Hi Matt. Long time fan, first time writer. Never called into your show, given your rule about preferring theists because they’re more interesting call fodder; and the corollary rule about not acting like a Poe.
I’ve listened to a great number of episodes of The Atheist Experience, and while I don’t have the full scope of the four hundred odd shows you’ve put on, I’ve certainly come to understand your frustration when you receive the same questions over and over again. When you hear the third caller on the same show bring up the ontological argument or TAG or Pascal’s Wager, I feel every ounce of your cringe and I fully agree with every time you hang up on a person who simply will not engage in the points honestly.
It’s gotten to the point where some folks have nicknamed that sort of battle fatigue “Matt Dillahunty Syndrome”, where you need to stop repeat arguments dead in their tracks because they’re a waste of everyone’s resources, and your own are worn thin from past battles. This isn’t a new phrase made unique for this occasion — it is one I’ve seen in the wild for at least a year, and a recognition of the psychological damage that long-term trolling can actually take.
I respect that you’ve suffered from that, and had to be quick to hang up on abusive or potentially-abusive callers. I’ve seen your pattern recognition kick into overdrive where I didn’t detect a hint of abusiveness from the person, but trusted your judgment that you were making the right call for the situation, since you’ve been doing it for ten years, and you, after all, were the guy who would have to slog through it right then.
And I’ve seen the damage others have taken from those situations, where chipping damage has pushed Jen McCreight out of blogging, and forced Greta Christina to focus on her book, and Surly Amy to focus on her art, and forced Ophelia Benson out of speaking engagements. I’ve seen good people say really stupid things exactly once as a result of battle fatigue, and pay exorbitantly high prices for those solitary indiscretions. I’ve seen the real bad guys — who go out of their way to damage people who don’t deserve it for reasons other than their antisocial behaviour — incur absolutely no splashback themselves and go completely unpunished for far too long. And when they finally are called to account for their behaviours, the people demanding restitution are accused of being divisive or driving a witch hunt. I’ve seen too much injustice and too many good people fall to chipping damage by trolls.
So, I hope you can understand why so many folks feel betrayed by your so-called “concern trolling” a battle-fatigued forum about someone who got banned.
They really wanted to smooth things over with you, because of all the respect they — WE — have for you. So they delayed taking action while they tried to smooth things out. This delay cost the moderators of the forum very heavily in their users’ trust. The problem with your putting on a second account to make your points is not solely that you used a second account to prove that trust isn’t necessary about how right your points are. I mean, you obviously believe in how self-evidently right your discussion on how to treat strangers with less suspicion happens to be. I don’t know that it IS that self-evidently right.
The forum’s participants are threatening to leave in droves because the moderators screwed up in not treating your, frankly, rather offensive behaviour in advocating for someone who’d been banned, with the same sternness they’d come to expect from their community leaders. By a number of accounts, this person was banned perfectly reasonably — I know you’ve explained here that you feel it was less than merited, that the person was just overly snarky, but the people running the forum disagree. What happened here is like if you’d hung up on someone who may have had a valid point but just got on the wrong side of your tolerance for personal invective, then hung up on the next person who yelled about how you shouldn’t have hung up on the previous caller, but then lo and behold it turned out the second one was a very popular and respected community leader that even you look up to. So you waffle and bicker and commiserate instead of sticking to your guns, and the people depending on you to help provide a safe space for conversation in the manner of your choosing tune out because now the show is an hour of bickering about who gets to call in and who doesn’t, instead of actual theological debates.
Telling someone that they’re doing something wrong and having them listen earnestly does, in fact, require a level of trust from that person that you’re not simply some random troll. This is why the situation changed when you “took off the mask” and revealed that the Curious account was actually you. Especially when pattern recognition dictates that the overwhelming majority of the time that an argument is framed the way you framed it, it actually is a troll. By all appearances, you are examining a forum under stress, recognizing a weak point in that they are battle fatigued, and testing that battle fatigue in order to chastise them for not reacting appropriately as though they were still fresh. This is a very young forum — how long has it been around? A month? Two? I could find the exact dates, but it doesn’t matter. It’s barely crawling. And you’re kicking it for not being resilient enough to handle a troll or two, when the whole point of the place is to provide safe harbor with less of the usual trolling you get everywhere else on the intertubes. They have barely started building a coherent and unique userbase. And you’ve violated their ability to police the place by attacking — intentionally or not — their weak point in an effort to, what, make them stronger?
What’s more, in this specific case, you’ve really gone out of your way to advocate someone’s cause after they’ve been banned, doing far more damage to both yourself and the forum in the process than if you’d have approached a moderator privately and pointed out the ways their policies could be improved. With your real name, and your reputation, people would have been able to put aside the need to moderate heavily against concern trolls and rules-lawyering and undercutting forum moderators’ authority. Your points might be self-evidently right (and we can’t see them, obviously, because they’ve been lost to the deletion, so we have only your word that the elision of your identity did not also require modifying your arguments), but some things actually do require a level of trust to back them up. Not because these people are insufficiently introspective, but because these people absolutely must eye any newcomer who demands sweeping changes to their policies, policies built out of self-defense, with a modicum of suspicion — which you said was understandable, but wrong. I contend that it was not wrong at all. Self defense is decidedly not wrong, when the people who might claim to you to feel shunned are actually actively probing for weak points and trying to waste the forum’s resources.
I am concerned that the longer you do not apologize for misunderstanding the stress these people are under — stress in trying to build themselves a protected forum for more “advanced students”, where they don’t have to worry about random outsiders triggering them or abusing them or wasting their resources on 101-level discussions over and over again — the more the damage will accumulate and aggregate. I get that you’re still feminist, that you’re still a social justice advocate, that you’re still pro-everything-atheist-plus. But in your not living a life where you’re bullied every day just for trying to build a nice quiet spot for you to have discussions with like-minded folk, you just played the role of the guy calling up to demand why that other guy got hung up on. Your ability to assume good faith on the part of every person calling in (and your pattern recognition in weeding out those calling in bad faith) is a facet of the privilege you hold in that the people jumping to talk to you are, in fact, mostly calling to talk to someone in good faith.
But the internet is different, and the person who got banned for trolling might also be sockpuppeting and be simultaneously a trusted and beloved forum participant. The newbie asking concern-troll-style questions might (and often is) just a troll looking to damage the place, even where there’s an off chance that they’re arguing in good faith. Or worse yet, a big name and a hero to these people whose identity is important in establishing trust.
As you are.
You absolutely had a good point about providing a path to challenge bans, or first-time posts, or about rules for making second accounts (that aren’t used to sockpuppet). In fact, I agree with all of those points completely. So did the forum moderators, apparently. But the means by which you brought it to their attention is a violation of their trust in you, and more importantly in their trust in their moderators to handle outside cases like this one.
Furthermore, I am not dissuaded from my concern that you got suckered in by someone trying only to damage the place, who was banned for perfectly legitimate reasons. Considering that original person who approached you, “Skep tickle”, was by their own admission posting for the purposes of challenging the place rather than to participate (Slymepit link, where “Skep tickle” has been welcomed with open arms), these fears are very well founded. This, by the way, is probably also why people think Curious was their sockpuppet questioning their own ban after being correctly and justifiably thrown out on their ear.
And this person had apparently approached a number of others at the same time, including Rebecca Watson. That earns the title of troll all by itself. Shopping around looking for people on top to go circular-firing-squad and damage a part of the movement that these trolls couldn’t damage themselves, it would seem. Stephanie’s seen this sort of troll herself very recently. I am concerned that this troll tactic of divide and conquer worked here, and that you’re doing tons of splash damage in entrenching yourself in how self-evidently right your position is that you’re failing to see the multiple tiers of abuse that are happening — abuse that you’re providing apologetics for. And I’m not even sure you’re aware you’re facilitating that sort of abuse, here. If this tactic gains in steam because it worked on you, succeeded in doing great damage to that forum with you as the troll’s unwitting pawn, you’re doing us all a great disservice.
I know you, from dealings on the back channel and from your public face, to be introspective and thoughtful about these things. I know you’re a good man. I know you want to do right by everyone. And I know the inclination to dig in, to demand that people accede to your superior understanding of the situation. I’ve felt it. I’ve lashed out when I should have listened. I’ve been decidedly unheroic. And I’ve apologized contritely for it when it happened.
Please, PLEASE, don’t dig in this time. Pause your righteous indignation, that fire your fans know so well, and chew over what people are saying to you. They deserve it.
SurlyAmy on Vacula finding her home address and apartment complex.
“This is utter bullshit. My address was not found via an ad for my business. It was found via the US Trademark office registry. Also, the US trademark office does not have a photo of where I live. Justin found that image for my apartment complex somewhere on the internet after searching for my address.”
Vacula, contrary to how he and his friends have portrayed this, had to actually look for her home of record. He didn’t just stumble across it looking over her webpage. That was one of many deliberate lies on his part.
Aye. Sleazy, to me anyway, implies it was deliberate. That he intentionally proposed letting someone else play arbiter so that he could get his hits in before anyone had a chance to respond. I don’t think that’s what happened but there’s no question that went a ways towards burning bridges.
Jason Thibeault@#143
I’ve seen this exact argument used by theists when questioned about existence/non-existence. I could be drawing the context out too far, though.
I’m not commenting on the rest of this right now, but:
Flewellyn:
“Well, he broke that agreement within less than an hour after we made it. ”
That’s a lie. There was no “agreement” with you, I simply told the mods about the conversation and what my intent was.
Once again, you’re assuming information that you don’t have. I had already talked to Greta – AGAIN. I had explained the video that I was going to put up. No agreement was broken and the video I put up PRAISED the mods, stated the facts and expressed optimism.
As the initial cause of this – you should probably just stop piling on mistakes and accusations that are patently false.
Flewellyn #131
Why wait til now to tell anyone this? This is information that should have been offered at the same time the apology was demanded from Matt. If it had been offered then you would undoubtedly have a lot less pushback now from Matt’s supporters.
No, I think it’s sleazy anyway, no matter which way I cut it. Bugging someone who’s grieving over a fight on the internet? Sleazy. Using that person’s name and grief as a trap card? Sleazy. I honestly cannot figure out a way where this is not sleazy, except maybe “someone hacked his email and decided to send out a message that looked like a trap card, and he posted his video independently of it.”
Which doesn’t exactly seem plausible.
This is about the time when someone should pull out a “Jump to Conclusions”.
Ur, “Jump to Conclusions” mat.
julian, I’m not going to derail this discussion into the whole JV/DMCA thing, but when did he ever claim to “just stumble” over her address, or when did I say he did? It’s publicly available in a number of places online, since it’s the legal address of her business. An effective skeptic in the internet age would know how to check that kind of claim out.
Back to the issue at hand. Matt presumably knew more about the initial moves to form “atheism plus” than most atheists & skeptics. But let’s see what the less-informed person might use to decide what the Atheism+ forum “welcomes” and what it’s “for”, shall we?
At http://atheismplus.com/ the visitor sees this:
Now, emphasis added, let’s go back and look at what “Atheism+ is“.
It’s a “safe space” (which, as of the time I was reading over the site and starting participating (or at least ‘posting’ for those who took offense at my involvement there)) was undefined. I suggested that better clarification, establishment, and maintenance of the “safe space” aspect would help with the (claimed) massive problem with “trolls”. Couple of other people made a few other comments to that regard. There’s now a moderation of 1st 3 posts approach, I think, which seems like a good step if a baby one.
It’s a safe place “for people to discuss“, which seems to imply no restriction on the “people” who can participate, as long as they don’t break the undefined “safe place” aspect and as long as they wish to “discuss” the topics (which we’ll look at next).
It’s a place for people to discuss “how religion affects everyone….”, which I haven’t seen be a problem there (but I might have missed it). Would everyone be able to present and support their views on how religion affects everyone? Seems unlikely, but that’s really not the issue at hand; let’s move on.
“…and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime.” And here, especially, is where the rub is. The “Welcome!” page explicitly says that applying skepticism and critical thinking to all social issues and “everything” is acceptable and even, well, welcomed. Atheism+ risks the claim of hypocrisy here, in saying one thing but doing another.
A critical thinker might assume includes atheism plus itself, though the FAQ page linked within the Welcome text disabuses the reader of that notion – that’s fine, as long as you make sure people read that (and also clarify some other expectations while you’re at it).
The FAQ page linked in the Welcome text pulls back the welcome mat a bit, without placing or linking to clear limits. It starts with “What is Atheism Plus?”, which includes (emphasis added):
It closes with”Isn’t this making a religion out of atheism?”, which includes (emphasis added):
So, atheism plus (or, the forum at least) is like-minded people who take seriously the need for spaces like it and those whose contributions have been consistently enlightening and who have engendered a certain level of trust, who are dedicated to promoting [things widely accepted as good, at least in the lay understanding of ‘social justice’] and countering [things widely accepted as bad, at least in the lay understanding of these problems], with no dogma.
So then, one reads around the Atheism+ forum for a while, including the education forum (subsequently renamed), and sees that people keep getting redirected back to the education topics until they know and accept the basic tenents of atheism plus (or, at least, of the forum), and sees that people express something other than those basic tenents are, frankly, treated in what would be considered a rude manner in most places: piled on, insulted, disciplined.
Then if one goes to the thread at the Atheism+ forum where the opening post contains a link to “An Open Letter to Atheism Plus” by C0nc0rdance and says, in its entirety (emphasis added):
and sees that the “discussion” is 2 pages of people whose opinion of the video are essentially the same, including this comment (referring to people critical of atheism plus; emphasis added):
one realizes that the forum is shooting itself in the foot by claiming on the Welcome page to be welcoming to “people” who “apply critical thinking and skepticism to everything” but clearly, clearly, clearly, seeing people who actually apply critical thinking as “trolls”. (Flewellyn asked me, in the JV petition thread, whether I had anything “intellectually honest” to say and if not that I should stop posting. I linked & quoted a description of intellectual honesty and would challenge anyone to support the claim that the approach I’d taken in that thread was not “intellectually honest.” Yes, I missed one piece of supporting evidence for the part of the petition’s claim about AVfM, but also pointed out that whether or not I’d missed evidence didn’t matter, because that that claim wasn’t actually important.)
So, back to the thread on the C0nc0rdance video. If one expresses a different opinion in that thread (agreeing with the video presented for “discussion”), one gets this special treatment. Now, in my case perhaps one misstep was to predict out loud that I would be piled on; Matt didn’t do that – apparently not expecting to receive that treatment – but he received it nonetheless (in a different area of the forum, expressing disagreement about 2 different specific topics – apparently questioning my banning, but that post was lost, then questioning the handling of that post).
If you all at the Atheism+ forum want to cut way down on your troll problem, you should rewrite your “Welcome” page and you should make sure that new members have a really, really clear list, in one place, of the forum’s expectations; sure, it could be refined over time, but by now surely you have a sense of what that is – and it isn’t “apply[ing] skepticism and critical thinking about everything.” Members would “agree” to the terms as they join. See post #7 in this thread for some suggestions on other steps. And, though apparently I’m seen as a troll, a bad person, perhaps a gender traitor, I do sincerely wish you good luck. I just think you have to look hard at what your goals REALLY are and set the forum up to help you achieve that goals, rather than pissing off “good people” who could be allies or at least quiet supporters.
This is typical of Vacula’s defenders. Because information is “public” (meaning it’s listed somewhere) there’s nothing wrong with disseminating it, they argue. After all, it’s public, isn’t it?
This is like arguing it’s not wrong for someone to give your abusive ex your phone number because it’s listed in a phone book somewhere.
It’s absurd. If I’ve found, by whatever means, personal information of someone, I do not have the right to distribute it among people who openly hate that person. I don’t even have the right to pass it on to their closest friends. It’s personal information.
And that’s all I’m saying to you. I’d wish you a nice day but I kinda want the opposite.
Ok, so there seems to have been some miscommunication. The mods thought there was an agreement in place when there wasn’t any. Explains why there’s such heat around this right now.
I really feel like the language that is being used in this essay is unhelpful at best. Trying to solicit an apology from someone is confrontational in nature. You are ascribing blame to them and claiming that in some way they owe you something. It would be much better if the forum would have simply stated to Matt how they feel that they were hurt by his actions and what effect they believe that his actions have had on their membership. I mean does anyone really want a solicited apology, especially from someone that is a friend and (I would say) an ally? How can you even give a sincere apology that has been solicited? I think if this situation can be resolved the use of this kind of language is an obstacle to that resolution.
justin,
You can go to http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1450&hilit=vacula#p20702 to see my examination of the claims I saw about JV. Feel free to rip me apart there if you like; I can’t reply, but that’s okay.
Your focus on the JV example, rather than the bigger-picture analysis of hypocrisy in how the Atheism+ forum presents itself vis a vis skepticism, is noted.
Honest, perhaps, but IMO pretty petty, and a sad commentary on this entire situation.
Since no one called you a gender traitor (on this thread, since I can’t speak for the whole internet), your speculation about what people think about you is kind of silly and melodramatic. I’d have more respect for you as a source if you were scrupulous about being factual rather than fanciful.
So, one problem in ALL OF THIS is people making assumptions and leaping to conclusions.
What I wrote, literally, is that “apparently I’m seen as”. I did not state that I was actually called these names (though indeed I have been referred to multiple times as “troll”, at the Atheism+ forum).
Regarding “gender traitor”, I used the adverb “perhaps”, which signifies ‘uncertainty or possibility’ and is ‘used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in’ a statement.
Reading for accuracy: IMO a useful but underutilized approach.
It’s definitely a tell that you’ve been hanging out in the Slymepit though. Nobody jumps to “gender traitor” around these parts unless you’ve been there for about twenty minutes and have gotten suckered in by the lie that any woman who disagrees with us is labelled such. Your use of it here is poisoning the well in exactly the same way.
And for the millionth time, one person used the term who isn’t even associated with FtB, and no bloggers here have ever used the term on anyone, to my knowledge. Not even Ophelia, the prime scapegoat.
Jason, is there any reason for Skeptickle’s diatribe https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2012/10/06/matt-i-really-think-you-owe-them-an-apology/#comment-83476 to appear in this thread in the first place?
Didn’t you already address her complaints? Don’t you have a long running thread for bashing A+ already where these posts belong?
Bah. Don’t bother letting this out of moderation, I don’t want to engage and go further off-topic, it just seems like it’s junking up the works to permit this rambling derail. Especially since it looks like Matt checked in and might respond once he gets past the the “you liars!” stage.
Yes Sheesh: her diatribe proves that she is abusive of discourse and of the truth, and only intended to try to catch the forum participants out on some sort of hypocrisy. Letting her hang herself here proves why she should have been banned from the forums. She never intended to participate, only to attack.
LOL. Circle the wagons and jump on the one the band plays on.
See, this is why I was hoping my post wouldn’t even show. More sniping, more bullshit, more derailing. You forgot to repeat groupthink or something, though. We’ve heard it all before, really. So, so boring.
Don’t worry. I won’t return to post in this thread, voluntarily (though if I’m banned that’ll also do the trick).
I would urge, though, that those who want the Atheism+ forum to flourish take a look at my long posts above (#7 and #159, currently) and really look at the content there (except the JV comments) as feedback to try to help you reduce the troll problem you feel you have. I do wish you luck, as that’s the conventional phrasing, meaning that with clarification of what the goals are and how to reach them effectively, I think y’all could see progress towards those goals.
Over and out.
Matt, we believed strongly that there was an agreement in place. If you are saying that, from your perspective, there wasn’t, that’s fine. But I and the other mods are not “lying”. We are disclosing what happened from our perspective.
If nothing else, maybe this will help us all to remember to ask more questions to prevent miscommunication?
I respect Matt a great deal and Flewellyn is one of the sweetest people I know.
I hope you are able to discuss privately what has happened and work it out.
You are one individual who has the power to make this right and fix the damage that has been done. You can deny you are responsible, you can deflect the blame to us, but it won’t change the minds of dozens of members, who still hold you responsible. The more you double down and defend, the worse it gets. You won’t accept anything less than for dozens of people to stfu and feel violated, so you, one individual can be right. Aside from being unfeasible it just drips, oozes, and bleeds privilege. Your ignorance of what the movement is demonstrated by that.
You have the power to be the hero. You would be one instantly to your fans, you would become one to many who would be so grateful that you ended their anger and feeling if you, one person, took the initiative to suffer a little humility by acknowledge the hurt and anger shown the many pleas posted and blogged to you and make amends – (asking them what would fix it is more logical than announcing what you deign to give . Instead you choose to double down, drive your refusal deeper, and make yourself out to be an even more dastardly villain than you already are.
You had the opportunity to work with staff – but instead you chose to act unilaterally, dictate what you think should be done. I have little confidence you heard Greta or Jen, if you even spoke with them. Being right took precedence over healing the community. By leaving a large and significant part of the Atheism+ broken, you showed how little you really do care about the movement. You have this nebulous idea of a movement, and don’t even recognize the huge chunk of the grassroots supporters that live right here in this forum community. You disrespected your allies and friends Greta and Jen, by doing damage to the forum they created and founded. Oh, and you get extra credit for an extra dose of disrespect to Greta after she posted this the day before your ‘social experiment”.
[quote=”GretaChristina”]My dad died today. This wasn’t unexpected, and in many ways it was a relief: he’s been very ill for a long time, and his quality of life has been very poor and diminishing. But even though it was expected, it’s still a jolt, and it’s still really hard. Among other things, Dad is the first person I’ve been close to who has died since I stopped believing in any sort of religion or any sort of afterlife. And it’s complicated by the fact that we didn’t really have a great relationship, and I don’t have a lot of that “At least he had a good life and you have good memories” stuff. I loved him, but it was a hard relationship, especially in the last couple of decades.
I wanted to let you all know. Support and kind words would be appreciated. Also… this is going to sound weird, but if you’re about to say “If there’s anything I can do”… what you can do is keep Atheism+ going. Keep this community strong; keep going with the work and the battles that we’re engaged in. I’m going to be sidelined for a while, and it will be a comfort to know that this place is here, and is thriving. Thanks.[/quote]
I’ve sent you you a couple of polite and friendly emails suggesting we have a dialogue, both of which have been deliberately ignored. My willingness to ascribe only the most ethical and honorable intentions to you, and give you the benefit of the doubt, lost the trust of some members when you revealed yourself TO BE THAT GUY. I was your ally, and you dismiss me like dirt.
And finally, since you are openly discussing communication to staff, I post them here exactly as written, with your implied consent.
Sent: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:34 am
[quote=”MattDillahunty”]I was working up a video about the whole thing…clearing up some of the confusion and pointing out the mistakes and what we need to correct, on all sides.
Greta, who is still travelling after her fathers death, sent me a quick message asking me to hold off until she could talk to the moderators. I’m not going to be posting here, or responding elsewhere, until either Greta and I have a chance to talk…or that anti-atheism+ crowd misrepresent this issue to the point where I’m forced to correct them.[/quote]
Sent: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:07 am
[quote=”MattDillahunty”][quote=”maiforpeace”]”Admittedly, I do wish you hadn’t changed your mind about not posting until you spoke to Greta”.[/quote]
I didn’t. I had talked to Greta, several times…and Jen.
I’m going to be posting a video later. Some sort of joint statement might be possible, but I’m not sure it’s necessary.[/quote]
@mai:
http://angelfuckyeah.tumblr.com/post/32619799523
All I have to say.
Jason Thibeault #166
“It’s definitely a tell that you’ve been hanging out in the Slymepit though. Nobody jumps to “gender traitor” around these parts unless you’ve been there for about twenty minutes and have gotten suckered in by the lie that any woman who disagrees with us is labelled such. Your use of it here is poisoning the well in exactly the same way.”
I’ve never been to the slymepit and have heard the phrase gender traitor before. Much like I’ve never listened to Rush Limbaugh and have heard the phrase feminazi before.
I think this statement leads directly back to the beginning of this entire kerfuffle in that Matt’s comment was “Just trying to help.” As a general rule, I intentionally avoid comment sections and forums. As such I would never have thought twice about trying to help someone understand something I thought was obvious. I know better now.
This inability to separate the honest from the hateful should not be the new commenters problem.
That is unavoidable. It’s not like the mods are going “EVERY NEW POSTER IS BANNED IMMEDIATELY.” They are using their best discretion, and as I said earlier, anyone who wants to be an ally ought to understand immediately that false positives are preferable to false negatives – and try not to look like a troll!
maidao –
I’m really torn whether or not I should say anything about your post. I know, if it were directed at me, I would not respond well to it – for all the reasons I’ve been mentioning about the nature of asking for apologies. I don’t respond well to others attempting to illicit guilt, and I doubt many people do.
The last year has played out pretty badly in general – and I know there has been a lot of strife. I really don’t have nearly as much emotional capital invested in the atheist community as others. So, I realize that going through all of this has been 100 times worse than what I have experienced personally and maybe that disqualifies me from saying anything.
I’ll make a suggestion though – and this includes Matt and several others.
If there isn’t a compelling reason to air interpersonal conflicts on publicly available media, could you not do that.
That didn’t even come out right.
Maybe I’m just frustrated seeing all this play out, and knowing that the public nature of it probably isn’t helping it resolve reasonably.
So – yeah – going to take my own advice there.
Melby, its hard to say you’re sorry.
I know. But good people know how to do it.
Yeah, we didn’t want to resolve this publicly, either. Unfortunately, attempts at private resolution failed.
Maidao–
As a bit of a logophile, I’d just like to thank you for “dastardly villain.” Simply delicious.
I so agree with about not doing it publically M.A. Mebley. I ALWAYS try to do it privately, and ideally on Skype. And that’s what I did – I suggested Skype to Matt.
But, if someone deliberately ignores me, I guess I have to get the person’s attention somehow, eh? He’s communicating he’s not listening to me. So maybe if he knows others are listening in that will perk his ears up at least, and that’s some progress in my book.
And if he feels any shame or embarrassment, maybe that’s a signal to that he should be paying attention, don’t you think?
Anyone who knows me will tell you that my communication style is kind, open and willing to listen, so you telling me I could have been nicer is irrelevant. I was polite and he did not respond in kind.
Cipher #177
“..anyone who wants to be an ally ought to understand immediately that false positives are preferable to false negatives..”
That’s not what the moderators and admin thought at Atheims+. The moderation policy was changed to reflect the opposite.
“..and try not to look like a troll!”
That was my point. Is it possible to not look like a troll if you’ve never learned that trying to help is considered trollish?
I wonder whether Skeptixx could actually link to a place where she has discussed social justice rather than discussing the people who discuss social justice.
I’d said I wouldn’t post again voluntarily, so perhaps this is a rhetorical question?
If not, I’d just point out that I haven’t claimed to “discuss” social justice.
I prefer to take action, IRL, to address those issues I feel are both high priority and ones where my effort might help make a dent. I’m leaving in a few minutes to a fundraiser for the marriage equality referendum on the ballot in my state, and after that going to help a disabled woman from my UU church get into bed for the night. (A bunch of us take turns.) Then tomorrow I’m back at work as the director of a women’s health care clinic which includes figuring out how to most fairly allocate the funds we have to provide free care to some % of our patients, while a % of my wages twice monthly gets sent to 3 international charitable organizations that help provide food, clean water, and emergency medical care to people in dire conditions elsewhere in the world, because for me helping contribute to actually saving lives (or, more accurately, prolonging lives with improved quality based on health and opportunity) is of very high priority to me.
But that’s doesn’t mean I’m claiming any kind of expertise in social justice. Instead, in that one post fairly high up, I told you that I am “an admin at another atheist site, IRL the director of a women’s clinic, and a scientist by training, so [I have had] had some reason to think about behavior and expectations online and IRL, creating and maintaining safe spaces (for women seeking health care, at least), hiring, and skeptically evaluating claims” – and it was that experience that leads me to look at the Atheism+ forum as a site that could address its “troll” problem by more clearly defining its goals then designing and implementing the measures needed to get there. (Load of privilege, there, perhaps. Sorry for that, if so.)
No, it wasn’t changed “to reflect the opposite.” They are working to strike a balance, but they have a responsibility to the community to maintain a safe space, which they know and care about. Thank you for explaining to me incorrectly the moderation policies of a forum I’m part of, though. That was very helpful.
So the moderation policy wasn’t changed to make sure new users are less likely to be unilaterally banned for possibly innocent mistakes?
I must have misread when Flewellyn said, “We have apologized for the way in which WE fucked up. We acknowledged that our moderation policies needed to change, that we mods and admins need to extend good faith to new users, and that we need to fix our post approval process so that only actual spam gets screened out. These are legitimate complaints of his, and we HAVE FIXED THEM.”
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24488#p24488
Look, if you’re going to keep twisting and/or ignoring my words like this I’m not going to bother engaging you any further. It’s a waste of time to talk to someone who fails to listen.
Nope, since that isn’t what happened. The original post was deleted (unintentionally, now fixed) and the banning was neither unilateral nor due to subsequently changed policy: sockpuppeting did, and still, merit a ban.
*did, and still does. Bah.
This doesn’t sound very fair, now that you are in the safe place, it is ok for other people trying to get there to be hurt as long as you don’t get hurt. Isn’t this your privilege showing?
“And finally, since you are openly discussing communication to staff”
Great spin there! Flewellyn makes incorrect statements about private communications and when I address them, I’m the one openly discussing communication to staff.
Meanwhile, there’s a pity-party going on where I’m being called all sorts of names and moderators – like you – are even claiming that they don’t believe I spoke to Greta (I did). Others are claiming that, if I did, I’m somehow evil for bothering people who are grieving.
This is the sort of uninformed, unskeptical jumping to conclusions that is the problem. As the conversation is privileged, I won’t be revealing it here – but I will say that I didn’t contact her, she contacted me.
I was done with this after posting a video praising the corrections and stating I was optimistic about the forum – but someone clearly couldn’t leave well enough alone. They couldn’t even simply ban me without tossing around blame, starting a thread to whine about me and repeatedly demonstrating that they are unskeptical, reactionary individuals who care less about truth than they do about bruised egos.
I’m not taking a shit on the truth to protect people’s bruised feelings. It’s sad that so many others seem eager to do exactly that.
I have the worst urge to invite everyone to my house for ice cream, hugs and beer.
Mistakes appear to have been made. People have been genuinely hurt. Could we please put our efforts into moving on and repairing damage done? Can we listen to one another and try to learn how not to have a fall out like this again?
Mr. Dillahunty, I don’t doubt that people have been uncharitable, and it is frustrating and disappointing that communications became so twisted and muddled. The mistaken assumptions made about you are cringe-worthy. But I don’t think your response was charitable either. You really did disappoint and upset people, though that was certainly not your intent. Yes, they are stressed. You and many of the folks on those forums have been caught in a constant barrage of insults. Those of us affected by the past year’s outpouring of sexist atheist troll dung are not just bruised. I, personally have been genuinely disgusted and terrified. Please take some time to think things over and return to this situation with a kinder response.
Hey, Matt, you know the difference between “lying” and “different perspectives”, right?
Of course you do, you’re a smart person.
Well, we have a different perspective on what happened than you did. I fully understand that things would look different from your end. But, y’know, that’s why communication is good.
We’re not “taking shits on the truth” when we put our perspective out there. Neither are you, when you put yours out there. It’s just, well, hey. This was a matter of interpersonal communication, which is a subjective process and can mess up easily.
So, how’s about putting the hammer down, and I’ll disarm my nose lasers, and we can TALK about this, instead of bloviating at each other?
Hi Matt. I want to offer you a sincere request to do that too. You still haven’t replied to my pm’s, or here, and I’m choosing not to be hurt because you must have a reason to be ignoring me, so what I want to do is let you know that I honestly invite you to share why.
But I need to let you know too, that ignoring me like this does feel very disrespectful and that does hurt, and while I have been strongly critical, I have replied to every time you addressed me personally and don’t feel I deserve, at minimum this unprofessional treatment.
I have group Skype, how about we get together for a few beers at my place? If I could buy, I most certainly would, but it is unfortunately BYOB.
Let us know,
Sincerely,
Mai
Quoting Jason @ 166
“Not even” should be more like “certainly not.” That’s just not something I say, ever (except to quote it in meta discussions like this). I don’t know why the fuck I’ve been saddled with it, but then there are countless lies about me circulating for reasons that I don’t know.
Flewellyn,
In this particular case the notion of “different perspectives” doesn’t fly.
For an agreement to be valid BOTH sides have to consent to the agreement.
That you “perceived” the agreement to be consensual on both sides is immaterial given the fact that Matt indicates that he never agreed to anything.
So far as I can tell based upon what has been written here, the mods received a message from Matt where he informed you of his intent.
You then implied from his intent that there was now an “agreement” in place. However, agreements do not work like that.
If I express an intent to sell something to someone, it does not and cannot imply that I have actually agreed to sell the item in question. The other person and I might not come to terms on a sale price, they might find a better deal elsewhere, I might decide upon further thought that I’d like to keep whatever it was that I had intended to sell.
Intent NEVER implies agreement. That you jumped to this conclusion and then jumped to the further conclusion that Matt “broke” the deal isn’t fair and more importantly, it isn’t simply a matter of perspective.
If you wanted an agreement to be in place, that agreement had to be explicit and I do not see evidence for that here.
Your claim that it simply “looks different” from his perspective isn’t a fair characterization. If Matt did not perceive an agreement to be in place, then it is factually true that there was no agreement because Matt didn’t consent to one.
Conversely, your “perspective” is factually wrong in this case for the same reasons. I very much doubt you would appreciate being held to an agreement you never explicitly consented to.
Is it your contention that Matt explicitly agreed to the terms you outline and then broke them? If it wasn’t explicit then your perspective is flawed.
How ironic. One very big activist for Atheism who is/was also a big proponent of Atheism+ goes on the forum to proof that the opponents of Atheism+ are wrong in that there are reasonable people who will listen to criticism and ended up proving the opponents right.
And the hysteria about this is nothing other then pathetic. Oh dear god, somebody created another account trying to highlight a problem, dear mother of jesus what a betrayal, how wrong, such mischievous behavior. People saying they will leave because of this are just over sensitive whiners. What is their problem? In all seriousness, what is so wrong with creating a sock account for the purpose of highlighting a problem which would have been impossible to do with his original account? Who really gives a flying fuck? If you really think that is disgusting I think you should seek professional help. Really.
Correction, dapartypoopah: Matt didn’t create a new account to highlight a problem. He did it to prove to A+ detractors that they were wrong, and the problem didn’t exist.