"An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

The main forum for discussing social justice and the "plus" part of Atheism Plus.

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Skep tickle » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:02 am

Delurking to say that I have shared for several weeks the concerns C0nc0rdance expressed in this new video. He said it better than I would have if I were to have posted a letter here, although I've met the other qualifications listed above as I've been reading along, in the various forums here and elsewhere, to educate myself and to see what the A+ discussion is about and is like. Seems to me some babies, including skepticism and tolerance, are getting thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

This Venn diagram by Jason Thibeault/lousy Canuck at FTB seems useful as a start to envisioning who's in and who's out, though A+ shouldn't fill the intersection it does (there are Atheist + Humanist + Social justice advocates who aren't camping under the A+ tent). Also, it's missing a big elongated shape, that encompasses the red circles and cuts right through all the other groups, including A+, that C0ncOrdance would call "dogmatic" or "dogmatism":

Image

And now, I predict that I will be told what I think or what type of person I am, and what I should do ("STFU" being one example that seems to occur with relative frequency here). I'd be delighted to have that not come to pass, but the odds are against that. Here, why don't I lie down to make the dogpile easier. ;)

____

For those who can't see the image: It's a Venn diagram with a very large circle on the right to represent "Religious" people; medium-large circles overlapping it but extending above and toward the middle which are: on top "Scumbags, privilege defenders, misogynists, antifeminists, anti-gay, bigots, people who hate social justice causes, and other miscreants", and below "Social justice advocates"; a medium circle in the center representing "Humanists" which overlaps with the "Religious" and with "Social justice advocates"; a slightly smaller medium circle to the left labeled "Atheists" which overlaps with the Humanists circle and Social justice advocates circle, and a small circle within the Atheists circle and slightly overlapping the Humanists circle which represents another group of "Scumbags [etc]". The intersection of Social justice advocates, Atheists, and Humanists is labeled "A+", and in this particular schematic there are no "Scumbags [etc]" in the A+ circle or the large Social justice advocates circle.
Skep tickle
Banned User
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:31 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Cipher » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:06 am

what I should do

Actually engage with the criticisms of the video that have been posted in this thread, since you're basically posting a ME TOO! ME TOO! to the video?
Oh, I may be on the side of the angels - but don't think for one second that I am one of them.
User avatar
Cipher
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:14 pm

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby tekanji » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:32 am

Skep tickle wrote:And now, I predict that I will be told what I think or what type of person I am, and what I should do ("STFU" being one example that seems to occur with relative frequency here). I'd be delighted to have that not come to pass, but the odds are against that. Here, why don't I lie down to make the dogpile easier. ;)


Here is some friendly advice: Saying "I predict that [people here will do X bad thing to me]" is something that trolls do. A lot. When you say that, what you are telling all of us is, "I have pre-judged you and want to use this chance to one-up you, so that when I get the bad response that this sentence is trying very hard to provoke I will feel justified in crying to my friends about how I was unfairly attacked by you horrible haters."

If this is NOT what you wanted to convey with this, then I suggest that you take some time to consider what kind of communication would start your desired dialogue with us. And, yes, there is a good chance that learning how to communicate with a specific community WILL involve some listening and not speaking. This is not about silencing (what you implied with your "STFU" comment); it's about giving an unfamiliar community enough basic respect to take the time to learn the proper way to engage with its members.

[Edited because I fail at English.]
tekanji
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:47 am
Location: Osaka

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Skep tickle » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:44 am

Cipher wrote:
what I should do

Actually engage with the criticisms of the video that have been posted in this thread, since you're basically posting a ME TOO! ME TOO! to the video?

One prediction come to pass: being told what I should do. Thanks so much for the suggestion. Should I start with "tone trolling", "BS", or "condescending", or did you have a more substantive criticism in mind?

I did note Tim Morton's comment about C0nc0rdance's use of a visual of Tim Brayton in the section on shaming and shunning; indeed I don't find any indication that Brayton has been involved in A+ (whether or not he's a member here), so suggesting he is was at least a factual error on C's part. However, that doesn't mean those measures aren't occurring, in the effort to censure people who don't move with the crowd.


In what seems to me a line of discussion apart from the video, quietmarc's post about being tolerated, and a subsequent post or two that expanded on the difference between toleration and welcoming, were useful & illuminating for me. Thanks.
Skep tickle
Banned User
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:31 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby tekanji » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:50 am

Skep tickle wrote:One prediction come to pass: being told what I should do. Thanks so much for the suggestion. Should I start with "tone trolling", "BS", or "condescending", or did you have a more substantive criticism in mind?


I ask you again: Is the desired effect of your communication here to be seen as someone who is trying to provoke an argument in order to justify your "prediction"? Because that is how you are coming across to me (and very likely others reading this thread).

If you want to discuss C0nc0rdance's points, THEN DO SO. But if you want to be see as a bad faith troll? Keep coming with the lines that read like they're straight out of the Troll Handbook (Chapter: How to Engage In Bad Faith With Reasonable Deniability).
tekanji
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:47 am
Location: Osaka

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Skep tickle » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:55 am

tekanji wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:And now, I predict that I will be told what I think or what type of person I am, and what I should do ("STFU" being one example that seems to occur with relative frequency here). I'd be delighted to have that not come to pass, but the odds are against that. Here, why don't I lie down to make the dogpile easier. ;)


Here is some friendly advice: Saying "I predict that [people here will do X bad thing to me]" is something that trolls do. A lot. When you say that, what you are telling all of us is, "I have pre-judged you and want to use this chance to one-up you, so that when I get the bad response that this sentence is trying very hard to provoke I will feel justified in crying to my friends about how I was unfairly attacked by you horrible haters."
Thank you for the friendly advice. Could I point out that when you say, "when you say that, what you are telling all of us is....", you are helpfully describing what regular members here may indeed typically assume from such a statement, but you are not in fact describing what I am telling you. Probably a distinction that has come up for many of us IRL as well as online, many times.

tekanji wrote:If this is NOT what you wanted to convey with this, then I suggest that you take some time to consider what kind of communication would start your desired dialogue with us. And, yes, there is a good chance that learning how to communicate with a specific community WILL involve some listening and not speaking. This is not about silencing (what you implied with your "STFU" comment); it's about giving an unfamiliar community enough basic respect to take the time to learn the proper way to engage with its members.
My error, then, was in spending time reading throughout the site first, though it's a useful way to get the flavor for a place - and in delurking to echo the views in the video when the comment was made in this thread that C0nc0rdance could or should have come to this site and joined in order to say what he had to say.
Skep tickle
Banned User
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:31 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Cipher » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:01 am

Skep tickle wrote:
Cipher wrote:
what I should do

Actually engage with the criticisms of the video that have been posted in this thread, since you're basically posting a ME TOO! ME TOO! to the video?

One prediction come to pass: being told what I should do. Thanks so much for the suggestion. Should I start with "tone trolling", "BS", or "condescending", or did you have a more substantive criticism in mind?

You can feel free to read the damn thread for suggestions, since those were nowhere near all the criticisms that were leveled at it.
Oh, I may be on the side of the angels - but don't think for one second that I am one of them.
User avatar
Cipher
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:14 pm

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby tekanji » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:13 am

Skep tickle wrote:Thank you for the friendly advice. Could I point out that when you say, "when you say that, what you are telling all of us is....", you are helpfully describing what regular members here may indeed typically assume from such a statement, but you are not in fact describing what I am telling you. Probably a distinction that has come up for many of us IRL as well as online, many times.


Could I point out that communication is a two way street and when what you intend to convey is not what the majority of your listeners hear then that is 9 times out of 10 YOUR problem and not THEIRS?

If you honestly think that communication begins and ends with what YOU think you are telling people, then you're going to have a whole lot of communication fails with people who have a different set of experiences than you do.

Skep tickle wrote:My error, then, was in spending time reading throughout the site first, though it's a useful way to get the flavor for a place - and in delurking to echo the views in the video when the comment was made in this thread that C0nc0rdance could or should have come to this site and joined in order to say what he had to say.


Really? Okay, Sparky, I'll continue treating you as acting in good faith.

The reason I didn't say "just lurk a bit" was because it is not the amount of time spent lurking, but rather the time spent actively trying to understand how to engage with the community that is important. You lurked enough, and in such a way, to reinforce your preconceived notions about the community and then, when you posted, you proceeded to mimic the posting style of people who have gotten banned because they were being toxic to the community.

If you want to be part of a community--even a dissenting part--you need to learn the culture first. You need to know what are the standards for acceptable behavior, WHY those standards are in place, and what the correct procedures are for discussion (especially when you hold opinions that you don't think are shared by the majority of the community). If you fail to do these things, you are being highly disrespectful to the people there trying to engage with each other. And, just as is what's happening RIGHT NOW, you will severely impede the ability for yourself--and anyone who wants to engage with whatever points you have--to have a productive conversation.
tekanji
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:47 am
Location: Osaka

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby emptyell » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:21 am

Skep tickle wrote:Seems to me some babies, including skepticism and tolerance, are getting thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.


I appreciate you saying "Seems to me..." Too many come here and state their opinions with undue certainty. But (yeah you knew there would be a but :) ) for your opinions to be interesting you need to back them up with something more than a tired anaology.

How do you see that skepticism and tolerance are being thrown out? Some might argue that we are too tolerant, putting up with derailment and various other intrusive and offensive behaviors for too long. As for skepticism, what I have seen here is a very healthy skepticism of any arguments that are presented in good faith.
User avatar
emptyell
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:46 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby The_Laughing_Coyote » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:26 am

And now, I predict that I will be told what I think or what type of person I am, and what I should do ("STFU" being one example that seems to occur with relative frequency here). I'd be delighted to have that not come to pass, but the odds are against that. Here, why don't I lie down to make the dogpile easier.


I predict that you all call me an asshole and tell me to fuck off!

Now watch me act like a stupid asshole until you tell me to fuck off!

OMG PREDICTION CAME TRUE HIVEMIND GROUPTHINK BORG ARRRGGGHHH
But Setar, how can you say the police persecute the poor when the the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges?

-Qmartindale, quoting Anatole France

"Well, it looks like the airplanes got him." "No, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast!"

-King Kong
The_Laughing_Coyote
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Skep tickle » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:37 am

The_Laughing_Coyote wrote:
And now, I predict that I will be told what I think or what type of person I am, and what I should do ("STFU" being one example that seems to occur with relative frequency here). I'd be delighted to have that not come to pass, but the odds are against that. Here, why don't I lie down to make the dogpile easier.


I predict that you all call me an asshole and tell me to fuck off!

Now watch me act like a stupid asshole until you tell me to fuck off!

OMG PREDICTION CAME TRUE HIVEMIND GROUPTHINK BORG ARRRGGGHHH


:lol:

Well, it seemed to make sense at the time because my crystal ball told me it was going to happen. :mrgreen:

I had initially included examples from this board to support my claim of gaps in tolerance and skepticism, but took them out as that avenue seemed likely to be considered a derail. As I think it still would be now.

Please return to your regularly scheduled discussion. I'll return to lurking & observing. Thanks!
Skep tickle
Banned User
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:31 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby tekanji » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:50 am

Skep tickle wrote:Please return to your regularly scheduled discussion. I'll return to lurking & observing. Thanks!


I appreciate you not escalating and (it seems?) taking my advice to try and understand the community standards a bit better.

I just wanted to say that if you feel that just lurking/observing isn't giving you a good enough idea of how to have positive interactions with the community, you could post in the Information & Answers forum 1) for suggestions, and/or 2) for practice. One of the I&A's main purposes is to be a space where people who aren't familiar with the community standards (or even just a specific standard pertaining to a specific subject) are encouraged to ask questions.
tekanji
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:47 am
Location: Osaka

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby The_Laughing_Coyote » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:56 am

Don't mistake Skep Tickle's antics for good faith, Tekanji.

It comes from a long line of pseudo-intellectual fuckwits who use some permutation of 'skeptical' or 'rational' in their nick and love the smell of their own feces.

Not worth the time of day.
But Setar, how can you say the police persecute the poor when the the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges?

-Qmartindale, quoting Anatole France

"Well, it looks like the airplanes got him." "No, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast!"

-King Kong
The_Laughing_Coyote
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby tekanji » Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:07 am

The_Laughing_Coyote wrote:Don't mistake Skep Tickle's antics for good faith, Tekanji.

It comes from a long line of pseudo-intellectual fuckwits who use some permutation of 'skeptical' or 'rational' in their nick and love the smell of their own feces.

Not worth the time of day.


*shrugs* I figure that even if they aren't engaging in the good faith that I have extended to them, there might be some lurkers who find the advice helpful. And, if not, well typing it out helped me to clarify some of my thoughts. So in my case it's a win-win scenario :)

Anyway! Back to topic: C0nc0rdance! I still have no idea what he was trying to say on half his points, but his whole "A+ is like the Amish!" thing reminded me of the Five Geek Social Fallacies post.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that there is an overlap in the problems that have been getting attention in atheist/gamer/programmer/booknerd circles. I don't know how many atheists/skeptics are geeky, but I get the feeling that it's a non-insignificant number. So, keeping that in mind, I'm not overly surprised that an A+ critic would fall into one of the Geek Social Fallacies.
tekanji
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:47 am
Location: Osaka

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby SubMor » Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:25 am

Skep tickle wrote:I had initially included examples from this board to support my claim of gaps in tolerance and skepticism, but took them out as that avenue seemed likely to be considered a derail. As I think it still would be now.

Please return to your regularly scheduled discussion. I'll return to lurking & observing. Thanks!

You consider yourself a skeptic. Thank about how this looks.

Homeopath wrote:Of course my medicine works. There are studies showing that it works, and all of my clients feel better after I've been prescribing them a regimen of homeopathic treatments.

Skeptic wrote:Oh really? Prove it.

Homeopath wrote:Well, I have the proof here, but I'm not going to bother sharing it because you're just going to reject it. Goodbye.


Do you see how disingenuous that is? Yeah, I think you do. You were challenged to defend your baseless assertions, but instead of backing your shit up, you want to wave your hands in the air and storm off? The proper response to being unable to defend your belief is not to maintain that belief. How about you either 1) evidence up or 2) publicly recognize that your concerns are unfounded? But I think you already know that. This "I don't want to derail" bullshit is an avoidance tactic. It's motivated reasoning. If you're genuinely concerned about derailing, start a new thread with a specific focus on your evidenced concern and add a link to it here. Pretty straightforward.


tekanji wrote:Anyway! Back to topic: C0nc0rdance! I still have no idea what he was trying to say on half his points, but his whole "A+ is like the Amish!" thing reminded me of the Five Geek Social Fallacies post.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that there is an overlap in the problems that have been getting attention in atheist/gamer/programmer/booknerd circles. I don't know how many atheists/skeptics are geeky, but I get the feeling that it's a non-insignificant number. So, keeping that in mind, I'm not overly surprised that an A+ critic would fall into one of the Geek Social Fallacies.


I've noticed the same similarities. I put high odds on the majority of the online atheist community being involved in geekdom. (Also, thanks for that link. I've come across it before, but I didn't think to bookmark it. Rectified!)
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby rumblestiltsken » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:01 am

SubMor, I kinda think that is unfair because Skep Tickle really did the right thing by not derailing here.

Maybe didn't need to say they had made other arguments and removed them, but that could leave them open to complaints from people who saw them and didn't understand why they were edited out.

And choosing to "lurk and observe" rather than start a new thread is pretty much exactly what Skep Tickle seems to need to do right now.

The right move here was for them to shut up. We should support that.
rumblestiltsken
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:32 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby SubMor » Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:10 am

rumblestiltsken wrote:SubMor, I kinda think that is unfair because Skep Tickle really did the right thing by not derailing here.

I'm not so sure. If Skep tickle did have evidence in support of the concern that we're laden with "gaps in tolerance and skepticism," wouldn't it be completely on-topic to present that evidence in this thread, which is specifically about potentially concerning behavior? Even if it would be a derailment in this thread, it certainly would have been on-topic in a thread of its own, and (as far as I'm aware), no such thread ever came about.

And choosing to "lurk and observe" rather than start a new thread is pretty much exactly what Skep Tickle seems to need to do right now.

The right move here was for them to shut up. We should support that.

That chicken has flown the coop, alas. But yes, I agree that we should support people observing instead of making unsubstantiated claims.
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby murollavan » Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:25 pm


Bookmarked again, not just for the topic at hand but for a specific gamer group. Thanks.
User avatar
murollavan
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:15 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Sleeper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:53 pm

The_Laughing_Coyote wrote:Don't mistake Skep Tickle's antics for good faith, Tekanji.

It comes from a long line of pseudo-intellectual fuckwits who use some permutation of 'skeptical' or 'rational' in their nick and love the smell of their own feces.

Not worth the time of day.


So people talk about standards of behaviour on this thread... but you get away with crap like this? What standards could possibly overlook this kind of verbal diarrhea?
User avatar
Sleeper
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Flewellyn » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:33 pm

Sleeper wrote:So people talk about standards of behaviour on this thread... but you get away with crap like this? What standards could possibly overlook this kind of verbal diarrhea?


We've spoken to TLC about this. Thank you for your concern.
User avatar
Flewellyn
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:29 pm
Location: The Frozen North

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby NMLevesque » Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:57 pm

kbonn wrote:I think the issue at the heart of C0nc0rdance's concern is in regard to the balance between free speech and safe space here.

Expressing a dissenting opinion (depending on the subject, and certainly the way in which it is expressed.) can greatly upset people and/or cause them pain.
It is extremely difficult for individuals who haven't been effected negatively by many of the issues discussed here to understand the scale of this.
As this harm can vary greatly from person to person, how safe does this space need to be?
The safer it needs to be, the more moderation is needed, also people who express such opinions will be less welcome and/or tolerated.
Who decides where this line is? Is each subject weighted equally? Do certain groups need to be kept safer than others?

Lastly, C0nc0rdance didn't come here and derail anything, he didn't take over a discussion and demand people tone it down or hear him speak, he seems to have made a good faith effort to explain his issues(right or wrong), and has encouraged replies on the subject. To just immediately dismiss him as a troll seems rather foolish and inaccurate.


I just wanted to say I was also perturbed by the immediate label of concern troll. Seems like the conversation is walking a thin line between stating an opinion and performing (performing? is that an appropriate word...) an ad hominem.
NMLevesque
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:03 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby Cipher » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:03 pm

NMLevesque wrote:I just wanted to say I was also perturbed by the immediate label of concern troll. Seems like the conversation is walking a thin line between stating an opinion and performing (performing? is that an appropriate word...) an ad hominem.

"Performing" seems okay to me. Ad hominem may be wrong. (Attempted concise explanation: While "ad hominem attack" is sometimes deployed to mean "insult," saying just "ad hominem" generally communicates that you mean "ad hominem fallacy" instead; indeed, even when someone says "ad hominem attack," the similarity between the two terms, especially since people frequently do use "ad hominem" alone without specifying which they mean, contributes to some confusion by blurring the lines between not being nice and fallacious argumentation.)

EDITED TO ADD: http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Ad_hominem This might help too.
Oh, I may be on the side of the angels - but don't think for one second that I am one of them.
User avatar
Cipher
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:14 pm

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby NMLevesque » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:44 pm

1. No naming and shaming, no exclusionary tactics for non-conformity or non-participation.


I think I agree. We should be criticisng the ideas people have, rather than shaming or shunning the person that has them. I mean everyone should be open to do what they want, but I think it's more productive to encourage people to make that distinction rather than to declare open season. We already have a moderated forum where we discourage certain behaviors that are cruel or mean and try to encourage debate on the actual ideas so why is this so controversial? It's like hating someone's religion, but not hating the person.
As much as I'd like to, and do like to on occasion, call someone foolish I would like to be above that. It's a personal goal of sorts, because it doesn't accomplish anything positive. It can make people less receptive to what you have to say, and less amenable to reason, and since it's open season on calling ideas whatever you want it's not like there's no outlet for calling stupid things stupid. You just stick to ideas instead of going after the people that hold them. So if we want people to understand and hopefully even agree then it's counter productive to go after people who disagree even if they are absolutely wrong.

2. No ideological tests of purity


"Instead of being a movement of people who meet a certain test of ideological purity, it's a forum or a place or a set of rules where hateful words or actions are not permitted. You can BE a racist or a misogynist or a homophobe if you can manage to be polite, respectful and meet the requirements of the forum."

This one people seemed to understand very little even though given what he said, he was really just outlining something this forum is already committed to. He said he doesn't follow atheism+ too closely, so why dismiss a point we agree with by assuming he's concern trolling instead of just giving his 2 cents and not knowing that he's describing what we are already doing? I sort of half expected people to be like, well at least I agree on this point. He's just saying you can believe whatever you want and join the conversation, but we draw the line at your actions. If you are a racist, you can participate in the discussion providing you can be polite and reasonable. That's how a conversation works, that's how we convince people who disagree to potentially change their minds. But if they spout vile racist tirades we aren't obligated to include them.

3. A stated commitment to tolerance and free
speech
If you movement is founded on certain core, unassailable positions, possibly positions that define the movement, then you have a dogma. The atheist dogma is simple: "the evidence for the existence of a god or gods doesn't meet the burden of proof". If you dispute that point, you simply aren't an atheist, Q.E.D.


While I think his definition of dogma is way too broad, if we accept it for the sake of argument than how is he ok with being an atheist if dogma isn't acceptable at all? This point is really confusing. Since he didn't expand on what tolerance or free speech is supposed to mean in this context I have no idea what I'd be responding too, so on this point I'd have to say it was sloppy work which is unusual for C0nc0rdance.

4. Recourse/Appeals to the community rather than heirarchical command structure.


Well there isn't a hierarchical structure as of yet, so no worries there?

If I were to append to your list of what Atheism Plus stands for, it would be this We are atheist, plus we believe in tolerating people of all views so long as they are non-disruptive


Check, this is a prerequisite for basic discussion the requirement of changing someone's mind.

, We are atheist, plus we have a deep commitment to free speech, especially as applied to unpopular or offensive speech, so long as it does not threaten the safety and free expression of others


That needs to be more specific because it doesn't indicate what qualifies as causative when discussing a link between speech and actions that threaten someone's safety. It's probably intended to exclude yelling fire in a crowded theater as is the typical cliched example, but might also include offending Muslims and the resulting destruction of property and loss of life in some cases.
Other than that I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with the value of free speech, and that we can't draw a line at unpopular or offensive speech in order to protect speech as a whole.

, We are atheist, plus we believe in ruthless self-criticism of our most cherished beliefs.


I know I do. Do I really have to explain this one?

I wish you all well, and appreciate your patience.
NMLevesque
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:03 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby NMLevesque » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:47 pm

Aerik wrote:Naming and shaming is bad. If we're harasssed, we shouldn't name our harassers. If we want to talk back to just a single person who made a unique comment, we shouldn't name them. That is pure ridiculousness.

what a hypocrite. Have you seen the way youtube atheists usually do their videos? They can't do videos very often that are anything more than "person X said something stupid and this is all the other reasons they're stupid, and everything that's wrong with this idea is also another reason why person X is a big stupid."

Yet another round of concern trolling. Screw c0nc0rdance.


Have you ever even watched his videos, because you just used a straw man based on a stereotype of youtube atheists. He doesn't do "person X said something stupid and this is all the other reasons they're stupid, and everything that's wrong with this idea is also another reason why person X is a big stupid."
videos.
NMLevesque
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:03 am

Re: "An Open Letter to Atheism Plus" by C0nc0rdance

Postby NMLevesque » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Cipher wrote:
NMLevesque wrote:I just wanted to say I was also perturbed by the immediate label of concern troll. Seems like the conversation is walking a thin line between stating an opinion and performing (performing? is that an appropriate word...) an ad hominem.

"Performing" seems okay to me. Ad hominem may be wrong. (Attempted concise explanation: While "ad hominem attack" is sometimes deployed to mean "insult," saying just "ad hominem" generally communicates that you mean "ad hominem fallacy" instead; indeed, even when someone says "ad hominem attack," the similarity between the two terms, especially since people frequently do use "ad hominem" alone without specifying which they mean, contributes to some confusion by blurring the lines between not being nice and fallacious argumentation.)

EDITED TO ADD: http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Ad_hominem This might help too.


Oh. Well that was informative but I'm still a little bit confused. I did intend ad hominem fallacy, so what exactly does ad hominem attack mean? Wouldn't that just be an instance of using the ad hominem fallacy?
NMLevesque
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Atheism Plus

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests