Atheism +

[Cyberman]

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to language. "Spokesman" is much older, 16th century, "-woman" a century or so later; "-person" can be dated back to the dark ages of 1972. Much like Englishman or chairman, the word is equally applicable to all genders. Haggling over the gender of a title merely draws attention to the title, where such attention is intended to be discouraged.

[Red Celt]

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to language. "Spokesman" is much older, 16th century, "-woman" a century or so later; "-person" can be dated back to the dark ages of 1972. Much like Englishman or chairman, the word is equally applicable to all genders. Haggling over the gender of a title merely draws attention to the title, where such attention is intended to be discouraged.

More to the point, what has any of that got to do with atheism?

Nada, nil, zilch & diddly-squat.

[Cyberman]

In and of itself, bugger all. In reference to the post to which I was responding, quite a bit.

[Faith No More]

Back to A+.... I've read the "what is Atheism+" thread over at their forum, but I still don't get what that is.... I might be retarded, though!

I think they're being deliberately vague, because they won't attract too many members by saying, "We think all men are potential rapists."

[pocaracas]

"We think all men are potential rapists."

In a way, it's almost always true.
There are eunuchs (are there still some of these guys around?), people with... err... problems getting it up and I don't think any woman will worry about those.
As for every other guy... yes.... operative word: potential.
How many actually fulfill that potential? a very small, tiny and infinitesimal percentage.
So why worry too much about it?

---

Stimbo, thanks for the linguistic lesson. Always learning!

[thesummerqueen]

So why worry too much about it?

It gives them something to do.

[TaraJo]

does anyone on this forum actualy support what is called A+ ?

I support humanism, not an exclusionary brand of it. So no, I don't.

Yep. Same here. Given my 'history,' you'd think I'd be their biggest supporter, but I've also seen the damage they can do and I'm pissed at them for it.

I tend to go for a big tent approach of humanitarism, where I attempt to treat people with respect and listen to what they have to say just because they're people. What I see over there is excluding more and more people, so they might start out with a big tent, but they're going to exclude more and more groups, one at a time, until it's one person sitting under that tent all by her lonesome self, wondering why nobody is the for her.

If you want to create a safe space, specifically for women (or homosexuals, or transsexuals, or disabled people or whatever) in the secular world to talk about whatever you want to talk about, hey, cool, I'm with you. But if you want to create that space and demonize anyone who doesn't want to be part of your club or feels uncomfortable with it, that's where I have a problem.

[Red Celt]

In and of itself, bugger all. In reference to the post to which I was responding, quite a bit.

Stimbo, yes I know... I was having a pop at Atheism+ having nothing to do with atheism, not you for referring to it.

[Cyberman]

Ah - I got confused when you seemed to be responding to my words. I'll let you off.

[Autumnlicious]

I can't even read any more of the thread at A+ where they deleted Dillahunty's "new user" post.

They're just so blatantly wrong it hurts.

Here on AF we try, really try to not ban people, because we're extremely aware that passion-in-the-moment decisions and posts and evidence often lead to incorrect decisions.

We've even let posters back in when they gain the courage to open up a dialogue with us directly and amend bridges.

For all practical purposes, we want a healthy community that uses as little moderation as possible, because we're not omniscient and thus are fallible.

If you're fallible, then you're going to want to be conservative about the actions you do in a position of power.

There's few opportunities for take backs, even in forum politik.

---

Here's a breakdown of the moderator who deleted the "new users" post. This is why at AF, we have a rule to take action on a unilateral basis for non-spam content.
REF: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic....=25#p21816

---

I made a call based on what information I had at the time, okay? I read your post, and I thought "This looks like it's derailing, and doesn't belong here. New user...I'll decline the post, send them a message to repost in a different forum."

Personal bias, as vile as the same supposed "biases" they claim to fight against? No other moderators to corroborate that decision?

Might as well be in a vacuum of decisions...

I did not know at the time that disapproving a post deleted it. I didn't find that out until I went to try and retrieve it after your first request here. Then I gave you the bad news, that it wasn't retrievable. Had I known this was the case, I would have moved the post to a new topic and then approved it there. But, I'm rather new to modding phpBB.

You took an action, defended it, and now you're claiming you're "rather new to modding phpBB"...

Is saving face that important to you?

Regardless of your intentions on using a different account name, we have a hard and fast rule here about multiple accounts: NO. DO NOT DO IT. It is one of our few hard and fast rules, and we have it for a damned good reason.

No, you don't, you stupid mod! Users behind the same router IP often share the same public address from the perspective of a forum! Multiple accounts are inevitable if you dare get a married couple participating or kids in the same family. Hell, even guys behind the same shared network at university can run afoul of appearing to have "multiple accounts"...

Sounds like your moderation tactics of "hard and fast" led you to yet another hard-and-fast action like the one that deleted the "new users" post (which ironically was to demonstrate Atheism+ welcomes new users and slightly different opinions)...

I got a bit short with you because you were escalating in a frustrating fashion, that looked a hell of a lot like the kind of trolling we see here all the time. When you then tried to claim you were Matt Dillahunty? Well, we've had trolls make claims of being someone well-known in atheist circles, and apparently on our side, before. I perhaps reacted a bit immoderately. Feel free to compose a Philippic ad Flewellynem, if you wish.

Ah, my favorite Atheism+ trope! Blame the victim first, then offer a recourse that does nothing. No apology or "Oops, I really screwed up! Sorry!"

IF you want to discuss the ban of Skep Tickle, please, I invite you to do so in a new thread. I will make sure to approve the post. That doesn't mean your objections will necessarily meet with agreement, but we'll give them a hearing, okay?

What about all the other people you didn't give a "hearing" to, regardless of fairness?

You're a moderator I'd never let onto this forum.