with A+.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

No I know the point your making but its irrelevant.
If the mods were correct in their action, in any reasonable interpretation, eg abusive message, sockpuppet etc then they are doing their job. What the person banned thinks is irrelevant. Believing an abusive message or deliberate sock puppetry after a previous ban is Ok is irrelevant. People are not banned for disagreements or rational point making by most reasonable interpretations of that.

Great, everything's good then.

I believe the mods are doing a good job deciding what is a rational point, and I agree that there are forums for whoever's left to discuss and debate it.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The point is that there are two groups.

One believes they are right while still saying all sorts of things contrary to JREF. They are not banned.

Another group believes they are right while sending abusive PMs and doing other things that have nothing to do with personal or substantive disagreement but are actually malicious. They are banned.

The difference is that at A+ people in the first group are also banned. The existence of banned people on both forums does not equate the two.

How is the bolded part decided? Because my reading is that there is someone (who I most likely agree with in the broadest way) still deciding if something is civil and polite.

I'm just trying to see if people are arguing form (a "moderators have some powers to shape the civility of a conversation" form) or if it's just bickering about the standard of what's civil (a "not-pro-feminism criticism should be allowed on your forum" standard of civility).

If it's the form, then I think it's more in common with JREF than presented here. If it's the standard, I think people have plenty of place to argue their points.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Okay, so I'm lying.

You seem pretty insistent to create a false dichotomy here.

There are many reasons that your claim may be inaccurate other than intentional deceit on your part. A refusal to accept a claim as insufficiently supported isn't the same as rejecting a claim as not possibly true, nor is it the same as calling the claimant a liar.

I think your time at A+ may have harmed your reasoning skills. Hang out here a while and you may find you learn something.

I'll ask again - are you claiming your description above provides your best example of the extent of divergence of opinion that is permitted on A+?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by appalling

As a new JREFer, who are the best examples who have expressed significant disagreement with JREF who aren't banned?

You are confusing the JREF (the James Randi Educational Foundation) with the JREF discussion forum which is a service hosted by the JREF. People get suspended or banned, after fair warnings, for repeatedly violating the forum rules which are part of the membership agreement, not for expressing opinions.

Suspensions or bans and the reasons for them are announced here.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Nowhere really to go from there. Maybe someone else will actually articulate their grievances with A+.

I've already done it comrade, you just chose to ignore it.

There are no racists, there are no anti-feminists on A+, there never has been. Only ordinary people who mistakenly sign up thinking that A+ might be something good for them only to find themselves labelled, dogpiled and banned when they try to defend themselves from ridiculous attacks

Check the last page of their "Are The Moderators...." thread. Another flame out of a long term member complete with a parting shot at chairman ceepolk.

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You seem pretty insistent to create a false dichotomy here.

There isn't much other way to read "Links or it didn't happen" than "I doubt your veracity."

Quote:

I think your time at A+ may have harmed your reasoning skills. Hang out here a while and you may find you learn something.

Oho. Is this is where we commence the "Who-can-be-more-condescending" contest? I'm pretty good at that when I'm in the mood, but I'll pass on the exchange of ad hominems.

Quote:

I'll ask again - are you claiming your description above provides your best example of the extent of divergence of opinion that is permitted on A+?

You know, I have tried to answer your questions as best I can, even provided some suggested answers on your behalf as a starting point. So far, all you have done is make very broad, non-specific, unfounded assertions. "This is bad because I say so, I say so because it is bad."

I think it's fair for me to demand that you actually allow yourself to be pinned down and answer something you've been asked before I continue trying to respond to all your questions and getting nothing in return.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I can only assume that you aren't familiar with AvalonXQ (which is understandable). While he is a well-known and generally respected member of the community, there are certainly some key areas where his viewpoints are very, very different from the majority of the forum.

And, to me, this quickly gets to one of our issues with A+. While a great many of us disagree with Avalon on some key points, we feel that the forum is stronger for having him here because we value the diversty of viewpoints and attitudes. A+, which theoretically prides itself on diversity, seems to eschew any diversity of thought.

ETA: okay, I was a little late with that

I understand this argument, and I mostly agree with it.

JREF has standards of civility that include Avalon or others. That means their points must be addressed and dealt with.

I think of it as a disagreement dial, if you allow everyone, you have thousands of people on stage, including everyone who is right about a topic and everyone who isn't, and somebody just swearing.

If you turn the dial, you get to where you have a hearable level of people arguing (eliminating the swearing person, who might have been right, but probably wasn't).

If you turn it down again, you get a group of friends, right or wrong, less viewpoints but people feel safer talking.

If you turn it right down, you have one person on stage, right, or wrong (probably both in a complex world) and you can hear every word they say. At this point you have a novel, right or wrong.

Arguing that one part of the dial is the "strongest" is too simplistic.

A+ has different moderation and it's a different conversation.

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by Stout

I've already done it comrade, you just chose to ignore it.

There are no racists, there are no anti-feminists on A+, there never has been. Only ordinary people who mistakenly sign up thinking that A+ might be something good for them only to find themselves labelled, dogpiled and banned when they try to defend themselves from ridiculous attacks

Check the last page of their "Are The Moderators...." thread. Another flame out of a long term member complete with a parting shot at chairman ceepolk.

Actually, there have been quite a few anti-feminists trolling the place, though I don't recall any racists. However, while I agree that dogpiling is a thing that happens there (and it has been discussed), the people who get banned are usually the ones who come back with "#@$@! you HOW DARE YOU CENSOR ME?!"

I mean, I can't argue for the justice of every single banning, but most of the time, while I agree that the person banned was probably not a troll or trying to be offensive, they usually said something stupid, then compounded it by being unwilling to listen.

[appalling]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

You are confusing the JREF (the James Randi Educational Foundation) with the JREF discussion forum which is a service hosted by the JREF. People get suspended or banned, after fair warnings, for repeatedly violating the forum rules which are part of the membership agreement, not for expressing opinions.

Suspensions or bans and the reasons for them are announced here.

Again, I'm not confusing them.

I'm sure most of the bannings are fair and that I would agree with them. I'm just saying that they happen based on Membership Agreement which has a subjective code of civility (which again, I would probably agree with the interpretation of it) and that banning people for not being civil is allowed here.

I'm not impugning the justness of moderation or the moderation here. I think it's just not correct to assume that A+ moderates subjectively while the JREF forum doesn't, can't, wouldn't, or hasn't.

It's about what code of civility is chosen.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Maybe someone else will actually articulate their grievances with A+.

Most, though not all, of the posts on this thread articulate opinions, not grievances.

The difference, in present day conventional parlance, is that grievances are pleas to the source of the grievance (in this case, that would be the A+ form or specific members or staff there) and can be unilaterally dismissed by that party at its will, while opinions are held by the person holding them and cannot be. You can, of course, attempt to change those opinions, but you cannot do so unilaterally by fiat, so calling them "grievances" and putting yourself in the role of adjudicator is probably not a good start toward doing so.

Some of the opinions I've expressed previously in this thread are:

My perception of the fundamental problem with discourse at the A+ forums:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...88#post8723188

My terse advice for everyone at A+:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...47#post8721547

My advice to members of this forum, with regard to A+ (repeated several times subsequently, in increasingly simple terms):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...10#post8717710

Respectfully,
Myriad

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

There isn't much other way to read "Links or it didn't happen" than "I doubt your veracity."

This is a common woo-believer tactic, claiming that the only possibilities are to accept her claims or believe she's lying ("The psychic knew both my dead parents' names and predicted my accident! What, are you calling me a liar?!") It ignores the myriad of other reasons why a poorly-evidenced claim may be wrong, and also ignores the simple point that in the absence of evidence the default position is to reject the claim until evidence is presented.

I know you're used to A+ where one of the ground rules is to personalize the argument and another is to accept all claims from the "in-group" uncritically, but people are going to expect a little more from you here.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by appalling

Again, I'm not confusing them.

I'm sure most of the bannings are fair and that I would agree with them. I'm just saying that they happen based on Membership Agreement which has a subjective code of civility (which again, I would probably agree with the interpretation of it) and that banning people for not being civil is allowed here.

I'm not impugning the justness of moderation or the moderation here. I think it's just not correct to assume that A+ moderates subjectively while the JREF forum doesn't, can't, wouldn't, or hasn't.

It's about what code of civility is chosen.

Please note that in order for someone to be banned they must willfully refuse to cease in the behavior. It must be gratuitous and the person is suspended a few times first.

It's hard to get banned here. You have to work at it.

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Some of the opinions I've expressed previously in this thread are:

Thanks for the links. I don't think I actually disagree with anything you said in those posts. As I said in my introduction, I don't agree with everyone on the A+ boards nor with everything they say. What you seem to be getting at - that many members of A+ are hurt, angry, disenfranchised, and thus using SJ constructs to lash out while shielding themselves from anything that will distress them - is definitely true.

What I do not get is (a) why this necessarily makes all of their constructs wrong; (b) why people hate them so much (you evidently do not, but AvalonXQ seems to think they are a plague upon humanity). Specifically I have seen arguments that they are "bad for atheism" and wishes for A+ to go away/disappear/die off. And a lot of glee at poking fun at some of those hurt and angry people. Someone said this is not the "JREF vs. A+" thread but it's pretty clear quite a few people are here for no other reason than to monitor the A+ board and then go "LOL look at the stupid thing they are arguing about now LOLOLOL!"

[Amadanb]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This is a common woo-believer tactic, claiming that the only possibilities are to accept her claims or believe she's lying ("The psychic knew both my dead parents' names and predicted my accident! What, are you calling me a liar?!") It ignores the myriad of other reasons why a poorly-evidenced claim may be wrong, and also ignores the simple point that in the absence of evidence the default position is to reject the claim until evidence is presented.

I know you're used to A+ where one of the ground rules is to personalize the argument and another is to accept all claims from the "in-group" uncritically, but people are going to expect a little more from you here.

Oh my, a "woo-believer" now. That's pretty funny.

So, do you ever actually back up your assertions with facts and evidence and logic, or is it just straight to the baiting and the condescension?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Oh my, a "woo-believer" now. That's pretty funny.

Have you abandoned your straw man and false dichotomy now? Do you accept that refusing to accept your claim without evidence is not the same as calling you a liar?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Okay, so I'm lying.

Nowhere really to go from there. Maybe someone else will actually articulate their grievances with A+.

There are 70 pages of "articulation" on this thread as of this posting. Are we expected to repeat ourselves because you couldn't be bothered to review the thread before jumping in?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by appalling

As far as the thread goes, you do seem to be reading a lot of "Veganism is not for everyone"-comments as having an intention of promoting "Veganism is garbage" in a lot of exchanges that don't seem overwrought otherwise.

Er, no. My main contention was always backwards factual claims (vegans need supplements to survive, veganism is a White upper-class phenomena, etc.)

The replies to me calling me a smug, ****wit who should shut the **** up are what would be AAH worthy in a normal forum. There it is the opposite. Then they make accusations extremely wide of the mark about me and my intentions and then I am bumped because people have been reporting my posts.

"Food policing", that is the new word of the day for those interested.

The main critique latched onto seemed to be that I was being insensitive to people with ASD or the like who might have sensory issues. This would be reasonable if anyone ever mentioned that. Instead they described normal food aversion.

For comparison:

Let's say I am handicapped and can't walk without crutches. Then I ask for opinions online for losing weight. Someone suggests going on walks or runs during my lunch breaks and I say that that would make me feel uncomfortable and not fun at all. Then they reply that physical activity releases endorphins blah blah blah...

Are they being ableist? Under any reasonable definition of the term, I would say no. Ignorant, but not at fault. Now if I mentioned I was handicapped and they told me to stop being lazy etc. then the obvious answer is yes. If I spent posts instead lamenting how my legs would ache without mentioning any clarifying details then nothing could be expected to be achieved.

That seems to be my main social justice diversion with the board, but you won't find me posting it there any time soon .

And I still can't get over being called a racist because I referenced Chinese and Native American traditional cultures that didn't fit the standard Western diet model.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Thanks for the links. I don't think I actually disagree with anything you said in those posts. As I said in my introduction, I don't agree with everyone on the A+ boards nor with everything they say. What you seem to be getting at - that many members of A+ are hurt, angry, disenfranchised, and thus using SJ constructs to lash out while shielding themselves from anything that will distress them - is definitely true.

If you don't disagree with this:

Quote:

Learn to say this: "You don't get it. I don't expect you to, because you have not had my experiences. I forgive you."

...then does it concern you that the general and accepted behavior at the A+ is to do close to the exact opposite of that?

Quote:

What I do not get is (a) why this necessarily makes all of their constructs wrong; (b) why people hate them so much (you evidently do not, but AvalonXQ seems to think they are a plague upon humanity)

AvalonXQ probably also thinks that earthquakes are a plague upon humanity, but that doesn't mean he hates them. In my experience Avalon doesn't lie about such things; he is speaking as a practitioner of a complex and nuanced belief system. It appears that A+ members are quick to equate argument, disagreement, and opposition with hate, but others are inclined to make more careful distinctions.

I can't speak directly for AvalonXQ, but I suspect his characterization of the prevailing culture at A+ as evil relate to one or more of the following:
- That it appears to cause unnecessary harm to people.
- That it appears to encourage its participants to take pleasure in causing unnecessary harm to people.
- That it denies and explicitly mocks things that are held in high regard in his own belief system, such as freedom of expression ("freeze peach") and respectful discourse ("stop [peoplewedontlike]splaining" or "you didn't use our special pronouns so GTFO").

I don't think I can respond to the "makes all their constructs wrong" portion because I don't know what set of constructs you're talking about. I don't think anyone has said all of their constructs are wrong; for example, most atheists here probably agree with A+'s position regarding the existence of deities, and most also support gender equality and GLBT rights.

Quote:

Specifically I have seen arguments that they are "bad for atheism" and wishes for A+ to go away/disappear/die off. And a lot of glee at poking fun at some of those hurt and angry people. Someone said this is not the "JREF vs. A+" thread but it's pretty clear quite a few people are here for no other reason than to monitor the A+ board and then go "LOL look at the stupid thing they are arguing about now LOLOLOL!"

Some of them are here for that reason. Just as, if you go to some of the other subforums (or other threads on this forum) you'll see people monitoring and poking fun of the activities of the Catholic Church, Creationists, conspiracy theorists, Republican politicians, Democrat politicians, anti-gay-rights factions, homeopaths, psychics, and many others, along with a good number who monitor and poke fun of the activities of atheists. None of that is against the forum rules, and it is the bread and butter of a skepticism and critical thinking forum. The world is full of a lot more negative examples of critical thinking than positive ones, and like it or not, the discourse at the A+ forums often adds to that store.

Being hurt and angry is not a license to hurt and anger others without consequence, so when people do so in public, it will be commented on.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[devnull]

Originally Posted by appalling

As a new JREFer, who are the best examples who have expressed significant disagreement with JREF who aren't banned?

The funniest thing is that you asked this of AvalonXQ, who has some positions/beliefs that vary quite radically from the "norm" here, but who is a valued forum member all the same.

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by Amadanb

Maybe someone else will actually articulate their grievances with A+.

Speaking for myself:

- While I don't consider myself to be sexist, I also am not a 'feminist' the way that term seems to be defined by those in the A+ movement.

- While I don't consider myself to be a 'conservative' I also don't agree with some of the more liberal ideas expressed over at A+.

- Indeed, pretty much the only thing I have in common with most of the A+ folks, is my atheism. I'm sure on a spectrum, we have some consistencies, but also many differences.

- As has been expressed by a number of self-appointed spokespeople for the A+ movement, this is an 'all or nothing' movement. You are either with A+ or you are against them.

- As such I find the A+ 'movement' to be divisive & counter-productive. 'Atheists' are a difficult enough bunch of people to try to corral and muster in any sense of the words. Behaving in a schismatic manner erodes the overall 'power' any group of like-minded people could have in a public sense (think here lobbying, gaining attention on important matters).

- I find a lot of the A+ rhetoric to be needlessly attacking and hurtful. Just because I am not entirely 100% convinced that a rape joke can NEVER be funny, and ALWAYS is 'sexist', doesn't not immediately make me a <insert your favorite comment here - douchebag seems to be popular> and an enemy. Engage me in conversation. Explain your point of view. I'm rational & capable of being shown the error of my ways.

- For me, being an atheist, AND a 'feminist' as defined by A+, AND a 'liberal' as defined by A+ does not represent how I view the world. That said, I'm interested in other points of view, and I don't think we have to buy a whole set of BIG ideas in a purely consistent fashion in order to get along. However it is been made clear that I am unwelcome to the movement, so I have taken my toys & left the sandbox. Its unfortunate, because I generally think a number of the 'leaders' over there have some interesting ideas, and indeed I still hope we can still be personal friends.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Speaking for myself:

- While I don't consider myself to be sexist, I also am not a 'feminist' the way that term seems to be defined by those in the A+ movement.

- While I don't consider myself to be a 'conservative' I also don't agree with some of the more liberal ideas expressed over at A+.

- Indeed, pretty much the only thing I have in common with most of the A+ folks, is my atheism. I'm sure on a spectrum, we have some consistencies, but also many differences.

- As has been expressed by a number of self-appointed spokespeople for the A+ movement, this is an 'all or nothing' movement. You are either with A+ or you are against them.

- As such I find the A+ 'movement' to be divisive & counter-productive. 'Atheists' are a difficult enough bunch of people to try to corral and muster in any sense of the words. Behaving in a schismatic manner erodes the overall 'power' any group of like-minded people could have in a public sense (think here lobbying, gaining attention on important matters).

- I find a lot of the A+ rhetoric to be needlessly attacking and hurtful. Just because I am not entirely 100% convinced that a rape joke can NEVER be funny, and ALWAYS is 'sexist', doesn't not immediately make me a <insert your favorite comment here - douchebag seems to be popular> and an enemy. Engage me in conversation. Explain your point of view. I'm rational & capable of being shown the error of my ways.

- For me, being an atheist, AND a 'feminist' as defined by A+, AND a 'liberal' as defined by A+ does not represent how I view the world. That said, I'm interested in other points of view, and I don't think we have to buy a whole set of BIG ideas in a purely consistent fashion in order to get along. However it is been made clear that I am unwelcome to the movement, so I have taken my toys & left the sandbox. Its unfortunate, because I generally think a number of the 'leaders' over there have some interesting ideas, and indeed I still hope we can still be personal friends.

You're male and white. That makes you privileged. Your opinion is not welcome.


I think you're also probably cisgendered and a mansplainer, but I need to do more research before passing sentence....errr...I mean judgment.

[Ronja]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Because they actually are evil, bad, and stupid. They are malicious, hateful bullies. They are ignorant, privileged, prejudiced narcissists.

How interesting. Does that mean that if I were to register at the A+ forum, I would also become a malicious, hateful bully and an ignorant, privileged, prejudiced narcissist? How long would the transformation take? What would propel the transformation? Is Amadanb thus transformed already? (I note your use of "they", not "you" in your description of aplussers even though you are answering to Amadanb)

Just wondering...

[appalling]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Please note that in order for someone to be banned they must willfully refuse to cease in the behavior. It must be gratuitous and the person is suspended a few times first.

It's hard to get banned here. You have to work at it.

Again, I agree with this and that characterization.

People keep explaining these things to me as if I somehow don't understand moderation.

I was only bringing it up because the mechanics of a lot of moderation at A+ seems similar in the broad sense, with warnings, a posted list of who's banned and why, and a forum to talk about those decisions that has a large amount of allowed invective against the moderators, and most of the complaints here have more to do with the standard of what is considered civil used to justify the banning.

If they say, "Here are things we disallow based on these reasons" and then warn and remove people based on those sentiments, I don't see why so many people are offended.

If a motorcycle forum for a less-dominant brand said that they would remove posts that just talked about a dominant brand, and then they did, I don't know how you get to the idea of an evil censor that hurts people. Even if they had a wild rule that they would remove anyone who wanted to fill a thread with questions about why people didn't just switch to cars.

[appalling]

You definitely got sworn at.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

The main critique latched onto seemed to be that I was being insensitive to people with ASD or the like who might have sensory issues. This would be reasonable if anyone ever mentioned that. Instead they described normal food aversion.

I looked at your posts (which are still there somehow) and this simply isn't true.

If you believe it's true, I could see why you wouldn't understand why people were frustrated, but you were responding multiple times to the words "health or texture or taste issues" as if it was "normal food aversion". I think you were right about a bunch of things, but wrong about the thing you were called out on and warned about. But that's just an opinion, right?

In any case it just seems like a little forum fight. You're right that it wasn't appropriate to assume you meant Europe when you talked of traditional societies but I am not convinced that comments in this thread are more decorous or fairly argued.

I am not convinced that if someone ignored a moderator warning in this thread that there would not be any consequence.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by appalling

If they say, "Here are things we disallow based on these reasons" and then warn and remove people based on those sentiments, I don't see why so many people are offended.

If a motorcycle forum for a less-dominant brand said that they would remove posts that just talked about a dominant brand, and then they did, I don't know how you get to the idea of an evil censor that hurts people. Even if they had a wild rule that they would remove anyone who wanted to fill a thread with questions about why people didn't just switch to cars.

I agree, except the piece you're missing is that theyre using the word "atheist".

So, it would be like starting a forum called "Critical thinkers+" and then banning anybody who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. Sure, you can do it, but it aggravates people's sensibilities

Atheism itself implies *nothing* else in their agenda. Had they chosen a better name, I doubt this thread would exist.