Chuck Fristians at IIDB

[viscousmemories]

There was some discussion at IIDB yesterday and today about whether a moderator having the user ID "Chuck Fristians" could reasonably be considered offensive to Christians and therefore contrary to the Infidel's stated goals. The decision of the administration was that it could be, and that they would therefore give more careful consideration to hiring future mods with controversial ID's.

Nevertheless, they decided against asking Chuck to change his name. However, Chuck voluntarily changed his name by requesting that 'Fristians' be removed. I started a thread to thank Chuck for making what I think was the right decision, but it evolved into a continuation of the debate about the issue and was locked. Since the administrator's decided to close those threads out of respect for Chuck's desire to drop the subject, I've decided (with her consent) to respond to Cheetah's last post here.

I'm terribly disappointed. I think THIS is the slippery slope and a few months from now we WILL see people complaining about EverLastingGodStopper and then about StrictSeparationist and then who knows.
Where's the slope? I mean, what happened that makes it more likely now that people will complain about other user ID's later? Anyway in my opinon StrictSeparationist and EverLastingGodStopper are something of political position statements, not anywhere near as deliberately antagonistic as Chuck Fristians.

Although Chuck did it of his own accord, I think that many users here are requesting special, not equal, treatment for their particular identity-group that in many instances would not be similarly accorded to identity-groups of different kinds.
I disagree. I don't think it behooves an organization that intends to promote tolerance and civil interaction to allow its representatives to have user ID's that disparage any groups of people. I don't think that's asking for special treatment. How would you feel about a moderator (or user, for that matter) named "Wuck Fomen"? Or how about Wildy's suggested signature, "Atheist Women are Whores"? Or AspenMama's suggested mod name "ScrewAllAtheists"?

[Penni]

There was some discussion at IIDB yesterday and today about whether a moderator having the user ID "Chuck Fristians" could reasonably be considered offensive to Christians and therefore contrary to the Infidel's stated goals. The decision of the administration was that it could be, and that they would therefore give more careful consideration to hiring future mods with controversial ID's. A little semantics here. How is being offensive to Christians against IIDB rules? And is it only Christians or is it also against the rules to be offensive to Muslims, or Republicans, or vegetarians? My impression of the admin's statement was that nothing was against the rules but they had a general feeling of wanting to be perceived (as mods and admins) as shiny happy people, so in the future, they would more carefully review usernames.


Where's the slope? I mean, what happened that makes it more likely now that people will complain about other user ID's later? Anyway in my opinon StrictSeparationist and EverLastingGodStopper are something of political position statements, not anywhere near as deliberately antagonistic as Chuck Fristians. The slope to me is that II has been changing over time to be more sensitive, less free, more enforced civility, more PC-ness. The username Chuck Fristians is a casualty of that, and I think that the environment may grow only more (over) sensitive and that it is quite possible that someday, a Christian will come by and say that s/he was moderated by EverLastingGodStopper in what s/he perceives to be a biased way and they knew it all along anyway because of Janice's username and why would II have a mod like that anyway, who's mission in life (as indicated by her handle) is to prevent anything related to God from being spread? And I can see a group of very considerate people, theist or non, saying, "you know what? S/he's right. It's a funny name. I love it! But, really, as an II mod, one shouldn't proclaim that one is in all things trying to stop God. And the humorous twist only adds insult to injury!" (This in response to some comments that it was found ironic that it was all or mostly non-theists seeing the light of Chuck needing to change his name and so if even a non-theist can see that it's an insult, it must really be). That's the slope...


I disagree. I don't think it behooves an organization that intends to promote tolerance and civil interaction to allow its representatives to have user ID's that disparage any groups of people. I don't think that's asking for special treatment. How would you feel about a moderator (or user, for that matter) named "Wuck Fomen"? Or how about Wildy's suggested signature, "Atheist Women are Whores"? Or AspenMama's suggested mod name "ScrewAllAtheists"? I PMd wildy and told her that if she used that signature all her life, I would not be offended. I might think less of her, but I think it would be better to address her (theoretical) attitude as opposed to requiring government intervention to protect me from the big, bad meanie. As I told her, again, maybe it's because of the name I grew up with, but I learned long ago that it is up to the perceiver to be offended.

And I do think this (would be) special treatment, because we don't prevent people from saying that Republicans suck ass or that fans of certain sports teams or TV shows are mentally ill or need to get a life. I think that users do come on the board and say things that are equivalent to "Fuck Atheists" and that they are handled by other users and not edited. Christians are II's main "enemy" and the board seems to have decided (as evidenced by the mission statement) that we as infidels would be better served to get Christians to like us better and thereby ultimately help us (flies, honey, vinegar). I think this is a development of that idea. That Christians are the one group we must most certainly not offend now, so we have to be careful what we say to or about them, but I notice no outrage over what is said about other identity-groups I have mentioned (unless you count the threads on civility as a whole).

I just think that ultimately, the kind of Christians we can forge bonds with and that will see us as humans and citizens as opposed to the Devil's Own Spawn are ones that would probably be more moved by the substance of someone like Chuck's post rather than his name. Although a first impression matters a lot, I don't think we should all go out and get haircuts and new jeans just to make friends, and neither do I think that I would want everyone on II to "lure" Christians in by having nice usernames and bunnies and balloons and shit just so maybe they'll be our friends.

[viscousmemories]

A little semantics here. How is being offensive to Christians against IIDB rules? And is it only Christians or is it also against the rules to be offensive to Muslims, or Republicans, or vegetarians? My impression of the admin's statement was that nothing was against the rules but they had a general feeling of wanting to be perceived (as mods and admins) as shiny happy people, so in the future, they would more carefully review usernames.
I agree both that it isn't against the rules and that the admin statement supports that position. But I never claimed it was against the rules, I said it runs contrary to their stated goals. Livius said it better in her first post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1776881#post1776881) on that thread:

[…] it rather directly contravenes one of IIDB's main goals (ie, "to foster a sense of community among nontheists and to explore any common ground that we might share with theists, whether political, social or philosophical in nature")[…]
I think the official admin position is that they agree with that.

The slope to me is that II has been changing over time to be more sensitive, less free, more enforced civility, more PC-ness. The username Chuck Fristians is a casualty of that, and I think that the environment may grow only more (over) sensitive...
But what exactly happened here that you believe put us on that slope? You mean the administration's statement that they will more carefully consider asking people with potentially offensive names to become mods? Do you think that was a bad decision?

I PMd wildy and told her that if she used that signature all her life, I would not be offended. I might think less of her, but I think it would be better to address her (theoretical) attitude as opposed to requiring government intervention to protect me from the big, bad meanie. As I told her, again, maybe it's because of the name I grew up with, but I learned long ago that it is up to the perceiver to be offended.
That's a good argument for having no censorship at all, but not a very good argument for why some offensive comments ("fuck you", for example) should be censored, but other comments ("fuck Christians") should not. Which is to say that IIDB already censors content to minimize offense and has for a very long time. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that groups of users be allowed the same consideration that individual users are allowed?

And I do think this (would be) special treatment, because we don't prevent people from saying that Republicans suck ass or that fans of certain sports teams or TV shows are mentally ill or need to get a life.
Well to be honest that doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I didn't realize that it was acceptable to post "Fuck Republicans" there, but then I haven't spent much time in PD. If that's really allowed it's absurd. I've seen threads locked numerous times for far less than that. Like the two on this issue, for example.

I think that users do come on the board and say things that are equivalent to "Fuck Atheists" and that they are handled by other users and not edited.
Equivelant? Or do they come by and post "Fuck Atheists" and are not edited?

Christians are II's main "enemy" and the board seems to have decided (as evidenced by the mission statement) that we as infidels would be better served to get Christians to like us better and thereby ultimately help us (flies, honey, vinegar). I think this is a development of that idea. That Christians are the one group we must most certainly not offend now, so we have to be careful what we say to or about them, but I notice no outrage over what is said about other identity-groups I have mentioned (unless you count the threads on civility as a whole).
I think that's a pretty bizarre interpretation of the new mission statement. I thought the thinking was that you have a better chance of convincing someone of your viewpoint (selling naturalism, if you will) by treating the people you're addressing respectfully than you do by beating them over the head with hateful rhetoric.

I just think that ultimately, the kind of Christians we can forge bonds with and that will see us as humans and citizens as opposed to the Devil's Own Spawn are ones that would probably be more moved by the substance of someone like Chuck's post rather than his name.
How is that different from me ending each post with "Oh, and fuck you" then complaining that anyone who can't see past that is not someone worth talking to?

Although a first impression matters a lot, I don't think we should all go out and get haircuts and new jeans just to make friends, and neither do I think that I would want everyone on II to "lure" Christians in by having nice usernames and bunnies and balloons and shit just so maybe they'll be our friends.
It's not just a first impression. If my user ID was FuckWomen would you be an active member here?

[LadyShea]

You cannot say "Fuck you, VM" but you can say "Fuck Christians", "Fuck atheists", "Fuck Liberals" or whatever. You can insult a group of people, but not a registered user.

And really this is out of hand. Adam changed his name from Pompous Bastard to just Pomp as he thought it more appropriate for an admin. Telling people they can't be mods if theire name might offend someone somewhere? Comon, they can change the name easier than they can find quality mods.

If my user ID was FuckWomen would you be an active member here?

Are you planning on beginning to censor stuff like screen names?

[viscousmemories]

You cannot say "Fuck you, VM" but you can say "Fuck Christians", "Fuck atheists", "Fuck Liberals" or whatever. You can insult a group of people, but not a registered user.
Huh. Well that strikes me as absurd. I can't say "Fuck you" to someone, but I can say "Fuck all people like you". :doh:

And really this is out of hand. Adam changed his name from Pompous Bastard to just Pomp as he thought it more appropriate for an admin. Telling people they can't be mods if theire name might offend someone somewhere? Comon, they can change the name easier than they can find quality mods.
Did you read the thread over there? Nobody suggested that Chuck shouldn't be allowed to mod. I don't even remember anyone suggesting that he be forced to change his name. Most people who thought the name potentially offensive were arguing that he should consider whether it serves or detracts from the goals of the organization he represents and act accordingly.

Are you planning on beginning to censor stuff like screen names?
Nope, but then we don't censor anything at all here. If we did, yes, we would try to be consistent about it. My question to Penni was whether she would be an active member at a site where one of the two administrators had the name FuckWomen. I suspect she would not, but I could be wrong. Would you?

[Penni]

I agree both that it isn't against the rules and that the admin statement supports that position. But I never claimed it was against the rules, I said it runs contrary to their stated goals. Livius said it better in her first post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1776881#post1776881) on that thread: OK. I see you there. So, it is only theists that should not be insulted because they are a specific identity-group that II has targeted to make friends with. I have to say that in that sense, I totally agree with livius's statement, that that username does not support that goal and in fact, could be to the detriment of the rule. But going further, and moving on to the next point, should we not then disallow EverLastingGodStopper? Surely one cannot imagine a Christian being eager to build a community with someone that seeks to stop their god, as they would similarly be repulsed by someone who said Fuck You. Although Helen did say in her post in the original thread that that one did not particularly bother her (IIRC), one theist should surely not be taken as representative of the whole. I bet there are lots of theists who would be offended by ELGS. And beyond mods, to really say II is working toward achieving those goals, I think they would have to prevent even users from using names like that, names that could be seen as being detrimental to the effort to build bridges with theists. There are lots, of course!


But what exactly happened here that you believe put us on that slope? You mean the administration's statement that they will more carefully consider asking people with potentially offensive names to become mods? Do you think that was a bad decision? Yes, partly. I think people should be judged on merit, not on superficial things. I think Chuck has a long history of being an exemplary poster and we shouldn't bow to those who WANT to judge a book by it's cover. I also believe that a precedent is set, whether by the admins, or Chuck's voluntary change. Other people will feel emboldened to demand that other users change their name, given the success of this venture.


That's a good argument for having no censorship at all, but not a very good argument for why some offensive comments ("fuck you", for example) should be censored, but other comments ("fuck Christians") should not. Which is to say that IIDB already censors content to minimize offense and has for a very long time. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that groups of users be allowed the same consideration that individual users are allowed? I think that we can have goals and ideals and we can have practicality. In practice, I think the arbitrary line in the sand (no personal insults, but groups or non-users are ok) was pretty effective. And I think the rule is less about forcing people to be nice (censorship) and more about avoiding the response that comes from sometimes non-rational human beings Roland said this in the thread, that it avoids the thread spinning out of control, off topic. So, it's not so much about preventing incivility as preventing the response to incivility, which is pandemonium. This is further evidenced by the fact that if you can word an insult in an extremely cold, detached, and intellectual way, you can usually get away with it, but if you seem emotional, it's not ok.


Well to be honest that doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I didn't realize that it was acceptable to post "Fuck Republicans" there, but then I haven't spent much time in PD. If that's really allowed it's absurd. I've seen threads locked numerous times for far less than that. Like the two on this issue, for example. I'm pretty sure you can. I don't think I'm wrong because I often let my emotions go in a post in the Election Forum and post how much I fucking hate conservatives or something, and have never been edited. Again, I think this arbitrary line in the sand is less than ideal, but practically effective.


Equivelant? Or do they come by and post "Fuck Atheists" and are not edited? Well, I've never seen the words per se, but I've seen more along the lines of things I personally find more offensive and patronizing, like comments on how they feel sorry for us or we'll find out when we're dead, etc. It's more insulting, I think. But, I in no way think that we should demand that things like these, that cast aspersions on the intelligence, moral standing, compassion, or anything else of non-theists, a majority of users on that board, should get the smack down by the administration.


I think that's a pretty bizarre interpretation of the new mission statement. I thought the thinking was that you have a better chance of convincing someone of your viewpoint (selling naturalism, if you will) by treating the people you're addressing respectfully than you do by beating them over the head with hateful rhetoric. Well, the first sentence of my quote was exactly that. The second was my less charitable idea of what is actually done in practice. A bend-over-backwards effort to avoid offending, at almost any cost, one specific identity-group.


How is that different from me ending each post with "Oh, and fuck you" then complaining that anyone who can't see past that is not someone worth talking to? Well, for several reasons, not the least of which is that Fuck you is personal, whereas Fuck Christians is general, even if you are a member of that identity-group. Second, I think it would just be a bizarre non-sequitir to most any post!


It's not just a first impression. If my user ID was FuckWomen would you be an active member here? Maybe. I would be suspicious of you (assuming I didn't know you a little beforehand as I do). But, if you're posts never had anything to do with how much you hated women, I would probably get less and less jarred each time I saw it, until I finally decided it must be some joke or something that I don't get. The point is, you are only one person, and I wouldn't decide if I liked the whole board based on just YOUR username (even in this place, which is much smaller...at II, Chuck is one of what? 10,000 or something?). I may not come back to the board if EVERYONE had names like that, or maybe even if you always put something in your posts about hating women (in fact, as certain user at II with a similar tendency HAS turned me away from participating on certain topics). But, I wouldn't give up so easily. And any Christians that give up on IIDB when they see the name Chuck Fristians are certainly not the type (in my opinion) to want to stick around when they actually start PARTICIPATING in E/C or BC&H or whatever.

It's the same as on Cross+Flame or BaptistBoard or any of those. I have never gotten really into any of them, but plenty of those posters, from what I have seen, have names that I find personally ridiculous, deluded, hateful or embarrassing. Yet, what keeps me away is not their name, but the content of their posts and the (for me, reputed) behavior of their admins and mods.

Is the name Chuck Fristians REALLY, in practice to the detriment of the goal to forge bonds with Christians? I would like to know if in reality any Christian has left IIDB because of his name. I would like to know if the horror of his name is really so strong for anyone that the content of his posts were totally ignored or destroyed. Or really, since he is only one of hundreds or even over a thousand very active posters, if a Christian has found his name to be so terrorizing that the content of IIDB as a whole is wiped out? It just seems to me that if we can tell non-theists (and anyone else who cares) that they should not automatically assume bias by a Christian moderator, but should judge him/her by his/her moderation practices, we should tell everyone else to do the same with the name Chuck Fristians.

[LadyShea]

Huh. Well that strikes me as absurd. I can't say "Fuck you" to someone, but I can say "Fuck all people like you". :doh:

Well, I happen to think that the rule works...otherwise you couldn't criticize the government, or the KKK, or whatever. The line would be really really arbitrary, Drawing the line at registered users seems the easiest demarcation

Did you read the thread over there? Nobody suggested that Chuck shouldn't be allowed to mod. I don't even remember anyone suggesting that he be forced to change his name. Most people who thought the name potentially offensive were arguing that he should consider whether it serves or detracts from the goals of the organization he represents and act accordingly.

I skimmed the thread, but personally found it a petty and silly issue.

Nope, but then we don't censor anything at all here. If we did, yes, we would try to be consistent about it. My question to Penni was whether she would be an active member at a site where one of the two administrators had the name FuckWomen. I suspect she would not, but I could be wrong. Would you?

With the stated goals and overall tone of the site, yes I would join and maybe ask about the choice of screen name. If the name was in conjuction with an anti-feminism site, no I would not.

[Goliath]

I think the whole affair is sad. I still keep a tenth of an eyeball on the IIDB, but I view it more as a sad, sad soap opera than anything else.

I keep wondering how many more victories are going to be handed over to the Fristians over there? How long before the IIDB becomes a Fristian site?

And I also think it's sad that one of the mission goals of the IIDB is now finding common ground with theists. I guess I just don't find any value in trying to find common ground with someone whom I have almost nothing in common with. It's like playing "Find the measure zero set."...just a sad waste of time.

Even if my ban from IIDB is lifted, I definitely don't want to go back. I would feel about as welcome there as Jerry Falwell would at a Marilyn Manson concert.

[viscousmemories]

OK. I see you there. So, it is only theists that should not be insulted because they are a specific identity-group that II has targeted to make friends with.
I think that's an oversimplification and a mischaracterization of the Infidel's intent. I don't think they meant that theists should be treated nicely because they want them to be their special friends. I think their goal is and has always been to sell people on the idea of naturalism, and they realized somewhere along the way that it's easier to sell someone on the positive aspects of the product than it is to convince someone that they should prove they're not the biggest idiot in the universe by buying it.

I have to say that in that sense, I totally agree with livius's statement, that that username does not support that goal and in fact, could be to the detriment of the rule.
Then we agree. End of discussion. :didi:

But going further, and moving on to the next point, should we not then disallow EverLastingGodStopper? Surely one cannot imagine a Christian being eager to build a community with someone that seeks to stop their god, as they would similarly be repulsed by someone who said Fuck You.
I disagree. I think there is a glaring difference, for example, between EverlastingConservativeStopper and Fuck Republicans. But in any case there's that slippery slope fallacy again. It does not follow that deciding one thing is offensive will later result in a decision that other things are offensive.

Although Helen did say in her post in the original thread that that one did not particularly bother her (IIRC), one theist should surely not be taken as representative of the whole. I bet there are lots of theists who would be offended by ELGS.
I definitely agree that one theist's opinion should not be taken to represent the whole of theists. In fact that's another thing that differentiates Chuck Fristians from ELGS. A number of people, mostly atheists, argued that Chuck's name was clearly offensive. Not just one theist. Meanwhile nobody said a word about ELGS's name even after it was brought up for consideration by ELGS herself. Twice, IIRC.

And beyond mods, to really say II is working toward achieving those goals, I think they would have to prevent even users from using names like that, names that could be seen as being detrimental to the effort to build bridges with theists. There are lots, of course!
Why's that? Are there not more stringent expectations of moderators in general?

Yes, partly. I think people should be judged on merit, not on superficial things. I think Chuck has a long history of being an exemplary poster and we shouldn't bow to those who WANT to judge a book by it's cover.
I saw no evidence that anyone was judging Chuck by his name, or that anyone WANTED to judge Chuck by his name. But I believe it's a truism that people are going to judge the organization (and hence the organizations product) by the names of its chosen representatives.

I also believe that a precedent is set, whether by the admins, or Chuck's voluntary change. Other people will feel emboldened to demand that other users change their name, given the success of this venture.
So? There could be five threads a day with every user at IIDB demanding that I change my name, and unless I was convinced by the arguments I wouldn't do it. Would it be reasonable for me to fear that a contingent of sticky nostalgics will soon demand that I change my name, I mean since it happened to Chuck and all?



I think that we can have goals and ideals and we can have practicality. In practice, I think the arbitrary line in the sand (no personal insults, but groups or non-users are ok) was pretty effective. And I think the rule is less about forcing people to be nice (censorship) and more about avoiding the response that comes from sometimes non-rational human beings Roland said this in the thread, that it avoids the thread spinning out of control, off topic. So, it's not so much about preventing incivility as preventing the response to incivility, which is pandemonium. This is further evidenced by the fact that if you can word an insult in an extremely cold, detached, and intellectual way, you can usually get away with it, but if you seem emotional, it's not ok.
Frankly I think it's impossible to mandate civility for the very reasons you explain. But again, that's a great argument for why there should be no attempts to do so at all, not a convincing argument for why it should not be done in this particular instance. But having a moderator named (effectively) Fuck Christians at a site where one of the stated goals is seeking common ground with Christians is patently absurd.

I'm pretty sure you can. I don't think I'm wrong because I often let my emotions go in a post in the Election Forum and post how much I fucking hate conservatives or something, and have never been edited. Again, I think this arbitrary line in the sand is less than ideal, but practically effective.
Based on LadyShea's comment it seems you're right. I still think it's absurd that users in general are allowed to insult each other's affiliations but not persons, but even so it isn't equivalent to having a PD moderator named Fuck Liberals, is it? In fact while we're on the subject, would you support that? How about if one of the stated goals of IIDB was seeking common ground with liberals?

Well, I've never seen the words per se, but I've seen more along the lines of things I personally find more offensive and patronizing, like comments on how they feel sorry for us or we'll find out when we're dead, etc. It's more insulting, I think. But, I in no way think that we should demand that things like these, that cast aspersions on the intelligence, moral standing, compassion, or anything else of non-theists, a majority of users on that board, should get the smack down by the administration.
I agree, but then I'm generally anti-censorship. IIDB is not.


Well, the first sentence of my quote was exactly that. The second was my less charitable idea of what is actually done in practice. A bend-over-backwards effort to avoid offending, at almost any cost, one specific identity-group.
And if you think of the Infidel's as naturalism salespeople, that identity group could reasonably be identified as "the customers".

Well, for several reasons, not the least of which is that Fuck you is personal, whereas Fuck Christians is general, even if you are a member of that identity-group. Second, I think it would just be a bizarre non-sequitir to most any post!
Fuck women is general, but most women would probably find it personally offensive.

Maybe. I would be suspicious of you (assuming I didn't know you a little beforehand as I do).
That's the crux of the matter right there. If I intended to seek common ground with women (which I do, in fact) I would not use the name Fuck Women as my user ID. Similarly, if I had a site devoted to selling an ideology to women I would not employ a moderator named Fuck Women.

The point is, you are only one person, and I wouldn't decide if I liked the whole board based on just YOUR username (even in this place, which is much smaller...at II, Chuck is one of what? 10,000 or something?).
I'm not just one person, though. I'm one of two administrators here. I'm as close to a representative of this site as you're likely to find. And Chuck isn't just one of 10,000 users at IIDB, he's one of about 30 representatives of the site tasked with promoting positive interaction between the membership.

I may not come back to the board if EVERYONE had names like that, or maybe even if you always put something in your posts about hating women (in fact, as certain user at II with a similar tendency HAS turned me away from participating on certain topics). But, I wouldn't give up so easily. And any Christians that give up on IIDB when they see the name Chuck Fristians are certainly not the type (in my opinion) to want to stick around when they actually start PARTICIPATING in E/C or BC&H or whatever.
That's just the old "thin skin" red herring. Why forbid "fuck you"? Surely the kind of person who can't handle being told "fuck you" isn't going to be able to handle any other serious discussion.

It's the same as on Cross+Flame or BaptistBoard or any of those. I have never gotten really into any of them, but plenty of those posters, from what I have seen, have names that I find personally ridiculous, deluded, hateful or embarrassing. Yet, what keeps me away is not their name, but the content of their posts and the (for me, reputed) behavior of their admins and mods.
I've actually heard the opposite about Cross+Flame, but I don't know. Anyway how things are on other boards is not really relevant to how IIDB should do things.

Is the name Chuck Fristians REALLY, in practice to the detriment of the goal to forge bonds with Christians? I would like to know if in reality any Christian has left IIDB because of his name. I would like to know if the horror of his name is really so strong for anyone that the content of his posts were totally ignored or destroyed. Or really, since he is only one of hundreds or even over a thousand very active posters, if a Christian has found his name to be so terrorizing that the content of IIDB as a whole is wiped out? It just seems to me that if we can tell non-theists (and anyone else who cares) that they should not automatically assume bias by a Christian moderator, but should judge him/her by his/her moderation practices, we should tell everyone else to do the same with the name Chuck Fristians.
I don't really think all the hyperbole serves any useful purpose. I don't remember anyone arguing that the name was terrifying, horrible, monstrous, or anything else. It's plainly offensive. Can the offensiveness be quantified? I doubt it. But if you ever see a Walmart employee wearing a "Fuck Customers" button I'd like to hear about it.

[viscousmemories]

Well, I happen to think that the rule works...otherwise you couldn't criticize the government, or the KKK, or whatever. The line would be really really arbitrary, Drawing the line at registered users seems the easiest demarcation.
Government employees and KKK members aren't IIDB's target audience, though. If the KKK was IIDB's target audience, would it make sense to have a moderator named Black Power?

I skimmed the thread, but personally found it a petty and silly issue.
Oh, okay. Why are we talkin' about it then?

With the stated goals and overall tone of the site, yes I would join and maybe ask about the choice of screen name. If the name was in conjuction with an anti-feminism site, no I would not.
Well it was a poor analogy anyway. The point is that knowing you as well as I do, I'm pretty sure Fuck Women is a general sentiment that you find personally offensive. So if it was my intention to promote an ideology to you and other women, I would not use the name Fuck Women, or hire any mods with the name Fuck Women.

[viscousmemories]

I keep wondering how many more victories are going to be handed over to the Fristians over there? How long before the IIDB becomes a Fristian site?
I imagine it'll be any day now. :hide:

[Goliath]

Government employees and KKK members aren't IIDB's target audience, though.

And Fristians are?!

(and yes, I will continue to use the word "Fristians." Koy and I are in more or less complete agreement when it comes to the CF issue).

[Goliath]

I imagine it'll be any day now. :hide:

I doubt it'll be anytime extremely soon, but the IIDB is much closer to being a Fristian site than I ever thought possible.

[viscousmemories]

And Fristians are?!
Well, the purpose of the Secular Web is to promote naturalism. Who would you say their target audience is? Atheists?

I doubt it'll be anytime extremely soon, but the IIDB is much closer to being a Fristian site than I ever thought possible.
That's ridiculous. IIDB is nowhere near being a Christian site. Not even remotely anywhere near the same neighborhood as the ballpark. Not close. Can you prove me wrong by linking to some of the more glaring examples of Christianity being actively promoted there?

[Goliath]

Well, the purpose of the Secular Web is to promote naturalism. Who would you say their target audience is? Atheists?


I guess you're right on that count. I occasionally slip into silly bouts of nostalgia and think back to when the IIDB was more a hangout for non-theists and a place where we don't have to kowtow to the whim of theists. Silly lil' me.



That's ridiculous. IIDB is nowhere near being a Christian site. Not even remotely anywhere near the same neighborhood as the ballpark. Not close. Can you prove me wrong by linking to some of the more glaring examples of Christianity being actively promoted there?

Ah, I see that you're not interested in an actual conversation on this topic.

You keep discussing this issue with the shadow that you've conjured and seem to be mistaking for me.

When you want to READ (you know....read?) the words that I actually WRITE and have an actual discussion of the issues, let me know.

[viscousmemories]

I guess you're right on that count. I occasionally slip into silly bouts of nostalgia and think back to when the IIDB was more a hangout for non-theists and a place where we don't have to kowtow to the whim of theists. Silly lil' me.
It still is a hangout for non-theists and I don't see anyone kowtowing to the whim of theists there. But yeah, open hostility toward people based on generalized assumptions of their character because of their stated beliefs does seem to be frowned upon now. Not that there's any shortage of it, still.

Ah, I see that you're not interested in an actual conversation on this topic.

You keep discussing this issue with the shadow that you've conjured and seem to be mistaking for me.

When you want to READ (you know....read?) the words that I actually WRITE and have an actual discussion of the issues, let me know.
I apologize for the rhetoric, but I didn't get the impression from your snide and dismissive comment that you were actually interested in a discussion of the issue. If you say you are, though, then by all means let's have one. You said that IIDB is "closer to a Fristian site than you ever thought possible". Can you give me some examples of how IIDB is close to being a Christian site?

[Goliath]

I apologize for the rhetoric, but I didn't get the impression from your snide and dismissive comment that you were actually interested in a discussion of the issue.


No, I am interested in a discussion of the issues.

However, I am not interested in having words stuffed in my mouth again and again by people who'd rather engage in mental masturbation than read. I can't count the number of times that it's happened on the IIDB. I guess I was an idiot to hope that it'd never happen here.



You said that IIDB is "closer to a Fristian site than you ever thought possible". Can you give me some examples of how IIDB is close to being a Christian site?

Sure. Two major victories for Fristians that I can think of include the allowance of theist mods and the changing of Chuck Fristians' handle. Furthermore, the general tone of the board is one that is much more tolerant of xianity, and that alone is enough to make me sad.

[viscousmemories]

No, I am interested in a discussion of the issues.

However, I am not interested in having words stuffed in my mouth again and again by people who'd rather engage in mental masturbation than read. I can't count the number of times that it's happened on the IIDB. I guess I was an idiot to hope that it'd never happen here.
Well, you're definitely right that I am not going to respond cheerfully to suggestions that I'm engaging in mental masturbation and stuffing words in your mouth because I respond to your flippant comment with a flippant comment of my own. Sorry. If you want to have a respectful discussion of issues then you'll have to address me with respect. That's how it works. If you want to be an ass to me you shouldn't be surprised if I'm an ass back, though I will make a concerted effort not to be.

Sure. Two major victories for Fristians that I can think of include the allowance of theist mods and the changing of Chuck Fristians' handle. Furthermore, the general tone of the board is one that is much more tolerant of xianity, and that alone is enough to make me sad.
Okay. If you think passing a rule that a single theist mod may be allowed, and a single moderator opting to change his handle to be less offensive to theists makes IIDB "like a Christian site", then I'll just have to disagree.

[Goliath]

Well, you're definitely right that I am not going to respond cheerfully to suggestions that I'm engaging in mental masturbation and stuffing words in your mouth because I respond to your flippant comment with a flippant comment of my own.


I haven't intended to say anything in this thread flippantly.



Sorry. If you want to have a respectful discussion of issues then you'll have to address me with respect.



It's tough to respect someone when you clearly type out "X" and they consistently say "Why would you say 'Y'?!"


Okay. If you think passing a rule that a single theist mod may be allowed, and a single moderator opting to change his handle to be less offensive to theists makes IIDB "like a Christian site", then I'll just have to disagree.

No! I said that it made the IIDB closer to a xian site.

Got that?! C - L - O - S - E - R. Not "like". Not "exactly like". Not "bagel slicer". Closer.

:banghead:

Now I have to make an attempt to get some work done, so if you do reply to this and I don't respond for awhile, you know why.

[Goliath]

Well, the purpose of the Secular Web is to promote naturalism. Who would you say their target audience is? Atheists?


As a quick thought, maybe I shouldn't have conceded this point as quickly as I did...after all, there are atheists out there who aren't metaphysical naturalists. I am one of them. So I'm not convinced that the main audience of the IIDB is, or should be, Fristians.

[viscousmemories]

I haven't intended to say anything in this thread flippantly.
Yeah, on a re-read it seems I was the one who was flippant first. Sorry about that. I incorrectly interpreted the brevity of your first responses as flippant.

It's tough to respect someone when you clearly type out "X" and they consistently say "Why would you say 'Y'?!"
If you think I'm misrepresenting what you say then just tell me how and where. It's no more interesting to me to spend time answering points you didn't make then it is for you to read answers to points you didn't make, I'm sure. So if I do that it's because I misunderstood your point not because it excites me to pretend you said things you didn't and then answer them.

No! I said that it made the IIDB closer to a xian site.

Got that?! C - L - O - S - E - R. Not "like". Not "exactly like". Not "bagel slicer". Closer.
Okay fine, closer. IIDB is closer to a Christian site now because they have ruled that it's okay to have a single theist mod and because a moderator has decided to change his own user ID to be less offensive to Christians. I suppose that's an accurate statement, but in my opinion such a minute closer as to be statistically insignificant. (Whatever that means).

Now I have to make an attempt to get some work done, so if you do reply to this and I don't respond for awhile, you know why.
Fair enough. Thanks for the warning.

[viscousmemories]

As a quick thought, maybe I shouldn't have conceded this point as quickly as I did...after all, there are atheists out there who aren't metaphysical naturalists. I am one of them. So I'm not convinced that the main audience of the IIDB is, or should be, Fristians.
I can't think of a polite way to say "what's your point?" Seriously, if there's a nice way of saying that pretend I said it. I don't understand the relevance.

[catalyst]

<sigh>

Why am I not surprised?

I am thinking of changing my screen name to Whuck Finers.

[catalyst]

Okay. If you think passing a rule that a single theist mod may be allowed, and a single moderator opting to change his handle to be less offensive to theists makes IIDB "like a Christian site", then I'll just have to disagree.

Where does it say that only a single theist mod may be allowed? The non-theist requirement has been removed, pure and simple.

[viscousmemories]

<sigh>

Why am I not surprised?

I am thinking of changing my screen name to Whuck Finers.
Is that directed at someone in particular?

Where does it say that only a single theist mod may be allowed? The non-theist requirement has been removed, pure and simple.
My mistake, then. I thought the announcement was that a single theist mod would be tried out in a single forum.

[catalyst]

Is that directed at someone in particular?


Only individuals who chose to be offended by it will be, so I do not exactly see the harm in it. If some self-confessed whiner wants to complain about it, I can live with that.

[viscousmemories]

Only individuals who chose to be offended by it will be, so I do not exactly see the harm in it. If some self-confessed whiner wants to complain about it, I can live with that.
Ah, I see. Well since that particular word seems to (coincidentally, of course) come up fairly often when you post in threads I start, I'll go ahead and volunteer to assume it's directed at me and be offended by it despite disagreeing with the assessment of myself as a 'whiner'. So which part of this thread in particular is the most 'whiny', would you say? And is it all complaints about policy at IIDB that you consider 'whining', or just those that I happen to agree with or raise?

[catalyst]

Ah, I see. Well since that particular word seems to (coincidentally, of course) come up fairly often when you post in threads I start, I'll go ahead and volunteer to assume it's directed at me and be offended by it despite disagreeing with the assessment of myself as a 'whiner'. So which part of this thread in particular is the most 'whiny', would you say? And is it all complaints about policy at IIDB that you consider 'whining', or just those that I happen to agree with or raise?

So you are chosing to be offended by this, yes?

[viscousmemories]

So you are chosing to be offended by this, yes?
I am choosing, based on your failure to answer my direct question with a direct answer and combined with our history of communication, to interpret your comment as directed toward me. I do not 'choose' to be offended by being called a whiner, I am offended because it is an inherently offensive comment. If I tell you to go fuck yourself, would it be your choice whether you are offended, or would you just naturally be offended?

[catalyst]

I am choosing, based on your failure to answer my direct question with a direct answer and combined with our history of communication, to interpret your comment as directed toward me. I do not 'choose' to be offended by being called a whiner, I am offended because it is an inherently offensive comment. If I tell you to go fuck yourself, would it be your choice whether you are offended, or would you just naturally be offended?


Well, your comment would be directed at me specifically. Mine was a generalization. Furthermore, someone must self-identify as a whiner before they can be offended.

As to whether I would be offended by your comment, the answer is no. I do not chose to allow people's comments, at least the ones of that nature, to offended me. They only have the ability to do so if I chose to allow it, and I do not. I refuse to empower others in that manner.

I am often the target of shitty remarks, starting from my days as an MD moderator, to mod@large, to admin. I have been called a facist, a nazi, accused of bias towards liberals, conservatives, Christians, Atheists, etc. I have been directly insulted via e-mail and PM in words far more harsh. I do not get offened for the above reasons. Self-control is a beautiful thing.

[viscousmemories]

Well, your comment would be directed at me specifically. Mine was a generalization. Furthermore, someone must self-identify as a whiner before they can be offended.
It is obvious to any native speaker of English that making a general comment expressing frustration with whiners implies that you foster an opinion that someone is a whiner. It is further reasonable to assume, in a forum such as this, that you are referring to someone who has posted in - or is under discussion in - the same thread you make said comment in.

Since you posted in my thread making a reference to whiners, and this is not the first time you have used the word whiner in a thread of mine, and you failed to respond directly when I asked if you were directing your comment toward anyone in particular, I inferred (perhaps incorrectly, I'll concede) that your comment was in fact directed to me. And, despite the fact that I do not (as I explained) self-identify as a whiner, I find your (assumed perhaps incorrectly, of course) accusation offensive.

As to whether I would be offended by your comment, the answer is no. I do not chose to allow people's comments, at least the ones of that nature, to offended me. They only have the ability to do so if I chose to allow it, and I do not. I refuse to empower others in that manner.
Well where I come from a failure to have a traditional emotional reaction to a typically provocative event is called denial, and is considered an inappropriate psychological response. I believe that being told to go fuck yourself is a typically provocative event that traditionally evokes an anger response, usually resulting from offense.

I am often the target of shitty remarks, starting from my days as an MD moderator, to mod@large, to admin. I have been called a facist, a nazi, accused of bias towards liberals, conservatives, Christians, Atheists, etc. I have been directly insulted via e-mail and PM in words far more harsh. I do not get offened for the above reasons. Self-control is a beautiful thing.
I think it's great that you don't let people's offensive comments get you down, but as I explained above I don't believe it's accurate to imply that anyone who is offended by traditionally offensive things is somehow deficient in self-control. On the contrary, I would say that the normal and heathy response to offensive comments is outrage. Of course there are various ways (some less useful than others) to cope with outrage, but that's neither here nor there. I believe that the normal psychological response to an offensive comment is to be offended.

[catalyst]

It is obvious to any native speaker of English that making a general comment expressing frustration with whiners implies that you foster an opinion that someone is a whiner. It is further reasonable to assume, in a forum such as this, that you are referring to someone who has posted in - or is under discussion in - the same thread you make said comment in.

Since you posted in my thread making a reference to whiners, and this is not the first time you have used the word whiner in a thread of mine, and you failed to respond directly when I asked if you were directing your comment toward anyone in particular, I inferred (perhaps incorrectly, I'll concede) that your comment was in fact directed to me. And, despite the fact that I do not (as I explained) self-identify as a whiner, I find your (assumed perhaps incorrectly, of course) accusation offensive.



However, I was, instead, making a gross generalization to illustrate a point. Nothing more. You chose to get offended, when my clarification was not accurate enough.




Well where I come from a failure to have a traditional emotional reaction to a typically provocative event is called denial, and is considered an inappropriate psychological response. I believe that being told to go fuck yourself is a typically provocative event that traditionally evokes an anger response, usually resulting from offense.

People can tell me that all day long. I refuse to give them the ability to bother me. I have more important things going on in my life than to get upset with a direct insult, let alone a play on words that is meant in a humorous manner. Where I come from, there are real reasons to get hurt, and they are physical. These are worth worrying about. The opinions of people I respect are worth worrying about, to a point. Someone making a joke, well, I have more important things to worry about.





I think it's great that you don't let people's offensive comments get you down, but as I explained above I don't believe it's accurate to imply that anyone who is offended by traditionally offensive things is somehow deficient in self-control.

This was not my intent. I was speaking purely of myself. If I wished to include anyone else, I would have done so.

On the contrary, I would say that the normal and heathy response to offensive comments is outrage. Of course there are various ways (some less useful than others) to cope with outrage, but that's neither here nor there. I believe that the normal psychological response to an offensive comment is to be offended.

I would say getting outraged over insulting remarks or name calling is something most people should have left on the playground during recess quite some time ago.

Before one can become offended by a comment, one must decide that it is offensive. I have a specific insult relative to my culture that is hideously offensive. Therefore, any play on what is a common-use word in English should be struck from the board, because it is an offensive comment, and where I normal, I would be justifiably outraged.

Of course not.

[viscousmemories]

However, I was, instead, making a gross generalization to illustrate a point. Nothing more. You chose to get offended, when my clarification was not accurate enough.
Ah. Well as I said, I didn't choose to get offended. I was offended because being called a whiner is offensive. The only choice I made was to interpret your failure to answer my direct question - coupled with my knowledge of history - as you directing your comment to me.

Anyway what on-topic point were you trying to illustrate? That only a person who self-identifies as a Christian would be offended by a moderator named Fuck Christians? Of course.

People can tell me that all day long. I refuse to give them the ability to bother me. I have more important things going on in my life than to get upset with a direct insult, let alone a play on words that is meant in a humorous manner. Where I come from, there are real reasons to get hurt, and they are physical. These are worth worrying about. The opinions of people I respect are worth worrying about, to a point. Someone making a joke, well, I have more important things to worry about.
Again, I'm sure your thick skin is a real boon to you. But by your logic people should not let a little phrase like "go fuck yourself" offend them. So is it your opinion that people should be allowed to say "go fuck yourself" at IIDB? If so, too bad. The rules state that such comments are not acceptable.

I would say getting outraged over insulting remarks or name calling is something most people should have left on the playground during recess quite some time ago.
And I would say anyone who doesn't get outraged at insulting remarks either lacks self-respect or fits in the shoe.

Before one can become offended by a comment, one must decide that it is offensive.
I disagree.

I have a specific insult relative to my culture that is hideously offensive. Therefore, any play on what is a common-use word in English should be struck from the board, because it is an offensive comment, and where I normal, I would be justifiably outraged.

Of course not.
Well naturally I wouldn't support banning the use of a hypothetical word either. The problem with that analogy is that Fuck Christians isn't an imaginary phrase that means nothing and refers to nobody. It's a real phrase that is intended to denigrate a real segment of the population, who happens to also be the intended customer of the product you're selling. Now should you encourage it?

Think about it: You're the regional sales manager for Microsoft, and you're trying to close a multi-million dollar deal with Ford Automotive. Would you let a member of your sales staff wear a "Fuck Detroit" tie? I hope not.

[Celsus]

I am thinking of changing my screen name to Whuck Finers.
Always good to see that II is in the safe hands of a mature intelligent admin who will make responsible decisions and appreciates the input of its members. :appl:

Joel

[catalyst]

Always good to see that II is in the safe hands of a mature intelligent admin who will make responsible decisions and appreciates the input of its members. :appl:

Joel

Glad you think so. I was, as I stated in the thread, generalizing to make a point.

[catalyst]

Ah. Well as I said, I didn't choose to get offended. I was offended because being called a whiner is offensive. The only choice I made was to interpret your failure to answer my direct question - coupled with my knowledge of history - as you directing your comment to me.

Anyway what on-topic point were you trying to illustrate? That only a person who self-identifies as a Christian would be offended by a moderator named Fuck Christians? Of course.


Nope. I was stating that some people are going to be offened no matter what, and no matter what people post, someone is going to take offense at it. And please note that I did not call anyone a whiner. You chose to interpet it that way.

Again, I'm sure your thick skin is a real boon to you. But by your logic people should not let a little phrase like "go fuck yourself" offend them. So is it your opinion that people should be allowed to say "go fuck yourself" at IIDB? If so, too bad. The rules state that such comments are not acceptable.


Comments like those are direct insults to a specific individual, a topic which has already been covered within this thread.

And I would say anyone who doesn't get outraged at insulting remarks either lacks self-respect or fits in the shoe.


You assert that people should find certain remarks insulting, and then assert that they should be outraged. I guess I missed your support for these conclusions. Possibly you could re-post?


I disagree.

So there is an objective insult standard? Some remarks are automatically offensive no matter what?


Well naturally I wouldn't support banning the use of a hypothetical word either. The problem with that analogy is that Fuck Christians isn't an imaginary phrase that means nothing and refers to nobody. It's a real phrase that is intended to denigrate a real segment of the population, who happens to also be the intended customer of the product you're selling. Now should you encourage it?

Of course, a play on the phrase Fuck Christians is a lot different than coming out and saying it with the intent to insult someone now, is it not?


Think about it: You're the regional sales manager for Microsoft, and you're trying to close a multi-million dollar deal with Ford Automotive. Would you let a member of your sales staff wear a "Fuck Detroit" tie? I hope not.

Well, vm, we are not trying to do anything of the sort. Not that context seems to matter to you in the slightest.

[seebs]

Amusingly, GodStopper was commenting on this in #infidelchat.

Personally... My theory has been that IIDB is torn between "promoting metaphysical naturalism" and "promoting metaphysical naturalists". There are two very distinct user communities; one group would like to see religion gone from the world, another would like to coexist peacefully.

Curiously, these groups have mutually exclusive needs and methods.

So... I think IIDB is gradually migrating towards "peaceful coexistence" as a goal, and that implies making some effort to avoid actively offending theists. Honestly, I think that trend's been there for a while; shortly after I first registered, I complained that the subtitle for EOG was "how can anyone think there is a God...", and that this seemed to sort of set a hostile tone.

What should they do? I don't know. I am inclined to favor peaceful coexistence, because I think that works the best for everybody, and it continues to work well no matter who's in charge, or how many of them there are. Furthermore, while I think metaphysical naturalism is mildly hampered by being false, I think metaphysical naturalists are, for the most part, really cool people.

But it's an interesting question.

[Goliath]

Yeah, on a re-read it seems I was the one who was flippant first. Sorry about that. I incorrectly interpreted the brevity of your first responses as flippant.


Apology accepted.



If you think I'm misrepresenting what you say then just tell me how and where. It's no more interesting to me to spend time answering points you didn't make then it is for you to read answers to points you didn't make, I'm sure. So if I do that it's because I misunderstood your point not because it excites me to pretend you said things you didn't and then answer them.



And here is where I must apologize. I had a knee-jerk reaction to the misunderstanding hailing back to my IIDB days (where I am still utterly convinced that some people actually were excited to pretend I said things that I didn't and then answer them). I will try to be less frustrated with such misreadings.



Okay fine, closer.



Yes. Thank you. I actually put a lot of care in choosing the word "closer" because it portrayed the exact meaning that I needed. I always strive to say exactly what I mean: no more, no less (except when trying to be humorous of course...and I always try to denote humor with a smiley afterward, usually :D , :) , or :P ).


I can't think of a polite way to say "what's your point?"


Ummmm...how about "What's your point?" :?

Anyways, the point of that post was that you claimed that the target audience of IIDB was Fristians, and, after a bit of thought, I decided that I wasn't convinced of that at all.

[livius drusus]

Your theory makes a lot of sense, seebs. I think you're right that the trend has been going on for a while; the lockdown of RRP was the first writ large indication of it to me and that was a year and a half ago.

The notion that IIDB is bowing down to theist pc with the seeking common ground goal is mystifying to me. The Secular Web isn't just a library; in order to be relevant in the world it has to work with people in the world. Curled lips and ginger handshakes do not make for positive interaction.

About the Chuck matter, I had rather hoped it would be sorted out behind the scenes, really, because these issues always seem to generate massive amounts of rhetorical heat which serves only to polarize people and caricature their positions. If we can avoid that fate here, my 24 hour headache would be grateful.

More later...

Quick P.S. for Goliath: :hug:

[viscousmemories]

Nope. I was stating that some people are going to be offened no matter what, and no matter what people post, someone is going to take offense at it.
As I've said repeatedly, the only reasonable conclusion you can infer from that bit of reasoning is that it's impractical to prohibit offensive comments at all, since as you say anyone might be offended by anything. Nevertheless, IIDB does prohibit offensive comments and, I assume, intends to continue doing so. So with that comes the responsibility for making judgments about whether a particular comment could reasonably be construed as offensive to a sizable (or important) segment of the population.

And please note that I did not call anyone a whiner. You chose to interpet it that way.
It was a reasonable inference. Consider the following dialogue:

Bob: Hi Joe
Joe: Fuck you
Bob: Huh? How offensive!
Joe: What?
Bob: You just said "fuck you" to me!
Joe: Oh, I didn't mean you, I meant the general 'you'.
Bob: Riiiiiiight.

Comments like those are direct insults to a specific individual, a topic which has already been covered within this thread.
Okay.

You assert that people should find certain remarks insulting, and then assert that they should be outraged. I guess I missed your support for these conclusions. Possibly you could re-post?
No you're right. I don't have any empirical evidence to support my assertion that some comments are going to reasonably be considered offensive by a majority of English speakers or that outrage is the appropriate response to such offense. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "Before one can become offended by a comment, one must decide that it is offensive."?

So there is an objective insult standard? Some remarks are automatically offensive no matter what?
Have you ever met someone who introduces himself to a stranger with "Go fuck yourself"? Me either. Is that because "Go fuck yourself" is automatically offensive no matter what? No. Two people who know each other might say it to each other playfully and no offense would be taken. Without such a context yes, that remark is automatically offensive.

Of course, a play on the phrase Fuck Christians is a lot different than coming out and saying it with the intent to insult someone now, is it not?
Obviously I can't read Chuck's mind and from what I hear he's really a great guy, but I would not believe him if he told me he meant no offense to Christian's when choosing a play on the words "Fuck Christians" as his user ID. Similarly, I think all these obfuscations and ad hoc rationalizations are a disingenuous waste of everyone's time. As I said at IIDB, no reasonable person could possibly deny that the user ID "Chuck Fristians" is going to be generally offensive to Christians.



Well, vm, we are not trying to do anything of the sort. Not that context seems to matter to you in the slightest.
Nothing of the sort? Is it one of IIDB's goals to promote naturalism or not? If it is, then how is that not at all like trying to sell a product?

[Goliath]

Quick P.S. for Goliath: :hug:

Thanks. :)

[LadyShea]

A number of people, mostly atheists, argued that Chuck's name was clearly offensive. Not just one theist. Meanwhile nobody said a word about ELGS's name even after it was brought up for consideration by ELGS herself. Twice, IIRC.

Then why wasn't it brought up before? Why did those people wait for a fairly new poster to complain before jumping on the bandwagon? In fact, I remember his screen name getting quite a lot of votes in various "favorite screenname" threads.

[livius drusus]

Then why wasn't it brought up before? Why did those people wait for a fairly new poster to complain before jumping on the bandwagon? In fact, I remember his screen name getting quite a lot of votes in various "favorite screenname" threads.
Because he was just made a moderator very recently, Shea. I didn't even notice he was one until I read Will's thread, and I pay attention. Again, the handle per se isn't the problem; it's a moderator with that handle that is awkward given the mission statement.

[LadyShea]

Government employees and KKK members aren't IIDB's target audience, though. If the KKK was IIDB's target audience, would it make sense to have a moderator named Black Power?

What if it was Muck Fuslims? How about Puck Fagans? Would anybody care then? Christians aren't the target audience either, it's all theists.


Oh, okay. Why are we talkin' about it then?

I am talking about it because I found it rather odd that your last post on II, before yesterday and this issue, was in June. Why were you drawn to this particular thread?


Well it was a poor analogy anyway. The point is that knowing you as well as I do, I'm pretty sure Fuck Women is a general sentiment that you find personally offensive. So if it was my intention to promote an ideology to you and other women, I would not use the name Fuck Women, or hire any mods with the name Fuck Women.

Understood, but if it was Wuck Fomen I would assume it was somewhat tongue in cheek myself.

[livius drusus]

I am talking about it because I found it rather odd that your last post on II, before yesterday and this issue, was in June. Why were you drawn to this particular thread?

Because I was participating on it and linked him to my posts.

[LadyShea]

Because I was participating on it and linked him to my posts.


Fair enough, it just got my curiosity piqued.

[viscousmemories]

Personally... My theory has been that IIDB is torn between "promoting metaphysical naturalism" and "promoting metaphysical naturalists". There are two very distinct user communities; one group would like to see religion gone from the world, another would like to coexist peacefully.

Curiously, these groups have mutually exclusive needs and methods.
I agree, sort of. I said as much in a post on that thread, except I chose to describe it as IIDB having evolved ahead of some of the membership. I would say there's more likely three distinct groups. The two you describe, plus one that believes the best way to win theists to the naturalistic viewpoint is by respectful coercion.

So... I think IIDB is gradually migrating towards "peaceful coexistence" as a goal, and that implies making some effort to avoid actively offending theists. Honestly, I think that trend's been there for a while; shortly after I first registered, I complained that the subtitle for EOG was "how can anyone think there is a God...", and that this seemed to sort of set a hostile tone.
I really don't see it as migrating towards peaceful coexistence as much as respectful coercion. I believe the primary goal of IIDB will always be, as it is now, the promotion of a naturalistic worldview.

What should they do? I don't know. I am inclined to favor peaceful coexistence, because I think that works the best for everybody, and it continues to work well no matter who's in charge, or how many of them there are. Furthermore, while I think metaphysical naturalism is mildly hampered by being false, I think metaphysical naturalists are, for the most part, really cool people.

But it's an interesting question.
I'm not sure what they should do either, but I wish they'd do it consistently.

[viscousmemories]

Apology accepted.
Excellent. :)

And here is where I must apologize. I had a knee-jerk reaction to the misunderstanding hailing back to my IIDB days (where I am still utterly convinced that some people actually were excited to pretend I said things that I didn't and then answer them). I will try to be less frustrated with such misreadings.
Apology accepted. :)

Yes. Thank you. I actually put a lot of care in choosing the word "closer" because it portrayed the exact meaning that I needed. I always strive to say exactly what I mean: no more, no less (except when trying to be humorous of course...and I always try to denote humor with a smiley afterward, usually :D , :) , or :P ).
Fair enough.

Ummmm...how about "What's your point?" :?
I dunno, but for some reason "what's your point?" sounds abrasive to me. As if I'm really saying "you have no point" or something.

Anyways, the point of that post was that you claimed that the target audience of IIDB was Fristians, and, after a bit of thought, I decided that I wasn't convinced of that at all.
I would say not just Christians, but all people who don't currently subscribe to a naturalistic worldview, of whom Christians are a very large part here in the US.

[viscousmemories]

What if it was Muck Fuslims? How about Puck Fagans? Would anybody care then? Christians aren't the target audience either, it's all theists.
Right. As I just said to Goliath I think IIDB's target audience, inasmuch as their goal is to promote a naturalistic worldview, are all people who don't currently subscribe to a naturalistic worldview. In pursuit of that goal I don't think they should allow the staff to have names that offend any ideological grouping.

I am talking about it because I found it rather odd that your last post on II, before yesterday and this issue, was in June. Why were you drawn to this particular thread?
Liv already answered that accurately. It's true that I don't generally go to IIDB at all. In fact until a couple days ago it had been a couple weeks since I was last there. However there are numerous sites around the 'net that I pop in to from time to time and participate in only one or two threads, and often those threads have to do with forum management and policy because (as you know) it's one of the things I'm most interested in.

Understood, but if it was Wuck Fomen I would assume it was somewhat tongue in cheek myself.
Sure, but it would still be offensive no? I honestly don't think anyone can reasonably deny that Chuck Fristians is going to be offensive to Christians. I think the real argument that's bubbling under the surface (though erupting here and there) is whether IIDB should care if they offend Christians. Of course (it seems to me) that debate was had months ago, and the conclusion was that they do care (for whatever reason) and they intend to minimize offense to Christians. So this really should be a no-brainer, except it seems that some people who weren't happy with the original decision are using this relatively minor issue as a last resort.

Just as a semantic point to one of your earlier comments, Will I Am (the guy who raised this issue at IIDB) has been a member there for a year and has over 300 posts. Since that describes many of the staff I wouldn't really say he's a new guy.

[Dingfod]

Just one point, basically a repeat of what I wrote at HH a few minutes ago: If IIDB's purpose is to "explore common ground" and encounter an area or subject that is not common ground, does that mean that it must chuck (pun intended) everything that is not common ground? I personally think not. I also think the "explore common ground" goal, if it is to be interpreted as never ever offending theists, runs a bit contrary to the "to foster a sense of community among nontheists" goal. I'm not sure both are possible 100% of the time.

Also, Chuck Fristians may be a play on Fuck Christians, but it might not be, how can anyone know without asking Chuck himself? The offended party must have transposed of the letters in the names to make the connection to the supposedly offensive phrase. What if Fristians happened to be Chuck's surname? What if my real name was U. R. Dick and I wanted to use that as my screenname? I think the whole thing was ridiculous, whether brought forward by a Christian or an Atheist. If people are going to be offended by their own interpretation and transliteration of things, what is the old song lyric? "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself."



Warren

[LadyShea]

Right. As I just said to Goliath I think IIDB's target audience, inasmuch as their goal is to promote a naturalistic worldview, are all people who don't currently subscribe to a naturalistic worldview. In pursuit of that goal I don't think they should allow the staff to have names that offend any ideological grouping.

Because he was just made a moderator very recently, Shea. I didn't even notice he was one until I read Will's thread, and I pay attention. Again, the handle per se isn't the problem; it's a moderator with that handle that is awkward given the mission statement.



Agreed. I do think they should have thought about it and handled it behind the scenes (as Pomp managed to glean on his own). The IIDB staff can be reather dense sometimes.


Liv already answered that accurately. It's true that I don't generally go to IIDB at all. In fact until a couple days ago it had been a couple weeks since I was last there. However there are numerous sites around the 'net that I pop in to from time to time and participate in only one or two threads, and often those threads have to do with forum management and policy because (as you know) it's one of the things I'm most interested in.

Okey doke, just curious like I said.


Sure, but it would still be offensive no? I honestly don't think anyone can reasonably deny that Chuck Fristians is going to be offensive to Christians. I think the real argument that's bubbling under the surface (though erupting here and there) is whether IIDB should care if they offend Christians. Of course (it seems to me) that debate was had months ago, and the conclusion was that they do care (for whatever reason) and they intend to minimize offense to Christians. So this really should be a no-brainer, except it seems that some people who weren't happy with the original decision are using this relatively minor issue as a last resort.

I don't know if I would be offended. I have a hard time being offended by comments if I assume it is not aimed at me directly. I don't really know how to articulate it. When UMoC uses feminazi in a discussion I am involved in, I am offended because I know he means me. If someone's screen name was Fuck Women, but their posts didn't include any anti feminist sentiments, I would just assume that person had had some bad relationships and was sorta swearing off women....but that I was not involved in that.

Dammit why can't I explain this?

Like my friend C I talked about in my journal...she wasn't offended at being called "disgusting" because she simply couldn't associate the word with herself.

Just as a semantic point to one of your earlier comments, Will I Am (the guy who raised this issue at IIDB) has been a member there for a year and has over 300 posts. Since that describes many of the staff I wouldn't really say he's a new guy.

Fair enough, I have almost 10,000 posts after 3.5 years so have a bit skewed idea of "new" ;) Sorta like a 45 year old man is still "Young Fella" to an 80 year old.

[Goliath]

I think the real argument that's bubbling under the surface (though erupting here and there) is whether IIDB should care if they offend Christians.

For once, we agree. I can't honestly fathom why they should.

Then again, I can't honestly fathom the value of trying to find common ground with theists, either.

I guess it's probably just me.

[livius drusus]

Just one point, basically a repeat of what I wrote at HH a few minutes ago: If IIDB's purpose is to "explore common ground" and encounter an area or subject that is not common ground, does that mean that it must chuck (pun intended) everything that is not common ground? I personally think not.

Again, moderators are not in the same position as everyone else. They are not like regular users, both in their powers and their responsibilities, and they most certainly are not like subjects or areas. IIDB will never chuck confrontational or offensive subjects because that's what it's there to discuss.

I also think the "explore common ground" goal, if it is to be interpreted as never ever offending theists, runs a bit contrary to the "to foster a sense of community among nontheists" goal. I'm not sure both are possible 100% of the time.

Sigh... If we could all please stop with the never ever offending theists strawman I'd really appreciate it. That's not even remotely what this issue was about.

Also, Chuck Fristians may be a play on Fuck Christians, but it might not be, how can anyone know without asking Chuck himself?

If we don't know that it's a play on something how do we know it's a joke? Given the number of times people have announced that his name is joke as if we were retarded for not seeing it, the notion that someone might mistakenly think it is what it is seems disingenuous to me.

I think the whole thing was ridiculous, whether brought forward by a Christian or an Atheist. If people are going to be offended by their own interpretation and transliteration of things, what is the old song lyric? "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself."

Sorry, but not when you're a moderator.

[livius drusus]

Then again, I can't honestly fathom the value of trying to find common ground with theists, either.

There are two reasons I can think of: to form political alliances with liberal theists on issues like CSS or creationism in the classrooms, and
to lure real scholars of every belief system to contribute to the site.

I guess it's probably just me.

Well, you're not an organization. ;)

[Goliath]

to form political alliances with liberal theists on issues like CSS or creationism in the classrooms,

An alliance with the enemy? How utterly absurd.

And although I'm aware that you don't consider them to be the enemy in these issues, I most certainly do.

andto lure real scholars of every belief system to contribute to the site.


<shrug> Why would common ground need to be established to do this? If I submit a paper to a journal, do I have to have all that much in common with the journal's editorial board?

Again, this reason is equally absurd.


Well, you're not an organization. ;)

Very true. And I'll never make the mistake of giving xianity the grudging respect that it's unfortunately enjoying at the IIDB.

[D. Scarlatti]

An alliance with the enemy? How utterly absurd.

And although I'm aware that you don't consider them to be the enemy in these issues, I most certainly do.

There are believers that are like-minded with respect to CSS and creationism, so livius' suggestion is hardly absurd. It's politically expedient. Considering an individual an "enemy" simply on the grounds of their god-belief is what's absurd, not to mention counterproductive, in the context of livius' suggestion.

[Penni]

Sigh... If we could all please stop with the never ever offending theists strawman I'd really appreciate it. That's not even remotely what this issue was about.


I'm honestly confused as to how it's a strawman. I thought offending theists was exactly the issue, because by (the assumption that) the name offends theists, posters have claimed that that name violates the goal to explore common ground with theists.

And now, I am going to go ahead and repost what I put on another board, because I keep coming back again and again to the idea that something isn't being equally enforced here. I may be having some trouble verbalizing it, but I keep turning it over and looking at it differently and trying to really get deep into it:

If it's reasonable to say that Chuck Fristians, the name, contravenes the goal of exploring common ground with theists, we must recognize that that is based on the assumption that theists will take so much offense to it that they will not be able to participate in a productive manner in our community.

I propose that it is reasonable to say that a theist moderator contravenes the goal to promote a naturalistic worldview, because of the assumption that theists will not be able to promote that worldview and/or users will see the forum leader as not capable of doing so and thereby they themselves will be less effective in promoting the worldview.

Now, both of these rest on assumptions some people won't like. Many will say that there are many theists out there that are perfectly capable of being fair moderators on a secular board, and that is true. It is also true that there are many theists out there that are not offended nor prevented from exploring common ground due to chuck's username.

The other point is that it has been decided that moderators need not support the goal of the IIDB, i.e. a theist moderator doesn't need to promise to promote secularism...so why should usernames have to promote exploring common ground?

As to an earlier post by vm, I can agree that one of the target audiences in theists. The other is non-theists. Hmmmmm, so isn't that pretty much everyone on the planet? I am not sure if there are gray areas between being a theist or non-theist, but the point is, I think that there are examples of ways that one segment of one of the target audiences is being catered to unequally. I also agree with warrenly that disallowing usernames like that contravenes the goal of building community with non-theists. Why should the theist perspective take precedence?

And again, why should moderators be expected to uphold or advance certain goals, but not others? The only thing I thought mods were supposed to do was uphold the RULES of conduct on the board...

[Goliath]

If they really are our allies (and if they represent the majority of xians--the claim that many love to make but none seem to want to back up), then why aren't they doing something? Hmmm?

Nope, sorry, I'm not buying this batch.

[Penni]

On the building bridges with theists thing...well I think it's a good idea. I helped to write that Mission Statement for chrissakes. But, as evidence by my post above, I think that exploring common ground with theists is taking priority (in policy making by admins/BOD) over bulding a non-theist community and, to some extent, expanding naturalism. Perhaps attracting theists will expand naturalism and perhaps it won't. I don't think it's fair to assume that just because we explore common ground with theists that secularism will be expanded. They are probably thinking the same thing! That if they put themselves out there and make friends, maybe they'll expand Christianity!

[LadyShea]

The other point is that it has been decided that moderators need not support the goal of the IIDB, i.e. a theist moderator doesn't need to promise to promote secularism...so why should usernames have to promote exploring common ground?

This is a valid point and one I hadn't thought of.

[Dingfod]

Sigh... If we could all please stop with the never ever offending theists strawman I'd really appreciate it. That's not even remotely what this issue was about.If it's about not offending theists, and my saying it is is a strawman, then, what is it about? Enlighten my dark soul.

If we don't know that it's a play on something how do we know it's a joke?It doesn't matter if it was a joke or not. As I said, someone could be offended by a real name because they interpreted it as an offense. Is there even a way to guard against anyone's interpretation of anything at all in any way they wish?

Sorry, but not when you're a moderator.I'll agree to a degree. Just the title "moderator" should indicate moderation and I suppose one should moderate one's own potential offensiveness where it is even possible to do it, regardless of who it is offense to. But, I still don't see how I can be responsible for someone else taking offense at something they have to create themselves out of what I write.


Warren

[viscousmemories]

I'm honestly confused as to how it's a strawman. I thought offending theists was exactly the issue, because by (the assumption that) the name offends theists, posters have claimed that that name violates the goal to explore common ground with theists.
She didn't say offending theists is a strawman, but never ever offending theists, and I agree. Saying "a moderator should not use the ID "Fuck Christians" is not the same as saying "nobody should ever say anything offensive to Christians".

Now, both of these rest on assumptions some people won't like. Many will say that there are many theists out there that are perfectly capable of being fair moderators on a secular board, and that is true. It is also true that there are many theists out there that are not offended nor prevented from exploring common ground due to chuck's username.
I don't think the comparison works. It is far less obvious to me that a theist would be incapable of being a fair moderator than that Fuck Christians will offend Christians.

The other point is that it has been decided that moderators need not support the goal of the IIDB, i.e. a theist moderator doesn't need to promise to promote secularism...so why should usernames have to promote exploring common ground?
I must have missed that part of the debate. It doesn't strike me as rational to have a staff that isn't required to support the site mission.

As to an earlier post by vm, I can agree that one of the target audiences in theists. The other is non-theists. Hmmmmm, so isn't that pretty much everyone on the planet? I am not sure if there are gray areas between being a theist or non-theist, but the point is, I think that there are examples of ways that one segment of one of the target audiences is being catered to unequally. I also agree with warrenly that disallowing usernames like that contravenes the goal of building community with non-theists. Why should the theist perspective take precedence?
I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but this is an argument for not censoring offensive content at all, not an argument for refusing to do so in this instance.

And again, why should moderators be expected to uphold or advance certain goals, but not others? The only thing I thought mods were supposed to do was uphold the RULES of conduct on the board...
I don't know… doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

[viscousmemories]

If they really are our allies (and if they represent the majority of xians--the claim that many love to make but none seem to want to back up), then why aren't they doing something? Hmmm?

Nope, sorry, I'm not buying this batch.
This is a total mischaracterization of livius' point. She said nothing about the majority of Christians. She implied that there are liberal theists who share a common ground with non-theists on issues of CSS and Creationism, and (as Scarlatti rephrased it) that alienating those allies because of their god-belief is absurd.

[Penni]

She didn't say offending theists is a strawman, but never ever offending theists, and I agree. Saying "a moderator should not use the ID "Fuck Christians" is not the same as saying "nobody should ever say anything offensive to Christians". Ah, well. But, I am still having a hard time seeing how it's a true strawman. If the reason (and I apologize for repeating) we don't like Chuck's username is that he is a mod and as a mod he should uphold the mission (not withstanding the other point that deserves more attention) and his name doesn't uphold the mission because it offends Christians, shouldn't we root out ALL items that may be offensive to Christians? Or perhaps we should root out ALL items that could be offensive to Christians that were originated by staff? The point is consistency.


I don't think the comparison works. It is far less obvious to me that a theist would be incapable of being a fair moderator than that Fuck Christians will offend Christians. Less obvious to you. Not to some. This is just perception and I am not sure we can say who is "right."


I must have missed that part of the debate. It doesn't strike me as rational to have a staff that isn't required to support the site mission. It's absolutely true (unless something has changed over the last few months I am unaware of). At the time, some were lead to ask whether or not a theist mod would truly be able to promote naturalism and the answer was that person would not have to promise to do so. Being a mod doesn't mean you need to want to see II succeed in its goals, it seems. I think you only need to promise to enforce the rules fairly and, pretty much, be a good model of posting behavior.


I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but this is an argument for not censoring offensive content at all, not an argument for refusing to do so in this instance. I guess I'd say that a good argument for censoring in this instance and NOT in others is more called for than an argument for not censoring in this case and also not in others.


I don't know… doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Maybe I have finally hit on what I was trying to verbalize....

[Dingfod]

She didn't say offending theists is a strawman, but never ever offending theists, and I agree. Saying "a moderator should not use the ID "Fuck Christians" is not the same as saying "nobody should ever say anything offensive to Christians". Perhaps I was guilty of using hyperbole in writing "never ever", but calling it a strawman I really question. Explain to me the difference of "offending theists" and "never ever offending theists" without being pedantic. Is it just a case by case basis, and thus it only applies in Chuck's screenname? I think this is a bigger issue than just Chuck. It IS about not offending theists, once, twice, ever, or never ever.


Warren

[livius drusus]

If they really are our allies (and if they represent the majority of xians--the claim that many love to make but none seem to want to back up), then why aren't they doing something? Hmmm?

Well, it's probably a subject for a different thread, but here's an example. One of the foremost (if not the foremost) CSS organizations is Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer). Their representatives all over the press, and the organization generally has a very high profile when it comes to CSS issues in the US.

Here's the Board of Trustees for AU (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_board). It includes:
Dr. Ronald B. Flowers of Fort Worth, Texas
Professor of Religion, Texas Christian University
K. Hollyn Hollman of Washington, DC
General Counsel, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
The Reverend Robert “Cam” McConnell of Manhattan, Kansas
First Presbyterian of Manhattan
The Reverend Meg Riley of Washington, DC
Director, Washington Office Unitarian Universalist Association

So there are a bunch of Christians working assiduously (far more assiduously than I) for CSS. Also on that list is one Molleen Matsumura, Vice-president, Internet Infidels. Can you see how she might have difficulty working with all those Christians for a common goal if she considers them enemies? What if one those Christian fellow trustees decides to check out her site's forum and finds it ideologically predisposed to hate Christianity?

That would be not only a political headache of considerable proportions, but could materially damage II's involvement in CSS activism.

[Goliath]

I still don't get it. Why would Matsumura give a crap about what a xian would think about II? Why would any of us? Since when has their opinions on the IIDB amounted to anything other than a pile of rancid shit?

<shrug>

And even if a fair number of them are with us on CSS, so what? Why does that merit the almost surely vain attempt at finding further common ground?

I guess what it boils down to is this: why should I waste my time trying to find common ground with someone that I have practically nothing in common with?

[LadyShea]

I still don't get it. Why would Matsumura give a crap about what a xian would think about II? Why would any of us? Since when has their opinions on the IIDB amounted to anything other than a pile of rancid shit?

<shrug>

And even if a fair number of them are with us on CSS, so what? Why does that merit the almost surely vain attempt at finding further common ground?

I guess what it boils down to is this: why should I waste my time trying to find common ground with someone that I have practically nothing in common with?

Although I think this is for another thread, livius has answered this question quite well.

It all boils down to the fact that we have to share this planet with theists, and live day to day, and often work side by side. It behooves us all if we can work together towards those goals we have in common like CSS.

Also, I am curious...do you really think that deity beliefs separate humans so completely? You can't have an interest in baseball, or cars, or bird watching or a million other things in common with another person, simply because they belive in God and you don't? That's really making the world a small place for yourself, IMO, Goliath.

[Goliath]

You seem to be forgetting that "tolerating" and "finding common ground" are two drastically different actions (and in case it needs saying, I'm all for the former wrt xians).

And I have no interest in baseball, cars (except to make sure that mine runs okay), or bird watching. And I seriously doubt that you could find a million interests that I have in common with any theist (for that matter, I don't think I have a million different interests).

Let me try to illustrate how ridiculous all of you are sounding. Imagine a haystack. This haystack, however, is...oh...let's say about 10 times the size of the known universe. Now, picture a needle that is shurnk down to microscopic size that has been hidden somewhere in the haystack.

Y'all's mollycoddling and nudging to "find common ground" with xians seems about as ludicrous as trying to find the microscopic needle in the nearly unfathomably huge haystack.

(...."y'all"? "y'all"?! See what you made me do!? You made me use a southernism! :P )

[Penni]

What if one those Christian fellow trustees decides to check out her site's forum and finds it ideologically predisposed to hate Christianity?

That would be not only a political headache of considerable proportions, but could materially damage II's involvement in CSS activism.

Liv, I agree with you. Anyone who will fight for CSS is an ally, regardless of how they came to that decision (i.e. many theists fight for CSS to better preserve their religion, not because they seek to avoid impinging on others' rights).

However, I don't doubt that if we checked some websites that belong to some organizations some of those theists you mentioned are affiliated with, that we would find them predisposed to hating non-theists, pitying non-theists, ridiculing non-theists, etc. I don't want to argue that we should "sink to that level" but instead that one part of one person's civic involvement does not wholly represent the goals, efforts or ideals of that person or organization. We pretty much accept that there will be things or people that that person is associated with that are anathema, embarrasing, hateful, etc. to some non-theists. Don't you think they would/should understand the same?

[LadyShea]

You seem to be forgetting that "tolerating" and "finding common ground" are two drastically different actions (and in case it needs saying, I'm all for the former wrt xians).

And I have no interest in baseball, cars (except to make sure that mine runs okay), or bird watching. And I seriously doubt that you could find a million interests that I have in common with any theist (for that matter, I don't think I have a million different interests).

I used those as examples. Do you have any interests, hobbies, activities or experiences unrelated to your atheism? At the end of the day, our simple humanity gives us more in common than not IMO. Theists get sick, have children, eat food, wear clothes, watch TV, read books, work, etc, etc, etc, just like we do. I can find much in common with any person I meet in my experience.

Let me try to illustrate how ridiculous all of you are sounding. Imagine a haystack. This haystack, however, is...oh...let's say about 10 times the size of the known universe. Now, picture a needle that is shurnk down to microscopic size that has been hidden somewhere in the haystack.

Y'all's mollycoddling and nudging to "find common ground" with xians seems about as ludicrous as trying to find the microscopic needle in the nearly unfathomably huge haystack.

(...."y'all"? "y'all"?! See what you made me do!? You made me use a southernism! :P )

Hmm, I personally think that the one aspect you are focusing on, belief in deity, is the needle. All of the other things we do every day that have nothing at all to do with deity belief is the hay...again in my opinion and experience.

[Goliath]

Do you have any interests, hobbies, activities or experiences unrelated to your atheism?


Yes.


At the end of the day, our simple humanity gives us more in common than not IMO.


Not really. Lemme use mathematics as a simple example. A xian would more than likely think that mathematics was the invention of their god, whereas I would not.

I can play a similar game all day long. For everything you find in common, I can find at least one difference.



Hmm, I personally think that the one aspect you are focusing on, belief in deity, is the needle.



No, the needle represents the commonality that I share with many (if not most or all) theists.

[viscousmemories]

You seem to be forgetting that "tolerating" and "finding common ground" are two drastically different actions (and in case it needs saying, I'm all for the former wrt xians).
How could you ever hope to promote a viewpoint to someone with whom you refuse to even attempt to find any common ground?

And I have no interest in baseball, cars (except to make sure that mine runs okay), or bird watching. And I seriously doubt that you could find a million interests that I have in common with any theist (for that matter, I don't think I have a million different interests).
Obviously that dismisses her general point, which is that surely you do have some interests in common with theists. Do you think there are no theist fans of video games, george foreman grilled chicken, big screen LCD tv's, mathematics, etc.?

Let me try to illustrate how ridiculous all of you are sounding.
Is that an example of the very precise language you always use, or a broad generalization dismissing numerous points made by numerous people in one stroke of hyperbole?

Imagine a haystack. This haystack, however, is...oh...let's say about 10 times the size of the known universe. Now, picture a needle that is shurnk down to microscopic size that has been hidden somewhere in the haystack.

Y'all's mollycoddling and nudging to "find common ground" with xians seems about as ludicrous as trying to find the microscopic needle in the nearly unfathomably huge haystack.
Yeah, that would be pretty absurd. Still seems more like a gross oversimplification and exagerration of everyone's arguments in place of a logical rebuttal though. I'd find the latter more interesting.

(...."y'all"? "y'all"?! See what you made me do!? You made me use a southernism! :P )
You might as well just surrender. You're surrounded here. :P

[Dingfod]

Anyone who will fight for CSS is an ally, regardless of how they came to that decision...Kind of that old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" point of view.


Warren

[Goliath]

How could you ever hope to promote a viewpoint to someone with whom you refuse to even attempt to find any common ground?


And just who said that I want to promote a viewpoint to them? You must have me confused with the IIDB.

That aside, it's quite possible to learn something from someone that you have almost nothing in common with. Hell, it happened to me practically every day throughout college, and I'm sure it will happen many more times.



Obviously that dismisses her general point, which is that surely you do have some interests in common with theists.



Yes. See my reply to LadyShea above.



Is that an example of the very precise language you always use, or a broad generalization dismissing numerous points made by numerous people in one stroke of hyperbole?



It's an analogy. If you had been paying attention, you probably could've figured that out. But instead you put words in my mouth again. How sad.



Yeah, that would be pretty absurd. Still seems more like a gross oversimplification and exagerration of everyone's arguments in place of a logical rebuttal though.



It's a rebuttal insofar as it fits my life experiences to a "T". If it's a logical argument that you want, then I'm afraid that such will be impossible, as I cannot read the minds of all the xians on this planet to find out exactly what we have in common and what we don't.

On the other hand, a logical argument is just as beyond your grasp on this issue, as well.



You might as well just surrender. You're surrounded here.



Surrender? When not a single one of you has been able to even come remotely close to laying down a case for finding common ground with them?

I think not.

[Goliath]

Kind of that old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" point of view.

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement as I am against xianity and not for Stalin's massacre (for example).

In fact, more often than not, the enemy of my enemy is probably another enemy.

[viscousmemories]

And just who said that I want to promote a viewpoint to them? You must have me confused with the IIDB.
You might have noticed IIDB is the subject of this thread.

That aside, it's quite possible to learn something from someone that you have almost nothing in common with. Hell, it happened to me practically every day throughout college, and I'm sure it will happen many more times.
How much have you learned from people who completed each sentence with, "you stupid asshole."?

It's an analogy. If you had been paying attention, you probably could've figured that out. But instead you put words in my mouth again. How sad.
It's a matter of opinion. I find your constant insults far more sad.

It's a rebuttal insofar as it fits my life experiences to a "T". If it's a logical argument that you want, then I'm afraid that such will be impossible, as I cannot read the minds of all the xians on this planet to find out exactly what we have in common and what we don't.

On the other hand, a logical argument is just as beyond your grasp on this issue, as well.
Well yes, it's a logical argument that I'm interested in. I appreciate your concession that you are unable to provide that and I will stop hoping for one from you.

Surrender? When not a single one of you has been able to even come remotely close to laying down a case for finding common ground with them?

I think not.
I was referring to your succumbing to 'y'all' because you're surrounded by southerners, but of course you're more interested in spouting your hate than in trying to communicate. Good luck with that. I won't entertain it anymore.

[D. Scarlatti]

... not a single one of you has been able to even come remotely close to laying down a case for finding common ground with them[.]

Not only did you mischaracterize livius' CSS and creationism examples, here you're apparently ignoring them completely.

Isn't that the sort of convenient oversight one would expect from "xtians"?

[Goliath]

You might have noticed IIDB is the subject of this thread.


Actually, I thought it was Chuck Fristians?

Although the IIDB is definitely a subject, personal reasons (or lack thereof) to want to find common ground with theists also seems to be a subject of t his thread.



How much have you learned from people who completed each sentence with, "you stupid asshole."?



Nothing, as I have yet to encounter such a person. Chuck Fristians is no such person either, in case that's what you're insinuating.



It's a matter of opinion. I find your constant insults far more sad.



:? What insults? I've insulted xianity, perhaps...but why should that concern you?



Well yes, it's a logical argument that I'm interested in.



So you expect me to do the logical equivalent of either a) reading the minds of every single theist on the planet, or b) poll every single theist on the planet as to everything they have done, are doing, will be doing, have thought, are thinking, and will be thinking?

:biglaugh:

Of course, as far as I can tell, you'd have to do the same to prove logically that theists and I have far more in common than not and that it would not be a waste of time to find common ground with them.



I appreciate your concession that you are unable to provide that and I will stop hoping for one from you.



No problem. I'd appreciate such a concession from your side, as well.


but of course you're more interested in spouting your hate than in trying to communicate. Good luck with that. I won't entertain it anymore.

Huh? What hate? I haven't felt the slightest bit of hatred while replying to any of the posts on this thread (mostly frustration and a slight bit of sadness).

I had hoped for more from your last words on this thread than a strawman.

[Goliath]

Not only did you mischaracterize livius' CSS and creationism examples, here you're apparently ignoring them completely.


I haven't ignored them, I merely don't see them as adequate enough to warrant further investigation into finding common ground with them.

[seebs]

If they really are our allies (and if they represent the majority of xians--the claim that many love to make but none seem to want to back up), then why aren't they doing something? Hmmm?

Nope, sorry, I'm not buying this batch.

I can't speak for anyone else on this, but I am doing something. I spend a couple hours a week trying to educate Creationists, and a great deal of time trying to generally lead fundamentalists away from their power-hungry attitude, and towards respectful coexistence with others.

So... I am doing something.

Why aren't more people doing something? Because most people are apathetic about most things, whatever their personal views may be.

[D. Scarlatti]

I haven't ignored them, I merely don't see them as adequate enough to warrant further investigation into finding common ground with them.

Then that is purely a matter of your own personal political interests, and does absolutely nothing to justify your gro