Heathen Hangout: the Ethics of Private Forums

[Gurdur]

tiddley om pom pom, coming into a thread on the 17th page, and joining a board only for that purpose, seems to me to be the height of reckless masochistic stupidity, yet occasionally I allow myself such luxuries.

There's a fair few points to which I think a reply is deserved, and to which I want to reply, since I happen to be one of the HH admin, and the HH gets mentioned from the OP onwards.

1) For me the HH is like a Democratic-only club --- it exists in a gray zone of ethicality. I think it's OK till other questions arise.
To give an example -- I think a private mens'-only club is OK, till that club starts distributing real power in the outside world, favours, that kind of thing; if that club starts adding to genuine prejudice in the outside world, then it's no longer OK as an exclusivist thing.
In passing, the HH in no way adds to prejudice in the outside world -- prejudice against theists or others. IMHO.
The openly-displayed criterium for membership is non-theism; personally, I would prefer a rule somewhat different and a tad more complex in practice, but that's just me.

As pointed out, the rule means in essence no Moslems, Christians or practicing theist Jews (I rush into specify that Jewishness by ethnicity does not equal Jewishness by religion, and in fact some branches even of Jewish religion cannot be meaningfully described as "theist", but are in fact agnostic, fideist etc. respectively).

2) godfry n. glad, if you ever wish to discuss your previous HH membership and whatnot, please drop me a line here.

You will of course realise I cannot discuss internal HH business, especially in at all revealing private information of HH members, outside the HH; otherwise I would be put into the slightly awkward position of having to enforce rules over myself and ban myself for not following the rules, a conundrum I'ld rather not have to deal with.

3) To me, the driving impetus is fairness. That, and a modicum of accuracy. That's why I'm here.
:yup:

[Ex-zombie]

Hey Gurdur! Nice to see you around. :wave:

[godfry n. glad]

2) godfry n. glad, if you ever wish to discuss your previous HH membership and whatnot, please drop me a line here.

You will of course realise I cannot discuss internal HH business, especially in at all revealing private information of HH members, outside the HH; otherwise I would be put into the slightly awkward position of having to enforce rules over myself and ban myself for not following the rules, a conundrum I'ld rather not have to deal with.



Yes... Understood. I shall.

godfry

[Gurdur]

Hey Gurdur! Nice to see you around. :wave:
Many thanks !
Please pardon me, but do I know you under any other user-name ? Forgive me, but the name Ex-zombie doesn't ring any bell. Maybe 'cause I've just woken up, it's only 7 am here.

I'm not totally sure it is a good idea for me to join up here, but I saw two points where fairness in various ways prompted me to do so.

[viscousmemories]

For me the HH is like a Democratic-only club --- it exists in a gray zone of ethicality. I think it's OK till other questions arise.
As you point out, there is no set of interests or goals common to all non-theists. So what exactly is the purpose of having a private meeting place? Frankly for that reason I've never been able to figure out how it is significantly different from a whites only club, which I find ethically indefensible.

To give an example -- I think a private mens'-only club is OK, till that club starts distributing real power in the outside world, favours, that kind of thing; if that club starts adding to genuine prejudice in the outside world, then it's no longer OK as an exclusivist thing.
I think private forums are a very good idea, especially as a place for a small group of close friends to share deeply personal information they wouldn't want in the public sphere. Given the breadth and diversity of the membership at HH, combined with the fairly casual policy for admittance, that obviously doesn't accurately describe it.

In passing, the HH in no way adds to prejudice in the outside world -- prejudice against theists or others. IMHO.
I disagree. I think HH contributes significantly to solidifying peoples negative stereotypes and generalizations about theists and a perception of them as a hostile 'other'. I certainly don't see how that might in any way improve the members treatment of theists, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it increased prejudice against them.

The openly-displayed criterium for membership is non-theism; personally, I would prefer a rule somewhat different and a tad more complex in practice, but that's just me.
To be more inclusive or exclusive?

[Gurdur]

Frankly for that reason I've never been able to figure out how it is significantly different from a whites only club, which I find ethically indefensible.
There are private meeting places for gays, philatelists, zoologists, and francophiles.
I can't see why non-theists are automatically barred from such a priviledge.

I think private forums are a very good idea, especially as a place for a small group of close friends to share deeply personal information they wouldn't want in the public sphere. Given the breadth and diversity of the membership at HH, combined with the fairly casual policy for admittance, that obviously doesn't accurately describe it.
Our members seem to feel happy with the HH as it is at this time, which isn't quite the way you imply.

I disagree. I think HH contributes significantly to solidifying peoples negative stereotypes and generalizations about theists and a perception of them as a hostile 'other'.
Just how ?
I'ld also suggest you don't quite know the HH --- as of this time.
I certainly don't see how that might in any way improve the members treatment of theists,That isn't its purpose for existing, but neither is the converse --- the HH does not exist to increase prejudice. and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it increased prejudice against them.
I personally would be most surprised. :D
Quite, quite honestly.

To be more inclusive or exclusive?
Ah, you're asking me my personal opinion on an ideal private social club that tangentially touches upon religion etc. ?
Naw, in context and because of history, I'll be quite cautious about talking about too many personal wishes of my own in here.

[seebs]

I disagree. I think HH contributes significantly to solidifying peoples negative stereotypes and generalizations about theists and a perception of them as a hostile 'other'.

It's like the difference between, say, ChristianForums and RaptureReady. RaptureReady teaches people to hate atheists to gain acceptance from their community.

(BTW, I think it's funny that people who know me frequently absently hand me links to threads on HH.)

[viscousmemories]

Frankly for that reason I've never been able to figure out how it is significantly different from a whites only club, which I find ethically indefensible.
There are private meeting places for gays, philatelists, zoologists, and francophiles.
I can't see why non-theists are automatically barred from such a priviledge.
Would that be an appeal to popularity?

Honestly I've struggled with the ethical implications of this for a long time. I would genuinely like to hear you explain how it's different from a whites-only club, or if it's not different, how you rationalize being part of it.

Our members seem to feel happy with the HH as it is at this time, which isn't quite the way you imply.
I'm quite sure it's not substantially different from when I was there, and I'm not surprised the members are happy with it - else I suspect they wouldn't be members.

I disagree. I think HH contributes significantly to solidifying peoples negative stereotypes and generalizations about theists and a perception of them as a hostile 'other'.
Just how ?
I'ld also suggest you don't quite know the HH --- as of this time.
How? Well start with the fact that theists aren't considered worthy of membership there, then take a browse around at the dozens of theist-bashing threads in there. Obviously since I'm no longer a member I can't dispute your claim that it isn't the HH I remember, but you'll forgive me I hope if I have a hard time believing that all the same people in the same forum with the same anti-theist structure have suddenly created a dramatically different environment from the one I left.

To be more inclusive or exclusive?
Ah, you're asking me my personal opinion on an ideaql private club that tangentially touches upon religion etc. ?
Naw, in context and because of history, I'll be quie cautious about injecting too many personal wishes of my own in here.
Ah, yes. That's the real beauty of the super sekrit forum: No accountability. ;)

[Gurdur]

Would that be an appeal to popularity?
Naw, it would be a straight description of reality.
Care to actually address the issue ?
Honestly I've struggled with the ethical implications of this for a long time. I would genuinely like to hear you explain how it's different from a whites-only club, or if it's not different, how you rationalize being part of it.
Just have, in 2 posts. You're ignoring it. When you actually deal with my answers, then you can meaningfully ask for more.
No good trying to demand more answers if you're going to ignore those given.

I'm quite sure it's not substantially different from when I was there,
The advantages of omniscience, I suppose ?

How? Well start with the fact that theists aren't considered worthy of membership there,
It is not a matter of "worthiness", which is a specific value judgment; it's a matter of "interest" and appropriateness.
then take a browse around at the dozens of theist-bashing threads in there.
You must know something I don't.
Odd, under the circumstances. :wink:
Obviously since I'm no longer a member I can't dispute your claim that it isn't the HH I remember, but you'll forgive me I hope if I have a hard time believing that all the same people in the same forum with the same anti-theist structure have suddenly created a dramatically different environment from the one I left.
What I just love about this conversation is that I am famous on SecWeb and other atheist boards for very consistantly, very often, constantly challenging false superiority complexes on the part of atheists, and for challenging missionary exclusivist atheism.
I've done it much more than you, I've done it longer, I've done it consistantly, and pretty much everyone knows me on that.

HH does not have an "anti-theist" structure; there is a subtle but important distinction between being non-theist and being anti-theist.
I guess you missed out on the relevant part of my post above where I talked about my own stances on things like humanism ? :yup:
To be more inclusive or exclusive?Ah, you're asking me my personal opinion on an ideal private club that tangentially touches upon religion etc. ?
Naw, in context and because of history, I'll be quite cautious about injecting too many personal wishes of my own in here.
Ah, yes. That's the real beauty of the super sekrit forum: No accountability. ;)
*yawn*
You got your wires crossed there. Badly.
You began by asking about HH, then with this specific question you asked me what I would see as the ideal, not about the HH.
I said I wasn't ready to talk about my own wishes or whatever too much.
Now you're rhetorically making imputations about the HH and myself as well, and you ignore that I specifically joined up here to discuss certain remarks about the HH, IOW I'm being accountable on its behalf to an outside world.

Any more snide and untrue aspersions ?

[Dingfod]

Is Heathen Hangout exclusionary policy ethically indefensible? Hardly. I find denying people the right of free association as such to be morally repugnant. godfry already stated pretty much what I think, that the atheist perspective is anything but welcome in many, if not most, churches, synagogues, and mosques. I think that it is completely within their rights to discriminate on the basis of religion, I certainly wouldn't take it away from them or anyone else. Since atheists lack the same social structure and edifices as religionists, I see absolutely nothing wrong with atheists freely choosing who to associate with on the same basis. Comparing HH with a whites only club is completely unfair and assinine. People do not get to choose what color they are, what gender they are, and I believe what is their sexual preference, so discriminating on the basis of color, gender or sexual preference is just plain wrong. People definitely do have the freedom to choose their religion or no religion and who they wish to hang out with in private. And, although HH has a lot of members, and may not be considered private by a narrow definition of the term, it is private enough for many there to consider themselves more than comfortable enough to bare their souls, so to speak, without fear of advice or judgement based on a religious perspective.

[seebs]

Hmm.

I guess... While I do think that people have a right to form such forums, I am not convinced that it is beneficial or advisable. I personally think churches should welcome atheists; perhaps not as preachers, but then, a church is not just a social club.

I do think there are potential moral problems with exclusionary clubs; I also think that people are welcome to take these moral questions on themselves.

[viscousmemories]

Just have, in 2 posts. You're ignoring it. When you actually deal with my answers, then you can meaningfully ask for more.
No good trying to demand more answers if you're going to ignore those given.
No, you didn't answer my question and you are obviously not interested in doing so. So be it. I have no interest in hearing your assessment of what I am and am not ignoring or "dealing with", so I have nothing else to discuss with you.

[viscousmemories]

Warren, people don't choose what they believe just like black people don't choose to be black. HH excludes people on the basis of what they believe. What's the difference?

[Brimshack]

I think the HH debate ought to be split off from the II debate.

[Dingfod]

Hmm.

I guess... While I do think that people have a right to form such forums, I am not convinced that it is beneficial or advisable. I personally think churches should welcome atheists; perhaps not as preachers, but then, a church is not just a social club.Oh, I think for many people that is exactly what church is to them, their entire social life is wrapped up in church and with church members to the complete exclusion of everyone else. Remember, seebs, not everyone is as thoughtful about what they believe as you are. I'm sure you know of some, if not many, in the church you attend that really haven't given much thought or introspection to their belief system.

I agree that many churches could benefit from a critical outsider's viewpoint, but most of them don't see it that way, they see any attack on their narrow interpretation as evil and of Satan. I visited a Methodist church in Salt Lake City several times. They were very nice to my family and I, but I sat in on some bible study classes and found they weren't even open to differing interpretations of scripture within their own membership. A young man with a different idea of what a certain scripture meant was verbally attacked by the study leader and several others, then most of the rest added their "Amen." I cannot even imagine how they would've reacted to finding a godless heathen in their midst. No, I just sat there on my hands with my mouth zipped shut.

I do think there are potential moral problems with exclusionary clubs; I also think that people are welcome to take these moral questions on themselves.That depends on what you mean by moral. As I already said, discrimination on the basis of race, gender or sexual preference wouldn't be moral. Neither would plotting any illegal action against any individual, church, organization, or government.

Indeed, we at HH may have further discussions and perhaps even refinement of admission and membership policy. Perhaps that will be less exclusionary, or maybe not. It will be evolutionary regardless, as is any organization willing to look at their policies.

[Brimshack]

I think it strange that we have a debate involving two assertions regarding the effect that HH has regarding people's views on Theists. Honestly, I don't know how one would assess that. That certainly isn't the purpose of the board, but it is fair to suggest it may or may not be a consequence of some of its features, membership, overall atmosphere, etc. I don't think it's a hotbed of hate-speech by any means, but I'm sure we could find an objectionable idea or three communicated there in an atmosphere protected from a critical response. Since we aren't allowed to discuss it's contents here and VM isn't a member of HH anymore, I don't know how to discuss the matter profitably. But blanket assertions about its (non-)promotion of prejudice don't seem very promising.

[Gurdur]

No, you didn't answer my question and you are obviously not interested in doing so. So be it. I have no interest in hearing your assessment of what I am and am not ignoring or "dealing with", so I have nothing else to discuss with you.
Ha, ha, I think pretty well everyone else can see the falsity of your accusations there,
:D
So you want to hide now that you've actually been confronted ? You don't want to talk with me because I answered you ? tsk, such a lack of integrity.
My goodness, and you want to lecture others on ethicality ?
The irony is to make me laugh till it hurts.

I shall of course remain here in case anyone else actually does have any real desire to interact with a geunine, live HH admin person.
:popcorn:

[viscousmemories]

Maybe I'll split it tomorrow. I'm all for it, but I'm afraid I'll fuck it up without liv's help. :D

[Dingfod]

Warren, people don't choose what they believe just like black people don't choose to be black. HH excludes people on the basis of what they believe. What's the difference?People don't choose what they believe? They don't pick and choose from a variety of choices of beliefs? What a pile of fatalistic manure. What was your belief when you first started HH? Did it change? Why?

I still find your comparison of HH to a whites only club to be disgusting. My first inclination when you first made that comparison was to take insult and leave rather than defending my viewpoint, and what was at one time, your viewpoint. I have to abandon this discussion now, I'm getting too invested in it.

[Gurdur]

..... I don't think it's a hotbed of hate-speech by any means, but I'm sure we could find an objectionable idea or three communicated there in an atmosphere protected from a critical response.
I doubt very strongly that the HH structure in any way protects objectionable ideas from critical responses. There are reasons for my doubt.
:yup:
Since we aren't allowed to discuss it's contents here
well, us HH members aren't.
And VM has a definite advantage there, not being an HHer.
But still, we can do our best with all the subtleties of language, and by appealing to reality.
:yup:
But blanket assertions about its (non-)promotion of prejudice don't seem very promising.
It depends.
A hell of a lot of people on this board, the FF, know me
They know I might be blunt ( = argumentative, irascible, etc. depending on your own politics), but they also know I would not lie to them.
They also know I tend to have a comprehensive view of the things I defend or promote, and in the end, if they don't know HH themselves, they can trust me as they see fit.

[seebs]

I think the HH debate ought to be split off from the II debate.

I think we need more religious forums with double-letter names. (Hey, is that why hyperboreans is labeled "Wissenschaftslehre" in my bookmarks; so it can be double-U?)

[viscousmemories]

Warren, people don't choose what they believe just like black people don't choose to be black. HH excludes people on the basis of what they believe. What's the difference?People don't choose what they believe? They don't pick and choose from a variety of choices of beliefs? What a pile of fatalistic manure. What was your belief when you first started HH? Did it change? Why?
Did you choose not to believe in God, Warren? My belief when I first started HH was that there was nothing wrong with having a forum that excludes theists. After several lengthy debates in there about how to define theism, it became pretty obvious to me that it was all a sham. Most people didn't even really know or care about the nuances of theism/deism/pantheism, etc. Ultimately they just wanted to make sure the Christians were kept out.

The forum existed to replace the Freethinkers Private Forums at IIDB. Little more than a place for IIDBers to hang out and talk shit about other IIDBers who didn't happen to be members, either because they couldn't (theist) or they didn't know about it. The vast majority of the members in there didn't even participate in those debates, apparently because the nuance wasn't as important as keeping religious people of whatever variety out.

I still find your comparison of HH to a whites only club to be disgusting. My first inclination when you first made that comparison was to take insult and leave rather than defending my viewpoint, and what was at one time, your viewpoint. I have to abandon this discussion now, I'm getting too invested in it.
Yeah, I think it's a disgusting concept too. Can you tell me how it differs?

[Gurdur]

What a pile of fatalistic manure.
Yep.
I find it kind of strange viscousmemories would promote psychological determinism, a POV quite antithetical to ethics;
VM hasn't grasped that you cannot have ethics wiithout having free will, especially choice over what one believes.
Since the psychological determinism POVis usually a hallmark of the more extremist, exclusivist atheists, there is indeed many an irony to be enjoyed in all of this,
I still find your comparison of HH to a whites only club to be disgusting.
Agreed, but I merely find it prejudicial and, much more importanty, mistaken.
For the reasons already given.
I have to abandon this discussion now, I'm getting too invested in it.Well, thanks for the input, and I'll stay here in case anyone genuinely wants to argue or otherwise interact with one of us HH admin.

[Dingfod]

I already have (refer to vm's post above Gurdur's), but you choose to ignore it because you don't believe that belief is a choice. You aren't born with any beliefs at all, you form them later based on things you learn. OTOH, you are born a certain race, a certain gender (most of the time), and sexual preference (in my opinion anyway).

Did I choose not to believe in God? I'd say I made a conscious choice based on the evidence or lack of it, so yes, I chose not to believe in god. I could change my mind if evidence were presented to the contrary.

[Gurdur]

(Hey, is that why hyperboreans is labeled "Wissenschaftslehre" in my bookmarks;
Weil wir sind nicht alle monolinguale, Seebs; manche von uns können auch noch die wahre Sprache der Wissenschaft beherrschen. :P

Allerdings, findest Du auch nicht, daß es etwas unfair ist, daß ich bin jetzt gefragt, nicht nur die Heathens Hangout zu verteidigen, sondern jetzt auch die Hyperboreans, wo ich bin einen Moderator ?

Sheeeesh, ihr gibt mir so vieles zu tun. :popcorn:

[Gurdur]

Did I choose not to believe in God? I'd say I made a conscious choice based on the evidence or lack of it, so yes, I chose not to believe in god. I could change my mind if evidence were presented to the contrary.
Same here.
I know I chose to become an atheist, and I know I could change that any time I wanted to.
And I still look forward to anyone trying to defend their combining of the ideas of ethics existing without individual control over and freedom of belief.
:P

[Brimshack]

..... I don't think it's a hotbed of hate-speech by any means, but I'm sure we could find an objectionable idea or three communicated there in an atmosphere protected from a critical response.
I doubt very strongly that the HH structure in any way protects objectionable ideas from critical responses. There are reasons for my doubt.
:yup:

Fair enough, if you are suggesting that people can and are subjected to critical scrutiny at HH. I was wrong to state otherwise. But HH does remove the most interested voice regarding a defense of Theism from those discussions about it, which was the point of my claim. To the degree that anyone there vents about religion, the context of discussion is quite prone to group think on that particular subject.

Since we aren't allowed to discuss it's contents here
well, us HH members aren't.
And VM has a definite advantage there, not being an HHer.
But still, we can do our best with all the subtleties of language, and by appealing to reality.
:yup:

Yes, but this won't change the fact that the only way to back certain claims about what does or doesn't happen at HH is to actually discuss the contents of the posts at HH. Exactly how that skews the playing field here is less a concern of mine than the fact that this is pretty poor footing for a debate over HH policies.

But blanket assertions about its (non-)promotion of prejudice don't seem very promising.
It depends.
A hell of a lot of people on this board, the FF, know me
They know I might be blunt ( = argumentative, irascible, etc. depending on your own politics), but they also know I would not lie to them.
They also know I tend to have a comprehensive view of the things I defend or promote, and in the end, if they don't know HH themselves, they can trust me as they see fit.

I have no reason to believe that either you or VM would lie about this subject. And yet you both have a rather startlingly different take on the matter. This isn't the sort of thing I would take your word for, or VM's either. Hell, I wouldn't even take my own observations as decisive, and I'm a member over there. The personal conviction of any given participant in that forum regarding its practical impact or lack thereof on the overall scope of prejudice among us heathen just isn't much of an argument.

You are absolutely correct that HH is not anti-theist in purpose, but that doesn't tell us anything about its actual impact on any communities. Which is why I find your initial distinction between exclusive clubs that harm and those that don't rather problematic. At the very least we would have to do more than ask whether or not such clubs are intended to promote prejudice.

Warrenly-Seebs: On the comparison between whites only and non-believes only, I think it is fair to say that beliefs are not chosen in the conventional sense of the word. It is also fair to suggest that they are not quite the inescapable facts that racial categories tend to be (at least in North America). This being the case, I think it's fair to say that there is a difference between a non-Theist only club and a whites only club. Whether or not that difference is more important than the similarities is another question.

[viscousmemories]

The real irony is that I'm being attacked for criticising the forum I built, by a couple of people who inherited it as a result of my generosity. I should have shut that forum down when livius and I resigned. Frankly I hate the fact that my name is still in any way associated with that cesspit.

C'est la vie. Y'all go ahead and keep venting. Gurdur went through all the trouble of signing up just to attack me for an old grudge, I wouldn't want him to be disappointed. I'm going to sleep. :wave:

[Gurdur]

The real irony is that I'm being attacked for criticising the forum I built,
Bollocks.
Your criticisms of HH as it is now were answered, and it was shown to you we are very prepared to go into genuine dialogue on this.
We're being accountable. :yup:
Instead of entering into that dialogue, you made snide, untrue aspersions, then refused to talk with me any more.
by a couple of people who inherited it as a result of my generosity.
Puh-leeze, when I get the idea you are prepared to talk with me honestly and openly, then I will worry about all the personal aspects of it.
I should have shut that forum down when livius and I resigned.
Ah, you regret your "generousity". Tsk. Ungenerous of you.
Frankly I hate the fact that my name is still in any way associated with that cesspit.
1) It's no longer a cesspit. :yup:
2) Your name is no longer assocted with it in any meaningful way; pretty much everyone knows your stance and has respected it.
3) But if you like, we can put up in big type somewhere on a front page that you are not associated with it
C'est la vie. Y'all go ahead and keep venting.
Oh, the irony.
Coming from VM who vents, gets confronted on it, and then refuses to talk about it ?
Gurdur went through all the trouble of signing up just to attack me for an old grudge,
That is a lie.
I wouldn't want him to be disappointed. I'm going to sleep.
You do that.
:popcorn:

[Dingfod]

The real irony is that I'm being attacked for criticising the forum I built, by a couple of people who inherited it as a result of my generosity.I'm attacking you?

[Dingfod]

I'm attacking you?In fact, I'm attacking anyone? You must have a different definition of attack than I do. Please dispense with the hyperbole, viscousmemories.

[Brimshack]

HH is not now a cesspit, nor was it ever a cesspit. Some of it's policies are questionable, hardly an unusual quality for a message board.

[Gurdur]

.....But HH does remove the most interested voice regarding a defense of Theism from those discussions about it, which was the point of my claim.
However, your remark would only carry practical weight were there to be a great many attacks upon theism inside the HH.
To the degree that anyone there vents about religion, the context of discussion is quite prone to group think on that particular subject.
You think so ?
Gurdur is a member and admin of the HH, and while we can't reveal personal info about members of HH, we know from elsewhere that Gurdur is vocal, trenchant, and has a personal allergy to groupthink.
Just for a start. :yup:
Yes, but this won't change the fact that the only way to back certain claims about what does or doesn't happen at HH is to actually discuss the contents of the posts at HH.
Naw, it just forces us handicapped people to ... get into good footwork.
Exactly how that skews the playing field here is less a concern of mine than the fact that this is pretty poor footing for a debate over HH policies.
Well, us HHers are handicapped here, but hey, we enjoy the exercise.
I have no reason to believe that either you or VM would lie about this subject. And yet you both have a rather startlingly different take on the matter.
Then eventually you'll be forced to make up your mind one way or t'other.
You are absolutely correct that HH is not anti-theist in purpose, but that doesn't tell us anything about its actual impact on any communities.
Well, I personally would be fascinated by anyone showing influence of HH upon other communities.
:yup:
Which is why I find your initial distinction between exclusive clubs that harm and those that don't rather problematic. At the very least we would have to do more than ask whether or not such clubs are intended to promote prejudice.
But of course. And I'm here to discuss away. :yup:

[Dingfod]

Well, I personally would be fascinated by anyone showing influence of HH upon other communities.I think you'd have to agree there has been an HH influence on this community. How could it be otherwise?

[Dingfod]

HH is not now a cesspit, nor was it ever a cesspit. Some of it's policies are questionable, hardly an unusual quality for a message board.Hey, I was going to say that.

[Dingfod]

Granted, there have been and are antireligious threads and posts at HH, but way fewer in number than at IIDB, whose mission apparently is to find common ground with theists. However, I can think of a couple of incidences where people with a marked grudge against organized religion were called to task for it at HH with some rather pithy commentary, which led to some rather pissy commentary and so on. That's as far as I can comment on it.

[Gurdur]

I think you'd have to agree there has been an HH influence on this community. How could it be otherwise?
As of this thread, maybe.
But the influence would be very limited, specific and probably temporary.
And certainly not in favour of any prejudice, against theists or anyone else.
:yup:

[Brimshack]

.....But HH does remove the most interested voice regarding a defense of Theism from those discussions about it, which was the point of my claim.
However, your remark would only carry practical weight were there to be a great many attacks upon theism inside the HH.

Outright attacks would not be necessary. Direct condemnation is not the only, or even the most effective medium for expression of prejudice.

To the degree that anyone there vents about religion, the context of discussion is quite prone to group think on that particular subject.
You think so ?
Gurdur is a member and admin of the HH, and while we can't reveal personal info about members of HH, we know from elsewhere that Gurdur is vocal, trenchant, and has a personal allergy to groupthink.
Just for a start. :yup:

Were the dynamics of groupthink a function of Gurdur's personal psychology, I think that would be an effective answer. It is not.

Yes, but this won't change the fact that the only way to back certain claims about what does or doesn't happen at HH is to actually discuss the contents of the posts at HH.
Naw, it just forces us handicapped people to ... get into good footwork.
Exactly how that skews the playing field here is less a concern of mine than the fact that this is pretty poor footing for a debate over HH policies.
Well, us HHers are handicapped here, but hey, we enjoy the exercise.

Fair enough.

I have no reason to believe that either you or VM would lie about this subject. And yet you both have a rather startlingly different take on the matter.
Then eventually you'll be forced to make up your mind one way or t'other.

...about which if either of of you is CORRECT, perhaps. But that decision will not be made by taking anyone's word on it.

You are absolutely correct that HH is not anti-theist in purpose, but that doesn't tell us anything about its actual impact on any communities.
Well, I personally would be fascinated by anyone showing influence of HH upon other communities.
:yup:

So would I, but I'm not in a position to do so. Both you and VM have made assertions on precisely that question. My point is that I sincerely doubt that either one of you is in a position to make good on them.

Which is why I find your initial distinction between exclusive clubs that harm and those that don't rather problematic. At the very least we would have to do more than ask whether or not such clubs are intended to promote prejudice.
But of course. And I'm here to discuss away. :yup:

I expect it will be interesting at any rate.

[seebs]

(Hey, is that why hyperboreans is labeled "Wissenschaftslehre" in my bookmarks;
Weil wir sind nicht alle monolinguale, Seebs; manche von uns können auch noch die wahre Sprache der Wissenschaft beherrschen. :P

Allerdings, findest Du auch nicht, daß es etwas unfair ist, daß ich bin jetzt gefragt, nicht nur die Heathens Hangout zu verteidigen, sondern jetzt auch die Hyperboreans, wo ich bin einen Moderator ?

Sheeeesh, ihr gibt mir so vieles zu tun. :popcorn:

Ironically, my two years of highschool German, and collection of Asterix comics, were enough for me to understand this.

[seebs]

Oh, I think for many people that is exactly what church is to them, their entire social life is wrapped up in church and with church members to the complete exclusion of everyone else. Remember, seebs, not everyone is as thoughtful about what they believe as you are. I'm sure you know of some, if not many, in the church you attend that really haven't given much thought or introspection to their belief system.

Er, actually, no. But then, I go to a Friends meeting. I certainly grant the intended point, and admit that my church is unusual.

Still, even the "just a social club" churches are nonetheless run (mostly, anyway) by people who have a definite agenda, so I can see their reluctance to let other people detract from it.

I agree that many churches could benefit from a critical outsider's viewpoint, but most of them don't see it that way, they see any attack on their narrow interpretation as evil and of Satan. I visited a Methodist church in Salt Lake City several times. They were very nice to my family and I, but I sat in on some bible study classes and found they weren't even open to differing interpretations of scripture within their own membership. A young man with a different idea of what a certain scripture meant was verbally attacked by the study leader and several others, then most of the rest added their "Amen." I cannot even imagine how they would've reacted to finding a godless heathen in their midst. No, I just sat there on my hands with my mouth zipped shut.

Ugh. What's particularly offensive about that is that many Methodists teach just the opposite; that you should study and debate to better understand.

That depends on what you mean by moral. As I already said, discrimination on the basis of race, gender or sexual preference wouldn't be moral. Neither would plotting any illegal action against any individual, church, organization, or government.

IMHO, religion is more like race, gender, or sexual preference than not. Although in theory people can choose, in practice, I think religious belief or disbelief most often stems from premises that are too low-level for most people to realistically hope to consciously affect them.

Indeed, we at HH may have further discussions and perhaps even refinement of admission and membership policy. Perhaps that will be less exclusionary, or maybe not. It will be evolutionary regardless, as is any organization willing to look at their policies.

I think you should consider the question of people who are sometimes-theists. (For instance, I'm a theist about 95% of the time... But get me on a long dark night of the soul, and I really don't particularly believe in God. Or much of anything else.)

[Gurdur]

Outright attacks would not be necessary. Direct condemnation is not the only, or even the most effective medium for expression of prejudice.
OK, then let's go back to the beginning.
Can you see any way HH is adding in any way to prejudice against theists ?
Let's dialogue. :yup:

Were the dynamics of groupthink a function of Gurdur's personal psychology, I think that would be an effective answer. It is not.
Forgive me, no offence, but that answer does not make much sense to me.
Point I was making was that I severely doubt HH is ruled by anti-theist groupthink, on the basis of shreds of empirical evidence available to us all.
You're welcome to differ; I personally would be very interested if you see any groupthink at work.

...about which if either of of you is CORRECT, perhaps. But that decision will not be made by taking anyone's word on it.
oooer, it ain't just a matter of one's word, it would be all the reasons for it. And the available evidence.

My point is that I sincerely doubt that either one of you is in a position to make good on them.
Feel very free to challenge me about any one of my statements.
I'm here to dialogue. :yup:

I expect it will be interesting at any rate.
I'll take that as a compliment.

[Gurdur]

I think you should consider the question of people who are sometimes-theists. (For instance, I'm a theist about 95% of the time... But get me on a long dark night of the soul, and I really don't particularly believe in God. Or much of anything else.)
I would love to, but just in the space of 2 pages of 1 thread, I've been forced to correct misapprehensions about the Heathens Hangout, myself, and The Hyperboreans. And German. :P

I don't suppose you could start a new thread on that and alert me to it with link in a PM ? Pretty please ? Even I can only do so much within one thread.

[Brimshack]

Granted, there have been and are antireligious threads and posts at HH, but way fewer in number than at IIDB, whose mission apparently is to find common ground with theists. However, I can think of a couple of incidences where people with a marked grudge against organized religion were called to task for it at HH with some rather pithy commentary, which led to some rather pissy commentary and so on. That's as far as I can comment on it.

I would agree that religion bashing doesn't always get a free ride at HH. But of course the presence of unbelievers who will defend religion from abusive critics is hardly evidence of a prejudice free atmosphere. Indeed, the defenders may themselves be promoting prejudices of another more subtle order. I sincerely doubt if the defenses that any of us heathen put up in such cases would be very much comfort to those who genuinely believe in God. They would most likely do so on other terms. The absence of a voice directly interested in the defense of religion is a crucial limiting factor on the quality of theoretical discussion over there. Whether or not such discussions are an essential part of life on HH is another question.

[seebs]

I don't suppose you could start a new thread on that and alert me to it with link in a PM ? Pretty please ? Even I can only do so much within one thread.

I think maybe I will.

[Gurdur]

I would agree that religion bashing doesn't always get a free ride at HH.
Ah, the important point granted. Of course, none of us can show that, since we cannot reveal HH info. However, I don't think anyone can show the opposite. :yup:
But of course the presence of unbelievers who will defend religion from abusive critics is hardly evidence of a prejudice free atmosphere. Indeed, the defenders may themselves be promoting prejudices of another more subtle order.
Would you please be concrete ? While regarding HH rules on privacy, of course.
Just what "more subtle prejudices" do you see as possibly being promoted ?
I sincerely doubt if the defenses that any of us heathen put up in such cases would be very much comfort to those who genuinely believe in God.
Preaching of theism inside HH is a no-no. So what ?
If your point is that someone who wanted to preach theism inside HH is not allowed to, *shrug*.
That's not a prejudice; it's an open criterium of membership and existence, and in no way prevents theists from preaching elsewhere.

As for genuinely defending the right of theism to exist: for any genuinely dialoguing theist who also believed in the right of others to freedom of belief and non-belief, I don't think on the whole they would have too much to complain about with the HH.
The absence of a voice directly interested in the defense of religion is a crucial limiting factor on the quality of theoretical discussion over there. Whether or not such discussions are an essential part of life on HH is another question.
That would only be relevant if in fact the HH existed for theoretical discussion on religion, and/if such advanced theoretical discussion were a mainstay of conversation there, and if such discussion inside there in practice was so severely limited by the absence of theists.
I fail to see evidence for these assertions and thus the conclusion.

[Dingfod]

IMHO, religion is more like race, gender, or sexual preference than not. Although in theory people can choose, in practice, I think religious belief or disbelief most often stems from premises that are too low-level for most people to realistically hope to consciously affect them.See, you and I are never going to agree on that unless I start believing in a god. And, I'm not sure I know what it would take for that to happen, perhaps a brain injury, or perhaps an epiphany that wipes away any doubt.

I think you should consider the question of people who are sometimes-theists. (For instance, I'm a theist about 95% of the time... But get me on a long dark night of the soul, and I really don't particularly believe in God. Or much of anything else.)Perhaps we will.

[Brimshack]

Before proceeding,


To give an example -- I think a private mens'-only club is OK, till that club starts distributing real power in the outside world, favours, that kind of thing; if that club starts adding to genuine prejudice in the outside world, then it's no longer OK as an exclusivist thing.
In passing, the HH in no way adds to prejudice in the outside world -- prejudice against theists or others. IMHO.


Gurdur my point is that I think the judgement you include at the bottom of this paragraph is empty. I also think Tom's accusation that HH actually promotes prejudice against Theists is empty as well, but Tom's out of the discussion for the night so that's going nowhere.

Anyway... By this passage, showing prejudice at HH isn't going to satisfy your criterion of judgement anyway, because that's not external. It does strike me as a little pat to put foreword a criterion of judgement that deals with actual impact in the outside world, present no evaluation of that impact, and then conclude that there is no such negative impact. If effect, you've set the bar beyond reasonable evidence at hand, high enough that you haven't even taken a shot at it yourself. Instead, you are asking me to put the evidence on the table. And I haven't even made an assertion about the presence or absence of prejudice at HH (except perhaps to the extent that I just agreed with Warrenly about a portion of his post).

But, with that said, and conscious of a double-bind here, if I were to put foreword an example of prejudice at HH, it would be the degree to which people at HH have consistently used the term "Theist" to describe the behavior of Evangelical Christians at HH. I think that is precisely the sort of thing that is far more likely to skate by unnoticed when there aren't other sorts of Theists and Christians around. Is this the most severe form of prejudice possible, no. Does this prove external harm? No. But I do think the pattern is evident in a number of discussions at HH. Posting proof here is not possible, but that is my candidate for an answer to your press for examples of prejudice at HH.

[Gurdur]

Gurdur my point is that I think the judgement you include at the bottom of this paragraph is empty.
Then you will just have to show why. Unless you can show why, the original accusation is empty, and my point about HH not adding any prejudice stands --- whether you think so or not.
a little pat
What gets me is two things;
1) the terrible vagueness of the aspersions on the HH
2) the fact you could have raised these matters in more appropriate circumstances ? Were this a real worry ?

I say HH does not add prejudice to the outside world, and is not based on prejudice. I say that in reply to accusations.
Can you please stick to those ?
present no evaluation of that impact,
Oh for goodness' sakes.
Where's the evaluational basis of the accusations ? The coherent methodology ?
I'm not here to play games. I'll answer comments in their own terms; I'm under no obligation to offer much more evidence than anyone disagreeing with me.
Instead, you are asking me to put the evidence on the table.
Yep.
Because original claims get the burden of evidence ? And I find that you yourself could accomplish things better were you to go about it a different way ?
And because you're conflating in practice whatever you're saying with what VM said ?
But, with that said, and conscious of a double-bind here, if I were to put foreword an example of prejudice at HH, it would be the degree to which people at HH have consistently used the term "Theist" to describe the behavior of Evangelical Christians at HH.
Point taken, however I point to the fact that such behaviour most likely would be more challanged inside HH than on SecWeb, often.
Leastaways, I'ld say that from the external evidence available to all of us who follow threads on SecWeb and read between the lines.
I think that is precisely the sort of thing that is far more likely to skate by unnoticed when there aren't other sorts of Theists and Christians around.
I totally disagree. :yup: :yup: :yup:
The presence of people you refer to as "Theists and Christians" (ironically, making you guilty of the fault you see) on SecWeb never helped with the amazing flood of viciously prejudiced flamefest threads on SecWeb.
The fact that there were a few theists of various persuasions there never could alone break the more entrenched cultures of manic religion-haters inside forums like EOG or GRD.
Ironically, it is perhaps in theist-free forums, where the real anti-theists don't go out of sheer lack of thrills, where prejudiced anti-theism is far less tolerated.
but that is my candidate for an answer to your press for examples of prejudice at HH.
I'll be in touch with you about this more, since I genuinely do not want to see prejudice furthered.

[Dingfod]

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the discussions inside HH do any external harm to anyone. It is the mere existence of HH as an exclusive atheist/agnostic semi-private club that begs Tom's question. The discussions inside HH should really have no bearing on the debate about external influence it might have any more than the pictures posted there or the screennames of HH members.

[Brimshack]

I would agree that religion bashing doesn't always get a free ride at HH.
Ah, the important point granted. Of course, none of us can show that, since we cannot reveal HH info. However, I don't think anyone can show the opposite. :yup:

If that is the more important point to you then so be it. It does not however, amount to a defense of your claim that HH does not promote prejudice. Nor does it amount to a refutation of any claim that I have advanced tonight.

But of course the presence of unbelievers who will defend religion from abusive critics is hardly evidence of a prejudice free atmosphere. Indeed, the defenders may themselves be promoting prejudices of another more subtle order.
Would you please be concrete ? While regarding HH rules on privacy, of course.
Just what "more subtle prejudices" do you see as possibly being promoted ?

The purpose of the point is not assert the actual existence of prejudice, but to point out that the presence of some defenses of Christianity does not amount to proof that the site does not promote prejudice. Given that purpose, I do not see that it is necessary to provide a concrete example, but if one is necessary, then I refer you to my last post.

I sincerely doubt if the defenses that any of us heathen put up in such cases would be very much comfort to those who genuinely believe in God.
Preaching of theism inside HH is a no-no. So what ?
If your point is that someone who wanted to preach theism inside HH is not allowed to, *shrug*.
That's not a prejudice; it's an open criterium of membership and existence, and in no way prevents theists from preaching elsewhere.

As for genuinely defending the right of theism to exist: for any genuinely dialoguing theist who also believed in the right of others to freedom of belief and non-belief, I don't think on the whole they would have too much to complain about with the HH.

Who said anything about preaching. If you are suggesting that any defense of religion which is consistent with the assumption that its dictates are true is disallowed, then so be it. But the presence of an overt rule against such speech hardly answers the charge of prejudice. But a Theist would hardly have to advance his beliefs as such in order to have a different set of answers to his critics.

The absence of a voice directly interested in the defense of religion is a crucial limiting factor on the quality of theoretical discussion over there. Whether or not such discussions are an essential part of life on HH is another question.
That would only be relevant if in fact the HH existed for theoretical discussion on religion, and/if such advanced theoretical discussion were a mainstay of conversation there, and if such discussion inside there in practice was so severely limited by the absence of theists.
I fail to see evidence for these assertions and thus the conclusion.

No, it would be relevant each and very time discussion of religious matters actually occured, or was attempted. It would not be necessary that such discussions be advanced, nor would it be necessary for them to be the mainstay of talk at HH. And whether or not the discussions which actually occur are limited by the absence of Theists is certainly debatable. But as the Theists are indeed absent, it is rather hard to discuss any evidence for or against the proposition.

[Gurdur]

If that is the more important point to you then so be it. It does not however, amount to a defense of your claim that HH does not promote prejudice. Nor does it amount to a refutation of any claim that I have advanced tonight.
*shrug*
Can't see that you've backed up any claim yourself.
But I'm here to dialogue, and I'll continue to do my best. :yup:
but to point out that the presence of some defenses of Christianity does not amount to proof that the site does not promote prejudice. Given that purpose, I do not see that it is necessary to provide a concrete example,
Till you can actually show HH promotes prejudice, I won't believe it.
....hardly answers the charge of prejudice
Till you can actually show HH promotes prejudice, I won't believe it.
No, it would be relevant each and very time discussion of religious matters actually occured, or was attempted.
Till you can actually show it's relevant, I won't believe it.

And, oh, BTW, the opportunity for you to show it without the constraints here has been made by myself elsewhere, just now.

[seebs]

I think I will make the general argument: Any gathering which excludes some people while welcoming others, where the group excluded and the group welcomed have any non-zero level of historical conflict, inherently promotes prejudice through confirmation bias.

In short, in the absence of a mechanism for overcoming confirmation bias, I believe such a site necessarily promotes prejudice, because humans are like that.

In short, being surrounded by people who agree with you is dangerous. While the people at HH may be less monocognitive than, say, a randomly selected Evangelical church, they are nonetheless specifically being selected for at least one point of commonality in views on a topic which we know is a point of discrimination in at least some people.

In short... HH promotes prejudice against theists in the exact same way that RaptureReady promotes prejudice against nearly everything that moves, by limiting conversation to people with a somewhat narrowed field of views, and leaving them an environment in which confirmation bias is exacerbated by a supply of comparatively like-minded readers and writers.

[Gurdur]

I think I will make the general argument: Any gathering which excludes some people while welcoming others, where the group excluded and the group welcomed have any non-zero level of historical conflict, inherently promotes prejudice through confirmation bias.
That at least is more of an argument I can get to grips with.

However, you've ignored a very important point of mine:
in practice, SecWeb, for example, is supposed to be an open playing field that welcomes all,
while HH is a private forum based on communality of interest.

Nonetheless, in practice, I venture to suggest the actual vocal presence of prejudice is far less pronounced, far less, in HH than on SecWeb, in all sorts of things.
In short, in the absence of a mechanism for overcoming confirmation bias, I believe such a site necessarily promotes prejudice, because humans are like that.
And I respectfully disagree yet again.
I think the breadth of opinion with which HH is currently blessed :yup: militates against the tunnel-vision you speak of, and also that in practice such tunnel-vision can be far more apparent and real in a supposedly open board like SecWeb which is nonetheless prone to group control, than a private forum like HH which simply does not attract those wanting to promote tunnel vision.

I really wish someone would actually deal with this point.

In short, being surrounded by people who agree with you is dangerous.
Oh, agreed, yet I think we at HH are not too much in danger of that.
In short... HH promotes prejudice against theists in the exact same way that RaptureReady promotes prejudice against nearly everything that moves, by limiting conversation to people with a somewhat narrowed field of views, and leaving them an environment in which confirmation bias is exacerbated by a supply of comparatively like-minded readers and writers.
Naw, I'ld say that simply is not true in practice. We're not into Me-Tooism.

[Brimshack]

Gurdur my point is that I think the judgement you include at the bottom of this paragraph is empty.
Then you will just have to show why. Unless you can show why, the original accusation is empty, and my point about HH not adding any prejudice stands --- whether you think so or not.

Odd that you would press for evidence when the original argument is right before you, broken up into single phrases which you respond to in piecemeal fashion. Odd also that you would demand I prove your statement empty while producing no evidence for it. I think I'll just leave the point as it stands, and we'll just let people assess the matter for themselves.

a little pat
What gets me is two things;
1) the terrible vagueness of the aspersions on the HH
2) the fact you could have raised these matters in more appropriate circumstances ? Were this a real worry ?


Now this really is SHIT Gurdur. You specifically asked me to voice a specific objection HERE. You did this when I myself wasn't making any such assertion. I have indeed expressed my concerns about this at HH, or did you not notice my role in the last round of arguments over the decision to open the board up. My position at HH is a matter of record, and my position here was voiced precisely because you asked me to. Now you complain that I did. That's Bullshit.

To say nothing of the fact, that these two points don't even address the point that you were responding to.

I say HH does not add prejudice to the outside world, and is not based on prejudice. I say that in reply to accusations.Can you please stick to those ?

Since I was responding to a categorical statement on your part, I have directed my argument at the categorical statement. If you are unconcerned with the truth of backing that statement, then this is your decision. But if you want to debate specific accusations to which it was meant as an answer, then I suspect your own arguments will improve a great deal.

present no evaluation of that impact,
Oh for goodness' sakes.
Where's the evaluational basis of the accusations ? The coherent methodology ?
I'm not here to play games. I'll answer comments in their own terms; I'm under no obligation to offer much more evidence than anyone disagreeing with me.

If the specific accusations preceding your appearance here are wreckless, then feel free to argue them as you see fit. The fact remains, however, that the question of external impact is one which you have specifically advanced as the necessary point to prove. Not only did you do this, but you yourself have advanced a conclusion based on this criterion of judgement. And if your statements are unsound, that is hardly a defense of your own claims on the subject.

Instead, you are asking me to put the evidence on the table.
Yep.
Because original claims get the burden of evidence ? And I find that you yourself could accomplish things better were you to go about it a different way ?
And because you're conflating in practice whatever you're saying with what VM said ?

What "original" claim of MINE precedes your stated criterion and your stated conclusions based on that criterion? Please feel free to show me any claims that I have made or explicitely endorsed prior to your post. Failing that, you can stop playing games, take stock of the fact that the paragraph I called attention to contains an original claim on your part, and either make an effort to meet your own burden of judgement or stop hallucinating about my own statements in this thread. If anyone here has confounded my role with that of VM's it is you. I have explicitely denied his own position as much as yours, and the only explaination I can come up with for your thinking I have original claims preceding your own, is that you have obviously lost track of the difference between me and VM.

But, with that said, and conscious of a double-bind here, if I were to put foreword an example of prejudice at HH, it would be the degree to which people at HH have consistently used the term "Theist" to describe the behavior of Evangelical Christians at HH.
Point taken, however I point to the fact that such behaviour most likely would be more challanged inside HH than on SecWeb, often.
Leastaways, I'ld say that from the external evidence available to all of us who follow threads on SecWeb and read between the lines.

I felt pretty alone last time I tried to make that point, and as I recall the concerns about Theism (i.e. Christianity) have played a key role in shaping the policies there. You are certainly likely to challenge the behavior yourself, but then again, you have already pointed out that your personal views on some matters do not precisely coincide with the official policy of the forum.

I think that is precisely the sort of thing that is far more likely to skate by unnoticed when there aren't other sorts of Theists and Christians around.
I totally disagree. :yup: :yup: :yup:
The presence of people you refer to as "Theists and Christians" (ironically, making you guilty of the fault you see) on SecWeb never helped with the amazing flood of viciously prejudiced flamefest threads on SecWeb.
The fact that there were a few theists of various persuasions there never could alone break the more entrenched cultures of manic religion-haters inside forums like EOG or GRD.
Ironically, it is perhaps in theist-free forums, where the real anti-theists don't go out of sheer lack of thrills, where prejudiced anti-theism is far less tolerated.

And yet, you yourself have lamented the loss of Theist participating at secweb. Controlling the flame-fests does not equate to answering the bigots. Such people will post, say, and think whatever they will, but the real question is, are they answered? Or more to the point, do they determine policy?

but that is my candidate for an answer to your press for examples of prejudice at HH.
I'll be in touch with you about this more, since I genuinely do not want to see prejudice furthered.

Take care.

[Brimshack]

If that is the more important point to you then so be it. It does not however, amount to a defense of your claim that HH does not promote prejudice. Nor does it amount to a refutation of any claim that I have advanced tonight.
*shrug*
Can't see that you've backed up any claim yourself.
But I'm here to dialogue, and I'll continue to do my best. :yup:
but to point out that the presence of some defenses of Christianity does not amount to proof that the site does not promote prejudice. Given that purpose, I do not see that it is necessary to provide a concrete example,
Till you can actually show HH promotes prejudice, I won't believe it.
....hardly answers the charge of prejudice
Till you can actually show HH promotes prejudice, I won't believe it.
No, it would be relevant each and very time discussion of religious matters actually occured, or was attempted.
Till you can actually show it's relevant, I won't believe it.

And, oh, BTW, the opportunity for you to show it without the constraints here has been made by myself elsewhere, just now.

So first you make a blanket statement clearing your site of all prejudice. I point out that your blanket assertion lacks evidence. You ask me to prove specific allegations I haven't made. I put one on the table, just to make an effort. You still put nothing on the table. Bitch at me for raising the concern you asked me to voice. And then proceed through a series of arguments intended as responses to your own generalization, pointing out that none of them prove specific allegations, which of course they were not intended to do. Shifting the goalposts shouldn't really be necessary here Gurdur.

I have no stake in the first 17 pages of this thread. For all I know each and every accusation made against HH up to that point really is without foundation. My point is simply that your stated criterion for determining whether or not HH exhibits bias is unsound.

It looks to me like your strategy is to avoid dealing with that by insisting that I play the role of Tom and defend attacks I haven't made. I regret voicing the one serious concern I have had about HH ever since I joined. Based on the pattern of obfuscation I'm seeing so far tonight, that was a real mistake. Can't say that I'm real enthusiastic about continued dialogue with you right now Gurdur.

Goodnight.

[Gurdur]

...Odd also that you would demand I prove your statement empty while producing no evidence for it.
Odd that you should ignore several points I made. :yup:
Odd that you should make vague accusations, then back them up with no more than theory.
But nevertheless, you have an opportunity to better make your case elsewhere, and we can report back here after you've made your case free of constraints ?
I think I'll just leave the point as it stands, and we'll just let people assess the matter for themselves.
Oooerr, and I'll leave the fact standing that several of my points have not beimng answered at all ? While I continue to get criticisms made on theory but ignoring those relevant practical points ?
Now this really is SHIT Gurdur.
You know, I'm beginning to get the same feeling myself in return.
(and edited to add: the last half of your post really makes me feel that way).

I think the accusations against HH of now promoting prejudice are bullshit, especially in view of so much history, but I'm here to talk with people.
You've given me nothing but theoretical considerations, and a couple of small halfway practical points which I don't think are true, and I've given you the reasons why I dont think they're true.

And if you're genuinely wanting to make your case, you've been given the opportunity to do so without the constraints of here, and where I can reply without these constraints. And the we can come back here and compare notes. :yup:
Let's see if you avail yourself of the opportunity before throwing accusations of shit around.
I have indeed expressed my concerns about this at HH, or did you not notice my role in the last round of arguments over the decision to open the board up.
Can't comment on that, you know that.
My position at HH is a matter of record,
Frankly, I did not know that. Or I've forgotten it,
and my position here was voiced precisely because you asked me to. Now you complain that I did. That's Bullshit.
I'ld say you've badly misunderstood my replies here. I reckon you should re-read them, because they're not saying whatever you think they're saying.Since I was responding to a categorical statement on your part, I have directed my argument at the categorical statement. If you are unconcerned with the truth of backing that statement, then this is your decision. But if you want to debate specific accusations to which it was meant as an answer, then I suspect your own arguments will improve a great deal.
Give me less rhetoric and more meat.
I kinda like the patronising tactics you use in that, but it doesn't make me feel that you're being altogether serious with me.

If the specific accusations preceding your appearance here are wreckless, then feel free to argue them as you see fit.
Um ????????
And if your statements are unsound, that is hardly a defense of your own claims on the subject.
I'll let others be the judge of that.

Failing that, you can stop playing games,
Ah, silly accusations.
Take your own advice.
stop hallucinating
You're really reducing my incentive to take you seriously.
And yet, you yourself have lamented the loss of Theist participating at secweb.
You are conflating two entirely seperate things.
HH does not exist for the same reasons as SecWeb. Just deal with the point already.

I'm not terribly amused by your lack of seriousness in actually dealing with what I've been saying, while accusing me of playing games, hallucinating etc.; just give me a real argument and I'll answer it, but if you try silly personal flames, I'm not going to sift through the chaff too much looking for wheat.
Your choice.

[The Antichris]

....people don't choose what they believe just like black people don't choose to be black.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, it follows that the existence of HH is fundamentally based on beliefs which are not chosen. So isn't the condemnation of HH equivalent to racism (not to mention pointless)?

There may well be valid criticisms thhat can be raised against the existence of HH but to liken it to a 'whites only' club is not one.

Chris

[Gurdur]

*snicker*

To take even more things to their logical conclusion:

it's being suggested here that having a non-theist private forum must necessarily mean tunnel-vision of those inside it regarding theism etc.

I could just as easily retort that every distinction then being made between theists and non-theists (am I the only person so far on this monster of a thread to mention agnostics, fideists, and now I think of it, deists, polytheists, pantheists and don't-knows ?), every single distinction then ever made on that basis of classifying belief systems is itself discriminatory and prejudicial, and tunnel vision.
Or IOW none of us should be talking using these terms.

I really, really look forward to it when people get logical and demand the Republican and Democratic parties should then also dissolve immediately, as should other political parties, in order to obviate prejudice. :D

Let's sum things up:
SecWeb exists to promote something, just what that thing is is always re-defined according to situation and convenience.
In practice, it's there to promote non-theism.

HH does not exist to promote anything; it's a social club for non-theists.

The two are in two different practical ethical categories. They are not the same.

While it might well be reasonably mooted that HH by its closed nature must lead to tunnel vision etc., such a mooted suggestion would be wrong in that in practice IMHO HH displays if anything far less tunnel vision than what actually often happens on public sites such as SecWeb; and IMHO HH actually militates against tunnel vision in a small way these days, by virtue of its dynamics and interests.

[The Antichris]

IMHO, religion is more like race, gender, or sexual preference than not.
The important distinction is that it's possible that religious beliefs may be mistaken beliefs. Race, gender and sexual prefererences are incapable of being mistaken.

The danger here is that by likening religious belief to race, you run the risk of stigmatising any challenge to religious belief (as equivalent to racism). This is fine if one's intention is simply to reduce the amount of open critical analysis of religious belief, but not something I'd have thought freethinkers would support.

Chris

[livius drusus]

I'm going to split the recent HH portion into a new thread as discussed earlier, if y'all don't mind. Please hold.

And done. This thread was split from here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1553&page=1&pp=25).

[LadyShea]

In short... HH promotes prejudice against theists in the exact same way that RaptureReady promotes prejudice against nearly everything that moves, by limiting conversation to people with a somewhat narrowed field of views, and leaving them an environment in which confirmation bias is exacerbated by a supply of comparatively like-minded readers and writers.

I disagree. The fact is most of the HH members are also members of other, public boards. They choose to go to HH for a certain level of comfort for one type of discussion or another, come here for other types of discussion, etc. Nobody is limited to HH to the exclusion of the rest of th Internet. Also, it is not a narrow field of views "non-theist" is only one small part of who any single person is. I see no problem with clubs or groups for women only or men only or Asian students only, for example. Membership in such a group does not limit one to only associating with that group...there is the wider world to interact with.

Christian Forums had a few Christian only areas, and I for one was glad for them. Take a prayer thread, what could be more painful to witness than some of the more militant non-Christians jumping in with "There is no God to give you strength" or "your daughter's cancer proves there is no loving God" or whatever. Sometimes people need a safe place to discuss personal issues where they don't have to defend their most basic beliefs and won't have their vulnerability taken advantage of.

[Shake]

I'm almost willing to cede to vm that HH doesn't differ -- his big bugaboo point, apparently -- from a whites-only club, but only in its exclusivity. However, then you have to realize that there are a myriad of other organizations that do the same. vm's apparent point when taken to its logical conclusion would not only allow gays and atheists in the Boy Scouts, but girls, too; and boys in the Girl Scouts. In fact, let's just let anyone join any organization at all. Why should the terminally obese be prevented from joining the Moscow Ballet?

Now, in reference to what goes on at HH: I know I'm not the only one who would advise tact and tolerance if someone came in spouting some extreme anti-theist crap. Heck, some of my best friends are theists. Do I hate them because of their beliefs? No. I might find their beliefs a bit odd, but that doesn't make them any less friends. If I feel they're going a bit too far with their views or are attempting to proselytize, I'll try to make them aware of the opposing view. My aim is to educate them and help at least open their minds to the possibility of the existence of other views. I do this more because I care about them rather than hate their religion.

I believe that much of the HH membership is well past the anti-theism stage, if indeed all of them went through it at some point. Sure, it's fun sometimes to point and say, "Look at what XYZ group of theists is up to now!" But that's about as far as it goes.

Much earlier here, Gurdur mentioned consistency. I'd say vm, if you're trying to be consistent, you should petition the mods of say Rapture Ready to be more accepting and not so discriminating to non-theists. I mean, how does RR really differ from the whites-only club?

[Sweetie]

Much earlier here, Gurdur mentioned consistency. I'd say vm, if you're trying to be consistent, you should petition the mods of say Rapture Ready to be more accepting and not so discriminating to non-theists. I mean, how does RR really differ from the whites-only club?

Who would want to? RR banned me, I was glad, then I don't have any fault in their ignorance nor can I be said to contribute or a part of how pathetic it all is. The only problem with exclusion is when people are excluded who might want to be included and that's sometimes just a popularity thing. If you're not necessarily into popularity, you might just see the "cool girls" for what they are and if you don't see the girls as cool in first place, for example RR, you don't really care.

This applies to CF and Christians only forums and others. The only people who care that there are places where only Christians can post are those who want to be identified as Christians. I don't know why anybody would want to be identified as a Christian if they didn't have to be, personally, in this day and age. Even still though, in that scenario, the discussions are viewable and you can in the end, petition the Mods and if that doesn't work, there are places where you can even still, discuss your beef.

[livius drusus]

I'm not really very capable of effective argument right now, but just as a quick response to something I think I can grasp relatively well, it seems to me a matter of constituency, Shake. If I only write letters of protest to my congressman instead of sending them also to the British or Italian members of parliament, am I being inconsistent? If I seek to counter bias or prejudice among my own group am I inconsistent if I refrain from commenting on bias or prejudice in other groups?

It doesn't really follow, imo.

[viscousmemories]

I haven't had a chance to carefully read all the posts that have been made overnight, but I'd like to interject a few things right now, before we proceed.

1. I had not cast any aspersions on HH prior to Gurdur's posts here at the FF. I had pointed out the fact that in practice, the non-theist only policy translates to no Christians, Jews, or Muslims. And I said that I found such a thing distasteful. I made no claims about whether HH promotes or endorses prejudice against theists.

2. In Gurdur's first post here, he made this claim: "In passing, the HH in no way adds to prejudice in the outside world -- prejudice against theists or others. IMHO."

3. I called bullshit on that claim by asking how HH differs from a whites-only club. In retrospect I concede that the comparison is inapt and unproductive, and I gladly withdraw it in favor of endorsing the points by Brimshack and seebs.

4. I accept that this argument is crippled by an inability to openly discuss the goings on inside HH, and that it is therefore impossible to provide evidence either way. However I will reiterate that it was not me who made an initial claim.

I will not respond to speculations on my willingness to pay attention or read what people write, so if Gurdur, Warren or anyone else who claims to be interested in dialogue with me does so, I will consider that claim false and respond only to those people who are willing to return the respect I offer.

[Sweetie]

I would like to say though, from my experience in defense of Warrenly and Lady Shea to a point as stated in this thread, as a Christian who has hung around at Christian places, even as I have said before in that I felt that CF was restrictive to my personality, I enjoy being able to talk about sex for instance, without the shock value and without alot of "others" raising objections from the Bible or pointing fingers or judging. I can totally understand why atheists might feel more comfortable discussing things of that nature where Christians are not free to rant and rave, bringing it up everywhere, posting links, etc.

As far as things of a sexual nature go, I have my personal objections, I mean things that I find intolerable or unhealthy or personally objectionable/distasteful and from seeing some opinions stated here, that is not just a theist/atheist thing, it's true of everybody in that they have their "buttons." As far as my beliefs go, I think they are rational and can be rationally defended but I also think they are an ideal and so in an arguement I will try and prove the ideal, whether or not I myself live up to that ideal is another thing and whether or not I care whether anybody else lives up to it or agrees with it is a different thing as well, I don't care whether they do or not.

Now, why I stated the above is because I think ultimately, the question in this thread is one of stereotypes. Some atheists might want on one hand respect and privacy and that's understandable, but on the other hand, they are stereotyping theists, ie: if you are a theist you won't be respectful or you won't understand.

I disagree with the stereotype in this instance.

[viscousmemories]

Now, why I stated the above is because I think ultimately, the question in this thread is one of stereotypes. Some atheists might want on one hand respect and privacy and that's understandable, but on the other hand, they are stereotyping theists, ie: if you are a theist you won't be respectful or you won't understand.

I disagree with the stereotype in this instance.
I think this is an excellent point, Sweetie. In fact when livius and I were still admins at HH, we posited the idea of having an open admittance policy but making preaching a bannable offense. That way instead of barring all theists before the fact, the criteria for membership would be more consistent with our primary interest: Having a forum where non-theists could share personal, private concerns without fear of theist condemnation. However the consensus of the forum members at that time was that it was bad enough just having theists reading such personal posts, whether they expressed their condemnation or not.

[lel]

Now, why I stated the above is because I think ultimately, the question in this thread is one of stereotypes. Some atheists might want on one hand respect and privacy and that's understandable, but on the other hand, they are stereotyping theists, ie: if you are a theist you won't be respectful or you won't understand.

I disagree with the stereotype in this instance.

I also wonder if in creating forums only for Christians if the same stereotypes are not in place, that non-Christians cannot be respectful of Christian beliefs or such.

Christian Forums had a few Christian only areas, and I for one was glad for them. Take a prayer thread, what could be more painful to witness than some of the more militant non-Christians jumping in with "There is no God to give you strength" or "your daughter's cancer proves there is no loving God" or whatever. Sometimes people need a safe place to discuss personal issues where they don't have to defend their most basic beliefs and won't have their vulnerability taken advantage of.

Why not have simply a "no debate" rule, something along the lines of SL on II? For example, "Sending good thoughts your way" could be allowed in a prayer thread, but "Why pray to some invisible sky being?" would be unacceptable.

[Ronin]

I have some questions...

Why can't theists join up and participate at HH?

Why not allow "preaching" and simply comment or ignore it?

Why not let topics ebb and flow at the interest/disinterest of all?

Personally, I was not sure why CF wouldn't allow non-Christian members to post family photos and I'm not entirely sure why HH wouldn't let theists join and post freely (though I admit I have not been back to HH in quite some time).

What is it about any theist that would actually detract from the value of topical conversation at HH?

Let's sum things up:
SecWeb exists to promote something, just what that thing is is always re-defined according to situation and convenience.
In practice, it's there to promote non-theism.

HH does not exist to promote anything; it's a social club for non-theists.

The two are in two different practical ethical categories. They are not the same.

Gurdur, does HH, as a "social club" have any specific or strict non-theistic agenda? If so, what does it attempt to accomplish? If not, why limit membership to non-theists?

Also, what is the purpose of arguing inclusivity at SecWeb (a place that promotes "non-theism") so passionately when you have established (or, at least, admin) a exclusively non-theistic forum of your own with the purported claim that it does not promote anything?

Thanks, my friend, and it is good to see you around.

:wave:

[Sweetie]

Personally, I was not sure why CF wouldn't allow non-Christian members to post family photos and I'm not entirely sure why HH wouldn't let theists join and post freely (though I admit I have not been back to HH in quite some time).

Oh man, yeah, that so pissed me off! I don't know whether they thought allowing that would be something of a loose cannon, ie: if they suspect that there might be some inappropriate things posted and it would get out of hand and then there might even be more people upset because it would be a section where they'd have to be even more heavy-handed and therefore more disliked, I mean, would they object even if you post yourself on the beach in a bikini? Too, I think they discourage without saying so, theist and atheist fellowship which is really sad, it makes them look like they can't defend themselves and like a parent who is afraid they might lose their child to the "dark side" tries to keep their daughter away from the "bad boy" which just of course, makes it worse. These people have very little understanding of diplomacy and they in the end project an aura of weakness instead of arguing from a position of strength.

Sorry, sorry, I know this is about another Forum, not CF, but I suppose discussing some general policies and how it reflects on them might shed some light on how effective or great the policies of other might be? Maybe? :innocent: (I'm trying to save my ass and not feel like I've been chastised for getting off topic. :D)

[livius drusus]

Why not have simply a "no debate" rule, something along the lines of SL on II? For example, "Sending good thoughts your way" could be allowed in a prayer thread, but "Why pray to some invisible sky being?" would be unacceptable.

One issue that some might have with this is that of their own family members seeing posts which the member would prefer not be accessible to them. Say, for instance, an HH member wants input on a religious conflict which has arisen in the family. If the Christian wife/husband/kids/in laws can register, even without any preaching at all the member must by necessity constrain his/her comments.

On the other hand, the other side of that coin is also troubling -- so troubling to me personally that it played a considerable role in my decision to step down as admin. Wildernesse stated it best here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1307826#post1307826):

The implications being that simply by my belief in a god, I encroach so much onto my freethinker's life that he needs a safe haven from me. Not his own personal space--but space because I am a believer and my beliefs harm him and make his life worse. That a personal unchosen characteristic of mine would harm him--why I would not have it for the world, and yet what am I to do?

As she noted, this is not a reason to oppose the existence of HH or its policies, but it struck a painful chord with me and I think is a compelling counterpoint to the question of creating a space that is off-limits to Christian family members solely on the grounds of their Christianity.

[lel]

Oh man, yeah, that so pissed me off! I don't know whether they thought allowing that would be something of a loose cannon, ie: if they suspect that there might be some inappropriate things posted and it would get out of hand and then there might even be more people upset because it would be a section where they'd have to be even more heavy-handed and therefore more disliked, I mean, would they object even if you post yourself on the beach in a bikini?

Man, I can't even post a picture of my clarinet over there! Well, I'd have to dust it first, but still... :P

[lel]

One issue that some might have with this is that of their own family members seeing posts which the member would prefer not be accessible to them. Say, for instance, an HH member wants input on a religious conflict which has arisen in the family. If the Christian wife/husband/kids/in laws can register, even without any preaching at all the member must by necessity constrain his/her comments.

To me, the need to constrain comments is an acceptable tradeoff, but if others don't believe so, so be it.

The implications being that simply by my belief in a god, I encroach so much onto my freethinker's life that he needs a safe haven from me. Not his own personal space--but space because I am a believer and my beliefs harm him and make his life worse. That a personal unchosen characteristic of mine would harm him--why I would not have it for the world, and yet what am I to do?

As she noted, this is not a reason to oppose the existence of HH or its policies, but it struck a painful chord with me and I think is a compelling counterpoint to the question of creating a space that is off-limits to Christian family members solely on the grounds of their Christianity.

I would agree with that -- and expand it to those who would create space only for Christians, in the implication that simply because I lack believe in a god, my beliefs would harm others.

(Sorry, I would argue more from the HH viewpoint, except that, well, I didn't know it existed before this thread.)

[godfry n. glad]

Well... This thread has come far from its origins.

Just for my part, I like the idea of HH as exclusive of theists. I think that non-theists should have a place where the may go to retire from the incessant yammering of theists. A place where they can go, out of sight and hearing of theists, to refine their thoughts, recharge their batteries and learn better skills to take back out to the wider world, where they deal with impositions and imprecations of theists on an exceedingly frequent basis.

I think it important that non-theists have a place they can call their own....free from theists. A place of reflection and community where non-theism reigns.

There are sites aplenty for engaging with theists in civil or uncivil exchange....IIDB is now one. The site here at FF is an admirable one. Why should we need more? What we need is a place to build community and communality. HH is that place.

I, however, have been banned. The erstwhile administrator did not like my style, attitude or opinions, despite my unquestionable credentials to be there. This is because non-theists are not all agreeable on all matters. Big surprise.

I think I have more problems with sites that put up one set of guidelines, then follow another...or become the toy of one or two individuals, who enforce on personal whims. That's where HH was when I was given the bum's rush.

For my troubles of seeking to point out the shortcomings at HH, I was dismissed and then the mod/admin who'd done so saw fit to tell me to "fuck myself with a sharp knife." Yes, right here at FF.

:innocent:

godfry

[viscousmemories]

To clarify my previous point that I endorse the arguments put forth by Brimshack and seebs, here are the relevant quotations:

...if I were to put foreword an example of prejudice at HH, it would be the degree to which people at HH have consistently used the term "Theist" to describe the behavior of Evangelical Christians at HH. I think that is precisely the sort of thing that is far more likely to skate by unnoticed when there aren't other sorts of Theists and Christians around. Is this the most severe form of prejudice possible, no. Does this prove external harm? No. But I do think the pattern is evident in a number of discussions at HH.

In short... HH promotes prejudice against theists in the exact same way that RaptureReady promotes prejudice against nearly everything that moves, by limiting conversation to people with a somewhat narrowed field of views, and leaving them an environment in which confirmation bias is exacerbated by a supply of comparatively like-minded readers and writers.

It is for these and similar reasons that I personally found the HH membership policy distasteful, and why I stepped down as administrator and ultimately asked that my account be disabled. However I have never expressed any opinions about whether HH should exist (except in my exasperated comment last night that I should have shut it down when I resigned), or made any judgements about the character of any of the members there. In fact most of my best friends are HH members.

Regarding this point:
I have indeed expressed my concerns about this at HH, or did you not notice my role in the last round of arguments over the decision to open the board up. My position at HH is a matter of record, and my position here was voiced precisely because you asked me to.
I believe Gurdur was in self-imposed exile from HH when that discussion took place. Someone might want to point him to the relevant threads if he wants to know the full history of the policies.

[Shake]

Much earlier here, Gurdur mentioned consistency. I'd say vm, if you're trying to be consistent, you should petition the mods of say Rapture Ready to be more accepting and not so discriminating to non-theists. I mean, how does RR really differ from the whites-only club?

Who would want to? RR banned me, I was glad, then I don't have any fault in their ignorance nor can I be said to contribute or a part of how pathetic it all is. The only problem with exclusion is when people are excluded who might want to be included and that's sometimes just a popularity thing. If you're not necessarily into popularity, you might just see the "cool girls" for what they are and if you don't see the girls as cool in first place, for example RR, you don't really care.

This applies to CF and Christians only forums and others. The only people who care that there are places where only Christians can post are those who want to be identified as Christians. I don't know why anybody would want to be identified as a Christian if they didn't have to be, personally, in this day and age. Even still though, in that scenario, the discussions are viewable and you can in the end, petition the Mods and if that doesn't work, there are places where you can even still, discuss your beef.
OK, sure. I've lurked some of the Xian boards and know some more about them from current and former members of such boards. Now, I know they do accept non-theists, but we are more heavily moderated in those places and are much more easily banned. Is that not discrimination, even if not as much so as not allowing membership? Yeah, great. So I could post at one of those boards so long as I basically kept my atheism out of the picture. Sounds a lot like the military's policy regarding homosexuality, IMO. :rolleye1:

liv, sure, it may not follow, but wanting HH to change doesn't make sense either. Such changes, if implemented at HH would simply cause to make HH into II-Lite, something which the membership AFAIK, doesn't want to have happen. If we wanted that, we'd just try harder to change II.

I mean, c'mon, some of those Xian forums have places where only Xian members are allowed. Are you also saying that you know that there aren't Xian-/Jew-/Muslim-only boards?

FWIW, I have found a certain comfortability level on all 3 of these forums, and don't feel conflicted by my various memberships. Each serves a purpose to me and there are things I might post on one or more that I wouldn't post at one of the others. It's about knowing one's audience and respecting them.

Aha! This just came to me. Griping about the HH being a place which may discriminate against theists is tatamount to griping about a group of fans of a particular sports fans. Of course they're going to do some bashing of others who don't feel as they do. It's about loyalty and feeling like you're right. For example, I have some very good friends who unfortunately, are Red Sox fans. Now, I've tried to show them the error of their ways, but they're set on rooting for their boys. So, I forgive them for what I see as a "fault" and accept them as good people. After all, nobody's perfect!

[viscousmemories]

To clarify my recent point that I will only engage in further discussion of this issue with people who are willing to return the respect I offer them, here's what I'm referring to. All along I have said that I personally found the no-theists rule at HH to be similar to a whites-only policy, and I repeatedly asked both Gurdur and warrenly to explain why they didn't see it that way. In response, I was subjected to repeated personal attacks and mischaracterizations of my point.

Such as:

"Any more snide and untrue aspersions ?"

"So you want to hide now that you've actually been confronted ? You don't want to talk with me because I answered you ? tsk, such a lack of integrity.
My goodness, and you want to lecture others on ethicality ?
The irony is to make me laugh till it hurts."

"Puh-leeze, when I get the idea you are prepared to talk with me honestly and openly, then I will worry about all the personal aspects of it."

"Comparing HH with a whites only club is completely unfair and assinine."

"What a pile of fatalistic manure."

"I still find your comparison of HH to a whites only club to be disgusting."

"I already have (refer to vm's post above Gurdur's), but you choose to ignore it because you don't believe that belief is a choice."

Of course the points made about the contradictions in my view of ethics were well taken. As most of the active members here are probably aware, I have only recently begun studying moral philosophy and I am not in any way an expert on ethics, nor do I have a set-in-stone philosophical perspective that I adhere to. In short, I'm still learning about this stuff.

However, in response to my serious and honest questions about how they were able to rationalize participation in an exclusive forum, what I got instead were attacks on my motivations, intentions, character, honesty, integrity and willingness to have a reasonable dialogue. I think the evidence above makes pretty clear in what direction the attacks in this thread have flowed, and as I said if that is the quality of dialogue that Gurdur and warrenly are interested in I will abstain.

[godfry n. glad]

I mean, c'mon, some of those Xian forums have places where only Xian members are allowed. Are you also saying that you know that there aren't Xian-/Jew-/Muslim-only boards?

My perspective as to why such boards would not be closed to non-believers is that they function largely as proselytization centers. They are open to non-believers because the believers want to convert. Or, like the case of IIDB, which has an agenda of enticing believers. Why can't I interpret such an agenda as one of attempted conversion? IIDB is proselytizing, HH is not.

FWIW, I have found a certain comfortability level on all 3 of these forums, and don't feel conflicted by my various memberships. Each serves a purpose to me and there are things I might post on one or more that I wouldn't post at one of the others. It's about knowing one's audience and respecting them.

Well, I'm not, for the moment, at least. I'm an exile from two, largely due to their inability to take criticism, or tolerate a variant viewpoint. Here at FF, I've had no such problems and have only been forced to defend my position...or revise it as necessary.

Aha! This just came to me. Griping about the HH being a place which may discriminate against theists is tatamount to griping about a group of fans of a particular sports fans. Of course they're going to do some bashing of others who don't feel as they do. It's about loyalty and feeling like you're right. For example, I have some very good friends who unfortunately, are Red Sox fans. Now, I've tried to show them the error of their ways, but they're set on rooting for their boys. So, I forgive them for what I see as a "fault" and accept them as good people. After all, nobody's perfect!

Well....That's not what crazyfingers, Godot and Hugo Holbling seem to think. Each and every one of them seem to think their shit don't stink.

godfry

[livius drusus]

liv, sure, it may not follow, but wanting HH to change doesn't make sense either.

I was just pointing out that your claim that it's inconsistent to protest bias in one's own group unless one also protests it in other groups doesn't really make any sense. As for wanting HH to change, who said we did?

Such changes, if implemented at HH would simply cause to make HH into II-Lite, something which the membership AFAIK, doesn't want to have happen. If we wanted that, we'd just try harder to change II.

Indeed, hence the whole quitting and handing over the reins to people willing to run it in keeping with the wishes of the community.

I mean, c'mon, some of those Xian forums have places where only Xian members are allowed. Are you also saying that you know that there aren't Xian-/Jew-/Muslim-only boards?

I'm saying just what I said: just because you have a problem with exclusivity protocols in your own group does not mean you have to protest exclusivity no matter where it may be in order to be consistent.

Aha! This just came to me. Griping about the HH being a place which may discriminate against theists is tatamount to griping about a group of fans of a particular sports fans.

First of all, "griping" does not strike me as a fair characterization of anyone's arguments here. Secondly, HH does discriminate against theists, obviously, by definition. The issue some have brought out is whether this discrimination in membership promotes prejudice against theists inside or outside its confines.

So, I forgive them for what I see as a "fault" and accept them as good people. After all, nobody's perfect!

I'm not sure how this is relevant as I doubt anybody would suggest HH members are not good people simply by virtue of their membership.

[TomJoe]

It's been my experience that your usual, completely exclusive board (which it sounds that is what HH is), tends to be an offshoot from another, more inclusive board.

My analogy (which of course may have pitfalls) is that the relationship to these boards is like going to a townhall meeting. You'll see plenty of people at the townhall meeting, and you'll discuss things with them, but at the end of the day, you'll go to your own house and discuss matters again with family and maybe a select friend or two... you won't invite every stranger you met at the townhall meeting into your house. Would you?

[Sweetie]

OK, sure. I've lurked some of the Xian boards and know some more about them from current and former members of such boards. Now, I know they do accept non-theists, but we are more heavily moderated in those places and are much more easily banned.

I don't agree that this is true, it depends where which is probably not a discussion anybody wants to get into here. I have been banned at RR, Catholic Online I found just dull, Defenders of the Faith I kinda like though I just lurk, CF, I've been the receiver of bias as well and I fit their definition of a Christian, ie: one who thinks homosexual activity is sinful, which unfortunately is more prevalent as a definition than is the Nicene Creed IMHO.

Is that not discrimination, even if not as much so as not allowing membership? Yeah, great. So I could post at one of those boards so long as I basically kept my atheism out of the picture. Sounds a lot like the military's policy regarding homosexuality, IMO.

Just to clarify, I happen to disagree with many decisions and policies even at Christian boards. I don't find that truly when looking at the subject from CF's position that atheists are targets though they may be for some mods, just like Liberals are targets for others, and Catholics for others but the majority of the time, I find that they tend to be more fair and even-handed then not.

I think for the purposes of discussing specific ideologies without distraction, then yes, having designated areas for that is acceptable. For purposes of fellowship and other discussions, then having other areas for that is also acceptable. Like Lady Shea mentioned, if the Charismatics want to go into their corner and pray, they can have their corner. If a Catholic in the Catholic corner, wants to explain Catholic theology to outsiders without being drowned out in objections, or if they want to converse amongst themselves about it, this is fine too, I see a practical purpose here which is not meant to be exlusionary but which must be exclusionary to some extent.

However, if you just want a place where you can bitch and moan without contradiction or restraint, bad-mouth others without them being able to defend themselves, or discuss sexual exploits and egg each other on, I don't know if that's the same thing. To me that's a "coolness" thing more than a practical thing.

A men's forum to discuss sensitive male issues, that's different too, I see a practical purpose for that. A men's club where women aren't allowed so men can just be free to be chauvenistic assholes, then that's different.

[godfry n. glad]

It's been my experience that your usual, completely exclusive board (which it sounds that is what HH is), tends to be an offshoot from another, more inclusive board.

My analogy (which of course may have pitfalls) is that the relationship to these boards is like going to a townhall meeting. You'll see plenty of people at the townhall meeting, and you'll discuss things with them, but at the end of the day, you'll go to your own house and discuss matters again with family and maybe a select friend or two... you won't invite every stranger you met at the townhall meeting into your house. Would you?

Absolutely not.

I would consider a gathering at my house a "caucus". It's a grand ol' tradition in American politics where those who have similar agendas to plan a unified action with regards to the wider community, where there are opposing viewpoints.

Some fora are for discussion of wider questions, others are for strategy, tactics and skills training...and/or simply garnering support and relaxation amongst those who have sympathy for your viewpoint.

HH is the non-theist caucus. Any open forum is for cross-discussion and is open to all to express their opinions and advance their agendas. If theists have such exclusive sites, I would fully understand and NOT gripe about it. I would think it natural. Indeed, as I've already stated, I think this world is replete with places where outspoken nontheists may not clearly and unequivocally express their opinions...they are called churches. Or church groups. Or bible discussion groups. Or Promise Keepers. Or Watchtower writer. Hell....The LDS won't even let me enter their Temple.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

HH is the non-theist caucus
With the emphasis Gurdur and warrenly have put on HH expressly not existing to promote an atheistic agenda, Gurdur's recognition of the fact that atheists don't have any particular set of goals or interests, and the insistance that HH is merely a social club without any theological or political bent... how is it like a non-theist caucus?

[Beth]

However, if you just want a place where you can bitch and moan without contradiction or restraint, bad-mouth others without them being able to defend themselves, or discuss sexual exploits and egg each other on, I don't know if that's the same thing. To me that's a "coolness" thing more than a practical thing. I don't see HH in this light. If I post in there it is mainly because I am asking advice in a sensitive subject that I could not post somewhere else. I have frankly seen more hostility toward Christians in forums such as IIDB than I have in HH.

[godfry n. glad]

HH is the non-theist caucus
With the emphasis Gurdur and warrenly have put on HH expressly not existing to promote an atheistic agenda, Gurdur's recognition of the fact that atheists don't have any particular set of goals or interests, and the insistance that HH is merely a social club without any theological or political bent... how is it like a non-theist caucus?

Even though HH is expressly not existing to promote an atheistic agenda, it has the ability to be a place where those who DO have an atheistic agenda to meet others who MIGHT have the same or similar agendas, compare notes, refine points and hobnob....without the concern of some theist looking over their shoulders kibbitzing about something that should be of no concern to them.

If Gurdur stated that atheists don't have any particular set of goals or interests, I think he's wrong. I think we do.

Just because a social club has no theological or political bent doesn't mean that those who use it don't.

godfry

[Gurdur]

It's been my experience that your usual, completely exclusive board (which it sounds that is what HH is), tends to be an offshoot from another, more inclusive board.
Tha was how HH in effect started life; it then slowly developed a life of its own, and its own climate and reasons for existence.
Just recently it has been emphasized very clearly that HH is completely independent of every other board on the net, and does not function as an auxillary to anyone.

Today, at this time, HH is not the atheist caucus, it is not the old FPF in different guise, it is not the atheist version of Rapture Ready.
It's more like a lounge room party than a smoke-filled back room with the boys.

[Gurdur]

However, if you just want a place where you can bitch and moan without contradiction or restraint,
That's not HH either.
or discuss sexual exploits
Never done that myself. SecWeb. though, has quite a bit on sexual exploits.
and egg each other on,
Again, that's not HH anymore.
To me that's a "coolness" thing more than a practical thing.
Coolness got pretty much wiped ou fairly early in HH as a factor.
A men's club where women aren't allowed so men can just be free to be chauvenistic assholes, then that's different.
Granted, point taken, point accepted, but that ain't HH.

[JoeP]

I think the HH debate ought to be split off from the II debate.

I think we need more religious forums with double-letter names. (Hey, is that why hyperboreans is labeled "Wissenschaftslehre" in my bookmarks; so it can be double-U?)I think this thread needs a new derail.

Atheists Anonymous
Blame Buddha / Blood Baathists
Christian Clubhouse / Confucius Corner
D
Evangelists' Emporium
FF - taken
GG - did we do this once? Godless Gathering
HH - taken
II - taken
the Jumping Jehosophats
L (Lurkers' Lair?)
Methodists' Meetup
Non-denominational Nexus
O
P
Quakers' Quorum
R
Secret Satanists / Sunni Spot
T
Unbelievers Unite
V
W
X
Y
the Zany Zoroastrians

I left some blanks so as not to spoil everyone's fun.

[Dingfod]

To clarify my recent point that I will only engage in further discussion of this issue with people who are willing to return the respect I offer them, here's what I'm referring to. All along I have said that I personally found the no-theists rule at HH to be similar to a whites-only policy, and I repeatedly asked both Gurdur and warrenly to explain why they didn't see it that way. In response, I was subjected to repeated personal attacks and mischaracterizations of my point.

Such as:

"Any more snide and untrue aspersions ?"

"So you want to hide now that you've actually been confronted ? You don't want to talk with me because I answered you ? tsk, such a lack of integrity.
My goodness, and you want to lecture others on ethicality ?
The irony is to make me laugh till it hurts."

"Puh-leeze, when I get the idea you are prepared to talk with me honestly and openly, then I will worry about all the personal aspects of it."

"Comparing HH with a whites only club is completely unfair and assinine."

"What a pile of fatalistic manure."

"I still find your comparison of HH to a whites only club to be disgusting."

"I already have (refer to vm's post above Gurdur's), but you choose to ignore it because you don't believe that belief is a choice."

Of course the points made about the contradictions in my view of ethics were well taken. As most of the active members here are probably aware, I have only recently begun studying moral philosophy and I am not in any way an expert on ethics, nor do I have a set-in-stone philosophical perspective that I adhere to. In short, I'm still learning about this stuff.

However, in response to my serious and honest questions about how they were able to rationalize participation in an exclusive forum, what I got instead were attacks on my motivations, intentions, character, honesty, integrity and willingness to have a reasonable dialogue. I think the evidence above makes pretty clear in what direction the attacks in this thread have flowed, and as I said if that is the quality of dialogue that Gurdur and warrenly are interested in I will abstain.If you insist that I haven't answered your questions and that my attacks were on you personally and not just on what you wrote, then I must respectfully disagree. I have repeatedly told you why I do not think the comparison off HH to a whites only club wasn't correct, but you refuse to acknowledge that I have. I never called you names or call your board a cesspool. I have nothing against you whatsoever and never have. You read way too much into things sometimes With that said, I hereby resign from this board. Please cancel my membership as I no longer wish to participate here. Note my civil discourse to the end.

[livius drusus]

I'm sorry to hear that you no longer wish to participate here, Warren. You will be missed. However, as I told you the last time you made this request, in order to preserve thread integrity we do not delete accounts here.

I wish you all the best.

[viscousmemories]

If you insist that I haven't answered your questions and that my attacks were on you personally and not just on what you wrote, then I must respectfully disagree.
I'm sorry Warren, but I don't see how saying my viewpoint is 'assinine', "a pile of manure", and 'disgusting' could not be viewed as attacking me personally. Nevertheless I accept that it wasn't your intention to do so.

I have repeatedly told you why I do not think the comparison off HH to a whites only club wasn't correct, but you refuse to acknowledge that I have.
On the contrary, I did acknowledge that you have when I said "Of course the points made about the contradictions in my view of ethics were well taken." My problem was with your and Gurdur's aggressive, confrontational response to what were honest questions of mine.

I never called you names or call your board a cesspool.
I didn't call you names either, and I called HH a cesspit, not a cesspool. :P In any case as I've said that opinion is based on my perception of the place long before it became your board. Of course I did say that I doubt it has changed much, so I apologize.

I have nothing against you whatsoever and never have. You read way too much into things sometimes.
I've never had anything against you either, and I have no idea what you mean about me reading into things. Can you tell me where I read in something that wasn't there?

With that said, I hereby resign from this board. Please cancel my membership as I no longer wish to participate here. Note my civil discourse to the end.
Ditto what livius said above.

And just to be clear because Gurdur had difficulty understanding this, when I said I was not interested in discussing this with you anymore if you were only interested in attacking me, what I meant is that I am more than willing to discuss things respectfully, up to and until I don't get the same respect in return. And I have no reason to believe that isn't possible with you.

[Gurdur]

My problem was with your and Gurdur's aggressive, confrontational response to what were honest questions of mine.
*snicker*
You have such an interesting way of redefining things to your own benefit.

I didn't call you names either, and I called HH a cesspit, not a cesspool.
Gosh, such a deeply analytical and adult response. It so deals with things so directly.
:popcorn:

[Ronin]

Gurdur, I'd like to see my questions (refer to page 3) addressed so that I can get a clearer picture of the HH issue.

As for you, Warren, I hope you reconsider. Even if you dislike one or more of the members here at FF or disagree heatedly with one in a particular thread, it should not detract so unequally from those here that you have bonded with positively and who would genuinely miss your company.

[Ex-zombie]

Warren,

Just like to say Don't go man!

I would hate to see warren go over this fucking topic.

[HelenM]

Can you see any way HH is adding in any way to prejudice against theists ?
Let's dialogue. :yup:

Hi Gurdur,

Nice to see you here :)

I've not seen any of the discussions in HH but I do know that the front page link sends theists to Landover Baptist. I consider it rather disrespectful to send theists to a site which mocks what they believe. So I would say HH, by that link at least, role-models disrespect towards theists.

Fwiw, I don't consider private forums unethical per se. If people want to have a private forum, that's up to them.

Helen

[Petra]

As for you, Warren, I hope you reconsider. Even if you dislike one or more of the members here at FF or disagree heatedly with one in a particular thread, it should not detract so unequally from those here that you have bonded with positively and who would genuinely miss your company.

I would genuinely miss you, Warren.


My own two cents worth is that I don't see why a private board cannot run itself the way it wants to.

I don't think it's like a "whites only" board at all. More of a Mini Cooper Club, which excludes Nissan drivers such as myself.

If the HH, as a free and private board wants to have a non-theist rule, then why the hell not? If you don't like it, don't go there.

While interesting points have been made in this thread, I still liken the argument to, say, telling me who I can have in my house and debating the ethics of why, say, Brian Tamaki and his density of Destiny followers would not even be remotely welcome in my own home, even on a good day. If someone tells me that it is unethical for me to refuse entry and hospitality to Mr. Tamaki his followers in my own home, then I'd royally tell them to fuck right off as it's my darned perogative as to who is welcome and who is not.

HH is a private board and if they decide that they do not want theists, rap fans or people who wear long socks and sandals with their shorts, then so be it.

Dun' like it, dun' go there. :shrug:

[Ronin]

More of a Mini Cooper Club, which excludes Nissan drivers such as myself.

WTF!!

Mini Cooper's are so gay...HH is definitely not the place for me then!

Lunachick drives a Schwinn

:bikefall:

[Petra]

:bikefall:

Oh, shit. You've seen me drive. :blush:

[godfry n. glad]

As for you, Warren, I hope you reconsider. Even if you dislike one or more of the members here at FF or disagree heatedly with one in a particular thread, it should not detract so unequally from those here that you have bonded with positively and who would genuinely miss your company.

I would genuinely miss you, Warren.

Me, too, man...and consider that with you gone, I'd have less competition for all the ladies here.

Lookit this man....you got women begging for you....

Damn. I never got any this action when I stormed outta someplace. :glare:

While interesting points have been made in this thread, I still liken the argument to, say, telling me who I can have in my house and debating the ethics of why, say, Brian Tamaki and his density of Destiny followers would not even be remotely welcome in my own home, even on a good day. If someone tells me that it is unethical for me to refuse entry and hospitality to Mr. Tamaki his followers in my own home, then I'd royally tell them to fuck right off as it's my darned perogative as to who is welcome and who is not.

HH is a private board and if they decide that they do not want theists, rap fans or people who wear long socks and sandals with their shorts, then so be it.

Dun' like it, dun' go there. :shrug:

Right on, sister.

And I don't have the slightest freakin' idea who Brian Tamaki is.

godfry

(...anybody ever told you you're cute when you're riled, luna?)

[Petra]

And I don't have the slightest freakin' idea who Brian Tamaki is.

Brian Tamaki is founder and chief thief of the Destiny Church. http://www.destinychurch.co.nz/

godfry

(...anybody ever told you you're cute when you're riled, luna?)

LOL. Why, thank you, honeybee, but I'm not even remotely riled. Pretty relaxed, actually. I'm bloody hot, though - sweltering and sweaty. In fact, it must almost be cold-beer-o'clock. Damn, it's hot. Too hot. The air's hanging thick and sticky like a hot, damp blanket. Icky.

[livius drusus]

HH is a private board and if they decide that they do not want theists, rap fans or people who wear long socks and sandals with their shorts, then so be it.

Well, in all fairness, people did tell us who we could have in our house. We accepted that and resigned. That's why these house analogies don't really work for me: a community is not the same thing as a home.

I don't really see how that's relevant to the general issue though, of whether the exclusionary nature of the forum in and of itself promotes prejudice. Honestly, since I'm no longer paying the bills it's not a matter of great importance to me, which is why I haven't commented on the question, but saying a forum is private doesn't automatically acquit it of furthering prejudice.

[viscousmemories]

...I still liken the argument to, say, telling me who I can have in my house and debating the ethics of...
I just want to make sure it's very clear that it was never my intention to say who should and shouldn't be allowed in HH, or to debate the ethics of their no-theists policy here. Gurdur and Warren apparently interpreted my comment that I find the policy personally distasteful as an attack on HH, and my saying that it seems like a whites-only policy to me as a moral judgement of them, but neither is the case.

I said it was distasteful to me because it is, and I said it's like a whites-only policy because I was unable to see any significant difference and I was interested in hearing how they view it. Now I understand better how they view it and I've come to realize that the whites-only analogy fails on too many levels so I've dropped it. It was never my intention to judge anyone according to my own values.

That said, I'm still interested in the meta-issue of whether exclusion furthers prejudice. It doesn't matter to me if the example we use for discussion is HH or any other board.

[Petra]

Okay, the home analogy falls when talking about a community.

Old Boy's Rugby Club is just up the road from me. I don't play rugby, I don't like rugby, I have no interest in discussing rugby or hanging out with rugby players. Should Old Boy's Rugby Club open their membership to include chicks like me who have no interest in rugby, but who prefer to talk about music?

Surely I'd be better off with a music club of some sort. And should the music club I join open their doors to people who have little interest in music and would rather use the club's time and resources to, say, discuss parenting or something?


HH is a private social club. A private one. As long as it is within the law, it can do what it likes - just as this board can. It can be a democracy if it likes, but it doesn't have to be. It can be under the dictatorship of whoever pays the bills if it likes.


I just don't get these forum wars, I guess. The internet is full of choices and has something for everyone. Why can't the HH just be what it wants to be - a social club for non-theists.

[Petra]

...the meta-issue of whether exclusion furthers prejudice.

Well, I would have to say that it can do based on the mindset of the club's membership, I guess. Like, say, a stormfront forum or somnething would. But it isn't necessarily true of all exclusive clubs.

I'm quite sure that a music club doesn't promote prejudice against non-music lovers or non-musicians - it's membership just wants to hang out and chat with other music lovers because of that thing they have in common with each other.

[Ronin]

I just don't get these forum wars, I guess. The internet is full of choices and has something for everyone. Why can't the HH just be what it wants to be - a social club for non-theists.

Well, I was just wondering what appeal a non-theists only club would have for me and why anyone else would find the notion appealing. I mean, I certainly used to jump right in to such groups, but my experience has led me to realize that it becomes far too conducive to limiting my understanding of other points of view.

Consider me evolving (Dammit, no evolution smilie...liv, a little help here!).

[viscousmemories]

Well, I was just wondering what appeal a non-theists only club would have for me and why anyone else would find the notion appealing. I mean, I certainly used to jump right in to such groups, but my experience has led me to realize that it becomes far too conducive to limiting my understanding of other points of view.

Consider me evolving (Dammit, no evolution smilie...liv, a little help here!).
That's basically my feeling, Ronin. I mean what's the purpose? To sit around talking about not-god all day? :D

[Petra]

[
Well, I was just wondering what appeal a non-theists only club would have for me and why anyone else would find the notion appealing. I mean, I certainly used to jump right in to such groups, but my experience has led me to realize that it becomes far too conducive to limiting my understanding of other points of view.

Consider me evolving (Dammit, no evolution smilie...liv, a little help here!).


And that's cool. If it's not for you, it's not for you. 'Nuff said.

I don't see how an internet forum can limit your points of view, though - there are so many internet forums out there that you can be a part of this one, and a part of that one, and a part of the one over there, and all will add to your evolutionary dynamic.

No one can limit your points of view but you.


Edit: Also, you admitted that you once needed (or jumped right into) non-theist only fora and now you've moved on. As have many people here. We've all gone through quite a few personal changes since I first met you all, some 2 1/2 years ago.

But, what about those who have not moved on? Should we all keep in step and go through our changes in unison? Maybe non-theist fora are just what some people need right now? For whatever reason.

[Petra]

I mean what's the purpose? To sit around talking about not-god all day? :D

Why not if that's what they wanna do?

[viscousmemories]

Why not if that's what they wanna do?
Why do you think my saying it doesn't appeal to me equates to my saying they shouldn't?

[Petra]

Why not if that's what they wanna do?
Why do you think my saying it doesn't appeal to me equates to my saying they shouldn't?

I didn't say it did, vm. I simply said why not.

[livius drusus]

Not to repeat myself or anything but it's a given that HH has the right to define itself however it wishes, that people have the right to participate or not as the mood takes them.

The question raised in this thread is whether the exclusionary policy promotes prejudice. Equating it to a music club is not really a viable argument for me because to paraphrase seebs' point, there is no historical enmity between musicians and non-musicians.

[Petra]

fair enough.

Anyway, it's too hot to be sitting in my room - especially now that the sun has moved directly in.

I'm going to go grab that beer and sit outside.

:wave:

[Ronin]

And that's cool. If it's not for you, it's not for you. 'Nuff said.

That's not the entire point here, though, lunachick.

I am still interested in trying to understand the actual appeal of this particular limitation at HH.

What do non-theists hope to gain by not allowing theists into their discussions?

I'm sure there is something.

Is it that they want to be free to a) cheerlead each other over how irrational theists are? b) discuss their exploits at debunking a theistic claim free from theistic critique? c) talk about how theism is responsible for some great pain that they endured at the hands of some theist earlier in their lives without having some theist give them a theistic angle on the problem of evil? d) some other reason?

I don't see how an internet forum can limit your points of view, though - there are so many internet forums out there that you can be a part of this one, and a part of that one, and a part of the one over there, and all will add to your evolutionary dynamic.

As I said, it has been my experience that an internet forum can limit one's point of view.

I've talked about my own experiences here at FF amongst theists, non-theists and unknowns and have received very interesting responses from all.

The banquet is more abundant with this format, in my view, though I do hope to hear some answers to my questions regarding HH.

[Ronin]

Edit: Also, you admitted that you once needed (or jumped right into) non-theist only fora and now you've moved on. As have many people here. We've all gone through quite a few personal changes since I first met you all, some 2 1/2 years ago.

But, what about those who have not moved on? Should we all keep in step and go through our changes in unison? Maybe non-theist fora are just what some people need right now? For whatever reason.

I agree.

By all means, let any and all participate at HH if that is what someone needs.

I am pointing out the lack of appeal for such exclusion for this "Heathen" and was wondering if there is some other selling point available that I may be missing.

Also, the exclusive nature of those examples I participated in (including HH) were more personally destructive in my life and in the lives of others I met. Which is not to say that some very good relationships have not come from those times at all, however, I do not credit the secret clubs for them.

I would not hope for something like that to occur to others and so...aside from inquiring into this new version that Gurdur speaks of regarding HH...I would argue against seeking much value within such exclusive membership requirements.

[viscousmemories]

Why not if that's what they wanna do?
Why do you think my saying it doesn't appeal to me equates to my saying they shouldn't?

I didn't say it did, vm. I simply said why not.
Oh I see. You meant why not as in "who needs a reason?" I thought you meant why not as in why shouldn't they be allowed to. My bad. :wave:

[Petra]

That's not the entire point here, though, lunachick.

No, s'pose not.


At this point, though, I do have to say that I have no investment in either side, and am not even all that sure I care much about the issue. Just playin' advocate, I guess.

I am still interested in trying to understand the actual appeal of this particular limitation at HH.

Once upon a time, you - like others - did see the appeal.

At this time, though, the appeal has gone for you for reasons you've explained. Fair enough.

What do non-theists hope to gain by not allowing theists into their discussions?Fellowship in a small, private corner of cyberspace?

I'm sure there is something.

Yep. And I'm sure there are as many reasons for wanting to be in an exclusively non-theist, private forum as there are members there.

Is it that they want to be free to a) cheerlead each other over how irrational theists are? b) discuss their exploits at debunking a theistic claim free from theistic critique? c) talk about how theism is responsible for some great pain that they endured at the hands of some theist earlier in their lives without having some theist give them a theistic angle on the problem of evil? d) some other reason?e) All of the above, and then some.

I've just been across to look at the first index page in each subforum. Yes, there's some backbiting and hostilities/frustrations at assorted theists.

But, that's not all there is.

Just as the Christians only fora at CF is not all atheist bashing. Yes, there's some - but that is not all it is.

As I said, it has been my experience that an internet forum can limit one's point of view.Yes, it can. I don't deny that.

But there are innumerous internet fora out there with all manner of interest, disinterest, bias, slant, whatever.

It is your own responsiblity as an adult individual to free your own mind. It is no more the responsibility of a private and social internet forum to remove people's self-imposed point-of-view restraints than it is the responsibilty of television to raise our kids.


I've talked about my own experiences here at FF amongst theists, non-theists and unknowns and have received very interesting responses from all.Ask them the same questions in a year's time, and some will answer differently. Such is the nature of us.

Incidentally, I agree that exclusivity and the circle-jerk groupthink that can come from it is not a good thing and can have a [probably temporary] destructive impact on some people's lives. (Just part of the eternal flux, perhaps :wink: )

The beautiful thing is that we don't stop growing. :cool:

The banquet is more abundant with this format, in my view,I think the banquet is more abundant in all formats. :cool:



vm: yup, and no prob.

[HelenM]

...aside from inquiring into this new version that Gurdur speaks of regarding HH...I would argue against seeking much value within such exclusive membership requirements.

It may be new inside to some extent, but it still has that "nyah nyah-nyah nyah nyah" link on the front page which sends theists to Landover Baptist.

It's one thing to have a private club; it's another to have one and openly mock those who are excluded at the entrance.

Helen

[Petra]

It's one thing to have a private club; it's another to have one and openly mock those who are excluded at the entrance.

Helen


Now there's a grievance I can understand.

I must agree with you, Helen. I also see it as below the belt.

[HelenM]

It's one thing to have a private club; it's another to have one and openly mock those who are excluded at the entrance.

Helen


Now there's a grievance I can understand.

I must agree with you, Helen. I also see it as below the belt.

Thanks, luna :).

Hey, I should have said it in smilies:

Why does a private club such as HH feel it necessary to do this at the entrance to those who are excluded? :ptht: :nyahnyah: :mocking:

Helen

[Beth]

I just read the opening. I have usually bipassed the entrance page or ignored it. I think I had read it once last year, but only the first couple of lines. I did look again. I do agree with Helen that it does openly mock those it excludes and with Luna that it hits below the belt. Hmmm.

[Ronin]

It may be new inside to some extent, but it still has that "nyah nyah-nyah nyah nyah" link on the front page which sends theists to Landover Baptist.

It's one thing to have a private club; it's another to have one and openly mock those who are excluded at the entrance.

Helen

Well, I am still awaiting to hear from Gurdur regarding any "new" element to HH.

I think that the Landover Baptist issue is part and parcel of what I am talking about regarding the potential limitations of HH and of clubs that exclude people. It leads to and reflects a devaluing of those excluded.

Again, that is why I find more openness and actual freethought here at...well, the Freethought-Forum.

:wink:

[LadyShea]

Well, I was just wondering what appeal a non-theists only club would have for me and why anyone else would find the notion appealing. I mean, I certainly used to jump right in to such groups, but my experience has led me to realize that it becomes far too conducive to limiting my understanding of other points of view.

Consider me evolving (Dammit, no evolution smilie...liv, a little help here!).
That's basically my feeling, Ronin. I mean what's the purpose? To sit around talking about not-god all day? :D

Both of you at one time found the idea appealing. People go through different stages (as luna has pointed out).

VM, your comment is particularly strawmannish. Discussing all kinds of things without the theistic POV being interjected is the purpose, not discussing not-God. There are many reasons any individual might want this insulated environment from time to time.

Some of us manage to not be anti-theist and still visit HH, and many who are virulantly anti-theist are not members there, so there is no demonstrable correlation of membership in the exclusive club and increased prejudice is there?

[Godless Wonder]

Christianity deserves to be openly mocked, in my opinion. There's no escaping the fact that it's just dumb. In any case, Christians wouldn't have it any other way. The Bible "predicts" that these beliefs should be mocked (an obvious prediction given how obviously dumb it is.) "Ooh, they linked to Landover Baptist, I'm sooooo offended." Grow a hide, learn to laugh. Big freakin' deal. What did you expect to get by clicking that link? Have you been on the internet for less than 5 minutes? Your browser has no "back" button? You want the internet? You can't handle the internet. I deride your internet handling abilities. Good grief, get something real to complain about.

[viscousmemories]

Both of you at one time found the idea appealing. People go through different stages (as luna has pointed out).
I have never denied that I once found the idea appealing. Obviously that's why I started that site.

VM, your comment is particularly strawmannish. Discussing all kinds of things without the theistic POV being interjected is the purpose, not discussing not-God. There are many reasons any individual might want this insulated environment from time to time.
A strawman is a fallacious argument. I was not making an argument, I was implying that being part of a non-theists only site has no usefulness to me.

Some of us manage to not be anti-theist and still visit HH, and many who are virulantly anti-theist are not members there, so there is no demonstrable correlation of membership in the exclusive club and increased prejudice is there?
I really don't see any point in continuing to use HH as an example. To be frank, many HH members argued that there wasn't any theist bashing or shit talking going on there while I was a member, and I know that to be patently false. So unfortunately I'm not prepared to take any current members word for it that such just doesn't happen there anymore, and I think that's the kind of behavior that contributes to prejudice against theists.

I don't really know how we can empirically prove that exclusive forums contribute to prejudice without doing studies with control groups, etc. but as I said earlier I think the points Brimshack and seebs raised indicate the possibility of it.

[Ronin]

At this point, though, I do have to say that I have no investment in either side, and am not even all that sure I care much about the issue. Just playin' advocate, I guess.

Okay.

Once upon a time, you - like others - did see the appeal.

At this time, though, the appeal has gone for you for reasons you've explained. Fair enough.

Not only that, though, the appeal for me was destructive because it was devaluing the views of others who are good people.

That was and is still wrong, in my view.

I have not been shown how my view of this exclusion could be changed.

I've just been across to look at the first index page in each subforum. Yes, there's some backbiting and hostilities/frustrations at assorted theists.

But, that's not all there is.

Just as the Christians only fora at CF is not all atheist bashing. Yes, there's some - but that is not all it is.

Precisely, lunachick.

If the backbiting and hostilities/frustrations at assorted theists is not all there is, then why exclude theists?

If the backbiting and hostilities/frustrations at assorted theists is that which makes the difference and is the motive for the exclusion, then the HH agenda is to promote a one-sided negative view of theists and that promotes bigotry.

If there is newer motive that would explain the exclusion, I'd like to hear it.

Yes, it can. I don't deny that.

But there are innumerous internet fora out there with all manner of interest, disinterest, bias, slant, whatever.

It is your own responsiblity as an adult individual to free your own mind. It is no more the responsibility of a private and social internet forum to remove people's self-imposed point-of-view restraints than it is the responsibilty of television to raise our kids.

I realize that.

I'm not arguing here that Heathen Hangout should be taken off the air, far from it...I'm only arguing that it appears to me that their behavior towards others is incorrect and I am also secondarily curious as to why Gurdur would be attracted to that given his arguments for inclusion of theists at IIDB.

Ask them the same questions in a year's time, and some will answer differently. Such is the nature of us.

Maybe so, the difference is that I can actually be more open and exposed to these points of view here because it does not exclude theists.

Incidentally, I agree that exclusivity and the circle-jerk groupthink that can come from it is not a good thing and can have a [probably temporary] destructive impact on some people's lives. (Just part of the eternal flux, perhaps :wink: )

That is what I am addressing.

The beautiful thing is that we don't stop growing. :cool:

Tell me about it...I was ordered to wear my Class A uniform to the promotional ceremony last week instead of the standard CID suit and tie. Digging through my closet I found a dusty pair of 31 regular pants and a 16 shirt...yeah, right!

:eek:

I think the banquet is more abundant in all formats. :cool:

Yet, you would hopefully speak out against intolerance, right?

That is the aspect of HH that I am addressing.

I like certain aspects of CF, however, I still think that they are missing out on some very good people by their own exclusive limitations.

I think that formats such as FF removes certain levels of emnity between people.

[LadyShea]

A strawman is a fallacious argument. I was not making an argument, I was implying that being part of a non-theists only site has no usefulness to me.

That's why I used "strawmannish", I was not accusing you of a fallacy. However, your comment wasn't "I don't see the purpose", it was a sarcastic speculation on other people's purposes for visiting.

If you don't want to visit an exclusive site, then of course don't. If you don't understand it, then have this discussion (as we are)...but I think it unfair to make comments like that as they cast aspersions on those of us who do find a benefit to an insulated environment from time to time. I, for example, have better things to do with my time than talk about not-God.


I really don't see any point in continuing to use HH as an example.

It is the only exclusive site I visit, and the only other exclusive site I am a member of is fertility related, so it's the only example I can personally use in the discussion.

To be frank, many HH members argued that there wasn't any theist bashing or shit talking going on there while I was a member, and I know that to be patently false. So unfortunately I'm not prepared to take any current members word for it that such just doesn't happen there anymore...

Well, since I never said any of that, this particular comment has nothing to do with me.

...I think that's the kind of behavior that contributes to prejudice against theists.

Okay, then can you explain to me how you think this prejudice manifests itself?

I believe prejudice is within each person, and it will manifest itself if they already have it. I don't think it can be increased or decreased based on where and how it is discussed.

I don't really know how we can empirically prove that exclusive forums contribute to prejudice without doing studies with control groups, etc. but as I said earlier I think the points Brimshack and seebs raised indicate the possibility of it.

I don't consider myself prejudiced in that I don't hate or discriminate against people based solely on their deity belief. I bash theists sometimes sure, for their behavior or attitudes though, not thier beliefs. I bash assholes of all kinds, theist or not.

I was using myself as an example of someone who visits an exclusive site for specific purposes and manages to not become anti-theist. I don't want to name names, but some of the most hateful anti-theists at II do not visit HH, so they are examples that the prejudice you are against exists regardless of exclusivity.



And for the record, I am not "taking sides" here and if it gets to the point where lines are drawn, I will extricate myself from this discussion. I am just discussing amongst friends, hopefully.

[HelenM]

Christianity deserves to be openly mocked, in my opinion. There's no escaping the fact that it's just dumb. In any case, Christians wouldn't have it any other way. The Bible "predicts" that these beliefs should be mocked (an obvious prediction given how obviously dumb it is.) "Ooh, they linked to Landover Baptist, I'm sooooo offended." Grow a hide, learn to laugh. Big freakin' deal. What did you expect to get by clicking that link? Have you been on the internet for less than 5 minutes? Your browser has no "back" button? You want the internet? You can't handle the internet. I deride your internet handling abilities. Good grief, get something real to complain about.

Yes, but that's not the point.

The point is, whoever set up the front page of HH chose to be offensive to theists and those who've inherited the front page are choosing to perpetuate the offence by not changing it.

What did I expect to get by clicking the link? I didn't know - I was curious. Should I have expected such incivility? You seem to imply that I should have.

Helen

[Ronin]

I don't think it can be increased or decreased based on where and how it is discussed.

I hope you don't mind my interruption here, however, I have to disagree with this assertion.

It has been my experience that where and how discussions are considered along with a limiting input via a strictly exclusive group directly increases prejudice.

I think that if there is a promoting of negative views of "theists" then this directly carries over with actual personal relationships and prejudices.

To decrease prejudices we all have to meet together, openly and discuss our perspectives politely.

This is, admittedly, anecdotal and I have no research other than observation to back up my perspective.

Also, I work very hard to change the misconceptions many of my Christian co-workers have of non-theists that are fertilized within their exclusive theist group and I would feel remiss if I did not apply some of the same standard to non-theists.

[godfry n. glad]

Christianity deserves to be openly mocked, in my opinion. There's no escaping the fact that it's just dumb. In any case, Christians wouldn't have it any other way. The Bible "predicts" that these beliefs should be mocked (an obvious prediction given how obviously dumb it is.) "Ooh, they linked to Landover Baptist, I'm sooooo offended." Grow a hide, learn to laugh. Big freakin' deal. What did you expect to get by clicking that link? Have you been on the internet for less than 5 minutes? Your browser has no "back" button? You want the internet? You can't handle the internet. I deride your internet handling abilities. Good grief, get something real to complain about.

Yes, but that's not the point.

The point is, whoever set up the front page of HH chose to be offensive to theists and those who've inherited the front page are choosing to perpetuate the offence by not changing it.

What did I expect to get by clicking the link? I didn't know - I was curious. Should I have expected such incivility? You seem to imply that I should have.

Helen

Hmmm... Now I'm curious.

Why do you consider Landover Baptist to be offensive?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

That's why I used "strawmannish", I was not accusing you of a fallacy. However, your comment wasn't "I don't see the purpose", it was a sarcastic speculation on other people's purposes for visiting.

If you don't want to visit an exclusive site, then of course don't. If you don't understand it, then have this discussion (as we are)...but I think it unfair to make comments like that as they cast aspersions on those of us who do find a benefit to an insulated environment from time to time. I, for example, have better things to do with my time than talk about not-God.
I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as a sarcastic speculation on other people's purposes for visiting HH. But as I already explained, that isn't what I meant by it. What I meant is that the only thing I have in common with all atheists is the lack of a belief in god(s), hence the only reason I can imagine wanting to be part of an atheists only site is to sit around and talk about not-god all day.

It is the only exclusive site I visit, and the only other exclusive site I am a member of is fertility related, so it's the only example I can personally use in the discussion.
Okay, as long as it's clear that I am more interested in talking about exclusive sites in general, and not trying to pass judgement on HH or its members.

To be frank, many HH members argued that there wasn't any theist bashing or shit talking going on there while I was a member, and I know that to be patently false. So unfortunately I'm not prepared to take any current members word for it that such just doesn't happen there anymore...
Well, since I never said any of that, this particular comment has nothing to do with me.
Good point. That must've been a response to a previous post still floating in my head. Sorry.

Okay, then can you explain to me how you think this prejudice manifests itself?

I believe prejudice is within each person, and it will manifest itself if they already have it. I don't think it can be increased or decreased based on where and how it is discussed.
So do you think people are just born with a certain amount of prejudice toward certain things, and it never increases or decreases? If no, what do you think prejudice is caused or exacerbated by if not the kinds of things mentioned by Brim and seebs?

I don't consider myself prejudiced in that I don't hate or discriminate against people based solely on their deity belief. I bash theists sometimes sure, for their behavior or attitudes though, not thier beliefs. I bash assholes of all kinds, theist or not.
Well I would differentiate between bashing specific theists who might be assholes, and bashing theists as a group. Specifically, as Brim pointed out, when people systematically conflate 'theist' with "evangelical Christian" and then judge every non-naturalist according to that view.

I was using myself as an example of someone who visits an exclusive site for specific purposes and manages to not become anti-theist. I don't want to name names, but some of the most hateful anti-theists at II do not visit HH, so they are examples that the prejudice you are against exists regardless of exclusivity.
Were you an anti-theist when you joined HH?

And for the record, I am not "taking sides" here and if it gets to the point where lines are drawn, I will extricate myself from this discussion. I am just discussing amongst friends, hopefully.
It was never my intention to take sides either, but some people seem to prefer it that way. I wonder if it has something to do with an us vs. them attitude perpetuated by membership in an exclusive club. :P At any rate you and I are friends, definitely. We obviously don't have to agree on everything, I realize I'm part of a minority with my distaste for exclusive forums.

[beyelzu]

le on this board, the FF, know me
They know I might be blunt ( = argumentative, irascible, etc. depending on your own politics), but they also know I would not lie to them.
They also know I tend to have a comprehensive view of the things I defend or promote, and in the end, if they don't know HH themselves, they can trust me as they see fit.
sorry to jump in like this.


but I have to say as irritating and occasionally evasive and dismissive and argumentative as gurdur can be.


I dont think he is a liar and I respect his opinions because of the process he uses to arrive at them even when I vehementally disagree with the opinions themselves


ps. good to see you gurdur.

[LadyShea]

I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as a sarcastic speculation on other people's purposes for visiting HH. But as I already explained, that isn't what I meant by it. What I meant is that the only thing I have in common with all atheists is the lack of a belief in god(s), hence the only reason I can imagine wanting to be part of an atheists only site is to sit around and talk about not-god all day.

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I would counter that people who are already marginialized by a heavily theistic society though might seek a safe haven. For example, open homosexuals might like to discuss their relationships in an environment where it is considered normal. One such person at II is constantly having to defend against "abomination" and "immorality" remarks and can't just talk about day to day life.


Okay, as long as it's clear that I am more interested in talking about exclusive sites in general, and not trying to pass judgement on HH or its members.

Crystal clear :)


Good point. That must've been a response to a previous post still floating in my head. Sorry.

No problem, I just don't want either of us lumping each other in with others.


So do you think people are just born with a certain amount of prejudice toward certain things, and it never increases or decreases? If no, what do you think prejudice is caused or exacerbated by if not the kinds of things mentioned by Brim and seebs?

Born with? No way. I think prejudices develop based on experiences. I have never had such a negative experience with theism that I went all nuclear about it. Some peoples' prejudice is a mystery to me but it is based on something. The specific examples I can think of of really anti-theists seem to have come into my observations with a fully formed hatred, though. Since I haven't seen them particpate in the one exclusive site I am aware of, I can't assume any correlation.

Is there a possibility that someone's existing prejudices might be strengthened by an insular environment? Sure. Might they also be strengthened in an open environment as well? Sure. I don't think we can determine that on any kind of generalized basis.


Well I would differentiate between bashing specific theists who might be assholes, and bashing theists as a group. Specifically, as Brim pointed out, when people systematically conflate 'theist' with "evangelical Christian" and then judge every non-naturalist according to that view.

An individual can conflate anything at any time. Whether they have an exclusive site to do so in seems unrelated to me.


Were you an anti-theist when you joined HH?

No, I am anti-certain-actions/attitudes-of-some-theists such as related to CSS issues and gay discrimination. I have been and always will be anti-that.


It was never my intention to take sides either, but some people seem to prefer it that way. I wonder if it has something to do with an us vs. them attitude perpetuated by membership in an exclusive club. :P At any rate you and I are friends, definitely. We obviously don't have to agree on everything, I realize I'm part of a minority with my distaste for exclusive forums.

I think the us vs. them mentality exists regardless of exclusive clubs. I am glad we can discuss this without getting all angry.

[Sweetie]

I don't see HH in this light. If I post in there it is mainly because I am asking advice in a sensitive subject that I could not post somewhere else. I have frankly seen more hostility toward Christians in forums such as IIDB than I have in HH.

Just for clarification purposes, I have no idea what you do or don't do at HH, I was just mapping out mainly with a comparison to a boyz/mens club what I would consider justifiable and respect worthy and what I wouldn't, ie:

Mens Club:

To discuss sensitive issues which you don't feel comfortable or free to discuss elsewhere, to have fellowship, discuss sports, support system, etc.

Mens Club:

-leave respect for women at the door
-the only women allowed are hookers, strippers or those depicted in porn
-let it all hang out no matter how grotesque it is (it might be better to keep it in, it belongs in. :D )
-chauvenism
-bad mouth women, they can't defend themselves, they're not allowed in
-fellowship
-discuss things that women don't usually find interesting: sports primarily, politics too though lots of women take interest in politics, but you will be without a female opinion if you stick to only listening to the views of several men the same as you
-discuss sexual exploits and conquests
-have a networking system where the boys help the boys get sex in the outside world, shhhhhh, keep it from their wives and the other women in their lives

The one is completely acceptable and understandable, the other isn't to me but what happened in the latter is that some of the good points of the former were mixed with some bad points and it became an entirely different thing.

[Shake]

Yes, but the insinuations have been that perhaps HH is more like the latter of your Men's club examples, which some of us HH members have a problem with.

[Sweetie]

Yes, but the insinuations have been that perhaps HH is more like the latter of your Men's club examples, which some of us HH members have a problem with.

Oh, well I never said anything at all about HH to be honest, go back and check. RR yes, CF yes, justified exclusion, unjustified exclusion, that's about it. You read into it.

[Shake]

You're right, but let me clarify: I never said that you, Sweetie, said anything about HH, but others have.

[wei yau]

Here's what I don't get about this discussion. The claim is that the exclusionary nature of HH fosters prejudice against theists in general and Christians, specifically.

I've never been to HH, though now I am intrigued. However, based on the representatives of HH in this thread, I can't see the claim as being terribly valid. Yes, there are some who are vehemently anti-theist. So what? I believe that they would still be anti-theist even in a non-exclusionary forum.

However, some of the representatives of HH here do not appear to be anti-theist. Though I don't any of them very well, I have some knowledge of their nature based on their posting history here and at II. They would seem to be rational and inclusionary enough to counter any prejudice that would pop-up at HH.

Isn't that enough? Is it absolutely necessary for theists to take part in the forum to counter the prejudice? I don't think so. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. If HH posters are claiming here that theist-bashing is not the primary activity at HH, then I choose to believe them. That is not to say that theist-bashing doesn't happen there, but then again, it happens even in non-exclusionary forums.

Finally, I think there's a lot to be said for a safe haven for non-theists. I am fortunate in that I came to my atheism with little strife. However, there many who are not as fortunate. There are many who have been damaged by theism in their lives. If they feel more comfortable to hangout without having to worry about theists encroaching on their lives, so be it.

[godfry n. glad]

Thank you, eldar. I'm in full agreement with your assessment.

To assume that an exclusionary list fosters bigotry and intolerance, merely because it is exclusionary, is bigoted and intolerant.

godfry

[HelenM]

Hmmm... Now I'm curious.

Why do you consider Landover Baptist to be offensive?

godfry

I consider it patronizing and offensive to have a link labelled "I'm a theist" which which sends them to a site that parodies Christian belief in the way that Landover Baptist does.

The entrance page of HH could easily have had no link at all for theists; the other link being labelled "I'm a non-theist and I want to join" is sufficient and it would be less patronizing if there was nothing for theists to click.

I suppose I'd consider it patronizing whatever site HH sent theists to. There's no need for HH to send them anywhere.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

The claim is that the exclusionary nature of HH fosters prejudice against theists in general and Christians, specifically.
Actually the claim -- made by Gurdur in what is now the OP of this thread -- was:
In passing, the HH in no way adds to prejudice in the outside world -- prejudice against theists or others.
I challenged the truth of that claim, but as Brimshack pointed out early on the private nature of HH makes it so that neither Gurdur's claim or my challenge can be proven, so it's something of a moot point.

This is why I have been arguing for a while now that we really would be better off addressing the more general point of whether exclusive forums nurture prejudice between historically opposed groups of people.

[wei yau]

This is why I have been arguing for a while now that we really would be better off addressing the more general point of whether exclusive forums nurture prejudice between historically opposed groups of people.

Hmm, sorry. I tend to lose focus in a thread that's as long and meandering as this one....

In answer to the claim above, I think I can state "Probably, but I'm not sure it makes a difference".

Historically opposed groups of people are going to be prejudiced, no matter what. That seems to be a given. If the only forums available were exclusive, then there'd be cause for concern. But, that's clearly not the case. There are forums like IIDB, where inclusion is the name of the game. And there's a helluva lot more forums where theism isn't even an issue. So, one tiny corner of the Web that happens to be exclusionary (whether it be HH, RR, or whatever) is probably largely irrelevant in the context of the historically opposed groups of people.

Ultimately, personal responsibility, critical thinking and integrity have to come into play (this has been stated already by the likes of lunachick and Lady Shea*). If a poster chooses to hang out solely in exclusionary forums, then it is likely that he will have his prejudices reinforced. But, anyone who choose to do so, probably has no interest in removing his prejudices. If a person wishes to learn and expand his horizons, then there is a wealth of resources out there.

Yes, an exclusionary forum will be more likely to nurture prejudice than an inclusionary forum. But, that's not the end all and be all of the matter.



* Anyone else notice the high population of female posters here with a handle that begins with the letter "L"....livius, lunachick, Lauri D, Lady Shea...it's like Superman's girlfriends "Lois Lane", "Lana Lang", "Lori Lemaris"

[Ronin]

Thank you, eldar. I'm in full agreement with your assessment.

To assume that an exclusionary list fosters bigotry and intolerance, merely because it is exclusionary, is bigoted and intolerant.

godfry

How so?

I was a part of an old exclusionary list at IIDB (for atheists only) called the FPF and noted that it very much fostered bigotry and intolerance against theists and Christians specifically.

Oh...and to assume that my expression that such exclusionary policies are bigoted and intolerant...is itself bigoted and intolerant...is just bigotry and intolerance.

:wink:

The fact is, here at FF, we are having this discussion in the presence and participation of theists, non-theists and unknowns.

I don't often agree with theists on matters of religion, for instance, but I enjoy reading what they have to offer. I mostly steer clear of many atheist posts here, even though I am an atheist, because I find their views can be venomous and even hateful.

Again, I work very hard to change the misconceptions many of my Christian co-workers have of non-theists that are fertilized within their exclusive theist group and I would feel remiss if I did not apply some of the same standard to non-theists.

Do I think that they should abandon their church and their weekly instructions if it is what they need to find comfort?

Not at all.

I just don't personally see the appeal and find exclusivity does breed misconception that is not conducive to real understanding.

Now, I think the only thing left for me to wonder about is why Gurdur in particular argued so passionately for theist moderators at IIDB, when many of the same arguments for "a special place for non-theists" he countered well not so long ago.

PS And I'm with beyelzu regarding Gurdur...both of whom I consider as close to me as brothers.

[Ronin]

Yes, an exclusionary forum will be more likely to nurture prejudice than an inclusionary forum. But, that's not the end all and be all of the matter.

I think lunachick said much the same thing and I would just like to point out again that it is specifically the aspect that nurtures prejudice that we agree upon that I am addressing...and do not consider that issue the "end all and be all of the matter."

That said, I think that it has been helpful to hear Helen's perspective on the matter of the entry link and note that it is precisely because of the open forum found here at FF that I have come to understand why that link is unnecessary and simply rude to people I consider friends.

[wei yau]

I think lunachick said much the same thing and I would just like to point out again that it is specifically the aspect that nurtures prejudice that we agree upon that I am addressing...and do not consider that issue the "end all and be all of the matter."

Then I suppose I got nothing left to add. If we agree that an exclusionary forum can nurture prejudice and that there are remedies to that situation outside of the exclusionary forum, then I guess there's really nothing left to discuss.

No?

That said, I think that it has been helpful to hear Helen's perspective on the matter of the entry link and note that it is precisely because of the open forum found here at FF that I have come to understand why that link is unnecessary and simply rude to people I consider friends.

And this forum is definitely one of the remedies to the prejudice that is nurtured by exclusionary forums.

I've never been one of those crusading types that need people to be more like me. Do I think the world would be a better place if I could mentally control everyone to be like me? Hell, yeah! Trust me, submit to my will. You'll be happier for it. I'd be the coolest benevolent world dictator ever.

But, that's not likely to happen. I'm satisified with crusading for everyone to allow me to be like me. That being said, I have no problem with the nature of exclusionary forums. The "real world" impact of such a place is easily tempered by the "real world".

[viscousmemories]

But, that's not likely to happen. I'm satisified with crusading for everyone to allow me to be like me. That being said, I have no problem with the nature of exclusionary forums. The "real world" impact of such a place is easily tempered by the "real world".
I feel the same way about crusading, but in contrast to you I find exclusionary forums distasteful. Do you think my saying so warrants a six page debate on the subject, or is it okay for me to express that?

[wei yau]

I feel the same way about crusading, but in contrast to you I find exclusionary forums distasteful. Do you think my saying so warrants a six page debate on the subject, or is it okay for me to express that?

I am routinely surprised by what warrants a lengthy discussion on any subject (debate is far too dignified of a term for what has happened in this thread) on the Internet.

I guess it's tough because some (myself included) don't have the same problem with exclusionary forums. It's that whole "agreeing to disagree" thing. I find that it usually happens when both sides are just tired of arguing. Not because of any true rapport.

It's not my goal to convince you that exclusionary forums are harmless. Just as it should not be your goal to convince me that exclusionary forums are distasteful. But, something gets lost in the heat of discussion. All of a sudden, I need to make you concede in order to prove my point.

Eh, it's all bullshit. I believe what I believe, you believe differently. So f'ing what?

Although, I should add that emotions get unavoidably tangled up in this discussion. When a forum is criticized, the it's only natural that its members would defend the forum. After all, what is a forum but the posts of its membership. To criticize the forum is not all that far off from criticizing its members. Whether that is the intent or not, is almost irrelevant. It is the result.

[godfry n. glad]

Thank you, eldar. I'm in full agreement with your assessment.

To assume that an exclusionary list fosters bigotry and intolerance, merely because it is exclusionary, is bigoted and intolerant.

godfry

How so?

I was a part of an old exclusionary list at IIDB (for atheists only) called the FPF and noted that it very much fostered bigotry and intolerance against theists and Christians specifically.

Oh...and to assume that my expression that such exclusionary policies are bigoted and intolerant...is itself bigoted and intolerant...is just bigotry and intolerance.

:wink:

If you assume without having been there recently to see whether there is actual "fostering of bigotry and intolerance" then you are engaging in prejudicial opinions based upon inadequate information. Both you and vm have stated that you have not been to HH in some time. Neither have I. But, I don't presume to know what's being fostered there or not....how do you?

That's fostering bigotry and intolerance. It's basically stating that if anyone has a closed or exclusive board, they are intolerant bigots. That sounds pretty extreme, and intolerant, to me. You are closed board bigots.

By the way...Your response is the beginning of an infinite regression.

:wink:

[Ronin]

If you assume without having been there recently to see whether there is actual "fostering of bigotry and intolerance" then you are engaging in prejudicial opinions based upon inadequate information. Both you and vm have stated that you have not been to HH is some time. Neither have I. I don't presume to know what's being fostered there or not....how do you?

That's fostering bigotry and intolerance. It's basically stating that if anyone has a closed or exclusive board, they are intolerant bigots. That sounds pretty extreme, and intolerant, to me.



Read my posts on this thread, godfry n. glad, and you will find where I have continuously asked what is "new" about HH in order to make a determination.

Since no answers have been given yet, (Gurdur, my friend, I'm looking at you :wink: ) I merely went on to express my own experiences with HH and the old FPF and the detrimental effects of exclusivity in general.

That, in my view, is not being "pretty extreme" or intolerant.

That is patiently waiting for more input regarding this HH that is somehow improved over the old one.

By the way...Your response is the beginning of an infinite regression.

:wink:

Nuh uh...yours is.

:D

[Godless Wonder]

Hmmm... Now I'm curious.

Why do you consider Landover Baptist to be offensive?

godfry

I consider it patronizing and offensive to have a link labelled "I'm a theist" which which sends them to a site that parodies Christian belief in the way that Landover Baptist does.

What does it mean for something like this to offend you?

You get angry?

If you get angry at something like that, then you deserve to be angry as punishment for being so silly.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... Now I'm curious.

Why do you consider Landover Baptist to be offensive?

godfry

I consider it patronizing and offensive to have a link labelled "I'm a theist" which which sends them to a site that parodies Christian belief in the way that Landover Baptist does.

The entrance page of HH could easily have had no link at all for theists; the other link being labelled "I'm a non-theist and I want to join" is sufficient and it would be less patronizing if there was nothing for theists to click.

I suppose I'd consider it patronizing whatever site HH sent theists to. There's no need for HH to send them anywhere.

Helen

I'm still curious as to why you are offended by the Landover Baptist site.

I think it's hilarious.

The thing is, there are enough such "christians" out there for this parody to actually be funny. I rather suspect that anyone offended by it has too thin a skin and is unable to laugh at the foibles of those who would be theological guides. Or themselves. I also suspect that those offended by it are so because it hits a little too close to home.

Most "christians" with whom I have extended conversations about their religious belief wish me to Hell. I'd still say Landover Baptist pales in comparison.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

If you assume without having been there recently to see whether there is actual "fostering of bigotry and intolerance" then you are engaging in prejudicial opinions based upon inadequate information. Both you and vm have stated that you have not been to HH is some time. Neither have I. I don't presume to know what's being fostered there or not....how do you?

That's fostering bigotry and intolerance. It's basically stating that if anyone has a closed or exclusive board, they are intolerant bigots. That sounds pretty extreme, and intolerant, to me.



Read my posts on this thread, godfry n. glad, and you will find where I have continuously asked what is "new" about HH in order to make a determination.



Yet.... You seem to have condemned all exclusive boards as inherently fostering intolerance and bigotry...and you still don't know what's going on a the one we're discussing.

On the face of it, that's bullshit.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted you or vm somewhere along the line?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

It's not my goal to convince you that exclusionary forums are harmless. Just as it should not be your goal to convince me that exclusionary forums are distasteful.
Just out of curiosity, if I believed it was outright wrong for people to be members of exclusive forums (which I don't) why do you think it would be wrong of me to try to convince you of that? What's wrong with trying to persuade people to adopt values you think are important?

But, something gets lost in the heat of discussion. All of a sudden, I need to make you concede in order to prove my point.
I'll say right now (in case it isn't obvious to all) that I am willing to argue about anything with anyone for as long as I believe my argument has merit. It isn't always about being caught up in the emotion, although of course that does come into play at times. It's about prizing reason and critical thinking above histrionics and empty rhetoric.

And that's the whole reason I participate in forums like the FF, IIDB and SkepticalCommunity -- which ostensibly exist to promote reasoning and critical thinking -- and why I am consistently disappointed when people fail to give them the same level of importance I do.

[Ronin]

Yet.... You seem to have condemned all exclusive boards as inherently fostering intolerance and bigotry...and you still don't know what's going on a the one we're discussing.

On the face of it, that's bullshit.

And yet you've again dismissed the part where I have asked for more information regarding this particular site and have kept open the option that there is some (as yet unknown) redeeming value to exclusivity.

It still came as a complete surprise to me that Gurdur is representing the HH after so recent a dialogue from the opposite position at IIDB.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted you or vm somewhere along the line?

godfry

I think you have, since you have perceived somehow that vm and I are speaking from precisely the same position regarding the issue and lumped us together as some sort of enemy combatants.

[wei yau]

Just out of curiosity, if I believed it was outright wrong for people to be members of exclusive forums (which I don't) why do you think it would be wrong of me to try to convince you of that? What's wrong with trying to persuade people to adopt values you think are important?

Good question, I was mulling over something very similar just now. I have strongly held beliefs. They are important to me and integral to my being. Yet, I never feel the need to persuade others to adopt my values. I'll put mine against yours in a public forum. I'll use mine to fight yours if we are proposing legislation. I'll stand by mine, if they are attacked.

But, never do I feel the need to persuade others to come to my side. Do I hope for such an outcome? Sure, it depends on the specific value we are contesting.

This does not mean that my stances are unwavering. I'm always willing to listen, learn and revise. And I would hope that my "opponents" are the same way. And if I've presented my position well-enough, then they may be convinced.

I guess intent is a big thing for me. I have no problem with presenting my arguements clearly for you. Should you be swayed by them, then wonderful for me. If not, then we agree to disagree. But, if my goal is to persuade you, then we'll never reach the latter and be hopelessly fighting it out to achieve the former. I don't see that as being particularly useful.

Sometimes I fear that my attitude renders me impotent. That I have no values or positions worthy of note. That, ultimately, I am purposeless and undefined as a person. But, restricted within the confines of an Internet forum, I see no useful purpose in arguing for the sake of persuading others to your side.


And that's the whole reason I participate in forums like the FF, IIDB and SkepticalCommunity -- which ostensibly exist to promote reasoning and critical thinking -- and why I am consistently disappointed when people fail to give them the same level of importance I do.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, I'd like to think that most of the posters in the forums you've listed appreciate the same things that you do when it comes to rational discourse. Whether or not they are successful in achieving these things is not necessarily indicative of how important it is to them.

For example, I appreciate all of those things and strive to achieve them in my life. However, I'm a piss-poor debater.

[livius drusus]

Great post, eldar. I think that's a thread all of its own. :thumbup:

[Ronin]

Along those same lines, eldar, I vaguely recall an old IIDB thread regarding how contentious threads go on and on and on and in the end you rarely actually see someone say that they have changed their views because of the exchanges.

It doesn't mean that they don't ever change (even a little), it just never seems to be part of human nature to flat out stop in the middle of our own expression (which becomes more defended and myopic the more it is questioned and attacked with insults and rhetoric) and say, "Damn, you're absolutely right."

That said...Damn, you're absolutely right!

:bow:

[godfry n. glad]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted you or vm somewhere along the line?

godfry

I think you have, since you have perceived somehow that vm and I are speaking from precisely the same position regarding the issue and lumped us together as some sort of enemy combatants.

Yes, I have perceived that both of you have condemned exclusive newsgroups as bigoted and intolerant, based upon the experience of one newsgroup at some indeterminate point in the past, which has since changed moderators and, according to the new moderators, format.

Now, if you find a theist basher on HH, does that confirm your prejudices? I mean, from what everybody tells me, IIDB has more blatant theist bashers than the current HH. That would not surprise me....but you're saying that because of the exclusionary policy they are somehow more intolerant and bigoted? How's that work?

Please, correct me here if I've erred.

godfry

[wei yau]

It doesn't mean that they don't ever change (even a little), it just never seems to be part of human nature to flat out stop in the middle of our own expression (which becomes more defended and myopic the more it is questioned and attacked with insults and rhetoric) and say, "Damn, you're absolutely right."


Thank you for the smiley-kowtow.

It's probably partly human nature and partly the nature of the medium. I find that I'm more likely to back down or revise my thinking in "real life" conversations because the human interface makes me behave more humanely. I mean, it's hard to be a complete asshole when you have to look at someone in the face.

But, when it comes to Internet forums, it's all too easy to post and post over and over again without ever wavering. You can walk away, have a smoke and compose your next witty retort. Sure, you can use the time to cool down, but who does that? Also, ironically enough, the Internet forum provides a very public anonymity. No one knows who you are, but everyone can see what you post. So, with this added scrutiny, you're probably less likely to back down.

But, in "real life", if it's just you and some guy, there's no harm in backing down.

It's rare for me to say "Damn, you're absolutely right"....although, I've been known to utter "Fuck me, I'm a moron"

[Ronin]

Yes, I have perceived that both of you have condemned exclusive newsgroups as bigoted and intolerant, based upon the experience of one newsgroup at some indeterminate point in the past, which has since changed moderators and, according to the new moderators, format.

Actually, I have indicated how both exclusive groups...churchgoers and atheist-only forums produce misperceptions and further encourage those misperceptions with their own exclusivity.

This experience has not been limited to just HH.

I await how the moderator or format change that still solely excludes theists will produce some new appeal for me to percieve differently.

Now, if you find a theist basher on HH, does that confirm your prejudices? I mean, from what everybody tells me, IIDB has more blatant theist bashers than the current HH. That would not surprise me....but you're saying that because of the exclusionary policy they are somehow more intolerant and bigoted? How's that work?

The obvious difference I see is that at HH the theists are not allowed to defend their views if they are outright excluded and you are left with an overwhelming expression that merely encourages more misperception regarding theists (at the topics where this is even expressed, that is).

IIDB, on the other hand, at least allows theists to enter the fray to exchange their views openly.

At CF, I am allowed to express my minority view as an atheist and can address any bashing that comes my way. That seems fair to me.

I am disappointed that they have an exclusivist policy regarding parts of their board (including something as harmless as a photo gallery), so that seems unfair to me and allows others to consider me a lesser valued being.

I would hope to treat others as I like to be treated...and so exclusive groups refusing someone based upon something so generic as a worldview just has no appeal for reasons already given.

I do await more information, though.

[viscousmemories]

Yes, I have perceived that both of you have condemned exclusive newsgroups as bigoted and intolerant, based upon the experience of one newsgroup at some indeterminate point in the past, which has since changed moderators and, according to the new moderators, format.
This is completely false. I have never condemned exclusive newsgroups as bigoted and intolerant, and I have in fact repeatedly stated that it was never my intention to give the impression that I think so.

To clarify for everyone:

What I have tried to say is that I think there are problems with the nature of exclusive clubs that contribute to prejudice against the excluded people. That does not mean I think all members of such clubs are intolerant bigots, that such clubs should not exist, that everything about such clubs is sick and wrong, or that only a depraved, twisted, baby-eating monster would ever be a member of such a club. It means that I think such clubs are in poor taste.

Distasteful. Which is all I ever intended to say on the subject before Gurdur came in and made the unsupported (and in fact unsupportable) claim that HH does nothing to promote prejudice. Everything I have said in this thread has been about my own personal feelings about the nature and value of such sites, and responses to accusations made about me.

I am more than well aware that some people disagree with me on this, and I am fine with that. In fact my great friend and co-admin of the FF is a member of HH, as are a number of other friends of mine. If anyone wants to take my distaste as a personal moral judgement against them, so be it. But that is not now and has never been my intent. For the record there are quite a lot of things I do which many people find distasteful. I certainly don't expect that everything I say or do is going to be everyone elses favorite thing.

I'm getting a bit exasperated by the mischaracterizations of my comments.

For what it's worth, I used to be a sometime vocal critic of shit-talking threads in general at HH. Even when I was an active member there, I thought it was in poor taste to talk shit about non-members. That doesn't mean I didn't read the threads or even make comments on them from time to time. But as a general rule I thought they were in poor taste and I generally avoided contributing much to them.

On a couple of occassions I mentioned that I thought they were in poor taste. Most people usually agreed, even if they participated in such threads. Some people took a "who gives a shit?" approach. But the couple of times we had new members join up who were immediately treated to a 2 page thread full of shit-talking about them, I had nothing to fear.

In fact to this day, I invite any member of HH to copy any one of my 3000+ posts in HH and reprint it here. There is not a thing I posted in there that I am worried about a theist (or anyone else, for that matter) reading. It was when I realized that, that I realized I had no personal use for an exclusive forum.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah, those Boy Scouts sure are fucking intolerant. They foster all sorts of bigotry....institutionally. As individuals, Boy Scouts are pretty much like everybody else.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Well, I've certainly heard lots of people accuse the Boy Scouts of fostering bigotry because of their stance on excluding atheists.

[seebs]

I think I will make the general argument: Any gathering which excludes some people while welcoming others, where the group excluded and the group welcomed have any non-zero level of historical conflict, inherently promotes prejudice through confirmation bias.
That at least is more of an argument I can get to grips with.

However, you've ignored a very important point of mine:
in practice, SecWeb, for example, is supposed to be an open playing field that welcomes all,
while HH is a private forum based on communality of interest.

Nonetheless, in practice, I venture to suggest the actual vocal presence of prejudice is far less pronounced, far less, in HH than on SecWeb, in all sorts of things.

Vocal presence of prejudice is not the only way it can be transmitted. Confirmation bias can also be present in very subtle things; for instance, a general tendency to assume certain worldviews.


In short, in the absence of a mechanism for overcoming confirmation bias, I believe such a site necessarily promotes prejudice, because humans are like that.
And I respectfully disagree yet again.
I think the breadth of opinion with which HH is currently blessed :yup: militates against the tunnel-vision you speak of, and also that in practice such tunnel-vision can be far more apparent and real in a supposedly open board like SecWeb which is nonetheless prone to group control, than a private forum like HH which simply does not attract those wanting to promote tunnel vision.

I think you're offering a mechanism for overcoming confirmation bias here.

And I'm not about to argue that, say, IIDB doesn't also have confirmation bias problems. I just think that they will be present at HH enough to contribute to prejudice, even if it's only mild.

The presence of widespread disagreement about some issues may help, but it can also hurt, by providing people with the illusion of a broader set of views than they're really getting.

I really wish someone would actually deal with this point.

I think it may be a bit of a red herring. SecWeb can be truly awful, and that wouldn't make HH not also promote prejudice. :)

Naw, I'ld say that simply is not true in practice. We're not into Me-Tooism.

I think it's probably less true of you than it might be of some sites, but it's still a risk that I think is very hard to eliminate as long as your membership consists largely of social primates.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, I've certainly heard lots of people accuse the Boy Scouts of fostering bigotry because of their stance on excluding atheists.

Well, not only that, but girls and homosexuals, as well.

That well could be one of the reasons for the entrenched male dominance in our society. The Boy Scouts have been promulgating misogynist attitudes amongst young men for nearly a century, now, because of the exclusivity.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Wait! You're being facetious, aren't you? Okay, I know how to handle this now. Hey godfry: :angrynana:

[Ex-zombie]

... social primates

Just what are you insinuating? :monkey:

[godfry n. glad]

Wait! You're being facetious, aren't you? Okay, I know how to handle this now. Hey godfry: :angrynana:

:giggles:

Well, partially. I actually did argue against allowing the Boy Scouts to have preferential access to children in public school classrooms based upon their clearly stated policy (as enunciated by the Executive Director of the Columbia-Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts of America) regarding the exclusion of non-theist boys.

And won, too. At least locally.

But I do think it points up the pitfalls of condemning any organization based upon it's exclusion policies.

godfry

[Shake]

OK, just to beat a dead horse (I'm not dead yet!) some more, I've gotten permission from an HH member to quote a post made there in reference to the whole issue. I believe it says things pretty well and told that person so. The member in question has no desire to join this board.
I just read the thread at FF about HH. My understanding of HH is that we're a clique, a small, semi-private group of likeminded friends, socializing. Most of us know each other from IIDB, or Infidelchat, or other online forums.

This would not be a club if it were open to all, and it wouldn't be an atheist club if it were open to theists.

I like the sanctuary aspect of HH. I don't want to pour my heart out to someone who worships an invisible being who's going to BURN me FOREVER. I seek online atheist communities so that I can be with other atheists. If I want to make friends with religious people online, I can go to their websites and join them.

There are plenty of sites, such as the IIDB, that seek to unite atheists with theists. Why can't there be exclusive sites dedicated to serving people in a smaller minority?

Should I get mad at the Military Atheists site for not letting me in, even though I've never served in the military? Of course not. It's a subset of a larger community. HH is a subset, a niche community, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Anyway, in light of this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37205&postcount=130), I'll keep track of this thread, but will likely not contribute much more to it.

[seebs]

I think that does say it all; the notion that "a theist" is a person who "worships an invisible being who's going to BURN me FOREVER" is indeed a prejudice.

[viscousmemories]

I'm not sure why we should care about the opinion of someone who has no desire to be a member of the FF, and if it's an argument I think it's pretty weak to put it out there then refuse to defend it. Also what about my response to LadyShea made you not want to post on this thread anymore, Shake?

BTW isn't it still a bannable offense to reprint posts that were made there, or does having his/her permission to do so excuse it?

[wei yau]

I think that does say it all; the notion that "a theist" is a person who "worships an invisible being who's going to BURN me FOREVER" is indeed a prejudice.

It should be noted that nowhere in that text does the poster claim that HH is NOT prejudicial. It simply states the reasons the poster has for taking part in HH and how it is not necessarily wrong, in his/her opinion.

[viscousmemories]

It should be noted that nowhere in that text does the poster claim that HH is NOT prejudicial. It simply states the reasons the poster has for taking part in HH and how it is not necessarily wrong, in his/her opinion.
Sure, but the point Brimshack raised early on was that when such erroneous generalizations go unchallenged, misconceptions about theists are perpetuated. Do you suppose anyone responded to that post to point out the error in that statement? ;)

[wei yau]

Sure, but the point Brimshack raised early on was that when such erroneous generalizations go unchallenged, misconceptions about theists are perpetuated. Do you suppose anyone responded to that post to point out the error in that statement? ;)

I don't know, having never spent any time in HH, I couldn't say for sure.

However, I will admit that upon re-reading, I'm not even sure if the interpretation seebs' made is all that accurate.

The poster likes a theist-free environment. In such an environment, he/she would not encounter someone who would condemn them to the fires of hell.

I'm not entirely certain that the poster necessarily believes that all theists are defined by this criteria. A less-than-forgiving interpretation might lead to this conclusion, but a more-charitable interpretation would not.

[godfry n. glad]

I think that does say it all; the notion that "a theist" is a person who "worships an invisible being who's going to BURN me FOREVER" is indeed a prejudice.

It may be a prejudice, but it's one which is regularly upheld and reinforced by many of those calling themselves christians.

You know, I've been in these newsgroups since before IIDB ever existed. I was at Usenet's alt.atheism. Under that name, scores of theists used to troll through with their claims that everybody there was going to toast like a frankfurter on a spit. With alarming frequency. The abuse heaped on atheists was disgusting...they finally started responding in kind, which is one reason I left. Given that experience, I can certainly see why a non-theist newsgroup might want to exclude theists.

And... While vm is ruminating over chatting about not-god, what is it that theists talk about in their newsgroups? The ineffable and transcendent god? They talk about something that, according to the most authoritative theist sources, defies description?

godfry

[beyelzu]

Hmmm... Now I'm curious.

Why do you consider Landover Baptist to be offensive?

godfry

I consider it patronizing and offensive to have a link labelled "I'm a theist" which which sends them to a site that parodies Christian belief in the way that Landover Baptist does.

The entrance page of HH could easily have had no link at all for theists; the other link being labelled "I'm a non-theist and I want to join" is sufficient and it would be less patronizing if there was nothing for theists to click.

I suppose I'd consider it patronizing whatever site HH sent theists to. There's no need for HH to send them anywhere.

Helen

I'm still curious as to why you are offended by the Landover Baptist site.

I think it's hilarious.

The thing is, there are enough such "christians" out there for this parody to actually be funny. I rather suspect that anyone offended by it has too thin a skin and is unable to laugh at the foibles of those who would be theological guides. Or themselves. I also suspect that those offended by it are so because it hits a little too close to home.

Most "christians" with whom I have extended conversations about their religious belief wish me to Hell. I'd still say Landover Baptist pales in comparison.

godfry
I never clicked the Im a theist link. but I have to say that it is something a big fuck you to theists. I dont exactly have a problem with it, but I dont see how you can have that on the front page and claim that there is no anti theist prejudice.

[viscousmemories]

Sure, but the point Brimshack raised early on was that when such erroneous generalizations go unchallenged, misconceptions about theists are perpetuated. Do you suppose anyone responded to that post to point out the error in that statement? ;)
I don't know, having never spent any time in HH, I couldn't say for sure.
I just meant generally speaking do you think someone is more likely to be called on an erroneous generalization about a group of people in an open forum, or a forum from which that group of people is excluded?

I'm not entirely certain that the poster necessarily believes that all theists are defined by this criteria. A less-than-forgiving interpretation might lead to this conclusion, but a more-charitable interpretation would not.
I suppose we'll never know the answer, since he/she is unwilling to explain or defend the statement here. But there's still the point that members of exclusive groups do tend to make unfair generalizations about members of the excluded group of people and those people not being present reduces the liklihood of anyone challenging the comments. And I think that is one minor example of how an exclusive club enforces prejudice.

[seebs]

It may be a prejudice, but it's one which is regularly upheld and reinforced by many of those calling themselves christians.

Ahh. So, for instance, if I can point to a lot of black gang members, it's reasonable for me to refer to blacks in general as gang members?

And... While vm is ruminating over chatting about not-god, what is it that theists talk about in their newsgroups? The ineffable and transcendent god? They talk about something that, according to the most authoritative theist sources, defies description?

Dunno about the Usenet side of things. First off, description isn't all or nothing; I can discuss things I don't fully understand, and develop greater understanding of them.

Secondly... A lot of what I talk about with other theists is things like "how should we treat people" or "what does this mean". I'll have long discussions about whether or not swearing oaths is okay, or why. I'll talk to people about how, if we dislike abortions, we could go about making them less common without trampling the people who disagree with us. I'll spend hours on theological debates, but mostly I'm a pragmatist; I want to talk about how we can better live these lives to reflect what we think God is like.

[godfry n. glad]

It may be a prejudice, but it's one which is regularly upheld and reinforced by many of those calling themselves christians.

Ahh. So, for instance, if I can point to a lot of black gang members, it's reasonable for me to refer to blacks in general as gang members?

Well, I wouldn't. But then, it's not quite the same situation, now is it? My situation is more analygous to yours if all the blacks I meet tell me that all blacks are gang members. That being the case, I have reason to believe it's true. Then comes along a guy like you, a black guy that says, "hey, I'm not a gang member."

Plus, I have not applied my classification to the entire class. I didn't even say "most", I said "many". So, no, your claim about how I would classify blacks is fallacious.

And... While vm is ruminating over chatting about not-god, what is it that theists talk about in their newsgroups? The ineffable and transcendent god? They talk about something that, according to the most authoritative theist sources, defies description?

Dunno about the Usenet side of things. First off, description isn't all or nothing; I can discuss things I don't fully understand, and develop greater understanding of them.

Secondly... A lot of what I talk about with other theists is things like "how should we treat people" or "what does this mean". I'll have long discussions about whether or not swearing oaths is okay, or why. I'll talk to people about how, if we dislike abortions, we could go about making them less common without trampling the people who disagree with us. I'll spend hours on theological debates, but mostly I'm a pragmatist; I want to talk about how we can better live these lives to reflect what we think God is like.

And so, what is so stinkin' wrong about infidels, heathens, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics....non-theists, get together and talk about the same kind of things? Only without the intrusion of all the godstuff. We would talk about how we can live better lives to reflect our potentials as free thinking humans. We could compare notes about living as nonbelievers amidst a see of believers. Help each other with the tribulations of raising a child in an overwhelmingly theist environment. Marriage and how to do it without all the religious trappings. We'd have long discussions over whether swearing was okay, or not. We'd give ourselves lessons in how to tolerate those who aren't like us and don't think the same things or even in the same way. We'd think about truth, beauty and justice and try to be better neighbors. We'd assure ourselves that we were not alone in our doubts. And...yes...a place to come when one is frustrated and angry with the demands of life and pour your heart out to somebody who knows it, has maybe been there themselves, and might...just might...have a piece of practical advice to make it better.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Only without the intrusion of all the godstuff. We would talk about how we can live better lives to reflect our potentials as free thinking humans. We'd have long discussions over whether swearing was okay, or not. We'd give ourselves lessons in how to tolerate those who aren't like us and don't think the same things or even in the same way. We'd think about truth, beauty and justice and try to be better neighbors.
Okay one second here... sorry...

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Ahem.

Sorry, okay carry on. :P

[godfry n. glad]

oh...I forgot the American Way. That, too.

(well...maybe not in South Africa....or NZ...or Australia...YOU GET THE DRIFT!) :missing:

[Ronin]

Only without the intrusion of all the godstuff.

My view is that theists can participate in those topics without any "godstuff"...and, even when some "godstuff" does enter a post it certainly can be either addressed or ignored by lurkers and participants.

Just as other hot-button topics may draw participants with submissions that others might just find silly or offensive due to their own personal history...the submissions themselves can either be addressed or ignored.

I am currently unsure why it is only the "god-stuff" that needs exclusion when that implies that any other ideologically motivated member (no matter how offensive or historically abusive) can be accepted and have their views addressed or ignored.

I take it fascists and anarchists would be allowed membership at HH if they meet the non-theist standard, for instance?

They would be allowed to openly promote their views and have them addressed or ignored?

It should be obvious by now that the FF has no requirement (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49) against "god-stuff" and yet I have felt more consideration and less proselytization from theists here than either at IIDB or CF where it seems as though the challenge to compete and receipt of vocal resistance serves to antagonize the respective camps to perform against one another.

A theory worth exploring.

[godfry n. glad]

Awww...what the hell....we'd probably even talk about peace, too. Maybe.

Dog knows what all us heathens do in the dark.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?

[godfry n. glad]

I take it fascists and anarchists would be allowed membership at HH if they meet the non-theist standard, for instance?

Y'know....this struck me as particularly egregious. HH is not a freethought site. That would be a more interesting question for this site. I assume that HH can exclude who they want.

The MODERATOR has already indicated that he is a humanist as well as an atheist, I suspect fascist spouting their propaganda would be met with considerable hosility.

As for anarchists...What's the deal with anarchists, anyway? Are they particularly dangerous, or is this label just gratuitously incendiary?

Other than that, I'm not a member, so I have no say one way or another about whether potential members meeting those categories would be allowed or not.

godfry

(I personally think I'd be more interested in talking to an anarchist than a theist....they're rare, and at least I'd hear something new.)

[godfry n. glad]

It should be obvious by now that the FF has no requirement (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49) against "god-stuff" and yet I have felt more consideration and less proselytization from theists here than either at IIDB or CF where it seems as though the challenge to compete and reciept of vocal resistance serves to antagonize the respective camps to perform against one another.

A theory worth exploring.

Yeah... That's one of the reasons I like the place. So far, in terms of speaking one's peace, I've felt relatively unconstrained in any manner here. I've enjoyed my open exchanges with the theists and learned a couple new things. Gotten some flak, too...as it should be.

I benefit from all the good company, agreeable or not.

I think it's a theory worth exploring, as well. How would one begin exploring it, though?

[Ronin]

Y'know....this struck me as particularly egregious. HH is not a freethought site. That would be a more interesting question for this site. I assume that HH can exclude who they want.

It certainly was not meant to be egregious, godfry.

I think I once had an encounter with a fascist at IIDB PD a while ago and came away unscathed if not a little better informed.

The MODERATOR has already indicated that he is a humanist as well as an atheist, I suspect fascist spouting their propaganda would be met with considerable hosility.

Nah...I'm a humanist and an atheist as well (very similar in view with said MODERATOR)...and Gurdur would simply eat their lunch with his own inimitable style.

:popcorn:

My point is that that members may be chafed by the presence of a fascist, yet would probably address or ignore whatever the fascist posts.

As for anarchists...What's the deal with anarchists, anyway? Are they particularly dangerous, or is this label just gratuitously incendiary?

Both "fascist" and "anarchist" were used as examples only of ideologies that may offend others (for whatever reason) and yet seem to be acceptable as members if they meet the "non-theist" standard.

Their posts would, no doubt, be addressed or ignored and I was musing as to what it is about "theism" that cannot attain this quality in like manner for the exclusivist.

Other than that, I'm not a member, so I have no say one way or another about whether potential members meeting those categories would be allowed or not.

godfry

Again, I am musing for the benefit of any member who may wish to address these issues.

(I personally think I'd be more interested in talking to an anarchist than a theist....they're rare, and at least I'd hear something new.)

I learned what Boudin Noir is this very day (at 40!) and if I recall correctly...nope, I'm not sure if this knowledge came from a theist, an anarchist or some other person.

[Ronin]

Yeah... That's one of the reasons I like the place. So far, in terms of speaking one's peace, I've felt relatively unconstrained in any manner here. I've enjoyed my open exchanges with the theists and learned a couple new things. Gotten some flak, too...as it should be.

I benefit from all the good company, agreeable or not.

:yeahthat:

I think it's a theory worth exploring, as well. How would one begin exploring it, though?

Well, since it just now occurred to us...my vote is to start with that question and then meet back here tomorrow to see if anyone has any suggestions.

I'm tired and need :bed:

Take care, godfry, you've given me much to think about.

[Gurdur]

I take it fascists and anarchists would be allowed membership at HH if they meet the non-theist standard, for instance?
That is a fucking important question.
I'm gald you raise it, because, damn, it really does illustrate the sheer moral emptiness of some views.
Don't get me wrong; I don't have too much of a downer on anarchists but I really have zero time for fascists. It makes me intolerant on that score, but that doesn't worry me.
They would be allowed to openly promote their views and have them addressed or ignored?
*gnash teeth, gnash teeth, frustration*
I cannot comment on internal HH stuff. But it seems fair to say that much is being debated all over the net.
</ end of cryptic communique >

On a personal level, I very much admire your basic niceness -- but for myself, I just reject things like fascism without feeling guilty.

[Gurdur]

BTW, Ronin, others:
the fact that I'm in HH does not mean I see HH as an alternative to interacting with theists or in the real world in any other way. It's only a supplement, not a replacement.

[Gurdur]

Hmmm... Now I'm curious.
Why do you consider Landover Baptist to be offensive?
godfry

I consider it patronizing and offensive to have a link labelled "I'm a theist" which which sends them to a site that parodies Christian belief in the way that Landover Baptist does.
Let's be stunningly accurate. :P
The Landover Baptist link does not parody "Christian" belief; it parodies a particular set of fundamentalist beliefs (odd-ball USA extremist Protestant, specifically extremist Baptist), and Christian fundamentalism does not equal Christianity.

And FYI, I have seen far harder parodies of Christian fundamentalism (specifically USA odd-Prot extremism) .... on a Christian site. The old, now-defunct, Ship Of Fools site, a Christian site meant to interact with the outside word, used to host a whole horde of parodies of extremism --- drawn up by the Christian webmaster of that site.

Should you genuinely feel that the Landover link is offensive to Christians overall, then I must ask you:
are you a Christian ?
I don't believe so.

Hve you actually had much experience with Christians, especially outside the USA ?
Your posts don't lead me to believe so.

And if all that is so, just why do you conclude it's offensive to Christians ?

And on the whole:
I'ld be interested in hearing from those whom I know to be Christians on this score. It's my view the Landover link is not offensive ('cept to fundies), but if any other Christians feel differently, I would be very eager to hear from them.
Please PM me, since I check in on here very seldomly.

[Gurdur]

Vocal presence of prejudice is not the only way it can be transmitted. Confirmation bias can also be present in very subtle things; for instance, a general tendency to assume certain worldviews.
Gosh. So no-one should associate with anyone agreeing with them ?
Just how far do you want to take this ?

And given the POV range in HH, nope, I really think you're wrong in thinking that prejudice is in any way transmitted there.

Now: let's get down to tacheles.
You think churches should be allowed to exist ?
Then why not HH ?

You think Boy Scouts should exist ?
then why not HH ?

Seems to me you're making fuss over HH that you are not applying consistantly to your whole worldview.
I think it may be a bit of a red herring. SecWeb can be truly awful, and that wouldn't make HH not also promote prejudice.
Nonsense.
It is claimed that HH may foster prejudice.
I reply, in my experience, that HH actually militates against (atheist) prejudice far more than an open board such as SecWeb does.
You ignore that, call it a red herring, and dive back into the theory that HH may foster prejudice.
I say, WTF ?
Your theory does not match experience, IOW. Time for you to change your theory.

And since theory can be twisted in all sorts of ways --- see my reductio at the beginning of my post -- then I am not too interested in debating "theory" divorced from actual experience.
It's all a bit too much like playing games without any point.

Only reason I'm here is to discuss HH in context. I won't bother with much else.

[HelenM]

[QUOTE=godfry n. glad]
Hmmm... Now I'm curious.
Why do you consider Landover Baptist to be offensive?
godfry

I consider it patronizing and offensive to have a link labelled "I'm a theist" which which sends them to a site that parodies Christian belief in the way that Landover Baptist does.

Actually, I wrote that, not Beyelzu. Beyelzu added this:

I never clicked the Im a theist link. but I have to say that it is something a big fuck you to theists. I dont exactly have a problem with it, but I dont see how you can have that on the front page and claim that there is no anti theist prejudice.

Let's be stunningly accurate. :P
The Landover Baptist link does not parody "Christian" belief; it parodies a particular set of fundamentalist beliefs (odd-ball USA extremist Protestant, specifically extremist Baptist), and Christian fundamentalism does not equal Christianity.

And FYI, I have seen far harder parodies of Christian fundamentalism (specifically USA odd-Prot extremism) .... on a Christian site. The old, now-defunct, Ship Of Fools site, a Christian site meant to interact with the outside word, used to host a whole horde of parodies of extremism --- drawn up by the Christian webmaster of that site.

Should you genuinely feel that the Landover link is offensive to Christians overall, then I must ask you:
are you a Christian ?
I don't believe so.

Hve you actually had much experience with Christians, especially outside the USA ?
Your posts don't lead me to believe so.

And if all that is so, just why do you conclude it's offensive to Christians ?

And on the whole:
I'ld be interested in hearing from those whom I know to be Christians on this score. It's my view the Landover link is not offensive ('cept to fundies), but if any other Christians feel differently, I would be very eager to hear from them.
Please PM me, since I check in on here very seldomly.

You haven't explained why the link is there. Your argument seems to be "Ah, but it's only offensive to 'fundies'". So what if it's only offensive to fundies? It's still offensive to some Christians, in that case.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to have a link for theists on the front page of HH which takes them to a page saying "Here are some links to [predominantly] non-theist forums where theists may participate:

IIDB, etc."

That would actually be relevant - since those who get to the entrance page are probably looking for a non-theist forum to participate in - and it wouldn't be offensive to any theist. I think it would make HH look better because sending theists to a page like that would be more rational than sending them to an arbitrary Christian parody page.

I'll PM this in view of your comment that you don't check here frequently.

Helen

[MollyMac]

It is claimed that HH may foster prejudice.
I reply, in my experience, that HH actually militates against (atheist) prejudice far more than an open board such as SecWeb does.


I would just like to say that this is my experience also. I was barely aware of my anti-theist prejudice prior to discovering SecWeb a few years ago but within a matter of months I was champing at the bit to lay into any theist who crossed my path. Lurking at the smaller, friendlier and mainly calmer HH has changed the way I think for the better. Between them, iidb and HH satisfy my requirements for an internet discussion forum, which is why I’ve never much bothered with here.

[Godless Dave]

I'm an HH member, and here are my two cents.

I assume I don't need to explain why some people would want to post on a members-only forum that is not accessible to the general internet public. If not I'd be happy to give my reasons.

As to restricting membership to non-theists: so what? If I set up a forum for Minnesota Vikings fans to discuss issues related to football, would fans of other teams be offended that they were not allowed to read or participate? Would it bother Green Bay Packers fans if I mocked them on the front page? I doubt it.

If I set up a discussion forum for women who have had abortions, would I be wrong to refuse membership to people who oppose legal abortion?

I don't have anything against believers as a group. I respect many; I'm friends with a few. But on a fundamental level I can't relate. I don't understand how they think. And that's fine; my life can only be enriched by interacting with people who think differently than I about some things. But sometimes I want to spend time conversing with people whom I have a better chance of relating to. So what? It's just an internet forum.

[Gurdur]

You haven't explained why the link is there.
As far as I know, humour. It predates my time as admin.
So what if it's only offensive to fundies? It's still offensive to some Christians, in that case.
Helen, I personally could not care less about offending fundamentalists of any stripe - Christian, atheist, Communist, capitalist, or philatelist.

In fact, I personally see a value in offending fundies, if it's done the right way for the right reasons.
Fred Phelps is a Christian, according to him; I personally would have nothing, nothing whatsoever, against offending Fred Phelps.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to have a link for theists on the front page of HH which takes them to a page saying "Here are some links to [predominantly] non-theist forums where theists may participate:
That is actually a helpful suggestion of how to be helpful.
I will suggest the idea back to my fellow admins and to the HH community in general.
That would actually be relevant
Let's just stick to the "helpful" aspect, shall we ? IMHO, relevancy is not a big thing in HH
it would make HH look better
Let's just stick with the "helpful" aspect, and I will report the idea back.
I know I personally am not too concerned with "looking better" at all --- IMHO, being better is much more important.
more rational
Please don't get me started on rationality. Please. It reminds me too much of the Objectivists on SecWeb, another group I have no problem at all in offending.

[Gurdur]

.... Lurking at the smaller, friendlier and mainly calmer HH has changed the way I think for the better. Between them, iidb and HH satisfy my requirements for an internet discussion forum, which is why I’ve never much bothered with here.
And if there's any doubt, there's always Sue Lord to convince us of the need for moderation.

[Gurdur]

On another note of seriousness, and not mentioning anyone by name, but I'm stunned by some of the arguments being used, ranging from the smartass pseudo-logical down to the ludicrously relativist.
I will be straight with people if they are straight with me, but one thing I will not put up with is dishonest argumentation, whether self-serving pseudo-logical or self-serving relativist.

Not being yet completely brain-dead, I am quite capable of matching argument to person, and it offends me if people think they can sell me a bit of junk they've served up just to win "points" in a cyber-argument.
If your argument does not even match your own actions and POV, don't ask me to buy it.

Anyone have burning questions or really, really want answers from me, contact me per PM.
I'm not here to go into long debates, my standpoint is atheists have every right to exist and to associate as such, and if people want to get consistant, then go to the political parties and the churches and tell them not to associate.
My goodness.

[HelenM]

Wouldn't it make much more sense to have a link for theists on the front page of HH which takes them to a page saying "Here are some links to [predominantly] non-theist forums where theists may participate:
That is actually a helpful suggestion of how to be helpful.
I will suggest the idea back to my fellow admins and to the HH community in general.


Thanks for being willing to pass my idea along, Gurdur.

Helen

[MollyMac]

I think that does say it all; the notion that "a theist" is a person who "worships an invisible being who's going to BURN me FOREVER" is indeed a prejudice.
Further to my earlier post, I would never have thought of theists in this way had I not met some who are just like that at iidb. In fact, I didn't know people like that still existed until I met them on-line at open boards. So I don't think that particular quote adds any weight to the suggestion that exclusive forums encourage prejudice, if that's what you're implying, seebs. If I had read that quote before I'd met my first fundie, I would have thought the writer was talking out of their arse. As things stand, I see the quote for what it is: an explanation of why one individual likes to be in a theist-free zone sometimes - not as a sweeping characterisation of all theists.

As I said before, it was my participation at open boards like iidb that developed my prejudices and being at HH has helped to dissipate them. It seems to me that whether a forum encourages any sort of prejudice dependes on factors other than whether it is exclusive or not. I have recently abandoned an exclusive egroup for strong atheists because I was disgusted at the infantile and obsessive rantings of some of its members. Whether this group encouraged prejudice against theists more than it drove some of us in the opposite direction is questionable but the tone and content of the posts and the general feel of the group was much more reminiscent of iidb than of HH.

[Shake]

I'm not sure why we should care about the opinion of someone who has no desire to be a member of the FF, and if it's an argument I think it's pretty weak to put it out there then refuse to defend it. Also what about my response to LadyShea made you not want to post on this thread anymore, Shake?
Because it's not about being a member of this or that board, you're talking about groups and whether exclusionary policies are discriminatory or not. If I had posted the opinion of someone off the street who was just commenting on group dynamics, it would have been equally valid.

Well, I felt the discussion of this thread had shifted a bit and the argument I put out echoed much of what I'd been trying to say earlier (believe it or not). I thought your response to LadyShea was a signal of that shift and -- as I said -- it seemed I was beating a dead horse. But I still felt the argument had some validity.

BTW isn't it still a bannable offense to reprint posts that were made there, or does having his/her permission to do so excuse it?
As you've been quite fond of pointing out, you excused yourself sometime ago from HH and are therefore no longer familiar with what goes on there. Honestly, I don't know. I did have the poster's permission, and the HH admins are present on that thread. So, they're fully aware of the situation. If they should choose to ban me for not consulting them first, so be it. If I violated the rules, I should be prepared for the consequences.

As for my participation in this thread or the one that spawned it, I came into the debate in part to defend HH against what I saw as an unfair attack. You seem to have shifted away from going after HH in general, and I saw this as an improvement in the overall tone of the thread. Your question of discrimination became more general, and obviously still a valid one. I just don't feel I have much more to contribute at this point, and I'm getting tired of trying to keep up with these threads. I get a lot of enjoyment out of the FF in general, and these discussions are draining. I'd prefer to just stay with lighter discussions.

One final point, and then I'm really done with this thread: many of us see HH as a haven from the sea of Xianity around us. It's not like we're the majority group bitching about some annoying minority group, which is more what a whites-only group here would be (I know you dropped that example a while ago, but I feel it makes my point a little more clearly).

Here's an example of the haven concept from my own personal experience: I went to a primarily engineering school (http://www.rpi.edu) where the M:F ratio was about 5:1. Many women joined sororities just to have a haven away from the men. Should I have seen them as practicing discrimination? Certainly not. If the roles were reversed, I might have sought a similar haven. As it was, part of the reason I felt no inclination to join a frat is that I was around guys enough, I didn't need to be exclusively in their company. You've got to take into account where the majority lies if you're going to talk meaningfully about discrimination.

OK, now I'm off to enjoy the rest of this great board!

[viscousmemories]

As for my participation in this thread or the one that spawned it, I came into the debate in part to defend HH against what I saw as an unfair attack. You seem to have shifted away from going after HH in general, and I saw this as an improvement in the overall tone of the thread.
I suggest you re-read this thread more carefully if you think I have ever "attacked" HH. Gurdur claims to have joined this forum to defend HH against attacks as well, and yet he has not been able to demonstrate any such "attacks" that occurred before his joining. In other words he joined this forum to fight a strawman of his own making.

It is because I have never intended to attack HH that I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to keep this thread on the general subject of whether exclusive forums perpetuate prejudice. I have not "shifted away" from "going after" HH. If you or anyone else would like to talk about the general issue then I am interested.

However if this thread is to remain a place for people to make unsupported assertions about my motivations or intent, or to make unsubstantiated claims about the nature and goings on of a forum many of us cannot confirm or deny, then I am not interested.

I apologize for the fact that some of my comments have come across as a condemnation of HH overall, I assure you that has not been my intention. The only reason I engaged Gurdur on this to begin with was to challenge his assertion that HH in no way contributes to prejudice against theists or others.

[Clutch Munny]

It should be noted that nowhere in that text does the poster claim that HH is NOT prejudicial. It simply states the reasons the poster has for taking part in HH and how it is not necessarily wrong, in his/her opinion.
Sure, but the point Brimshack raised early on was that when such erroneous generalizations go unchallenged, misconceptions about theists are perpetuated. Do you suppose anyone responded to that post to point out the error in that statement? ;)

What error?

The relevant part of the claim, again, was this:

I like the sanctuary aspect of HH. I don't want to pour my heart out to someone who worships an invisible being who's going to BURN me FOREVER. I seek online atheist communities so that I can be with other atheists. If I want to make friends with religious people online, I can go to their websites and join them.

This poster does not claim that barring theists is necessary to create an environment in which nobody "who worships an invisible being who's going to BURN [him or her] FOREVER". S/he implies only that it's sufficient. And that seems to be true.

One could explicitly state that not all theists incline to such behaviour, and then go on to say exactly what this poster has said, without the slightest contradiction.

[viscousmemories]

This poster does not claim that barring theists is necessary to create an environment in which nobody "who worships an invisible being who's going to BURN [him or her] FOREVER". S/he implies only that it's sufficient. And that seems to be true.

One could explicitly state that not all theists incline to such behaviour, and then go on to say exactly what this poster has said, without the slightest contradiction.
Of course you're right. Have you found impeccable logic to be a curse or a blessing? :)

Still, while that specific statement fails as an example is it not reasonable to assume that overall, erroneous generalizations about an excluded group of people are less likely to be challenged by members of the exclusive group?

[Clutch Munny]

Still, while that specific statement fails as an example is it not reasonable to assume that overall, erroneous generalizations about an excluded group of people are less likely to be challenged by members of the exclusive group?

I don't know. My thinking, on this as on most issues, is that there are cases and there are cases. The details of each case matter.

My experience with atheists in groups is that some cheerlead in mindless theism-bashing, while others ignore this behaviour, and some point out the errors. Over time, individuals may fall into all three categories. Is my experience misleading? Am I confabulating it? Even if correct, would it defuse the worry that some degree of systematic blindspot remains in the community, acting to entrench prejudice via confirmation biases? I would never rule out these possibilities. But the upshot is: making the case that what you call a reasonable inference applies to HH would require dealing with actual trends in actual discussions relative to overall numbers of relevant discussions at HH, and in comparison with the character of discussions at fora not having HH's membership restrictions.

Clearly that cannot be done here, given HH regulations; in practice it would be hard to do under any circumstances. That, I think, was the fundamental point to which Gurdur kept appealing: given some initial burden-shifting observations (e.g., the known non-cheerleading character of current HH leadership, the fundamentally social character of the board...), there is a positive obligation to support specific worries about HH by means of specific evidence drawn from HH, as well as "base rate" data about identifiable groupthink on other boards.

But in my entirely anecdotal experience, I've observed that atheists tend to be a dialectically fractious bunch, on one hand, while the percentage of people in the wider online community that's prepared to argue, "I think there's an error in what you say here" is relatively low in any case.

Certainly most of my serious disputes with other posters on any board have been with other non-believers -- frequently on topic-neutral matters of logic, dialogue, and reasoning (shoddy, in their case ;)). Neither I nor they showed much unwillingness to clash on account of our deep atheistic bond.

[seebs]

It may be a prejudice, but it's one which is regularly upheld and reinforced by many of those calling themselves christians.

Ahh. So, for instance, if I can point to a lot of black gang members, it's reasonable for me to refer to blacks in general as gang members?

Well, I wouldn't. But then, it's not quite the same situation, now is it? My situation is more analygous to yours if all the blacks I meet tell me that all blacks are gang members. That being the case, I have reason to believe it's true. Then comes along a guy like you, a black guy that says, "hey, I'm not a gang member."

Plus, I have not applied my classification to the entire class. I didn't even say "most", I said "many". So, no, your claim about how I would classify blacks is fallacious.

I wasn't claiming, I was asking for clarification.

Hmm.

I think the problem is that I don't know how we'd evaluate whether the sample is typical or not.

But I know that I've seen a black guy accuse another black guy of being a "white man's nigga", so I can presume that at least some black people really do have that attitude... But I think it's pretty clear from the response he got that it's not universal.

Likewise, the response I see from other Christians when people come in saying all true Christians do X suggests to me that, in fact, there's some disagreement among Christians, so I wouldn't use that as a shorthand description of "theists".


And so, what is so stinkin' wrong about infidels, heathens, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics....non-theists, get together and talk about the same kind of things?

Not necessarily anything... But it will tend to lead to prejudice against theists. It is for much the same reason that many of the people who hang out in "Liberal Theology" on ChristianForums make a point of hanging out in an open forum where everyone can participate.

Only without the intrusion of all the godstuff. We would talk about how we can live better lives to reflect our potentials as free thinking humans.

Sure. But why can't a theist participate in the discussion of potential of free thinking humans?

We'd think about truth, beauty and justice and try to be better neighbors. We'd assure ourselves that we were not alone in our doubts. And...yes...a place to come when one is frustrated and angry with the demands of life and pour your heart out to somebody who knows it, has maybe been there themselves, and might...just might...have a piece of practical advice to make it better.

Yup.

And all of these could be done a little better if you didn't have a discriminatory policy.

The problem is that the concern about someone who "thinks we will all burn forever" can easily go unchallenged; there's a sort of assumption that theists can't contribute to any of these discussions, that theists are not themselves surrounded by people whose religious beliefs are different from their own... And those assumptions are wrong. Furthermore, a conversation about how to better learn to tolerate theists, and perhaps find ways not to set off their hot buttons too much, could perhaps benefit from the presence of actual theists to give feedback.

In short, I think the notion that this environment is a "safer" one is itself a form of institutionalized prejudice.

FWIW, I've been arguing exactly the same thing about the Christians-Only forums on CF for something over two years. :)

[viscousmemories]

I don't know. My thinking, on this as on most issues, is that there are cases and there are cases. The details of each case matter.
This makes sense to me, but it seems equivalent to saying that only people with access to the details -- ie. the members of the exclusive group -- can make any reasonable judgements about it. So if confirmation bias in the assessment is an issue and this is true, it seems to be an insurmountable problem.

My experience with atheists in groups is that some cheerlead in mindless theism-bashing, while others ignore this behaviour, and some point out the errors. Over time, individuals may fall into all three categories. Is my experience misleading? Am I confabulating it? Even if correct, would it defuse the worry that some degree of systematic blindspot remains in the community, acting to entrench prejudice via confirmation biases? I would never rule out these possibilities.
This has been my experience too, but with more of the bashing and ignoring than the challenging. Of course I may also be confabulating and/or seeing the hits and blind to the misses. In any case I definitely agree that the possibility can't be ruled out, which is all I've really intended to argue here in response to Gurdur's claim that in his opinion increased prejudice against theists or others absolutely does not occur as a result of any goings on at HH.

But the upshot is: making the case that what you call a reasonable inference applies to HH would require dealing with actual trends in actual discussions relative to overall numbers of relevant discussions at HH, and in comparison with the character of discussions at fora not having HH's membership restrictions.
I absolutely agree, and I think this was Brimshack's primary argument all along. Gurdur made the unsupportable claim that HH does nothing to further prejudice, I made the unsupportable claim that my experience proves him wrong, and Brimshack argued that neither of us had provided any good support for our claims.


Clearly that cannot be done here, given HH regulations; in practice it would be hard to do under any circumstances. That, I think, was the fundamental point to which Gurdur kept appealing: given some initial burden-shifting observations (e.g., the known non-cheerleading character of current HH leadership, the fundamentally social character of the board...), there is a positive obligation to support specific worries about HH by means of specific evidence drawn from HH, as well as "base rate" data about identifiable groupthink on other boards.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying Gurdur kept appealing to the fact that HH's privacy regulations prohibit any meaningful analysis of whether HH promotes prejudice? Because it seemed to me that it was Brimshack making that argument all along, in response to Gurdur's attempt to put the claim forward and make it stand on his word alone.

But in my entirely anecdotal experience, I've observed that atheists tend to be a dialectically fractious bunch, on one hand, while the percentage of people in the wider online community that's prepared to argue, "I think there's an error in what you say here" is relatively low in any case.
True. But I'd say I've noticed these things about people in general whether atheist or not.

Certainly most of my serious disputes with other posters on any board have been with other non-believers -- frequently on topic-neutral matters of logic, dialogue, and reasoning (shoddy, in their case ;) ). Neither I nor they showed much unwillingness to clash on account of our deep atheistic bond.
That's true for me too, really. But then most of the heated discussions I've been involved in have been almost exclusively with atheists, so it stands to reason. Nevertheless my purely anecdotal experience as a member of an exclusive, atheists-only forum was that efforts to give various theists or theistic arguments the benefit of the doubt were met with disinterest at best, open disdain at worst. Which isn't at all to say that all the atheists who were members were like that at all, it was just much more prevalent than it has been at forums that didn't exclude theists.

[Ronin]

*gnash teeth, gnash teeth, frustration*
I cannot comment on internal HH stuff. But it seems fair to say that much is being debated all over the net.
</ end of cryptic communique >

That's fair and understandable.

On a personal level, I very much admire your basic niceness -- but for myself, I just reject things like fascism without feeling guilty.

Oh, to be sure, I reject things like fascism without feeling guilty...just as I also reject supernaturalism, religion and even the Nicene Creed or whatever other qualifier that being a "Christian" may be defined as.

Of course, I am not equating the two together as ideologically similar...only indicating that I do (in fact) reject them...for different reasons.

For the purposes of this thread, however, I am interested in this issue:

When it comes to a group disallowing someone membership into their group, I just don't see why one particular group (theists) is held up at the gate (frontpage), while the other rejected group (fascists) would be allowed in to discuss their views on any topic that may come up.

This applies to HH, however, I am not looking for the internal HH view...I am looking for the Gurdur view on this matter.

[Ronin]

BTW, Ronin, others:
the fact that I'm in HH does not mean I see HH as an alternative to interacting with theists or in the real world in any other way. It's only a supplement, not a replacement.

Which I completely understand, my friend.

That said, however, this is the issue I am still curious about:

If Toto or Vork had said that they did not want theist moderators at IIDB because they wanted to maintain that exclusive membership (for many of the same reasons HH members have given here) and that did not mean that such exclusivity was an alternative to interacting with theists or in the real world in any other way...just that they considered such an exclusive rule as a supplement, not a replacement...

What would your response to them have been?

[Clutch Munny]

Clearly that cannot be done here, given HH regulations; in practice it would be hard to do under any circumstances. That, I think, was the fundamental point to which Gurdur kept appealing: given some initial burden-shifting observations (e.g., the known non-cheerleading character of current HH leadership, the fundamentally social character of the board...), there is a positive obligation to support specific worries about HH by means of specific evidence drawn from HH, as well as "base rate" data about identifiable groupthink on other boards.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying Gurdur kept appealing to the fact that HH's privacy regulations prohibit any meaningful analysis of whether HH promotes prejudice? Because it seemed to me that it was Brimshack making that argument all along, in response to Gurdur's attempt to put the claim forward and make it stand on his word alone.

Sorry. 'That' in sentence 2 refers to what comes after the semi-colon in sentence 1. In short, specific worries about HH have a hard row to hoe, in terms of specific justifications.

As for Gurdur's own claim, I think his perspective is that he's there at HH, on the ground, regularly; his assertion that the place isn't consolidating prejudice is probably meant to have the epistemic authority that any eyewitness claim has. Which, given what we know about eyewitness testimony, might not be much! But it's supposed to be burden-shifting thing (as I understand it; perhaps I'm totally imagining this), and the rest is a matter of pointing out how heavy that burden is to the critic.

[Petra]

When it comes to a group disallowing someone membership into their group, I just don't see why one particular group (theists) is held up at the gate (frontpage), while the other rejected group (fascists) would be allowed in to discuss their views on any topic that may come up.


While I still totally defend the right of any small, social, private internet forum to allow or disallow membership based on whatever criteria the admins/owners of the board wish - I do think this is a very good question.

I remember it being not okay for people like seebs or Helen to join up no matter how reasonable they were or how caring or how secular they were in their online interactions with non-Christians, yet a total racist fascist made it past the door, and though we hit them over the head in assorted threads, we tolerated him and defended his right to be there as he'd met the non-theist criteria. :chin:

[Petra]

What would your response to them have been?

I think my response would be to ask them to read the mission statements of each of the fora and work from there.

[viscousmemories]

Sorry. 'That' in sentence 2 refers to what comes after the semi-colon in sentence 1. In short, specific worries about HH have a hard row to hoe, in terms of specific justifications.
Ah, of course. Thanks for the clarification.

As for Gurdur's own claim, I think his perspective is that he's there at HH, on the ground, regularly; his assertion that the place isn't consolidating prejudice is probably meant to have the epistemic authority that any eyewitness claim has. Which, given what we know about eyewitness testimony, might not be much! But it's supposed to be burden-shifting thing (as I understand it; perhaps I'm totally imagining this), and the rest is a matter of pointing out how heavy that burden is to the critic.
Okay, fair enough. I'm still not clear what criticism of HH he was responding to at the outset, but I'm just about burnt out on this topic anyway. Thanks for your response.

[Gurdur]

Which I completely understand, my friend.
Well, that is indeed a good thing.
If Toto or Vork had said that they did not want theist moderators at IIDB because they wanted to maintain that exclusive membership (for many of the same reasons HH members have given here) and that did not mean that such exclusivity was an alternative to interacting with theists or in the real world in any other way...just that they considered such an exclusive rule as a supplement, not a replacement...what would your response to them have been?
I think this was covered quite some time back, but here goes:

1) SecWeb is an open, public board.

2) While the exact nature of SecWeb's mission remains fascinatingly unclear, in practice it does have a mission --- whether as IIRC AFAIK now officially "finding common ground", or as in practice the promotion of non-theism.
Or simply giving everyone a board on which they can post their own favourite prejudices, in the name of free speech.

3) Membership on SecWeb is not determined by theism or non-theism.

4) AFAIK, the SecWeb mission statements were altered to reflect the SecWeb BOD wanting to allow theist mods in.

5) The BOD and SecWeb admin made their case in public, in the SecWeb Conference Room forum, and allowed discussion on the issue, several times,. Thier position was made clear.

6) In modding practice, there is no difference between a good theist mod and a good atheist mod.
Likewise, there is bloody little difference between a bad theist mod and a bad atheist mod.

7) Thus, BOD wanted theist mods, SecWeb admin agreed, implemented it.

_______________

8) HH is a private social club for non-theists.

9) From the first day onwards the entry criteria were made clear.

10) the question of theist/atheist mods does not apply.
________________

11) If I had been SecWeb admin, and after all that Vork and/or Toto whined that they wanted their private little club of mods free from theists, I would have pointed out the purpose of SecWeb is not to pimp itself to an unofficial clique.
I would have then also pointed out that Toto's and Vork's attitudes meant they were prejudicial in effect of carrying out SecWeb stated policy, and therefore they were bad mods --- acting against SecWeb policy for their own petty aims.

I would have then told Toto and Vork to fuck off.

I hope that answers your question.

P.S. PM me if you really want answers, because I do not usually check back here -- this is an exception.

[Gurdur]

When it comes to a group disallowing someone membership into their group, I just don't see why one particular group (theists) is held up at the gate (frontpage), while the other rejected group (fascists) would be allowed in to discuss their views on any topic that may come up.

This applies to HH, however, I am not looking for the internal HH view...I am looking for the Gurdur view on this matter.
Your question is better addressed to viscousmemories, who was much responsible for the initial HH open policy on admittance.

As for my own view re HH admittance, sorry, but I actually have answered this as much as I can to you in my post that you quoted.

[viscousmemories]

When it comes to a group disallowing someone membership into their group, I just don't see why one particular group (theists) is held up at the gate (frontpage), while the other rejected group (fascists) would be allowed in to discuss their views on any topic that may come up.
I think you know this already Ronin, but for the benefit of the lurkers:

livius and I adopted the "non-theists only" admittance criteria for the Freethinkers Forum (now called Heathen Hangout) from the old Freethinkers Private Forums (FPF's) at IIDB. In an effort to eschew the "popularity contest" aspect of the FPF's member nominations policy we decided to make avowed non-theism the only criterion for joining.

At some point we came to the same conclusion you seem to be implying Ronin, ie. that it didn't make any sense to us to exclude any particular group of people before the fact, since our primary concern was how an individual would behave after the fact. However the consensus of the members was that the policy should remain in place, so we resigned.

There have been several admins since, but since Gurdur has deferred to me on this question I suppose the official policy hasn't changed as of today.

[Ronin]

Which I completely understand, my friend.
Well, that is indeed a good thing.
If Toto or Vork had said that they did not want theist moderators at IIDB because they wanted to maintain that exclusive membership (for many of the same reasons HH members have given here) and that did not mean that such exclusivity was an alternative to interacting with theists or in the real world in any other way...just that they considered such an exclusive rule as a supplement, not a replacement...what would your response to them have been?
I think this was covered quite some time back, but here goes:

1) SecWeb is an open, public board.

2) While the exact nature of SecWeb's mission remains fascinatingly unclear, in practice it does have a mission --- whether as IIRC AFAIK now officially "finding common ground", or as in practice the promotion of non-theism.
Or simply giving everyone a board on which they can post their own favourite prejudices, in the name of free speech.

3) Membership on SecWeb is not determined by theism or non-theism.

4) AFAIK, the SecWeb mission statements were altered to reflect the SecWeb BOD wanting to allow theist mods in.

5) The BOD and SecWeb admin made their case in public, in the SecWeb Conference Room forum, and allowed discussion on the issue, several times,. Thier position was made clear.

6) In modding practice, there is no difference between a good theist mod and a good atheist mod.
Likewise, there is bloody little difference between a bad theist mod and a bad atheist mod.

7) Thus, BOD wanted theist mods, SecWeb admin agreed, implemented it.

_______________

8) HH is a private social club for non-theists.

9) From the first day onwards the entry criteria were made clear.

10) the question of theist/atheist mods does not apply.
________________

11) If I had been SecWeb admin, and after all that Vork and/or Toto whined that they wanted their private little club of mods free from theists, I would have pointed out the purpose of SecWeb is not to pimp itself to an unofficial clique.
I would have then also pointed out that Toto's and Vork's attitudes meant they were prejudicial in effect of carrying out SecWeb stated policy, and therefore they were bad mods --- acting against SecWeb policy for their own petty aims.

I would have then told Toto and Vork to fuck off.

I hope that answers your question.

P.S. PM me if you really want answers, because I do not usually check back here -- this is an exception.

No need. That post addresses all of my concerns.

In closing, I would like to point out that issues 4 - 6 directly establish a very good foundation for assuming that "good" and "bad" behavior (in this case even from the vantage point of moderating open discussion) is not limited to one's worldview.

I'm understanding now, though, that you and I were discussing the issue of changing minds regarding exclusivity at IIDB with Toto and Vork from very different perspectives...though the goal of inclusivity appeared the same to me at the time (especially when the sincerity of my own dedication to "atheism" was challenged).

I had not come to the realization (until this moment) that you centered your argument around "unofficial" cliques and an "unclear SecWeb mission", rather than from the position I was upholding...that it was better to allow all people to come together freely in a marketplace of ideas and let their behavior and perspective stand or fall on their own merits in topical discussion even in positions of moderator (which was, up til that point, exclusively non-theistic).

Or, as Richard Carrier in defining the SecWeb Mission wrote:

"It is our dream that even people of different faiths, including nontheists, befriend each other and work together toward a better society of universal happiness, pursuing reason, science, and truth."

Personally, I don't see how exclusive non-theistic cliques (even official ones) can be supplemental to such an ideal as quoted above.

That is not meant to cast any aspersions on those who do think that there is a need to have such an exclusive club for other reasons.

My argument still is that people of "faith" can befriend non-theists and work together toward a better society of universal happiness, pursuing reason, science and truth and have their views accepted, rejected or ignored equally as well as any other person with a specific ideology/philosophy on an internet forum.

Which bodes the question: What is the difference between an Infidel and a Heathen?

:wink:

Thanks for taking the time and making an exception here at FF for me, Gurdur, it was illuminating and appreciated.

[Ronin]

As for my own view re HH admittance, sorry, but I actually have answered this as much as I can to you in my post that you quoted.

Very good, thanks.

:yup:

[Gurdur]

BTW isn't it still a bannable offense to reprint posts that were made there, or does having his/her permission to do so excuse it?
Breaking confidentiality on HH is a bannable offence, and it is something that HH admin take very seriously indeed.

We at HH admin have been informed by Shake of this one case, and we're conferring about it; nonetheless, my immediate reaction as an HH admin person is that this case is terribly minor.
Shake had the initial permission of the orignal poster, ELGS; the post in question does not contain any private info only available inside HH, in fact it could have been written directly here; and IMHO it does not transgress our confidentiality clause in any significant way.
Thus, I as one HH admin see no reason for action in this one particular case.
However as said, HH admin will confer.

[Ronin]

I think you know this already Ronin, but for the benefit of the lurkers:

livius and I adopted the "non-theists only" admittance criteria for the Freethinkers Forum (now called Heathen Hangout) from the old Freethinkers Private Forums (FPF's) at IIDB. In an effort to eschew the "popularity contest" aspect of the FPF's member nominations policy we decided to make avowed non-theism the only criterion for joining.

At some point we came to the same conclusion you seem to be implying Ronin, ie. that it didn't make any sense to us to exclude any particular group of people before the fact, since our primary concern was how an individual would behave after the fact. However the consensus of the members was that the policy should remain in place, so we resigned.

There have been several admins since, but since Gurdur has deferred to me on this question I suppose the official policy hasn't changed as of today.

Hey, dude...I just came here for liv's Greek Salad Pita Pockets (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190) and the Flash Poker (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/arcade.php?do=main&page=3).

:slick:

[livius drusus]

:chuckle: God knows I've joined forums for far worse reasons than that.

[Gurdur]

There have been several admins since, but since Gurdur has deferred to me on this question I suppose the official policy hasn't changed as of today.
That would be quite a wrong assumption to make.

The "deferral" was owing to the fact that the original policy as written by vm and maybe livius, and thus questions about it should be directed to them.

Current HH admissions policy has in fact now changed a little: policy on confidentiality now has been strengthened and clarified quite a bit, just for example.
No doubt other clarifications etc. will come up in the future.

[viscousmemories]

Hey, dude...I just came here for liv's Greek Salad Pita Pockets (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190) and the Flash Poker (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/arcade.php?do=main&page=3).

:slick:
Fair enough. God knows I love those pita pockets. :homdrool:

[Gurdur]

I very much understand the points regarding possible prejudice, mutual self-confirmation, etc.; if I personally felt that HH was becoming a self-love clique, I wouldn't be a member there. And if I felt it existed for anti-theism --- which is very different from non-theism ---- then again I would not be a member there.
My argument still is that people of "faith" can befriend non-theists and work together toward a better society of universal happiness, pursuing reason, science and truth and have their views accepted, rejected or ignored equally as well as any other person with a specific ideology/philosophy on an internet forum.
Agreed in full --- but different forums exist for different things.

Which bodes the question: What is the difference between an Infidel and a Heathen?
Eventually, that question will become an important one, in the fullness of time.

[Götterdämmerung]

Frankly for that reason I've never been able to figure out how it is significantly different from a whites only club, which I find ethically indefensible.
Hi VM.

Belief is a matter of choice, while the skin of one's color isn't. :yup:

Edit: Whoops! Just realized there are 9 pages to this thread, and I'm a johnny-come-lately. :doh:

[Gurdur]

Respect to Götterdämmmerung for no less than two umlauts used correctly,

and godfry n. glad, please read your PM's

[lisarea]

I think you know this already Ronin, but for the benefit of the lurkers:

livius and I adopted the "non-theists only" admittance criteria for the Freethinkers Forum (now called Heathen Hangout) from the old Freethinkers Private Forums (FPF's) at IIDB. In an effort to eschew the "popularity contest" aspect of the FPF's member nominations policy we decided to make avowed non-theism the only criterion for joining.

At some point we came to the same conclusion you seem to be implying Ronin, ie. that it didn't make any sense to us to exclude any particular group of people before the fact, since our primary concern was how an individual would behave after the fact. However the consensus of the members was that the policy should remain in place, so we resigned.

Well, regardless of the merits of the policy itself, people registered for and posted to the forum with the understanding that that was the policy, and to change the policy at a later date, thereby providing access to members' posts, would be a pretty serious violation of trust.

Again, whether it's a fair or rational policy is up for debate, of course, but you know, regardless of the reasons for it, people were assured that their discussions were not going to be viewable by theists, and it would not be fair to change that policy later.

You know, one of the reasons I don't put bumperstickers on my car is that I'm kind of a slob, and I don't want to contribute to perceptions that would correlate between my slovenly habits and my political views. And when I did have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on my car, I made a concerted effort to wash my car more often and not drive around with piles of junk lying on the backseat and things like that, but frankly, it was kind of a pain in the ass for me. For similar reasons, I can see why some non-theists might appreciate being able to participate in an environment in which they can sort of air their dirty laundry and discuss their problems without the fear--justified or not--that they're contributing to negative perceptions about them.

[Götterdämmerung]

Respect to Götterdämmmerung for no less than two umlauts used correctly, and godfry n. glad, please read your PM's
Thanks, but it's absolute murder in trying to log in. :argh:

[Gurdur]

Thên öbvîøüsly yõû hävê thë wrông kéybóàrd.

[Beth]

Thên öbvîøüsly yõû hävê thë wrông kéybóàrd.So, Gurder, how long did that take you to type? :chin: :giggle: :wave:

[seebs]

Vocal presence of prejudice is not the only way it can be transmitted. Confirmation bias can also be present in very subtle things; for instance, a general tendency to assume certain worldviews.
Gosh. So no-one should associate with anyone agreeing with them ?
Just how far do you want to take this ?

Not very. To a certain extent, community can offset even the harm done by the prejudice it tends to create.

And given the POV range in HH, nope, I really think you're wrong in thinking that prejudice is in any way transmitted there.

Hmm. I remain skeptical. In any other environment, I would expect there to be some, even with broad differences of opinions.

Now: let's get down to tacheles.
You think churches should be allowed to exist ?
Then why not HH ?

You think Boy Scouts should exist ?
then why not HH ?[q/uote]

Actually, FWIW, I don't object to HH existing; I just think it is likely to promote prejudice.

But no, I don't think the Boy Scouts should exist, because they have a federal charter, and I don't think an organization with a federal charter should promote religious beliefs of any sort.


[quote]Nonsense.
It is claimed that HH may foster prejudice.
I reply, in my experience, that HH actually militates against (atheist) prejudice far more than an open board such as SecWeb does.
You ignore that, call it a red herring, and dive back into the theory that HH may foster prejudice.
I say, WTF ?
Your theory does not match experience, IOW. Time for you to change your theory.

Hmm. I think the problem is simple; I can't observe the actual conversations. Promotion of prejudice can be very subtle, and may or may not be obvious.

But, in particular, we would reasonably expect that a non-theist community might not detect subtle prejudices against theists.

And since theory can be twisted in all sorts of ways --- see my reductio at the beginning of my post -- then I am not too interested in debating "theory" divorced from actual experience.
It's all a bit too much like playing games without any point.

Only reason I'm here is to discuss HH in context. I won't bother with much else.

Hmm. Well, I have limited context, but... Insofar as people are going to HH to have a refuge from a theistic culture, I think there's a bit of confirmation bias. Someone who has the belief that theists would be unsupportive, but non-theists would be supportive, may go to HH, get support, and conclude that this theory was correct.

In short, even without overt discussion of these views, HH could serve to reinforce them in some people.

That said... If these people are getting support they need, that they wouldn't get elsewhere, it may be worth it. I am not necessarily convinced that an organization can be judged on a single part of its effect on the world...

[Götterdämmerung]

Thên öbvîøüsly yõû hävê thë wrông kéybóàrd.
I'm allright as long as i'm on my computer. But lately i find myself on the road, limited to a mobile device that's rather crude with its lettering.

Good thing i've figured out the login solution. :cool:

[Götterdämmerung]

Not so fast, Seebs. The converse of your argument doesn't necessarily hold - an open community isn't free of prejudice. Toynbee's the tyranny of the majority is always a logical possibility.

[Gurdur]

....stuff..

seebs, you're merely repeating stuff to no point.
All of what you said had already been dealt with on this and the other thread.
It's immaterial whether you remain "skeptical"; the point is, you're only discussing from the theory, and you're not addressing the reality.
So tell me:
where do you want to go today ?
Is there any point to it all ?

This thread was about the HH, not small private communities inn general; I'm not even going to try writing a dissertation on that subject.
I came here to answer your questions on HH, and since you basically don't know the actual situation, you're forced to rely on these theoretcial observations; but when you say,
"But it could be this way, or that, or that",
it's all so terribly vague and tenuous.

I've given you a fair few concrete observations for you to chew on, and you haven't, which to me is a waste; those observations of mine, I think, could have led to an interesting, productive conversation. But what isn't productive is saying repeatedly,
"But it could be this way, or that, or that".

[seebs]

....stuff..

seebs, you're merely repeating stuff to no point.
All of what you said had already been dealt with on this and the other thread.
It's immaterial whether you remain "skeptical"; the point is, you're only discussing from the theory, and you're not addressing the reality.
So tell me:
where do you want to go today ?
Is there any point to it all ?

Hmm. Well, here's the problem. I have no way of getting specific information, but I have a good general argument that small communities like this inherently promote prejudice. The one data point we have, a single example post, supports my theory. But I can't prove anything else without signing up!

I've given you a fair few concrete observations for you to chew on, and you haven't, which to me is a waste; those observations of mine, I think, could have led to an interesting, productive conversation. But what isn't productive is saying repeatedly,
"But it could be this way, or that, or that".

Here, I think, the confidentiality thing makes it hard for you to give me enough information to draw conclusions. From having seen you engage prejudice elsewhere, I think it's most likely that you do the same at HH, and that you do so in no uncertain terms, and in ways that probably have a real effect.

However, as long as there's people using the place to avoid contact with theists, because they dislike theists, I think that will inherently promote some amount of prejudice.

[seebs]

Not so fast, Seebs. The converse of your argument doesn't necessarily hold - an open community isn't free of prejudice. Toynbee's the tyranny of the majority is always a logical possibility.

Ooh, good point.

So it may well be (as it seems to be often with IIDB, or CF) that the open community also has prejudice.

This leads us to a foundational question I hadn't considered; what constitutes "promoting" prejudice? Is it whether hanging out in forum A or forum B creates greater prejudice, or whether hanging out in forum A creates greater prejudice than lying in a dandelion patch on a clear spring day?

Hmm.

[LadyShea]

However, as long as there's people using the place to avoid contact with theists, because they dislike theists, I think that will inherently promote some amount of prejudice.

"Dislike" is only one reason to avoid. Maybe they fear theists, or are sick of theists, or have a problem and are saturated with the theistic viewpoint on it (I felt the need to talk about my infertility away from theists occasionally, for example), or are in the closet so must hide from theists. "Tyranny of the majorty" is a good term, and theists are in the majority in real life.

[viscousmemories]

Well, regardless of the merits of the policy itself, people registered for and posted to the forum with the understanding that that was the policy, and to change the policy at a later date, thereby providing access to members' posts, would be a pretty serious violation of trust.

Again, whether it's a fair or rational policy is up for debate, of course, but you know, regardless of the reasons for it, people were assured that their discussions were not going to be viewable by theists, and it would not be fair to change that policy later.
I agree, definitely. The thing is, many of the people who signed up and posted there did so with the understanding that all the standards set by livius and I would be maintained, not just the no-theists rule. And from what I've seen and heard since we resigned (for example in Gurdur's statement above about how the membership policy has changed since our day) those standards have been modified by each new administration.

So if there isn't strict adherence to all the original standards, I don't know why anyone would expect adherence to any of the standards. In other words I don't know that the current administrators have any moral obligation (according to their own values) to keep the promises livius and I made when we started the forum. Up to and including the standard of accepting the registration of all and only non-theists.

From what I've heard it seems that the current administration intends to keep it that way, but it doesn't seem reasonable for the members to assume it will be kept that way should any given administrator change his/her mind about it.

You know, one of the reasons I don't put bumperstickers on my car is that I'm kind of a slob, and I don't want to contribute to perceptions that would correlate between my slovenly habits and my political views. And when I did have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on my car, I made a concerted effort to wash my car more often and not drive around with piles of junk lying on the backseat and things like that, but frankly, it was kind of a pain in the ass for me. For similar reasons, I can see why some non-theists might appreciate being able to participate in an environment in which they can sort of air their dirty laundry and discuss their problems without the fear--justified or not--that they're contributing to negative perceptions about them.
I suppose that makes sense, but I don't really understand why any given non-theist would be worried about the impression they give of non-theists in general, since the only thing non-theists presumably have in common is non-theism. Which is to say, I don't feel the need to be part of a men's only club because airing my dirty laundry might contribute to women's negative impressions of men, and I have a lot more in common with other men than I do with other non-theists.

Which brings me back to my whites-only club comment. Actually livius made a good point that if anything I should have compared it to a blacks-only club, since a minority group that has been systematically discriminated against is a closer analogy. And naturally when I think of it that way it doesn't seem as distasteful to me. But it still rubs me the wrong way because it's still institutionalized discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, etc., which I guess I'm just averse to.

It's not that I don't understand the value of a private forum, I do. I just think once you move from a few people who know each other fairly well and have many of the same goals and interests, to a few hundred people who really have no common bond beyond something as tenuous as "lack of belief in god(s)", the discrimination angle becomes more problematic because it reinforces what I think is in many ways an illusory conflict between theists and non-theists.

[Gurdur]

However, as long as there's people using the place to avoid contact with theists, because they dislike theists, I think that will inherently promote some amount of prejudice.
You know as well as I do that the actual "dislike" is against evangelical fundies. Were all Christians non-evangelising nice commonsense close-liberals, there wouldn't be a problem.

So any "prejudice" being promoted would be a confimation of experience regarding fundies.
And a "prejudice" against fundies ? Hardly a bad thing.

Let's sit down a moment and be exact.

"Prejudice" = pre - judgment, pre-event-formed attitudes;
and that is not the case here.

You can speak of bias (bias owing to past experience), but not of prejudice; and as I said in a reply to Helen, there is nothing wrong, absolutely nothing, in having a bias against fundies (and fundies of whatever stripe --- Christian, atheist, Communist, capitalist etc.).

[Ronin]

You know as well as I do that the actual "dislike" is against evangelical fundies. Were all Christians non-evangelising nice commonsense close-liberals, there wouldn't be a problem.

So any "prejudice" being promoted would be a confimation of experience regarding fundies.
And a "prejudice" against fundies ? Hardly a bad thing.

You can speak of bias (bias owing to past experience), but not of prejudice; and as I said in a reply to Helen, there is nothing wrong, absolutely nothing, in having a bias against fundies (and fundies of whatever stripe --- Christian, atheist, Communist, capitalist etc.).

Interesting.

Then why not simply allow that qualifier be the litmus test for membership in any particular forum?

"No Fundies"

Then again, a "fundie" could be defined as someone who closes themselves off from wanting to hear from others with different perspectives on a host of topics...and then we have come full circle.

Imo, there have been quite a few instances of prejudice and bias on a range of issues here at FF and I note that the issues are either addressed or ignored fairly...based upon whatever merits (or lack thereof) are displayed.

That is a very significant nuance.

By removing the participation of a "set", however, there is a greater possibility that confirmation bias is strengthened...simply because the removed "set" cannot offer their point of view.

Then again, I am probably :deadhorse: *

So I'll just leave it at that.

*bonus points for accurate use of a new smilie...Yay ME!

[beyelzu]

However, as long as there's people using the place to avoid contact with theists, because they dislike theists, I think that will inherently promote some amount of prejudice.

"Dislike" is only one reason to avoid. Maybe they fear theists, or are sick of theists, or have a problem and are saturated with the theistic viewpoint on it (I felt the need to talk about my infertility away from theists occasionally, for example), or are in the closet so must hide from theists. "Tyranny of the majorty" is a good term, and theists are in the majority in real life.
great post.

something to note is that we are all conversing here on an open site that has what an 8 to 1 infidel to theist ratio without any regular fundified users.. confirmation bias can occur here almost as much as it does there. we pick where we spend our online time, while ff doesnt have an exclusionary policy and no moderation at all, still we do deal with things as a community which is going to lead to some degree of group think.

I have no desire to go to cf, except to bait the fundies there, I get enough theists irl, I certainly understand people's desire for a place away from fundies.

[beyelzu]

You know as well as I do that the actual "dislike" is against evangelical fundies. Were all Christians non-evangelising nice commonsense close-liberals, there wouldn't be a problem.

So any "prejudice" being promoted would be a confimation of experience regarding fundies.
And a "prejudice" against fundies ? Hardly a bad thing.

You can speak of bias (bias owing to past experience), but not of prejudice; and as I said in a reply to Helen, there is nothing wrong, absolutely nothing, in having a bias against fundies (and fundies of whatever stripe --- Christian, atheist, Communist, capitalist etc.).

Interesting.

Then why not simply allow that qualifier be the litmus test for membership in any particular forum?

"No Fundies"

Then again, a "fundie" could be defined as someone who closes themselves off from wanting to hear from others with different perspectives on a host of topics...and then we have come full circle.

Imo, there have been quite a few instances of prejudice and bias on a range of issues here at FF and I note that the issues are either addressed or ignored fairly...based upon whatever merits (or lack thereof) are displayed.

That is a very significant nuance.

By removing the participation of a "set", however, there is a greater possibility that confirmation bias is strengthened...simply because the removed "set" cannot offer their point of view.

Then again, I am probably :deadhorse: *

So I'll just leave it at that.

*bonus points for accurate use of a new smilie...Yay ME!


I dont know ronin, see my post to ladyshea, it seems to me that we do exclude certain sets unofficially here as well. operating as a community in real life would operate.

that being said, I dont think I want to be a member of a place that woulen't let someone like seebs join.

[seebs]

You know as well as I do that the actual "dislike" is against evangelical fundies. Were all Christians non-evangelising nice commonsense close-liberals, there wouldn't be a problem.

So any "prejudice" being promoted would be a confimation of experience regarding fundies.
And a "prejudice" against fundies ? Hardly a bad thing.

The problem is that a policy meaning "evangelical fundies" and yet directed at "theists" is promoting a prejudice. Furthermore... There are evangelical fundies whom I believe do not deserve this treatment.


You can speak of bias (bias owing to past experience), but not of prejudice; and as I said in a reply to Helen, there is nothing wrong, absolutely nothing, in having a bias against fundies (and fundies of whatever stripe --- Christian, atheist, Communist, capitalist etc.).

But as soon as the language leaves people with the impression that it is theism which is at fault, it's promoting prejudice.

[Ronin]

I dont know ronin, see my post to ladyshea, it seems to me that we do exclude certain sets unofficially here as well. operating as a community in real life would operate.

I disagree, beyelzu.

I don't think you could qualify exactly who you mean when you say "we" exclude certain sets.

I also don't think that you could qualify exactly what precisely would be "unofficial".

Without limiting membership requirements there is no way to define a set here at FF at all and/or at any given time.

As anecdotal examples, I don't know the worldview of sweetie or John Carter or lel or xouper...nor does it matter to me.

that being said, I dont think I want to be a member of a place that woulen't let someone like seebs join.

Well, as seebs and I go way back :wave:, I'd have to agree...yet I would also like to add that Jameseb (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=32449#post32449) is equally as valued here at FF, Imho.

The thread I linked to is also very interesting as it flows along the same themes (inclusivity/exclusivity) as we are discussing here.

Again, it seems that we really all can get along in spite of the differences in our worldviews once the challenge has been removed to bait one another.

Travellers all, passing through.

:sml:

[Gurdur]

that being said, I dont think I want to be a member of a place that woulen't let someone like seebs join.
Seebs is eligible for being a mod of CF (and was one for a while).
I am not.
Seebs may post in the Christian-only forums.
I am not allowed to.

Maybe we could keep those points in mind too ?

[Gurdur]

The problem is that a policy meaning "evangelical fundies" and yet directed at "theists" is promoting a prejudice. Furthermore... There are evangelical fundies whom I believe do not deserve this treatment.
Really ?
OK, tell me do you spend the same amount of time criticising the exclusivity of mod criteria at CF ?
Or the exclusivity of the Christian-only-posting forums ?

But as soon as the language leaves people with the impression that it is theism which is at fault, it's promoting prejudice.
You were a mod at CF. How do you reconcile your criticism here with your having been in an exclusivist position yourself ?

[seebs]

OK, tell me do you spend the same amount of time criticising the exclusivity of mod criteria at CF ?

Hah! This thread could go on for months before I'd come even close.

(Although, to be fair, I'm more tolerant of exclusivity in moderator roles than I am of exclusivity in membership.)

Or the exclusivity of the Christian-only-posting forums ?

Once again, much more time. It bothers me a lot more, because I have access to Christians-only fora, and I find them absolutely repulsive, by and large.

You were a mod at CF. How do you reconcile your criticism here with your having been in an exclusivist position yourself ?

I got in a lot of trouble for advocating "unacceptable" changes. :) But... Better me than yet another yutz who thinks non-Christians are basically evil people out to destroy the faith.

[beyelzu]

that being said, I dont think I want to be a member of a place that woulen't let someone like seebs join.
Seebs is eligible for being a mod of CF (and was one for a while).
I am not.
Seebs may post in the Christian-only forums.
I am not allowed to.

Maybe we could keep those points in mind too ?
hadnt thought about that.

I dont spend alot of time at cf, so I had forgotten that the mods were all xians.

of course a ii doesnt have any theist mods do they?

maybe it is a level thing, but then one has to wonder if allowing people in as a second class netizen is a good thing.


as I have said before I am kind of ambivalent about this shit right now.

[seebs]

Seebs is eligible for being a mod of CF (and was one for a while).

Actually, I'm no longer eligible. My wife and I have someone we refer to as "our girlfriend", and this disqualifies me. Remember! TOO MUCH LOVE IS BAD!!!!

I am not.
Seebs may post in the Christian-only forums.
I am not allowed to.

Indeed.

Maybe we could keep those points in mind too ?

Well, you might also look at my ongoing policy of decrying that policy, my long history of complaining about it and advocating for an open-door policy... And of course, the existence of "open" threads in some CO forums now, where non-Christian members may participate.

You might also notice that I continue to refer to the CO forums in fairly negative terms, and that I regularly comment on the practical observation that they are much less friendly places than the open forums.

[seebs]

of course a ii doesnt have any theist mods do they?

Two; Nice Squirrel and me.

Of course, we can't be admins. But we get to see all the SECRET STUFF!

I know I may get in trouble for this, but I have to say, the sauna is a really nice touch, and the nubile ladies who bring the towels took very little getting used to.

[Gurdur]

Actually, I'm no longer eligible. My wife and I have someone we refer to as "our girlfriend", and this disqualifies me. Remember! TOO MUCH LOVE IS BAD!!!!
And when you're old and grey you will remember what they said,
That two girls are too many, three's a crowd and four you're dead.

---- from the song Dandy, by The Kinks

Well, you might also look at my ongoing policy of decrying that policy,
I'll certainly keep that in mind, then.