Re: The other A+ forum: a safe space?

[AliRadicali]

My take on the most notorious A+ members is that they are people who feel very powerless in their everyday lives. Whether they are as powerless as they feel who knows. They take all the anger and frustration out on the first person "privileged" (and a privileged person is seemingly defined as someone who disagrees with the consensus of the members) who disagrees with them about anything.

It's clear that it is only a safe place for those they deem deserving of a safe place. If you're not "deserving" you get a big red fuck you, obviously.

Honestly, feminism in general and A+ in particular is the epitomy of first world problems.
10000 years ago, there was no question about gender equality: women needed men to provide food and protection, men needed to provide for women in order to get offspring. Since a single man could in principle fertilize any number of women, men were expendable in reproduction; women were valuable. Losing women was a huge blow to population growth, so they were shielded from danger and heavy physical labour. Feminists will frame this as (the origins of) patriarchy, I'd argue that this is simply biological imperative, and not even a bad deal at that. Women traded freedom and power for safety and comfort. When you look at the body count, it wasn't a good bargain. Logically, we MUST be the ancestors of needy women and stoic men, because these features are advantageous for survival in a noncivilised setting. It's why we teach boys to be tough and self-reliant, whereas we tell girls to be open about their problems. It's why people are naturally inclined to interpret a complaint from a man as whining, whereas a complaint from a woman is taken far more seriously. It's why violence against men doesn't shock us nearly as much as violence against women. It's why chivalry exists. It's how we're wired.

The reason I think feminism is so misguided is that its fundamental presupposition, patriarchy, is a simplistic and onesided revision of history. It overemphasises the bad aspects for the women (servitude, lack of autonomy) and the privileges of being a man(power, wealth), while happily ignoring the fact that throughout history, most of those women lived in relative safety and comfort compared to their husbands who toiled away in the fields supporting their family, or died at the sword defending them.

Of course, right now we live in a society where the state has taken over most of the roles that men played in the tit-for-tat monogamous relationship. There's no longer a need for a man to provide protection, we have law enforcement. There' no need for a man to kill wild animals for food or break his back harvesting crops, we have supermarkets and desk jobs. We've created a society wherein it's (mostly) possible for women to live without male support, but we haven't as a society actually rationally re-evaluated what roles the genders ought to have in our society. We have given(or strive to give) both genders equal amounts of freedom and power, but have we given men more comfort and safety in return? I'd argue not.
Most of the victims of workplace accidents are men. Most people working in dangerous professions are men. Most of the victims of crime and violence are men. A mother without a job is a stay-at-home mother, a father without a job is a deadbeat dad. And what about male circumcision? How come no-one is making a big fuss about that? Heck, why aren't we calling it Male Genital Mutilation, like we do for female circumcision?

I'd be a proponent of gender equality, but at this point, in western society, that would actually mean taking a good long look at men's rights, not just mindlessly tilting the table more and more toward women, "because they are oppressed". Just because bored, middle-aged, middle class white women feel they don't have enough privilege. And yes, I acknowledge that actual instances of sexism and gender discrimination exist (war on women in the US, F.E). "Patriarchy", a giant male conspiracy to dominate women, isn't one of them.

[Atheist Dude]

My take on the most notorious A+ members is that they are people who feel very powerless in their everyday lives. Whether they are as powerless as they feel who knows. They take all the anger and frustration out on the first person "privileged" (and a privileged person is seemingly defined as someone who disagrees with the consensus of the members) who disagrees with them about anything.

It's clear that it is only a safe place for those they deem deserving of a safe place. If you're not "deserving" you get a big red fuck you, obviously.

Honestly, feminism in general and A+ in particular is the epitomy of first world problems.
10000 years ago, there was no question about gender equality: women needed men to provide food and protection, men needed to provide for women in order to get offspring. Since a single man could in principle fertilize any number of women, men were expendable in reproduction; women were valuable. Losing women was a huge blow to population growth, so they were shielded from danger and heavy physical labour. Feminists will frame this as (the origins of) patriarchy, I'd argue that this is simply biological imperative, and not even a bad deal at that. Women traded freedom and power for safety and comfort. When you look at the body count, it wasn't a good bargain. Logically, we MUST be the ancestors of needy women and stoic men, because these features are advantageous for survival in a noncivilised setting. It's why we teach boys to be tough and self-reliant, whereas we tell girls to be open about their problems. It's why people are naturally inclined to interpret a complaint from a man as whining, whereas a complaint from a woman is taken far more seriously. It's why violence against men doesn't shock us nearly as much as violence against women. It's why chivalry exists. It's how we're wired.

The reason I think feminism is so misguided is that its fundamental presupposition, patriarchy, is a simplistic and onesided revision of history. It overemphasises the bad aspects for the women (servitude, lack of autonomy) and the privileges of being a man(power, wealth), while happily ignoring the fact that throughout history, most of those women lived in relative safety and comfort compared to their husbands who toiled away in the fields supporting their family, or died at the sword defending them.

Of course, right now we live in a society where the state has taken over most of the roles that men played in the tit-for-tat monogamous relationship. There's no longer a need for a man to provide protection, we have law enforcement. There' no need for a man to kill wild animals for food or break his back harvesting crops, we have supermarkets and desk jobs. We've created a society wherein it's (mostly) possible for women to live without male support, but we haven't as a society actually rationally re-evaluated what roles the genders ought to have in our society. We have given(or strive to give) both genders equal amounts of freedom and power, but have we given men more comfort and safety in return? I'd argue not.
Most of the victims of workplace accidents are men. Most people working in dangerous professions are men. Most of the victims of crime and violence are men. A mother without a job is a stay-at-home mother, a father without a job is a deadbeat dad. And what about male circumcision? How come no-one is making a big fuss about that? Heck, why aren't we calling it Male Genital Mutilation, like we do for female circumcision?

I'd be a proponent of gender equality, but at this point, in western society, that would actually mean taking a good long look at men's rights, not just mindlessly tilting the table more and more toward women, "because they are oppressed". Just because bored, middle-aged, middle class white women feel they don't have enough privilege. And yes, I acknowledge that actual instances of sexism and gender discrimination exist (war on women in the US, F.E). "Patriarchy", a giant male conspiracy to dominate women, isn't one of them.

I think you're off topic.

[AliRadicali]

I think you're off topic.

I disagree. My post may have been a bit rambley and all over the place, but the central idea I was trying (apparently in vain) to present is that "Patriarchy" or "Privilege" are fundamentally flawed ways of viewing human nature and/or society.

[Dar]

Even if Patriarchy is a fundamentally flawed way of looking at things, what does that have to do with some other forum being a safe place or not?

A topic like patriarchy deserves its own thread, imo. Right now, I don't know if we have enough members that would be willing to defend it though.

[Atheist Dude]

I think you're off topic.

I disagree. My post may have been a bit rambley and all over the place, but the central idea I was trying (apparently in vain) to present is that "Patriarchy" or "Privilege" are fundamentally flawed ways of viewing human nature and/or society.

Please point out where in your post you discuss or even refer to the "other forum" or "safe space."

[rEvolutionist]

Yeah, there's a better thread for this. Somewhere I started a topic on "privilege", and it has extended into the ideas behind the "patriarchy" thing. It might be better posted there. I haven't checked that thread for a day or two, so you might already be posting in there anyway, Ali.

[Atheist Dude]

It's not like anyone's going to get banned or dog-piled over it, here.

[rEvolutionist]

[uncrystal]

Honestly, feminism in general and A+ in particular is the epitomy of first world problems.
10000 years ago, there was no question about gender equality: women needed men to provide food and protection, men needed to provide for women in order to get offspring. Since a single man could in principle fertilize any number of women, men were expendable in reproduction; women were valuable. Losing women was a huge blow to population growth, so they were shielded from danger and heavy physical labour. Feminists will frame this as (the origins of) patriarchy, I'd argue that this is simply biological imperative, and not even a bad deal at that. Women traded freedom and power for safety and comfort. When you look at the body count, it wasn't a good bargain. Logically, we MUST be the ancestors of needy women and stoic men, because these features are advantageous for survival in a noncivilised setting. It's why we teach boys to be tough and self-reliant, whereas we tell girls to be open about their problems. It's why people are naturally inclined to interpret a complaint from a man as whining, whereas a complaint from a woman is taken far more seriously. It's why violence against men doesn't shock us nearly as much as violence against women. It's why chivalry exists. It's how we're wired.

The reason I think feminism is so misguided is that its fundamental presupposition, patriarchy, is a simplistic and onesided revision of history. It overemphasises the bad aspects for the women (servitude, lack of autonomy) and the privileges of being a man(power, wealth), while happily ignoring the fact that throughout history, most of those women lived in relative safety and comfort compared to their husbands who toiled away in the fields supporting their family, or died at the sword defending them.

Of course, right now we live in a society where the state has taken over most of the roles that men played in the tit-for-tat monogamous relationship. There's no longer a need for a man to provide protection, we have law enforcement. There' no need for a man to kill wild animals for food or break his back harvesting crops, we have supermarkets and desk jobs. We've created a society wherein it's (mostly) possible for women to live without male support, but we haven't as a society actually rationally re-evaluated what roles the genders ought to have in our society. We have given(or strive to give) both genders equal amounts of freedom and power, but have we given men more comfort and safety in return? I'd argue not.
Most of the victims of workplace accidents are men. Most people working in dangerous professions are men. Most of the victims of crime and violence are men. A mother without a job is a stay-at-home mother, a father without a job is a deadbeat dad. And what about male circumcision? How come no-one is making a big fuss about that? Heck, why aren't we calling it Male Genital Mutilation, like we do for female circumcision?

I'd be a proponent of gender equality, but at this point, in western society, that would actually mean taking a good long look at men's rights, not just mindlessly tilting the table more and more toward women, "because they are oppressed". Just because bored, middle-aged, middle class white women feel they don't have enough privilege. And yes, I acknowledge that actual instances of sexism and gender discrimination exist (war on women in the US, F.E). "Patriarchy", a giant male conspiracy to dominate women, isn't one of them.

Derailing! Don't make me put my mod hat on and give you a day off to think about what you've done wrong... Moving on.

I'm not entirely certain how your response addresses what I posted. Having said that though, I agree with every word.

The reality of the world is apparently irrelevant to how they (the previously mentioned "notorious" members of A+) feel and the way in which it influences how they treat others. I was judging the people specifically, not their ideology or dogma (which I heavily disagree with if that is unclear).

My brain may explode if I try to type out every thought I have about feminist theory, patriarchal theory, women's oppression, kyriarchy, male privilege etc instead of discussing them on a point by point basis.

[Corke]

You have been banned from this board until Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:23 am.

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

Reason given for ban: Tone policing, derail, trying to start fights, trolling. Don’t come back, preferably, but this is only a day’s ban. For now. Buh-bye!

A ban has been issued on your username.

[Zampano]

Welp.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2440&start=25

Zampano, you will answer this question as clearly and concisely as possible before you post another thing in this thread or you will be banned permanently. You don't get to sit here indefinitely and complain that people are misunderstanding you without ever managing to say what you actually did mean. When everyone within earshot is hearing "rude = abuse", it's because that's what your words say, not because everyone who reads them is simultaneously having the exact same reading comprehension fail.

I have already expressed that I am no longer interested in having the conversation that my previous topic started. If you insist that it is completely necessary that I do so I would be willing to, but only if this thread can be moderated by somebody other than yourself seeing as you are now participating in it.

Edit: Ceepolk, I think that is also the answer to your repeated question (which was I believe "Would you like to start this discussion again?").

That was not participation; that was a moderator telling you to answer the question that is being asked of you because apparently being asked by other users is not incentive enough for you to engage honestly. Goodbye.

So much for that. Oh, and piegasm was also contributing to the thread without the mod hat on, so there's a lack of "honesty" right there.

[Pitchguest]

What?

I... what?

For crying out loud. Someone should put Setar on a leash. Then they should put piegasm on a leash, and a muzzle, and restrict what he can do in the civilised world because I remember the last time he misinterpreted another user to the point of extreme incoherence and incompetence, and that was when he implied a rape victim would have been better off dead (murdered) than raped, and put the user on probation for objecting. Mental. The temp-ban was soon lifted, though, as I figure it was the one time they knew they'd gone too far, but they didn't ban the moderator, nor restrict moderator privileges, nor give him a much needed probation. Nope. Just "I made a mistake" and everything was right as rain. (By the way, the mistake wasn't that he implied the user would be better off dead than raped, but that he thought the user was trolling and wasn't a rape victim. So it wasn't what he implied that was the problem, but that he thought the user was speaking hypothetically. Which makes it perfectly fine, I guess.)

[Zampano]

What?

I... what?

For crying out loud. Someone should put Setar on a leash. Then they should put piegasm on a leash, and a muzzle, and restrict what he can do in the civilised world because I remember the last time he misinterpreted another user to the point of extreme incoherence and incompetence, and that was when he implied a rape victim would have been better off dead (murdered) than raped, and put the user on probation for objecting. Mental. The temp-ban was soon lifted, though, as I figure it was the one time they knew they'd gone too far, but they didn't ban the moderator, nor restrict moderator privileges, nor give him a much needed probation. Nope. Just "I made a mistake" and everything was right as rain. (By the way, the mistake wasn't that he implied the user would be better off dead than raped, but that he thought the user was trolling and wasn't a rape victim. So it wasn't what he implied that was the problem, but that he thought the user was speaking hypothetically. Which makes it perfectly fine, I guess.)

Actually, that incident was related to this one. On the discussion of this forum, one of the users was being very passive aggressive and antagonistic to CD2K2 culminating in a post where they were really hostile towards both me and him, and defended piegasm's banning of CD2K2. This post was flagged up by TLC and deleted by piegasm for accusing me of "sucking CD2K2's dick". I thought that wasn't really the objectionable part of HyperB's behaviour though. I had seen this sort of thing go on before (the weird and inconsistent way in which things are deemed to have crossed the line) and I started a discussion about it. I got nowhere trying to convince people to talk about hostile attitudes (like carrying grudges against posters between different threads etc.) and gave up on it, but once I had broached the subject Ceepolk and Piegasm were not willing to let me drop it.

[Pitchguest]

What?

I... what?

For crying out loud. Someone should put Setar on a leash. Then they should put piegasm on a leash, and a muzzle, and restrict what he can do in the civilised world because I remember the last time he misinterpreted another user to the point of extreme incoherence and incompetence, and that was when he implied a rape victim would have been better off dead (murdered) than raped, and put the user on probation for objecting. Mental. The temp-ban was soon lifted, though, as I figure it was the one time they knew they'd gone too far, but they didn't ban the moderator, nor restrict moderator privileges, nor give him a much needed probation. Nope. Just "I made a mistake" and everything was right as rain. (By the way, the mistake wasn't that he implied the user would be better off dead than raped, but that he thought the user was trolling and wasn't a rape victim. So it wasn't what he implied that was the problem, but that he thought the user was speaking hypothetically. Which makes it perfectly fine, I guess.)

Actually, that incident was related to this one. On the discussion of this forum, one of the users was being very passive aggressive and antagonistic to CD2K2 culminating in a post where they were really hostile towards both me and him, and defended piegasm's banning of CD2K2. This post was flagged up by TLC and deleted by piegasm for accusing me of "sucking CD2K2's dick". I thought that wasn't really the objectionable part of HyperB's behaviour though. I had seen this sort of thing go on before (the weird and inconsistent way in which things are deemed to have crossed the line) and I started a discussion about it. I got nowhere trying to convince people to talk about hostile attitudes (like carrying grudges against posters between different threads etc.) and gave up on it, but once I had broached the subject Ceepolk and Piegasm were not willing to let me drop it.

Please tell me you have a screenshot of piegasm accusing you of "sucking CD2K2's dick." Please.

In all seriousness, though, I think the A+ forum would be so much better if the main culprits (Setar, ceepolk, Cipher, Laughing_Coyote and most of the moderators) would just disappear.

I really do, and it's quite obvious how much of a difference it makes. On this forum, I'm able to discuss Schrödinger's Rapist and Rebecca Watson unhindered and not once be told to "check my privilege" or petulantly told to go fuck myself. It's brilliant.

[Westprog]

What?

I... what?

For crying out loud. Someone should put Setar on a leash. Then they should put piegasm on a leash, and a muzzle, and restrict what he can do in the civilised world because I remember the last time he misinterpreted another user to the point of extreme incoherence and incompetence, and that was when he implied a rape victim would have been better off dead (murdered) than raped, and put the user on probation for objecting. Mental. The temp-ban was soon lifted, though, as I figure it was the one time they knew they'd gone too far, but they didn't ban the moderator, nor restrict moderator privileges, nor give him a much needed probation. Nope. Just "I made a mistake" and everything was right as rain. (By the way, the mistake wasn't that he implied the user would be better off dead than raped, but that he thought the user was trolling and wasn't a rape victim. So it wasn't what he implied that was the problem, but that he thought the user was speaking hypothetically. Which makes it perfectly fine, I guess.)

Actually, that incident was related to this one. On the discussion of this forum, one of the users was being very passive aggressive and antagonistic to CD2K2 culminating in a post where they were really hostile towards both me and him, and defended piegasm's banning of CD2K2. This post was flagged up by TLC and deleted by piegasm for accusing me of "sucking CD2K2's dick". I thought that wasn't really the objectionable part of HyperB's behaviour though. I had seen this sort of thing go on before (the weird and inconsistent way in which things are deemed to have crossed the line) and I started a discussion about it. I got nowhere trying to convince people to talk about hostile attitudes (like carrying grudges against posters between different threads etc.) and gave up on it, but once I had broached the subject Ceepolk and Piegasm were not willing to let me drop it.

The Piegasm/CD2K2 incident must have led to a dozen bannings at this stage. Funnily enough, none of the people in the banned list have "Persisted in complaining about abuse of a rape victim by a moderator". The reasons for banning people become ever more obscure and convoluted. Persisting in discussing an issue when the moderators want it to end. Refusing to continue a discussion when the moderators want it to continue. Asking why someone was banned. Objecting to lies made in public. Referring to discussions in the thread where the discussion happened instead of taking it to Forum Matters. Referring to discussions in Forum Matters instead of dealing with it via PM. Using PM to contact people and hence harassing and terrifying them. And so on and so on and so on.

[Zampano]

Quite nice that I have somebody over there now pointing out how fucked up it was that I got treated the way I did. But then I also have a bunch of other folks just making stuff up now (like ceepolk saying I made a privilege=money point, when actually that was Setar).

[Westprog]

Quite nice that I have somebody over there now pointing out how fucked up it was that I got treated the way I did.

She won't be around for long, though. If you start to find random banning uncongenial, and say so, that's pretty much proven bad thinking.

But then I also have a bunch of other folks just making stuff up now (like ceepolk saying I made a privilege=money point, when actually that was Setar).

They really don't care what they write. Accuracy is bourgeois. When you point out their egregious errors it's whining.

[Zampano]

Piegasm did not make the dick-sucking accusation, she used it as her reason to remove a post that contained a whole host of other problems.

The Piegasm/CD2K2 incident must have led to a dozen bannings at this stage. Funnily enough, none of the people in the banned list have "Persisted in complaining about abuse of a rape victim by a moderator". The reasons for banning people become ever more obscure and convoluted. Persisting in discussing an issue when the moderators want it to end. Refusing to continue a discussion when the moderators want it to continue. Asking why someone was banned. Objecting to lies made in public. Referring to discussions in the thread where the discussion happened instead of taking it to Forum Matters. Referring to discussions in Forum Matters instead of dealing with it via PM. Using PM to contact people and hence harassing and terrifying them. And so on and so on and so on.

Or as I put it:

[AliRadicali]

Please tell me you have a screenshot of piegasm accusing you of "sucking CD2K2's dick." Please.

In all seriousness, though, I think the A+ forum would be so much better if the main culprits (Setar, ceepolk, Cipher, Laughing_Coyote and most of the moderators) would just disappear.

I really do, and it's quite obvious how much of a difference it makes. On this forum, I'm able to discuss Schrödinger's Rapist and Rebecca Watson unhindered and not once be told to "check my privilege" or petulantly told to go fuck myself. It's brilliant.

Of course that would make all the difference. These people are just alarmingly childish and hostile, clearly out of their depth moderating what essentially is an adult discussion forum. A bunch of unreasonable, petulant, powerhungry authoritarians.

The reason it's possible to discuss all those things here is because we obviously must all be privileged cisgendered rich white guys ("so of course we agree with each other on everything, right? Go patriarchy!"). After all, a large part of us was exiled from the A+womb for "privilege".

[rEvolutionist]

They really don't care what they write. Accuracy is bourgeois. When you point out their egregious errors it's whining.

FTW!

eta: I've got me a signature! (if you don't mind )

[mood2]

pitchguest

Actually, that incident was related to this one. On the discussion of this forum, one of the users was being very passive aggressive and antagonistic to CD2K2 culminating in a post where they were really hostile towards both me and him, and defended piegasm's banning of CD2K2.

CD2K2 is cuduggan2K2 right? He's been banned? I've not been following all this, got a link?

[Pitchguest]

pitchguest

Actually, that incident was related to this one. On the discussion of this forum, one of the users was being very passive aggressive and antagonistic to CD2K2 culminating in a post where they were really hostile towards both me and him, and defended piegasm's banning of CD2K2.

CD2K2 is cuduggan2K2 right? He's been banned? I've not been following all this, got a link?

He is, yes. He was banned, but unbanned once the "mistake" was realised.

Here's the thread where it happened. You need to go back to page 2 to get the gist of it, because the logic used is ... really bad.

[piginthecity]

One thing that's wrong about this that I remember really got my goat, was the name they invented for the victim, i.e. Winston Kodogo.

While it is conceivable that someone could have this name, it's a poor name to choose (in context of UK) because 'Winston' is a name mostly popular with Carribean people (who typically have European surnames), and Kodogo is (or sounds like) an African name. I do think that this shows a bit of arrogance on the part of NTNOCN, but after this time I guess the statute of limitations applies on this.

[Zampano]

One thing that's wrong about this that I remember really got my goat, was the name they invented for the victim, i.e. Winston Kodogo.

While it is conceivable that someone could have this name, it's a poor name to choose (in context of UK) because 'Winston' is a name mostly popular with Carribean people (who typically have European surnames), and Kodogo is (or sounds like) an African name. I do think that this shows a bit of arrogance on the part of NTNOCN, but after this time I guess the statute of limitations applies on this.

I always assumed they must have done that intentionally.

[dancer_rnb]

So in short: If you are comfortable here, you probably don't NEED the safe space anyway, so WTF?
Let's just concentrate on turning this into a space where we discuss social responsibility meets Atheism and how to mobilize and/or consciousness raise about it.
Agreed?

This should have had proceeded that site. Looks like a "closing the barn door after the cows got out".

A "safe space" that encourages ad hominem attacks is safe how? Atheists are already marginalized. Attacking a population of already marginalized people makes absolutely no sense. It becomes a series of "one upmanship"...who is more marginalized than whom. That doesn't look healthy for a support group, either. It looks like one gigantic and rabid enabling session.

Word.


It's a place where cisgendered white people can act like internet white knights by verbally assaulting and pillorying anyone who disagrees with their "enlightened" values, all the while pretending to be the spokespeople of the oppressed minorities.

I get what you say, though I would have just said white people. But then, I am (or was) a cisgendered male kid of an interracial couple who now passes as a white man.

[Sponsored content]