Religion
Related: About this forumI have a problem with a Religion host
This discussion thread was locked by Renew Deal (a host of the Religion group).
I'm willing to just deal with the Google-Fu of struggle4progress coming in and vomiting as much stuff as possible to dilute and distract from the point of an OP. That's frustrating, but whatever.
What I have a problem with is that yesterday he compared me to Nazi prison camp guards shooting prisoners and laughing and called AtheistCrusader an anti-Semite. And please don't even come back with "but he never said you were like that" because we can all agree on the point of those posts. Don't come at me with that level of intellectual dishonesty.
And, hey, I'm a big boy and can handle myself. Plenty of others in here say just as bad--or worse--things about me and atheists. Luckly my alert on FA about atheist bigots was hidden, for example.
But my point here is that he is a host of this forum. Is that seriously what the other hosts in here want? Justin? Is that what you want for the tone of this group because it is the tone one of the other hosts is taking? I doubt cbayer will read this because I think she has me on ignore (which I'm fine with) but plenty of people seem to rally to her defense when she talks about tone in this group and I know if I or skepticscott had said this, it would not be left alone. Thing is, we aren't hosts here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Heddi
(18,312 posts)if you, or I, or trotsky, or skeptiscott, or cleanhippie, or mr blur used the Nazi analogy, there would be a thread made within seconds in the host forum talking about time outs and how long and should we ask that poster to self-delete etc etc. There would be hay made about disruption and tone arguments and making this a welcoming place for all, etc etc etc.
But it's just a host of the forum, and one who places themselves on the pro-religious side of arguments, so who gives a fuck? An Atheist was offended? Big fucking deal.
Maybe, if you're lucky, someone will make a snide jab about "atheist persecution," and needing to get a tougher skin if one wants to participate in internet discussions, etc etc
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That's why the discussion needs to be had in my opinion.
And the person most likely to make that reply is the only person I have on ignore.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I was really aghast at the Nazi comparison.
I didn't send an alert because I was reading from my iphone and sending alerts via the phone is tedious and cumbersome.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)in the Forum & Group Host forum. The non-archived discussions are the most recent 30 pages of the forum. I did not attempt to retrieve archived threads, as these are harder to access. Links are provided for the convenience of those having access to the Forum & Group Host forum
It does not seem to me that Religion group host behavior, in the Forum & Group Host, forum much resembles your description
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 05:22 PM
Discussion regarding whether poster, who has been temporarily banned from the group in the past, should be banned from Religion group. It is noted that to take such action at present would be inconsistent with current practice, and no action is taken
Mon Aug 5, 2013, 03:32 PM
Poster, who has been temporarily banned from the group in the past, banned from Religion group for one month
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 05:48 AM
A request to lock a thread for violation of the Religion group statement of purpose: no action is taken
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 03:11 PM
Thread locked for violation of Religion group statement of purpose
Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:25 PM
A group participant asks Religion group hosts to take action against another group participant. It is noted that to take such action at present would be inconsistent with current practice, and no action is taken
Wed Sep 25, 2013, 02:47 PM
A discussion of whether the new jury rules will affect hosting of the Religion group. No particular conclusions are reached
Fri Nov 8, 2013, 11:47 AM
A request to lock a thread for violation of the Religion group statement of purpose: no action is taken
Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:47 PM
A group participant, who has been temporarily banned from the group in the past, asks Religion group hosts to ban another group participant, who has also been temporarily banned from the group in the past. It is noted that both members might be temporarily banned from the group in the near future, under current host practice, due to posting behavior, but no action is taken
Fri Jan 24, 2014, 11:50 AM
A request to lock a thread for violation of the Religion group statement of purpose: no action is taken
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 09:27 PM
Discussion of replacing host muriel_volestrangler, who is resigning. After discussion thread in the Religion group, hosts agree to appoint longship as replacement
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:53 PM
Thread locked for violation of Religion group statement of purpose
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)A week or so ago, I ventured into the Religion forum and had a nice conversation with another poster. Two of the people you mention in your post proceeded to barge into our conversation and attack me for, of all things, being tolerant of the religious views of others.
If their behavior in that instance is representative of the way the people you list behave on this forum, then it is hard to find any sympathy for your point of view.
pinto
(106,886 posts)A random jury of DUers at large to take a look at the posts you take issue with. 
Other than that just a comment - Not a host here, but a regular reader. I'm all for more civility all around. I find it hard at times to follow a discussion if it devolves into a round robin.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I doubt they would get hidden given the current jury attitude (and, to be honest with all, I very rarely vote to hide). And the jury/alert system has no basis on whether that person is a host. And because he's a host is the only reason I started this thread.
I fully know I'm somewhat responsible for some threads/subthreads devolving. It's how this room runs. Always has. But I have a problem when a host is throwing out those kinds of accusations.
pinto
(106,886 posts)I guess the other option you have is Admin, then. I assume they would take a look.
(aside) I've often wondered - why a stapler as your avatar? No need to explain but it always catches my eye. Mine flips. Usually it's a CA avatar but baseball season it's the Red Sox logo. LOL.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)It is my current understanding that Administrators don't get involved in how groups are run and prefer to let the group hosts own their own mistakes
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)unless it is REALLY bad. Which this isn't.
The avatar is an Office Space reference. Have had it pretty much from the beginning with a couple minor changes.
thucythucy
(9,042 posts)Not having a dog in this fight, it seems to me your posts were far more problematic than the posts with which you take issue.
Gloating about the drowning of someone--even if they happen to have beliefs you don't share-- seems rather tasteless and cruel to me, as if did to the host. Hence the host's use of the term Schadenfreude, which would seem to fit you to a T.
As I say, not posting much in the religions discussion group, I'm unfamiliar with the history or recent developments. Is atheism considered a religion now? Or are you just trolling by going into a group set up for religious discussion and mocking the death of someone who believes? To me that's rather like going into the RTBA group to post about how all gun-owners are potential murderers, or going into one of the women's forums with a defense of unequal pay. Not that there are rules against doing any of that (I don't think) but if you're going to post insensitive crap like that, you might expect to get some smearing in return.
Really, life is too short to get bent out of shape like this. Time for you to move on to post flamebait in some other OP.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)This is not a safe-haven group for believers , by the way. If you read the SOP you'll find: "Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome." Some would prefer this not to be the case, of course, but that's their problem.
thucythucy
(9,042 posts)I mean I'm an agnostic. Don't know if there's a God, and if there is I doubt it would much matter to he/she/it/them whether I believe or not. So I tend not to get involved in the whole atheist vs. religious folk controversy.
So atheists are welcome here. Good to know. I still think it's rather crude though to do a happy dance because somebody has drowned. But that's just my opinion.
My point was, you shouldn't post snark if you're then going to get all thin skinned about getting snark back. Looking at the thread to which the OP linked, I find his posts far more problematic than the posts about which he's complaining.
No great theological dispute here. Maybe just a call for a tad more sensitivity, is all.
Best wishes.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You're either an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. There is no in-between, by the definition of words. You either have a belief in gods or you don't.
Gnosticism and agnosticism is a separate question. It's about whether you claim to have knowledge on a particular subject.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I would agree with you.
If he had left it at Schadenfreude, I would agree with you. Calling me a Nazi--however slyly to avoid being obvious--kind of crossed the line. Apparently you don't think so.
And your "I don't have a dog in this fight" is kind of undercut by "gloating" (which is not it at all), "trolling," "insensitive crap" and "flamebait."
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)for an objective. observer.
thucythucy
(9,042 posts)It means if you post something meant to be provocative and taken to be insensitive, you just might get something along those lines in return.
"Gloating" was precisely what you were doing, which you'll see if you follow your own link. "Flamebait"--yup. A fairly obvious attempt to provoke a response, and then going off in high dudgeon once it happens. As a veteran of the DU gender wars, I recognize the phenomenon. And no, I don't think he called you a Nazi, though it's rather implied that your delight at the suffering of others is hardly the stuff liberal humanists are made of. Personally I always cringe when references to Nazism, Hitler, Munich, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. are made, unless for a genuine historical point. But it's hardly the first time it's happened at DU, and I doubt it will be the last. I also cringe when people express amusement at the death of perfect strangers, who have never done them any personal harm, but I tend also not to start entire OPs about that either.
As for my not having a dog in this fight, by that I mean I'm an agnostic--don't know if there is or isn't a god or gods, and doubt that if he/she/them/it exists that he/she/them/it would care whether I believe or not. So I'm not carrying water for people who believe, or people who don't. I'm commenting only on the matter of your posts at the link, and your pretty crude attempt to provoke a controversy here.
If you want to pursue your vendetta of course that's your prerogative. To my eyes, the link you provide doesn't speak well for you, and this whole OP makes you seem petty and thin-skinned, but you obviously disagree.
Tant pis.
Tschuss.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Talk about cutting to the chase. 
Beautiful post.
Dorian Gray
(13,845 posts)and I try to keep it civil (most of the time). I'm sure I've had a few moments where I've snapped.
It's a thankless job. And I'm sure I'd be bound to have some opinions that upset others.
I didn't read the other thread. Having not read the other thread, my snap judgment is that a host probably shouldn't make Hitler comparisons. (That's my full disclosure.)
Autumn
(48,723 posts)won't take care of that, just my 2 cents as a lurker in here who is scared to post in here.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)No one is currently banned from the group. And our discussions are frequently high-minded:
Autumn
(48,723 posts)
I really do enjoy lurking in here thoughthucythucy
(9,042 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Hmmm... given the obvious expressed hostility to atheists that host should resign.
Rob H.
(5,781 posts)He was the same way on DU 2 and hasn't changed since then.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)Sat Apr-01-06 01:52 AM
Anybody ever read Vítezslav Gardavský?
Sat Jul-03-10 06:28 PM
Can a Commitment to Secularization be a Religious Duty?
Mon Jul-17-06 10:08 PM
Atheism and Liberation (Antonio Perez-Escalarin 1974)
Mon Nov-13-06 12:11 AM
The Gospel of Christian Atheism
Sat Dec-09-06 10:57 PM
Foundations of Christianity by Karl Kautsky (1908)
Sun Sep-14-08 03:17 AM
Opiate of the People? Marxism and Religion (2005)
Mon Nov-30-09 11:23 PM
Some Reviews of Bloch's "Atheism in Christianity"
Tue Dec-01-09 09:46 PM
Owen Hatherley sings the praises of Ernst Bloch, the prophet of serious atheism
Tue Dec-01-09 09:51 PM
Kautsky's 'Foundations of Early Christianity' (1908) was interesting to read
Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:11 AM
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)on Religion group hosting, which you may find in the archives, would allow for such removal if the other hosts agreed
But I think you deliberately misread and misrepresent my posts
My exchange with you occurs in this subthread #8, in which you find it funny that a man drowned and also find it funny that another man fell off a cliff. I interpret that as ugly schadenfreud and remark that in severe and chronic cases of schadenfreude, results can be rather unattractive. This seems to me an appropriate response to someone who snickers about a drowning and a fatal fall: if you're free to snicker, I'm free to warn you what road I think you're headed down
My exchange with AtheistCrusader occurs in this subthread #66, in which AtheistCrusader somehow attempts to tie the story of two boys drowned in a bathtub to the story of Abraham and Isaac. This IMO is bottom-dragging for a reaction: it has nothing whatsoever to do with any details of the story under discussion in the thread; it is designed to malign various people based on a grotesque misrepresentation of an ancient story; and I responded to that. The Religion group, by agreement of its participants, is hosted with a rather light hand; and so bottom-dragging for a reaction is common here; but it seems to me that there can be little complaint if one's bottom-dragging for a reaction, by grotesque misrepresentation of other people's beliefs, produces a reaction objecting to such grotesque misrepresentation
mr blur
(7,753 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)The group hosts are not involved in such decisions: it is purely the jury's decision
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You should own up and resign as a host.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)on Religion group hosting, which you may find in the archives, would allow for such removal if the other hosts agreed
Perhaps I will point out that I say things to people directly, rather than making fun of them behind their backs
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)That's the right thing to do.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)How christian of you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Everything posted is there to be read and referred to.
On the other hand, there are rules against callouts and personal attacks which this safe haven seems to foster.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)not still having to worry about their words being taken out of context by people who have been banned from posting still coming in and using their words for their own agenda. As an anti-atheist, you should realize why it was allowed to stand (I assume you read the thread)
Tell me, what reason do you have to visit the A/A forum, other than to cherry pick for your own carefully worded personal attacks?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is probably a good idea to put the warning next to the link but there is no rule against liniing to a safe haven.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)When Interfaith was founded as a religious safe haven, almost the entirety of the A/A community here respected it and did not visit or monitor it, and that stayed true until recently when it became so overtly clear that our theistic counter parts did not, in any manner, respect that form of agreement.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)myself. Others have come and respected the rules. Atheists are allowed in interfaith and allowed to talk about their views but they can not be critical of believers faith. Similarly we can not be critical of non-believers in interfaith.
Now you are right to say AA made a point of not linking to interfaith and they were nice to do that but that was a courtesy. Also to be frank I and others did not know they did that. So personally after being corrected on it I personally will not do that anymore unless it is 100 percent necessary but I doubt it will be. But others have every right to do it.
As for monitoring I see in AA that they say interfaith is dead so they are monitoring it. I personally read AA all the time. I read it to see what your opinions are.
On one occasion I got made at one thread and I sent a jury alert and sop alert. I lost both. I posted in the thread and was told my presence was disrupted and I sccepted that and self-deleted. I accepted I did not handle myself well there and the hosts were nice enough not to ban me from the room. As a result I won't ever post in there because they should be left alone in peace. I do not monitor the room looking for places to alert. To be frank I find much of the m8cking of religion in ghre room funny and upsetting at the same time. I find it healthy to here skepticism.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)After it was made perfectly clear that Anti-Atheists here weren't going to respect the safe haven idea by watching A/A like hawks and reporting on stuff they didn't like, some Atheists made comments in Interfaith (which by it's name alone excludes Atheists) and were banned outright for it. In fact you got made a host specifically to ban that person, which is not a very christian way of repaying the kindness you received in A/A. And it was kindness, you came in and tried to moderate a group you don't belong in, and you have a lot of religious imagery in your signature lines which is rather disruptive.
I'm glad you admit that the Anti-Theists here don't give the same courtesy that Atheists give them, really highlights the hypocrisy in Religion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I was not made a host to ban him.
Second it looks like you follow safe havens as well.
Third the AA thread I did not handle
Fourth I think you should not bring up anothers person banning without their permission. I think it is his business.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)are eager and waiting to discuss such possibilities with you in ATA
If you find yourself unable to wait for appropriate DU3 software changesin the wake of your ATA request, the A/A group could effectively move entirely underground, by conducting all its conversations via DU mail: many A/A participants are probably familiar with the required mechanics
Those are the only ideas I have, off the top of my head, that might address your concern that unauthorized visitors are peeping in the A/A group's windows. If no one wants to follow these useful suggestions of mine, perhaps some A/A group participants will want to avoid posting naked
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Go on, tell me that doesn't happen.
BTW, I'm not "anti-atheists", I'm anti-assholes.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I suppose from your perspective that's a safer answer than a denial.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If you had stopped at schadenfreude, I would have had no problem. But you want on to do the Nazi thing which is ridiculous. You don't even address why you went to the anti-Semitic thing with AtheistCrusade--just more word salad.
And, ultimately, if you weren't a host I would have just dismissed being called a Nazi as random jagbaggery. But you're a host. I would hope that the other hosts act on this. Or at least chime in. I'm sure they won't though. But at least this thread is hear for people to see so that when nothing is done about it, at least there is a record that that is the stance of the hosts.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But you stopped responding when I elaborated, and pointed out the strawman you created and attributed to me in that thread.
Any chance you might go back and address either?
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)to an unlimited right to trawl
And if you decide to trawl for reactions, by ugly misrepresentations of the views of people, who do not share your views, it seems to me you are not always entitled to reactions that meet your approval
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I also pointed out that I, as an observer, have literally no way to tell if someone claiming such divine mandate is telling the truth or not.
The claim is equally unprovable, as the core claim of a religious/supernatural/metaphysical god is.
That was my point.
And there was no misrepresentation.
Well, except the strawman you created, and attributed to me. That was misrepresentation.
Iggo
(49,612 posts)Wha...?
TM99
(8,352 posts)Personally, I didn't read it that way. If I argue to that point, you will simply dismiss it as being 'intellectually dishonest'.
So, you believe that he did. And again, I ask so what? Host or not, so what?
Why are you taking that comment so personally? If you are a 'big boy' enough to handle commenting on a post that detailed a tragic event with a certain amount of Schadenfreude or 'irony' as you wanted to say it, well then are you a 'big boy' enough to handle others' responses to you, whether they are the host or not and whether or not you might like what they have to say in return?
I won't comment on AtheistCrusader, as that person did not make this post.
I have seen you and others wade into topics here with a great deal of anger and a bitter tongue. Topics are started to score points yet rarely to discuss.
I have not seen the hosts ban y'all. I have not seen many jury alerts either. If individuals including a host decide to set a boundary by putting a member on ignore that is an appropriate adult response. I see quite a few members, both believers and unbelievers, that I can easily respect. They are human. They can get frustrated and loose their temper. Hell I have done it here as well.
We are also foolish enough to wade into the constant and never-ending debates. There are quite a few topics that believers and unbelievers alike could discuss. Yet this group rarely seems to ever get to discuss religion as religion per se. It often is just a battleground for atheists and anti-theists to come in and argue like sophomore philosophy students -a whole lot of sturm und drang that distracts from any rational and reasonable ideas that might be worthy of such a discussion.
I found your and several other posters comments in that thread quite sad. It was a tragic event. I don't delight in the suffering of others. There is suffering enough. Maybe have the decency to recognize that comedy as Carol Burnett once said is tragedy plus time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)as well as their apologists among the "thank god I'm not like other atheists" atheists used to voice the same complaint. Why, they kept wondering openly, can't we have "serious" and "meaningful" discussions of "faith" in this Group, without the mean ol' anti-theists spoiling every thread?? They went so far as to petition the site hosts for a new Safe Haven where they could have such enriching and "worthy" discussions without interference, and were granted the Promised Land called the Interfaith Group, thinking "If you build it, they will come".
In very short order (and exactly as predicted by all of us mean ol' anti-theists) that Group became a ghost town. It quickly became obvious (and still is) that the people begging for that room, to do what you're suggesting, had nothing meaningful to discuss amongst themselves whatsoever. They had nothing to explore in any intellectual depth, and couldn't even sustain threads for long unless they involved bashing atheists. But perhaps you'd have more luck injecting those "rational and reasonable ideas" in that Group…have at it!
And frankly, we'd all be delighted to argue like graduate philosophy students here if the religionistas would care to bring up topics worthy of such discussions, rather than the same old baloney that gets debunked (for the 50th time) in the first few replies. Providing convincing evidence that the "gods" worshipped by the world's major religions even exist outside of the imaginations of their believers would be a good start, but they can't even get over that fundamental hurdle (and knowing it, try lamely to dismiss any demands for such evidence as illegitimate and outdated).
TM99
(8,352 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 7, 2014, 01:27 PM - Edit history (2)
replying with your trademark snark. 
Well, I was not here for that so thanks for at least sharing your perspective on it.
Here are my two cents on the matter at hand.
I was not asking for a 'safe haven'. For me, Interfaith really is just for those of faith. As I am not one, I would not find that forum as interesting for discussions. Nonetheless, perhaps the reason why it is not more populated is that really it is no different than here at least with regards to the anti-theists.
Here is an choice example from today:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121568
The bulk of the replies are again the anti-religion crowd with the usual group-speak. I thought it was a 'safe haven'? Aren't those TOS violations?
On edit, I see that I made a mistake here. The OP was posted in both groups. I do note that what I continue with below still holds true for the Religion forum and the usual poor behavior. An interesting discussion on religion and Scottish independence has now devolved as usual.
With regards to your last paragraph, here is the rub. You and quite a few other anti-theists simply consider discussions about religion as an opportunity to 'debunk' believers. That is all. Period. Oh, and I guess the new meme that has started that religious belief = delusion = mental illness.
When I was in college, years before internet chat rooms or forums existed, we had a Religion and Philosophy Forum. It was open to everyone regardless of declared major, religious belief, or lack thereof. We discussed religions, psychology of religion, history, anthropology, ethics, politics, the works.
We had two very simple rules.
The first was to be as civil as possible. Yes, in heated debates tempers could flare and moderators would reign in the conflicts if they got out of control or out of hand.
The second actually stopped a lot of those conflicts from occurring. The rule was there was to be no proselytizing. Believers could not use the group to persuade others to a specific belief in a specific religious deity. And non-believers were not allowed to do the same. This was not to be a group where constant debunking of religious beliefs was to occur.
Frankly, that is what I would like to see here. There is a safe haven group already for skeptics and atheists. Go there to discuss the 'religionistas', their silly beliefs, and how smart you are in your endless debunking of their woo and delusion. This is the religion forum. Safe haven or not, open to believers or not, having every damned thread constantly devolving into an anti-theists snarks, endless diatribes about psychotic Old Testament deities, and then the inevitable whining when other group members push back against the bullshit. Then the anti-theists are a persecuted minority just like minority ethnic groups and the LGBT community. That is quite laughable given that the majority demographics of atheists tend to be white men with at least a college degree and a relatively high income status.
You constantly want to paint me as an apologist. You still live in an either/or universe where religion is bad and non-religion is good. I have never been a 'believer'. I am ignostic. The constant obsession with god that most atheists and anti-theists communicate is psychologically fascinating to me. I am quite comfortable around all types of believers or non-believers. Naturally with non-believers being the minority, I am around more religious people. I have no problem stating boundaries and not getting into it with fundamentalists. And I will fight them if need be particularly in the realm of politics.
But I will return to my final point lest you yammer at me for being too wordy as you are wont to do. If anti-theists are going to continue to post every story about some mentally ill individual that kills someone as proof of religion = mental illness; if anti-theists are going to continue to come into each discussion with the stated purpose of debunking others beliefs; and if anti-theists are going to mock and ridicule religious people even when they suffer a tragedy, then yes, don't be surprised that people, believers or not, are going to push the fuck back at that.
I frankly don't see a resolution of this on-going problem any time soon here.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,841 posts)(And by "new here" I mean on DU. 18 months is nothin')
You said;
Well, that is certainly not new by a long stretch.
Long before you ever heard of DU, the Atheists and skeptics on this board were warned rather sternly by the owner of this website that language that asserted believers were "deluded" or suffered from mental illness would not be tolerated. Several were banned and several others were suspended, if memory serves. There were a couple of OP's penned by the admins that were "pinned" for quite a long while to the top of the Atheist group to remind us of this.
The only reason such an issue is noticed by someone like you with a mere year and a half presence is because of the rules of the "new" DU and the fact that you haven't been here long enough to be aware of the history between the two groups.
If you are curious as to why an Atheist would even bother to "debunk" a believer, I'll just leave you with this gem from the late Madelyn Murray O'Hair;
TM99
(8,352 posts)While I did lurk quite a bit during the 2000's, I predominantly read the posts concerning direct political issues like the Iraq War and Bush's presidency.
I appreciate the background information.
So what rules of the 'new' DU now allow this meme to resurface? Is it time to revisit the past admonitions? I have personally had discussions with members who quite bluntly state that belief as fact contrary to arguments otherwise.
Even though your quote is missing, I am quite familiar with O'Hair. I don't think there is a single theist that I have seen on this board that would disagree with her advocacy against extremist religion in America. This is a very progressive group of independents and Democrats.
However, I also do not see theists promoting extreme fundamentalist theology or ideology on these forums for the same reason. Politically there is more in common than not. So must an atheist always debunk simply because there are fundamentalist out there? You and I both recognize that it would be silly to suggest that.
I am not a theist of any sort. I have nothing but disdain for the Religious Right and have for almost 30 years even being politically active in fighting their inroads in public policy. I was a registered Republican at one time and abhorred their take over of the GOP. Even as an independent today, I still have nothing but disdain.
I still don't feel a need to debunk every religious persons beliefs just because they are believers.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,841 posts)The jury system and the change from moderators to hosts.
The O'Hair quote is within a .jpg image and shows up on my post with no problems.
As to the rest of your post and for that matter, this entire thread, that is a reason I do not post regularly in this group. I've had all the arguments before - a decade ago and more - and in my opinion they are tedious. Although I agree with the OP and am on the same philosophical side, I really don't care any longer. I used to and got into many a heated thread on DU, but no more.
For some it is fun, and I can completely understand that. For others it is a need to defend something they hold dear, and I understand that as well.
I just have very little interest in participating. I only read this thread because I was drawn to it from another source.
I was born into a Christian household, baptized and confirmed in the faith and am now Atheist. That's all there is for me to say.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I could not see the .jpg on my end.
I understand your position. Sometimes I feel the same way, however, I do enjoy the topics of religion, psychology, and philosophy and where they intersect with culture and politics.
As I have already said in several posts in this thread, nothing will likely change. There is wood to burn on all sides. If the only way to stop the conflict is to walk away as you have done, the conflict will never really be resolved. A new group of participants will simply rehash it again and again.
Thanks for the background both personal and DU-wise.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)For a quick intro to our latest efforts, see our posts on "Religion=Delusion" http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=114774
The valuable thing there is that we have been presenting four or five solid academic references, from Psychology journals. Here scholars in Psychology explicitly allow that there are specifically "religious delusions," by name. And they confirm that mental delusions contribute to mental illness.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,841 posts)I'll pass, thanks.
Like I said, I have had all those EXACT same arguments before.
My biggest concern is that if I say what I really want to say my posts will get alerted on and hidden. I've come close to being banned in the past. I'm not interested in pushing that envelope further.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 9, 2014, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)
Thanks for your past efforts though!
Quoting medical journals that explicitly mention "religious delusions" by name, should be acceptable enough to almost anyone.
I know it is hard to restrain great anger at religion. Many of us know we were constantly lied to; offered false promises of miracles and so forth. Many of us were finally severely injured by Religion and its lies.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Your whole self-righteous rant is just a rehash of the same complaints that one clique here was making a year or more ago, that led them, as already explained, to push for the formation of the Interfaith Group, so that they'd have a place for the type of "civil" and "respectful" discussion that they claimed to want. We've already been wearied with endless gripes about threads "devolving into anti-theist snarks" and a hundred variations of that, and I have no desire to hear them all over again now that complainers such as you have an alternative. I also have no desire to educate you on why atheists might want to post in this group..been there, done that too…many, many times for many, many clueless people.
And no, despite your uninformed dismissal, the Interfaith Group is not "just for those of faith", and it is not "no different than here, at least with regards to the anti-theists". Here's their statement of purpose:
A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.
Your excuses for not going there fall flat. They welcome atheists, agnostics, ignostics, bignostics, fignostics, pignostics or whatever you want to call yourself, as long as Group rules are adhered to. So here's your challenge. You claim that "an interesting discussion on religion and Scottish independence" can be had. That thread has already been started in the Interfaith Group, so let's see you make it into the kind of discussion you claim you want. I promise that none of the people you're whining about will interfere. Put your money where your mouth is. Would you rather be as snarky as you upbraid others for being (at which you're succeeding, btw), or would you rather be part of the change you advocate?
rug
(82,333 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I am simply done engaging with you. For the next thirty days, I don't care what you say, who you say it to (whether me or anyone else), I am simply not getting into it with you.
You are needlessly antagonistic, an incredibly poor communicator, and a generally unpleasant person who uses snark in place of intellect.
If there is a safe haven for non-believers, there should be one for believers. If that is what the Interfaith forum is, terrific. For me, I am interested in discussions, yes, real discussions devoid of this childishness that you constantly spew. I have that with several believers and non-believers. So it isn't me. It isn't a matter of faith or the lack thereof. It really is just you in this case.
I enjoy the Religion forum because it is not a safe haven. I can dislike some of the more venomous posters such as yourself without leaving to go so place else. I can be frustrated with how some anti-theists derail topics not with intelligent discourse but rather with mockery and derision.
Debating and discussion, no matter how heated, does not have to be the incivility that you constantly perpetrate. There is zero justification for such behavior. If the justification is simply the past hurts you have felt at the hands of religionistas, yup, that is not enough. If it is about a distant past in which none of us could ever be held responsible for, yup, that ain't enough either. If it is a fear of fundamentalism, well, wake up son, there are not any of those posting here. There is not a believer or non-believer alike here that wants the same goals that 'they' want. Most of y'all are just tilting at windmills and enjoying your own smugness.
Carry on. 
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You haven't said one thing that you will do differently other than to ignore the big ol' meanies. YOUR action won't change otherwise. But I'm quite sure you won't see the irony/hypocrisy in that. Or you will just say "I can only control me." But you obviously don't want to control you. Because you're awesome. And I know you have said you aren't awesome, but when you make your declaration of what non-awesome you is going to do differently, it's just to not pay attention to the really bad people.
TM99
(8,352 posts)There is this really great psychological tool that adults can learn to utilize in the real world. It is called boundaries.
You are right. I can't control others. With numerous individuals, I don't really need to change my attitude or act any differently. Even in disagreement, we have no real problems.
On the other hand, no matter how polite, civil, or downright sweet I might be in all of my posts, there are simply some individuals that are just jerks. They are really good at pushing buttons. They are really good at avoiding any culpability for their actions. If you call them on their bullshit, they just play more mind games.
So yes, the action I am taking is to set firmer boundaries for myself as to who I will and will not engage in topics on the Religion Forum. There is an Ignore function so that anyone, not just my awesome self, can avoid the really bad people and big ol' meanies. I don't utilize that function. I will make some attempts to engage and when those fail, I will state my boundary as I did with SkepticScott, who no matter how I reply in a thread, feels a burning need to be an antagonizing punk.
So let's throw it back on you as you decided to interject yourself into this dialog between SkepticScott and I. Are you going to change any attitudes or actions? If you don't think you have any to change, what boundaries or actions might you take? You started this thread because of a perceived hurt that you felt strongly need to be rectified. It was not. So now what adult actions do you take? How will you deal with Struggle4Progress? It is kind that you keep trying to make this thread about me, and it really isn't. You started the topic. How will you deal with the consequences and outcome now? You still really haven't answered that question.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)Please check again. I replied to Goblinmonger.
'Vow' still in tack.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I didn't even ask s4p to change his behavior. This thread was started to have a community discussion. As I feared, very few believers came forth to say that what s4p was over the line. Even you. You couldn't bring yourself to indicate that calling AtheistCrusader an antisemitic individual was uncalled for.
So now I know. That's how I move forward.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Forward then we both go.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of seeking out or fostering the type of "civil" discussions and "intelligent discourse" you claim to want. You've been told where it can be had, but you do nothing but make lame excuses why you won't "go" there. Instead you wade into threads here feet first with snarky attacks and intellectual dishonesty.
If you were truly interested in civility, would you have posted something as smug and snarky as:
So in your estimation it doesn't reflect a typical cross section of religious believers in Scotland? Really, and again you know this how? Are you Scottish? Have you lived in Scotland for a period of time? (And let's not forget, intellectually laughable, but that's another issue).
Is "antagonizing punk" (or any of a dozen others I could cite) what you resort to when you want to be civil? Hate to see you if you weren't being civil.
Do a favor and get off your high horse. There are enough people here who don't practice what they preach and who constantly upbraid others for doing what they do enthusiastically. There's no need for another poster wearying our ears with a pretense of valuing "civility". Snark I can deal with. Hypocrisy is far worse.
MADem
(135,425 posts)So long as you're not putting down people for their personal perspectives, you're fine in there. It's not a Fight Club, it's more of a discussion group.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and plan on posting there more often.
Thank you. 
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)previously, while he was in the midst of making excuses why he didn't want to go there, despite his claims to want civil and rational discussions. So he's being rather disingenuous now, if he wasn't being so then.
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This is not what we wanted hosts to be in this group. I thought so many talked about "tone" in here. And here is one of the hosts taking a pretty shitty tone.
So you agree that Carol Burnett, who is hilarious, is on my side that tragedy is funny. Now we are just arguing about the time period. South Park tackled that with declaring that AIDS was not funny since the time moratorium had been met. This death happened a couple weeks ago and nobody knew who this person was. When is the correct amount of time to wait to say that it is ironic? And it being funny wasn't the original point of the OP. Just one I made. I realize fully that I have more of a draw to dark humor (which apparently makes me a Nazi). I find fun in being in celebrity death pools. Maybe I find things funny "too soon." Doesn't justify a host of the group calling me a Nazi.
okasha
(11,573 posts)He cited an incident in a concentration camp as an extreme form of your behavior. He did not accuse you of said extreme form.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)so that people like you could come to his defense and all could say "aw, shucks, I didn't say 'You are a Nazi' so what are you so upset about?"
Which we all know is bullshit. Everyone with a brain can read that and know what the intent was.
But I'll be sure to remember your understanding of statements like that. You do know that your level of denial of saying someone did harm can possibly lead things like the great number of people that turned a blind eye to allow the genocide of millions of Jews by the Nazis.
okasha
(11,573 posts)You have just put yourself in the position of either having to admit that you've committed the same "offense" as s4p -or having to admit that his remark wasn't t really as offensive as you claim.
Wsy to go, debate coach.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I was making a point that if your standard was going to be true, then I can make all kinds of comments.
Way to go, not-getter.
okasha
(11,573 posts)But you apparently did not thin kout thhe implications. of your own post.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that I didn't think out the implications, then you really didn't get it.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)you claim not to have read the article and I will give you the benefit of doubt but it's there and was pointed out as inappropriate and it's still there. So you tell me what should people think, that you agree with the conclusion of the article or that you just made the mistake of not reading it and used it for the reason you claim? Should we believe that SP4P is calling you a Nazi or did he use that quote wrongly to emphasis his point about taking joy in others misfortune? Before you explode I don't think you're anti-Semitic and I don't think you're a Nazi and I don't think you've read the article even now. I also don't think this is a problem that originates with this incident it's a long running disagreement.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)That person accused his Content Manager of bias. struggle4progress accused a DUer of anti-semitism, for quoting a bit of the book of Genesis.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)and read it. I think we are talking about two separate threads, maybe?
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)The second featured struggle4progress [link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121083#post89|calling AtheistCrusader an anti-Semite].
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I also find AC's comments on the Abraham and Issac story quite biased and his close-mindedness objectionable.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I do not agree that he called you a Nazi nor that he was particularly inappropriate enough to warrant sanctions as a host in this community.
I recognize that you believe that. And my point was, whether you believe it or not, why does it matter. You put out shit, and you perceived that you got shit back. You must have known that that potential consequence might occur after your comments.
While we might agree to enjoy Carol Burnett, my quoting her was to suggest that perhaps it was too soon for a joke about a tragedy. Particular since the whole thread seemed to just be another attempt by anti-theists to mock believers for their stupid and silly rituals that in this case ended in real tragedy.
No one including myself is suggesting that you must change your sense of humor. Frankly, I know that I am rather humorless. I don't tell jokes. I don't particularly like comedies. My ideas of funny today are rather old fashion - Carol Burnett, Laurel & Hardy, and Jerry Lewis - and then I enjoy the physical slapstick component. To each his own.
And when you communicate as you did your particular brand of humor, don't be surprised if it isn't always appreciated or applauded. Pushing back against that isn't inappropriate. S4P described your humor as being schadenfreude and gave an example of its worst type of expression. That was an opinion and not a call out in my estimation.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Nazis.
See what I did there? Maybe you ought to go back and re-read that thread.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You just called me a Nazi!
Oh, heavens, what shall I do. My fragile ego can not bear such a comparison!
Dude, I read the whole damned thread.
Concerning my own lack of humor, I have been called so much worse.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I made an observation about Nazis not liking comedies. According to you, at any rate.
It is also rather amusing that those offended by dark comedy are justified in "giving shit back", but that those offended by gross comparisons to the Third Reich should man the fuck up and get on with their lives.
Consistency isn't your strong suit.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Isn't that the same thing according to this thread? Should I take offense as you are suggesting here I should. After all it is a gross comparison to the Third Reich, right?
I gave you shit for your lame attempt at making a poorly constructed and implemented point.
That is all.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Which I tried to make pretty clear in the OP, is that is this what we want from a host. I have made it clear I wouldn't have said anything if this wasn't a host.
But apparently for all the screams and nannying about tone in this room, people really don't care. So fine. I hope none of the people coming to the support of what s4p did say anything about atheists coming in here and not having the right tone for good discussion. It is clear where people stand. Which was part of the purpose of this thread. I mean Justin, host of the forum and a huge voice telling atheists they shouldn't be so mean, is strangely absent from this thread. Apparently his discussions of tone are not aimed at everyone. Fine. I know how we proceed in here.
TM99
(8,352 posts)in my first reply why you were taking it so seriously?
Is it just because it was a host? If so, what do you want done? Do you want an apology? Do you want him booted from his position as host for this one transgression which apparently breaks down to this group believes he did versus that group believes he didn't? No jury, mod, or admin has banned S4P or closed the thread or blocked his reply. So there is hardly a unanimous community opinion on this topic.
So then it is about tone?
Are you just playing a convoluted game where you claim one voice was horrid and that sets a tone so now you and everyone else are free to be horrid as well?
Tit for tat? How mature.
The tone is already being set.
Hum, let's see. A thread is posted which is mocking the death of a Christian who was tragically drowned during a baptism. I can refrain from posting because really I am genuinely concerned about the tone in this group. Or I can wade right in and make some 'dark humor' comments, of course, expecting no consequences for my actions in such a thread. This is a progressive site. This is the religion forum. Most of the believers I see posting here, not that they are in any way perfect, do tend to show a baseline level of human compassion and empathy. What, you didn't think that the thread or your posted comment would go over well with such a group? You expected a tone to be maintained only by those that are religious and not those who weren't and were doing the mocking? That sounds like a fine double standard.
So if you are genuinely concerned about the tone, what are you personally going to do differently to make sure that such a 'tone' is applied to this group and its discussions? You can't control others only yourself. So what is your responsibility in all of this? What future responsibility can you take?
You brought this up to the community instead of to admin or another host. The community has responded. It does not at this point in time appear that it will go the way you would like even if what you would like has not been made crystal clear.
So now what?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This group gets pretty hot and heavy. I'm fine with that.
Apparently, though, those that argue for an improved tone here don't mean it. Rather than say, "Hey, that was crossing a line of shittiness, sorry about that" s4p has pretty much done not that 100%. So, fine. None of the usual "the atheists here are making the discussion go down hill" members have come in to say this, too, is a problem.
So next time I see that response, I will like to this thread. This is what people think is OK. It is fine for hosts and everyone else to say that because I enjoy gallows humor I'm a fucking Nazi. And because AtheistCrusader actually quotes Genesis he's fucking antisemitic. That's what passes for OK in here.
Have you not noticed that not ONE fucking theist in this group has stepped up to say "Yeah, kind of shitty." Every one has just jumped on the "well, he didn't say exactly that" level of BS. And again, fine. But stop bitching about tone in here.
TM99
(8,352 posts)you are holding one group to a standard that your own group does not follow.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=121642
What kind of tone is presented with that reply? Is it civil? Respectful? Furthering of communication?
There is an issue of tone here. Where did it start? Why do so many anti-theists approach religious people and apparently non-religious people like myself with such antagonism? I suspect the answer to that given my own personal and professional experiences.
Wood needs to be burned. Those with an obvious axe to grind about religion will provoke, debunk, mock and antagonize. Those on the receiving end - no matter how spiritual, compassionate, or whatever - are still human beings. Get attacked enough particularly for something you didn't do, don't believe, and didn't cause, and it is a natural and human psychological response to start fighting back.
Have you considered that perspective? If I was a theist, I would certainly get pissed off after a while if I was repeatedly told I was fundamentalist (when I wasn't), I am delusional and apparently mentally ill (when I am not), I am responsible personally for all the ills that my religion has caused since the inception of time (which I am not), and that my beliefs and ritual are open to constant mocking and derision.
Hell, I am irritated at quite a few anti-theists who seem to be utterly incapable of conversing with me without insulting me - calling me a religionista, an apologist, a liberal Christan(!), etc. Am I somehow a traitor to atheists everywhere because I really don't have an axe to grind? Am I an apostate because I actually find religions and the human psychology of religion fascinating and worth discussing and exploring? Am I an anathema because I actually enjoy participating in religious rituals with believers because I can appreciate the emotional connection and community experience?
If you are truly serious about the tone of the discussion here then speak out against both sides not just the other. Try to think about posting in a mockery thread before doing so. Do something different.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Secondly, did skeptic call you a Nazi in that response? No, he didn't.
How about if you take your own advice here and look at yourself. Are you really trying to tell me that you did nothing to bring about those responses to you? You are just a pretty fluffy bunny hopping around and spreading joy and love to all that come in contact with you until some nasty mean "anti-theist" comes along and spews hatred at you like a vile dragon for no reason at all?
I doubt that is the case.
At least he didn't call you a Nazi. Or antisemitic.
TM99
(8,352 posts)In that particular thread, no, I said nothing that warranted such a reply. I have never claimed to be 'pretty fluffy bunny' so you can drop that attempted line of reasoning.
Does it matter what words were used or again are we back to a very specific set of words that are forbidden to be used or implied? So is it only acceptable to feel insulted by Skepticscott if he directly called me a Nazi or even implied it but everything else is fair game as far as the tone wars goes? As long as he is not a host, then he can just be a rude SOB if he wants then I guess.
That sure sounds like a double standard. It reads as if you are not genuinely concerned with tone and communication in this forum. Is it just samurai communication between two groups and you better pick a side? Perhaps you are playing out a script?
In any case, good luck with that.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You gave a list of things that happened to you and how that is bad tone (none of which I did, btw).
I'm asking you what you are going to do or if you are just assuming that your tone is wonderful.
You also forget that my main reason for posting this is because this person is a host in this group. Do you think that that role should be filled by someone who's tone in their posts goes well beyond anything you listed in your complaints?
TM99
(8,352 posts)I reserve my tone of reply for responses to how others wish to communicate with me.
I don't pretend that I am blameless. I have stated elsewhere that I can enjoy a heated debate. I know that personally even I can loose my temper. Even if I have had such a debate once in a thread, I do not need to carry it over into another thread or topic.
I never once suggested my tone was perfect. In fact, until this thread and this discussion, I have not used that word in my discussions with regards to the Religion forum.
I think that DU3 is rather screwed up from what I see. Hosts serve little purpose as moderators beyond very few select issues. The rest is policed by the community itself with juries and threads such as this one. That has its pluses and its minuses. I may not agree with it, yet I do accept it is the rule of the house.
So in this case, no I do not think that a host's tone should be 'better' than anyone else's here given the current and longstanding climate here and the relative impotence of the host position anyway.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I don't know. As I am not in the habit of soliciting philosophical musings from inanimate constructs, I haven't asked "this thread" for its opinion on the matter.
I don't recall making proscriptions as to what should or should not offend people. I'm calling bullshit on your weak-kneed "I didn't it read it that way" beat-around-the-bush defense of S4P's latest intellectual atrocity. Right or wrong, he said what he fucking said. Your denial is beneath you.
Offense, like humor, is subjective. Irony, it would seem, offends your delicate sensibilities. Implied sympathy with the SS offends Goblinmonger. Unlike you, I'm not going to lecture people on what should tickle their funny bones or raise their ire.
And, incidentally, people who get their knickers in a twist over mundane exchange like this....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=121139
... probably shouldn't throw stones.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Snark substituting for rational communication.
If you are not making proscriptions as to what should or should not offend people, why are you even commenting in this thread? It is all subjective and personal after all, right?
Why did you interject yourself into a this sub-thread in order to communicate to me about offensive Nazi allusions and implied comments? That is hardly consistent is it?
So if offense is subjective, then what? The objective standards of the community have thus far not agreed that it was offensive enough to warrant censure. So what now? I already asked this of the OP but apparently you are not actually reading my replies in this thread?
Whether I think it was implied or not is ultimately irrelevant, and I have made that abundantly clear in all of my replies in this thread. The OP believes it subjectively. The groups have split off apparently defending their own which is not surprising giving group dynamics and psychology. Objectively at this point, the post stands. The group has not ousted S4P. The OP made this discussion a part of the community. The community is speaking and not agreeing. So now what?
And what the hell does your linked reply have a whit to do with me? Can you see any place where I actually replied in that thread? I am sorry but I was not the alerter nor did I serve on that jury.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because you said something stupid, and it is my subjective belief that people who say stupid things should be made aware, as not to appear stupid in the future. S4P wrote what he fucking wrote. He hasn't denied it. Are you trying to insinuate you know something of his motivations that he himself does not?
Whether Goblinmonger or anyone else is offended or not offended, and whether they are justified in their offense or non-offense, is completely beside this point, and, frankly, none of my fucking concern. If what he did is unbecoming of a host, then good riddance to rotten company. If not, oh well... the forum won't be short of gut laughs, that's for sure.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I didn't even speculate on motives. I simply took the sentence within context of the sub-thread and also within context of the entire thread from the start.
And while it appears that you are agreeing quite a bit with my stance in your last paragraph, you just could not help yourself and had to interject because of your subjective belief in correcting my (in your opinion) 'stupid' comment.
Wasn't that useful, adult, and contributory to a resolution of the tribal conflict in this group.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)after someone (i don't know who) alerted on the post as a community standards violation
Although DU2 moderators did have the power to hide posts, when consensus existed, DU3 group hosts do not now have the power to hide posts.
DU3 group hosts do have the power to lock threads for group statement-of-purpose violations. In the Religion group, the power, to lock threads for group statement-of-purpose violations, is exercised according to the December 2011 agreements that I linked in #108. If you wish to examine the two threads Religion hosts have locked for that reason in the last ten months, you can follow the appropriate links in #53
In any case, your objection, to the hiding of the post you link, does not involve hosting of the Religion group: it concerns the DU3 jury system, and for that I think you can only complain in ATA
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Whichever blubbering tone troll alerted on Brettongarcia (and the list of blubbering tone trolls who would do something like that is short, indeed) obviously doesn't feel you should be held to the same stringent standard of behavior. Had any of the regular non-believers here said the same things you did, our posts would have been alerted and hidden in a microsecond.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts) Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I've never alerted on anyone, and that's not really the point. The issue, as I stated, is a vocal group of individuals who talk a lot about "raising the tone" while slinging more than their share of the mud, or look the other way when their friends do the same.
rug
(82,333 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,733 posts)I generally avoid those threads for that very reason. I think the posts in question should be hidden.
As for him being a host, I don't know. I can see how his comments could call into question the groups impartiality, but the hosts here seem to rule with a very gentle hand.
I think I remember seeing something about how they try and have both believers and non-believers as hosts. I believe zombiehorde and longship are the nonbelievers while hrmjustin and Struggle4progress are the believers.
No clue on renew deal.
I have never been a host. Can hosts from other groups see the religion hosts discussion? If so has the poster in their capacity as a host engaged in similar comments or biases that you can see as AA host goblin?
If you can't see the religion host discussion I think, that zombiehorde and longship would probably be the best two to determine if this is a systematic issue deserving of a changing of hosts. According to some of the above posts the hosts do have the right to remove another host if they all agree with the removal. I guess it comes down to them no matter what.
I definitely think that if this is part of a longer and more systemic problem then it definitely an issue but I haven't been here that long (~a year), and have interacted with the host in question only a hand full of times, and simply want to be fair with my opinion. The defensive (as opposed to conciliatory) response from the host in this thread to your accusations that I have seen does lead me to agree with you goblin in general.
my $0.02.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)posts in that forum are visible to every host from every group and forum
LostOne4Ever
(9,733 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)go into the Hosts forum and often talk to each other through DU mail. The small groups I host rarely have problems, but I don't remember ever bothering to go into the host forum when we did.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)in threads in the Forum & Group Host forum, rather than via DU mail conversations
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)admittedly, DU mail is too clumsy for more than two hosts.
rug
(82,333 posts)I won't even start on the irony of you complaining about anyone else's posts in here.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)I encouraged the OP
If you have concerns about how the group is hosted, feel free to start a thread about that
In my view, participants here ought to be able to discuss the hosting of this group
rug
(82,333 posts)I see precious little discussion.
Jim__
(15,061 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It's uncanny how easy it is to pick out the people who live for this. They use DU as a playground. Pure disruption.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)You know, encouraging others, and I quote "if everyone in this Group, including you and me, would stop acting like assholes and victims, these threads wouldn't exist"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=121565
Your responses in this thread haven't shown that you're interested in being the change you wish to see in others. Still snarky, still nasty. Why not take the advice you doled out?
I'm only posting the screenshot lest someone get itchy alert fingers and suggest I'm calling you an asshole. Which I'm not. I'm just saying that your posts since making the "asshole" one last night haven't done anything to change the tone in this thread.
rug
(82,333 posts)Clean up your own house.
I stand by both of those posts. I also do not stand by why the shit is still flying.
Is there anything else you want to say?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)there are none.
You made the suggestion. Apparently it was a suggestion for others, not for you, even though you included yourself in it.
That's not helping the matter that you keep saying you want to help.
So you tell others to stop being assholes, but keep making nasty posts in the same thread where you call for others to stop making nasty threads.
I would assume that I'd still have things to say. I'm a young person, as far as the average life-span goes. I hopefully have many years left on this planet so I suppose I'll have things to say between now and the time I shuttle from this mortal coil.
Thanks for asking!
rug
(82,333 posts)instead of rushing to the defense of toxin-spewing posters.
That's not helping the matter that you keep saying you want to help. Unless, of course you want to keep the drunken carnival going.
Let me know your choice. I'll be more than happy to oblige either one.
okasha
(11,573 posts)with your attempt to drag thr hosts of this room into your personal vendetta. When you admitted to laughing at the horrific death of a drowning victim because he was participating in a religious ceremony, you oprned yourself up to some critical reactions. What did you expect? Applause?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This isn't about my personal vendetta. I have said several times I would have said nothing about this if he weren't a host.
I like black humor. You don't. Fine. Get over it. That's what I expected: an understanding of differences in humor types. Or a "not a fan of black humor" comment. That would be fine. I didn't expect to be called a Nazi guard shooting prisoners for fun. That I didn't expect.
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)What I don't like is sadism.
You were not called a "Nazi guard shooting prisoners." Every time you reiterate your accusation, you veer further from the truth. Suggest you stop it before you hurt yourself worse.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I'm scared.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
okasha
(11,573 posts)you're losing credibility by the minute.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Oh, noes!!1! Whatever will I do.
Interesting that you are putting this all on my and nothing but the defense for the person throwing around claims of Nazi-ism and Antisemitism. Though I expected that, so you aren't losing credibility with me because of that.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'm plscing the burden on you because you're the one making untenable accusations in pursuit of what appears.to be a personal vendetta. I also read the post you claim called you a Nazi. It didn't.
Edited to add: you lost credibility with me a long time ago, when you attempted to defend laconicsax's thoroughly dishonest attempt to get rug banned. Remember that?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)in this instance makes me feel even better about my position.
And, just so we are being honest, he wasn't trying to get rug banned. Lest we forget that rug performed some pretty bad form in that instance, too. In the big, bad world of the intertubes outside of DU, hotlinking to someone's photobucket account is likely to get you to be posting some pornography in many places.
But, again, that you are so firmly on the other side of this makes me know I'm right. Thanks.
okasha
(11,573 posts)the mods apparently didn't see the matter your way. They PPR'd laconicsax. They didn't ban rug.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)
laconic was Ok with the PPR. Didn't even appeal. He knew he stepped over a line. That doesn't make rug innocent in the big scheme of things.
And I have no idea what laconicsax has to do with s4p inferring I was a Nazi and that AtheistCrusader is an antisemitic. Are you saying I should be PPR'd for some ridiculous reason?
okasha
(11,573 posts)My post explains when and why you lost credibility with me and is a direct response to your preceding post.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You are fine with a host of this group going Nazi and antisemite on atheist posters. I have no more desire to discuss laconic with you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)I wonder if those who are repeating this rally cry would have the same tolerance for the, uh, comparison were it made about a believer from a non-believer.
I somehow doubt that those defending S4P's words and actions so viciously in this thread would be so gentile and offering the same excuses for an Atheist as they are for S4P.
I'd say "let's test it out!" but I know how juries go here, and I know how atheists are viewed vs how Christians are viewed on DU, and I would never suffer my atheist friends to have a post hidden just to prove a point.
Then again, Atheists are always held to a different standard in this forum than Religionists are. The defenders of "tone argument" and "welcoming place" never seem to see the beam in their own eye as they take us to task for the saw-dust in ours.
rug
(82,333 posts)Unless, of course, you're just striking a pose.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I've seen the results of juries that have been called to posts by religionists that have attacked atheist posters in this (and other) groups, and they're full of jurist comments like "LEAVE - atheists do much worse" or "LEAVE - time for Atheists to have a taste of their own medicine."
It's the same situation that LGBT and racial minorities face at DU, where attacks against them are rarely hidden and not seen as the bigotry that they are, attacks against atheist DUer's are not hidden because jurists do not Atheists as being equal with Religionists.
why don't YOU go for it? I'd give $5 to see you defend an atheist for perceived bad behaviour with 1/10th of the effort you put forth to defend your religionist friends. I have never once seen you come to the defense of an atheist poster, even when they are in the right or being attacked by one of your pals. Never. Same for others in this thread. NEVER.
rug
(82,333 posts)I've seen alerts on self-proclaimed atheists fail as least as often as on others. Besides, neither your anecdotes nor mine constitute evidence, let alone a fact.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with LGBT issues or racism, much as you ache for it to be so. Nice try, though.
The short answer is, if everyone in this Group, including you and me, would stop acting like assholes and victims, these threads wouldn't exist.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I have to say that it's hard to have conversation in a group that's so divided. And I cannot stop seeing the blatant nasty treatment of atheist DU'ers. What were their names...humblebum...someone else. They were SO awful to Atheists. None of you guys stood up for us when they went on and on and called us Stalinists and such. Not a word. Not a peep. It took them going full fucking Walt Star flaming out over homosexuals before they were banned and their posts condemned. Posts about LGBT'ers...not atheists.
Yes. Atheist posters have acted badly. They have said rude things. I have said rude things. Why is there no consession that the other side acts badly, says rude things as well? Why not ever one concession from the religionists that yes, we could do things better, we could attempt conversation better, we could go about things better?
As far as the LGBT comparison: are you G, B, L, or T? I am. So please do not tell me what is or isn't bigotry against GBLT'ers or what is or isn't bigotry against atheists. Being a member of a sexual minority, I am acutely aware of what homophobic hatred and bigotry is. And I make the comparison because it stands. THe idea that DU juries are made up of the most educated, most well-meaning, and most leftward thinking individuals is laughable. I have seen outright bigotry towards Atheists stand 0-6 to leave because "atheists say bad things too" and I have seen quite awful anti-gay comments left 0-6 because "people need to grow a thicker skin." THe fact that you haven't seen it happen, or are unaware of it happening, or because it doesn't happen every day doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and that it isn't an issue. Please see the LGBT forum here for numerous examples of hatred that have been left to stand against that group.
rug
(82,333 posts)In that regard I will leave your opinion on the comparison of self-identified atheists with minority groups without further comment beyond that I disagree.
Suffice it to say no regular poster is innocent. Or unarmed. Let's see what happens.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I couldn't imagine why not, he has yet to answer a single straight question(pun intended) about his feelings towards them.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)about these things, you are more than happy to iterate your Church's position, but not your own, unless they are one and the same, of course.
rug
(82,333 posts)Are you calling me a homophobe?
Answer it or evade it but spare me any more bullshit.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)That's why I asked you about your positions on various issues related to same sex relationships and LGBT rights in the first place, to make such a judgement. You have, so far, evaded answering them, its fair to wonder why.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)when I had just seen their exchange with you. The 'anti-semite' one reinforces my opinion.
Your reply to s4p was alerted on, and I was on the jury; since I never like to see a direct 'fuck you', I voted for a hide, but also said I thought struggle4progress was trolling:
Nope
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=121355
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"And fuck you"? WTF? He didn't do that. This poster needs to cool off. Help him out.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:02 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Reasonable response being compared to a Nazi. Leaving it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh. Pissing contest.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: trollish troll is trollish
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It has gone a little too far, but it should be noted that it's a host of this group that is trolling with the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife" in #8, and the fulfilment of Godwin in #65. Shame on you, struggle4progress. Consider your position.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: provoked
I was #6. Note that 2 other jurors stated you were provoked. If 3 jurors think a host is overstepping the mark in one thread, and the same host then does something even worse - saying that just bringing up a bible story was anti-semitic - then I think it's time for that host to retire.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What many supporting s4p on this thread seem to miss and that I have said numerous times, is that if this didn't come from a host, I wouldn't have said anything. I would have just chalked it up to what happens in this group. I give it out a lot, too. I get that. Could I do better? Yes. But s4p is a host and that's a shitty think for a host to do. Don't know why so many people can't just admit that.
And I knew full well when I typed my response that I would get alerted on and was ready for it to be hidden. I wouldn't have complained about that. I fully understand why you voted to hide. But I was OK with my saying it because s4p is a host here. Others would have gotten a Godwin response from me and I would have finished with the convo.
I don't know how the hosts of this group can let this continue from a host. I'm fine with it continuing from a non-host. I get it. I wish it would stop and perhaps I can do more to help it stop, too. But if a host gets to continue their position after posts like that, there's no hope in this group.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)To behave any better, I certainly don't.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)for a jury, so the alert would go to Administration, but they say they review all alerts
It is my impression the Administrators seem strongly opposed to bigotry in general and are quite willing to PPR posters for homophobia
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts) Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Not to mention your followup posts that actually made it worse. Do you want me to link to those as well?
Your posts are usually, without fail, so filled with pretentious filler as to obscure your true intentions, learn to be direct, perhaps then you will be PPR'd.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts) Jim__
(15,061 posts)
PunkinPi
(5,243 posts)On Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:05 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
I have a problem with a Religion host
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121479
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is a call-out of a DU member. Yes, I know that the person who is being called-out is a host. But that does not make this okay. Goblinmonger is using the fact that someone is a host as an excuse to call them out. We don't need this drama in the Religion group. If Goblinmonger wants a host removed, he should contact another host who has the power to remove struggleforprogress as a host. Appealing to the peanut gallery is just disruptive.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:22 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I hate leaving this OP alone, but comparing nitwittery to murderous Gestapo deserves some sort of response.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Groups are entitled to choose their own Hosts, and a discussion whether someone should(n't) be one - however messy - seems appropriate. I think this is more a Trash Thread situation, for Group members who aren't interested in this argument.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)if they want a host gone. Starting a thread about it in the group is exactly the right thing to do. We don't have the ability to force it, but it's up to us to make out opinions known, in public.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Clearly, you are not "a big boy", if you go whining to the hosts because in the She sent them to heaven thread, I said that unspecified atheists were attacking religion because an obviously deranged woman drowned her kids. I was thinking specifically of Trotsky's #19 in that thread, which I still say was bigoted -- because it was. Claiming injured self-righteousness does not make it better.
I have a deep and abiding hatred of bigotry of all sorts. I am particularly annoyed on DU when bigoted statements about religion and believers are deemed perfectly acceptable. I was told, in as many words, by one of the hosts of the religion forum that saying "that remark is bigoted" is worse than the bigoted remark. I am certain that if I were to make bigoted remarks about gays or blacks or women, I would be stomped on and rightly so. But bigotry towards believers? That's OK.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That's how they get around that - they are opposed to believers beliefs, not the believers themselves. In the same sense that we are all opposed to conservatives beliefs.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I didn't alert on s4p's posts. I have said that repeatedly. I own it when I do.
My problem here is that it came from a host.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Saying "that nasty Fortinbras Armstrong is being mean to us atheists again is not being "a big boy". Rather, it is being a crybaby.
I notice that you did not address anything I said in that post.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You got the jury email. The only thing I entered for comments was:
I alerted because you were making broadbrush comments that I would expect would get my post hidden if I said it about theists. 5 people agreed with me. Deal with it.
Edited to add: And here are the only three comments made by jurors, since you wanted to make this public:
Explanation: Man, I hate to hide posts, but this is ridiculous. Absolutely not needed. Hate speech.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Uncalled for broad brush attack.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: DU might accept the trolls but I can still vote to hide their garbage.
So 3 of your peers said you were engaging in hate speech, using a broad brush attack, and are a troll. But, hey, keep bitching at me for alerting on it.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I made no indication it was about you "being mean" but you using a broad brush with the word bigot. I didn't even use the phrase "broad brush" in my alert but one of the jurors used it. And one called you a troll.
And nice attempt at the implied game, but ultimately a fail.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)No, the statement I complained about was bigoted, and instead of responding to it, you went whinging about it instead.
Which just goes to show that you are not interested in defending the atheist view expressed, but just whinging when it is exposed as the bigotry it was.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You were only talking about one particular post but you were also making a statement that talked about atheist bigots without limiting that label to the person you were replying to.
Yeah, I'm dumbstruck as to why a juror called you a troll.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Because there was clear evidence of it in that thread.
I notice that you spend all your time attacking me, without once addressing my claim of bigotry. How about addressing what I say, instead of your incessant usages of the logical fallacy of the Ad Hominem (abusive). Or are you unable to address what I say is bigotry?
Whinges, logical fallacies, personal attacks. Never once trying to talk about the subject I raised.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I have only quoted that a jury of your peers said you were engaging in hate speech, were using a broad brush, and were a troll. I'm sorry that a jury of your peers didn't see the clear evidence you speak of. I didn't see it either, which is why I alerted.
And just so those reading along know that I'm not engaging in and ad hom, here are the alert results with the comments I am referring to:
Explanation: Man, I hate to hide posts, but this is ridiculous. Absolutely not needed. Hate speech.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Uncalled for broad brush attack.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: DU might accept the trolls but I can still vote to hide their garbage.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: How very x-tian of you.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
trotsky
(49,533 posts)After all, in your repeated condemnations of Richard Dawkins, you've used "evidence" that consisted of you re-interpreting things he said and putting them in quotation marks to indicate he actually said those words.
You'll have to understand why, then, you've completely destroyed any credibility you might have thought you had.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I understand that most atheists believe that believers basically get a free ride here; from my perspective it seems like it's exactly the opposite.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)what you want a host of this forum to do? Is the instance in question an example of the tone you would like for this forum?
I understand fully that this forum gets pretty hot and heavy. Calling me a Nazi seems a tad over the top. Especially from a host. I can disregard or ignore the person if I want. I certainly don't want them to be a host, though.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't know if a host in a forum like this should post at all, as it seems inevitable you will get dragged into the tribal warfare. I don't know if you can have a neutral party in this debate unless you had someone totally disinterested, and if that were the case, they wouldn't pay enough attention to perform their hostly duties.
You are reading into his response though, when you say he is comparing you to Nazi Prison Guards - something your fellow atheist have cautioned me about repeatedly. I can see where you are coming from though, as the link seems pretty clear.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Here's what s4p said:
You are engaging in X
Guess who else engages in X--NAZIS
It's pretty clear what was being said.
I think hosts can post here and can get into the mix. No problem with that. Probably shouldn't be someone who goes to the Nazi and antisemitic point twice in a couple hours.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And disingenuously putting words in the mouths of atheists, because I read into things.
How many hosts does a forum have? 6?
Bryant
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)group participants thrashed out in open discussions here back in December 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12181110
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218129
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)to prevent certain abuses by the other hosts: for example, the hosting agreement, as I understand it, essentially requires consensus to lock threads or to ban a DUer from posting here, and the top host is authorized to remove any host who fails to honor such agreements
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)freedom to remove another host just because the top host thinks the other host should be removed
Our hosting agreement, as I understand it, requires hosting with a fairly light hand, and the agreement-upon procedures are intended to enforce that
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It is pretty clear in implying a connection between Goblinmonger and Nazism?
Bryant
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)The connection is pretty clear - but even if you want to pretend it isn't, you could at least clarify and apologize for your miscommunication. Or double down and call Goblinmonger a nazi.
Bryant
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)again and again
You are free to contact the other hosts and ask for my removal: IMO the original agreement on Religion group hosting, which you may find in the archives, would allow for such removal if the other hosts agreed
But I think you deliberately misread and misrepresent my posts
My exchange with you occurs in this subthread #8, in which you find it funny that a man drowned and also find it funny that another man fell off a cliff. I interpret that as ugly schadenfreud and remark that in severe and chronic cases of schadenfreude, results can be rather unattractive. This seems to me an appropriate response to someone who snickers about a drowning and a fatal fall: if you're free to snicker, I'm free to warn you what road I think you're headed down
My exchange with AtheistCrusader occurs in this subthread #66, in which AtheistCrusader somehow attempts to tie the story of two boys drowned in a bathtub to the story of Abraham and Isaac. This IMO is bottom-dragging for a reaction: it has nothing whatsoever to do with any details of the story under discussion in the thread; it is designed to malign various people based on a grotesque misrepresentation of an ancient story; and I responded to that. The Religion group, by agreement of its participants, is hosted with a rather light hand; and so bottom-dragging for a reaction is common here; but it seems to me that there can be little complaint if one's bottom-dragging for a reaction, by grotesque misrepresentation of other people's beliefs, produces a reaction objecting to such grotesque misrepresentation
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Very hard to move the conversation forward that way.
Bryant
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)The thread is California man washed out to sea during baptism: a BBC story is posted, with the gleeful remark All join in now: "Nearer, my God, to thee ..."
I respond in #8 Do you just enjoy hearing about drownings, or do you get some special pleasure from the deaths of strangers whose views you don't particularly share?
Later, in #55 of the same subthread, I point out that about 10 persons accidentally drown every day
Goblinmonger's #56 responds So fucking what?Are you denying that there is irony here? Do you place a time limit on when irony is humorous? I laughed pretty loudly when I heard on the radio that the guy who invented the Segway died when he drove one off a cliff. That's funny
In response #65, I say So you say you also laugh when people fall off cliffs. There is a word for that: Schadenfreude is pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others ... It is the feeling of joy or pleasure when one sees another fail or suffer misfortune ... Schadenfreude really exists and has been been observed in ordinary people. On general principle, I think I should perhaps call your attention to the fact that, in severe and chronic cases of schadenfreude, results can be rather unattractive. This is the post of which Goblinmonger complains
Goblinmonger's #67 is something about my "Google skills"
In my #73, I point out that Goblinmonger's stance is Man drowns! Ha ha ha! because ... baptism! and Man falls off cliff! Ha ha ha! because ... Segway!
Goblinmonger in #76 says Do you not understand irony? Certainly you can muster the ability to Google that, right? But go ahead and build those straw men. Let's go step-by-step: Is it ironic that a man going to get baptized drowns? Specifically, is it situational irony?
I point out in #83 (news link included) that the man who was washed away was not being baptized
This, of course, does not affect Goblinmonger's view that the drowning is good laugh
It is perhaps noteworthy that Goblinmonger begins his complaint against me here by remarking how "frustrating" he finds my Google-Fu (whatever that is) and my supposed vomiting as much stuff as possible to dilute and distract from the point of an OP; this evidently is an ongoing frustration, since he mentions it at least twice in the subthread we have just examined (in his posts #67 and #76)
I suppose it might indeed be frustrating to look forward to having a good laugh at the expense of a poor drowned man, on the theory that it's funny because he was being baptized at the time, only to have someone point out that the man who was washed away was not being baptized; and I suppose some of those, who were enjoying this sad news story due to its alleged irony, might (like Goblinmonger) be frustrated when someone dilutes and distracts from the point of an OP by pointing out some actual facts
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)NAZI!
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts) el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That said, your point would still have been made without the reference to Nazis (and not just Nazis, concentration camp Nazis).
And there is some humor to be found in that situation. There are a lot of jokes about death and dying and really terrible situations.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and you just let that hang.
If you had stopped short of the Nazi bullshit you linked to, I would have had no problem.
But at least we are on day 2 and there is no indication you think you crossed any lines.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)But we do now have a problem with a host. It would be better if you resign, though.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,733 posts)Numbers 2 & 3.
We are all hardwired to assume the other side is out to get us and have a double standard.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)that only makes it worse.
Not that believers are blameless.
Bryant
mr blur
(7,753 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That's sort of how tribalism works.
Bryant
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)has left me disgusted.
The two individuals I had the misfortune of encountering were antagonistic, judgmental, and wholly unpleasant. I can understand how one's patience with such fools would wear thin.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)including very vicious, accusatory public callouts (for SOME, not all), clearly the hosts are OK with a lot. At least for themselves.
PS, this was my first time signing on in a little while, I hadn't read the entire thread before responding. Now that I have, I can say that yep, it turned out about how I was expecting.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)In the past, when posters were being jerks, and receiving a jury hides in this group, we would do a suspension. We've had only a few (2-4) of these, and at least one was a Christian and at least one was an atheist.
Then Skinner made a similar rule for all DU. If anyone gets X number of jury hides in a Y amount of time, they are suspended for a while. Once I saw this rule, I told the other hosts that I didn't think we should suspend people anymore, since the software is now doing it for us. I wanted our role would shift to mostly just locking off topic threads, spam, etc. The other hosts agreed with me, and we haven't suspended anyone since. We voluntarily reduced our "power."
Religion Group is not for the faint of heart. We attack each other's reality and perceived place in the universe. We attack each other's identity. Doing this consistently without pissing people off is extremely difficult, and perhaps even impossible. People are going to get pissy and make some rude posts from time to time, and those rude posts will be inconsistently hid by the jury. This is why I would rather just have the software suspend people. You get something like five hides before you're suspended, and if people wish to spend those here, then so be it.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)but most of the discussion for that has fallen into the Forum & Group Hosts forum archives, where it is somewhat difficult to access
Goblinmonger's discussion may be the result of my encouraging him, about a week ago, to start a thread if he had concerns about how the group is hosted. He does not seem to aim at banning me from the group but apparently wants me removed as host
Goblinmonger says in #4 he is unwilling to alert against the posts he says offend him. In #43 he seems to say that he does not find the posts offensive enough for him to seek administrative intervention. I indicated in #10 (early in the discussion) that I do think the other Religion group hosts would have the power to do so, if they found such action appropriate
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't want you PPRd from DU. I don't think you should continue to be a host given what you have posted and the attitude it demonstrates behind it.
I don't want to alert on the posts because I don't think they will be hidden and I really don't think they rise to that level. As I've said, if it were a non-host that said that, I'd write it off as an over-the-top response from someone.
But you are a host in a pretty volatile group and I don't think your rhetoric sets the right tone as a host.
I started this thread because in this group we have handled these discussions as a community. Which is why I didn't just contact another host to ask to have you removed. I am quite sure each of the other hosts would have wanted a discussion in the forum. So here we have one.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And the fact that s4p has to throw out a falsehood about you wanting him PPRed means that your case is strong - he can't argue it, so he has to argue against a strawman. As do most people defending his behavior as a host.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not in favor of banning longtime members eho have posted it this room permanently. One or two month bannings is fine if we need it, but we haven't needed to lately.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I've never said that. I have a problem with s4p being a host given his attitude expressed in those, and other, posts. That
Do you support the tone of s4p in those posts? Is that what you want from this forum?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I understand you are upset with what he said but I personally don't think he meant it as you took it. That being said you have the right to feel upset.
It is not my or the other members responsibility to police this room. My job is to make sure the ops comply with the sop and to ban members that go over a line.
You singled me out twice in this thread and I don't get why. There are 5 hosts here and most have been hosts longer than I. As for your thought that I correct atheists on their behavior well I correct them mostly when they are rude to me. I get along with most of the atheists on this site except a handful that are rude to me. If they are rude to me they hear from me.
I know you are upset and your feelings were honest. All I can say is I am very sorry this happened. I really am.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)The 2nd link in the OP. I think that's worse than the goblinmonger sub-thread.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Contrary to opinions that this is just me either crying about being offended or having an axe to grind with s4p. Actually wasn't even thinking of starting this thread after my comment until I read the one about AtheistCrusader and felt two was too many.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I don't think he meant to imply he was anti-Semitic but I see how it might be taken that way.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)about a message for a person to kill their own child - on topic; and struggle4progress suddenly says "The notion, that Judaism commands child-sacrifice, is common anti-semitism, and to read the story, of Abraham and Isaac, as justifying human sacrifice, is cast from some similar mould ".
I can't how you can read that as anything other than saying bringing up the Isaac story was anti-semitic. No-one had mentioned anti-semitism, or Judaism, until that point.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)to suggest that he viewed the statement as anti-Semitic instead of just a general attack against religion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)(1) One can alert on an OP as a group SoP violation; the group hosts might then lock the OP. IIRC the Religion group hosts have done this three times; you can find links to two of those threads in my #53. Group hosts are also allowed to lock OPs for other reasons, but under the DU3 Religion group hosting agreement this is unlikely, and IIRC it has not happened here
(2) One can promptly alert on a post as a CS violation, in which case a jury will consider the post. Administrators read all such alerts and PPR posters who are grossly abusive. Should a DU member accumulate enough hidden posts, there are consequences such as suspension of posting privileges. Under the same circumstances, our current practice would allow but not require Religion group hosts to take further action
(3) One can directly contact Administrators (through ATA or by DU mail, say) to request action
(4) One can directly contact Religion group hosts to request action
(5) One can address the issue in-thread
(6) One can put the offending poster on ignore
There may be other options: these are the ones that immediately came to mind
Leontius
(2,270 posts)feel any need to pursue any action and never considered doing so. I do think that in the heat of discussion you made a connection that was wrong. I think AC just hates all religions that's on him and I'm fine with it . To close it all up I never thought you called GM a Nazi you just used the guard story as another example of schadenfraude9(sp).
Dorian Gray
(13,845 posts)can verbally say what bothers them and defend themselves.
Reading the thread, I understand why you felt the need to argue the points and ironic "humor" being spewed. Not funny. But a "This is what I meant," or an "I'm sorry," or a "Screw you! That is what I meant" would go further than repeatedly saying this over and over again.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)So I think that GM knows perfectly well that I did not insult him in the way he claims I did; I expect GM does dislike my stated objection to his pleasure at the misfortunes of others; and, on the basis of many years of interaction with GM, I am inclined to regard the whole matter as a noisy rhetorical exercise
Since GM is a high school English teacher, I further presume GM is capable of stringing together several paragraphs in an organized logical order, and thus I examine the OP to determine its intent. GM's opening sentence there is: I'm willing to just deal with the Google-Fu of struggle4progress coming in and vomiting as much stuff as possible to dilute and distract from the point of an OP. This is rhetorical technique, designed for nothing except to provoke reaction and produce inconclusive clouds of smoke, for if I respond to that, GM would complain I had not addressed his point
There are similar indications elsewhere in the OP: for example, GM's third paragraph in the OP mentions a post he alerted, that was later hidden by a jury, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with forum hosting; similarly, his final paragraph, largely devoted to forum hosts, mentions cbayer, who resigned as a Religion group host a year ago, as GM knows full well, having participated in the discussion we had here to choose a new host. I expect that GM, as a high school English teacher, is conversant with rhetorical strategies and knows that discussing which posts have been hidden by juries, or discussing a person who resigned as a Religion group host a year ago, cannot contribute to the discussion he allegedly intends to have -- and thus I am rather inclined to regard these as chum tossed into the water to spur a feeding frenzy
I have already told GM in #10 upthread that I think he misreads and misrepresent my posts
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Can't even say "sorry" can you?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)* Humility
* Turning the other cheek
* Asking for forgiveness
* Loving one's enemies
It is odd how few DU Christians exhibit any of the above, yet still consider themselves Christian. I also don't recall any passages in the bible where Jesus says "Except when you're dealing with those horrible atheists."
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)At least half the time you're accused of being a disingenuous dishonest person.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Does that mean it's time to turn the other cheek, shake the dust off your sandals, and move on?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Boy that never gets old.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But then it seems many Christians do that.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I really appreciate your expertise here - but of course this does sort of require Christians to be doormats, right? Basically you atheists can be as insulting and nasty and like and Christians are supposed to just take it?
Works out well for your tribe.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)turn the other cheek?
Do you think I'm being insulting and nasty right now?
I notice that you seem to be the only one forcing the "tribe" meme here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Are you saying by pointing out that some people who claim to be Christian but don't seem to follow those, I'm insulting them?
What exactly is the insult?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is odd how few DU Christians exhibit any of the above, yet still consider themselves Christian. I also don't recall any passages in the bible where Jesus says "Except when you're dealing with those horrible atheists."
trotsky
(49,533 posts)There are DUers who claim to be Christian yet hurl all sorts of vile bullshit. Am I insulting them by pointing out how that doesn't seem to be Christian behavior?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not saying that there are not moments where we could do better but some might take it as an insult.
Considering some of the things said to us here it is understandable if we loose our cool. We are not perfect.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)when the others fail to live up to the standards of their religion as they see it. I see right-wingers being referred to as "Christians" (with the quote marks), or even see it be claimed they aren't Christians at all.
Is that behavior OK?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)as an insult.
And with all due respect Trotsky, if you want to judge people here maybe you should look at your own actions and words here before you judge people.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Putting that aside for the moment, you appear to be saying that pointing out someone's behavior is inconsistent with their religious beliefs is insulting them.
Is that correct?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)There are times Christians here are not acting like Christians. I will fully admit to that fault.
I just think you are the wrong person to point it out.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I just need to shut up because I am a terrible, bad person.
Got it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Christian is your right but I think coming from you it is unhelpful.
Sorry but you have been hostile to the believers of this site. I have felt your hostility on many occasions.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What a strange catch-22 I'm in. DU Christians can be hypocrites, I point it out, that makes me hostile, therefore I am not allowed to point out the hypocrisy.
Tell me, are you willing to call out believers for being hostile? Will you name some names since you were willing to accuse me publicly this way?
Or is it, in your opinion, only the atheists who are hostile and mean?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But you made a comment and I gave you my opinion.
You can do whatever you like but expect people to comment on it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You called me out, call them out.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I get it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)People who show hostility to me get no pm from me.
You make the wrong assumption to say I have never told a believer they are wrong.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Atheists get a public call out.
Believers get a PM. (And we just need to trust you on that.)
As a regular poster, meh, no big whoop. As a host, I would expect more consistent behavior. At least to set an example if nothing else - which is kind what this thread is about. But whatever. I got it. The message is consistent in its inconsistency.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I said people I am on good terms with. You of course turn it into something else. I get along with almost everyone in this room but a handful of people.
As for you believing me I really don't care if you do or don't.
It is not my job tompolice this room. I comment mainly when you go after me. If you think people need examples to follow then set one.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Like Goblinmonger said, this will be a wonderful thread to have bookmarked for the future. Thanks for all you have said.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You want a better room lead by example.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Likewise. Especially as a host.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have made mistakes.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Or comparing us to Nazis?
Do you think s4p exhibited Christian behavior in the way he handled all this? Would Jesus have doubled down on all of it or might he have apologized for any misperceptions if he didn't mean it to be that way?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)el bryanto has said it was out of line. Even Leonitus said the antisemitic part was out of line. Only two theists in the thread to say so. You just think it was the wrong words.
I kind of like you, and I don't really have a problem with you, but you don't really have a leg to stand on for saying that trotsky is being insulting when you won't say that s4p was insulting but rather should have "used different words." And ultimately I'm fine with all that, I think. I'll just be bookmarking this thread and linking to it whenever the theist tone police come in saying atheists are being mean and nasty. I just wish the tone police would stop with the "we need to set a different standard" in here and realize that at any given point pretty much everyone has shitty tone and until those individuals start calling out their own, they should just shut it. I gave them the chance on this thread to show that they cared about overall tone and, clearly, they only care about the tone of theists.
And had s4p ONCE said "sorry" even if it were part of the "you misunderstood me," I would have self-deleted the OP after posting the OP in a reply and saying why I was self-deleting. That's all it would have taken. But, nope. Just doubled down.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Have you considered the fact that I sent him a pm.
I will say publicly I think he should say that while he did not mean it as it was taken that he is sorry that it caused you pain.
As for tone policing I go after people who insult me for the most part.
rug
(82,333 posts)Conflation is a poor rhetorical tactic. So is lying.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)You stand next to people who are, of course, but I stand next to people who are as well.
People in this forum, theist and atheist, don't have any interest in the tribe meme because it kind of exposes how dysfunctional this forum is. But of course it's tribal at this point, you won't see most theists taking other theists to task, you won't see most atheists taking other atheists to task. I cannot recall you ever saying to any atheist "Well maybe that's a little too far there." It's possible you've done it and I missed it.
As for turning the other cheek I suppose it means that I should be gentle and charitable with everybody. Christ was charitable and forgiving to the soldiers who nailed him to the cross. I guess I don't live up to that standard.
On the other hand Christ also whipped the money changers in the temple. So there's that.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Vegan tribe vs. omnivore tribe
Feminism tribe vs. "men's rights" tribe
Obama supporters tribe vs. Obama critics tribe
I don't think labeling people who share an opinion on a particular subject a "tribe" does much good.
But basically what you're telling me about some of the core principles of what is typically associated with Christian behavior, is that they are optional, and can be violated whenever you feel like. Kind of summed up in that annoying bumper sticker "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."
Of course what that means is that anyone taking that position can never say that someone else was or wasn't a Christian. George Bush is a Christian. Dick Cheney is a Christian. Hell, even Hitler was a Christian.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Or have you made what you would consider to be moral errors? Not asking for details, of course, just have you ever done things that, in retrospect, you considered wrong?
The tribe is useful because it exposes dysfunctional but enjoyable behavior. It's so much easier for example, to believe that all atheists are assholes like (name redacted) or (name redacted). And at a certain point why not give in and enjoy?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But that's the big beef I have because so many on DU are willing to declare so-and-so isn't a Christian because they don't act like one. But if you point out that they too fail to act like a Christian (which I have a separate beef with, how it's defined), that's not fair.
It's been made clear to me anyway that I am too horrible and nasty of a person to be able to discuss this topic so I will quit now.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I specifically denied that and I apologize if I went too far in my other comments. I will admit that I am pretty angry right now (and with good reason), but I shouldn't take it out on you.
I do agree that people deny that such and such a person is not a Christian because they don't like what they are doing is engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - obviously George Bush, Dick Cheney and Adolf Hitler all count as Christians because they described themselves as such.
I also agree that it is unclear when people talk about Christian principals because with hundreds of different sects and millions of different believers, you can find a Christian who upholds every type of behavior as as symbol of Christianity, from really horrible behavior to really noble behavior.
Bryant
LostOne4Ever
(9,733 posts)Because I am constantly trying to re-asses my own biases as much as I can.
Just trying to make my original post to this thread I was constantly looking over the OP and the linked threads trying to decide what I really thought vs my own biases.
Did I really feel that the post was over the line or was I allowing my bias in favor of GM side color my vision. There is a big difference between merely noting that triblism exists and actually working against it.
If one is not careful one can end up having a counter-bias against one's own "tribe" in the pursuit of trying to be objective.
This can be seen in some of the "I'm an atheists, BUT..." articles we see in this forum. Those type of articles in particular im finding I have less and less tolerance for as they unintentionally promote the "all atheists are assholes" stereotype. Throw in tribalism and you can have the other tribe pouncing on the comments going "see see one of their own even admit the stereotype is true!!!"
I try my best to call out posters who go over the line (atheist and theist alike) as I see them, but often will sit back and think long and hard before doing so to make sure im not engaging in either bias or counter bias for my own group and making sure my words can't be used or twisted to further a stereotype I am trying very hard to disprove.
Sometimes, I just can't tell if im blinded by my own double standards and biases. From there, I figure that if I can't tell for sure if my objection is due to bias then my basis for the objection must be pretty weak and I choose, to paraphrase Mark Twain, keep my mouth shut and let everyone think I am a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Is that how you roll, Trotsky? Quoting "mythical" characters to attack those who dare to think differently than you and your fellow extremists. And you talk of hypocrisy
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't know that it is 50% of the time, but I could be wrong.
I do know that at various point, it is often hard to take an apology from someone. If for some reason the world stopped spinning and s4p actually said he was sorry for this whole thing, I would no longer believe him. Don't know that that is the situation, but I know it exists.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But only with certain posters.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thus I'm not a hypocrite.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I haven't told someone their position is anti-Semitic. So I am already setting a better example than one particular Christian.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Everyone here including you and I has faults here.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that this accusation is really about payback. Not too long ago, one of your cronies was publicly schooled by a host (longship) for his persistently toxic behavior. Now you're not only making a chew toy of s4p, but trying to get him removed as host. An eye for an eye, a believer for a non-believer.
And this from someone who allows personal callouts by name in the group he hosts. Tch. Not nice. Double standard and all that.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You are fine with the statements that s4p did. Because, for me, that is all it's about. You can build whatever strong men you want, I guess.
So I would be fine saying:
I see you are Catholic. Just so you know, that taken to the extreme can lead to antisemitic attitudes like Mel Gibson.
I see you are a Protestant. You need to be careful that that doesn't lead to the horribly antisemitic attitudes of Martin Luther as he founded the Protestant religions.
You're cool with that?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)by trying to exorcise them.
Yeah - I can see how that would be really offensive.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Those posts are to look at the ugly underside of religion in contrast to the wonderful puppy breath side that so many others post. Nobody is saying that people here on DU are going to kill their kids. If that post exists and I missed, it let me know.
But s4p did say that to me.
And, so you know it didn't go unnoticed, I do appreciate that you are one of the few believers here that have actually stepped up and said that what s4p said was out of line. Thank you.
rug
(82,333 posts)You simply suggest a believer is complicit and enables it.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Your tribes words should be held to the strictest scrutiny, my tribes words should be read generously. That's because your tribe is full of disingenuous, dishonest, and thoughtless people, while my tribe is made up of smart, caring, and honest people.
At any rate I felt like I couldn't complain about the obvious implications of "Religion kills another child" without also talking about the obvious implications of what was said to you.
Bryant
Leontius
(2,270 posts)of the 'kids killed by religion' threads are. And for you to state otherwise, well we all know what it's called.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)I am fine with what s4p actually said.
I would not be fine with what you claim he said, if he had in fact said it. And I most certainly am not fine with your demand that he be removed as host when you admit that his post would not be hidden if submitted to a jury. You can't get a lesser penalty so you insist on a more severe one? Spare us.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Let's talk about toxic behavior then.
Let's talk about accusing other DUers of "proposing genocide" simply because they oppose the takeover of secular hospitals by the Catholic church, and the religious restrictions they then imposed on care options.
Let's talk about smearing other DUers as "carrying water for Republicans" because they won't be sufficiently deferential to religious opinions.
Let's talk about that same person exhibiting those behaviors then turning around and sneering at various kinds of religious beliefs as she sees fit.
I will take whatever public callouts might come my way - including by a host in THIS GROUP - for fighting against such blatant hypocrisy. And I'll gladly laugh at your snide remarks and personal attacks because that's all you can offer, and it's just pathetic.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)What you've just read is more of trotsky's obsessive attack on cbayer. He has made those same comments to her repeatedly.
He's not going to answer you honestly because that would constitute a callout.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Particularly in a forum like this.
But, yes, as I suspected, it's more tribalism - Cbayer is part of our tribe so naturally we are guilty for everything she says.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You know, fuck it. There have been so many callouts in this group, let me throw two more on the table. If someone alerts (and I don't doubt they will, right, okasha?), I'll accept the jury results. It will be ridiculous of course, but whatever.
cbayer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218101804#post10
And if we want to talk about toxic behavior, the discussion will have to include rug. I put him on ignore over a year ago, informed him I was doing so, yet he continues to reply to my posts. I refuse to read his juvenile bullshit, but others have told me his replies are nothing but snark and personal attacks. If you want to go catalog them for me to confirm, I can link to the posts of mine that the system tells me he replied to and you can check them out.
I'm asking okasha - who claims to oppose "toxic behavior" - to explain why she's OK with it coming from her friends.
But she won't answer me, preferring instead for snark and condescension.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't see how it's avoidable on a forum like this where half of the forum (assuming that Atheists make up about half when I think it's probably more) have a moral opposition to the practices of the other half of the forum.
But if you were opposed to it, I'd point out some toxic behavior by Atheists (although not by name of course since we aren't allowed to call out people).
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And it's all over the place at DU. Hardly confined here to the Religion group - and in fact, here almost all of it is mild compared to the fights I've seen in GD and GD: Politics over the years.
I don't know what the solution is, but I would really like to see people like okasha or cbayer who pretend like it's only atheists pissing in the punch bowl could take an honest look at the situation and drop the bullshit.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)is for believers to be more aware of how religion can be a negative and admit that clearly at least some DU Atheists want DU Believers to abandon their beliefs and become atheists.
I suspect we'll both be waiting a long time, though.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I think every single one of us on DU wishes that we could get Republicans to abandon their beliefs and become Democrats.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But of course others aren't.
A few weeks ago I started a poll which read "Other than abandoning their religion, what do DU Atheists want of DU believers?" and was called to task for setting up a strawman argument. So I revised it take out the opening phrase (which I am quoting from memory, so may not be exactly what I put), and got three posters arguing that I needed to abandon my religion (1 of which was very thoughtful, and the other two, less so).
Bryant
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)That's just you putting words in other people's mouths. You put up a disingenuous poll and were unhappy when you got honest answers that made you uncomfortable.
rug
(82,333 posts)
I'm sure that's what "others" have told you.
BTW, putting a DUer on ignore doesn't get you a free pass from getting called on the crap, personal and otherwise, that you routinely post.
I can only imagine the PMs.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Naughty boy rug. How dare you talk to someone who has you on ignore? Thank Dawkins our friend Trottles would never do such a thing. Not an ounce of hypocrisy would touch his keyboard. 
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)in DU3, though juries seem free to hide call-outs if they believe community standards have been violated
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)an agnostic or has any particular religious views
She currently posts irregularly, as she doesn't always have internet access
Some people seem to feel hostility towards her is justified, because her father (who does have some theological background) used to post regularly in this forum: whenever he did so, there was a contingent of people (who could perhaps be counted on the fingers of one hand) who regularly attacked him -- and as a result he eventually stopped posting
trotsky
(49,533 posts)particularly how he announced his presence on DU by declaring that "none of us" would want to live in a world that didn't have an ethical system based on religious morality. Hard to imagine why non-believers might take offense to that, huh? And when he steadfastly refused to apologize for the insult, instead doubling down and reinforcing the bigotry, well, imagine how that would go over. Is it any surprise he left DU? Bigotry isn't tolerated here.
And responses to cbayer are due solely to her own verbal assaults on others, as I have documented elsewhere. Accusing DUers of advocating genocide because they oppose the Catholic takeover of secular hospitals is just one sorry example.
But feel free to keep posting your sanitized version of events and suppose that it's just a handful of horrible people who are attacking others without any reason whatsoever.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)IIRC he has not posted here for quite a while
I searched the group for any posts by cbayer that might meet your description of "accusing DUers of advocating genocide" but I found none. I suppose I could ask you to provide a link, but really! a discussion of cbayer seems off-topic to me as well: she has not been host here for a yea -- and she hasn't posted for about a week, which probably means she has no current internet access
You're free to dislike whomever you choose to dislike, of course, but I don't really see the point of turning this thread into a free-for-all attack on folk you dislike
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I put "cbayer genocide" into the Google bar at the top and this was the 10th(?) response:
Full disclosure, she said "proposing genocide" and not "advocating genocide." She's not as sly as you at couching her jabs. You could hold a class, maybe, to help her out.
rug
(82,333 posts)Perpetuating lies about someone is not discussing anything at all. What word would you use for that?
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)to alert on it
I don't remember anyone complaining to the Religion group hosts about that post: I've posted a list of our non-archived discussions here -- though, since you have sometimes participated in our discussions in the Forum & Group hosts forum, you know Religion group hosts typically defer to DU3 juries on questions of whether individual posts are offensive
In any case, since she hadn't been a host here for quite some time when she made the post, I still don't see any relevance to questions about how the Religion group is hosted
As I've already said: You're free to dislike whomever you choose to dislike, of course, but I don't really see the point of turning this thread into a free-for-all attack on folk you dislike
trotsky
(49,533 posts)is every post that stands on DU that is either not alerted on, or not hidden by a jury, automatically acceptable?
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I asked you a question. You answered with a total non sequitur. Which itself is an answer, and in line with what have come to expect from you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)here. She is not around first of all and this is about a host.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Now you say it's not appropriate to talk about them, once I posted the facts.
I understand.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you have any sense of decency, I wonder?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think this thread has served well to expose the nastiness of a handful of members whose sole purpose seems to be to convince the world that all atheists and humanists are hateful and intolerant. Thankfully, they are losing traction here, as more of us stand up to their extremism.
There is little difference between them and the religious right and other fundies. I am a great believer in common human decency and trust that it will prevail, but it is the job of the secularists here to confront the anti-theist extremists.
Most of us stay away from the Religion group, but there are times when we need to step in and let the world know that the vast majority of non-believers are very tolerant of others beliefs. We do not feel marginalized in any way.
I might add that you have handled yourself extremely well. I know how hard it can be, at times.
Respect
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As I said before most non-believers here have treated me very respectfully.
rug
(82,333 posts)Response to el_bryanto (Reply #192)
Iggo This message was self-deleted by its author.
rug
(82,333 posts)He also knows she won't respond so his crap will appear unrebutted.
It's all about people, not principle.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)how the Religion group is hosted
If Goblinmonger feels frustrated by my alleged "Google-fu" and thinks I vomit as much stuff as possible to dilute and distract from the point of an OP, he's welcome IMO to discuss that
But cbayer resigned as host a year ago, and her replacement was chosen here in a thread to which Goblinmonger contributed, so I can't really understand why it's necessary for Goblinmonger to discuss her
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I would. The nazi comparisons around here are stupid. This thread has made me rethink the whole camparing things to nazis or racists thing. I find that comparing people to nazis completely shuts the discussion of any topic down and draws attention to the nazi comparison. Maybe it would be best to just, i don't know, maybe, um not compare other posters to nazis just because we feel offended by their point of view. I read the discussion at the time and i decided after i saw that to just shut up.
I was also offended by people who have never had mental illness, seeming to not believe that the woman heard what she said she heard. I felt like the discussion that was occuring was a good one and that it was purposly derailed by the naziing in order to avoid talking about the role religion must play in fixing the problem of mentally ill believers doing horrible/stupid/ things under the direction of the voice of god ( they hear this) or out of a belief that they personally hold that is not safe or reasonable. It is a problem that cannot be solved by doctors alone. Everyone has to do their part, and how can we ever figure anything out if we are always letting the discussion devolve into some crap about who is acting like a nazi?
SFP-
Just delete it and lets move on from here and not call each other nazis anymore. Please? Everybody offends on occasion, all of us are smart and snarky and fierce. Let's just move on.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)We've locked a grand total of three OPs as not meeting the group SoP. You can find links to two of them here
We have given two group participants two temporary suspensions each, always based on accumulated jury decisions to hide multiple posts over 90 days; and in these cases, we have always contacted those participants to discuss the issues
When cbayer retired as host in April 2013, we started a thread in this group, soliciting group participant input for the replacement, then used that input to appoint the replacement
Again, when muriel_volestrangler retired as host in January 2013, we started a thread in this group, soliciting group participant input for the replacement, then used that input to appoint the replacement
Host discussions, when not conducted here in the Religion group, have been conducted in the Forum & Group Hosts forum, and any group host has been able to express opinions or ask questions in those discussion threads, as you yourself know, having been a participant in some of those threads. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, all Religion group hosts have made every effort to be helpful and informative in responding to comments or questions posted in those threads by group hosts (who were not Religion group hosts). IIRC, in one of those (now archived) threads, I asked you (based on a comment you made), whether you had any complaint regarding how the Religion group was hosted, and you indicated to me that you did not have any complaint
If you have some complaint with how I have carried out my duties as host, the thread might make some sense, but so far I see no such complaint. If you find my posts offensive, you are free to invoke the DU3 jury system (but say you are unwilling to do so), to object to Administration (but you say this isn't bad enough to justify Administrative intervention) or to contact other hosts requesting my removal as host (which you also say you are unwilling to do)
The thread has so far spawned inaccurate accusations about how the Religion group hosts use the Forum & Group Hosts forum, [link:claims that non-participants are not allowed to view posts in safe groups|claims that non-participants are not allowed to view posts in safe groups], objections to the fact that DU3 juries have hidden certain posts, objections to the fact that DU3 juries have not hidden certain posts, arguments about hidden posts, and various other clouds of smoke shedding no light
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)because I don't have confidence you can be objective enough to make the judgements a host must. You are, sometimes, a troll in this forum (eg this post: "Do you just enjoy hearing about drownings, or do you get some special pleasure from the deaths of strangers whose views you don't particularly share?" , and because you sometimes resort to cheap insults to denigrate other people - eg the accusation of anti-semitism, which you seem to refuse to acknowledge was out of line.
We shouldn't have to watch anything you say in the Hosts group to see if you carry the false accusations of anti-semitism to there as well.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)It seems to me that "Do you just enjoy hearing about drownings, or do you get some special pleasure from the deaths of strangers whose views you don't particularly share?" is an entirely appropriate response to an OP that seems to respond gleefully to the sad story of a man drowning
But you can certainly take the view that anyone, who finds that reaction to a sad story offensive, is a troll
goldent
(1,582 posts)What I learned:
- Questions of inappropriate behavior are handled almost exclusively by the jury system - moderators rarely get involved.
- If you aren't satisfied with the results of the jury system, it's a problem between you and the DU community
- Moderators are free to participate in discussions in the manner as anyone else. In this group that means they are free to participate in snark, innuendo, and the like, as those are within the social norms of the group.
Given the reality of this group, I think it makes sense.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)Here in the Religion group, we have an agreement to host with a very light hand. Other group hosts in other groups may host differently
mr blur
(7,753 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)of the problems. Seriously?
(As to why I'm just bringing this up: Somebody pointed this thread out to me since I have the OP on ignore. Glad I don't normally have to see this.) But specifically to the posting of s4p in this thread; this is who we want hosting this room? Everyone here supports this?
And s4p, what's up? You and I don't see eye to eye on most things. But the past week or so has been uncharacteristic of you. Is something wrong? Something going on we could help with? Because this isn't a provoked response. I wasn't on there talking about my like of dark/gallows humor. Nobody did anything on that thread. That is just straight up mockery. And, for those of you saying the jury system is the answer, blur gets a post hidden on there for pointing out that what s4p was doing was juvenile and idiotic? That makes sense.
Edited for clarity
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You don't think that is a little out of line? If cleanhippie had done that, you'd be fine with it? I could get a thread going with mockery of the way theists post if we want to have a little fun.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I have edited; hopefully that makes it more clear.
rug
(82,333 posts)What exactly is your objection?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)find it amusing when others fall off cliffs or drown; others do not
I myself had thought my post Shh! I think I see Jesus crouching behind the divan was laugh-out-loud funny -- but to judge from the reaction, not everyone did
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I take it though that you still find it offensive to find humor in people drowning, offensive enough to liken said hypothetical jokester to concentration camp nazis?
Bryant
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)Perhaps it seems out of place, since factual statements do not always predominate in threads here
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and I don't feel this was the best of times.
And if cleanhippie, trotske, skeptic, Heddi, and I all did a mockery of you and rug, that would just be seen as all good laughs, right?
rug
(82,333 posts)You've stated several times I'm the only one you used the ignore button on yet you keep mentioning me.
How odd.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't vote to hide very often as a general rule, so I don't think either needs to be hidden.
But I'm not talking about blur's actions and blur isn't a host.
And if it isn't a big deal to be a host because they don't do anything, let's just have Renew Deal as the only host.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As for hosting here it is not the hosts job to police this room. We lock threads that don't belong here and we ban people when needed.
The reality is we don't do much at all. S4p will remain a host.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)then s4p calling AC antisemitic deserved a hide. But there is no way that post from s4p gets hidden. Just because you couch your jabs and insults well doesn't mean they aren't jabs and insults. I'd rather be called idiotic than a Nazi, fwiw.
Keeping s4p as a host is a clear indication to atheists that improved tone is not important to theists. Hope you realize that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The fact is there are 3 other hosts and two ate atheists and one has not given an opinion. Ask them if you want him removed.
I think he made a mistake but I am not voting to remove him.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)they read all alerts
See my #239
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)Religion group hosts play no role in DU3 jury decisions
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)"You take your chances."
And I'm fine with that. That is clearly where Skinner is coming from. Doesn't bother me a bit. I just already know the answer so don't know why I need to go through the motions.
But I'm talking about the tone of this room and, in this OP specifically, about your role as host given the tone you put forth in the last few exchanges. You never did answer my question: Is everything OK? Anything going on I or someone else could help you with?
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Please don't conflate them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Issue number one I did not condone his behavior
Issue two I do not think he needs to resign and I am not voting to remove him.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)of me making fun of myself by engaging in a pointless Yes-you-did-No-I-didn't argument with myself
Three of the posts satirize gun debates at DU and the tendency for conversations to wander off into parts unknown
In one post, I tell myself not to drink so much
My post Shh! I think I see Jesus crouching behind the divan --- which I thought was screamingly funny --- for some reason, that I do not understand, provoked an enraged reaction
If you dislike my posts in that thread, you are free to alert, of course
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)Its origins, so far as I can tell, lie in a prior conversation between myself and Goblinmonger, in which I encouraged him: If you have concerns about how the group is hosted, feel free to start a thread about that
The result is the somewhat muddy OP, which begins by complaining of my alleged Google-fu (vomiting as much stuff as possible to dilute and distract), unaccountably discusses former host cbayer, and appears to center on claims that I called Goblinmonger a Nazi and that I called AtheistCrusader an anti-semite
Apparently, both Google and cbayer are somehow important to this discussion, though I'm really not sure exactly why. I do consider it inappropriate to use such a thread to engage in off-topic attacks on various DUers that other DUers might dislike; there are (unfortunately) multiple instances of that in the thread, and cbayer is not the only target
Regarding what are, perhaps, the main claims:
(1) I deny calling Goblinmonger a Nazi or comparing him to concentration camp guards; I did object to laughing at the misfortunes of others; and I think it clear enough that my post (to which he objects) merely pointed that if one heads down that road far enough, one ends at an ugly place. Those who read that thread will see that Goblinmonger apparently thought a drowning was funny, because GM thought the person drowned was being baptized, though GM's view seems not to have changed on learning that the person who drowned was not being baptized
(2) I deny calling AtheistCrusader an anti-semite. AtheistCrusader somehow attempts to tie the sad story of two boys drowned in a bathtub by their mother to the story of Abraham and Isaac, as AtheistCrusader has confirmed. What I actually said to AC is: The notion, that Judaism commands child-sacrifice, is common anti-semitism, and to read the story, of Abraham and Isaac, as justifying human sacrifice, is cast from some similar mould. If you actually read that story, with any attention to even its broadest details, you might notice that Isaac is not sacrificed: the story, in fact, does not teach human sacrifice but rather the end of such sacrifice. The second sentence, of course, is standard Rabbinical interpretation of the story. The first clause of the first sentence is historically accurate. Presumably the second clause causes the offense. But it seems to me, that if someone who does not subscribe to a religion, insists on misrepresenting views of those who do subscribe to that religion, in order to score points, that is ugly, and it does not seem to me that those who engage in such trawling for a reaction have much complaint if a reaction results
Along the same lines, former Religion group host muriel_volestrangler objects to this post of mine; my response to VM is here
Various other issues have been raised. Warren Stupidly feels that an alleged obvious expressed hostility to atheists. I provided in that subthread a list of some of my posts regarding my attitude towards the relationship of my religious views to atheism. A more recent post of mine on the same topic can be found here. It is my experience here that such posts frequently receive little or no response; and these two posts have received none so far
To aid any discussion about possible hosting issues in this forum, I posted a summary of non-archived discussions in the Forum & Group Hosting forum; this post has received no response so far
Similarly I later posted a summary (to the best of my recollection) of the actual Religion group host actions since Dec 2011; the only response to this post so far is from former Religion group host muriel_volestrangler (linked above), who does not appear there actually object to any particular host action. In the same post, I note that Goblinmonger has not stated any particular complaint regarding how I have carried out my duties as host; would be free to invoke the DU3 jury system if he found my posts offensive (but is unwilling to do so), would be free to object to Administration if he found my posts offensive (but says it isn't bad enough to justify Administrative intervention), and would be free to contact other hosts requesting my removal as host (which GM also claims to be unwilling to do)
As I stated very early in the thread, it is my opinion that the original agreement on Religion group hosting would allow my removal as host if the other hosts agreed. Two other hosts have expressed the view that such issues can be resolved by the DU3 software -- which means that is their view that persons offended should primarily resort to DU3 juries. The Religion group hosts had a related discussion on this topic in the Forum & Group hosts forum Wed Sep 25, 2013, 02:47 PM, and it was my impression that the discussion was not entirely conclusive, though another host seems to have concluded the opposite
Much of this thread seems off-topic to me. For example, there is evident and considerable confusion about the relationship of Religion group hosts to DU3 jury hides: I have tried repeatedly to clarify that Religion group hosts have no power to hide individual posts and have no control over DU3 juries
At this point, I have said about all I can, and I consider it pointless to repeat myself. I do think Religion group participants have the right to input on group hosting, but there is very little discussion of any definite group hosting issues in this thread -- and large segments of the thread have become IMO a pointless clusterfugg. So I plan to abandon this thread for now
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)is the way that it has illustrated and confirmed, in a very real and definitive way, many of the criticisms of religion expressed by atheists in this group for years now: the bare-naked and raw hypocrisy of those who sing the praises of religious belief and its benefits to humankind, and who claim to espouse particular caring and tolerant beliefs, but then engage in moral gymnastics to explain why they don't need to actually follow or adhere to those beliefs when they don't feel like it. Like when someone posts something they don't like on the Internet. The same individuals who praise the alleged founder of their religion for showing love to everyone, saying that we all need to be like him, then turn around and mock, belittle, insult, hurt, and attack those they don't like.
Just like the Republicans and other right-wingers who are claimed over and over aren't "real" Christians. Who, it has been said, aren't believers in Christianity at all, but are just in love with power (even if it's just the form of being the host of a discussion group?) and will cloak themselves in righteous indignation, lashing out at anyone to dares criticize them.
It's really sad when your behavior resembles theirs so strikingly.
rug
(82,333 posts)Such bullshit, woven so delicately with calculated umbrage.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)for more Google-fu to dilute and distract.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Nice dramatic exit though. Memorable.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,504 posts)The first clause may be historically accurate, but it's a red herring. The Abraham and Isaac story appears in the Christian Old Testament as well as the Jewish scriptures. The god it describes telling a parent to kill their child is the same god of the woman in the OP. There's nothing in what AC said that is about Judaism. What's more, AC did not claim that any religion commands child-sacrifice; he described a well-known biblical story of 'God' commanding it - and had acknowledged, without prompting, that there's then a second message saying 'don't do it'.
" if someone who does not subscribe to a religion, insists on misrepresenting views of those who do subscribe to that religion, in order to score points, that is ugly"
They did not misrepresent any view. They described a bible story. The misrepresentation here is what you say. And you are doing it time after time. It is ugly, and this is why we cannot trust you as a host. If you think that someone referencing part of the bible gives you carte blanche to call them anti-semitic, just because that story paints God in a bad light, your judgement is unsound.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)1) I don't think his “Struggle-4-Progress” avatar or personality is fully responsible. Or responsive to Psychological information better acknowledged by “TM99.” (The same person it seems?).
Accordingly I ask for the (voluntary?) retirement here, of the “Struggle-4-Progress” avatar; or ask that this host be allowed to post only under what appears to be the (his?/her?) more broadly-responsible and professional “TM99” personality.
The shift to solely "TM 99" seems advisable also since say,
2) many blogs discourage blogging under more than 1 personality. And
3) Under pressure to be sure, "4" recently resorted to multiple entries, to the point of dozens, in a conversation with himselfhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121910 . Also often discouraged on blogs. While indeed as some have noted here, 4) "4" seems indeed to be presenting massive barrages of irrelevancies/spam.
Retirement of the "Struggle-4-Progress" personality therefore seems in order.
In favor of "TM99." (In spite of his statement that his religion if anything, is Santeria.http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218112875#post7).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)With regards to your very creative speculations, I can only respond thusly:
While I appreciate the sort of vote of confidence as being a Host, no thank you!
I am still way to new to these boards and far too busy at that off-line to even remotely consider such a thing.
With regards to the ATR's, I already asked you in reply to the appropriate thread, what issues and questions you have. It is a very misunderstood and maligned tradition. Let's discuss it there if you so wish.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=122202
Thanks for the morning laughter. 
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)IIRC, "4" host seemed willing to speak at length defending belief in demons, and exorcisms. Catholic-influenced Santeria does too.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Calling someone a sock puppet is over the top.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Odd resemblances remain; especially the legal case in the link. Where a version of Santeria defends itself against murder charges; on grounds of insanity.http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=122202
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)He need not edit or self delete just because you tell him to.
The fact that you would publically step in and do this here and yet you kept things private with s4p is really frustrating.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you don't we can't help you.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)For the purposes of transparency, here is what I sent him:
Formal request: I want s4p removed as host as per the reasons indicated in my thread. Also not happy with Justin (and s4p) telling me that hosts only worry about the SOP and then stepping in to tell someone to self-delete a post--and Justin makes it clear he is doing this as a host which I, correctly, point out isn't his job.
Again, sorry to drag you in on this. I have no problems with you and wish s4p would have just apologized. Sorry.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I won't v8ye to remove him.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Your decision to go against what you said you don't ever do.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)After this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121910 You want him representing this forum? If anyone from A/A pulled a stunt like that they would be in the ground before the body cooled, but when an Anti-Theists does it they get congratulated and a free pass because it "was a joke" and he was "Just posting what would be in the thread anyway."
Really telling about the attitude around here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You know, the lead host you said I needed to contact if I wanted the hosts to "help me." I really don't know why you can't take it to the other hosts, but however you guys work it out I guess. I just wanted all in this community to know what was sent.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Are you telling me your hosting structure is so rigidly top down that none of you can start a host discussion lest it comes from Renew Deal? That seems a little more autocratic than RD would be, but what do I know. I would have thought that you and s4p knew that this should be discussed amongst the hosts, but apparently I had to bring RD in myself. Seems silly.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)If you make a posting stating that S4P and TM99 are one in the same person, you know bloody damned well that is a 'sock puppet'.
There are no resemblances as already stated, and the only ones are in your rather creative imaginings and the continued meme that religion and mental illness are the same thing.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This didn't involve you. This wasn't a comment aimed at you or about you. Yet you decided to come in and tell someone what to do. Why?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Your job is to see if OPs meet the SOP.
Or are you and the other hosts now changing the job description you just laid out about a dozen times in this thread? Remember, the ones where you say it isn't that big of a deal?
As s4p said about a dozen times, you certainly have the right to alert on it. That is it. You are overstepping your job as a host.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If you are now changing what you say the role of the host is, then you and s4p need to self-delete your description of what the role of a host is in this thread and we need to re-discuss.
Your job is to judge OPs for meeting the SOP. That's it.
And you have made it very clear that you only call people out when it is aimed at you. So it's not your job and it's not about you. s4p is a big boy and can alert on the post if it bothers him.
rug
(82,333 posts)Hosts have blocked members from this group for their comments and behavior.
Gee, I wonder what other hosts do that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think he should self delete. Perhaps I should have not mentioned my being a host but he should self delete.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Or just did what you said you do and not say a thing about it because it doesn't involve you.
But you did say something and you made it clear it was being done under the umbrella of your host powers. Sir.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Nor does anyone need mine.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)But when you make a big deal about the fact that hosts only deal with SOP and then make a bigger deal about only replying to people when they are talking about you as a defense for you not being the tone police, you should expect to be called on it when you go against that in a big way. Or do you think that people won't remember what you said in this exact thread?
This is the frustrating part that is being talked about in this thread. This is the hypocrisy that is being talked about in this thread. You feel more than happy to police atheists on here but you take your policing of theists to messaging if you do it all. Please, reflect on that and realize what you are doing and the message it sends.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I gave my opinion on this op.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)"I will post shat I feel I need to."
Thanks for that. This day just keeps getting better and better.
I have no problem with you giving your opinion on the OP. That's why I posted it.
But when you were told that you feel more than free to comment on the tone of atheists but not theists, you said that was because you only reply about tone to those that say things about you or to you in a bad way. Then, not one day later, you tone police someone who neither said anything about you nor to you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Do I really have to go all s4p and put links to posts IN THIS THREAD where you said those things or can you possibly have a discussion in which you own the things you said? I would rather have the adult discussion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am an adult thank you.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But a blatant double standard is worth noting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)It is not my or the other members responsibility to police this room. My job is to make sure the ops comply with the sop and to ban members that go over a line.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121479#post320
It is not my job tompolice this room.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121479#post312
As for hosting here it is not the hosts job to police this room. We lock threads that don't belong here and we ban people when needed.
Yet, here you are, policing the thread. You're stepping beyond a host's duties by asking a poster to self-delete a thread. THAT IS NOT YOUR DUTY AS A HOST. Your duty as a host is to 1) make sure OP's comply with the SOP and 2)ban members who do not comply with the SOP of the forum. That's all.
I mean, you yourself said this three times up thread. So back then, when it was about a Christian poster making nasty comments about Atheists, you have this moral compunction about policing a thread because that's against your host duties. But when it's a non-Christian poster making what you feel are nasty comments about a Christian, suddenly it's a hosts job to ask people to delete their posts???
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I should have not brought up the host thing but I have the right to ask for a correction.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I am a host sir and the other hosts want him to correct this,
So here, you're bandying about your host status, as well as some mysterious consensus of other hosts (although there's no thread about it in the host forum) as a reason for the poster to self delete.
So you say "i should not have brought up the host thing...' but you did. And multiple times in multiple places. In this particular instance, you used your host status as an OFFICIAL HOST REQUEST BY THE WAY OTHER UNNAMED HOSTS AGREE WITH ME delete your posts. When it's not your job to request anything of posts within a thread. You know this well, Justin. You pulled the "host card" in a dishonest manner to get something you wanted, even though it is not even nearly within the purview of your role as host to 1) ask that a poster delete anything but an OP and 2)delete any post in a thread that you find untoward.
Double. Standard.
You pull the "host card" when someone you don't like says something you don't like.
But when someone you DO like says something to someone who is a member of a group you don't like, suddenly your poor little hosting hands are tied and we don't police threads we only make sure things aren't against the SOP and ban members who don't follow the SOP and don't police threads only make sure threads aren't against the SOP etc etc.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)that it is not in the "job description" of a host to police threads beyond whether or not they adhere to the SOP or ban members who do not follow the SOP of a forum.
I mean, you're hosting how many groups and forums? And you're parading your host status around in an unofficial manner, asking posters to do things that you, as a host (which you identified yourself as) that you have no fucking right to ask people to do. And then you're surprised when other posters have an issue with this, especially since so recently you were so adamant that you, as a host, could absolutely do NOTHING about S4P's posts because you're a host, and hosts can't do things about individual posts.
Are you just completely incapable of seeing how that's a double standard? Or do you just not care?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)think implying two people are the same should be addressed.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)and again, I like how implying 2 people are the same should be addressed, but implying another poster has the same morals as a Nazi, and another poster is regurgitating anti-Semitic tales is okay, what can you do, different words should be used, mental gymnastics, falling over yourself to apologize for a friend, excuse excuse excuse.
Oh! But this poster!!! Oh! Bring the smelling salts! Why, that's such an eggregious crime, IT DESERVES ME USING MY HOST STATUS TO RECTIFY IT!!!111
I'll ask you again, since you seem to be absolutely incapable of answering the question that I and others have asked:
ARE YOU JUST COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF SEEING HOW THAT'S A DOUBLE STANDARD? OR DO YOU JUST NOT CARE?
I put it in bold and caps since you seem to be missing that part of my posts.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Please let's revisit this thread next time anyone has the ovaries to deny that there is 1) bias among hosts and 2) bias among hosts towards A/A posters.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am done.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)and ignore the ones that are totally way more offensive but don't even get you to bash your eyelids, and pretend to forget that hosts don't police threads despite reminding people three previous times that hosts don't police threads.
Oh wait...we have a thread full of posters doing just that.
carry on, then
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am resigning. I wish you the best!
Heddi
(18,312 posts)well, whatever. I don't care. Host or don't. I could really not give a shit. This forum/group has gone to the fucking dogs. Maybe you all can make this a rousing source of neverending conversation like the Interfaith Group 
Leontius
(2,270 posts)But then that never gets old does it?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Because there's pissing and moaning in the Interfaith forum too.
But I guess that's okay. Remember, take the 4x4 out of your own eye before mentioning the saw-dust in someone else's. Read that in a book once.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...you can't take EVERYTHING in that book literally. 
Leontius
(2,270 posts)looked like two possible whining titles there so wow you're right but compared to the amount in a/a not so much . You should have kept reading.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Admittedly, you 're not the most rational of individuals, but then no-one's inviting you to A&A to join in, are they?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)The second question, again don't care wouldn't join anyway I find the smugness and sense of superiority there amusing but dull and childish and as I posted earlier the constant whining is just mind numbing.
TM99
(8,352 posts)In my other reply, I comment further.
But there is literally zero in common between a Catholic belief in demons and exorcisms and Lucumi.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)For reasons that have nothing to do with you, though, I'm glad for this subthread.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)While Catholicism of course allows exorcisms.
Then too 2) a close look at earlier Anthropological surveys of African religions like Lucumi, finds countless references to "evil spirits" or demons in effect. And ways of exorcising them.
3) No doubt former Santerians today desperately want to distance themselves from some infamous Santerian exorcism deaths. Like the one taken up c. 1998 by the US Supreme Court. That attempt was nominally successful in one SCOTUS case; but the religion may not be in later cases. When this religion is looked at more closely.
4) In the meantime, Lucumi itself acknowledges that it participates in animal sacrifice.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I replied in the other thread actually started on Lucumi.
You will need to re-post it there if you would like a reply to its nonsense.
It is very inappropriate of you to do this in this thread. Lucumi and your speculations on it do not belong in Goblinmonger's thread.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)I may insert interesting material in more proper place, as per request.http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1218112875#post13
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and then I'm immediately putting you back on.
There is absolutely nothing in the DU rules, TOS or CS that says that a host is expected to act differently than any other member. If someone feels a host has violated the rules, TOS or CS, then the same mechanisms used to address other problems should be used. If there has been an abuse of power, which you do not claim, the administrators of the site should be involved. If you just don't like the host and can't get the problem resolved through the above means, you have the option of petitioning the other others hosts. You have decided not to do any of these things and have clearly not obtained any consensus from the community on this issue.
The problem you describe here is not about you "and atheists", as you state. It is about you and a very small group of people that you have aligned yourself with. It really has nothing to do with atheism and much to do with the tribalism that other members have discussed in this thread. There are many atheists who post in this group and have even posted in this thread who do not share your concerns or your experience. Why is that? Why has their experience been so different than yours?
The fact that you brought me up in your OP and that I have been brought up repeatedly by other members of your group in this thread is significant, particularly since you and the other members of your small group know that I do not read and will not respond to anything that you say. There are many gross distortions about me in this thread and I am not going to bother to respond to any of them. There is no point. They have been repeated ad nauseum. Those who know me know what is true. Your group has very little credibility at this point and I am not afraid of anything you might say about me.
The fact that you challenge others about "tone" is the height of irony. You and your group set and perpetuate a tone of hostility and aggression that has no competitors in this group. It is not the responsibility of the hosts to set and maintain a tone, it is the responsibility of the members.
And with that, I am putting you back on ignore, at least for now.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)People who have a problem with your attitude in this group and your treatment of others and the tone that YOU are responsible for setting have just as much (if not more) reason for concern.
Accusing other DUers of proposing genocide? Really? The evidence is plain to see - that's EXACTLY what you did, even though you tried to laugh it off as "hyperbole." How does that foster discussion? How does that improve the tone, cbayer?
So your ridiculous assertion that it's just the group of evil atheists that you've defined that "set and perpetuate a tone of hostility and aggression that has no competitors", I think it's patently obvious how false that is. And if it's not, let me offer one more word: rug.
rug
(82,333 posts)You come close but you're no laconicsax. Not nearly as skilled.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But he'd probably just blow a gasket and alert on a made up quote involving "atheist bigotry".
Bottom line is that the preachy religionistas here need to get off their high horse about "tone", "civility", "respect", "snark" or any such thing and just admit that they enjoy mixing it up as much as the people they decry. If they were truly interested in nothing more than "civil" and "respectful" discussion, they could take their whole show to the Interfaith Group and do exactly what they claim they'd like to do here. There is nothing they say they want discussed here that couldn't be just as easily (and more civilly, they argued when they petitioned for that room to be formed) discussed there. But they don't, and they never will. Because, as a perusal of Interfaith reveals, they are incapable of having even a shallow (let alone an intellectual) discussion of any length about anything that doesn't involve arguing and bashing others. They have come to realize that, but it galls them to admit that others here were right about it all along.
So let's have all of the religionists just stop the hypocrisy and the pretense. Stop pretending that you care about civility when you're spouting the same kind of snark, insults and passive-aggressive bullshit that you claim to be above, or being secretly glad when you see your cronies doing it. Stop pretending that "civility" means being nice to the people who support your agenda and insulting those who undermine it.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I generally try to avoid the circus atmosphere in this group, but yesterday, we had several hundreds of miles to drive and the missus asked me to read this to her, while she drove. Needless to say, we were in stitches. Your "mastery" of irony is truly priceless.
pinto
(106,886 posts)LOL. See you all later.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I thank all of you for your votes to make me a host almost a year ago.
To be honest I have been thinking of doing this for some time and now seems the time to stand down. It might be a few hours to a few days till I stand down. Hugs and peace to you all.
Edit- I have resigned.
TM99
(8,352 posts)And yes, it is a pretty little game. It goes something like this:
1) A very small and particularly vocal minority of anti-theists take any and all opportunities to be antagonistic and caustic disruptors.
2) This occurs repeatedly in thread after thread in the Religion forum and apparently has for some time.
3) The change to DU3 ensures that unless the 'software' is used, their behaviors are allowed to stand. Furthermore, because of the preferred loose hosting style in this forum, they are rarely summarily removed or banned from any future discussions.
4) The shit stirring becomes so obnoxious that many non-theists bow out of discussions and the remaining non-theists and theists start pushing back against all of the venom.
5) But that is not allowed you see for then the little shit disturbers whine about how imperfect all of the believers and their apologists are. They are hypocrites for not turning the other cheek. They are not being meek and kind like perfect Christians. They are not being Christ like or Buddha like. They are hand-waving for crumbs from the religious. Blah blah blah.
Ironically, they are as obsessed with god & gods, belief, and the moral actions of others as the authoritarian fundamentalists whom they are haunted by from the past or are still fighting in the present. If it wasn't so damned annoying, it would be tragic for many have likely suffered greatly at the hands of other fucked up believers. After all, believer or non-believer, humans generally are a pretty messed up lot.
6) Finally the ones that have been standing up to the gang of septics put these people on ignore, walk away from threads, avoid posting, or as in this case, even walk away from hosting duties. What sane person wouldn't? How do you avoid having your own buttons triggered when these individuals relish in pushing buttons? Heaven forbid if you fight fire with fire.
7) The little clique walks away with smug assurances that they have won yet again. They have made mommy and daddy loose their tempers. See, they are all hypocrites just as we always knew. All religionistas are bad and if only religion didn't exist, we would not be a persecuted minority and the world would be a utopian fantasy of peace, non-discrimination, and pure advancement of scientific reasoning. Even if the non-believers have or do suffer genuine discrimination, it is hard to hear the sane voices through the cacophony of adolescent posturing and sophomoric mental chatter.
This continues ad infinitum and ad nauseam for it is an old game most often seen in the psychologically immature still trying to resolve the issues in their own minds from a past that no longer exists and rarely is it ever resolved in a group setting. Change the topics and keep the theme, and I am sure you can think of other examples quite easily.
I am sorry to see that it got to you, and I do trust you will continue to post regularly. I enjoy reading what you have to say even if you and I may disagree on much with regards to belief and non-belief.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I will be posting in this room same as before but I won't have to host it. I stood down last night and the search for a replacement begins.
The fact is now that I will feel more comfortable using the ignore button now when someone crosses a line with me. I wish everyone in this group well and will continue to post here.
There are several reasons I am standing down and most are clear cut. Some of it is my doing and some of it is just viciousness from certain members here. Lol the hilarious thing is some claim that I have a persecution complex when all they do is say how they are persecuted. Never got that.
The fact is I get along with most of the non-believers of this site and read their reasons with interest. I have no interest in insulting non-belief or trying to persuade people to believe. I just want reasonable debate and with most people here that is possible.
Thanks again and hugs. 
mr blur
(7,753 posts)What a sad little world you seem to live in. Still, you're not alone.
TM99
(8,352 posts)damned accurate in its observation.
#4, #5, #6, and #7.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I hope no one alerts on you.
By the way he is not the one who starts threads sbout my jury hides and complains about them.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You know...the whole "boundaries" lecture you gave us earlier. You can only control yourself.
I'll put it in one simple question for you: Why is your shit stirring not a problem but the shit stirring of others is?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You made your complaint an the hosts have it.
I think this thread serves no purpose anymore.
Just a humble request.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Nice typo (or is it?). "Goblinmonster." Or is that Freudian?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I always see the red avatar.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I used to play Magic: the Gathering and loved and collected goblins. Hence, a monger of goblins.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Would like to see this thread scrubbed as if it never existed. But it's been far too revealing for their kind of historical revisionism to be allowed.
And our friend's "typos" seem deucedly convenient, don't they?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You always think the worst of me.
TM99
(8,352 posts)shit stirring is not making an accurate if scathing post describing the all too well documented posting habits of a select few (not all!) anti-theists in this Religion forum.
I have set my boundary with the individual that I needed to set it with. Be careful, you are beginning to fall into the pattern I described. You are trying to hold me to an unreasonable level of perfection of behavior.
The shit stirring becomes so obnoxious that many non-theists bow out of discussions and the remaining non-theists and theists start pushing back against all of the venom.
But that is not allowed you see for then the little shit disturbers whine about how imperfect all of the believers and their apologists are.
How do you avoid having your own buttons triggered when these individuals relish in pushing buttons? Heaven forbid if you fight fire with fire.
What is shit stirring then?
Simple
It is the constant calling of any religious person a 'religionista'.
It is the constant calling of any one who agrees with any one of a religious persuasion an apologist.
It is the constant posting of thread after thread attempting to equate mental illness and religious belief.
To that end, it is a constant posting of tragic events designed to 'prove that point' when all it does is show the narcissism of the poster in question.
It is the constant need to inform us all of the horrors that humans using religion having done through out history but getting pissed off when someone replies that good has occurred as well.
It is the constant need to inform the Christians that fundamentalists suck and because they are not one but are a Christian, it is their personal fault for the situation even when the Christians are liberal and agree that fundamentalists of any ilk need stopping.
It is the constant need to interject how 'psychotic' the Old Testament God is when that has zero relevance to the topic at hand.
Shall I go on or have you gotten the point yet?
I have repeatedly said in this thread and elsewhere that wood needs burning. I am sitting in the fire. I actually greatly value that you posted this thread for it is forcing this community to sit in that fire and deal with the reality as it is. The 'tone' may currently be quite unpleasant but this is DU3. And thus far, despite that, no one has been banned from this forum. Not one person has been tombstoned. Not one post has been alerted on and juried to closure. This needs dealt with by those willing to do so.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Though I am trying to have a conversation with you (and I'm trying very hard not to react with what I realize is my vitriol to your "have you gotten the point yet comment). But my point has been not that you need to be held to a standard of perfection. I clearly like the fight club mentality. My point is that you need to realize that you are not even considering the possibility that those who post what you don't like see their point as being just as valid as yours when you post things.
You refer to your post as an "accurate if scathing post." How do you think that is different from those you don't like? I'm sure they feel they are accurate, too. Why can't they make their scathing posts if you get to make yours? That's one of my main points. trotsky has been making the same point in this thread.
For example, I would disagree pretty heartily with these two bolded points of yours:
But that is not allowed you see for then the little shit disturbers whine about how imperfect all of the believers and their apologists are.
And I would certainly argue that your approach, language, and tone are no different than those you decry. And please, hear me again, I don't care about your tone. I care that you are using the same tone you get mad at others for. They feel just as strongly as you do.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this and for the moment assume it is just a rhetorical event you didn't realize, but honestly look at your examples of shit stirring:
It is the constant calling of any one who agrees with any one of a religious persuasion an apologist.
It is the constant posting of thread after thread attempting to equate mental illness and religious belief.
To that end, it is a constant posting of tragic events designed to 'prove that point' when all it does is show the narcissism of the poster in question.
It is the constant need to inform us all of the horrors that humans using religion having done through out history but getting pissed off when someone replies that good has occurred as well.
It is the constant need to inform the Christians that fundamentalists suck and because they are not one but are a Christian, it is their personal fault for the situation even when the Christians are liberal and agree that fundamentalists of any ilk need stopping.
It is the constant need to interject how 'psychotic' the Old Testament God is when that has zero relevance to the topic at hand.
Notice anything? By your definition, only non-believers can be shit stirrers. OK, maybe a believer would post those things, but I doubt it. To me, that is troubling. To me, those statements seem to support claims made about you that you are an apologist for the religous. Or a faithiest. Or whatever terms have been used. Maybe you didn't mean that. I'll assume that for now until I hear your reply. But can you possibly see how your rhetoric might lead one to those conclusions? And ultimately, if you believe that only atheists (or anti-theists if you wish) can be shit stirrers, I don't care. Just don't act like you aren't doing the same thing anti-theists are doing. It frustrates me when you do. I'm sure it frustrates others. Roll up your sleeves and get in the scrum. That's all good. Just realize you're covered in mud and part of the scrum. Or get out of the scrum if you wish. It's rough in there. Sometimes people lose a tooth. Rugby metaphor ended!
TM99
(8,352 posts)hence our continued conversation on this.
I am simple in my communications. I could have gone on with more examples and enough were given to make my point. And as I have said repeatedly, there is lot of wood to burn. Saying "I see you are working on improving the tone in this group" could be construed to have multiple connotations as well, couldn't it?
This is the Religion forum. The keyword is religion. It is a place to discuss religion. It is not a safe haven so anyone with a beef against religion is able to come in and express that disgust, rancor, and their own personal issues. They don't have to post here. There are actual safe-havens where they can vent no matter how venomously without worry of recourse.
They choose to post here. They seem to derive great pleasure in acting the way they do. Some emotional need is being fulfilled. And as long as they continue to do so, then there will be those like myself who will point out the very real differences between the individuals in question and other non-believers in their attitudes, their posting habits, and their interaction with other non-believers and believers alike.
It may be difficult in a Religion forum to see the same actions I am seeing from select anti-theists, however, I have no problem in stating bluntly that if I saw or see the same kind of behavior against all non-believers as a group as these toxic anti-theists portray with the religious, I will communicate as harshly as I am now with those individual believers.
I can think of several members that I have conversed with who are also atheists and agnostics. They are able to express concerns, fears, misgivings, personal problems from their pasts with regards to religion (especially of the more fundamentalist flavor) etc. without resorting to name calling (religionistas, apologists, etc.), without having to equate mental illness with all religions, without having to make jokes at believers expense, without having to call believer's deity 'psychotic', without the constant need to 'debunk', etc. etc. etc.
Where are the individual believers constantly making posts full of dark humor at the expense of atheists' beliefs? Where are the individual believers constantly equating immorality with atheism? Where are the individual believers calling all atheists by derisive and insulting names? Where are the believers constantly having to debunk atheism? And when in the history of DU, has Admin had to warn the believers as a group to stop saying such things?
This isn't ultimately about believers or non-believers at DU. This is about a toxic few individuals who bully and belittle, convincing others that it is discourse or reason. It is neither.
It is not about perspective either. I am an ignostic. I have experienced all the same things. I have been called a sinner and a devil worshiper. I have been told I will go to hell. I have been told I can't possibly be a moral or ethical person without a belief in god. You don't think it was ever noticed that I never met with a chaplain or attended any type of worship services while in the military? I may not have grown up in a repressive religious household (thankfully!) but I did grow up in the mountains of Western North Carolina within spitting distance of the PTL Club.
And I have been around some amazing men and women who were in a variety of different religions. I had a psychology supervisor who was like a father to me, and besides being a psychiatrist, a Reichian analyst, and a clinical sexologist, he was also a Lutheran minister. I have spent 30 odd years around countless Buddhists - a religion without the need for god or gods. As a college student I worked with a Jew and an Anglican as activists to sponsor an AIDS symposium, the first of its kind at our campus, during the dark early days of AIDS in the 1980's. I have seen both the good and the bad sides of numerous religions. The common denominator is not belief or disbelief, it is the character and personality of the men and women alone.
I can handle anyone's pain and past hurts. I have devoted my professional life to helping many heal those wounds. But this is not the therapy office nor is it a group therapy session. DU has been likened to being more like a bar. And if the owners won't kick such toxic people to the street, then some of us will stand up to it as we each can for as long as we feel necessary. Sometimes I will ignore and other times I will try and converse. Perhaps it is a personal flaw of mine, and I have never been able to tolerate bullying behavior or toxic individuals. I have and will fight it.
I have played ruby in college. Whether scrumming in the mud and snow or sitting in the fire as I have used as a metaphor, the difference between those and toxicity should be apparent. I have gotten harsh and definitely bitten back when provoked. I have also owned up to making mistakes when my communication crossed a line. I don't have a history on these boards in any forum of being toxic in the majority of my replies or posts with regards to any one specific or particular group like these anti-theists do.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If any of those things were actually happening. Distorting what has happened and misrepresenting what other people have actually said and posted into something that you can attack is shit-stirring writ large.
rug
(82,333 posts)No need to change it.
it is not a typo.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in the Group with that post (to say nothing of the IQ drop that leaving such a steaming pile of nonsense behind produced). You could have simply said something nice to hrmjustin and left it at that, but instead you chose to use that as an excuse to vent all of the bile and insults you've been storing up for who knows how long. As I've said, I'd certainly hate to see what you're like when you're not trying to encourage and promote civility.
Ah, but of course..you and the other religionists here only spew bile, snark and insults in self-defense.
Your self-righteous nobility is duly noted.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)scolding other posters for a lack of civility as if I'm above it all, and then spewing out just as much fact-free bile as I upbraid others for. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of many others here who are doing that.
If you're looking for a hypocrite, point your finger elsewhere.
Do you think that the post I was responding to raised the level of civility in the Group? Or even attempted to? Can you provide an honest and direct answer to that?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The truth hurts at times. The thread was meant to convey the truth as the poster saw it. Does it raise the civility here? No more or less than your posts.
I admit to making mistakes and that is one of the reasons I stood down as host. Can you admit your mistakes?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Well, this is it. You refuse to answer a simple question directly. You dance around trying to craft an answer that isn't an obvious and blatant lie, but that doesn't make one of your fellow religionists look bad. Its hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. I don't like either. And I'm also not going to like the response in which you profess to having no idea what I mean and that you would never do that, didn't mean to offend, sorry not to have stated things better, etc., etc.
And I'm not doing anything or asking to be absolved of anything that I've upbraided others for. I'm pointing out hypocrisy by the self-righteous scolds who populate this room.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)do it all the time.
Sorry scott but you people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I complain when people who claim to want civility don't practice what they preach, or stand by and are secretly glad to see insults hurled at people they don't like or agree with. I point out hypocrisy. If someone wants to be snarky, fine.. I can play that game.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Comedy gold.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)scott, trotsky, and I are all making the same point in this thread and it just isn't landing.
The problem isn't about the tone of others. I don't think any of us care but I'm just speaking for me. I have no problem rolling up my sleeves and mixing it up. I'm fine with that. The problem I (we?) have is that a lot of those that are complaining about tone and attitude and word use mix it up just as much as those they complain about. I just want them to own it and stop acting like what they do is justified and what others do isn't.
scott isn't saying here that he is offended by what is being said. He and I are saying we are offended by the attitude that it only comes from one side. It doesn't.
I don't use the word religionista, but if I did, I wouldn't stop using it. I'm not a fan of banning words in general. Gives them too much power. If I had started a thread to ask people to stop saying fundamentalist atheist, you and I know the people that would have responded with "if you stop acting like one, I'll stop using it." And you and I know that some of those are the same people that want religionista to stop being used.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You and others are talking about less than handful of atheists, right? You don't think you can come up with less than a handful of theists that give it just as bad? You read the A/A group. What do you think of the screenshot of the post by your nominee for the new host position?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)didn't hate religious people, that we'd "go back" to hating minorities, women, etc.?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Nice try.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Nice try at deflection.
Do you agree with what she said? If an atheist said that about theists, would you be fine with that? What if scott said it?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She never mentioned anyone by name.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and instead use a broad brush, that's fine?
I don't think skeptic has ever mentioned anyone by name as a reliongista, but you and cbayer would like that word stopped. If he did name someone, you would be fine as long as he didn't.
And you really only thought the problem there was the use of the word bigot? How about the fact that she was saying that absent religious people to be mad at we would be racists and homophobes. THAT'S the really troubling part of the whole thing to me. That one throws around bigot almost as much as FA so that doesn't really even phase that much anymore.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She was refering to the subject in the op.
Complain all you want but Okasha will be nominated.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I would appreciate an honest answer.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)It is clear who she is referring to, if not specific individuals by name.
C'mon, justin, I'd like to think you are better than that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Move on.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Ask her. Well, I guess you don't have to, because I guarantee it will come up in the discussion on whether she is host material.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And she has made it clear that she isn't a believer. Or at least rejects that label. Or something. I don't know what she is but when people call her a believer she doesn't seem to accept that label. So if she had the seat you now hold, being a believer isn't necessary.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)There are two believer hosts or those sympathetic and two nonbelievers or thos sympathetic. And the neutral host.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Good to know.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Do you think longship was the top atheist choice if it were just atheists that need to feel comfortable with them? They are they host of the room for all. Which is why I know many atheists will fight okasha VERY hard. As I'm sure many have already read about in A/A ( lurkers--you know who you are).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I'm saying that I didn't fight for someone that was just sympathetic to atheists. I knew we needed someone that everyone would be happy with. If we are going to go with someone like okasha that I guarantee you atheists won't be happy with, I would have liked to know that since I would have fought for someone other than longship. He was a good choice if we are trying to make everyone happy. Not a good choice if we are going the okasha route.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)to protect one of your theist friends that get very frustrating.
Here, I'll show you how easy it is. I can be asshole at times. trotsky can be an asshole at times. skepticscott can be an asshole at times. Heidi can be an asshole at times. mr blur can be an asshole at times.
See. The earth didn't swallow me up. They aren't going to hate me because of it (well, I am a little worried I included Heidi 
). It's OK. We all know we can be assholes at times. Quit bending yourself into a pretzel to not say that was a dickish thing for okasha to say.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have plenty of them.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)(I wouldn't have included Heddi. She's always nice and pleasant.)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)because you called her Heidi instead of Heddi
And yes...this is why they can rightly be grouped together as religionistas. They collectively support any dickishness by other members of the club.
okasha
(11,573 posts)and I invite the poster of the screenshot to expand the context to make that clear. The persons to whom I was referring are those who need to assure themselves of their own superiority by denigrating a class of "others." I think we've all seen this mechanism at work in society. And I stand by my statement that persons who do have that need ultimately care less about who those "others" are than about their own need to feel superior. If one group of "others" becomes acceptable in such persons' milieu, they simply find a new target.
When racism became socially unacceptable, those who looked down on people of color simply moved on to hating LGBT's. I think this kind of refocussing is typical of prejudice, including prejudice against both believers and atheists. I leave it to those who felt that this remark spplied to them to determine why they feel singled out.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You are much better at refuting them than I.
Dorian Gray
(13,845 posts)this thread turned into a shitshow, huh?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Let us air out our laundry, so to speak.
Bryant
Dorian Gray
(13,845 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)but back in the day we had
- burning at the stake,
- being thrown to the lions,
- drawn and quartered, and
- crucifixions.
We've come a long way!
Can all the theists and anti-theists form two lines, and give high-fives (or fist-bumps, your choice) as we pass by each other?
I'll start.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)were meted out upon those who offended and challenged the dominant religion/power structure of the time.
I guess we "nasty atheists" should count our blessings that today they just want to silence us from speaking our opinions on an Internet message board. Progress!
rug
(82,333 posts)
Before Christ, the Romans drenched people in milk and kittens licked them to death.
goldent
(1,582 posts)You should give it a try!
trotsky
(49,533 posts) 
rexcat
(3,622 posts)only theists and anti-theists? Looks like some bias on your part. I am an atheist and don't really care what your religious preferences are but if you try to cram your beliefs down my throat I just might have a problem and it has nothing to do about being "anti-theist" on my part. In your narrow world I could say anti-atheists instead of theists. Just saying.
goldent
(1,582 posts)theists and anti-theists. This seems to be where the biggest conflicts are, and it doesn't require any cramming of beliefs.
I mean, if atheists want to join in and do some high-fiving, alright, come on and get in line. 
Renew Deal
(84,661 posts)For now. I want to sort through the election stuff.