Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Okay, my curiosity was piqued when I noted the above so I actually tracked the first twelve hours 00:01 to 12:00 GMT of 31 July 2013. As I said, I just happened to notice this in the first hour, but I was wondering if it's a pattern.

Opening Counter: 87488 posts
12:00:01 GMT 87515

Total would seem to be 27 new posts in 12 hours. (For them, that's kind of average lately as they are hovering between 2 and 3 posts an hour.)

But here's the beauty part.... visible to your average member.... seven (7) posts. SEVEN!!! That's one new and exciting and informative post every hour and twenty-five minutes!

Invisible to all but the Cool Kids' Table? 20 posts! That is correct - over 70% of the posts are in private among the in crowd. How must it feel to be one of the dupes who fell for their inclusionary b.s.? It's a safe space for a select few individuals. You can watch the activity on the forum index page and see the royalty logging on, see the total posts go up, but see no posts visible to the lower classmen.

ETA: It's now 75% hidden posts. The overall count went up one post, but nothing's shown up in the last fifteen minutes on the public wall of the index, so it's another uber sensitive social justice message that y'all can't be trusted with, you peons!

By way of contrast, JREF has 9.37 million posts, give or take, and roughly 167,000 posts in the Mod Area. Now, before you get all paranoid, keep in mind that a post has been generated in the Sooper Sekrit area for every infraction ever issued on this forum (which accounts for the vast majority of those 167,000 posts). The actual number of posts the Mod Team has made in that area is something slightly over 30,000. So, about 0.3% of our posts are invisible to the general population. I haven't compared posts in the Sooper Sekrit area per day to the total number of posts per day, but I'd bet the fraction is vanishingly small (I'd be amazed if it was as many as one in a thousand).

Draw your own conclusions.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

By way of contrast, JREF has 9.37 million posts, give or take, and roughly 167,000 posts in the Mod Area. Now, before you get all paranoid, keep in mind that a post has been generated in the Sooper Sekrit area for every infraction ever issued on this forum (which accounts for the vast majority of those 167,000 posts). The actual number of posts the Mod Team has made in that area is something slightly over 30,000. So, about 0.3% of our posts are invisible to the general population. I haven't compared posts in the Sooper Sekrit area per day to the total number of posts per day, but I'd bet the fraction is vanishingly small (I'd be amazed if it was as many as one in a thousand).

Draw your own conclusions.

By the way, the final count for the 24 hours of July 31 comes out to

Total Increase 60 posts
Visible 24
Private Area 36

So only 60%. And again, this is not the mods area. This is the inner sanctum soopersafe space for the uber sensitive to have their privacy from the people they're inviting to join a forum and discuss things. Essentially, there are two forums. One for the untrained SJ101 crowd and one for the privileged SJ201 crowd.

60% of their posts are invisible to the general membership. And that general membership has been culled to get rid of undesirables, already. They've raised the ante on the "read and lurk" admonishment to extremes.

I don't liken it to a cult so much as see it as something they must've all railed against throughout their school years. It's the Revenge of the Nerds. They now occupy the Cool Kids table in the lunch room. (For certain obscure definitions of the word "cool".)

[Kochanski]

Apparently I have made it to the SP list having never posted on the A+ forum. I am on the Block Bot twitter list as a level 2 having done nothing more than an occasional comment on twitter and occasionally retweeting things.

I would count this as a badge of honor but I can not say that I was going out of my way to annoy them.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

Apparently I have made it to the SP list having never posted on the A+ forum. I am on the Block Bot twitter list as a level 2 having done nothing more than an occasional comment on twitter and occasionally retweeting things.

I would count this as a badge of honor but I can not say that I was going out of my way to annoy them.

You'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes!

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

You'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes!

I say bring the revolution, in the proud Polish tradition I will be Żołnierze wyklęci.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

Apparently I have made it to the SP list having never posted on the A+ forum. I am on the Block Bot twitter list as a level 2 having done nothing more than an occasional comment on twitter and occasionally retweeting things.

I would count this as a badge of honor but I can not say that I was going out of my way to annoy them.

Originally Posted by Lorentz

You'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes!

Originally Posted by Kochanski

I say bring the revolution, in the proud Polish tradition I will be Żołnierze wyklęci.

It's these kinds of posts that keep me coming back to JREF. If I ever decide to create an account there (A+ or FTB) I want to do so in the proud Russian dissident tradition of folks like Natan Sharansky. I think people like Ellen Beth Wachs have had epiphanies like the Mitchel and Web Nazi characters in skit bellow.

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

I AGREE

[Antiquehunter]

Could someone please post a link to see the 'blackbot' list? I'm curious if I'm on there...

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Could someone please post a link to see the 'blackbot' list? I'm curious if I'm on there...

It doesn't seem to be working at the moment, though it was yesterday, but it's http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35

(Found via Tim Farley's excellent blog post on the topic.)

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

It doesn't seem to be working at the moment, though it was yesterday, but it's http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35

(Found via Tim Farley's excellent blog post on the topic.)

Very interesting list. Saw Claus Larsen complaining about being on the list and how there's no channel for appeal. Also found "girl writes what" on level 2. She's really cool! It's not just about abusive trolling. It's about fear of contradiction and fear of dissent. Again, uniformity of opinion is mandatory with the A+ crowd which is the antithesis of free thought.

[Dissolution]

You can be banned without even having to post there?!
At what point did that seem like a good idea? Preemptive strikes on a forum.

[Ocelot]

Thanks to the A+ block list I found that Barbara Drescher was on twitter and so followed her.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

It said "blogger Rebecca Watson" had a " bad experience" and showed a short clip of her "guys don't so that" vid.
Then moved to the creator of the "Block Bot", connected with Atheism+
http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2

Must say though Toby Young was useless in the studio debate as was the woman interviewed from twitter.

It was interesting to see that they interviewed Oolon, the only person able to post to FtB, A+ and the Slyme pit and not be considered evil by the former two because he's associated with the latter.

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Also found "girl writes what" on level 2. She's really cool! It's not just about abusive trolling. It's about fear of contradiction and fear of dissent. Again, uniformity of opinion is mandatory with the A+ crowd which is the antithesis of free thought.

But GWW is an evil fedora wearing misogynistic gender traitor MRA who wants to see all women stay in the kitchen, of course she's on the block list.

Then again we are talking about a group of people who employ followcrime as a tactic. If you want to get on that block list you probably only need to follow either @elevatorgate or @AngrySkepchick since to some of these people that's a blockable offence.

Interestingly enough, @thunderf00t is only on a level 2 block, while two fake accounts are level 1.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

It doesn't seem to be working at the moment, though it was yesterday, but it's http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35

(Found via Tim Farley's excellent blog post on the topic.)

Someone needs to get a little active. They have 665 blocked names. One more for the magic number.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Dissolution

You can be banned without even having to post there?!
At what point did that seem like a good idea? Preemptive strikes on a forum.

Probably right after the point that they decided that "safe space" would override any thoughts of allowing dissent and just before they realized that they needed a "safer space" (secret forum) for the bunch who hang out at the Cool Kids' Table in the lunchroom.

Results: A forum with no discussion, just head-nodding. A forum where the smart newbies(the ones who want to survive) wait for one of the CK(cool kids) to post the party line before stating an opinion. A forum with an average of just over two posts per hour, 60% of which are not even visible to the UK(uncool kids).

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by Dissolution

You can be banned without even having to post there?!
At what point did that seem like a good idea? Preemptive strikes on a forum.

I did not even register at A+ forum let alone attempt to post there, I have no desire to get into that vortex of doom.

It is a twitter block bot so the delicate flowers at A+ don't even have to block individuals they can sign up for block bot and it does it for them.

I was listed as level 2 SP for doing nothing more than following individuals on their list, retweeting things and conversing with individuals on their list.

I don't really care that they block me, not like I am competing for followers or using twitter to promote anything, it is my personal twitter account for fun.

What I care about is that the BBC used them as an example of blocking people and that they characterized individuals as abusers.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

I did not even register at A+ forum let alone attempt to post there, I have no desire to get into that vortex of doom.

It is a twitter block bot so the delicate flowers at A+ don't even have to block individuals they can sign up for block bot and it does it for them.

I was listed as level 2 SP for doing nothing more than following individuals on their list, retweeting things and conversing with individuals on their list.

I don't really care that they block me, not like I am competing for followers or using twitter to promote anything, it is my personal twitter account for fun.

What I care about is that the BBC used them as an example of blocking people and that they characterized individuals as abusers.

Followcrime and associating with unpersons? You're literally Hitler.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Very interesting list. Saw Claus Larsen complaining about being on the list and how there's no channel for appeal. Also found "girl writes what" on level 2. She's really cool! It's not just about abusive trolling. It's about fear of contradiction and fear of dissent. Again, uniformity of opinion is mandatory with the A+ crowd which is the antithesis of free thought.

I found that discussion particularly interesting, as Claus was asking how he could appeal being on The List. In the media reports, they seem to downplay being put on lists 2 and 3, suggesting that there was some sort of appeal process to avoid abuse, but when Claus asked about it, the only identifiable person associated with the list told him that he has no control over the list, and that it's all in the hands of the Aplussers. Who have of course banned Claus from their forum.

So, so much for their alleged appeals process.

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I found that discussion particularly interesting, as Claus was asking how he could appeal being on The List. In the media reports, they seem to downplay being put on lists 2 and 3, suggesting that there was some sort of appeal process to avoid abuse, but when Claus asked about it, the only identifiable person associated with the list told him that he has no control over the list, and that it's all in the hands of the Aplussers. Who have of course banned Claus from their forum.

So, so much for their alleged appeals process.

I can't even get them to say why I was put on the level 2 list. I never even attempted to sign on to the forums. I am surmising that it the fact that I follow SPs and converse with them. I am on the Slypmepit, but I have only posted a couple of things there (you would have to look hard to find them) and I joined for the amusement. I don't blog (except for occasional contributions on someone else's blog on non-skeptical topics) or do videos on youtube, I am not on the speaker circuit, my tweets are just my personal ones.

I am very small potatoes indeed. I doubt that most of the A+ers have any idea who I am and they could hardly tell anything about me from my tweets, which makes it odd that they bother to have me on the list at all. It is unlikely that any of them would be following me or seek to follow me, and while I might retweet something from someone they don't want to hear from, it seems unlikely that they would ever see it.

Again I don't really care that they have me on their block bot, I find it amusing, what I care about is how it was characterized on the bbc and the fact that lots more people have been pointed to the list who really have no clue about why the list was made and the people that made it. If people start using that list themselves to block what they think are abusers and I find my twitter account disabled I will be very angry.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I would say that the posts per hour comparison could only be used to determine whether dissent leads to conversation if it took into account membership numbers and was posts per hour per member. Otherwise it's just saying "forums with fewer members will have fewer posts", which seems fairly obviously and trivially true.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I would say that the posts per hour comparison could only be used to determine whether dissent leads to conversation if it took into account membership numbers and was posts per hour per member. Otherwise it's just saying "forums with fewer members will have fewer posts", which seems fairly obviously and trivially true.

Oh, the posts per hour is just the upshot of the daily post count, which I agree is trivial, but I'm anal retentive and that sort of thing amuses me.

The more interesting thing, and the real reason I brought up the whole topic is that even at the paltry total posts per day, if they maintain that 60% rate going straight into the inner sanctum club house, then they'll have days with a dozen posts visible to the general membership. People like talking about things (even if they're not allowed to debate them) and a post every two hours for general consumption really can't feel much like a conversation, so they may lose their public following because people think there's no one posting, while they're really having tea and biscuits out of sight of the masses.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I would say that the posts per hour comparison could only be used to determine whether dissent leads to conversation if it took into account membership numbers and was posts per hour per member. Otherwise it's just saying "forums with fewer members will have fewer posts", which seems fairly obviously and trivially true.

Except as a comment on the efficacy of their "movement", which, yeah, is obvious. The hidden v. public postings seems relevant to the root insular nature of their group, maybe?

Looks like their blockbot is there one attempt at a "public" campaign and we can see how obviously it has gone wrong. Maybe I should start a twitter account and ask on the A+ forum to be banned...since they lack a way to delete your own account (unless that has been added in the last 8 months or so).

[Humes fork]

Struck some gold:

Originally Posted by ceepolk

And I'm going to tell you flat out that I do not care for criticisms of Islam that erase the fact that you can point to similar criticisims of Judaism and Christianity, and as such, aren't really a fit here.

Most people who frequent the forum are generally uninterested in talking about religion and how silly it is, just generally. But the particular fixation on talking about Islam is more about talking down brown people.

Moderator notice

I'm going to ask you to stop talking about Islam in a vaccuum, because racism is not a thing we encourage. if you want to criticize one abrahamic religion, you better criticize them all.

If you can't do that, then I suggest that you not bother in the first place, because white christian folk criticizing brown people is going to punch down no matter how hard you try not to, and I will come down on you for it, as I have come down on every other white person who has done this on this forum since not long after it started.

So if you want to have this conversation, have it somewhere else, please.

If you're sincerely interested in social justice for Muslim people, I want the sources you talk about to be from Muslims. Not white people who have not and have never been Muslims. And if you don't happen to know of any, I suggest you start hunting them out.

ETA: Q pointed out that I didn't explictly include ex-muslims. That is a silly oversight. I explictly include them just to be certain that is clear.

What if ceepolk and the groupies could be directed to Richard Carrier's criticism of Islam from the past...? I generally like Carrier, and if the plussers excommunicate him, maybe he will realize what madness they are into.

[Dissolution]

Ceepolk's really racist, isn't she?

[Empress]

Originally Posted by Dissolution

Ceepolk's really racist, isn't she?

ceepolk is brown and therefore CAN'T BE RACIST!!!!

Only white people are racist, and if you can't accept that, I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting in our safe space.

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by Dissolution

Ceepolk's really racist, isn't she?

She's made it quite clear she pretty much hates white people.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

She's made it quite clear she pretty much hates white people.

But this is not racism because "punching up".

[Joe Random]

If my IronyMeter hadn't already been painfully explodiated by all viscous dog-piling, snark, and general jerkwadery going on in a "safe space", this sentence would surely have done it in :

Quote:

Most people who frequent the forum are generally uninterested in talking about religion and how silly it is, just generally.

Most people are generally uninterested in talking about religion on a forum called ATHEISM Plus !!!1!

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

She's made it quite clear she pretty much hates white people.

I wonder what she thinks of Robert Mugabe then.

[Humes fork]

Setar is at it:

Originally Posted by Setar

yeah, consider me definitely out of the skeptical community, and furthermore strongly advocating that decent atheists just go YOU SHALL NOT PASS and keep the libertarians and other assorted society-deniers on the other side of this Deep Rift.

I must be blind, because I can't find those libertarians. Shermer is, as well as Penn Jillette and Teller. But who else? Dawkins is not a libertarian, neither is Harris or Dennett or any prominent skeptic or scientist I can think of.

And most importantly, Shermer, Jillette and Teller have never said that all skeptics must be libertarians. The plussers are the ones calling for politically based excommunication. "If that smelly libertarian is allowed to stay, I'm out!"

[Humes fork]

Tim Farley in a kerfuffle about Block Bot. Not surprisingly, what makes them angry is disagreement with them.

[Diogenes]

Instead of asking to be banned I made my very first twitter account and have followed some lvl 2 and 3s so I can see if I can get blocked without posting a single tweet.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Struck some gold:



What if ceepolk and the groupies could be directed to Richard Carrier's criticism of Islam from the past...? I generally like Carrier, and if the plussers excommunicate him, maybe he will realize what madness they are into.

That's some open-minded, inclusionary thinking right there, huh?

And posting a mod box like that here would incur the full wrath and might of the Big Cat. I shudder to think about it. He'd have someone's ears as a trophy.

[WillyWonka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

She [Ceepolk] made it quite clear she pretty much hates white people.

Ceepolk is probably the most annoying privilege-bearing individual on Atheism +.

There is a certain segment of Canadian society that never contributes anything useful to society, but continues to criticize everything that government do. Ceepolk is the poster child.

On the "Margaret Thatcher" thread, she remarked that she was happy that Ralph Klein (an ex Alberta premier) died (about the same time as Thatcher), and then went on that the Alberta health care system is abominable. As all Canadian, she is covered through the provincial health care system. Alberta's system is world-class and she does not have to contribute nothing. She probably pay no taxes since she does not seems to have a job, or at least one paying enough.

On the "Housing Angst" thread, she posted:

Quote:

And if you're in canada, the number of people waiting for housing subsidy drives aquisition of subsidised housing. so even if you puut your name on the list and you don't actually need it, your application adds weight to the need for more affordable housing. so if you have to life with shady flaky unrealiable unsafe roommates, apply for subsidy on your rent. when they say the waiting list is eight years, say "well, i'll bring you a cupcake when my name comes up."

it took three years for my number to come up. worth it. totally worth it.

Not only she does not contribute, but as an able body, she chose to take a subsidized spot from someone who need it.

I despise this type of people who abuse the system and then want to give you a lesson on social justice. Patriarchy is allowing her to live the lifestyle that she chose.

Now off the soapbox.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Empress

ceepolk is brown and therefore CAN'T BE RACIST!!!!

Only white people are racist, and if you can't accept that, I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting in our safe space.

She can't be sociologically™ racist. Practically I'd say she's about as racist as people get. But maybe we should just agree to call her a bigot in stead, so as not to offend or confuse all the sociologists.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by WillyWonka

...the "Housing Angst" thread...

Oh God, why did you have to mention this thing?

Originally Posted by Euonymus Al

I am a bully/toxic people magnet -- especially in terms of living situations.

[O]ther people can't seem to stand living with me.

Cannot remember ever feeling safe at home.

...PTSD layers build up...

Originally Posted by ceepolk

I never realized how *much* stress and ******** I endured living with people until I didn't have to live with them any more.

That's right. Everyone else is the problem.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I live on my own, and I much prefer it to living with others. I keep my own hours (well, job excepting), I don't have to compromise on what to watch on TV, I can wander round nude in warm weather, etc. I absolutely love it.

This does not, however, mean that I was previously a victim for living in shared housing. It certainly doesn't mean that living with others gave me PTSD. IT means that there were times when I had to compromise, and it means that there were times when I was involved in conflicts I didn't want to be, and it means that there were times when I had to make the best of being in close proximity to people I didn't like. But you know what? That's part of being an adult. Life isn't always exactly what you want it to be, and sometimes you have to deal with things that you don't want to deal with. That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you a human being.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

[...]That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you a human being.

I think the Atheists+ may have trouble parsing the phrase "<X> doesn't make you a victim".

Also, hear hear!

[Empress]

Originally Posted by H'ethetheth

She can't be sociologically™ racist. Practically I'd say she's about as racist as people get. But maybe we should just agree to call her a bigot in stead, so as not to offend or confuse all the sociologists.

Problem is, they never make that distinction. On A+, only whites can be racists. Full stop. Only men can be sexist. Full stop. Ad nauseum. The actually started in on, IIRC, the admin for making the mistake of claiming that any race could be racist, and finally s/he had to concede to being mistaken and withdraw the previous posts. I agree you could make an argument for sociological racism/sexism/etc being in the hands of those on top, but they never use sub-context or nuance. They just trot out their statements and ban anyone who disagrees with their newspeak. It's revolting.

/rant

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Empress

Problem is, they never make that distinction. On A+, only whites can be racists. Full stop. Only men can be sexist. Full stop. Ad nauseum. The actually started in on, IIRC, the admin for making the mistake of claiming that any race could be racist, and finally s/he had to concede to being mistaken and withdraw the previous posts. I agree you could make an argument for sociological racism/sexism/etc being in the hands of those on top, but they never use sub-context or nuance. They just trot out their statements and ban anyone who disagrees with their newspeak. It's revolting.

/rant

I know, because it's 101 material. No one can question the 101 material. To question the 101 material is to not understand the 101 material. To not understand the 101 material is to not want to understand the 101 material.
To not want to understand the 101 material is to be "part of the problem".

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Empress

but they never use sub-context or nuance.

[yoda] Sub-context. Nuance, heh. A strawman needs not these things. [/yoda]

(that was intended as a critique of A+, not of Empress)