The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

[charlou]

Yeah, I love how they use the sexist term "don't be a dick" -- as if dicks are inherently bad. That's offensive.

The use of genital and sex words and phrases as insulting epithets is worthy of its own discussion. Would anyone be interested in a thread on that? Should it be in the general/philosophy subforum, or the Language, Culture & Anthropology subforum?

[hadespussercats]

Yeah, I love how they use the sexist term "don't be a dick" -- as if dicks are inherently bad. That's offensive.

The use of genital and sex words and phrases as insulting epithets is worthy of its own discussion. Would anyone be interested in a thread on that? Should it be in the general/philosophy subforum, or the Language, Culture & Anthropology subforum?

I'd be interested! My vote's for the latter.

(I've got commitments this evening, though!)

[charlou]

Looks like the Atheism+ crowd are trying to set themselves up as as the moral police of the atheism movement.

A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite. ~ Oscar Wilde

[hadespussercats]

Looks like the Atheism+ crowd are trying to set themselves up as as the moral police of the atheism movement.

A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite. ~ Oscar Wilde

What about a woman?

[charlou]

Cheers, hades.

My vote's for the latter.

I can see it fitting in either, depending on whether we're discussing it in historical/cultural terms .. or evaluating the right/wrongness of it.

I'm busy the next few days ... If any one wants to kick it off, please do. It's a topic that's been on my mind for a while now.

[charlou]

Looks like the Atheism+ crowd are trying to set themselves up as as the moral police of the atheism movement.

A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite. ~ Oscar Wilde

What about a woman?

Clearly hated and harassed.

[laklak]

Looks like the Atheism+ crowd are trying to set themselves up as as the moral police of the atheism movement.

A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite. ~ Oscar Wilde

What about a woman?

Sure, if you've got one handy.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Looks like the Atheism+ crowd are trying to set themselves up as as the moral police of the atheism movement.

A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite. ~ Oscar Wilde

What about a woman?

Clearly hated and harassed.

By compassion-, rationalism-, and integrity-hating oldprivlegedwhitemaleheterocisgenhomoandtransphobicmisogynistrapecultureapologist douchebags.

[Ayaan]

Really?

My understanding is that one of the reasons for Atheism+ is to create a safe space and to not associate with haters. However, I am reading the current forum rules and do not see any provision on whether documented bad behavior on other sites is a factor regarding participation on this forum. Greta Christina has the following provision in her comment policy and I believe you would do well to adopt something similar:

9: Do not behave atrociously in other blogs. If you are barely walking the line of acceptable behavior in this blog — but you have a pattern of foul, demeaning, sexist/ racist/ etc., insulting, violently threatening, or otherwise reprehensible behavior in other blogs — you will be banned from this one, with no second chance, and no warning.

Given that we already have a slyme pit regular participating in this thread I think this is a good time to ask the question. IMO if someone is a regular participant on a hate site then you should consider very carefully if they are welcome to participate here.

[Bella Fortuna]

From that same thread...

There must be internet companies that can perform background checks on people, examine their internet history for evidence of nastiness. It could be made a requirement to have a....certificate of goodness, or whatever you want to call it, before you can register. It would be like the CRB check that adults have to have in the UK before they can work with children.

I have a sneaking suspicion you've just hit on rather a good business concept ... ! Imagine a company that offered to verify "niceness" for various online groups!

What the sam hell?

Hey, maybe they could just get people tattooed for being an arsehole... I dunno, maybe a big red 'A'? And if you're a world class jerk it could be upgraded with a + sign?

[SteveB]

From that same thread...

There must be internet companies that can perform background checks on people, examine their internet history for evidence of nastiness. It could be made a requirement to have a....certificate of goodness, or whatever you want to call it, before you can register. It would be like the CRB check that adults have to have in the UK before they can work with children.

I have a sneaking suspicion you've just hit on rather a good business concept ... ! Imagine a company that offered to verify "niceness" for various online groups!

What the sam hell?

Hey, maybe they could just get people tattooed for being an arsehole... I dunno, maybe a big red 'A'? And if you're a world class jerk it could be upgraded with a + sign?

Err..that's racist?

[orpheus]

Also, this:

This is a proposed policy only:
Threat makers have no right to privacy: If someone threatens violence, then they have forfeited their right to privacy. We reserve the right to reveal all identifying information.

This is a proposed policy only:
Hackers have no right to privacy: If someone attempts to gain illicit access to the forum, or attempts to electronically attack it, then they have forfeited their right to privacy. We reserve the right to reveal all identifying information.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6

Hmm. I would have thought that the correct course of action in response to a threat of violence would be to contact the proper law enforcement agencies.

And the second instance: this essentially means they'd publish a sock puppet's personal ID information. Nice. Not that I approve of sock puppetry, but this is insane. Sock puppetry = a violation of forum rules and a pain in the ass. Publishing member's personal ID info = a whole panoply of potential serious consequences for the person in question; and the potential for a nice big lawsuit against those in charge of the forum. Simultaneously sinister and self-defeating. Now that's virtuoso rule-writing!

Also, it wouldn't affect just sockpuppets or hackers, because another rule they have is this:

Maintain a consistent identity: You should either post under your real name, or under a consistent pseudonym. Minor modifications to your pseudonym are permitted, so long the relationship to the old version is clear. If you have any kind of online presence in the atheist or skeptic community, then you must either use your real name, or the same pseudonym.

That means if someone using a different pseudonym than the one they use elsewhere could be considered an attempt to "gain illicit access to the forum". And the nice people at Atheism+ would then reveal personal ID. On the face of it this might seem farfetched. But after reading a lot of what they've been writing, such a scenario wouldn't surprise me at all.

[hadespussercats]

Really?

My understanding is that one of the reasons for Atheism+ is to create a safe space and to not associate with haters. However, I am reading the current forum rules and do not see any provision on whether documented bad behavior on other sites is a factor regarding participation on this forum. Greta Christina has the following provision in her comment policy and I believe you would do well to adopt something similar:

9: Do not behave atrociously in other blogs. If you are barely walking the line of acceptable behavior in this blog — but you have a pattern of foul, demeaning, sexist/ racist/ etc., insulting, violently threatening, or otherwise reprehensible behavior in other blogs — you will be banned from this one, with no second chance, and no warning.

Given that we already have a slyme pit regular participating in this thread I think this is a good time to ask the question. IMO if someone is a regular participant on a hate site then you should consider very carefully if they are welcome to participate here.

Yeah, I was referencing this earlier when I wrote that i doubted they'd welcome me, despite our sharing many ideals.

Apparently, "The Slyme Pit" is an actual forum, though.

[hadespussercats]

Looks like the Atheism+ crowd are trying to set themselves up as as the moral police of the atheism movement.

A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite. ~ Oscar Wilde

What about a woman?

Sure, if you've got one handy.

You know I do.

[hadespussercats]

Also, this:

This is a proposed policy only:
Threat makers have no right to privacy: If someone threatens violence, then they have forfeited their right to privacy. We reserve the right to reveal all identifying information.

This is a proposed policy only:
Hackers have no right to privacy: If someone attempts to gain illicit access to the forum, or attempts to electronically attack it, then they have forfeited their right to privacy. We reserve the right to reveal all identifying information.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6

Hmm. I would have thought that the correct course of action in response to a threat of violence would be to contact the proper law enforcement agencies.

And the second instance: this essentially means they'd publish a sock puppet's personal ID information. Nice. Not that I approve of sock puppetry, but this is insane. Sock puppetry = a violation of forum rules and a pain in the ass. Publishing member's personal ID info = a whole panoply of potential serious consequences for the person in question; and the potential for a nice big lawsuit against those in charge of the forum. Simultaneously sinister and self-defeating. Now that's virtuoso rule-writing!

Also, it wouldn't affect just sockpuppets or hackers, because another rule they have is this:

Maintain a consistent identity: You should either post under your real name, or under a consistent pseudonym. Minor modifications to your pseudonym are permitted, so long the relationship to the old version is clear. If you have any kind of online presence in the atheist or skeptic community, then you must either use your real name, or the same pseudonym.

That means if someone using a different pseudonym than the one they use elsewhere could be considered an attempt to "gain illicit access to the forum". And the nice people at Atheism+ would then reveal personal ID. On the face of it this might seem farfetched. But after reading a lot of what they've been writing, such a scenario wouldn't surprise me at all.

Yes. This is why I'd have to be hadespussercats there, even though apparently hadespussercats enables rape.

I don't think hadespussercats enables rape, by the way. And all this third-person self-referencing is making me feel like da Schneib.