This message was self-deleted by its author

[pinto]

This message was self-deleted by its author (pinto) on Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:32 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[skepticscott]

1. Certain points of view are unwelcome on DU in general

As is clearly expressed in site rules. People who express such points of view are unwelcome in Religion and everywhere else. People who express silly and indefensible points of view may also expect to be told so, with no fawning deference to pleas of "but, I BELIEVE that!!" and if that makes them feel "unwelcome", tough.

Can you point to any groups of people who have been made to feel like they are unwelcome here simply because of what they are, and not because of what they say and think? Or is this just a not-so-subtle assertion of religious privilege?

[rug]

3. Q.E.D.

[pinto]

9. Issues with DU in general are really better addressed directly to the Admins, I think.

I see no reason to refrain from challenging a poster's position or point of view. Clearly and vigorously. Or challenging some organization out there in the scope of our discussions.

Yet, attacking the poster, however it's framed, seems over the line.

There's one group who has been made to feel unwelcome here. It's a small one - me.

[rug]

21. "Because, frankly, you're nothing special."

Nah, nothing personal in your posts.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. I think you're right.

It seems like people hold on to grievances long past their sell-by dates. A little more thought before posting, a little more diplomacy, and being kinder than appears necessary would do us all some good.

[pinto]

7. Yeah, I think it's doable without ceding any point on a topic.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. And even conceding a point is not the end of the world.

Being able to recognize when another person has made a good argument against your position is a strength, and admitting it is just good form.

[pinto]

12. LOL. Good point. I agree.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15. ...

[Warren Stupidity]

4. if you want to have friction free discussions, there is a group for

that. This is not that group.

[rug]

5. Only if you're incapable of discussing controversial subjects civilly.

I know just the group for that.

[pinto]

6. I don't mean friction free in re: to the topic. Differences are to be expected and welcomed.

I mean interpersonal friction. I'm looking to elicit support for issue discussion not discussion about and/or conflict among the group's participants.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. there is too much history. We've been over this repeatedly.

The SOP does not say we have to be nice to each other, and in my opinion that is not going to happen.

[pinto]

11. Understood.

[Htom Sirveaux]

13. Things will change when people want them to change.

Regardless of whether you think its possible, do you want things to be different? Do you want that history to have less power over the present and future?

[skepticscott]

16. The religionistas who have regularly accused others of being bigots

of promoting genocide, of faking concern for LGBT rights (among other things) have been offered the chance to be more civil and to stick to facts. Over and over and over. They have refused, and in fact have doubled down on the same hostile crap. Ask them when they want to change, then get back to us. I have no more patience for them and will not play Pollyanna to their BS.

[hrmjustin]

17. How can you talk about being civil when you call us that word religionista?

You know some of us hate it.


And who has faked concern here for lgbt rights?

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. Forget them for a second. What about you?

Do you want things to change, regardless of whether you think its possible?

[rug]

20. QED2.

The ship has sailed.

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. I know you and I discussed this before.

When I made my posts on what atheists and theists want. Since that time, you've pursued your policy of vigorously defending yourself. Has it actually changed anything, made anything better? or does it just perpetuated the cycle?

Forget about anyone else, or whether it is possible: do you personally want change in here?

[rug]

25. Actually, the best remedy for bullies, internet or otherwise, is a vigorous defense.

And yes, the discussions are far more interesting when the usual "religionista" bullshit stops. I have seen a change.

[okasha]

26. During the last several days

we have had several threads in which there were sharp differences of opinion while maintaining civility. The posters who are now claiming that civility is impossible and in fact undesirable did not participate.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Appalling bullshit was left unchallenged.

Consequently outrage at appalling bullshit being challenged did not occur. But indeed you can have your non-confrontational bullshit admiration sessions over in the interfaithy group, only you don't.

[hrmjustin]

41. I thought you said you don't pay attention to the Interfaith group.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Nobody pays attention to your group Justin. That's the point.

You all don't want to have a nicey-nice interfaithy hugfest. You want to slog it out with the Bad Atheists and then wag your fingers and cluck "Wow. Just Wow!" and feel all righteous doing the lord's work and everything. Onward Christian Soldiers!

[hrmjustin]

43. You crack me up!

Now you can write in your group about my new one liner that you all are so fascinated by.

On a serious not we don't get the traffic your group gets but to say nobody comes there is false.

And talking to you is not doing the Lord's Work and never thought it was.

[rug]

48. It was left unchallenged because the usual slingers of appalling bullshit were noticeably absent.

There was little appalling bullshit to challenge. Until now.

[rug]

14. Do you think that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions?

Our Community Standards

It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. These broad community standards of behavior are maintained through the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not.

Members who cannot hold themselves to a high standard risk having their posts hidden by a jury of their peers, and being blocked out of discussion threads they disrupt. Those who exhibit a pattern of willful disregard for the Community Standards risk being in violation of our Terms of Service, and could have their posting privileges revoked.

[Starboard Tack]

34. You are correct. We don't have to be nice to each other.

That does not mean it is OK to sling personal insults at members and their families.
Neither does it mean it is OK to call fellow members "delusional and psychotic".

[Warren Stupidity]

38. You and your wife are throwing personal insults and snark here on a regular basis.

And you frequently do so with complete dishonesty. Let me know when you are going to stop.

[Starboard Tack]

46. And yet again you insult me and my wife on a personal level.

Please show me where either of us have insulted you or other posters. Unless you include calling you out on your personal insults and smears. Nobody is insulting you Warren, but you will be called out when you twist my words and try to conduct a smear campaign against us.
How would you react if your family was constantly attacked and lied about?

[Warren Stupidity]

54. lol. inane comment

[rug]

56. Let's recap. You insult him, his wife and his family. Again.

He objects.

You post: "lol. inane comment" and spend energy posting a smiley for emphasis.

"Inane" doesn't even begin to approach your behavior.

[Starboard Tack]

65. What do you find so amusing Warren?

Did you ask Mrs Stupidity how she would feel if insults were directed at her and the little Stupditys? Maybe you're a single fella, immune to that sort of thing?

[Warren Stupidity]

76. lol. I can't believe you don't find it amusing.

[Starboard Tack]

78. OK, some good bud ya got there, I guess. Enjoy!

[eomer]

39. I am cross-posting my reply to you in another current thread.

50. How about saying the other group is "stupid religion", "fake", and "garbage"?

That's what the OP article says about a group that he disagrees with. So will you apply your principle also to him and say, since he clearly thinks he is a step ahead, that he is a problem, a driving force behind hatred and mistrust of the other, a basis for fascism, leading to ethnic/religious cleansing?

cbayer seems to think that the OP article "shines a bright light".

I think this thing you've done here, and cbayer has done as well, is the underlying cause of much of the anger that manifests in this group. You have a drastically different standard for criticism of things that you sanction from that for criticism of things that you don't sanction. You apparently think it is fine to call people "dumbasses", "stupid", "fake", and "garbage", to laugh at their sacred texts on road trips, and all manner of ways in which you imply you're a step ahead of them when those people and their ideas are on your not-sanctioned list. But if someone else applies similar conduct to something that is on your sanctioned, protected list then you come down on them with extremely heavy accusations.

What I would call on the two of you, plus perhaps a few others, to do is to stop haranguing people for calling things stupid that they think are stupid. Stop calling them fascists, bigots, and the driving force behind hatred for calling things stupid that they think are stupid. That seems to me only decency and mutuality since that's exactly the freedom that you give yourselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=145718

Why did you complain about "delusional" but not about "stupid", "garbage", and "fake"? Answer: because you have a double standard - you're okay with it when it's directed against things you don't sanction but not when it' directed against things you do sanction.

[Starboard Tack]

45. You are assuming that I read the OP, which I didn't.

I often participate in threads without reading the OP. I am more interested in what other DU members have to say than reading pasted OP's.

I objected to another member describing all believers and those who support their right to believe as "delusional and psychotic". I find that deserved more immediate attention on my part than whatever Graham the Younger has to say. I have less time for RW bigotry than I do for LW bigotry, YMMV.

[Iggo]

61. Then welcome the difference.

[pinto]

67. Oh I do. I'm used to strong, often differing points of view.

Could have probably worded the OP to reflect that more clearly.

[hrmjustin]

22. Yes the ugliness does distract but I doubt it will change.

I have been posting less in here recently because I am sick of the games of certain members here.

In interfaith we can debate with being insulting and if someone steps over the line like the other day it is dealt with.

I am sick of the games that some play and the fact they act all hurt when confronted is just too damn precious to behold.

I do not claim to be an angel and can do better myself but some in this room need to take a good hard look at themselves before they blame others.

Good post pinto.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. That's an excellent tool to dismiss or marginalize other poster's positions by proxy.

You see, it's just people 'playing games'.


No, we aren't.

[hrmjustin]

29. Not you and not reasonable discussion on faith and atheism.

[Starboard Tack]

36. I don't think Justin meant you.

You are a tough debater and things get hot and sweaty, but there is nothing wrong with that. It makes for a lively discussion.
The "games" are played by those who don't come here to debate, but purely to disrupt and carry out personal attacks.
The value of a group like this is to help each of us grow, as individuals, by questioning ourselves and others, and being open minded. We all have different experiences in life, which form our opinions. I think it is important to have those opinions challenged, from time to time. You are a perfect example of one who engages, without resorting to personal insults.

[TygrBright]

23. I think friction is inevitable.

And, in a way, it's intrinsic in the topic. From that standpoint, friction itself does not bother me, although it does occasionally influence me not to comment on a post I might otherwise have considerable interest in discussing. But that's just me, and I don't think my brilliant and valuable contributions make or break any discussion, so no one else should give a damn about that.

However, I have noticed a tendency for some frequent participants to personalize the discussion and/or drag in personality, past history, accusations of SOA (Same Old Agenda) and other detritus into the threads, which make me want to post "get a room, you people, and duke it out among yourselves."

If they did, though, there might not BE a whole lot of discussion here, and it's one of the livelier and more interesting groups.

It's a tough group to host, but generally I've been impressed with the hosts' ability to keep things from going nuclear, as it were.

informatively,
Bright

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I think you should figure out how the 'ignore' and 'trash thread' buttons work.

[pinto]

30. I know well how they work. And get your point.

I've always been reluctant to use either function. Realize those are options though.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Both certainly have drawbacks.

But if the level of discourse does not suit you, silence in response can have the effect you are looking for.

[pinto]

32. Yeah. (nt)

[cbayer]

33. Put them on ignore, pinto.

The group will look completely different to you if you do that. There are good people and good conversations to be had, even if some are highly contentious.

The people you are talking about are not going to change. What you describe is their agenda and they will continue to pursue it as long as you feed them. When you ignore them, they just up the volume but you won't be able to hear them.

People come here for attention. It infuriates them when you won't give it to them.

[Jim__]

35. I agree. We should be able to discuss things without personal animosity.

[trotsky]

40. When the people who complain the most about animosity and personal ugliness...

start criticizing EVERYONE doing it, and not just pretending that it's only a particular group people (and CERTAINLY not their personal friends), then you might see things change.

Until then, it's just hypocrisy and double standards, which reinforces the animosity. The finger-waggers are just as guilty as those this thread was created to blame.

[hrmjustin]

44. Lead by example then.

I know I can do better but so can you.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Do you think people should just turn the other cheek?

What do you mean by "personal friends"? Are you referring to Nurse Betty's FB Knitting Group?

Certainly never any "finger wagging" on your part.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Nurse Betty's FB Knitting Group?

You don't think that is a personal attack? You think that is the kind of dialogue you want here? Be the change.

[Starboard Tack]

66. How is that a personal attack?

Is it insulting in some way? Please explain.

[Goblinmonger]

70. OK. I'll assume you don't get it.

Do you think Heddi likes the "Nurse Betty" nickname? Is that something she has indicated she wants to be called? Or was that just rug's (yours?) little dig at her.

"Knitting group"? First of all, that is just sexist. It's a dig that the people you are using it for just sit around and talk all the time like a bunch of women knitting. Secondly, it makes any conversation that people may have marginalized and easily dismissed as meaningless.

[rug]

72. Ah, once again you drag me into your head.

[Goblinmonger]

73. I don't remember who use the name first

Either you or ST.

[rug]

74. It wasn't me but it was you who first used my name.

[okasha]

81. So what do you do, besides sit around and talk?

[Goblinmonger]

83. I really, firmly believe

that if an one of the people you don't like had come up with the name for a group of people you like, that you would be all over them for the sexist implications of the name. That you aren't now puts some serious doubt on your "I give back what people give me." It was a sexist comment. Either address it or don't. I have no desire to get involved with your apologetics for your buddy.

[okasha]

88. So what do you do, besides sit around and talk?

As I recall your founder's self-deleted post, the purpose of the group is to trash-talk DU'ers who have different opinions than your members in terms that are unacceptable on DU.

Perhaps if Heddi confined her vendettas to the FB site, she'd attract less ridicule.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. we nap.

[Starboard Tack]

87. Sexist? You're kidding, right?

I remember Mr Blur saying something about his knitting group. I used to knit and crochet and macrame. What the fuck is sexist about knitting? I still do a fair bit of sewing.
And what on earth does Heddi have to do with this? Is she the Nurse Betty that everyone talks about. I thought she said her Facebook group was not a knitting group, but a nice place for atheists who wouldn't be bothered by all the noise of DU. A place to have a good natter and a chuckle about delusional people without being spied upon by the nasty faitheists.

"Knitting group"? First of all, that is just sexist. It's a dig that the people you are using it for just sit around and talk all the time like a bunch of women knitting. Secondly, it makes any conversation that people may have marginalized and easily dismissed as meaningless.

Well if that ain't sexist, I don't know what is.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. lol. I can't believe you said you're kidding.

[kdmorris]

47. From my perspective and I speak for no one but myself

"All are welcome" has never been the practice in this group. I would NOT be permitted to comevto this group and talk about how religion has negatively influenced me personally without being attacked.

A few weeks ago a post was made attacking the hosts of the Atheists and Agnostics group and the hosts here failed to locked that thread until someone made a similar post attacking religion. Then, and only then, were the posts locked. The OP of the original attack could have self deleted but refused.

As long as that is the atmosphere in this group..."all are welcome" is just something everyone tells themselves to make themselves feel like they are being upstanding citizens and it's just a group of "others" that make it a cesspool.

But I have NEVER felt welcome here and likely never will. Rather than fight about it, I just go elsewhere. Constant conflict is not my thing and feeling slapped in the face over and over isn't the way I want to feel during the 2 hours of internet time I get each week. Maybe I'm just a coward to avoid it...but oh well.

[rug]

50. I didn't see a post that fits that description. Do you have a link to it?

[kdmorris]

58. And therein lies the reason

That this group will never be welcoming for all. You don't even try to see others' points of view. You know exactly which thread I'm talking about and you will never see it the way I saw it. You won't even try.

Don't bother alerting. This is not an attack and you will get your group back free from people like me saying things you don't like.

Pinto asked and I responded. ..simple

[rug]

59. Asking for a link is unwelcoming?

If it says what you say it says, we should all see it for what it is.

If it doesn't, it doesn't.

And no, I don't know which thread you're referring to. There have been so many.

[kdmorris]

64. Have a great day, rug

I'm done with this little bait session and it's best that we all just go back to our corners.

[rug]

68. Thanks for the link.

I'll take it on faith it says what you say it says.

[trotsky]

51. I'd use the old canard about "great minds think alike" here, kdmorris...

But my mind is not that great.

Wonderful example you provided!

[hrmjustin]

52. I think if you gave a heartfelt post people would respect your story and give you the respect you

deserve.

There are at times I don't feel welcomed here and I step back. I share my faith here and get some nasty responses at times.

I am sorry you don't feel welcome here.

[Starboard Tack]

53. You are so wrong. You would be very welcome here.

The OP you refer to was locked at my request. I did not think it appropriate to self-delete, because it would have negated all the effort of others who participated in the thread. Also, I stand by everything I said in that thread.

That does not mean that we cannot have constructive conversations here. This is an excellent group and it can get lively at times, but mostly the members on all sides are respectful of each other. You would be most welcome to talk about the effect that religion has had on you. Nobody is going to attack you for that.

I think everyone here recognizes the damage that religion can cause when it is used to have power over others and manipulate them. There is much criticism of religion by both believers and non-believers.

You have the freedom to question anything in this group. You won't be hounded out for your beliefs or lack of beliefs.
Now you're here, I for one, would like to see you stay and participate more.

[MineralMan]

55. I used to participate in this group. I no longer do.

There is a reason for that.

[rug]

57. Which is?

[MineralMan]

86. My Own Business, rug.

That's what the reason is.

[kdmorris]

60. I'm not sure how you envisioned this going, pinto

But I would consider self-deleting at this point. This post just makes the division into a giant abyss...

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Mission accomplished.

[okasha]

69. Actually, this thread has done much

to identify the sources of friction in this group. (Actually, they've self-identified.)

I can see why you might find that distressing, but don't see it as any reason for locking the thread.

[Goblinmonger]

71. Do you really see yourself and not a part of the friction?

Serious question. Do you not realize that you dig and poke and trash talk with the best of them? Because your responses kind of come off like you are above it all.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Suddenly all the religionistas are all about comity.

Every time we have this stupid ass discussion it's "who me?"


Yeah, you.

[rug]

77. Yeah, you.

[okasha]

79. I respond in kind to thoughtful posts.

I respond in kind to sarcasm and snark.

Simple.

[Goblinmonger]

80. So anytime you are an ass

it is someone else's fault. Got it.

[okasha]

102. Asses are intelligent, courageous and loyal creatures,

which is why they're the mascot of the Democratic party. I must say I have had excellent examples of those qualities in my life. Credit where due.

[trotsky]

85. Well what a coincidence.

So do I.

[hrmjustin]

84. Yeah I see no reason to delete this.

The responses here are interesting but predictable.

[kdmorris]

89. "they've" ?

Thanks for the response. This thread has definitely been enlightening, that's for sure. Yet it yielded no surprises...

I doubt that pinto would consider deleting it, anyway, as it seems that it has served its purpose.

[hrmjustin]

90. What purpose is that?

[kdmorris]

91. why...to heal the community, of course n/t

[hrmjustin]

95. Personally I thought it was a good op.

[kdmorris]

103. Who doesn't?

And the rest of the thread was fairly awesome, too.

[hrmjustin]

104. I am sorry you don't feel welcome here as you said here.

I hope things get better in here.

[pinto]

92. I thought about it, but am referring to hosts for a lock review. I think that's more appropriate.

Will support their call.

[hrmjustin]

93. I hope it is not locked.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Yeah this is the most fun in like a week! amirite?

[hrmjustin]

97. What do you mean by a week?

And no I did a few other things this week that was more fun.

[Warren Stupidity]

98. 7 days, generally speaking. And was that wax on or wax off?

[hrmjustin]

100. Good bye warren.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. happy trails to you

until we meet again.

I'd suggest a nap, but that would be extremely rude.

[hrmjustin]

82. Well the responses here are informative.

About exactly what I expected.