Thank you to those whose posts in the two recently-deleted threads stayed reasonable. I'm sorry you were outnumbered.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not to criticise, I was a bit out of line, but ought that not to be "Stop the personal attacks, or else"?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The sad fact is that back in the day... when Hatrack was a bustling venue for discussion and there were lots of people posting here, moderators were a lot more effective. Now that it's merely a place where people post occasionally, any post, regardless how unpleasant, is a welcome addition.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, two? Maybe I should check in more (or not?). One was the paternal rights thread. What was the other one?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, two? Maybe I should check in more (or not?). One was the paternal rights thread. What was the other one?
I don't remember the name, but it was about Creationism. KoM, Blayne, and Orincoro decided to dogpile Ron, KoM and Ron were trading physical threats...it got impolite.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, what a thing to miss. Good times.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
<insert personal attack here>
<insert sig here>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, two? Maybe I should check in more (or not?). One was the paternal rights thread. What was the other one?
what happened the paternal rights thread?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I remember briefly posting in it, and following it, but I don't remember it turning into an especially acrimonious thread.
Then again, I don't really remember it all that well. It must have been pretty bad to actually delete it however, and not just lock it.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I left when it started to get really obnoxious, so I missed the personal attacks that got it deleted.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Samprimary: No idea.
Last I saw, Katharina and Clive were going at it pretty predictably. It doesn't seem like that is "enough" these days for a delete, so maybe something more did happen *shrug*
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Samprimary: No idea.
Last I saw, Katharina and Clive were going at it pretty predictably. It doesn't seem like that is "enough" these days for a delete, so maybe something more did happen *shrug*
If it did, it happened fast. It was at 349 posts the last time I saw it, this afternoon, and it had not crossed any sort of line by then, that I could tell. That particular deletion surprised me. The other one I expected, pretty much.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
At this point, I think such a large portion of the remaining active posters are so incendiary that this is like holding back the tide. The reason the reasonable posters are outnumbered is that so many have given up and left the site entirely.
I still read and post more out of habit than anything else at this point.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I do remember at one point taking a glance into that one and going. "Ah. Yes. So glad I'm not involved in this."
Which is, I grant, kind of an unfortunate way to have to look at things. It's not a good sign when it's more rewarding to have not become involved.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: At this point, I think such a large portion of the remaining active posters are so incendiary that this is like holding back the tide.
... It's not even doing that. I come back after new years and see this thread, but all references to the original incidences are obliterated. I literally have no idea whether or not I was part of the cause of the deletions. I do not know whether or not other actions were taken. I'm left completely ignorant as to exactly what actions warrant deletion or whether or not any actual moderation of users occurred.
So ... let that be a lesson to us? Congratulations, if you're a problem poster, I guess you get empowered to erase other people's threads? I don't think this works.
No, wait. I know this doesn't work.
Whatever. Odds are that in six months I'll be able to see the threads on a wayback cache or something anyway.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
By "holding back the tide" I meant doing nothing, though I wasn't clear. If I were to go down to the beach to try to stop the tide from coming in, I wouldn't be very effective.
A single moderator at this point will be just as effective, imo. The majority of moderate posters have gone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I am not meaning to be contrary. I agree with the assessment. I do essentially consider the forum unmoderated and the community collapsed as a result.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I jokingly called Katherine a 'female supremacist', which I didn't intend seriously. I wasn't bothered by any of the invective directed at me in that thread as that is the typical response MRAs such as myself usually get when we voice our viewes about these issues. It was a good thread and there was no reason to delete it. Please bring it back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I jokingly called Katherine a 'female supremacist', which I didn't intend seriously.
There is hardly any way I am not going to believe that you are massively dishonest for saying this. I read the interaction in question. You offer no reason whatsoever to to suspect that you were saying that 'jokingly,' and no — you also offer no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.
So, I call shenanigans. You're lying to us right now.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Um, believe what you want.
I really don't know why the thread was closed. I see far worse stuff than "female supremacist!" in other threads.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I've locked threads in the past, and it only seems to encourage people to read those and start new threads talking about them. So I took out the middle man.
Please don't take this as whining about how tough it is to be moderator. Not what I'm intending. However, it seems that my level of permissiveness combined with hope that people can exert self-control hasn't been panning out. I'm going to attempt to take a harder line.
That has to be combined with the fact that I'm not always here, though, so not everything gets dealt with immediately. Mucus said, "It doesn't seem like that is 'enough' these days for a delete" (emphasis mine). I'm attempting to change how far I've let things go out of line before I step in. That change is gonna be as tough on some of you as it is on me, and I apologize that as I regain footing in a new place there will be some uncertainty.
As to what is ok -- the topic says it. Stop the personal attacks. If you're calling someone a name, it's inappropriate. If you're using vulgar language, it's inappropriate. Lately, there's been more talking of thread participants in third person -- that's a good warning sign ("this is what *person* says/how *person* acts").
Attack the argument, not the person. If (in your opinion) the person can't be reasoned with, then drop it/ignore it. Or, if you have the patience, continue to address the argument.
--PJ
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: At this point, I think such a large portion of the remaining active posters are so incendiary that this is like holding back the tide. The reason the reasonable posters are outnumbered is that so many have given up and left the site entirely.
I still read and post more out of habit than anything else at this point.
I sort of stopped checking in on the forums in mid-2007 because I was tired of how mean-spirited things had become. I never made a conscious decision to leave Hatrack, but I just sort of stopped trying so hard to make time for it. Then in 2008 things got really hectic and crazy in my life, and I didn't have much spare time for internet forums at all.
I can't believe I got all the way through 2008 and all but the last couple of days of 2009 without coming back--like I said, it was not a conscious decision--but I have noticed since my "return" that the forums move a lot more slowly than I remembered. I had wondered if it was because we're only now coming off the holiday season and people have been busy, but if it's true that a large number of people have simply gotten fed up with the antagonism and given up, then that truly is a sad thing.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It's a very slow moving board and unfortunately many of the fast moving parts aren't nice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Please don't take this as whining about how tough it is to be moderator. Not what I'm intending. However, it seems that my level of permissiveness combined with hope that people can exert self-control hasn't been panning out. I'm going to attempt to take a harder line.
If by 'taking a harder line' you just mean you're going to erase more threads, then it's not going to work. I'll warn you of that right now.
Moving up from locking to deleting isn't even 'taking out the middle man' — I'm sure you hadn't missed those threads that kick up here and elsewhere in the wake of a thread deletion. Don't try to fix the fact that your ineffectual methods of moderation aren't working by using these ineffectual methods of moderation more or sooner. Switch to effectual methods of moderation.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...effectual methods of moderation.
What methods do you think would be effectual?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Sorry -- that was wry humor, rather than my actual impression of the change. No, that's not what I mean by taking a harder line. And I don't expect that I'll delete too many (if any) more threads now than before, but I will endeavor to step in much sooner on problem threads, and take more specific action with consistently problematic posters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...effectual methods of moderation.
What methods do you think would be effectual?
Right now this place has two major problems. The first is that it doesn't have clear, well-defined rules and guidelines placed someplace easy to see and reference.
The second is that the moderation used is not a good means of handling problem posters. If anything, it just empowers them with the ability to destroy threads.
You set up clear and precise rules. You warn people who step out of line. Depending on the severity of the offense, you ban that user if they continue to break the rules. You permaban them if they come back after their bans expire and continue with violations.
Right now, "The TOS" is the only referenced "rules." This is a major, major, major mistake. I can explain in detail again if anyone wants.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
Right now, "The TOS" is the only referenced "rules." This is a major, major, major mistake. I can explain in detail again if anyone wants.
I agree with you on banning/suspensions, I think.
Tell me about your thoughts on the rules.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I apologize
Don't. It is what it is.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Which threads were deleted and why? I missed it. Thanks in advance.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: As to what is ok -- the topic says it. Stop the personal attacks. If you're calling someone a name, it's inappropriate. If you're using vulgar language, it's inappropriate. Lately, there's been more talking of thread participants in third person -- that's a good warning sign ("this is what *person* says/how *person* acts").
Can I ask if Ace of Spades' obvious antisemitism will be considered off limits as well?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Please don't take this as whining about how tough it is to be moderator. Not what I'm intending. However, it seems that my level of permissiveness combined with hope that people can exert self-control hasn't been panning out. I'm going to attempt to take a harder line.
If by 'taking a harder line' you just mean you're going to erase more threads, then it's not going to work. I'll warn you of that right now.
Moving up from locking to deleting isn't even 'taking out the middle man' — I'm sure you hadn't missed those threads that kick up here and elsewhere in the wake of a thread deletion. Don't try to fix the fact that your ineffectual methods of moderation aren't working by using these ineffectual methods of moderation more or sooner. Switch to effectual methods of moderation.
How about not telling him what to do. Make suggestions. Giving marching orders like that is rude, and saying "Do something more effective" without suggesting what that might be is kind of silly.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
He's outlined in detail what "more effective" might be in the past, several times. I don't particularly blame him for getting increasingly exasperated each time he says it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I've locked threads in the past, and it only seems to encourage people to read those--PJ
Well, yes. A lock means that the thread is really really interesting.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Unfortunately, a locked thread is like an accident on the side of the road that causes rubbernecking.
I'm afraid that any measure of moderation at this point is too late. A huge number of productive posters have moved on, and even if the incendiary posters were all banned (unlikely), they would not come back.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: He's outlined in detail what "more effective" might be in the past, several times. I don't particularly blame him for getting increasingly exasperated each time he says it.
Yeah, frankly he and Tom and Lyr have laid out a very clear plan of action so many times that it's fairly clear to me PJ is just simply not interested in doing the work of active moderation. I wouldn't be either, but I'm not a moderator, and there you have it.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: How about not telling him what to do. Make suggestions. Giving marching orders like that is rude, and saying "Do something more effective" without suggesting what that might be is kind of silly.
???
/ wups, what's going on here
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: He's outlined in detail what "more effective" might be in the past, several times. I don't particularly blame him for getting increasingly exasperated each time he says it.
Yeah, frankly he and Tom and Lyr have laid out a very clear plan of action so many times that it's fairly clear to me PJ is just simply not interested in doing the work of active moderation. I wouldn't be either, but I'm not a moderator, and there you have it.
*slow sarcastic clapping*
[ January 03, 2010, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: He's outlined in detail what "more effective" might be in the past, several times. I don't particularly blame him for getting increasingly exasperated each time he says it.
Yeah, frankly he and Tom and Lyr have laid out a very clear plan of action so many times that it's fairly clear to me PJ is just simply not interested in doing the work of active moderation. I wouldn't be either, but I'm not a moderator, and there you have it.
Or it could be that he has a different view of moderating than they do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay, take two?
Lisa: I have suggested often in the past. I even suggest, even detail already in this thread. Literally about four posts above yours. So I'm utterly confused by your criticism.
Steven:
The service agreement is useless for setting forum law. Gaia Online tried for a while to use it as the regulatory guidelines for posters. It was an amazing disaster. Oh look, here's a block of text that so, so many people just gloss over and don't read. It makes a really general "don't do any bad stuff ever" statement. You go into the forum and people are doing a lot of that stuff anyway, so there's no real sense of what arbitrary line you have to cross before someone finally decides you "broke the TOS" or something. To make things even worse, it's not made readily visible. It's in a registration screen for new users trying to make an account.
it is not a moderation ruleset. It's a blanket attempt at a legal indemnification put in as a cursory hurdle for registration making sure that site owners can wash their hands of most liability for user-generated content. It isn't designed for setting up protocol for a community, and attempting to use it to fill that role is confusing and actively inhibits effective moderation as well as community self-governance.
Merely a portion of it is applicable as a general do/do not ruleset for user behavior specific to a forum community. Of these, the prohibitive 'agreements' are so broad as to be meaningless. Especially given that some of the prohibitions rendered would be ridiculous to regularly enforce, such as the ban on the mention of anything 'sexually oriented.'
As a result, the TOS is selectively interpreted and enforced arbitrarily. Always. It's a set of rules that technically makes discussing a poster's pregnancy more clearly illegal than willful derailment of threads.
This practice is not helpful (actually, it's even harmful) because it doesn't establish clear and easily measurable rules related to community behavior in a forum, like "Do not post links to blatantly objectionable material" and "do not randomly attack a poster who has not even contributed to the discussion yet," which is available to offer users clear and clarified understanding of the rules and what the limits on their behavior are.
It is especially helpful to the moderators because it gives them a solid position for regulatory activities. It is helpful to the users because they can clearly point out amongst themselves what activities are prohibited, and know what should and should not be reported. It helps both parties out because it creates an environment conductive to peer regulation, which means that there's less for a moderator to have to do.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Lisa:...I'm utterly confused by your criticism.
I know how that feels.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: He's outlined in detail what "more effective" might be in the past, several times. I don't particularly blame him for getting increasingly exasperated each time he says it.
Yeah, frankly he and Tom and Lyr have laid out a very clear plan of action so many times that it's fairly clear to me PJ is just simply not interested in doing the work of active moderation. I wouldn't be either, but I'm not a moderator, and there you have it.
Or it could be that he has a different view of moderating than they do.
To be fair, I have doubts as to how effective different moderating techniques are going to be, and it has nothing to do with PJ. The good posters are good, the inflammatory posters are inflammatory, and both sides occasionally step over the line to the other. Deleting more threads or banning posters or what not isn't going to change any behavior, it'll just further retard the traffic here. Maybe eventually it will turn away enough negative posters to lure some silent good posters back, but I doubt it.
I think people are too set in their ways, and the problem is systemic. If the community wants to change, it will change. Or, there will only be about a dozen or so of us left when the inflammatory posters are booted, at which point we aren't so much a community as a cool kids club in a digital tree house.
If it is just about correcting bad behavior, then just ban the inflammatory posters and be done with it. Letting them ruin threads created by constructive posters punishes everyone.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
So many things -- I'm losing sleep thinking about all this anyway, so I might as well post. And I'll try to be relatively organized and thorough.
Samprimary, I know you've posted what you feel needs to be done in the past, and I haven't ignored it (though I also haven't done it). As far as I recall (and my recollection is far from perfect), this is the first time you listed your reasoning for what you've suggested, and that's far more helpful to me than just the suggestion itself. I appreciate both.
Orincoro, in response to "it's fairly clear to me PJ is just simply not interested in doing the work of active moderation," I'd say you're wrong that I'm not interested (read: willing), and that lack of interest (willingness) isn't why I haven't done so.
Kwea states, "Or it could be that he has a different view of moderating than they do." Yes, in part, but I think it's even more fundamental than that. I think the rules (specific or general) need to reflect the purpose of the forum/community. And to be honest, I'm not sure I know any longer what the purpose is, or who is defining it.
When I started here long ago, moderation was very light, because in general there weren't many issues that required them (this could be "good old days" faulty memory, I grant). The people who were here and active came because they wanted to, and followed the community standards (aside from TOS, relatively unstated but understood) because they wanted to -- because they believed the place was better when they did, presumably. Not because they feared what might happen if they didn't.
I want this place to be that place. I've wanted it since before I became moderator. I think there's value in every person here, which is why I have been so reticent to making a list of what would get someone banned (or, in fact, to banning someone). I'm by nature not confrontational, and I haven't wanted the position to require it. I try to persuade rather than demand, to encourage rather than rebuke. And I got so discouraged with the temporary nature of the effect most times that I started stepping in less. I don't think I lived up to what the community deserves, and I'm working on that.
Another reason I hesitate to make a separate set of guidelines (aside from above, and from the fact that this isn't my forum) probably comes from my childhood experiences of playing board games with my family. When we got a new game, we would read the rules, then spend ages on figuring out all the loopholes in the rules and how we would handle them. The rules were an invitation to see how to get around them.
And part of my frustration/struggle with the idea is that I've never thought it should be so necessary. I don't think simple things like "don't make personal attacks" are unclear (nor should they, in my opinion, really even need to be said -- they're that obvious to me). Exactly where to draw the line will always be a judgment call, but I find myself incredulous at some of the things I've heard said by people who don't see them as needlessly offensive.
That said, Samprimary, if you would be willing, I'd be interested in seeing a list of what you think such guidelines should look like -- what you've seen be effective at other (similar) places. I can't promise anything would be put into place, since it's not my call, but maybe it could. And even if it doesn't turn out exactly as you suggest, it might serve as a better framework than the current boilerplate TOS. Since it's something that the Cards (rather than the forum membership) need to decide on, an e-mail would probably be better than a post here. Fewer people to disappoint that way? *wry again* (Also keep in mind that since we're gonna have a baby very soon, that results may not be instant, or anything like it.)
--PJ
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Papa, that's pretty much what I meant by my statement.
Please don't take that as an attack. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Papa Moose, I trust you will make the best choices possible under the circumstances, and I'm sure those circumstances include constraints we neither understand nor even know about. Hope this gets better for you soon.
My love to the Mooses! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Papa Moose, I am distressed that you are distressed enough to lose sleep over this. Please, please don't let what is, for us, a hobby - an entertainment that we don't even have to pay for - loom large enough to distract you from the real, important things going on in your life.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Seems to me when I first came here there was more than one moderator. Seems like dividing up the responsibility may have made it easier overall.
As far as "good old days" memories is concerned, I haven't seen arguments nearly as divisive in recent months or even years. In fact, those divisive arguments were what made this place so vibrant.
I also remember that in the past people got booted off the forum. They often came back with an alt, but the message had been received, and the behavior changed.
A lot of times it wasn't necessary to whistle a post, members just reminded the poster of the TOS and pointed out that this was a "family friendly" forum, which was a lot less antagonistic than tattling.
And finally, is there any way to reach out and bring back some of the members who have left? Surely they remember what it used to be like here.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:And finally, is there any way to reach out and bring back some of the members who have left? Surely they remember what it used to be like here.
I think a lot of them left because the tenor of conversation changed dramatically over the years. It's one thing to have heated debate with folks on both side of an issue - it's a different thing entirely to know that a controversial thread will descend into name-calling, personal attacks, and over-the-top incendiary posts.
As for the banning, that was one of the reasons that pushed a lot of people out. There was a very high profile banning that divided the board between those who agreed and those who disagreed, and that caused something of a diaspora.
At this point, I avoid most threads started by a certain few people (or which heavily involve those certain few). Whereas I used to dive deeply into discussions on more controversial topics, I've found it is rarely worth it these days because of the type of attention they draw.
While cycles are natural and the board may come back, board death is also natural and may happen. I've flirted with leaving many times myself, but habit keeps bringing me back to check in on the old place. I don't know how long my nostalgia for the way things were will hold out against the reality of the way things are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Fewer people to disappoint that way? *wry again* (Also keep in mind that since we're gonna have a baby very soon, that results may not be instant, or anything like it.)
WHAT
putting a BABY over an INTERNET FORUM
I'm just shocked at the callousness of it all gasp ugh
no seriously though, — i totally understand where you are coming from, especially about hoping that having to babysit a community of adults was unnecessary. I just bring up this stuff because I figure that the ideas are really worth consideration and I really do figure they would help.
quote:When I started here long ago, moderation was very light, because in general there weren't many issues that required them (this could be "good old days" faulty memory, I grant).
probably not faulty memory! it's the way it goes. kind of like 'forums have a greater than zero chance of picking up users that break community self-regulation; over time, the probability of this event approaches one'
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:As for the banning, that was one of the reasons that pushed a lot of people out. There was a very high profile banning that divided the board between those who agreed and those who disagreed, and that caused something of a diaspora.
Somehow I must have missed that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Papa Moose, I am distressed that you are distressed enough to lose sleep over this. Please, please don't let what is, for us, a hobby - an entertainment that we don't even have to pay for - loom large enough to distract you from the real, important things going on in your life.
Agree 100%!
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Seems to me when I first came here there was more than one moderator. Seems like dividing up the responsibility may have made it easier overall.
Pretty sure there has never been more than a single primary moderator, although there have always been (still are) others who have mod powers and occasionally use them.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: As far as "good old days" memories is concerned, I haven't seen arguments nearly as divisive in recent months or even years. In fact, those divisive arguments were what made this place so vibrant.
I think it may matter where you are on a certain argument. I, for one, have essentially stopped participating on certain types of threads, because the vicious dogpiling has gotten so bad -- even when I mostly agree with the side doing the dogpiling!
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I also remember that in the past people got booted off the forum. They often came back with an alt, but the message had been received, and the behavior changed.
This has happened very, very rarely.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: A lot of times it wasn't necessary to whistle a post, members just reminded the poster of the TOS and pointed out that this was a "family friendly" forum, which was a lot less antagonistic than tattling.
This is the attitude that I miss, and which is almost impossible to get back.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: And finally, is there any way to reach out and bring back some of the members who have left? Surely they remember what it used to be like here.
What's the draw? There are other places they can go that still have the things that used to make Hatrack great.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: As for the banning, that was one of the reasons that pushed a lot of people out. There was a very high profile banning that divided the board between those who agreed and those who disagreed, and that caused something of a diaspora.
Assuming I am thinking of the same banning you are (and I am fairly certain), very few people left. And in most cases (although definitely not all), good riddance.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Papa I can't speak for others. Unfortunately there is no secret gathering of Hatrack angels that meet to discuss what is good and what is bad about Hatrack.
But I can speak for myself when I say that you do a very good job. Yes, this was a very well self-disciplined forum and has grown callous and spiteful in its old age.
As far as I can tell none of that blame goes to you or your efforts.
Its more the efforts or lack there of from the fields.
You do much that is unhearlded, un-recognized and unrewarded. You have my salute.
You need,,,,no. We need more than that.
I am hereby proclaiming a new initiative to revive Hatrack. Not only will I refrain from the excesses of caustic attacks and the self-love that is flaming, insulting, and ego-centric one-upmanship we've grown to call debate. I will strive to make this a better, more thoughtful and more considerate place. Even if another, or perhaps especially if another attacks me I will not retaliate. I will offer the open hand.
No assumption or accusation that anyone posting a controversial topic is a troll.
Trolls should not be fed, but they should not be murdered either. They should be taught, and I will do what I can to teach kindly.
Thank you Papa.
I don't lose sleep over Hatrack because I know that it is in your hands. Don't you lose sleep.
It is only a forum.
As Camelot was only a town.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: As far as I can tell none of that blame goes to you or your efforts.
Amen.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
I've been subject to more personal attacks than practically anyone else here (with no provocation on my part) and I bear no ill will at all for the people in charge here.
[ January 03, 2010, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Ace of Spades ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Don't be ridiculous.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'll add my agreement that:
1. Pop shouldn't lose sleep over this, and
2. None of that blame goes to Pop or his efforts. At all.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:What's the draw? There are other places they can go that still have the things that used to make Hatrack great.
I'm sure there are. But they aren't Hatrack. I left alt.atheism years ago, but I still have a fondness for what it was before it devolved into a vicious cesspool of name calling. And I still sometimes go back to say hello. The difference is that there's no one over there reminiscing about how great it used to be and how to get it back to where it was.
Maybe we should start a Hatrack reunion thread and invite them back to say hi. I know many of us are in touch with many of them. And if Pop would lock the thread at the top of the list it will always be there to welcome them rather than falling by the wayside from disuse.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Assuming I am thinking of the same banning you are (and I am fairly certain), very few people left.
The diaspora I am thinking of was a controversial banning at the end of 2003 - one which kicked off a debate over whether it should have happened or not, and led to a large group of frequent posters leaving between fall of 2003 and spring of 2004.
While the banning was not the only reason they left, it was a final straw for many. It gave a big boost to two other forums at the time, where the refugees landed.
And it was not, in any way, a "good" riddance.
I don't think there have been any high profile bannings since then (though I may not have been paying too close attention and could have missed one). A year later, Kathy Kidd stepped down and Papa Moose assumed the moderator job.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, two? Maybe I should check in more (or not?). One was the paternal rights thread. What was the other one?
I don't remember the name, but it was about Creationism. KoM, Blayne, and Orincoro decided to dogpile Ron, KoM and Ron were trading physical threats...it got impolite.
Was there another creationism thread since the one about Kent Hovind's "thesis"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've tried to avoid offering advice on this topic for a while. But if you're really collecting suggestions, Papa, I offer this:
You don't really need to bother posting "forum rules." They're not usually read, and people who do read them generally do so to look for loopholes. But write some forum rules, and refer to them (and, if you want, post them somewhere -- but like I said, this is optional) frequently.
Upgrade the forum software. In particular, get software that enables Private Messaging and Ignore functions -- or even more sophisticated "rating" mechanisms -- and remembers where people left off in a thread. This would help more than you might imagine. You don't need to enable avatars, signatures or images if you don't want to; I'd actually advise against it.
Talk OSC into being slightly less of a jerk. He's the main draw. People come to this site because they saw "Hatrack.com" in something he wrote and wanted to look into it. As long as he's playing at being Grego, we're going to get wannabe demagogues who show up wanting to argue with him. That'll affect the available population of recruits, which makes your job harder. If OSC refuses to change (and, honestly, I'm not even saying that with a straight face), you'll need to find ways to draw people to the forums themselves; consider contests, memes, anything that might bring people here before the front page. (Of course, that almost certainly defeats the point of the site itself.)
Intervene more, and at more length. At the very least, step in in situations like the one between Ace of Spades and Lisa, where he's being disingenuously anti-Semitic and she's being, well, Lisa, and publicly suggest that neither of them are entitled to do what they're doing. You don't need to ban either one; you just need to remind them that you can, and use that "power" to get straight answers from them. Of course, that only works when you're dealing with people who actually want to be here; without real forum software, you actual ability to ban anyone is rather limited.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
FC, it's the same incident, but clearly you and I have very different recollections of it. *shrug* Not surprising.
Glenn, I'd love to get many of them back here. But I don't think it's likely.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Are you guys talking about the GrenMe banning? I can't tell.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
What was your previous handle, steven?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I can't tell.
Think that might have been deliberate?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not really sure what the benefit of keeping it all hush hush is. The people who know who's being talked about know who's being talked about and are making their opinion of said person clear (and if they're wrong about who's getting talked about then they're badmouthing the wrong person) and the people who don't know what's going on are just feeling left in the dark.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, not to speak for FC, but I don't think anyone has ventured an opinion on the actual person who was banned, but rather on the fallout thereof.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay, the line I was thinking of was "good riddance" which was applying to the people who left I guess. I'm still not sure what the benefit of keeping it a big dark secret is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It was more about the fact that when they left, the animosity/hostility regarding the incident (mostly) went with them.
And now I'm done. Sorry, I should have just let it be to start with; but I disagree with what seemed to me to be a claim that banning a popular poster necessarily damages the board.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Papa I can't speak for others. Unfortunately there is no secret gathering of Hatrack angels that meet to discuss what is good and what is bad about Hatrack.
But I can speak for myself when I say that you do a very good job. Yes, this was a very well self-disciplined forum and has grown callous and spiteful in its old age.
As far as I can tell none of that blame goes to you or your efforts.
Its more the efforts or lack there of from the fields.
You do much that is unhearlded, un-recognized and unrewarded. You have my salute.
You need,,,,no. We need more than that.
I am hereby proclaiming a new initiative to revive Hatrack. Not only will I refrain from the excesses of caustic attacks and the self-love that is flaming, insulting, and ego-centric one-upmanship we've grown to call debate. I will strive to make this a better, more thoughtful and more considerate place. Even if another, or perhaps especially if another attacks me I will not retaliate. I will offer the open hand.
No assumption or accusation that anyone posting a controversial topic is a troll.
Trolls should not be fed, but they should not be murdered either. They should be taught, and I will do what I can to teach kindly.
Thank you Papa.
I don't lose sleep over Hatrack because I know that it is in your hands. Don't you lose sleep.
It is only a forum.
As Camelot was only a town.
Hear, hear!!!!!!!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: What was your previous handle, steven?
Blunt sword was his first username here, I believe.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I disagree with what seemed to me to be a claim that banning a popular poster necessarily damages the board.
I don't think that banning = board damage in a general sense. There were earlier bannings that were definitely needed and were beneficial overall.
That particular banning, however much I may have agreed with it, caused a board schism and lost a lot of prolific, moderate posters. It was an unfortunate fallout of what I had considered a necessary decision at the time. The irony is that the behavior that prompted the banning would have been almost mainstream at this point.
I'd estimate at least a third of the most active posters of the time left in that six month span. Nearly all of the most active posters from 2001-2003 are gone (or post very infrequently) at this point, save a handful.
Now, another big wave of new posters came in 2005, and the board took on a new tone, but most of them have gone, too.
Hatrack has become something a ghost town in the last year or so. Looking back over the archives: In 2003, there were 17 pages of posts in August and 15 in December (with approx 5900 registered usernames at year end). In 2005, there were 21 pages in August and 16 in December (with approx 9000 registered usernames).... in 2009, there were 5 pages in August and 5 in December (with about 12,500 registered usernames).
From 2003 to 2005, the number of members increased 50%.... but volume stayed relatively constant, with a slight summer uptick. Since then, we've added another 3500 members (about 40%), and the volume has dropped off a cliff.
The board has become almost a curiosity to me at this point rather than a community. I used to suggest the site all the time to people who I discussed world issues with IRL - now, I would never. The tone of conversation has just gone so far downhill.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, I wonder if it is just that we have run out of interesting conversations. We have beat the debate on what I would consider interesting topics to death and people with moderate enough opinions to have a reasonable civil discussion are getting tired of talking about it. That leaves the more extreme posters and a few dogged responders.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yeah, but in "the old days," when people were tired of beating the old controversial topics, the forum would dissolve into fluff threads for a while. Then we'd all frolic like deer through the meadows until a new election was on the horizon. Usually by then, people were ready to discuss abortion and WMDs again.
Besides, I think the topics only seem repetitive because of the same brash posters that feel the need to dominate them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Frolic like deer? I thought that we danced like children of the night.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
From my perspective, the flames start blazing forth whenever the Evolution vs. Creation debate is rejoined. I will not allow put-downs of Creationism or Intelligent Design to go unchallenged, nor will I allow assertions that Evolutionism is the only truly "scientific" philosophy of origins to go unchallenged. There are a few people who cannot abide my challenges to their paradigm, no matter how calmly and reasonably and factually I do it. These certain ones always resort to personal attack rather than responsible and mature debate, and once one starts in, the others have to try to outdo each other.
For the most part, I feel I have excercised great restraint under immense provocation. One thing that does send me over the line is when someone totally without cause presumes to call me a liar. Perhaps younger generations simply do not understand how much personal honor means to some of us older folks, and that throughout history, calling someone a liar has always been grounds for a fight, even a duel to the death, before dueling was outlawed in this country. I am one of the people who still feels this strongly. I once called out RickyB on this same point.
When King of Men called me a liar, I had to try to let him know how much this mattered to me, that such a claim was out-of-bounds, and stated that if we met face to face, he would have to answer to me for it. That is all I said. I did not engage in any childish trash-talking about what specifically I might do to him. Perhaps it would be better if I had not said it, though at the time I felt that I had to. Because now someone like steven can claim that I and King of Men "exchanged threats of physical violence." This, even though what I said still was restrained, expressing only the basic reality of the seriousness of the personal offense he was committing by calling me a liar; and what he said was way over the top, egregious, explicit, and could be fairly characterized as childish trash-talking to the extreme.
So how can this situation be mitigated in the future? I would hate to see any discussion of Creationism and Evolutionism precluded. The question of origins is important and worthy of discussion, even formal debate, especially in a forum mainly frequented by fans of science fiction, who are generally informed and interested in science and scientific issues.
Perhaps it might help to ban "trash-talking." Some people seem to engage in this for fun and sport, but in a written medium like this, it is entirely too dangerous for anyone to indulge in it. There is no way it can be engaged in without being offensive to everyone.
That is my suggestion, anyway: Ban trash-talking.
If I might point out by way of comparison, Lisa and I (and a few others) have at times engaged in prolonged and inherently emotional debates over religion and the proper interpretation and use of Scripture to back up our religious views. Despite the occasional heat, we have never, that I can recall, ever directly impugned one another's honor, and we have certainly never issued any threats of violence. Despite the frequent sharpness of our debates, I rather like and respect Lisa; I am grateful that she is willing to engage me in debate, when I have been used to many other Jews just refusing to discuss these matters with Christians. And I am intrigued by her responses to various arguments I have set forth. Many of them I had never heard before.
Why some people get so worked up over challenges to the presumed hegemony of belief in evolution is a mystery to me. Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I have no problem debating topics with people, and whether I am in the majority or minority I enjoy it just the same. A few years ago this could happen without being called any names.
Now however it seems that if you disagree with someone's viewpoint, you are called all sorts of names. Words such as stupid, idiot, liar, and moron are used by some to demean others. Why? Just because someone has a different point of view? In another month, year, or decade you may feel the same way that person you just called an idiot feels.
This forum has always been a place for intelligent discussion of topics. It still is, but now there is the name calling. It is ok to disagree with someone, but calling them names does not help your point. If anything, it makes it seem as though you must insult someone to prove your point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why some people get so worked up over challenges to the presumed hegemony of belief in evolution is a mystery to me. Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Well, it seems to me that we have only one Christian Creationist on the board, and he's said that he will "not allow" any put-downs of Creationism to go unchallenged. So 100% of Christian Hatrack Creationists get worked up over challenges to Christian Creationist belief.
Assuming 100 other non-Creationist regulars (which is probably a lowball number), we have only about five or six who will reliably criticize Creationism and defend the theory of natural selection when given the opportunity. So only 6% of "evolutionists" care as much as you.
Does that seem possible to you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:For the most part, I feel I have excercised great restraint under immense provocation. One thing that does send me over the line is when someone totally without cause presumes to call me a liar. Perhaps younger generations simply do not understand how much personal honor means to some of us older folks, and that throughout history, calling someone a liar has always been grounds for a fight, even a duel to the death, before dueling was outlawed in this country. I am one of the people who still feels this strongly.
So am I. 'Liar' is not a charge I fling about lightly; I am quite aware of the seriousness of impugning someone's honour. I still stand by my words. You are welcome to make me 'answer for them' at any time.
quote:Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Of course we do; that's how we managed to arrive at actual truth in the first place, by caring about it and not being satisfied by the first convenient mythology we came across.
Getting back to this thread's topic, a tool I've seen used on other forums is the thread-specific ban; as in, "Poster X, post in this thread again and you will be banned from the entire forum." It's much less of a blunt instrument than deleting or locking threads.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay, Ron Lambert:
quote:From my perspective, the flames start blazing forth whenever the Evolution vs. Creation debate is rejoined. I will not allow put-downs of Creationism or Intelligent Design to go unchallenged, nor will I allow assertions that Evolutionism is the only truly "scientific" philosophy of origins to go unchallenged.
You are very straightforwardly demonstrating one of the major issues that hit forums. Put in context with the way that you 'debate' in those threads, you act as proof that because of your presence, Hatrack is no longer a place that can have a thread on this subject not become dysfunctional.
The coarse term for it is a subject troll. It's coarse because it uses the word 'troll' without regard to intent. I'm sure your intent is entirely to propagate truth and counter harmful misinformation, as far as you are convinced. It's irrelevant to when it comes to the kind of poster you are in practice.
When subject trolls grow in number, they begin to nuke progressively larger and larger portions of a forum's ability to productively discuss a larger and larger portion of topics, because whether or not they are self-aware of it, or are self-aware of why, their actions only derail productive discussion.
As many of you can guess, hatrack hit a threshold a while back where subject trolls put a hard cap on the maturity or productivity of the majority of serious subjects discussed on this forum. All well and good to people like me who love to go at it in threads now beyond hope of salvation (does that make me a subject troll subject troll? ha) but it was way too long ago that I realized that had lost the functionality required to provide me (or anyone!) much besides these trainwrecks.
Shortly afterwards, the moderate, polite, and ultimately functional and productive members of the forum started dropping like flies. People like us stay behind.
It's a very reliable way to make a forum suck in short order.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:does that make me a subject troll subject troll?
I actually had this conversation with another person last month, and we agreed that you are. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, another tool is the subject-specific ban. On another forum I frequent, I'm banned from discussing religion, including creationism, on the grounds that the moderator there is a fascist who blatantly favours the theist side of any debate, but that's a separate issue. The point is that he bans from specific threads and specific issues, rather than closing or deleting entire threads; this allows him a much more fine-grained control over what can be said on his forum. That he does not use this tool impartially is not the fault of the tool.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:does that make me a subject troll subject troll?
I actually had this conversation with another person last month, and we agreed that you are.
I love the diagnosis because its an agreement that if I'm picking on you, you are a bad poster. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That would be an unfortunate ban. We're already banned from proselytizing, and I understand why. But wouldn't eliminating the discussion of all religion therefore prevent those who have religious reasons for their opinions from voicing them and elaborating on them?
What I mean is, wouldn't banning religion just be banning the practice of disagreeing with you? Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
If we're all trolls then can we at least go guard a bridge or frighten a small village? I'll bring candy!
on a more relevant note I came here long after any of the Golden Ages of Hatrack (as I am reffering to them) but have found my experiences here highly pleasant. I like the family friendlyness and the refrainment from bad language here. I just want to thank everyone that makes this forum a fun place because hey, fluff threads are the best!
I mostly just felt left out for not posting in this topic so here i go Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:When subject trolls grow in number, they begin to nuke progressively larger and larger portions of a forum's ability to productively discuss a larger and larger portion of topics, because whether or not they are self-aware of it, or are self-aware of why, their actions only derail productive discussion.
I had never heard the term "subject troll" used before, but this paragraph rings particularly true to my experiences with hatrack recently.
It also makes sense why so many posters have abandoned ship, and why I've been so often tempted to follow them.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I also started frequenting this forum after the Fall from Grace. Could someone who was here during the golden age bump a representative thread, so us newbies know what we should be aspiring to?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I love the diagnosis because its an agreement that if I'm picking on you, you are a bad poster.
Or, at least, that you think they are. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
natural_mystic: Thats an intriguing idea actually, to me anyways.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: That would be an unfortunate ban. We're already banned from proselytizing, and I understand why. But wouldn't eliminating the discussion of all religion therefore prevent those who have religious reasons for their opinions from voicing them and elaborating on them?
What I mean is, wouldn't banning religion just be banning the practice of disagreeing with you?
No, no, it's a subject- and poster-specific ban. So everyone except, most likely, me, would still be free to discuss religion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You know, if you think that would help the forum, you could easily implement that ban on yourself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think anything of the kind; no forum is improved by censoring truth. I do think, however, that other people are likely to think so, and thus I offered you a solution to what you perceive as a problem. I feel a bit like the engineer in the old joke about the priest, the lawyer, and the engineer being executed by guillotine, but that's beside the point.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: natural_mystic: Thats an intriguing idea actually, to me anyways.
I hope someone makes the attempt. However, I'd be surprised if the change in tone the veterans mourn is so easily demonstrated.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
natural mystic (and Mucus), I ran back and just grabbed a random thread from the second to last page of the "view all threads" list.
It is actually kind of amazing to me. It discusses religion and homosexuality, and it goes on for three pages. There are times when posters step on the toes of others and then apologize for perceived offense, and there is some real theological/semantic debate/discussion that, while passionate, never rises to the level of personal attack. It was somewhat sad for me to read, though, as many of the names in that thread no longer post here.
I would request that no one actually post in the thread to "bump" it, but instead just take a read through. I'm afraid of what opening that particular discussion might lead to in January of 2010 instead of August of 2003.
You can find it here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: and thus I offered you a solution to what you perceive as a problem.
If that "you" is meant to be specific, you're wrong.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Thanks FC.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: and thus I offered you a solution to what you perceive as a problem.
If that "you" is meant to be specific, you're wrong.
It wasn't.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You know what really saddens me about that thread, FC? I remember a time when I considered Kasie to be one of the more inflammatory posters when it came to disagreeing with me, and she and I still spoke outside of the forum in friendly chats.
I guess what I mean is that inflammatory was merely itchy and I was probably too sensitive, and no one was bad enough for me to avoid them or leave a thread just because they were posting in it.
Just...musing, I guess.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: feel a bit like the engineer in the old joke about the priest, the lawyer, and the engineer being executed by guillotine, but that's beside the point. [/QB]
Speaking of jokes, have you heard this one: A mathematician and a prostitute are at a cocktail party, and the following conversation ensues:
M: What do you do?
P: I'm a sex worker.
M: Sex, huh? Yeah, well... never really got the hang of that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I love the diagnosis because its an agreement that if I'm picking on you, you are a bad poster.
Or, at least, that you think they are.
lol
I guessed this response, verbatim. like, right down to the smiley.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: natural mystic (and Mucus), I ran back and just grabbed a random thread from the second to last page of the "view all threads" list.
It is actually kind of amazing to me. It discusses religion and homosexuality, and it goes on for three pages. There are times when posters step on the toes of others and then apologize for perceived offense, and there is some real theological/semantic debate/discussion that, while passionate, never rises to the level of personal attack. It was somewhat sad for me to read, though, as many of the names in that thread no longer post here.
I would request that no one actually post in the thread to "bump" it, but instead just take a read through. I'm afraid of what opening that particular discussion might lead to in January of 2010 instead of August of 2003.
Dkw made a post there that's interesting in light of the forum's current climate:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: It’s a commitment to community in the face of what divides us. Kind of like Hatrack.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Dkw made a post there that's interesting in light of the forum's current climate:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: It’s a commitment to community in the face of what divides us. Kind of like Hatrack.
Man, that's depressing. :/
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Yeah - I remember feeling that way once upon a time. One big extended family, despite our differences.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: natural mystic (and Mucus), I ran back and just grabbed a random thread from the second to last page of the "view all threads" list.
It is actually kind of amazing to me. It discusses religion and homosexuality, and it goes on for three pages. There are times when posters step on the toes of others and then apologize for perceived offense, and there is some real theological/semantic debate/discussion that, while passionate, never rises to the level of personal attack. It was somewhat sad for me to read, though, as many of the names in that thread no longer post here.
I would request that no one actually post in the thread to "bump" it, but instead just take a read through. I'm afraid of what opening that particular discussion might lead to in January of 2010 instead of August of 2003.
You know, I don't think it's just Hatrack that doesn't talk like that anymore.... I think it's a lot of people, politically speaking, in this day and age.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You know, I don't think it's just Hatrack that doesn't talk like that anymore.... I think it's a lot of people, politically speaking, in this day and age.
Surely - but I think hatrack lived in a nice bubble away from that for a while, and we prided ourselves on that. Respect other posters, take care to craft your arguments and language, apologize if you offend, keep disagreements civil... etc. That bubble is gone, and has been for a while.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: natural_mystic: Thats an intriguing idea actually, to me anyways.
I hope someone makes the attempt. However, I'd be surprised if the change in tone the veterans mourn is so easily demonstrated.
So, what do you think? Do you perceive a difference in tone between that thread and current threads dealing with issues of religion, homosexuality, and so forth?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The difference that jumps out at me on first reading is the participation of dkw and the fact that even people who might otherwise get nasty weren't foolish enough to get nasty with dkw.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
There's a lot more going on than that, Kate. Check out the interaction between kat and Elizabeth, for example.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I said, "jumps out at me on first reading".
I think there was a tone set that was in danger of disintegrating once dkw stopped posting in the thread. The "splinter" conversation got close to being contentious.
ETA: What do you think was going on there?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Another sign of the times is the disappearance of Landmark threads. These were generally heartfelt posts about something personal, shared with the community. They were an opportunity for the community to get to know the members more deeply, or for members to reach out to the community for support.
From the start of 2003 until the end of 2005, there were 311 threads with "Landmark" in the title (2003 had 131, 2004 had 75, 2005 had 105). Since then, there have been only 68 (2006 had 37, 2007 had 15, 2008 had just 12, and 2009 had only 4).
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
This thread makes me incredibly sad, and did a great job of reminding me why I never post here anymore.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I think there was a tone set that was in danger of disintegrating once dkw stopped posting in the thread. The "splinter" conversation got close to being contentious.
Yet, it didn't. Instead of erupting, the thread lost steam and fell off the main page into oblivion - where we just dusted off its fossilized remains.
There was tension in that thread, and passionate defense. But it never got to the point of name calling, insults, personal attacks, etc, etc. People were engaging in intellectual sparring, really over a semantic point dealing with connotative meaning and word usage. But it was controlled, ultimately.
ETA: At the time, that thread would have been considered quite contentious and heated. By today's standards, it is quite tame. It's telling that we're looking fondly back on such "heated" posts as being the good old days.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: natural_mystic: Thats an intriguing idea actually, to me anyways.
I hope someone makes the attempt. However, I'd be surprised if the change in tone the veterans mourn is so easily demonstrated.
So, what do you think? Do you perceive a difference in tone between that thread and current threads dealing with issues of religion, homosexuality, and so forth?
My two cents:
It's clear that the thread remained civil in the face of disagreements; that doesn't always happen now. The tone is friendlier than one sees now insofar as the participants seem more apt to acknowledge others' good points and suggest that they will adjust their opinions accordingly. That VERY RARELY happens now. If hatrack returned to this paradigm, I suspect things would improve.
There was no massive blow up but I can't tell to what extent that was corollary to the posters' collective restraint or the subject matter. For example, the posters' are not challenging the validity of the theistic position (not even Tom), allowing a somewhat academic discussion on how rigidly one must adhere to specific doctrine. In the contemporary hatrack, kmboots and KoM seem to have this discussion *a lot* without tempers being lost, so I can't be too impressed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA: What do you think was going on there?
I think that one of the key features of the community back then was to post without causing offense, and that we were all (or most of us) very conscious of times when we were in danger of offending, and sought to avoid doing so. One of the primary things I see going on in that thread is then-Hatrack's various conflict resolution models (among them sincere apology when offense was given, along with acceptance of that apology, prefacing remarks that might be seen as imflamatory with assurances that they were not meant to be so, and dropping it. There are others going on there too, but I need to click "Add Reply" so that I can log off of this computer and go home).
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
So very true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...yes. But I think that it may be less a matter of not wanting offend as a case of not wanting to be seen (especially by some people) as being offensive.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's at play too, of course; to a degree, to be offensive back then was to lose. It helped to keep things civil, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had. (And that, once you cease giving it such respect, there seem to be a lot more visible genitalia than you would generally expect a sovereign ruler to display.) You'll note that for all the exaggerated nicey-niceness, nobody was convinced by anyone else or came to any actual conclusions. Give me a willingness to actually discuss the dang issue until a decision is reached, over flowers and fluffy bunnies, any day.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well that goes a long way towards explaining why conversations are less civil and respectful.
ETA: I did see some misinformation being clarified and some paradigms being shifted in that thread.
I have not seen a lot of "convincing" or "conclusions" or "decisions reached" in more recent, less respectful threads either.
[ January 04, 2010, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Adults who remain theists are unfortunately rather strongly selected for being unable or unwilling to consider evidence in a sensible manner. It does not follow that care taken not to offend them is productive; rather the opposite. I do seem to recall we;ve have a few deconversions on this board, though.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
KoM, are you serious about that tenet? Because if you are, I would have to say that it probably violates the "no proselytizing" rule. Whether or not you think Atheism is a religion (I don't) it still follows to me that purposefully attacking a person's religion in an attempt to convince them that they are wrong would fall under the same umbrella as aggressive proselytizing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Actually, it turns out that what you're doing is specifically in violation of the TOS.
"You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs."
So please stop.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would be interested to see any evidence that those deconversions were a result of any particular conversation and what that conversation was like.
Is it possible for you to refrain from being insulting? That is not a rhetorical question. Given your position, it may not be possible. If not, how do you think it would be best to continue here if the goal is for more congenial, less insulting conversation? Do you think that is even a worthy goal? What is your goal?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I agree with what Noemon said, though I can't attest to the differences now because I rarely lurk much less post. But when I found Hatrack, I was in awe because it was, for the most part, such a civil place. I think I was 13 or 14 at that point, but I had been in enough nasty discussions to know and value civility when I saw it. For the next four years or so I was on Hatrack a lot, sometimes lurking, sometimes posting. My underlying goal though was to learn how to emulate the level of discussion that went on here, both in civility and clarity. Even when their were stark disagreements it usually remained civil. And unlike in most places I had been and have been since, when the occasional nastiness did come out, it often failed to spread. I wanted to learn how to hold a conversation like that.
And, those of you who remember me, should be pleased to note that by my estimation at least, I came away from my time at Hatrack a much better person. I'm still not the most wise, eloquent, or level headed of individuals, but I can without a doubt attest to the fact that I have Hatrack to thank for a great deal of the positive aspects of the man I have become.
Like I said, I rarely even lurk anymore. I'm sure getting married, going to grad school, and my Xbox are to blame for much of that. But I've been around long enough to know that Hatrack goes through highs and lows, and I really hope that if 13 year old me came across this place today, I would end up learning the same lessons and become the same person I am today.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I would be interested to see any evidence that those deconversions were a result of any particular conversation and what that conversation was like.
:shrugs: Everything is input. Is your theism due to any particular conversation? I cannot show that a confrontative style causes deconversions at a higher rate than the softly-softly approach; but 300 years of the latter does not seem to have produced a whole lot of atheists.
quote:Is it possible for you to refrain from being insulting?
If you do badly on an exam and are given a low grade, are you being insulted? I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
quote:If not, how do you think it would be best to continue here if the goal is for more congenial, less insulting conversation?
If indeed you want more flowers and fluffy bunnies in religious threads, the simplest approach is to ban me from them, or from the forums.
quote:Do you think that is even a worthy goal?
All else equal, yes. But there are more important goals, such as having people look at the dang evidence.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Thanks for posting that, Dr. I feel the same way; I learned a lot about civil discourse from this place.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had.
I'm a person who gets around in the online atheist community and KoM is the first person who I have actually heard profess himself to be a New Atheist, rather than being called that by an outsider.
However, KoM is right about this so-called "tenet"-- although I wasn't aware tenets existed. Many atheists are upset that religion tends to get a "back off it's my religion" card that other non-religious ideas don't tend to get. Blasphemy laws would be an institutionalized example of this.
That ToS about religion is tricky because does "disparaging people" mean that religion can't be criticized or that individuals can't be criticized? I suspect that many people would consider those two things difficult to separate. That said, KoM frequently says things that can be paraphrased as, "you're stupid" so this doesn't excuse him.
However, I believe that religion should be criticizable, just as any other ideas are criticizable. I think this is what KoM means. If someone says, "My religion believes that all blue people should be killed" I think that it is our right (imo, our duty) to criticize that religion. Hopefully, we do it in a manner respectful of the poster*.
We can do our best to not involve the religion's follower, but, as I said above, religion and the individual are so intrinsically linked in many people's minds that it's very hard to say, "homeopathy is dishonest" without it being heard as "homeopaths are dishonest".
*EDIT: I changed this from "respectful manner" to what it says now.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I certainly think that atheists should be allowed to give their opinion on a religion. However, there's something to be said for leading a horse to water. You can't make it drink, and forcing its head under won't result in swallowing, it'll result in drowning. And possibly a kick in the face to the one doing the forcing.
It's the same for religious proselytizing. Let me put this another way; for years there have been people on this board who have believed that they know, for example, the only way for a person to go to heaven after they die. But they didn't bring it up in every single religious thread out of respect for the TOS, the Cards, and the other posters. And also because they know you can't bludgeon someone over the head with religion until they "get it." Why should atheists behave any differently? Why should they get a free pass to bludgeon?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why some people get so worked up over challenges to the presumed hegemony of belief in evolution is a mystery to me. Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Well, it seems to me that we have only one Christian Creationist on the board, and he's said that he will "not allow" any put-downs of Creationism to go unchallenged. So 100% of Christian Hatrack Creationists get worked up over challenges to Christian Creationist belief.
Assuming 100 other non-Creationist regulars (which is probably a lowball number), we have only about five or six who will reliably criticize Creationism and defend the theory of natural selection when given the opportunity. So only 6% of "evolutionists" care as much as you.
Does that seem possible to you?
Stop quoting facts, you'll just confuse the "issue". Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had. (And that, once you cease giving it such respect, there seem to be a lot more visible genitalia than you would generally expect a sovereign ruler to display.) You'll note that for all the exaggerated nicey-niceness, nobody was convinced by anyone else or came to any actual conclusions. Give me a willingness to actually discuss the dang issue until a decision is reached, over flowers and fluffy bunnies, any day.
Feel free to do it elsewhere, then, and leave the rest of us alone. Your arguments will always be influenced by your tone and attitude, and that makes it far less effective than those arguments would be otherwise, IMO.
As you have already said, your tone failed to be productive in at least one OTHER forum your frequent, and got you subject-banned.
Perhaps there is a lesson there for you as well. Perhaps it is "Scientist's who fail to understand the basic principles of good, effective communication will fail to influence anyone other than themselves.
Not every people who believes in a religion is a moron, nor are they unaware of the scientific method. It IS possible, no matter how much you deny it, to be both religious and intelligent.
As it is obviously possible to be intelligent and incapable of common respect and decency.
THIS type of crap is why the board isn't what it use to be, nor will it recover. Not any specific poster, but on the exact attitude demonstrated here in this every thread.
When other people's thought, feeling, and emotions don't matter, why even bother reading this crap, let alone post in a thread of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
Well, heck, that's not true at all. I mean, the truth is that every word I say drips with insight and brilliance, and yet you make dozens of posts a month that fail to praise me at all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was there, you weren't. The existence of moderators who think "You're going to Hell" is a valid argument while "That works just as well for the IPU" isn't, does not convince me of anything in particular regarding posting styles.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
Well, heck, that's not true at all. I mean, the truth is that every word I say drips with insight and brilliance, and yet you make dozens of posts a month that fail to praise me at all.
Nu, fair enough, when someone demonstrates the ability not to drool nonsense all over the keyboard I rarely point out that their minds are working at an acceptable level. As a general rule I also refrain from pointing out that "We're all using the Internet" and "Hey, there's a keyboard on this thing, I can type stuff". The absence of these things is a bit more notable than their presence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I would be interested to see any evidence that those deconversions were a result of any particular conversation and what that conversation was like.
:shrugs: Everything is input. Is your theism due to any particular conversation? I cannot show that a confrontative style causes deconversions at a higher rate than the softly-softly approach; but 300 years of the latter does not seem to have produced a whole lot of atheists.
quote:Is it possible for you to refrain from being insulting?
If you do badly on an exam and are given a low grade, are you being insulted? I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
quote:If not, how do you think it would be best to continue here if the goal is for more congenial, less insulting conversation?
If indeed you want more flowers and fluffy bunnies in religious threads, the simplest approach is to ban me from them, or from the forums.
quote:Do you think that is even a worthy goal?
All else equal, yes. But there are more important goals, such as having people look at the dang evidence.
The simplest solution would make me a little sad. Is there any possible compromise? Say, you get one thread where you can be as insulting as you want - I'll even post there so you have a punching bag - and you refrain from smashing every thread about religion?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made. That's how counter-productive I find his tone and presentation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A sort of fenced-in "Free Speech Zone"? I seem to recall you were rather down on those when Bush wanted his detractors kept in cages.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think it is helpful or productive to go around bashing religion in the manner that KoM does. However, I have often found that a lot of "atheist aggression" boils down to:
1. People are having an academic discussion, in which one's religion might influence your opinion. Theists make an argument that only really makes sense if you've already accepted their religion as an axiom. 2. Atheist calls the theist on the fact that there is no particular reason to accept their religion as axiomatic. 3. Theist offers some reasoning that is, frankly, not logically sound. The atheist points this out. The exchange continues and escalates until it degenerates into name calling.
A variation on the above for a theist to make an argument about something that DOESN'T have to do with religion, criticizing someone else's bad logic. An atheist points out that the theist used that same logic in a thread discussing religion.
One hand, religion is such a big, ingrained part of many people's lives that fighting about it in every other conversation is not productive and contributes to a hostile atmosphere. And it's perfectly possible for an atheist to have an interesting, civil discussion where they take a religious precept as a given for the sake of argument. But it does get grating, after a while, to ALWAYS have to do that.
There's a difference between going around proselytizing atheism and going around saying "No, I'm not going to accept your religion at face value, if you want to use it as evidence in the discussion you have to prove it from the ground up."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A sort of fenced-in "Free Speech Zone"? I seem to recall you were rather down on those when Bush wanted his detractors kept in cages.
This brilliant piece of hyperbole coming from the same guy who brought you "I want all theists put in concentration camps"
honestly, here, kom. you're only doing more to convince everybody that you should be the test case for subject bannin'
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Let me apologize in advance that this post won't really contribute much to the discussion, but I'll definitely state that when I first joined the forum I was very impressed by the civility of the discussions here (even on very touchy subjects) but concur that it has recently steeply declined into most "interesting" discussions devolving within a page into something I don't see the point in getting involved with.
This disappoints me for multiple reasons. 1) I'd like to be involved, but have been pushed even further into lurker status because I don't feel that my voice will be heard over the melee led by the very caustic posters. 2) Many of those caustic posters have a lot of valuable things to say on other topics 3) Many of those caustic posters have a lot of useful information on the controversial topics, but can't seem to disengage fact from emotion
the only reason I'm posting this is to confirm that there's definitely a population of folks like me who would want to be involved in old-school discussions on any number of topics if they were civil like they once were. I'd love to have intelligent debate on religion, abortion, homosexuality, politics of the middle east, politics in the US, development of China etc. but lately all I am comfortable reading and commenting on are threads involving book suggestions and the like...
hopefully I'm not too bold in speaking for the mostly silent masses. Even if no one remembers it, I enjoyed meeting the ketchup and squoose clans as well as rivka and a few others when I became "real" a few years ago, and wish things had stayed at a level where I'd be happy to participate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A sort of fenced-in "Free Speech Zone"? I seem to recall you were rather down on those when Bush wanted his detractors kept in cages.
There is a difference between public property and a private forum. There is also a difference between restraining oneself and being restrained.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Also:
quote:If someone says, "My religion believes that all blue people should be killed" I think that it is our right (imo, our duty) to criticize that religion. Hopefully, we do it in a manner respectful of the poster*.
The thing is, the reasoning for "my religion says blue people should be killed" is often the same as the reasoning for "my religion says killing people is wrong." It's okay to call people on bad logic when that logic results in something that modern society has determined to be terrible, but less acceptable to call people on the same logic when used to prove something socially acceptable.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of subject-banning. If someone is dead-set on preaching their religion or lack thereof, so much so that they are willing to cause hurt to other posters and degrade the community, why would an order from the mod make them change?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It may be worth pointing out that the incident that caused this latest discussion didn't have much to do with religion, as such, at all. I don't know what specifically caused PJ to push the delete button, but in the thread about dog-foxes, I think the most probable issue was my posting on Ron's honesty and responding to his resulting challenge to "answer to him"; a personal attack, which didn't have any direct connection to religion. Now, once one participant says "You're dishonest", there is clearly no purpose to further discussion; whether the accusation is true or not, its mere utterance prevents any serious conversation, for how can one argue with a liar? What you say, he'll merely come up with some lie to contradict you. Thus, I do not intend to respond to Ron in the future. (Unless of course he wishes to arrange for that duel, which he can do through seconds; I feel convinced that Blayne would be willing to act as my friend in this matter.) So the immediate difficulty is unlikely to come up again, at least with Ron and me as the principals.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I'm not sure I understand the purpose of subject-banning. If someone is dead-set on preaching their religion or lack thereof, so much so that they are willing to cause hurt to other posters and degrade the community, why would an order from the mod make them change?
Subject banning is enforced by the threat of forum banning. It is intended for posters who, as it were, are only difficult on one subject, and are otherwise contributing in a reasonable way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Even if no one remembers it, I enjoyed meeting the ketchup and squoose clans as well as rivka and a few others when I became "real" a few years ago
Not only do we remember, I'm pretty sure it was discussed a few months ago at a more recent gathering.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
When KoM first came here I accused him of being a member of alt.atheism, because his arguments were repeated verbatim from arguments that I'd heard repeatedly over there.
It upset me, because KoM was bringing the same tone into Hatrack that had caused me to leave a.a. and he was getting away with it. Other posters who got insulting were told that it wasn't acceptable here, and they either changed their tone or left. KoM was told repeatedly that his tone was not acceptable, but he made it his work to push the limits to the point where either the forum changed to accept his behavior, or he was kicked out. We know which one happened.
Now we are in a thread where we discuss the possible future of Hatrack and most of us are trying to reach agreement, yet KoM's posts offer the same ultimatum: Either accept my behavior, even though it defies the TOS, or ban me.
Before KoM came we had many arguments over the validity of religion, and sometimes it got intense. I know Tom Davidson and I didn't give "theism that free respect it's always had." We openly voiced our views as just that: OUR views. Which we were entitled to, even if you didn't agree with them. We did not assert that theism was stupid, but we did assert that if theistic belief systems deserve respect then so do atheistic belief systems, and for precisely the same reason: because it is what we believe, and our beliefs are as deserving of respect as those of theists.
Therefore, if we can discuss religion on this forum, then we can discuss atheism. Actually, I think one of the major reasons this forum has lost it's appeal is precisely because this issue has largely been settled.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It may be worth pointing out that the incident that caused this latest discussion didn't have much to do with religion, as such, at all.
Yes, yes, but don't forget that at hatrack soul-searching is a hobby. Since the most recent instantiation was not caused by Kat vs Rabbit round XIII, another scapegoat must be found. With 30 seconds worth of deep thought I have decided that you have been selected over Ron because your average post is more strident; Ron is an amicable poster until one of his 'facts' are challenged.
Anyways to other matters - my joke from the previous page - is physics not sufficiently similar to math in the public consciousness that in casual conversations (on airplanes and the like) you have not encountered the type of reaction that the joke plays upon?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Which we were entitled to, even if you didn't agree with them. We did not assert that theism was stupid, but we did assert that if theistic belief systems deserve respect then so do atheistic belief systems, and for precisely the same reason: because it is what we believe, and our beliefs are as deserving of respect as those of theists.
Well, there's your mistake then. Or, to put it differently, that's necessary groundwork, but you need to put a building on top or you'll be stuck with having a construction site instead of a house. Having established that atheism may be discussed, you should next have gone on to argue that it is the only view with any actual evidence backing it, and that (teachable moment here: Before I came to Hatrack I would not have believed that this was necessary to say) looking at evidence is the correct way to evaluate religious claims.
Atheism and theism are not of equal worth; one is correct, the other isn't. It's not a question of respect, any more than heliocentrism versus geocentrism is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Anyways to other matters - my joke from the previous page - is physics not sufficiently similar to math in the public consciousness that in casual conversations (on airplanes and the like) you have not encountered the type of reaction that the joke plays upon?
Oh, now I get it. I thought it was a nerds-don't-have-sex joke. But honestly it's not that funny anyway.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
KoM, you can tell yourself that all you want, but whether your assertion is true or not does change the fact that your being disrespectful is damaging both the forum and atheism as a whole.
Edit: I'm referring to his assertion that religion does not deserve respect, not that the joke wasn't funny. In case it was unclear. For the record I'm still not sure I get the joke but I think I'll be okay anyway.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:It's okay to call people on bad logic when that logic results in something that modern society has determined to be terrible, but less acceptable to call people on the same logic when used to prove something socially acceptable.
I agree. But I'm happier to let those logical failures pass by for now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Atheism and theism are not of equal worth; one is correct, the other isn't. It's not a question of respect, any more than heliocentrism versus geocentrism is.
KoM: proving negatives every day
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
KoM, here's the thing: we all know that we, as atheists, are more rational than people who aren't. But it is bad form to go around crowing this at the top of our voices, in the same way it would be obnoxious for someone who's very physically fit to post, in every thread that obliquely touches on nutrition and/or exercise, that all anyone needs to do to be thin is to eat less and exercise more, just like him. It may still in fact be true, but it's still obnoxious.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: KoM, you can tell yourself that all you want, but whether your assertion is true or not does change the fact that your being disrespectful is damaging both the forum and atheism as a whole.
Assertions of fact are all the better for being backed up by evidence. Do you have any? (Also, a definition of "damage to atheism as a whole" would be helpful).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you have any?
I do. I can name at least five people who will not post here because you do. This is at least partly their fault, but there's no denying that your aggressiveness on this topic has been harmful.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Although you can't prove negatives, and KoM's word choice does seem to suggest that he can, he is right that-- based on evidence-- it is hard to say that atheism and theism are both of equal worth any more than dragonism and adragonism are of equal worth.
It is generally acknowledged that no scientific evidence for the existence of dragons exists. Therefore, the logical default position should be adragonism: dragons do not exist.
People who believe that dragons exist in the absence of scientific evidence are invoking something more: faith. This is fine. However, given that there is no evidence for dragons, I think that the logical response is to not believe in dragons. If some other step (such as faith) is taken, this step flies in the face of available evidence. It is therefore less valid, provided you believe in the validity of scientific evidence.
The same arguments can be applied to theism and atheism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BTW, I want to state for the record that the fact that I am addressing the issue of KoM's posts does not mean that I think his are the only or even the main problem.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It may be worth pointing out that the incident that caused this latest discussion didn't have much to do with religion, as such, at all. I don't know what specifically caused PJ to push the delete button, but in the thread about dog-foxes, I think the most probable issue was my posting on Ron's honesty and responding to his resulting challenge to "answer to him"; a personal attack, which didn't have any direct connection to religion. Now, once one participant says "You're dishonest", there is clearly no purpose to further discussion; whether the accusation is true or not, its mere utterance prevents any serious conversation, for how can one argue with a liar? What you say, he'll merely come up with some lie to contradict you. Thus, I do not intend to respond to Ron in the future. (Unless of course he wishes to arrange for that duel, which he can do through seconds; I feel convinced that Blayne would be willing to act as my friend in this matter.) So the immediate difficulty is unlikely to come up again, at least with Ron and me as the principals.
Aye.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had. (And that, once you cease giving it such respect, there seem to be a lot more visible genitalia than you would generally expect a sovereign ruler to display.) You'll note that for all the exaggerated nicey-niceness, nobody was convinced by anyone else or came to any actual conclusions. Give me a willingness to actually discuss the dang issue until a decision is reached, over flowers and fluffy bunnies, any day.
The problem I have with the way this has played out is that every thread even remotely touching on religion turns into the same argument. It might be the only argument you want to have, but it's not the only discussion other people want to have. There was a thread on the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage that could have been really interesting, had it not turned into "religious people are irrational" "uh uh" "uh huh." The same with dozens of others. It's comparable to if someone here thought videogames were a waste of time and insisted on turning every thread about them into an argument about whether they were worth playing at all. They might have a valid point, but the rest of the people in the thread want to talk about whatever the actual topic was. That's not special consideration due to religious topics, it's basic consideration due to people.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made.
You and me both.
Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
Without religion posts from those two, this forum would have been much more pleasant over the last 2-3 years. Just those two, and just that subject.
I'm all for subject bans. Actually, I'm all for putting them both on a moderated posting status like newbies on Yahoo groups. Every post must be approved by the mods before it's allowed. That might cut down on some of the worst nonsense.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dana, On alt.atheism I used to refer to these as "init" arguments, as in "is not!" "is too!"
That's about all that exists there now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
I disagree in the case of both posters. (And, yes, I will be explaining it shortly )
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Assertions of fact are all the better for being backed up by evidence. Do you have any? (Also, a definition of "damage to atheism as a whole" would be helpful).
Evidence of damage to the forum has been discussed at length. I'll go ahead and admit I don't have widespread statistical evidence to back up my damage to atheism as a whole statement. However, note the fact that my father, an atheist, felt compelled to leave alt.atheism precisely because your behavior was common there.
I assume you're trying to emulate people like Dawkins. I'm not entirely sure whether or not I like what Dawkins does in the first place, but there is a major difference between Dawkins (a world renowned biologist and atheist) who gets publishing deals based on his books being confrontation, which in turn helps provide atheists something to rally around and come out of the closet... and you, who have come to one particular corner of the internet where there already were plenty of respectable atheists and creating a hostile environment where it's hard to have a productive conversation about religion at all.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
I think that this may be one of the least productive types of statements one can make. You're challenging the positions of people who disagree with you before anyone's even stated any. In fact, you're making it personal.
I'm just saying. It's not particularly rude and it doesn't break any rules, but it doesn't usually encourage productive discussion.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
I think that this may be one of the least productive types of statements one can make. You're challenging the positions of people who disagree with you before anyone's even stated any. In fact, you're making it personal.
I'm just saying. It's not particularly rude and it doesn't break any rules, but it doesn't usually encourage productive discussion.
Actually I didn't mean it personally, but I said what I did because I think anyone who disagrees with that statement is trolling hard, most probably. It's not a certainty, but...a high probability, IMHO. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I assume you're trying to emulate people like Dawkins.
Gah! No! I hate this! Dawkins is generally freakishly, Britishly polite! Seriously.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I doubt this post will be as comprehensive, because I don't think it should wait until I can address everything. And if I had been around earlier it would have received comment earlier.
KoM, I don't know where the line will end up being on a lot of issues, but while holding your position doesn't break the rules of this forum, I think it's quite clear that the way you express them does. If you think that's wrong and the people who run this place have their heads in the ground, that's also a position you are welcome to hold. If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned. I don't like it -- I'd rather you could simply follow the rules while continuing to disagree with them. But that part of it is your choice.
I recognize that there isn't pure clarity on the issue -- as Teshi said, it's difficult to separate criticism of the religion from criticism of the believer. It seems you don't even care to make the distinction, though.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I rarely post in threads and mostly lurk pretty much because of the hostility. I enjoy talking about religion and will happily argue positions I don't believe in, because most people I know will do so in a genial, curious, spirited way. It's in the nature of academic give-and-take.
I don't talk here because I don't feel like getting into shouting matches or having to prove God exists or doesn't exist. There are so many other interesting facets of human experience. It doesn't always matter if God exists or not, because people will continue to believe in religions regardless, and that in itself is worthy of discussion and debate, not to mention actual, descriptive debates about beliefs and customs. Really, I'm sad that I can't enjoy those discussions here.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I don't talk here because I don't feel like... having to prove God exists or doesn't exist.
Seriously. Personally, I manage to get through my day, week, and even month, quite often, without ever arguing this question, online or IRL. It's just not that interesting to me. Maybe after Moore's Law has run its course, then it might start being more interesting to me. Until then, I hold out hope that science will get good enough to answer all questions, including the existence of God/spirits/souls, or equivalent things. Meanwhile, I don't have enough knowledge/brains to figure out the answer, so I don't talk or think about it too much.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made. That's how counter-productive I find his tone and presentation.
I feel like collateral damage.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made.
You and me both.
Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
Without religion posts from those two, this forum would have been much more pleasant over the last 2-3 years. Just those two, and just that subject.
I'm all for subject bans. Actually, I'm all for putting them both on a moderated posting status like newbies on Yahoo groups. Every post must be approved by the mods before it's allowed. That might cut down on some of the worst nonsense.
Does anyone else find it ironic to see personal attacks in a thread called "Stop the Personal Attacks, Please"?
Papa J, can you step in, please?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Actually I didn't mean it personally, but I said what I did because I think anyone who disagrees with that statement is trolling hard, most probably. It's not a certainty, but...a high probability, IMHO.
Gotcha.
As for productivity, it probably isn't all that productive for me to play decorum police at a forum in which I rarely post anymore. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made.
You and me both.
Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
Without religion posts from those two, this forum would have been much more pleasant over the last 2-3 years. Just those two, and just that subject.
I'm all for subject bans. Actually, I'm all for putting them both on a moderated posting status like newbies on Yahoo groups. Every post must be approved by the mods before it's allowed. That might cut down on some of the worst nonsense.
Does anyone else find it ironic to see personal attacks in a thread called "Stop the Personal Attacks, Please"?
Papa J, can you step in, please?
Hey, I've got an idea. How about we let Lisa and KoM moderate each other? Their posts are only allowed through if the other one approves.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Again -- there's a lot in this thread to reply to. For now, I'd appreciate it, especially as we work through this, if those who wish to discuss this could discuss behaviors rather than people.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: It is therefore less valid, provided you believe in the validity of scientific evidence.
No.
It is less valid if you believe that scientific evidence is the only type of valid evidence. Which is a perfectly reasonable worldview, though not one I happen to share.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:People who believe that dragons exist in the absence of scientific evidence are invoking something more: faith. This is fine.
No; it's not. It is evil.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
what the heck is your definition of evil?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lots of people on this board believe homosexuality is evil, too, and yet they manage to stay civil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned. I don't like it -- I'd rather you could simply follow the rules while continuing to disagree with them. But that part of it is your choice.
If you don't mind: Am I subject-banned, or not? This conditional seems to imply a final warning before the ban comes down, but I'd hate to interpret a mod order wrongly and overstep a line I didn't know was there.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Maybe Hatrack duels aren't a bad idea. Something like this perhaps?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: what the heck is your definition of evil?
In this case: Selfishness so extreme that it demands the universe bend to match one's personal opinion. I do not say that this is the only form of evil, of course; just the one most commonly encountered on discussion boards.
quote:Lots of people on this board believe homosexuality is evil, too, and yet they manage to stay civil.
I think perhaps they might start objecting rather loudly if someone started spamming gay porn all over a thread. That aside, it's true that not many of the theists here have the courage of their convictions.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
You may consider the conditional a final warning.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I assume you're trying to emulate people like Dawkins.
Gah! No! I hate this! Dawkins is generally freakishly, Britishly polite! Seriously.
Indeed. I think one could reasonably make the case that KoM is emulating the approach of a Hitchens or a PZ Myers, the metaphorical bad cop(s) to Dawkins' good cop. One exhibit, his interaction with questions during the release of The God Delusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
I don't think one can reasonably make the points that he did and as effectively while being more polite. One cannot say the same about KoM's approach.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Actually, I'll go one further and say that anyone who DOESN'T agree with this may have some explaining to do.
I disagree in the case of both posters. (And, yes, I will be explaining it shortly )
Wanted to address this after fully finishing dinner. It seems that the case of KoM is moot depending on exactly what subject he is specifically subject banned from.
However, I have to note why I disagree in Lisa's case (or rather in the case of Lisa's behaviour).
Lisa's behaviour in regards to religion in general, I don't find a problem despite fundamentally disagreeing with it totally. While she doesn't hesitate to state her views when they are relevant, she is honest about her reasoning, and doesn't generally bring it up to "troll."
In fact, the behaviour that is more controversial is merely when she replies on threads having to do with Israel*, and I think that in some cases there are actual trolls that she is responding to that may deserve a "subject ban." (in quotes because I disagree with the practice in theory)
* I can see how this would be a controversial line to draw
Posted by Hedwig (Member # 2315) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Intervene more, and at more length. At the very least, step in in situations like the one between Ace of Spades and Lisa, where he's being disingenuously anti-Semitic and she's being, well, Lisa, and publicly suggest that neither of them are entitled to do what they're doing. You don't need to ban either one; you just need to remind them that you can, and use that "power" to get straight answers from them.
What does "disingenuously anti-Semitic mean? Does that mean that she's an anti-Semite feigning outrage at being identified as such, or that she's only pretending to be anti-Semitic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think being actually anti semitic in words but claiming its not anti semitic.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Probably most people would agree that we cannot "prove" conclusively either that God exists or does not exist. Therefore it is foolish for anyone to make assertions either way, including saying that all theists are illogical, or some such sentiment, which is really just propaganda--uttered by people I would suspect feel on the defensive, because they know they are such a small minority.
It is entirely proper to discuss the comparative likelihood of the existence of God or the non-existence of God. It would seem really hard to credit as illogical the position that the immense complexity of the universe, and especially the DNA molecule, tend to argue in favor of the existence of God. Atheists cannot deny that this is reasonable. All they can do to counter this is to try to distract people with the question, "Where did God come from?" Since we have to account for how the universe got here anyway, it is no more improbable to posit the existence of God than to posit that the physical universe just created itself somehow. The former would account for the high level of order we observe in the cosmos, because it requires Intelligence to create order. The latter would not explain this at all. Something else in addition would have to be proposed and added to it.
This is a philosophical debate. It has religious implications, as well. But such debate requires logical argument, not mere opinionated assertions. And regardless of the arguments presented, everyone is entitled to weigh for himself the weight of the arguments, and make his/her own choices about comparative likelihood.
To say that theists have to be illogical, or inferior in any way intellectually to atheists, is in fact an attempt to deny others freedom of choice in an area where each individual truly does have freedom and the right to choose for himself or herself what he will believe is most likely. It is not at all a matter of who is more intelligent, it is a matter of wisdom. Who is wise, and who is a fool? In that vein, it might be asked what does a person stand to lose if he believes that God exists and He does not?--And in contrast, what does a person stand to lose if he does not believe in God, and He does exist?
Fear of the wrath of God, or of losing everything; or the hope of gaining everything including eternal life--are not the right motivations Christians would urge on people for believing in God, and certainly not for loving Him. While these may be inducements for starting out, we would also urge the mature concerns for what is Good and Just, and for the prospect that agapé love will prevail as the ruling principle of the whole universe. But these are valid questions in terms of whether someone is being wise or foolish in terms of risk assessment.
Why does one really choose not to believe in God? Is it really just because of what that one perceives as the "weight of evidence?" What is so horrible to some people about believing in God? The vast majority of people do not agree that the weight of evidence favors non-belief.
I can only guess it must be the prospect of being answerable to God as Judge, on the basis of divinely given Moral Law. Deny God, and you deny the Judgment, you deny that you are a sinner, you deny that you have any reason to feel guilt or shame for anything. But then, why do even atheists still feel guilt and shame, anyway?
True, the Law of God condemns all humans as sinners, because we fall short of matching God's righteousness as the ultimate standard of measuring what is righteous. But the Bible teaches that God has established for us a way back to renewed fellowship with Him, without doing away with the Law. The ultimate righteousness of the Law is the agapé love of God--which creates value in the undeserving object of the love--and so it is God's own righteousness that ultimately saves us--if we will confess we are sinners, and that God alone is righteous.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I doubt this post will be as comprehensive, because I don't think it should wait until I can address everything. And if I had been around earlier it would have received comment earlier.
KoM, I don't know where the line will end up being on a lot of issues, but while holding your position doesn't break the rules of this forum, I think it's quite clear that the way you express them does. If you think that's wrong and the people who run this place have their heads in the ground, that's also a position you are welcome to hold. If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned. I don't like it -- I'd rather you could simply follow the rules while continuing to disagree with them. But that part of it is your choice.
I recognize that there isn't pure clarity on the issue -- as Teshi said, it's difficult to separate criticism of the religion from criticism of the believer. It seems you don't even care to make the distinction, though.
What do we do when a certain someone's argument boils down to "God said so, you're all doomed, dinosaurs are dragons, and all of you are wrong despite all the evidence saying otherwise that I'm conveniently ignoring because it isn't good enough for me".
At some point we can't convince him and the thread will continue to go downhill.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Well, this thread got derailed and went precipitously downhill quickly - though that's not at all surprising.
I'll leave you to it, then.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Gah! No! I hate this! Dawkins is generally freakishly, Britishly polite! Seriously.
You've said this before, and while I agree with the statement "Religious fanatics get away with being way more rude and confrontational than Dawkins is" I think that regardless of how politely he speaks, he does still do things that are counterproductive in a similar way to how KoM does things. In particular I'm recalling a documentary where he goes and talks to a bunch of creationist students and tells them they're wrong in a way that felt like he was talking down to them and didn't give them any reason to question their preconceived idea. And then of course, there's going and titling your book "The God Delusion." However well founded the ideas behind it are (and from what I've read, even in atheist circles, the book doesn't disprove anything other than a very narrow definition of God), the title immediately implies that theists are fools and puts them on the defensive.
The other thing is that regardless of how Dawkins ACTUALLY acts, he's developed the reputation for brash rudeness and there are definitely people who try to emulate that reputation, without Dawkin's wit or charisma.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Ron, your posts on religion more often than not read (to me) like proselytizing. Independent of the truth of your posts, that makes them against the rules here. Please stop.
Blayne -- at that point, or any point, one can stop taking part without conceding (whether another person claims victory or not).
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Good grief, even a thread asking us to clean things up has devolved into whether God exists or not.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But Blayne, you are misrepresenting the position of those like me who oppose your views. My arguments are backed up with reason and concrete evidence. Your refusal to accept them does not entitle you to ridicule my position as if I did not give you good arguments.
Why must the thread "continue to go downhill" as long as you cannot force me to accept your views? Who is it who is really doing violence to civil, reasonable discussion?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Papa Janitor, I was only trying to explain why belief in God is not a negative thing, but a good thing. Many atheists have only a very negative view of religion.
Proselytizing is trying to persuade people to join your church or religion. While I have identified my denominational affiliation in the past, here and now I have only stated the issues of righteousness and the desirability of beliving in God in purely philosophical terms--which I hope are clearly enough stated for anyone to understand them.
If you wish to ban me for speaking of the agapé love of God, I would be honored.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And then of course, there's going and titling your book "The God Delusion." However well founded the ideas behind it are (and from what I've read, even in atheist circles, the book doesn't disprove anything other than a very narrow definition of God), the title immediately implies that theists are fools and puts them on the defensive.
I recently watched parts of Wheels on Meals. There is a segment where the main characters lose the four bolts that attach a car wheel to the car and are stranded. They encounter a crazy person who tells them to simply remove one bolt from each remaining wheel to attach the last wheel to the car and get into town. When they act surprised, the crazy person responds something to the effect of, "I'm crazy, not stupid!"
I think the general idea applies here, if you got the message that the title meant that theists are fools then you received the wrong message.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that some may be imitating what they "think" they hear him saying (badly).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I haven't read the book, so I don't know how the book addresses theists. However, I know that without having read the book, I heard the phrase "God Delusion" and my reaction was not "well, this must be a nuanced look at how people can be crazy in one particular area while still being fully functioning intelligent citizens," my reaction was a (sarcastic) "well, that's going to go over well with the theists he's trying to convert."
The title of your book is the first impression you make, and if you go for shock/insult value to get people to pick your book up you're going to have work overtime to get them OFF the defensive. (reviews I've read of the God Delusions suggest he didn't really succeed there). I know I am not alone in my interpretation of the title's message. If I'm wrong, that makes Dawkin's bad at communicating, not me bad at interpreting.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Papa Janitor, I was only trying to explain why belief in God is not a negative thing, but a good thing. Many atheists have only a very negative view of religion.
Proselytizing is trying to persuade people to join your church or religion. While I have identified my denominational affiliation in the past, here and now I have only stated the issues of righteousness and the desirability of beliving in God in purely philosophical terms--which I hope are clearly enough stated for anyone to understand them.
If you wish to ban me for speaking of the agapé love of God, I would be honored.
Oh wow, matyrdom if that doesn't prove what we're saying...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Heh. I must say that as martyrdoms go, "I was banned from Hatrack on account of my opinions" is unlikely to impress anyone with the power to bind and to loose.
Anyway, Blayne, I think you would be better off doing as I did, and just ignoring him. There's clearly no getting through his web of self-deceit short of a nuke; since, alas, those aren't available yet (the Internet tech path needs some serious rebalancing, IMO), Coventry is probably better than trying to engage with him. There's no profit in dealing with those who won't argue honestly.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:It is less valid if you believe that scientific evidence is the only type of valid evidence. Which is a perfectly reasonable worldview, though not one I happen to share.
Fair enough.
*
I'd like to make the distinction between Dawkins being polite (which he is frequently) and soft with his beliefs (which he is not). He can be quite caustic. He's certainly uncompromising.
PZ Meyers is not significantly more caustic than Dawkins, he's merely less polite. KoM is less polite still.
Part of the problem is that people like Ron Lambert, who has been told off by Papa Janitor in this thread, do say things that are as offensive as KoM says. It is as hard for an atheist not to speak out against comments like Ron's as I imagine it is for a theist not to speak out against KoM.
One thing that I think falls by the wayside is that many atheists (not myself, but many others) are in a minority in their community. They are constantly presented by the same arguments that they must deal with. These arguments often carry some implicit or explicit moral judgment (see Ron's comment above).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However well founded the ideas behind it are (and from what I've read, even in atheist circles, the book doesn't disprove anything other than a very narrow definition of God), the title immediately implies that theists are fools and puts them on the defensive.
The central point of The God Delusion is that there is no more evidence for God than there is for any other popular delusion -- like alien abduction, etc. -- and yet we accord to religious belief (and religious belief alone) an odd respect that declares it "out of bounds." Since that's the entire point of the book, I think it's a perfectly reasonable title. It's also worth noting that the book is not intended to persuade theists that God does not exist; rather, it is intended to persuade atheists that they should not be afraid to simply come out and say, "No, I don't think your God exists" for fear of being rude.
In fact, you might observe that the mere idea that "The God Delusion" is a rude, offensive title is itself evidence of how unreasonable theists are about this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Teshi, it is hard for theists to refrain from speaking out against the comments Ron makes. The only thing that makes it easier for me is that I wouldn't know where to start.
Note: that is a comment on Ron's posts not on Ron himself. FWIW.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom: You wouldn't be offended if someone referred to you as deluded?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Good grief, even a thread asking us to clean things up has devolved into whether God exists or not.
Indeed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You wouldn't be offended if someone referred to you as deluded?
Imagine for a moment that you are an atheist. Someone tells you, "I have been told by my God, whose presence I regularly feel in my heart, that I should not eat meat on Sundays." Clearly, this person has not been told anything of the kind. You are left with two options: either that person is lying about having had the experience of feeling something that he interpreted as the presence of God, or that person felt something and has interpreted it to be consistent with his expectations of God. The latter is a classic case of delusion; the former is something considerably more sinister. In this case, then, delusion is the more charitable of the possible interpretations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, your experience with Christians is very different from mine. I cannot having that conversation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nowhere did I specify "Christian." Anyone who thinks he's felt the presence of God in his life falls into the appropriate category.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Clearly, this person has not been told anything of the kind.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't want to derail any further. We could take this to another thread?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You didn't actually answer my question, Tom.
I understand why you think theists are deluded, I really do. But there are several ways to title that book without using the term "delusion," and some of them would be more accurate about the subject covered. "The God Taboo." "The God Card." And so forth.
So you might be able to imagine why theists would read that title and assume that the author was being inflammatory just because he could.
ETA: Would you refer to someone with mental disabilities as "retarded" to their face, even if you knew it was offensive to them? Even though the person in question technically is mentally retarded?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So you might be able to imagine why theists would read that title and assume that the author was being inflammatory just because he could.
Oh, sure. But my point is that, as understandable as their confusion is, they're wrong.
Dawkins called the book The God Delusion because the entire thrust of the book is that atheists should stop being shy about calling a belief in God delusional. Had he shied away from using the word "delusion" in the title, he would have actually subverted his whole point.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Clearly, this person has not been told anything of the kind.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Yeah, but you've got to realize that, upon first impression, someone saying that God talks to them seems either extremely arrogant or extremely crazy. What if I told you that God told me to send you some extra goats, because your goat is going to become a ship captain and leave you for months at at time?
Exactly. I'm not saying it's impossible, but, because of its extreme improbability (based on previous experience) it may beg the question.
This is why religions mainly succeed by outbreeding each other. It's easier to RAISE someone to believe something than it is to convert a full-grown adult.
I happen to have been raised in such a crazy religion (Young Earth Creationist Fundamentalist) that I had no choice but to leave it, once I saw that these people really weren't going to grow out of their beliefs. I still can't talk to them, except to pass the time of day, even though I grew up knowing them. We have so little common ground. It's sad. They're nice people, just like Ron Lambert, but...the moon is not made of green cheese, and I'm not going to start saying it is, even if refusing to do so costs me some social closeness.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Long time lurker here - see my member number. Maybe my position as a longtime outside observer will be of some interest. I'm always a little surprised at the responses to King of Men and Lisa. I'm an atheist, so of course I support some of KoM's positions, but I'm also fairly anti-State-of-Israel, and find Lisa's politics odious. This being said, I never see them actually insulting anyone. Their pronouncements are harsh and partisan, but they are open and honest about their partisanship. They tend to be the only posters I see here that have no pretense of "empty" objectivity.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oops. I edited my post above rather than posting again because I assumed this thread was moving too slowly.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Richard Dawkins is not a nasty person. He is just tired, as many of us are, of seeing religion being handed a "get out of criticism free" card. One could speak in the exact tones he uses to criticize someone's politics, or their football team, or their choice of television viewing, and no one would blink. But we are forbidden--by social conventions, of course, and not by any actual law--to criticize someone's religion for no other reason than that it is their religion. It's tiresome, and it's time for those of us who reject all religions to stand up and say we won't be silenced about it anymore.
Now, I don't think that means we ought to have license to make nasty personal attacks. Except, of course, insofar as those of us in the United States have the Constitutional right to say any damn thing we like. And we do, thanks. I vehemently oppose the concept of subject bans, and I say this as someone who has often seen KoM make nasty personal attacks on the religious and bring up religion in completely irrelevant contexts for no reason but to do so, and wished he would just shut the hell up.
But wishing someone would restrain themselves out of a sense of decency, or punishing them for actually violating the terms of service, is not at all the same as handing down a ukase declaring that they, and they alone, are forbidden to so much as weigh in on a given topic. I think that's every bit as counterproductive to real discussion as are KoM's non-sequitur ad hominems.
If you're going to start a thread on religion, it would be fatuous to assume that religion is not going to be criticized, or to complain when it is. Those of us who disagree with religion are free to claim that right. But there's no reason to drag it into irrelevant conversations just to say something nasty about it, either, and there's equally no reason we shouldn't be able to have genuine debates about controversial issues without its degeneration into name-calling.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
I can't remember your religious views so I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate or not, but if you substitute "Optimus Prime told me that a nearby airport base is filled with Decepticons and I need to blow it up to save the world" you get a statement with the same truth value. You are not a functioning adult if you accept that statement at face value.
My issue, however, is with the second half of Tom's statement. "You have two options." Well, you have two options on what to personally BELIEVE, but a wide variety of options of what action to actually pursue. You can roll your eyes. You can demand evidence. You can just ignore the person. You can tell the person they are lying and/or delusional. And if you choose to call them delusional, they are not going to be slightest bit impressed that you chose that instead of calling them a liar. They'll either get angry or mentally file you as "someone who clearly doesn't understand where I'm coming from so I'm not going to take them as seriously." Neither one is conducive to actually getting them to change their mind.
"The God Delusion" is a useful title insofar as it is provocative and got people to read or at least look at the book. I don't really blame Dawkin's for choosing it because a less controversial title wouldn't have attracted as much attention. And I do certainly agree with his thesis. I have no idea whether the book succeeded in changing the minds of some ambivalent people who hadn't made up their minds yet but it certainly didn't change the minds of (m)any actual theists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think where you use the phrase "pretense of 'empty' objectivity," someone else might use the word "tact." It's worth noting that at least part of the reason Lisa and KoM get the responses they do is that they are among the few posters on the board who have actually endorsed and/or wished for occasions of mass murder. This tends to color the responses to their posts.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I hope I'm not contributing to a discussion about whether or not God exists. I still feel like I'm speaking on the topic of decorum.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't want to derail any further. We could take this to another thread?
Seconded. I feel like I had just gotten to feeling like I could contribute something, and then the whole point of what I was trying to say came true in all the wrong ways.
I'd like to go back to discussing how we can all be a bit more civil and less inflammatory, and better at self-moderating. I know I'm just a lurker, but there's a lot of people who used to post regularly who I miss quite a bit. I haven't even seen ClaudiaTherese in a while, and she was someone I always depended on for a classy, courteous, and thoughtful response even when things were ugly.
I think sometimes I lurk because I know if I post I won't measure up to that standard. A few times I have posted in sarcasm or snark, and it always turns out to be something I regret.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:It's worth noting that at least part of the reason Lisa and KoM get the responses they do is that they are among the few posters on the board who have actually endorsed and/or wished for occasions of mass murder. This tends to color the responses to their posts.
The antipathy towards them certainly predates these endorsements, right?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Just wanted to stick my nose in...
I think I missed the hatrack golden age. But over 50% of what attracts me to this forum is the religious discussion.
And at first, I couldn't stand KoM. But I appreciate his existence, I appreciate him challenging, pushing back, his fierce logic - he represents a truth that must be contended with.
Is he obnoxious at times? Sure. But I think what's fair is that he should be treated like an obnoxious person at a dinner party. IF he, matter-of-factly states his position, speaking in terms of what IS, and what ISN'T, and waiting for you to see the clarity of his words, then tell him you'd prefer not to speak with him on the subject.
If we do not engage when he treats us like inferior minds, then he will lose interest in commenting from the sidelines.
I think KoM productively contributes to the discussion on religion. It'd be a shame to have him subject-banned.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't remember your religious views so I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate or not, but if you substitute "Optimus Prime told me that a nearby airport base is filled with Decepticons and I need to blow it up to save the world" you get a statement with the same truth value.
I disagree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. No, actually. KoM, in one of his very earliest posts, infamously declared that he'd be happy to help along any religious person who wanted to meet God. And Lisa, of course, leapt right into a discussion of Palestinian border disputes by saying that, in her opinion, Israel had been more than generous enough and really should just drive them into the sea. (Note: I'm paraphrasing in each case, but not actually by much.)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I have no idea whether the book succeeded in changing the minds of some ambivalent people who hadn't made up their minds yet but it certainly didn't change the minds of (m)any actual theists.
I don't know if this counts, but I always used to call myself agnostic on the grounds that I can't know for certain there's no God. While I still technically classify myself as an agnostic regarding the more general question of whether there is or has been some form of Creator, I now come right out with it and say, with regards to any one specific version of a deity (Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, etc.) that I am, in fact, an atheist. If there is some Creator out there, I don't think any of my fellow primates can claim to know the details. And I'm now less inclined to let myself be silenced about that. And yes, it is thanks to having read The God Delusion and the book Christopher Hitchens released around the same time, called (are you all ready for this one?), God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
It's not that Dawkins and Hitchens converted me away from theism or even true ambivalence. They just gave me that final push to recognize consciously what I'd always believed inside anyway. On Dawkins' scale of belief, where a 1 is absolutely convinced there is a God, a 7 is absolutely convinced there is not, and a 4 assigns an equal probability to both options, I rate myself as a 6. As does Professor Dawkins himself, in fact.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
Don't you realize that you're being a little too forward when you make this suggestion for the second time?
Lisa and KoM are people. They're even friends of others on this forum. Yea, they may give us some trouble, and they may have rubbed people the wrong way, but they are genuine people. Let's keep brainstorming until we come up with something a little less demeaning.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: If you're going to start a thread on religion, it would be fatuous to assume that religion is not going to be criticized, or to complain when it is. Those of us who disagree with religion are free to claim that right. But there's no reason to drag it into irrelevant conversations just to say something nasty about it, either, and there's equally no reason we shouldn't be able to have genuine debates about controversial issues without its degeneration into name-calling.
But what I don't understand is why some atheists have to be very nasty about it. There are religions I disagree with to the very bone, and yet can credit their adherents with sincerity and good intentions. Doesn't stop me from engaging them with challenging questions, or pointing out flaws in the theology, mythology, or historiography. Nor does it stop me from privately thinking they really haven't thought things through far enough.
I have never, however, felt it would be effective to say "Well, you are wrong, so it really doesn't matter what you think," which is what I see so often here, from both sides. It's not polite, for one, and I'm not simply talking about this "God Taboo". Dismissing anyone's opinions as worthless is rude. More importantly, it's simply not effective. You don't change minds. You create hostility, resentment, and close down dialogue. When you do this, you lose all opportunity to present your ideas in terms the other will understand. And perhaps most importantly, dismissing an opinion based on the theist/atheist divide is foolish because in the end, understanding why people act as they do is far better for achieving one's ends than simply ignoring them.
But mostly I'm just frustrated right now because there is no room to talk about any aspect of religious experience, even in the abstract, because it always seems to devolve to this.
I think it's time to go back to lurking until the urge to throttle people verbally passes. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
Don't you realize that you're being a little too forward when you make this suggestion for the second time?
Lisa and KoM are people. They're even friends of others on this forum. Yea, they may give us some trouble, and they may have rubbed people the wrong way, but they are genuine people. Let's keep brainstorming until we come up with something a little less demeaning.
If I were mod, I'd have banned them both years ago. They deserve to be demeaned, IMHO. Being humbled can teach you. Kindness and tolerance have their limits of usefulness, again, IMHO. But whatever.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For what it's worth, EL, I totally agree with you.
Steven: There's a difference between being humbled and being demeaned. No poster on this board deserves to be demeaned. Some deserve to be banned, which would be the normal consequences of their actions.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: But mostly I'm just frustrated right now because there is no room to talk about any aspect of religious experience, even in the abstract, because it always seems to devolve to this.
Hit the nail on the head for me. I have a lot of deep religious experience to share, as do many people on this board. Sure the religion vs. atheist dimension is a fun and productive discussion to have, but there is a lot of rich discussion that the theists can have among themselves that I think that the atheists should at least allow us to have.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: But what I don't understand is why some atheists have to be very nasty about it.
For the same reason anyone has to be nasty during a disagreement; because they care more about being right than they do about being civilized. Atheists don't have a monopoly on that attitude, I assure you.
For myself, I'll tell someone exactly what I think of their beliefs if they really want to know. And if they try to push their beliefs on me, I'll tell them exactly what I think of that, too. But I don't go looking for those fights. And if someone says to me, "I'll pray for you" because they care that I'm going through a hard time, I'll say, "Thank you." Inside I'm rolling my eyes, but it would be rude to no good purpose to express that externally.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: For what it's worth, EL, I totally agree with you.
No poster on this board deserves to be demeaned.
And when you don't correct the problem behavior, it often gets worse. Doing nothing has clearly NOT solved the problem. It's been years. The mess has not gotten better on its own. Do you have some reason to think it will?
It can't always be about people's rights. Sometimes it's about getting some peace and stability. This is an internet forum, not real life. I'm a pretty tremendous defender of personal liberty as far as the actual world goes, but...this is not the world.
Didn't I mention above that I'd have banned them years ago? At least my suggestion gives them the chance to keep posting, which is what I assume they both want. There won't be much of a forum LEFT if they continue their current behavior. I'd say potentially destroying the forum is a good enough reason for some humble pie to be served, maybe.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well gosh Verily, and as I was just about to pray for you too!
Hobbes Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Hit the nail on the head for me. I have a lot of deep religious experience to share, as do many people on this board. Sure the religion vs. atheist dimension is a fun and productive discussion to have, but there is a lot of rich discussion that the theists can have among themselves that I think that the atheists should at least allow us to have.
Indeed. I remember several wonderful threads in past years where several Christian members of different denominations got together and discussed their differences. Nobody's mind was changed, even though we clearly all thought each other wrong.
However, we learned from each other and that knowledge made later discussions still more civil and nuanced. There was one particular thread where people were talking about Christology, and the participants came to some sort of understanding about why the LDS church gets so much flack for "not being Christian." It was a small revelation for the LDS participants, and a revelation also for me. It has coloured my interactions with the church ever since. It's helped me be more understanding, more generous, and enabled me to more intelligently engage in theological discussions.
If the New Atheism's mantra is that religion ruins everything, and that mantra is so important that it prevents discussions like that - discussions where people learned and became more understanding and more peaceful with each other - then really I want it to stay out of such discussions. The fruits of the conversations are pretty telling to me. Sure, some or all of us were still wrong at the end of it. But we were better people, and at the end of the day I'd prefer that than a bunch of angry, rude people who are "right."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the New Atheism's mantra is that religion ruins everything...
You could always do some reading on the subject and find out. Seriously.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Like most people associated with the so-called "New Atheism", I despise the term. To the extent that it's a movement at all, its sole purpose is to say we refuse to have our rights to free speech abrogated on the grounds that our refusal to believe in the unprovable is "offensive" to some. Religious people talk about their beliefs all the time, and we claim the right to do the same, openly and without shame.
Aside from that, there's no movement, and there's no "mantra". Many of us don't actually believe that religion is an unmitigated evil.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I honestly feel that if the majority of posters can't police themselves (as well as accepting hints or warnings from other, 'lay' posters) than no amount of moderating will fix the problem. Conversely, if all or almost all posters do try maintain a certain level of decorum then the occasional stray troll will be dealt with effectively without any official moderation. I feel strongly that Hatrack was at the latter position some time ago. I don't think it's at the former position now but clearly something needs to change. That whole thing about repeating your actions and expecting different results being insanity...
I agree with what was said earlier, that posting becomes difficult and without reward. Having very aggressive posters does spoil the mood and often topic of the thread. Perhaps more debilitating though is (as was pointed out before) it makes it incredibly unlikely that a polite, reasonable post will garner a response. Instead attention is riveted on the extreme posts. Just the way few are capable of reading a book with a 52" TV blaring away in front of them.
All this is, I suppose, just a restatement of the problem rather than a solution. I'm not sure what that solution is but I feel like it's out there. I do kind of doubt that it's another caustic discussion of religion however.
Hobbes Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Sorry, I didn't make it more apparent that I was referencing Hitchens' book (got "poisoned" mixed up for "ruins"). I definitely credit atheists with as many motivations and differing opinions as I do, say, Catholics. I'm trying to keep my frustration from influencing my posts too heavily, and evidently failing. My apologies. I hate it when my beliefs get generalised, and I shouldn't do it to you, no matter if I'm frustrated.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... It's also worth noting that the book is not intended to persuade theists that God does not exist; rather, it is intended to persuade atheists that they should not be afraid to simply come out and say, "No, I don't think your God exists" for fear of being rude.
QFT
I think that answers my last. I would only add that Dawkin's support of things like the Out Campaign makes this only more clear.
Raymond Arnold (12:11): Since you haven't read the book, I would note that it has this as a second paragraph
quote:I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
quote: My dream is that this book may help people to come out. Exactly as in the case of the gay movement, the more people come out, the easier it will be for others to join them. There may be a critical mass for the initiation of a chain reaction.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Good grief, even a thread asking us to clean things up has devolved into whether God exists or not.
Indeed.
For my part, I'm limiting myself to correcting the Dawkins issue specifically. The open-ended does God exist debate is not my concern.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made. That's how counter-productive I find his tone and presentation.
I feel like collateral damage.
Never! I named you both for good reason -- you're like talk radio political pundits. KoM can be Rush Limbaugh and you can be Sean Hannity (or whomever the opposite leftist to limbaugh is; I don't listen to that unadulterated horseradish). Your rhetoric gets in the way of your position. So much so that even people who agree with you are embarrassed to say so because you're both so obnoxious about it.
It gets great ratings, and it's fun to watch. But not to participate in.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I disagree (regarding the equivalent truth values of Optimus Prime and God)
To clarify: I'm not saying Optimus Prime is or isn't more likely to be true than God. I'm saying that if you WERE an atheist, and someone said "I believe in God," and "I believe in Optimus Prime," the statements would seem equally absurd. Which was the point of the thought experiment.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If the New Atheism's mantra is that religion ruins everything...
You could always do some reading on the subject and find out. Seriously.
I have, and it didn't seem new to me at all. Just an excuse for bad behavior regarding other people's belief systems.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I'm saying that if you WERE an atheist, and someone said "I believe in God," and "I believe in Optimus Prime," the statements would seem equally absurd.
Not only do I disagree that they are equally absurd, I disagree the idea that disbelief in both them makes them equally absurd.
Posted by Cyn (Member # 11799) on :
quote:Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
quote:Originally posted by KoM: Of course we do; that's how we managed to arrive at actual truth in the first place, by caring about it and not being satisfied by the first convenient mythology we came across.
This was the part that caused me to respond. I know I'm a little late to the party and was only coming back here to see if another book was in the works or on the shelves.
KoM - To me you've always been an intelligent person and I've respected much of your position and passion, but the arrogance hasn't changed a bit in over a year.
You talk about 'truth' like a person who knows all the facts. Simply put..you don't. None of us have all the scientific or 'truthful' facts and it's not reasonable in any scientific sense to know that we do or ever will. That would be entirely speculative.
You can't know if there is a god or not. You don't know if facts we know about the universe will change from now til tomorrow. Our 'knowledge' about everything is in flux, and unless you have some other understanding or belief , then you might want to just chill. You're just preaching to a different tune. And our fellow, more mild-mannered members, don't always help either.
I've seen so many of the other atheists also try to debate religion only to look like they're trying to convert. Everyone here is trying to persuade another to their way of thinking OVER AND OVER again. I don't know any of you personally, but I fail to see what many of you have to accomplish in these arguments. Especially here on hatrack..lol.
I see people on this forum on both sides of the discussion that I really respect.
It's been awhile coming back here, but still seeing the same people making the same circular, non-friggin-sensical arguments over and over?? Bah!
I guess I'm not surprised, but maybe some of you should be..?
[ January 05, 2010, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Cyn ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you're like talk radio political pundits. KoM can be Rush Limbaugh and you can be Sean Hannity (or whomever the opposite leftist to limbaugh is; I don't listen to that unadulterated horseradish).
Easy, Cookie-- there are good, appropriate, and socially acceptable ways to use horseradish. Don't be so quick to denigrate it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cyn: KoM - To me you've always been an intelligent person and I've respected much of your position and passion, but the arrogance hasn't changed a bit in over a year.
You talk about 'truth' like a person who knows all the facts. Simply put..you don't. None of us have all the scientific or 'truthful' facts and it's not reasonable in any scientific sense to know that we do or ever will. That would be entirely speculative.
You can't know if there is a god or not. You don't know if facts we know about the universe will change from now til tomorrow. Our 'knowledge' about everything is in flux, and unless you have some other understanding or belief , then you might want to just chill. You're just preaching to a different tune.
A few things to address here. Behavior is one thing. A lack of acceptable civility is not desirable, but if you're responding to what KoM said about "the truth," then I think you may, for your own edification and understanding of that position, want to adjust your view of his meaning, or perhaps understand about more about the way he thinks.
KoM never bothers to contextualize these kinds of statements, because he is somewhat understandably reticent about offering even the gauntlet of mutual understanding to theists. He sees it as counterproductive, I think, to cede any sense of validity to that worldview- and while I understand that, I am not so much that way.
What you have to take from the statement first and foremost is that he is a naturalist. You characterize naturalism and its consequent atheism in the same way that you do religion. Many people do this. Many people employ religious or iconographic language to characterize naturalism and faith as a mutual pair. However, the "truth" of naturalism or atheism is necessarily a fundamentally different kind of truth. To a naturalist, the more abstract conclusions he makes about his worldview are tied as solidly as possible to the kinds of truth that are unavoidable to the senses, eg: 2+2=4, etc. By categorizing and testing what appear to be the natural laws of the space we inhabit, we gain a deeper understanding of it. Naturalism, science, and atheism don't represent the same kind of orthodoxy found in any religion. I am not going to deny or pretend that human nature does not necessarily occlude that boundary when it comes to behavior, politics, or psychology, making naturalism and its adherents sometimes *look* or *act* like religious people. After all, religious people act the way they do as much because they are people, as because they are religious.
The important point here is that the orthodoxy represented by naturalist thinking is not faith based. Yes, it is faith based in the sense that if I close my hand around a pebble, I believe it is still a pebble, even if I can't see it. However, that is a faith born of a good deal of experience. Religion, conversely, supplies a system of thinking which seeks confirmation through the biased interpretation of experiences, which are not possible without prior training in the method of interpretation. Scientists believe, (and base this belief on sound and careful deductions based in careful real world observation) that a sentient alien species, were it to develop a system of scientific inquiry, would likely or inevitably arrive upon an approach identical in its fundamental attributes to that of human science. Math is math, just as a triangle on any planet has angles adding up to 180 degrees, and the circumference of a circle is about 3.14 times its diameter. These are natural laws we know to be common in all cases, and so we know that to arrive at these conclusions, the equivalent methodologies must be used.
And so too does the naturalist have an understanding of, as you say, "belief." The difference is, and its a rather big one, religious belief serves a function in society that is entirely different from that which religious people think it does. Converse to religion, naturalism is not designed or useful in promoting the preservation of political power or cultural will. Religion fills that function, and always has. While science and naturalism can and do aid in these things, naturalism as a discipline is an inert tool. It can be used by anyone, to any degree and to virtually any purpose. But there remains a "right way," the most equitable and clear conclusions of a naturalist worldview. This is why you must remember that to a naturalist, morality and ethics are not the domain of religion, but of science. In fact, to a naturalist, religion does not teach or instill morality or ethics, because these human qualities exist within us before indoctrination- they can be recognized as essential elements of our makeup. Naturalism, moreover, demands that we understand that a pure sense of the world around us is also impossible. We as social beings create large and powerful social narratives that overpower our individual wills- we grow up under the indoctrination of language, class, culture, race, and art. We cannot have it any other way. It's actually an acceptance of this fact that provides an answer to me, as to why I am not both an Atheist and an Anarchist. Naturalists do not really believe in Anarchy (though some pay lip service to the idea), because nature does not exist in an anarchic state. So while we strive to temper and purify our understanding of the world around us, we are aware that it remains beyond us to do so. We see the improper, or immoral uses of scientific knowledge as symptoms of this human condition, and not consequences of that knowledge. We don't, in short, have a myth of the garden of Eden, or a fear of our potential hidden in some forbidden fruit. We are fundamentally aware that naturalism, though it contains all truth, does not make all truth accessible to us. Religions, by and large, believe in a state of grace- that for some special people, or at some special time, in the past or future, human beings can have access to total understanding of themselves and the world. That, we believe, is a delusion- and a dangerous one, with deeply unsettling consequences.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Clearly, this person has not been told anything of the kind.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Porter I read that as being by: "If you are an atheist, then from your point of view it is clear this person has not been told anything of the kind."
I might have been reading that wrong.
Disclaimer, I read Tom's post quoted here and all posts up to Porter's only. I haven't looked at this thread since the first couple of pages, so I might be taking this completely out of context.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: KoM can be Rush Limbaugh and you can be Sean Hannity (or whomever the opposite leftist to limbaugh is; I don't listen to that unadulterated horseradish).
Neither do I. And you're putting me in as the leftist. That's probably the funniest thing I've ever seen on Hatrack.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
And I still say that steven shouldn't be allowed to post until he grows up.
Posted by Cyn (Member # 11799) on :
First off..
Thank you, Orincoro, for responding to someone who doesn't post.
But...
I got about a quarter of the way through until you mentioned 2+2=4...
I did read the rest, but it was BS. You're writing an essay paper. That's squat to me.
And if you know 2+2=4 you wouldn't have bothered with the rest.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: I'm saying that if you WERE an atheist, and someone said "I believe in God," and "I believe in Optimus Prime," the statements would seem equally absurd.
Not only do I disagree that they are equally absurd, I disagree the idea that disbelief in both them makes them equally absurd.
Okay, gonna continue the cherry picking. Porter, you're right, they aren't equally absurd - when you look at the big picture. However, it is entirely possible for them to seem equally absurd to someone who comes from the right point of view.
I grew up in an atheist family. I was made aware of the fact that other people believed things that my family didn't believe made sense, but I wasn't really exposed to a culture where it was the norm. The people I hung out with at school either weren't very religious or kept their religion very much to themselves. At least around me - it is possible that it was my very intolerance of religion in high school that caused them to do so. In that environment, it seemed to me that all religious beliefs were equally absurd and equally lacked supporting evidence - whether it was God, Buddha, the Goddess, Zues or UFOs.
I've since experienced places where belief is the norm - rather than unbelief. I have since come to understand that the very number of people who follow certain religions alone makes believing in a religion far less absurd than a belief in something like Optimus Prime. And that there are other factors too that make it less absurd. But before I'd experienced those things - from my point of view - all forms of religious belief seemed equally absurd.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Okay, gonna continue the cherry picking. Porter, you're right, they aren't equally absurd - when you look at the big picture. However, it is entirely possible for them to seem equally absurd to someone who comes from the right point of view.
You really hafta do a lotta contortions to arrive at that point of view, though. Optimus Prime being a fictional character created in living memory, whose creation is documented and known and hell there are probably interviews available online with the creator, versus (for most monotheistic religion believers, certainly) belief in a 'character' who has been a part of thousands of years of human history - a fundamental part, no less - with thousands of cases of individual human beings down through the ages reporting instances of miracles and conversation with God and whatnot...
No, belief in the two is clearly not equally absurd. In fact I take back what I said earlier-there is no point of view that, when viewing the question rationally - are the two equally absurd? - would conclude that yes, they're equally absurd. And before anyone takes issue with that statement, keep in mind the question is about whether it's as absurd to believe in Optimus Prime as it is to believe in God.
If millions of people through thousands of years are telling you, "Believe this!", obviously that's not as absurd as believing in Optimus Prime. Now, you can still beleive it's absurd. And I even see why many people would. But let's not get carried away with comparisons. They're not equally absurd.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I was kinda thinking the same thing, Rakeesh.
I'm equally unlikely to believe either hypothetical claim, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
And I still say that steven shouldn't be allowed to post until he grows up.
I want to be the Arbiter of Adulthood.
I promise to reward those who bribe me, and punish those who disagree with me, no matter how civil they are. What could be fairer?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't want to derail any further. We could take this to another thread?
Echoing this.
For this more clear-cut "does god exist" or "how absurd is a god" discussion, can we move that to a different thread?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Clearly, this person has not been told anything of the kind.
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Porter I read that as being by: "If you are an atheist, then from your point of view it is clear this person has not been told anything of the kind."
I might have been reading that wrong.
Disclaimer, I read Tom's post quoted here and all posts up to Porter's only. I haven't looked at this thread since the first couple of pages, so I might be taking this completely out of context.
Tom was speaking to a theist.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
About how to imagine how an atheist thinks.
To quibble about whether or not that imaginary atheist should actually be an atheist or not, believing whether people talk to a god, seems to me to be beside the point. Just accept that the imaginary atheist does not believe that people talk to a god and move on.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:shrug: If that's what he meant, I'm sure he can clarify it himself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd thought, given the first sentence of that post, that I had pre-emptively done so in a way that would not require additional off-topic posts to explain.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. So you did.
I'm missing parts of posts left and right today.
(Well, yesterday.)
I think it's time for my brain to get a check-up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I want to be the Arbiter of Adulthood.
I promise to reward those who bribe me, and punish those who disagree with me, no matter how civil they are. What could be fairer?
Like we would trust someone who thinks horseradish is edible. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Huh. So you did.
I'm missing parts of posts left and right today.
(Well, yesterday.)
I think it's time for my brain to get a check-up.
LOL....I resemble that remark at times. Now is one of them, for reasons not related to Hatrack though. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I want to be the Arbiter of Adulthood.
I promise to reward those who bribe me, and punish those who disagree with me, no matter how civil they are. What could be fairer?
Like we would trust someone who thinks horseradish is edible.
It's edible for the faithful. Those unconsecrated, those unworthy of its Holy Heat...they are the one who shall pay the ultimate blood price for their defiling of the sacred root!
Lo! And I shall smite them with an smiting that shall knock them on their rears!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, yeah, sure.
*goes back to buffing nails*
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I realize I'm treading a very narrow line in the "Am I derailing the thread?" department. I'm trying to stick the metadiscussion of the value of a discussion of god/atheism, as opposed to actually arguing about God in the first place. Also, I think the original point of the thread can be neatly summed up as "people should be nice" and I think (with a few obvious exceptions) that we should all agree on that already.
Rakeesh actually had a pretty good point. I was kind of aware of it while I was writing but was lazy and simplified my argument, hoping nobody would notice.
A more accurate version of the argument: Optimus Prime and the Judeo-Christian God (other gods are more complicated so I'm sticking with this one for now) both strike me as so unlikely that treating claims of either one seriously is equally absurd. The fact the that Optimus Prime's chance of existence is basically zero and God's chance of existence is maybe .00001% is largely irrelevant.
(I think that, if you were a random person in the process of formulating your religious views, it makes a lot more sense THEN to take God more seriously than Optimus Prime, because you wouldn't have looked at all the evidence and wouldn't know what flaws you might find it them. Having already done so, I find that the evidence amounts to something in the neighborhood of zero and I have not seen any new evidence put forth in the 10 years I've been actively thinking about this)
Also worth noting that there ARE religions created in relatively recently memory whose creation should be extremely suspicious. I'm gonna pick the example that I (hope) we can all agree on: Scientology. Created by a science fiction author. It charges money for its service and multiple witnesses have come forward to claim they were threatened when they tried to leave. Anyone with any sense of the facts should realize this is not a legitimate belief system. Yet it's still absurdly popular and tries to claim the same cultural weight as "real" religions. And in another two hundred years it may very well have succeeded.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
I think this would not have the effect you're hoping for, at least on Lisa's postings. I've got a fair bit of respect for Lisa; her beliefs, although completely wrong, are based in what she sees as evidence, and what's more she has the courage of her convictions and will follow her beliefs to their logical conclusions. There is no mealy-mouthed appeal to faith, nor cherry-picking what's comfortable and socially acceptable.
quote:However, we learned from each other and that knowledge made later discussions still more civil and nuanced.
No, you didn't. Or to be more accurate, you learned what other people teach about things where there is no fact of the matter; this is as useful as learning the lores of different Warcraft factions. It may enable you to converse with others on equal terms, and has perhaps some interest in its own right, but you would not term it 'learning' in any other context.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
I think this would not have the effect you're hoping for, at least on Lisa's postings. I've got a fair bit of respect for Lisa; her beliefs, although completely wrong, are based in what she sees as evidence, and what's more she has the courage of her convictions and will follow her beliefs to their logical conclusions. There is no mealy-mouthed appeal to faith, nor cherry-picking what's comfortable and socially acceptable.
Ditto on all counts.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, you didn't. Or to be more accurate, you learned what other people teach about things where there is no fact of the matter; this is as useful as learning the lores of different Warcraft factions. It may enable you to converse with others on equal terms, and has perhaps some interest in its own right, but you would not term it 'learning' in any other context.
Since what most people are here for is interesting conversation, I see no problem with that. Intruding on either a discussion of religious topics or the lore of different Warcraft factions to fuss about whether the topic is worth discussing at all, when the participants clearly find it so, is rude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you learned what other people teach about things where there is no fact of the matter; this is as useful as learning the lores of different Warcraft factions. It may enable you to converse with others on equal terms, and has perhaps some interest in its own right, but you would not term it 'learning' in any other context.
Do I understand you correctly as saying that true learning is only attained when the subject is demonstrably factual?
How do you justify this definition of learning? It doesn't seem to fit with the word's common use.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, you didn't. Or to be more accurate, you learned what other people teach about things where there is no fact of the matter; this is as useful as learning the lores of different Warcraft factions. It may enable you to converse with others on equal terms, and has perhaps some interest in its own right, but you would not term it 'learning' in any other context.
Since what most people are here for is interesting conversation, I see no problem with that. Intruding on either a discussion of religious topics or the lore of different Warcraft factions to fuss about whether the topic is worth discussing at all, when the participants clearly find it so, is rude.
Well said Dana.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, you didn't. Or to be more accurate, you learned what other people teach about things where there is no fact of the matter; this is as useful as learning the lores of different Warcraft factions. It may enable you to converse with others on equal terms, and has perhaps some interest in its own right, but you would not term it 'learning' in any other context.
Since what most people are here for is interesting conversation, I see no problem with that. Intruding on either a discussion of religious topics or the lore of different Warcraft factions to fuss about whether the topic is worth discussing at all, when the participants clearly find it so, is rude.
I do not object, in principle, to discussions of theology; it's when the participants clearly believe that they are discussing factual matters that I get disturbed. To continue the analogy, if you met someone who genuinely believed the Warcraft lore, used it to guide his daily decisions, and seriously discussed different interpretations of this or that statement by the Blizzard devs as the theists here discuss their interpretations of the Bible (including no doubt the occasional interjection of "I learned something today"), would you feel no urge to gently remind him that this is fiction? Please notice that I am very carefully not guiding anyone's attention in the general direction of Blayne.
Scott, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not interested in serious discussion; you'll exchange maybe three posts and then fade out with what you think is a joke. This is a style of conversation I have no interest in responding to.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not interested in serious discussion; you'll exchange maybe three posts and then fade out with what you think is a joke. This is a style of conversation I have no interest in responding to.
Okay, chicken-butt. Feel free to ignore me.
If you can.
quote: do not object, in principle, to discussions of theology; it's when the participants clearly believe that they are discussing factual matters that I get disturbed. To continue the analogy, if you met someone who genuinely believed the Warcraft lore, used it to guide his daily decisions, and seriously discussed different interpretations of this or that statement by the Blizzard devs as the theists here discuss their interpretations of the Bible (including no doubt the occasional interjection of "I learned something today"), would you feel no urge to gently remind him that this is fiction?
Maybe. The big difference is the demonstrable cultural weight that religion has on our society as opposed to the weight that WoW has had on society. In addition, there are a significant portion of people whose decisions are informed by their beliefs about God; I would imagine that the number of people whose lifestyles are guided by the mythologies expressed in WoW to be significantly less.
So it's not a very good analogy, is it?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I spent five years getting a degree in the study of religion. I'm pretty sure I learned many useful things in those years. Knowing what other people teach about religious matters makes me a more effective communicator. If I was into proselitysing, it would make me more effective at that, too. If you want to change someone's behaviour or opinions, which you do seem to desire, explaining things to them in a context they comprehend works better than simply asserting your rightness and their wrongness.
But, as I said, I'm not into converting people and more often I simply enjoy discussing religious beliefs because I find it fascinating. if you don't value that, power to you, but it would go a long way to reestablishing civil discourse here if you would ignore threads where those of us who enjoy the exercise attempt to learn about useless, irrelevant WoW factions.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: KoM can be Rush Limbaugh and you can be Sean Hannity (or whomever the opposite leftist to limbaugh is; I don't listen to that unadulterated horseradish).
Neither do I. And you're putting me in as the leftist. That's probably the funniest thing I've ever seen on Hatrack.
It's good that you can laugh, but it's an analogy -- it's not supposed to represent your actual political leaning (about which I know nothing and care even less).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I am just now struck by the image of someone going into the Blizzard forums and trying to tell everyone they are wasting their time posting about WoW factions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cyn: I did read the rest, but it was BS. You're writing an essay paper. That's squat to me.
So you originally posted about someone being a dick about this subject, and when someone else responds, politely I might add, if not saying anything you agree with, you are immediately dickish.
Nice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Huh. So you did.
I don't know why, but I get an odd feeling that this is an exchange I have seen you go through a number of times- wanting clarification when it has been given- but only ever on this subject. Honestly, am I just imagining this, or have you done it before?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I am just now struck by the image of someone going into the Blizzard forums and trying to tell everyone they are wasting their time posting about WoW factions.
LOL.....I had the same thought. Followed by a metaphorical bonfire, with Orcs dancing around me at the stake with forks and knives in their hands.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I do not object, in principle, to discussions of theology; it's when the participants clearly believe that they are discussing factual matters that I get disturbed. To continue the analogy, if you met someone who genuinely believed the Warcraft lore, used it to guide his daily decisions, and seriously discussed different interpretations of this or that statement by the Blizzard devs as the theists here discuss their interpretations of the Bible (including no doubt the occasional interjection of "I learned something today"), would you feel no urge to gently remind him that this is fiction?
Historically, that hasn't been much of a problem. With a few notable exceptions posters have been willing to phrase things as "I believe xyz" or "the LDS church teaches abc" or "mainline Protestants have generally held that jkl." Both out of respect for the variety of religions represented here and the "no proselytizing" rule.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you are rather overestimating the impact of the lore on WoW players. They don't go about justifying their raids on the other faction on the grounds that the Tauren invaded the mainland 2000 years ago, or whatever the latest retcon is; at least not outside servers explicitly set up for roleplaying. It's all about the XP and items. Certainly they are not going to get into an argument about who has the better right to land-area X. My example of the Warcraft player who believes in the lore was a deliberate reductio ad absurdum. The actual effect of going to the Blizzard forums and telling them that the lore is fictional would be some blinking and some posts along the lines of "Well, duh".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Depends which WoW players you're talking to. If you're in the raiding forums, sure, no one will care. Step in the RP forums and you'd be in for a treat (even if the number of WoW RPers as compared to the rest of them is tiny, it's still a fraction of 11 million, so there's going to be enough people get dogpiled).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I do not object, in principle, to discussions of theology; it's when the participants clearly believe that they are discussing factual matters that I get disturbed. To continue the analogy, if you met someone who genuinely believed the Warcraft lore, used it to guide his daily decisions, and seriously discussed different interpretations of this or that statement by the Blizzard devs as the theists here discuss their interpretations of the Bible (including no doubt the occasional interjection of "I learned something today"), would you feel no urge to gently remind him that this is fiction?
Historically, that hasn't been much of a problem. With a few notable exceptions posters have been willing to phrase things as "I believe xyz" or "the LDS church teaches abc" or "mainline Protestants have generally held that jkl." Both out of respect for the variety of religions represented here and the "no proselytizing" rule.
That seems rather tangential to the point I'm making. Posters do believe this stuff - well, ok, kmb doesn't in any sense I'd recognise, but in general. It's not a question of whether they write "The Tauren invaded the mainland 2000 years ago" or "Warcraft lore has it that the Tauren invaded", but what they believe about the subject.
ETA: Even on a roleplaying server, you are not very likely to find anyone who genuinely believes that the lore is describing actual events. I don't want to be categorical about this; humans being human, no doubt there is some deluded soul out there who has taken it all to heart. The point is, he is deluded, and so are the theists here when they discuss fine theological points with all the seriousness of someone deciding what to have for dinner.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I enjoyed Hatrack when not every discussion had to turn into a debate and when understanding a different point of view was more important than "winning" some kind of delusional, self-generated game. It's mental masturbation on a huge, recursive scale. It's sad, it's petty, and (ironically, given the huge mental egos around here) it's small-minded.
I don't post anymore because Hatrack is neither fun nor interesting. There's a sense of intellectual/philosophical cliques rather than of community.
I'm afraid that for Hatrack to be saved it would take mass bannings and a more rigid registration process. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be better than it is now.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That seems rather tangential to the point I'm making. Posters do believe this stuff - well, ok, kmb doesn't in any sense I'd recognise, but in general. It's not a question of whether they write "The Tauren invaded the mainland 2000 years ago" or "Warcraft lore has it that the Tauren invaded", but what they believe about the subject.
I'm sorry, I thought that earlier you were saying that you were unable to leave people discussing theology alone because they were stating things as fact that aren't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, the WOW analogy was not, I think, about what people believe; it was about what people find interesting to discuss.
ETA: Or maybe not.
[ January 05, 2010, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hey, whose analogy is it, anyway? Again, I have no objection in principle to discussing obscure points of theology, or indeed obscure points of Warcraft lore. Anthropology is a legitimate form of science, although inevitably rather theory-laden. (A separate discussion, to be sure.) But when people, either WoW enthusiasts or theists (or indeed anthropologists!) begin to believe that they are discussing things on which there is an actual fact of the matter, I object.
quote:I'm sorry, I thought that earlier you were saying that you were unable to leave people discussing theology alone because they were stating things as fact that aren't.
Yes and no; the point is that they believe they are discussing facts, while actually speaking of airy nothings. Stating things as fact is not a matter of the form of the sentence. Suppose I say "The sky is greenish-purple"; you would not consider this a mere difference of opinion, to be granted equal respect to "The sky is blue"; nor would it help your opinion of my sanity if I used the I-believe formulation "I believe the sky is greenish-purple". If I believe this, I'm wrong; whether I hedge my post is not relevant. Prefacing with "My church teaches" does not alter the fact of one's belief in a false doctrine.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So, if I have this right, you're okay with people discussing theology as long as they don't actually believe it. Except for kmb, who you regularly ridicule for not believing it. And yet you say you do not object to theological discussion. Who, exactly, is allowed to do the discussing without you feeling the need to intervene?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: I enjoyed Hatrack when not every discussion had to turn into a debate and when understanding a different point of view was more important than "winning" some kind of delusional, self-generated game. It's mental masturbation on a huge, recursive scale. It's sad, it's petty, and (ironically, given the huge mental egos around here) it's small-minded.
This is a very succinct sum of how I'm feeling right now. Thanks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tom Davidson and the other atheists may discuss anything they please. Lisa, rivka, and Armoth may discuss anything except Judaism. BlackBlade and the other Mormons can discuss non-Judeo-Christian religions, and can apply for permission in the case of non-mainstream Christian sects. Kmb needs to learn what 'belief' means before she can say anything intelligible on any subject; you too are a bit susceptible to that weakness. Other posters can apply to me as they feel the urge, and I'll tell them whether or not they can post in a given thread.
Or, to put it differently, the theological discussion to which I have no objection is a bit of a theoretical beast, interesting only as a contrast to what we've actually got.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*comes back to read thread*
quote:I realize I'm treading a very narrow line in the "Am I derailing the thread?" department ... A more accurate version of the argument: Optimus Prime and the Judeo-Christian God (other gods are more complicated so I'm sticking with this one for now) ...[/QB]
*is boggled*
*boggled-face smiley*
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You are boggled because I used "Optimus Prime and the Judeo Christian God" in a sentence, or because I acted like there was even the slightest chance I was NOT helping to derail the thread?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Lisa, rivka, and Armoth may discuss anything except Judaism
So Rivka isn't allowed to post her favorite recipe for gefilte fish?
quote:Tom Davidson and the other atheists may discuss anything they please.
Including what a jerk you are? That violates the TOS.
quote:So you originally posted about someone being a **** about this subject
You know what? There was a time when the use of a word like this was unheard of here. We didn't even much use euphemisms, unless we were discussing bodily functions. I remember a discussion on bowel movements that was more civil than this thread, and this thread is supposed to be about civility.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I can't remember your religious views so I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate or not, but if you substitute "Optimus Prime told me that a nearby airport base is filled with Decepticons and I need to blow it up to save the world" you get a statement with the same truth value.
I disagree.
In reference to the fact that this discussion has devolved into an argument over whether God exists, I would enter Porter's response in the above exchange in evidence to show how we used to discuss these issues. Some of what is going on in this thread seems to be laying the groundwork for reestablishing this kind of etiquette, but others just don't seem to realize that there are boundaries we shouldn't be crossing.
I'm really having a hard time with the fact that KoM entered this thread, broke the rules, and practically begged to be "subject banned," got subject banned, and is continuing to spout his arrogance about religious topics.
[ January 05, 2010, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I still say we let KoM and Lisa mod each other. Only posts approved by the other person get to be posted.
I think this would not have the effect you're hoping for, at least on Lisa's postings. I've got a fair bit of respect for Lisa; her beliefs, although completely wrong, are based in what she sees as evidence, and what's more she has the courage of her convictions and will follow her beliefs to their logical conclusions. There is no mealy-mouthed appeal to faith, nor cherry-picking what's comfortable and socially acceptable.
Ditto on all counts.
What now? They've joined forces!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Kmb needs to learn what 'belief' means before she can say anything intelligible on any subject; you too are a bit susceptible to that weakness.
I'm pretty sure I haven't posted anything about my own beliefs in the time you've been on Hatrack, with the exception of the time I objected to your critera for what constitutes "real" belief. And that time I only gave a number. You don't have remotely enough information to make this claim.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm really having a hard time with the fact that KoM entered this thread, broke the rules, and practically begged to be "subject banned," got subject banned, and is continuing to spout his arrogance about religious topics.
As I understood PJ's post, I'm not subject-banned but am on probation for that status.
Gefilte fish has nothing to do with Judaic (is that the right adjective?) theology, being rather a manifestation of Jewish culture; in any case, though, it seems to me that you may have missed the slightly dry tone of that post. I found dkw's question a bit silly and responded accordingly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As I understood PJ's post, I'm not subject-banned but am on probation for that status.
No, see, PJ is very reluctant to ban anyone because he is, at heart, a big softie. So he was trying to make it clear to you that if you could consider yourself "subject-banned" without actually requiring him to go to the trouble of enforcing such a ban, he'd appreciate it.
But that doesn't matter. Because surely you can tell you're already being obnoxious. Why would you want to be obnoxious.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Is it possible to put it in the TOS that the poster of the thread determines who he/she wants posting in it and the style in which they are allowed to post?
If someone finds a person's particular attitude troubling, the thread's founder can ask that person to stop, or ask them to cease participation in the thread, while other threads are fair-game.
This mechanism allows us not to stand for certain behavior, to establish community standards, while also providing a safe space for unfettered expression.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, man, Porter, I really don't want to point out the part of KoM's post that you seem to have missed. I'm worried that you're going to get a complex about it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
He noticed and deleted it almost instantly.
KOM, my question was "a bit silly" because I was pointing out the silliness of your combined posts on the subject. You, it seems, are using silliness to duck the question of why you can't let other people have conversations that they are interested in having if you personally don't consider them worthwhile.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Too late! Muahahaha!
(And yeah, when is that tune-up again?)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: KOM, my question was "a bit silly" because I was pointing out the silliness of your combined posts on the subject. You, it seems, are using silliness to duck the question of why you can't let other people have conversations that they are interested in having if you personally don't consider them worthwhile.
It's an open forum, no? If you want a private conversation that others cannot inject their opinions into, use IM, or your Facebook wall, or email. Or if you're more interested in spinning fancies than in grounding your discussion in reality, the human brain has a very fine built-in ignore function. I can't force you to cease discussing your theology, after all, much as I'd like to.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You're still dodging the question. Why do you insist on turning every discussion remotely related to religion into an argument about whether it's rational to believe in God?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think he's made it pretty clear A) what his reasoning is, and B) that he has absolutely no intention of stopping. He's either getting banned or maintaining the status quo.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Gefilte fish has nothing to do with Judaic (is that the right adjective?) theology, being rather a manifestation of Jewish culture
You didn't say Judaic theology, you said Judaism.
And BTW:
quote:I found dkw's question a bit silly and responded accordingly.
Same here. It's pretty safe to assume that references to Gefilte fish are probably a joke.
quote: If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned.
This seems pretty clear cut to me. It doesn't say you're on probation, it says consider yourself banned. But considering that you've violated the TOS several times since then, I think Tom is right about Pop.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You're still dodging the question. Why do you insist on turning every discussion remotely related to religion into an argument about whether it's rational to believe in God?
Because that's what interests me about religious discussions.
Touching the subject ban, consider this post from page 4:
quote:You may consider the conditional a final warning.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It's an open forum, no?
No. It's a forum for registered members that has a specific set of rules that we agree to abide by. Except that you agreed to abide by them, but routinely break them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You may consider the conditional a final warning.
So, given that you have been officially "warned," why do you want to force him to actually ban you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But considering that you've violated the TOS several times since then
Without disputing that I may have done so in the past, it's not immediately obvious to me where I've done so in this thread. No doubt you have some examples in mind; might you quote them?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:So, given that you have been officially "warned," why do you want to force him to actually ban you?
Because like all crusaders, he has to be Right. And if he can't be Right by making everyone think like him, he'll be Right through (perceived) martyrdom.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Tom Davidson and the other atheists may discuss anything they please. Lisa, rivka, and Armoth may discuss anything except Judaism. BlackBlade and the other Mormons can discuss non-Judeo-Christian religions, and can apply for permission in the case of non-mainstream Christian sects. Kmb needs to learn what 'belief' means before she can say anything intelligible on any subject; you too are a bit susceptible to that weakness. Other posters can apply to me as they feel the urge, and I'll tell them whether or not they can post in a given thread.
Or, to put it differently, the theological discussion to which I have no objection is a bit of a theoretical beast, interesting only as a contrast to what we've actually got.
What about me?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think he's made it pretty clear A) what his reasoning is, and B) that he has absolutely no intention of stopping. He's either getting banned or maintaining the status quo.
Well, we probably wouldn't be talking about this (still, it comes up every so often) if it wasn't just as obvious to darn near everyone else as it is obvious to him religious people are delusional that he is either a) lying about his motives and reasoning, or be b) seriously mistaken about how to serve those motives and reasons in an effective way.
Look at his track record. I think it's a fair question to ask, since he's been at this for years: who has he persuaded? Whose religious beliefs or even neutrality towards religious beliefs has he ever even shaken, however briefly? Is society changed by his style of rhetoric and argument on this matter? Has this community been changed by it? Well, yes, actually: his presence in many religious discussions on Hatrack has made many folks just stop talking about it altogether around here.
If one were to evaluate his likely motives and reasons for talking the way he does based on his consistent results, well, a very different picture emerges than the one he claims to believe in. So different that must either be lying, or drastically, fundamentally, perhaps irreparably (since it's been going on for so long) mistaken about what he's actually doing.
ETA: Basically, it's either what Dante said, or KoM is himself unaware that it's what Dante said.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I seem to recall that steven was a Mormon when he first came here. Of course it's hard to assign credit in these matters, but at least I don't seem to have completely prevented his deconversion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, let's ask him, then: steven, were you a Mormon when you first started participating on Hatrack, were you a Mormon? And if you're not any longer (because I don't actually know one way or another), how much if anything of that change in your life would you attribute either to KoM in particular or Hatrack as a whole?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall that steven was a Mormon when he first came here. Of course it's hard to assign credit in these matters, but at least I don't seem to have completely prevented his deconversion.
*blink* That certainly doesn't match my recollection.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Steven wasn't a Mormon, although he was quite evangelical about Dr. Price and his raw food diets.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, I could be mistaken as to steven, but I'm fairly convinced at any rate that there was one poster who came here as a Mormon and deconverted - either in spite of, because of, or regardless of me. It's hard to run double-blind experiments in these matters.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Enochville was an in-your-face evangelizing Mormon, who turned into an in-your-face evangelizing atheist.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Steven wasn't a Mormon, although he was quite evangelical about Dr. Price and his raw food diets.
Hey, I remember that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Enochville was an in-your-face evangelizing Mormon, who turned into an in-your-face evangelizing atheist.
The name doesn't ring a bell. Possibly before my time?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Nu, I could be mistaken as to steven, but I'm fairly convinced at any rate that there was one poster who came here as a Mormon and deconverted - either in spite of, because of, or regardless of me. It's hard to run double-blind experiments in these matters.
Well, you hardly get to lay claim to a 'deconversion' if it happened in spite of (how would that work?) or regardless of you, now do you?
Why you persist in claiming you're trying to do something with your religious discussions other than serve your own vanity is beyond me, simply because it seems to incredibly unlikely.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But considering that you've violated the TOS several times since then, I think Tom is right about Pop.
I don't think anyone should draw any conclusions based on Papa Moose not acting quickly right now, since he and Mama are expecting a birth at any moment. He might be otherwise occupied.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The name doesn't ring a bell. Possibly before my time?
He was around before you, but he came out as an atheist since then, I'm pretty sure.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Well, you hardly get to lay claim to a 'deconversion' if it happened in spite of (how would that work?) or regardless of you, now do you?
To be fair, that particular point wasn't claiming responsibility for said deconversion. He was merely pointing to an example of deconversion taking place, and acknowledging (slash hiding behind the fact) that you neither prove nor disprove that KoM had a hand in it.
I don't think KoM has actually broken the "TOS" in particular in this thread to a degree that the rest of us haven't (in particular given the fact that the thread began with Papa Janitor saying "no more personal attacks" and the theme of the thread promptly became "everyone point at people who are ruining the forum." Lisa was right about that irony. But I think the conversation was important and there's no way to discuss it without pointing out the people causing problems.
So far (to my knowledge) KoM HASN'T technically hijacked a thread and made it about religion since we started this (at least not after the point where PJ officially banned him from such, and by that point this thread had already evolved to such a discussion). What he has done is made it clear that at the very next opportunity he intends to do that.
I'm not sure the distinction matters or not, but it's there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: You are boggled because I used "Optimus Prime and the Judeo Christian God" in a sentence, or because I acted like there was even the slightest chance I was NOT helping to derail the thread?
haha, no, I was just poking fun at the nature of the quotes. Not you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Nu, I could be mistaken as to steven, but I'm fairly convinced at any rate that there was one poster who came here as a Mormon and deconverted - either in spite of, because of, or regardless of me. It's hard to run double-blind experiments in these matters.
Well, you hardly get to lay claim to a 'deconversion' if it happened in spite of (how would that work?) or regardless of you, now do you?
If indeed my posts are counterproductive, then any deconversions that occur here would have to be in spite of them, no? Alternatively, someone might come here for discussions and deconvert, but they would have deconverted no matter where they went, so that would be a regardless. I cannot know short of running a test with two samples of theists, some of which are exposed to my arguments and some which are not. Neither can you. However, any deconversions demonstrate, at least, that my posting is not so counterproductive as to make correct action impossible.
quote:Why you persist in claiming you're trying to do something with your religious discussions other than serve your own vanity is beyond me, simply because it seems to incredibly unlikely.
If it will make you feel better, by all means: I'm merely posting my own view on religious matters, without concerning myself with the issue of deconversion. This is, presumably, what everyone else is doing as well, so now we can get back to criticising my posting style rather than my motivations, eh?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As an aside I do want to do a better job about saying, "I believe this" or "The Mormon Church teaches that." I tend to simply say "Christ taught..." or "Christians believe..." and because I'm so focused on getting my ideas out there I forget how arrogant that sounds.
In my mind I'm always thinking, "This is my interpretation of what Jesus was saying." But because I don't actually write that every time it gets in the way of conversation when somebody disagrees.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:so now we can get back to criticising my posting style rather than my motivations, eh?
I would like to know why you're motivated to post in the style you do, actually. Is it simple trolling, or do you really hope to achieve something?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Neither can you. However, any deconversions demonstrate, at least, that my posting is not so counterproductive as to make correct action impossible.
Well, yes. Was that ever at issue?
quote: quote:Why you persist in claiming you're trying to do something with your religious discussions other than serve your own vanity is beyond me, simply because it seems to incredibly unlikely.
If it will make you feel better, by all means: I'm merely posting my own view on religious matters, without concerning myself with the issue of deconversion. This is, presumably, what everyone else is doing as well, so now we can get back to criticising my posting style rather than my motivations, eh?
Well, no, that's what some people do. Other folks - such as yourself - claim to be serving some bigger purpose, some effort at a perceived greater good, through their posting habits. And in a very specific, focused way, too, not just the general 'make the world a better place by being a better person in it' sort of thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Well, yes. Was that ever at issue?
I got that impression from this post, yes:
quote:I think it's a fair question to ask, since he's been at this for years: who has he persuaded? Whose religious beliefs or even neutrality towards religious beliefs has he ever even shaken, however briefly?
quote:I would like to know why you're motivated to post in the style you do, actually. Is it simple trolling, or do you really hope to achieve something?
I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I post the way I think.
You say this like it's a good thing. Civilization requires filters.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
After years of being involved in discussions about your posting style, you're telling us that not once did you stop think about your posting style enough for it to be a conscious choice? Even if that were true, at a certain point, the refusal to make a conscious choice is a conscious choice.
[ January 06, 2010, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Gefilte fish has nothing to do with Judaic (is that the right adjective?) theology, being rather a manifestation of Jewish culture
You didn't say Judaic theology, you said Judaism.
Gefilte fish isn't part of Judaism, either. Except very, very peripherally.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't see how that suggests I was saying you make correct action *impossible*, KoM.
As for posting what you think...so, what, you've spent all this time thinking just 'being yourself' would be enough to get the job done? That job being educating religious folks on how misled they are, thus helping them?
Yeah, I'm afraid I'm pretty skeptical.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not surprised. Being that destructive is indicative of not thinking at all about anyone else but oneself.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] [QUOTE]I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
I remember when you first started posting, you were even more inflammatory then you were now. I could be wrong about it being you, but I'm almost positive I was taking part in a discussion where you kept saying that women throughout history never exhibited true bravery, or somesuch. I also remember asking you to chill out in a thread at least once.
Some time later, you made a post to the effect that you had finally checked an unused email addy that you used to register for Hatrack, and noticed dozens, perhaps even hundreds of emails asking you to curb your posting style. And it genuinely seemed to me that you did, at least at the time. At least for a little while.
Hence, you have exhibited, at least a little bit, a potential to change your behavior for the sake of the community.
[ January 06, 2010, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
apologies for the double post.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I post the way I think.
You say this like it's a good thing. Civilization requires filters.
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.
--Lazarus Long
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QUOTE] ... the thread began with Papa Janitor saying "no more personal attacks" and the theme of the thread promptly became "everyone point at people who are ruining the forum." Lisa was right about that irony
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...as long as it's for a good cause.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] [QUOTE]I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
I remember when you first started posting, you were even more inflammatory then you were now. I could be wrong about it being you, but I'm almost positive I was taking part in a discussion where you kept saying that women throughout history never exhibited true bravery, or somesuch.
I am fairly convinced I have not said anything of the sort. Perhaps I was commenting on the lack of women, historically speaking, in formal battles and regular fighting units?
quote:Some time later, you made a post to the effect that you had finally checked an unused email addy that you used to register for Hatrack, and noticed dozens, perhaps even hundreds of emails asking you to curb your posting style. And it genuinely seemed to me that you did, at least at the time. At least for a little while.
I remember the episode, but it was only the one email, from the moderator.
[ January 06, 2010, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How about the five million soldiers who died in combat in the Great War, alone? How many of them were female? There are certainly brave women out there in history. But they are utterly outnumbered by the brave men.
It probably makes me a bad feminist, but I'd almost rather see the chauvinism than what you're doing now.
And in regards to the latter, *shrug*. I don't read your email. I only remember you posting once in regards to it. Are you denying that you changed your behavior at all because of it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Hatrack was at its peak whenever the person telling you about it was new to the forum, I think.
Kinda amusing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, I stand by my statements in that thread, in particular this formulation:
quote:Courage is not gender specific, true. Still, historically, it is men who have mostly been required to demonstrate physical courage. No-one has ever drafted women, to the best of my knowledge.
Please notice: I have not claimed that women would be unable to demonstrate physical courage, if given the chance. I have merely said that, historically, we have more evidence for physical courage as a male trait, than a female one. In a similar vein, we have more evidence for physical strength as a male trait than as a female one. I do not attach any moral significance to either of these facts, but I insist that they are facts. Provide counter-evidence if you wish. If you merely discard them as chauvinistic, I cannot stop you. But that's not the way to arrive at truth.
ETA: I also note that this is nowhere near a claim that women have not been brave, as you originally paraphrased me.
[ January 06, 2010, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, to some extent, women's acts of physical bravery are more common and less dramatic. Pregnancy and labour for example. Until quite recently, it was a fairly dangerous undertaking and most women went through it at least once - usually more. Battle, while also dangerous, was not a commonplace occurrence that most men throughout history experienced.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mucus, you missed the truly ironic one.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If I ever say anything of this sort to someone civilised, please feel free to rein me in right sharply.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
You are dodging the entire point of my post. Are you, or were you ever, able to change your behavior at Hatrack?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would really prefer not to rehash that whole thread, and this precise argument was indeed raised in it, but childbirth does not call for the sort of courage I was speaking of. Once it starts, you can't stop it; no volition is involved, and hence no courage as such. One may face childbirth with fortitude and endurance, or with hysteria and tears; but one cannot make a conscious choice to get the hell out of there, as is (usually) possible on a battlefield. The style of courage I was discussing involves a decision to stay in a dangerous situation; no such decision is made during childbirth.
Now, you could argue that's there is a conscious choice made in the months preceding the actual birth, and you'd have a point. But I find it difficult to compare this with the immediacy of being shot at and staying where you are. An unpleasant situation three months hence just isn't the same as the fight-or-flee decision with adrenaline pumping through the veins right now.
And I would add one further point, here: Modern, Western women have much better options for avoiding childbirth than their predecessors did. And they are doing so in droves. I do not say that the low birthrates (and high abortion rates) of industrial nations are caused by the fear of childbirth; children are inconvenient for much longer than that. Still, wouldn't it be nice for your argument if women with the choice got pregnant at the same rate as women without it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: Intriguing. It does appear to be license for many to feel free to rein away Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would really prefer not to rehash that whole thread (Snip)
Okay.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: You are dodging the entire point of my post. Are you, or were you ever, able to change your behavior at Hatrack?
If that was the point of your post, it was very well hidden; you would have been better off asking directly in the first place. To answer the question, yes, but I haven't been convinced of the desirability of doing so.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How about the five million soldiers who died in combat in the Great War, alone? How many of them were female? There are certainly brave women out there in history. But they are utterly outnumbered by the brave men.
It probably makes me a bad feminist, but I'd almost rather see the chauvinism than what you're doing now.
And in regards to the latter, *shrug*. I don't read your email. I only remember you posting once in regards to it. Are you denying that you changed your behavior at all because of it?
Links like that merely prove that there is no such time as a golden age. Look at the contents in the first post in the thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would really prefer not to rehash that whole thread (Snip)
Okay.
Hum. I phrased myself very badly. I didn't actually mean that I was reluctant to take up the discussion again; I meant that I had already addressed this point to some extent in the other thread. Complete mismatch between intention and sentence, there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No problem. I think that you are using a more narrow definition of courage. I wasn't all that invested in the argument. If I get bored and have time later, I'll look up the old argument.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
2004 was at least a couple of years past the golden age.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, there was complaint of a golden age past when I first showed up in spring of 2003, coincidentally the week after Baldar was banned. I was so jealous of the ghost of Bonducca past.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The golden age as I remember it was ruled by Pat, celia, mack, Dan Raven, and the postcount war between Tom and Bob Scopatz. It was the days of Dagonee first posting here as well, and mph. I'm sure there are other aspects, you don't miss the things that aren't gone so much. I was also jealous of the wench thread.
Aside, why is slut a hated epithet and wench is considered cool? I know why in a general sociolinguistic sense, but it was part of why I eschewed that thread.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 2004 was at least a couple of years past the golden age.
Which would imply that the golden age ended at least before December of 2002. Additionally, if Noemon's rule of thumb is accurate, that means the peak of the golden age was roughly in March 2000
As a point of reference, that gay bishop-elect thread which was linked to as an example of good behaviour was from August 2003.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Links like that merely prove that there is no such time as a golden age. Look at the contents in the first post in the thread.
No, they don't. Look at the rest of the thread, particularly the last page or so.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Can't easily find aything before 2003 as the archive only goes back so far.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Golden Age, truly, was pre-Baldar. By 2004, the dawn had gone down to day. By now, the day has been plunged into moonless and starless night.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Baldar was indeed the first real sign of the end, because it indicated that the mods didn't know how to deal with someone determined to be insulting no matter what. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don't think anyone should draw any conclusions based on Papa Moose not acting quickly right now, since he and Mama are expecting a birth at any moment. He might be otherwise occupied.
True, that hadn't occurred to me. I wonder how it's going.
Hi Bob!
quote:Gefilte fish isn't part of Judaism, either. Except very, very peripherally.
Which was kinda the point. There's a lot of things related tangentially to Judaism that aren't strictly Judaic theology, but the way he worded it... (sigh)..... it was a joke (ok?)
quote:the thread began with Papa Janitor saying "no more personal attacks" and the theme of the thread promptly became "everyone point at people who are ruining the forum." Lisa was right about that irony
This started when KoM identified himself as one of those who was ruining the forum. Lisa, as she pointed out, got dragged into it. Thing is, Lisa's tone has changed dramatically since she came here; she needn't have been dragged in at all.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So what everyone's saying is the forum went downhill after I got here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Teshi, I've been avoiding saying the same thing -- but about me. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Good gravy, it's not often that I forget completely about a thread I myself contributed to. I post so little that I usually remember each post, or at least vaguely recollect the circumstances around it. But I posted three times in that thread and don't remember the thread at all. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: You are dodging the entire point of my post. Are you, or were you ever, able to change your behavior at Hatrack?
If that was the point of your post, it was very well hidden; you would have been better off asking directly in the first place. To answer the question, yes, but I haven't been convinced of the desirability of doing so.
What could I possibly do to convince you, if numerous posts by numerous people nearly begging you to cut it out haven't been enough? Chocolate? Cookies? Signing a petition to institute Atheist Day? Consider it done.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Blind study demonstrating a greater rate of deconversions in the absence of judgements of rationality?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
How about a blind study demonstrating the relative jerkitude of random Hatrack posts? As much as you may think the former matters, the latter is actually the bigger concern.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I haven't seen an onanism thread in a while.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I haven't seen an onanism thread in a while.
I've got an onanism thread.
It's in my pants.
[/Beavis and Butthead]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I think you just insulted yourself calling it a thread.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: I think you just insulted yourself calling it a thread.
Dangit! I should have listened to my intuition and not posted that! Oh well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
p.s. I'll PM some stuff, but I'm waiting on the issue until the moose-baby is here and healthy and a-o-k.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think the golden age of Hatrack started in April of 2001. It's been peaking ever since.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I'm really having a hard time with the fact that KoM entered this thread, broke the rules, and practically begged to be "subject banned," got subject banned, and is continuing to spout his arrogance about religious topics.
As I understood PJ's post, I'm not subject-banned but am on probation for that status.
Gefilte fish has nothing to do with Judaic (is that the right adjective?) theology, being rather a manifestation of Jewish culture; in any case, though, it seems to me that you may have missed the slightly dry tone of that post. I found dkw's question a bit silly and responded accordingly.
Nope. You ARE subject banned, and are on probation for being banned from the forum. At least that's how my superstitious, religious mind read it.
IIRC, it goes from regular posting, to a subject ban... which is a final warning before actually being banned from the forum.
By saying you can consider it a "final warning", I think he meant you were subject banned, and on your last warning before being banned from the forum.
YMMV. I am sure that when he gets back from more important things he will take care of it one way or another.
[ January 08, 2010, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: I think you just insulted yourself calling it a thread.
dabbler wins the thread.
Wait a second.........
That's NOT what I meant, but it's unintentionally funny, so I'll leave it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Baldar was indeed the first real sign of the end, because it indicated that the mods didn't know how to deal with someone determined to be insulting no matter what.
I think this link describes fairly well what moderators should have to expect their job totally feeling like some days.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Is there anyone here who doesn't think I should be the moderator.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't. Papa is great, we should keep him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hear, hear!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I don't. Papa is great, we should keep him.
I'm trying to put this attitude in context. You think things are terrible here. You think Papa is great. Do you think he's a great person? I think so. Do you think he's a great moderator? Do you think he has done an adequate job as a moderator? Do you think the things you are so upset about regarding this forum are out of the control of a great moderator? Would it be beyond your sense of decency to voice any negative feelings about the job he has done, regardless of what kind of job he has done, which will lead you to say he's doing a great job no matter what you actually think? Is that an attitude that is likely to change anything? Because for all the problems that have crept in over the years partly due to lackluster moderation, some people here have been unfailingly positive about the moderator. I understand that you can just love your neighborhood cop and respect him even if crime in your neighborhood gets worse and worse, but you have to also see that clearly the style of policing that his organization has been doing or allowing him to do has not worked well. What I'm wondering is, can you maintain your respect for someone, and still feel that their role needs to change, and that possibly their position should be filled by someone who can play a different role?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not everyone agrees that Papa is part of the problem. Keep in mind that he does not set policy (in general), and in many ways his hands are tied.
Given all that, I think he is doing an excellent job, completely aside from my respect for him as a person, and my recognition of the incredible amount of angst and effort he puts into this place.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I have that in mind, but given that, I am asking for some context in the idea that he is doing an excellent job. Maybe he is not able -as in not being allowed- to do an excellent job.
Aside from that, it is baffling to me that there might be policies in place that cause so much difficulty for him being an effective moderator. Given the apparent ambivalence of the site's ownership at this point, why would they pursue a policy that has helped make the place something to be ambivalent about? It's this "I hate it, I love it" thing that seems to run from the Cards to the members that I don't see as all that healthy.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
The problem is, you can't moderate people into posting better. You can only excise bad stuff, but the moderator can't create good stuff.
At one time, the quality of posters on here was so high, that even if someone came in guns blazing, they were generally such an anomaly that they stuck out. They soon realized they didn't have to be shout to be heard, and they settled into a tone of civility like everyone else was using.
In other words, it was a self-perpetuating cycle. People were civil because other people were civil. This led to a civility that spawned more civility.
Not perfection, mind you. But even when things went wrong, bannings and mod action were rare. We were like a bunch of kids playing in the far corner of the playground at recess. We liked to think of ourselves as working things out on our own, and we didn't go running to the yard duty for every little problem, and for the most part, we WERE able work things out on our own.
It would never have occured to most of us that the secret to perpetuating what we had would be moderator interference. It's ridicuous to think that the secret to making it what it once was is to have a mod "shaping" it into what it's supposed to be.
The fact is, you can't step in the same river twice. Hatrack is not going to be what it used to be. Even if the mods do decide it's imporatant to be more heavy handed with those who are problems, the good stuff--the stuff that makes this a place worth coming to--that doesn't come from rules. That just comes from good people coming on here and being themselves. And it's going to be a different bunch of people, and it's going to be a different dynamic than it's ever been before.
Even on a playground, the yard duty's job isn't to sit hovering over everybody's shoulder saying, "No, you can't say that," or "Yes, that was a much nicer way to say that, Donnie," or otherwise coaching the behaviors they want out of children.
Given that here on Hatrack, we're not actually children, the "hands off" moderation policy makes even more sense. A lot of us appreciate the fact that a moderator would make efforts to handle things quietly, not make a lot of big, public pronouncements, handle things quietly out of view of the forum in general rather than wade into the middle of a mess and say, "All eyes on me now."
Some of us feel that the less "lustery" a moderator is, the more the forum gets to be a real conversation instead of a formal lincoln-douglas style debate. I believe (I don't know this) that Papa feels a bit of the same way, and that it's part (if not all) of why his post count has gone down so much. He realizes that, as moderator, even if he posts in a "game" thread, his posts carry a different weight than the posts around them; it tilts the boat.
Now please be clear on exactly what I'm saying--I'm not trying to make a case for an absence of moderation. There's a tough balancing act the moderator has to carry out, between getting involved enough, and not getting involved too much;. It's really easy to say, in hindsight, that the balance was off, but at the time when you're making the decision, it's not nearly as easy--especially when you feel (as I do) that it's a virtue of the forum that it has so little moderator interference. You're really hesitant to wield that ax when you worry that your cure might do more damage than the cause.
The things Moose does do--queitly, behind the scenes, not in public where everybody gets to join in and high-five the public lyching--he puts a lot; of thought into. One thing all of us who know him can say is that we are SURE we're not being moderated by someone who just casually shrugs his shoulders at things, says, "Eh, whatever," and then goes back to ignoring responsibility. The man cares. Cares enough to let us be what we're going to be, unless he abosolutely has to interfere.
For people who miss the days when they could run to the yard duty who would come back and make everybody go stand against different walls, and they'd feel a great sense of triumph and closure, that might seem like a problem.
But for the rest of us, the time would come when we'd come away from the walls, and we'd still have to see the same people, and we'd still have the same problems, and we'd still have to figure out some way to figure them out and move on and get back to having fun. The yard duty just stopped us from killing each other. The rest was our job, not theirs.
Same goes here.
Here's my diagnosis of what happened here. It's not complete, but it's a bit of it:
While the vast majority of the people who came to Hatrack shouting soon learned they could quiet down and still get listened to, every once in a while someone would come along who, rather than learning from the response they got, decided that they were being listened to because of, instead of in spite of, their idiosyncracies. They thought the respect that was shown to everybody was being shown to them because of the power with which they conveyed their ideas, and never quite caught on that respect could be had here easier than they were used to.
This is an exxageration, of course. When people would make inflammatory posts, many people would get inflammatory back. But eventually things would settle down in a way that made these new people think they'd earned respect rather than that civility had returned.
Because of this, because they still thought respect was something that they had earned, it never occured to them to try to give it to others as freely as it had, for the most part, been given to them. But they stuck around, because they didn't want to lose the respect they'd won here. Even though they didn't come often, since they stuck around, their numbers grew. As their numbers grew, Hatrack became less civil.
Meanwhile, many of the old-time posters, seeing the difference between "old Hatrack" and "new Hatrack" began to develop a sense of superiority to the new folks who were ruining the forum. Their contempt for the new folks led them to a lack of respect for many of the new folks. They couldn't see that while the new folks were bringing a lack of respect with them, the respect they'd had in the old days was dying in the light of thier sense of superiority to new blood. The new people weren't the only change--many of the old posters were no longer who they once were either.
Many of these old-timers simply found somewhere else to go pretend they were doing what they had done before--in the playground analogy, they talked their parents into moving them to a private school--where they could talk about how they missed the days of civility and decorum and acceptance, all in their own little exclusive corner where they played by themselves.
And of the people who stayed, or who chose to play in both playgrounds, there was often such a patronizing sense of, "Oh, you'll learn how things really work here one day, little boy" to anyone new, that as new people came in, between the patronizing old timers and the hostile newbies, it didn't seem like a fun place to be any more.
Again, this is an exageration, but not without basis in reality.
I hesitate to post this because I don't know if it looks like I'm trying to make one side or another out to be a bad guy. I'm not. I'm REALLY not. So if you think I'm trying to point any fingers that's not my intention.
Because the fact is--this is real life. This is what happens in real life in communities and schools and churches. People disagree. People move. Dynamics change. People stop finding what they were looking for in one place and they try to go find it in another. People argue and make up. People argue and never make up. People take things in ways they were never intended and get offended. People hear things that could have offended them and let it go.
Like any community, Hatrack is not created by the moderator. It's not created by the past. It's not created by design.
Hatrack, like any community, is created by the bonds that exist between the people in it. Those little invisible connections that bind us to each other, that none of us can see, but that all of us can feel, those are the real Hatrack.
And what flows along those connections--is it hate? Is it anger? Is it bitterness? If it is, then that's what Hatrack will be. It won't matter, in the end, why it was there. It's easy to say, "But I had to hate, because he did X, Y, or Z," or "How could I not be contemptible of him, if he was THIS way?" If that's what's flowing, then that will be who we are, no matter what our justifications were.
But if it's respect that's flowing, if it's a desire to grant humanity to others that flows from person to person, then that's what Hatrack will be. When more of us choose to take that route, even with those who bring their hostility and bitterness with them, if we seek to correct them with respect, when we show the newbie the FAQ thread with respect, when we tell the new kid to do his own homework with respect, then that's what Hatrack will be.
"Be the change you want to see in the world," Ghandi said. Even if the British are imprisioning you unjustly, you still hold the door for them, just as a reminder of what they could be, because you believe that respect for others is so important, that not even their disrespect will make you give up your respect for them, as people.
To some people this stuff doesn't matter. To some people, like all internet forums--heck, like all PLACES--Hatrack is just an audience, and success is acheived when everyone sees them the right way or takes the right attitude towards them.
But if you do care about Hatrack, and if you do want to see it get better, just think about this: The great moments that make Hatrack fun aren't when we criticize somebody into improving. The great moments that make Hatrack the kind of place where people want to become "real" aren't when we find a great way to express just how awful this person or that person are.
And when you see a long, preachy, self-righteous post like this from me, you can, at the very least, realize how grateful we all are that someone who knows how to step lightly is moderating the forum, and not someone like me.
I love Hatrack. I miss the old days as much as anybody. I wish it were better right now.
But it is what it is. It's never going to be what it was again, and all our pining is just creating a wedge that keeps it from feeling as tight knit as it did then.
Any pre-existing idea about what Hatrack should be, aside from the basic rules any forum should have, just put us at odds with each other, driving a wedge with anyone who has a different idea of what it should be that keeps it from feeling as tight knit as it could feel.
I think, instead, if we all just accept that Hatrack is going to be a new forum every day, resolve to be our best selves regardless of what anybody else is doing, and enjoy the new Hatrack we find that day, we just might could start to suprise ourselves with what we find.
Edit: To fix UBB code.
[ January 10, 2010, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While I disagree with some of the specifics, I think that overall that was an excellent analysis, Doc, of how we got here.
And I entirely agree with your prescription for going forward.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
While I don't agree with doc on every point, I think she made some really good points in her post. In particular I agree that a community like this has to be supported, or even created, by the posters rather than the mods.
I think that Papa has been doing this a long time now, as far as mods go, and I appreciate the fact that he tries to separate his mod duties from his regular posts. I also like the fact that he tries to guide rather than force people to act better most of the time.
Communities change, and not all of the changes ehre have been bad. There NEVER was a "golden" time of Hatrack....there were always people like Baldar, and Cedrious, and other morons. But the tone HAS deteriorated in the past 2 years to the point where even I don't always ruch here and post what I want.
Hatrack has had a profound influence on who I am as an adult. Not the site itself, but the interactions I have had, both positive and not so positive, with other posters. For me to be unsure if I want to post personal stuff here shows you how much things have changed.
Not just because of the years I have spent here, or the gatherings I had been to or attended IRL, but because at one time I would have shared almost anything here with this community. Even if people didn't agree with me, I knew that the vast majority of people here would support me, and that the discussion wouldn't turn nasty.
Now, I post info stuff, or ask tech questions.....but I haven't offered to hold a gathering in over 5 years. In part because I don't want some of the people who are now regulars to know where I live.
I don't WANT the "good old days" back. I want to see what comes next, and try to keep some of the things I liked about the past alive.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
It seems to me that there's just too much bad blood to ever return to the sort of civility that existed when I first registered. Too many posters who believe it's all the other guy's fault and and harbor an attitude of "why should I change if they don't." Neither view can be the source of respectful conversation. If you can't forgive and forget your biggest opponents/naysayers then all civility can easily fly out the window like a spent cigarette.
On a more personal note, I came to this forum because of the civility and lurked for upwards of a year because I felt too dumb to contribute anything more than blanket agreements with what this or that poster said about whatever subject was being discussed. When I finally tried to start posting regularly, I felt like I was shot down pretty ruthlessly by others. So I soon stopped and just kept lurking out of fear of being insulted or perceived as being insulting. Now half of that's my fault obviously for not having the guts to stand up to that fear, but with a few notable exceptions, I felt like my opinions weren't valued and like I was not welcome. Now that may or may not be true, but I am just reporting perceived reality.
Everyone here has been supportive of me when I've had personal problems, even the people that I've vehemently disagreed with, and I thank all of you for that. I look forward to a future date when I can feel comfortable posting a landmark thread I've been planning on for so long. But I don't think that's going to happen until a) we, as a community, can learn to forgive and forget (and I include myself in this statement) and b) we can recognize each others' rights to disagree. I know, I know. I sound like the worst kind of quasi-intellectual cliché when I say that, but it's my two cents, take it or leave it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Well...as long as it's for a good cause.
Hey Bob! Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
Hatrack has had a profound influence on who I am as an adult. Not the site itself, but the interactions I have had, both positive and not so positive, with other posters. For me to be unsure if I want to post personal stuff here shows you how much things have changed.
I definitely notice that it has trained up my arguing skills. Bring up religion or politics, and I am far more capable and maybe willing to defend my positions than in my pre-Hatrack days. I'm not sure that matters much, but whatever.
Also, I hear you on the not wanting to share personal info here anymore. There's some ugly behavior that goes down here, from time to time. If people would say the things here they say, what would they do to someone if it were made easier by that someone having shared personal info? That worries me, sometimes.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't agree with you on a lot of things, steven, but I have noticed your change in style when posting, and it's been a positive change IMO. Considering how often we disagree, and how we interacted in the past, that's a fairly big compliment.....or at least I meant it as one.
I don;t WANT to have a board full of people who think the same things I do, for the same reasons. I WANT it to have differing opinions on all sorts of things. I want conversation, not a greek chorus. That's part of why I have little tolerance of people who come in here and start complaining about how their views are why people here don't like them.
Most of the time that is purely bullcrap. Some of my FAVORITE posters here hold positions I deeply disagree with, and we rarely agree on any specific topic.
Most of the time, IMO, it has more to do with how they act and how they say things than the substance of their arguments. I have had many threads where I agreed with someone, but because of HOW they say things I hated to come forth and SAY I agreed with them. Not because I hate them....but because I didn't agree with the way they treated people who disagreed with them.
Epictetus, while I hear what you are saying, I disagree. I think that it CAN return to a level of civility that is rare these days. This isn't the first time this board has fallen on bad times....and even now, I'd rather post here then anywhere else.
I hesitate to share some things here, but at least part of that is because I had an identity theft issue a few years ago. Also, I am about to become a member of a professional class that has to worry about their "public face" even online.
It's now ALL because of things here, although that is part of it. So is getting older, getting married, and some of the personal issues I have encountered in the past few years.
I think I may offer to host a FL Hatrack gathering this summer, if anyone is interested. Everyone would be welcome, although I would expect people to behave IRL.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)