Minus additional ‘nyms, here is an email I received this weekend via the contact form on my blog.

Hi! I’ve been a reader of FtB for a time now. I’m very much an atheist, humanist, and I strongly support feminist issues. I thought that Atheism+ was a brilliant idea. But then I smacked head-first into this wall:

http://www.reddit.com/r/ atheismplus/comments/zwctq/so_ i_just_watched_innocence_of_ muslims/c68d7zr I (as UnholyGeezer) was banned from http://www.reddit.com/r/ atheismplus/ for daring to ask questions, and, ironically, for bringing up the subject of banning. Yes, I know you have nothing to do with reddit. But this, exactly this, is the very reason that I’m “merely” an Atheist, and not an Atheist+. I have never, ever called anyone a “cunt”. I have never, ever threatened to rape anyone, not even in jest. I fully support both feminism and any and all forms of equality. But to be met with censorship and banning? What can I say, except, goodbye? I have now unsubscribed to /r/atheismplus. It’s a good idea, but very badly implemented. I understand that Atheism+ wishes to exclude bigots and misogyny. But to exclude any and all forms of critical questions and contradictory arguments? Not particularly inclusive, is it? Well, I’m sorry, but, exclude me.

The email raised a few questions, even without my having looked at the Reddit thread in question.

If you already know I “have nothing to do with reddit”, why expect me to spend my time on your complaint about Reddit?

If you already don’t identify as Atheism+, why are you subscribed to the subreddit?

If you already don’t identify as Atheism+, why are you upset you can no longer comment there?

If you already don’t identify as Athiesm+, and your experience changed nothing, what am I supposed to be concerned about here?

And then I went to Reddit. Here’s the conversation in question.

bunabhucan: Even if one could argue the film is art/free speech etc. the fact is that the author lied about his identity and source of funding. He said he was a israeli Jewish property developer and the film cost $5m raised by 100 Jewish donors. He is in fact a Coptic Christian, the film cost $50-60k and the money came from his wife’s (Coptic Christian) Egyptian family. Why lie in such a way unless the intent is to provoke hatred? It’s contemptible. Unholy Geezer: It’s contemptible. Yes, it is. It’s still free speech. I’m not defending the “movie” in any way, but I can’t find any good reasons to ban it either without killing free speech. There is no right to not be offended. Any resulting violence is the fault of those doing the violence. It’s time for those that so easily get “offended” to grow the hell up and get civilized with the rest of us.

So far, I’m not seeing any questions. You?

Elphaba_Is_Green [moderator]: Strawman arguments are not arguments in good faith. You’re the first person to suggest banning in this conversation. Everyone else is talking about whether it’s good speech, not whether it’s permissible speech. Please refrain from such dishonesty in the future. Unholy Geezer: Strawman arguments are not arguments in good faith. Show me the straw man. Everyone else is talking about whether it’s good speech How is the perceived quality of the speech relevant? Please refrain from such dishonesty in the future. What dishonesty? Being the first to bring up a relevant point? the fact is that the author lied about his identity and source of funding. He said he was a israeli Jewish property developer and the film cost $5m raised by 100 Jewish donors. He is in fact a Coptic Christian, the film cost $50-60k and the money came from his wife’s (Coptic Christian) Egyptian family. How is this relevant at all? Honestly? Why lie in such a way unless the intent is to provoke hatred? False dichotomy. Don’t talk to me about straw men or dishonesty.

Now I see questions. Of course, they all appear to amount to “Why aren’t you having the conversation I think you should be having?” And they’re mixed in with a bunch of orders. So Unholy Geezer here doesn’t want to identify as Atheism+; he just wants to run it.

Elphaba_Is_Green [moderator]: You just quoted nearly my entire comment but conveniently skipped over the part where I specifically named the strawman. As to whether it’s relevant, it’s pretty much the entire conversation. That’s what this thread is about. Unholy Geezer: So, where, specifically, did you name the straw man? Do you even know the meaning of “straw man”? As to whether it’s relevant, it’s pretty much the entire conversation. Well, excuuuse me for pissing on your circle jerk. HelgaGPataki: “You’re the first person to suggest banning in this conversation. Everyone else is talking about whether it’s good speech, not whether it’s permissible speech” koronicus [moderator]: Don’t let the door hit you.

Technically, there are more questions here. Technically. Practically, they consist of another demand and an insult.

I can’t imagine why Unholy Geezer wouldn’t have been welcome. Luckily, when he went to go complain on the AntiAthieismPlus subreddit, someone was ready to lay it out for him. For the record, this is not a comment from someone who likes Atheism+.

DavidNatan: Actually the mod was right, nobody was talking about banning the video. The straw man in the case is you assuming that they support banning the video, because that makes it easier for you to have a pointless easy to win argument with them, over free speech. You can condemn something without being of the position that it should be outlawed. That is the meaning of the word ‘contemptible’.

Maybe the AtheismPlus subreddit needs a new slogan. “Atheism+, proudly excluding those who wank in public.”