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 groundless opinion above.

"Freethinkers," Guardians of Logic and Reason, my skinny white ass.

[LadyShea]

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.

Actually, this example demonstrates the point I was trying to make. Does the theist thinking God invented math actually change the nature of mathematics? Does it change how a formula works for example, if you and a theist were teamed up to solve a problem?

[Goliath]

ISo... I am doing something.


Even if you are, why is there no perceptible difference? Why do they seem to gain power and followers with each passing day?

[seebs]

Maybe a little mutual toning-down of rhetoric would help. Picking fights with Goliath won't change his mind. It is possible that good argumentation with solid support would do so, but a confrontational tone certainly won't help.

Anyway... I think the big insight for me is that, in some ways, liberal theism serves as a vaccine against the more virulent varieties. The notion that people who disagree with you are still people, and still have rights, is a very good trait for a belief system to have, and, once acquired, seems to be very hard to eradicate.

I guess, the question comes down to why some theists are dangerous to everyone else, and I think it's the lack of certain kinds of empathy and understanding. People who have those are not threats, even if they appear similar to the dangerous folks.

[Goliath]

....groundless opinion...


No, it's not groundless. My life experiences have led me to believe that working to find things in common with theists is a waste of time.

Yes, some of them are for CSS separation and against creationists. So what!? Some of them are KKK members. Some (probably most) of them are fundies. Some of them are left handed.

<shrug>

[Goliath]

Picking fights with Goliath won't change his mind.

Bah! It's all that most of you seem to know how to do.

I've got to go back to the office. If my nausea and stomach ache settle down, I may reply tonight.

I've learned a definite lesson, though: on even the most peaceful seeming message boards, conflict seems to follow me wherever I go.

[seebs]

Even if you are, why is there no perceptible difference? Why do they seem to gain power and followers with each passing day?

Here, I think, we enter the realm where we ought to be trying to look at real statistics, rather than going off of impressions alone.

I think real progress is being made. I acknowledge that it's slow.

But... One thing is that polarized groups tend to get louder and more visible when they're weaker.

Anyway, just as an obvious example, when I got to ChristianForums, I was one of two or three Christians willing to advocate letting gays into churches. Now it's in the hundreds. I was one of the two or three Christians who accepted evolution. A while back, they made a "Christians-only" creation/evolution debate forum... And today, that forum is probably dominated by people who accept evolution.

In the time I've been at CF, I've seen a dozen or more people convert from fundamentalist Christianity to liberal Christianity. I've seen dozens, plural, come to better understanding of what atheists are, and are not, and become better prepared for peaceful coexistence.

I've seen no one, in all that time, become a fundamentalist.

When I showed up, "liberals" were a despised minority, so few in number that it was hard to identify more than a couple. Now there's enough of them to merit a "Congregation" forum.

So... At least in the part of the world I'm active in, progress is being made. It's actually pretty detectable, if you're patient enough to watch over a two and a half year period.

I know a lot of other Christians. My mother-in-law, my programming buddy, and my lawyer are all fairly devout and serious Christians, who actively study the Bible and read theological books. All of them are, by most standards, "liberal" Christians. All of them are opposed to the depredations of modern fundamentalism.

Several of my friends from CF were fundamentalists when they got there, and aren't now.

So... Yeah, progress. And maybe it's not all that much, but:
1. That's just the stuff near me that I have a hand in.
2. All of these non-fundamentalists are now actively witnessing to other fundamentalists to try to save them, too.

[Clutch Munny]

<sigh>

Why am I not surprised?

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


Irony is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

[seebs]

Bah! It's all that most of you seem to know how to do.

Well, people on message boards tend towards confrontational attitudes.

I've learned a definite lesson, though: on even the most peaceful seeming message boards, conflict seems to follow me wherever I go.

Yes. I think you are sometimes more sensitive to possible conflict than others, and you tend to respond in kind. This trait is probably not helpful in someone who obviously hates conflict. What you really need is a blissful ignorance to apparent attacks. :)

[D. Scarlatti]

My life experiences have led me to believe that working to find things in common with theists is a waste of time.

Fair enough. However, the point to this sub-thread was not finding common ground from scratch (although that may be the IIDB's mission now, I don't really care about that) but rather that certain political issues may require, or even reveal, common ground with theists, in which case their theism is irrelevant for the most part, not that they are de facto enemies on account of their belief. Assuming the latter position is, as far as I'm concerned at least, even more irrational than the belief itself.

Oh by the way, fuck you seebs. :P

[viscousmemories]

Actually, I thought it was Chuck Fristians?
Nope, you thought wrong. The subject of the thread is IIDB, an organization devoted in large part to the promotion of a naturalistic worldview, having a staff member with a self-chosen username that demeans a large chunk of the population.

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.
True, that issue has come up. However my point was not that your personal feelings aren't an issue at all, but not directly pertinent to the topic.

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.
I believe choosing the name Chuck Fristians is effectively equivalent to adding "Fuck Christians" to every post, that's what I was implying.

:? What insults? I've insulted xianity, perhaps...but why should that concern you?
I see. Well if you're not aware that you're doing it I'll just start pointing out every time you make an insulting comment.

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:
Well, no. Since I never requested any such thing I would call your mischaracterization of my words followed by a big laughing smilie insulting.

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.
Your argument is as absurd as my saying I have nothing in common with German people, because despite the fact that we share many interests, they use German names to describe everything whereas I use English.

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.
Again, since you're apparently unaware of making any insulting comments I'll try to be better about pointing them out instead of responding in kind.

[Roland98]

Not to bring the thread back on topic or anything, but

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 rather dense sometimes.

Everyone wanted this handled behind the scenes, believe me. We had discussed this with Chuck after Will I Am's complaint. The admins discussed it amongst ourselves, and in the MCR. For all of us, it was settled. Did people disagree with our decision? Sure. That was expected and addressed. But when Chuck saw it wasn't going to stop, he requested that his name be changed to end the whole mess. And even though he did it to stop everyone discussing him, there are still ongoing threads on at least 2 other forums discussing it. So perhaps someone wants to tell me exactly how this could have been handled behind the scenes once Will I Am brought it up? I only see bad and worse options.

[Clutch Munny]

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.

Not only that, but he's an abrasive and uncharitable poster who frequently substitutes empty aggression for argument. IMO. Which I said to him directly when he gave me props for my contribution to the "Chuck" thread. The thread, and the decisions issuing from it, simply cannot be described as a theist's complaint, nor as atheists backing a theist, nor as anyone backing anyone, for that matter. I asked what I asked because I wanted to know the answers and the reasoning behind the answers.

Describing the result as a victory for theism is bizarre. Plausibly, the more comfortable a theist is with reading the boards, the more probable her remaining to be exposed to the arguments, insights and perspectives that can moderate or even undermine theistic belief of one sort or another.

To my mind, the only freedom of speech that was ever in doubt on that thread was the freedom to calmly discuss delicate questions about ambiguous policies, practical enforcement, reasonable feelings of offense, and longtime member privileges at II, without being swamped by "noise" in the form of relentlessly irrelevant attacks -- many hostile, many containing nothing better (and a good deal worse) than empty platitudes, most repeating bad arguments that had been defused more than once.

[viscousmemories]

But when Chuck saw it wasn't going to stop, he requested that his name be changed to end the whole mess. And even though he did it to stop everyone discussing him, there are still ongoing threads on at least 2 other forums discussing it.
I think it's very unfortunate if Chuck only changed his name to quash the debate and not because he was convinced of the rightness of the decision. And as I have said repeatedly I feel very bad for him being put on the spot throughout all of this. But then again, there are some super nice, friendly, unoffensive theists at IIDB who are demeaned on a near constant basis and if one of them were to ever say "Hey, can we just lock this thread now? The matter is resolved and it's really making me feel bad." they'd get laughed out of the place.

To me the issue is much bigger than Chuck. That his user ID was the catalyst for the debate is awkward for him I'm sure, but not a good reason (IMHO) not to have it. I understand your desire to treat your moderators respectfully, but I don't think you should shelve an important policy debate just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

[Clutch Munny]

So perhaps someone wants to tell me exactly how this could have been handled behind the scenes once Will I Am brought it up? I only see bad and worse options.


I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe it was always going to be a furball. But personally I'm a big fan of messages like AquaVita's on the P&C thread following the first closing of the Chuck thread. "We're thinking about this; please be patient; more soon" goes a long way, in my view. So maybe what would have helped is something like this, very early on:

We're going to be talking this over. While we do so, we welcome any relevant arguments you might submit via PM. When we have a decision (soon, hopefully, but we do have to solicit the opinions of people round the world with differing schedules) we'll post it here along with an account of our reasons. Thoughtful discussion of those reasons will then be welcome, but we particularly discourage [hee-hee] knee-jerk replies that do not take the full reasoning into account. Until then, thanks for your patience!

Now, maybe this would have dropped like a stone into the translucent depths of those determined to see the End of IIDB in your actual decision. But I think it would have at least been better than what was done, especially by Mediancat, which had the appearance of not-carefully-considered naysaying from the outset, followed by discourteous complete silence to the questions his replies raised. I accept that these appearances hid a serious and constructive discussion that was going on in private, but they also fostered the unconstructive direction taken by the primarily non-mod, non-admin discussants in the interim.

[Goliath]

Okay, I just crawled out of the shower...just wanted to pop back in to apologize for the "it's all that most of you know how to do" comment. That was my frustration eeking through.

[Roland98]

I think it's very unfortunate if Chuck only changed his name to quash the debate and not because he was convinced of the rightness of the decision.

Well, admittedly I don't know what's going on in his head, so I cannot speak as to whether that was the only motivation.

And as I have said repeatedly I feel very bad for him being put on the spot throughout all of this. But then again, there are some super nice, friendly, unoffensive theists at IIDB who are demeaned on a near constant basis and if one of them were to ever say "Hey, can we just lock this thread now? The matter is resolved and it's really making me feel bad." they'd get laughed out of the place.

Actually, no. If, for example, it was a thread bitching about Magus, or another frequently complained-about user, it would have been locked fairly quickly.

To me the issue is much bigger than Chuck. That his user ID was the catalyst for the debate is awkward for him I'm sure, but not a good reason (IMHO) not to have it. I understand your desire to treat your moderators respectfully, but I don't think you should shelve an important policy debate just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

I agree with that. And I never said it was a good reason not to have it--in fact, as I suggested to you, I would have had no problem discussing it in more hypothetical terms.

[seebs]

Oh by the way, fuck you seebs. :P

Heh. Speaking of common ground, was your ban removed along with all the others when CF did Amnesty Day? We miss you!

[livius drusus]

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).

I'm sorry it took me this long to answer you, Penni; I don't want to let it get covered by the post flurry. Yes indeed, on this matter we are agreed.

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 wouldn't be shocked to see some pity, but hate and ridicule I very, very much doubt. As I'm strapped for time, all I've checked out so far is the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (http://www.bjcpa.org/) and there's nothing even remotely anti-nontheistic (now that's a weird looking word) anywhere on the site. Granted, I doubt any of those organizations have message boards, which tend to roam wild in a way that the main site does not.

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?

That's a reasonable point, and yes, I think they most likely would understand on an individual level, but in order for the organization to have credibility on a national politics scale, they have to keep their shit tight. I think that need to clean house so they can have their colleagues over without fear of being thought a flophouse has been at the root of IIDB's mellowing.

[viscousmemories]

Well, admittedly I don't know what's going on in his head, so I cannot speak as to whether that was the only motivation.
Okay, fair enough.

Actually, no. If, for example, it was a thread bitching about Magus, or another frequently complained-about user, it would have been locked fairly quickly.
Well, I meant the more general tenor of the discussion itself, and most IIDB discussions wrt theists. Many people at IIDB talk about theists as though they're subhuman animals on a fairly consistent basis, and that thread was no exception. "Why should we treat them with respect? Why should we care about how they feel?" etc. as though there weren't very nice, friendly, inoffensive theists right there in the room. So it doesn't seem to me that an atheist moderator should deserve special protection from similar treatment in a single policy thread. Again I'm not saying I'm happy Chuck was put on the spot or made to feel bad, I just don't think it was a valid reason to lock the threads.

I agree with that. And I never said it was a good reason not to have it--in fact, as I suggested to you, I would have had no problem discussing it in more hypothetical terms.
Yeah but how? I mean, what would be a fair generic equivalent? When you told me that I tried to think of a way to phrase a thread OP in general terms, and I just couldn't come up with anything roughly equal to a moderator named Chuck Fristians. It's a pretty specific sentiment.

[Penni]

That's a reasonable point, and yes, I think they most likely would understand on an individual level, but in order for the organization to have credibility on a national politics scale, they have to keep their shit tight. I think that need to clean house so they can have their colleagues over without fear of being thought a flophouse has been at the root of IIDB's mellowing.
IMO, there tends to be more responsibility on the shoulders of the minority or underprivileged group to do that kind of thing. In this case, it is us that need them more than they need us (numbers, credibility and a few other benefits besides). I guess that just rankles. I wish we had the freedom to be and say whatever we like. Given II's evolving goals, it must be the growing pains. Some people are not keeping up with the newer goals. I personally wish we could split off a majority of that forum so it could disaffiliate and not worry about attracting theists. The Board might feel that way sometimes, too, given how they feel about PD and probably Humor and etc.

Anyway, I still think the admins should clear up some policy questions. I believe it was Clutch that asked about discourage vs. disallow. It may be hard to quantify, but it's a good question. And then, I think they should be more clear about what they meant about the future in choosing moderators. As I've said on this thread, moderators don't have to support the mission, so it seems like they should no more consider the appropriateness of future moderator names than they would consider whether or not a theist mod pledges to work to advance naturalism.

Or, if they all decide they need to do it to keep their shit tight, they need to have a better reason than just the mission statement. Like maybe that add that to the qualifications or make all mods support the mission statement, or something. I can see a reason to be careful of it (and I can see a reason not to, of course), but it violates my sense of fairness right now.

[Roland98]

Well, I meant the more general tenor of the discussion itself, and most IIDB discussions wrt theists. Many people at IIDB talk about theists as though they're subhuman animals on a fairly consistent basis, and that thread was no exception. "Why should we treat them with respect? Why should we care about how they feel?" etc. as though there weren't very nice, friendly, inoffensive theists right there in the room. So it doesn't seem to me that an atheist moderator should deserve special protection from similar treatment in a single policy thread. Again I'm not saying I'm happy Chuck was put on the spot or made to feel bad, I just don't think it was a valid reason to lock the threads.

Yes, but again, there is a difference between someone starting a thread saying "theists are morons" and one saying "seebs is a moron." (Sorry to pick on seebs, and with all due respect). And of course, it goes the other way as well; how many times do we get the "atheists are evil kitten eaters" type of threads/posts? I don't like any group being painted with such a broad brush, but it happens in some cases is fairly hard to get around. Focusing on an individual user, however, is simply not kosher.

Yeah but how? I mean, what would be a fair generic equivalent? When you told me that I tried to think of a way to phrase a thread OP in general terms, and I just couldn't come up with anything roughly equal to a moderator named Chuck Fristians. It's a pretty specific sentiment.

I don't know offhand and don't have time to mull it over right now. I'm sure there must be something.

[viscousmemories]

I don't know offhand and don't have time to mull it over right now. I'm sure there must be something.
How about this:

Okay class, today we're gonna talk about public relations. I want you to consider the two following examples, and tell me which one is the more likely to yield a positive discursive result. M'kay? Okay, let's begin:

"Hi, my name is Wild Barber. Would you care to take a minute to talk about your beliefs? ... I'm sorry? Oh, the name? No, no, of course I wasn't born with it. I came up with it myself because I'm one wild haircutter! Pretty darn funny, isn't it? Yeah so anyway, about that talk..."

"Hi, my name is Fuck Your God. Would you care to take a minute to talk about your beliefs? ... I'm sorry? Oh, the name? No, no, I wasn't born with it. I came up with it myself because I don't believe in your God! Pretty darn funny, isn't it? Yeah so anyway, about that talk..."

:D

[LadyShea]

Not to bring the thread back on topic or anything, but



Everyone wanted this handled behind the scenes, believe me. We had discussed this with Chuck after Will I Am's complaint. The admins discussed it amongst ourselves, and in the MCR. For all of us, it was settled. Did people disagree with our decision? Sure. That was expected and addressed. But when Chuck saw it wasn't going to stop, he requested that his name be changed to end the whole mess. And even though he did it to stop everyone discussing him, there are still ongoing threads on at least 2 other forums discussing it. So perhaps someone wants to tell me exactly how this could have been handled behind the scenes once Will I Am brought it up? I only see bad and worse options.

I can't really go into any specific examples without revealing MCR discussions had when I was still moderating. If you'd like to have a private discussion, simply because you're an admin and are probably trying to think of ways to prevent shitstorms in the future, I am happy to. :)

[Goliath]

Here, I think, we enter the realm where we ought to be trying to look at real statistics, rather than going off of impressions alone.
...<snip>...



Although statistics they may be, they don't really help your case. You didn't cite specific numbers of the number fundies that you saw turned liberal (which is understandable). Let's say that that number is 50,000 (I seriously doubt that it's more than this...if it is, let me know).

Hmmm...50,000 vs. what...about 2,000,000,000?

Nope, that's not anywhere even remotely close to convincing.

[godfry n. glad]

Plausibly, the more comfortable a theist is with reading the boards, the more probable her remaining to be exposed to the arguments, insights and perspectives that can moderate or even undermine theistic belief of one sort or another.

So... What you are suggesting is that everything on IIDB be sanitized to not offend Christians, thereby enticing them in so their beliefs can be diluted and they can be exposed to potential conversion. Is that right? Is that what is behind these efforts to "find common ground"? To undermine the beliefs of said Christians? Is IIDB to be the missionary front for the secularists? If so, why don't they just change the name of the board from "Internet Infidels" to "Internet Wavering and Confused Secularists Who Want to Appear Tolerant and Subject Religionists to Their Belief System So They Will Eventually See the Light and Convert to Secularism" - shortened to "Internet Wusses"?

What makes anyone think this is a one-way street? Do you think these Christians will just give up their dogmas? And not foist them off on all the secularists once they are in a position of authority at IIDB?

Is there to be a quid pro quo on the Fristians issue? Will the theist moderators be required to change their screen name if just one non-theist finds that screen name offensive?

The Chuck Fristians is a censorship issue, whether it was demanded of him or he responded with self-censorship to a wave of expressed concern. Censorship causes blindness.

The best thing everybody here could do is stay the hell away from IIDB....it's a waste of time.

godfry

[Goliath]

Well, people on message boards tend towards confrontational attitudes.

Agreed.



This trait is probably not helpful in someone who obviously hates conflict.



I don't hate the conflict. I'm merely tired of it. There were times when the IIDB literally made me feel as though I was 50 years old.


What you really need is a blissful ignorance to apparent attacks. :)

Ridiculous. It's impossible to be ignorant of plainly obvious attacks.

[Goliath]

...but rather that certain political issues may require, or even reveal, common ground with theists,


Yes, this is certainly possible.


in which case their theism is irrelevant for the most part, not that they are de facto enemies on account of their belief.


An enemy that is--for the moment--fighting another enemy is still usually an enemy. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp.

[Goliath]

The best thing everybody here could do is stay the hell away from IIDB....it's a waste of time.


Now THAT'S the best god damn idea I've seen on this thread so far!

:prost:

[godfry n. glad]

How about this:

Okay class, today we're gonna talk about public relations. I want you to consider the two following examples, and tell me which one is the more likely to yield a positive discursive result. M'kay? Okay, let's begin:

"Hi, my name is Wild Barber. Would you care to take a minute to talk about your beliefs? ... I'm sorry? Oh, the name? No, no, of course I wasn't born with it. I came up with it myself because I'm one wild haircutter! Pretty darn funny, isn't it? Yeah so anyway, about that talk..."

"Hi, my name is Fuck Your God. Would you care to take a minute to talk about your beliefs? ... I'm sorry? Oh, the name? No, no, I wasn't born with it. I came up with it myself because I don't believe in your God! Pretty darn funny, isn't it? Yeah so anyway, about that talk..."

:D

The first one is deceptive and misleading.

The second one is honest.

I like the second one, even though I don't consider it particularly amusing or clever.

Can I object to everybody who's name is Joshua, because it means "God's salvation"? Any number of biblical names have similar content. Let's be even-handed about this, now.

godfry n. glad

[livius drusus]

An enemy that is--for the moment--fighting another enemy is still usually an enemy. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp.

The conclusion is not hard to grasp, Goliath; it's just that some of us dispute your premises. My grandmother was not my enemy. My apatheist daddy didn't become my enemy when he began to think my grandmother saw an angel the moment before she died.

Politics aside, there are theists in my life whom I dearly love. They are not my enemies and I can't believe that they are yours. :(

[Goliath]

Nope, you thought wrong. The subject of the thread is IIDB, an organization devoted in large part to the promotion of a naturalistic worldview, having a staff member with a self-chosen username that demeans a large chunk of the population.


Okay, fine. Whatever. That was the original topic, but other topics have been introduced into the thread since then.



I believe choosing the name Chuck Fristians is effectively equivalent to adding "Fuck Christians" to every post, that's what I was implying.



That is both your choice to read into the name, and your choice to be offended. Consequently, it's your problem, and not that of Chuck Fristians.


Well, no, Since I never requested any such thing


Wrong again. You asked for a logical argument showing that I have less in common with theists than I have in common with them. As far as I'm aware, the only way to actually prove that would be to perform actions a) or b) as listed above. If you know of another way, I'd be interested to hear about it.



I would call your mischaracterization of my words followed by a big laughing smilie insulting.



Then I apologize, I guess. It's amazing what thin skin you have, though. Your request made me literally laugh out loud, though...I was reminded of the leader of the Knights of Ni as he said "You must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest wiiiiiiiiiith..... A HERRING!!!"

Again, my apologies.



Your argument is as absurd as my saying I have nothing in common with German people, because despite the fact that we share many interests, they use German names to describe everything whereas I use English.



Strawman. What things are called is not the issue here. Points of view about things is the issue.

[Clutch Munny]

So... What you are suggesting is that everything on IIDB be sanitized to not offend Christians, thereby enticing them in so their beliefs can be diluted and they can be exposed to potential conversion. Is that right? Is that what is behind these efforts to "find common ground"? To undermine the beliefs of said Christians? Is IIDB to be the missionary front for the secularists? If so, why don't they just change the name of the board from "Internet Infidels" to "Internet Wavering and Confused Secularists Who Want to Appear Tolerant and Subject Religionists to Their Belief System So They Will Eventually See the Light and Convert to Secularism" - shortened to "Internet Wusses"?


My unrelated remarks seem to have been inessential to your screed, and could simply have been left out.

[Goliath]

The conclusion is not hard to grasp, Goliath; it's just that some of us dispute your premises. My grandmother was not my enemy. My apatheist daddy didn't become my enemy when he began to think my grandmother saw an angel the moment before she died.

Politics aside, there are theists in my life whom I dearly love. They are not my enemies and I can't believe that they are yours. :(

<sigh>

And if I had said that I considered ALL theists to be my enemies, then you might have had something that vaguely resembled a point.

Since I didn't, however.....

[livius drusus]

IMO, there tends to be more responsibility on the shoulders of the minority or underprivileged group to do that kind of thing. In this case, it is us that need them more than they need us (numbers, credibility and a few other benefits besides). I guess that just rankles. I wish we had the freedom to be and say whatever we like.

By we do you mean Internet Infidels or the users of IIDB? Because I don't know if the BoD feels stifled and of course, the users already are because IIDB is a heavily moderated board.

Given II's evolving goals, it must be the growing pains. Some people are not keeping up with the newer goals. I personally wish we could split off a majority of that forum so it could disaffiliate and not worry about attracting theists. The Board might feel that way sometimes, too, given how they feel about PD and probably Humor and etc.

I'm sure they do. The fact that with the exception of Clark they almost never participate in the fora, upper or lower, says something too. It wasn't always like that, and I can't help but think that the culture shift would be considerably less painful if they were willing to lead the board in the direction they wish it to go.

I think spinning off parts of the board wouldn't really resolve the issues, though. For one thing, the legalities (copyright, user information transfer, archive location) would likely be far more intricate than it would be worth. JREF tried to split its "non-mission" fora off a few months ago. It was a monstruous failure and ended up being just a good ol' fashioned diaspora of posters.

Anyway, I still think the admins should clear up some policy questions. I believe it was Clutch that asked about discourage vs. disallow. It may be hard to quantify, but it's a good question. And then, I think they should be more clear about what they meant about the future in choosing moderators.

Good ideas both. You start the thread and I'll be right behindya. :D

As I've said on this thread, moderators don't have to support the mission, so it seems like they should no more consider the appropriateness of future moderator names than they would consider whether or not a theist mod pledges to work to advance naturalism.

The non-support thing strikes me as something of a Mexican standoff. It doesn't work for anyone, really, but it prevented total chaos over the theist mod thing. It definitely needs to be worked into something consistent and understandable.

Or, if they all decide they need to do it to keep their shit tight, they need to have a better reason than just the mission statement. Like maybe that add that to the qualifications or make all mods support the mission statement, or something. I can see a reason to be careful of it (and I can see a reason not to, of course), but it violates my sense of fairness right now.

Well, they could put in some kind of plain view clause. That's a big part of the problem with Chuck's name: it's not a matter of quietly held disagreement with the mission. Having said that, I agree that ideally the shit-tightening should be more far-reaching and carefully thought out.

[viscousmemories]

The first one is deceptive and misleading.

The second one is honest.

I like the second one, even though I don't consider it particularly amusing or clever.
How do you get deceptive and misleading? The imaginary character really is a wild haircutter. My point was just that choosing a more neutral ID is more likely to yield a positive result. Note I'm not saying all content should be sanitized, that's as much of a strawman of my argument as Clutch's. I'm just saying that some care should be taken not to have representatives with blatantly offensive names. Honestly I would extend it to all groups, personally. As much as I might agree with the sentiment, I don't think it would be appropriate for an IIDB moderator to be named Ruck Febulicans, either. And not just because it sounds ridiculous.

Can I object to everybody who's name is Joshua, because it means "God's salvation"? Any number of biblical names have similar content. Let's be even-handed about this, now.
You could, but I suspect you'd lose the argument. Of course anything could be considered offensive to someone. The question is whether it's reasonable to expect that a particular name would be offensive to a segment of the population. I've yet to meet someone who claims offense at the name Joshua. The name Buck Flacks, on the other hand, is likely to be considered offensive by a number of people.

[livius drusus]

<sigh>

And if I had said that I considered ALL theists to be my enemies, then you might have had something that vaguely resembled a point.

Since I didn't, however.....

Please don't talk down to me, Goliath; it's just not necessary. You've painted with a very broad brush here. I've seen you make qualifications before - you despise Christianity, not Christians; fundamentalists are our enemies, not apatheists - but in this thread you've not done that. When you say theists are your enemies, that assumes all theists unless you qualify it.

Anyway, I find this particular line of discussion quite saddening as well as off-topic, so I'm going to go ahead and bow out now.

[godfry n. glad]

My unrelated remarks seem to have been inessential to your screed, and could simply have been left out.

I disagree. Your comment was the springboard for my screed. Thanks for dodging all the questions...I suspect that means I hit rather close to the mark.

godfry

[Goliath]

Please don't talk down to me, Goliath;


Then stop shoving words in my mouth, liv.


When you say theists are your enemies, that assumes all theists unless you qualify it.


And there you fucking go again!

{self-edit...that was out of line, and I'm sorry}

I did not say that "theists" are my enemies. I've said that I don't find value in finding common ground with theists, that an enemy of an enemy is not necessarily my friend, and that anecdotal tales of good theists does not mean that all theists are good people.

Why can't you read what I write?

Edit: I can see one spot where I made a statement that was unintentionally ambiguous enough to give you that idea (something about "an alliance with the enemy"). By this phrase, I meant an alliance with those liberal theists whom I still consider to be enemies. My sincerest apologies for the confusion.


I find this particular line of discussion quite saddening


For once, we agree. I'm so fucking sick of this shit that I could almost throw a heavy object at my new TV.

[viscousmemories]

That is both your choice to read into the name, and your choice to be offended. Consequently, it's your problem, and not that of Chuck Fristians.
Read into the name? Gimme a break. You don't have to read much into Chuck Fristians to get Fuck Christians out the other side. And the argument that people get to pick and choose what offends them doesn't wash either. You will either be offended by my telling you to go fuck yourself or you won't, you don't decide.

Wrong again. You asked for a logical argument showing that I have less in common with theists than I have in common with them. As far as I'm aware, the only way to actually prove that would be to perform actions a) or b) as listed above. If you know of another way, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Then quote me where I asked for it.

Then I apologize, I guess. It's amazing what thin skin you have, though. Your request made me literally laugh out loud, though...I was reminded of the leader of the Knights of Ni as he said "You must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest wiiiiiiiiiith..... A HERRING!!!"
Saying I am "thin-skinned" is insulting, of course. Both because it's condescending and demonstrably incorrect.

Again, my apologies.
No "I guess" this time? Good. That was insulting too.

Strawman. What things are called is not the issue here. Points of view about things is the issue.
No, the issue is that you said you have "almost nothing in common with theists". Since you are a human being, as are all theists, you obviously have millions of things in common with theists. Your hyperbole is just that. The only thing you can definitively state that you do not have in common with "almost all theists" is a belief in god.

[viscousmemories]

What's wrong with you? No, seriously: what is wrong with you?
What the fuck is wrong with you, Goliath? Your abuse is disgusting.

[Goliath]

What the fuck is wrong with you, Goliath? Your abuse is disgusting.

Fuck off. I edited it out and apologized for it.

[Goliath]

Read into the name? Gimme a break. You don't have to read much into Chuck Fristians to get Fuck Christians out the other side.


Irrelevant. You chose to personally give it that meaning.


You will either be offended by my telling you to go fuck yourself or you won't, you don't decide.


Since I just decided to shrug your insult off, you are demonstrably wrong.


Then quote me where I asked for it.


You got it.


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.




Saying I am "thin-skinned" is insulting, of course. Both because it's condescending and demonstrably incorrect.



Okay, fine. I take it back.



No, the issue is that you said you have "almost nothing in common with theists". Since you are a human being, as are all theists, you obviously have millions of things in common with theists.



And there are millions of things that I don't have in common with them.

[viscousmemories]

Irrelevant. You chose to personally give it that meaning.
More bullshit you pulled out of your ass. No offense intended.

Since I just decided to shrug your insult off, you are demonstrably wrong.
Ah, well then go fuck yourself. No offense intended.

You got it.
You failed to quote me where I asked you for what you claim I asked you for, because I never asked you for it. Feel free to put random quotes in and claim that they mean whatever you want them to mean though. Since you seem to think that's how language works. No offense.

Okay, fine. I take it back.
What do you take back? The dumbass comment that I'm thin-skinned, or your apology for your dumbass comment? No offense intended.

And there are millions of things that I don't have in common with them.
Meaningless, like most of the rest of your stupid rants. No offense.

[godfry n. glad]

How do you get deceptive and misleading? The imaginary character really is a wild haircutter. My point was just that choosing a more neutral ID is more likely to yield a positive result.

I disagree. "Wild Haircutter" as a screen name tells me nothing about the intents of the poster...and why they would be particularly interested in discussing my religious belief or lack thereof. "Fuck Your God" is fairly clear and honest a moniker for somebody who wants to discuss religious belief. I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to talk about _my_ religious belief. Usually, such is a come-on for a conversion attempt.

And, it depends upon what you consider a "positive result". If it's engaged and ongoing discussion of religious belief, I'd bet on "Fuck Your God" getting a better run for his/her money because the theistic interlocutor is far more likely to desire to convert or defuse that poster than "Wild Haircutter"...some kind of "Delilahist"?


Note I'm not saying all content should be sanitized, that's as much of a strawman of my argument as Clutch's. I'm just saying that some care should be taken not to have representatives with blatantly offensive names. Honestly I would extend it to all groups, personally. As much as I might agree with the sentiment, I don't think it would be appropriate for an IIDB moderator to be named Ruck Febulicans, either. And not just because it sounds ridiculous.

Again, I disagree. I think any screenname anybody wishes should be theirs, ridiculous, offensive or otherwise. No suppression of free expression. That IIDB would even consider requiring it is evidence of an agenda which offends me.


You could, but I suspect you'd lose the argument. Of course anything could be considered offensive to someone. The question is whether it's reasonable to expect that a particular name would be offensive to a segment of the population. I've yet to meet someone who claims offense at the name Joshua. The name Buck Flacks, on the other hand, is likely to be considered offensive by a number of people.

Is it "reasonable" to demand that Chuck Fristians be changed and "not reasonable" to demand that Joshua Therisen be changed? Or, how about "John 3:16" for a screenname? Now that's offensive to me...but I would not demand that they change it...it's a clear marker of the posters agenda and intents.

godfry

[Goliath]

Nevermind...I've had it with this thread.

Look, I sincerely apologize to everyone in this thread that I may have offended. I'm just sick of this shit.

[viscousmemories]

I disagree. "Wild Haircutter" as a screen name tells me nothing about the intents of the poster...and why they would be particularly interested in discussing my religious belief or lack thereof. "Fuck Your God" is fairly clear and honest a moniker for somebody who wants to discuss religious belief. I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to talk about _my_ religious belief. Usually, such is a come-on for a conversion attempt.
Well I think I get your point, but I don't think it's disingenuous for a person to choose a moniker unrelated to his purpose, and I can think of numerous good reasons to do so besides trying to mislead your audience.

And, it depends upon what you consider a "positive result". If it's engaged and ongoing discussion of religious belief, I'd bet on "Fuck Your God" getting a better run for his/her money because the theistic interlocutor is far more likely to desire to convert or defuse that poster than "Wild Haircutter"...some kind of "Delilahist"?
Hehe. Well perhaps you're right, but I dunno. If you think of a user ID as a nametag and IIDB as an "atheist meetup" (of sorts) it just strikes me that Fuck Your God is going to have a harder time getting people to listen to what he has to say than Wild Haircutter. Again, even if it was Fuck Republicans or Fuck Americans or whatever, I just don't think presenting yourself with an antagonistic moniker is going to help you get anyone to take you seriously.

Again, I disagree. I think any screenname anybody wishes should be theirs, ridiculous, offensive or otherwise. No suppression of free expression. That IIDB would even consider requiring it is evidence of an agenda which offends me.
IIDB isn't (as far as I know) considering restricting the genpop's screennames, and I agree that they shouldn't. The only official comment they made is that they'll give more careful consideration to potentially offensive screennames when they hire future moderators. However I do think it's a bad idea for an organization that intends to "seek common ground" with people of an opposing ideology to employ moderators with blatantly offensive names, so I support the idea that they should encourage (if not mandate) that people with offensive names change them when they become moderators. It's not a free speech issue, really, because inflammatory speech is already verboten at IIDB. It's just (to me) a reasonable extension of their policies.

Is it "reasonable" to demand that Chuck Fristians be changed and "not reasonable" to demand that Joshua Therisen be changed? Or, how about "John 3:16" for a screenname? Now that's offensive to me...but I would not demand that they change it...it's a clear marker of the posters agenda and intents.
Sure, I would say John 3:16 would be an inappropriate name for a moderator because it would likely be considered offensive to a large segment of the population. And as I said earlier I'm not sure if I would go as far as mandating a name change, but I would definitely go as far as to encourage one.

[Dingfod]

You're all in Time Out, futhermockers.


Bob N. Weaver

[viscousmemories]

Look, I sincerely apologize to everyone in this thread that I may have offended.
Apology accepted. And if you chose to be offended by anything I said, well then I guess that's your problem. :D

[godfry n. glad]

Sure, I would say John 3:16 would be an inappropriate name for a moderator because it would likely be considered offensive to a large segment of the population. And as I said earlier I'm not sure if I would go as far as mandating a name change, but I would definitely go as far as to encourage one.

But not Joshua Therisen? Why?

godfry

...and...would it be acceptable for Chuck to revise his first name to Charles, leaving his familial screen name as it is, rendering his screen name as Charles Fristians?

[Goliath]

Apology accepted.

Thank you.

And if you chose to be offended by anything I said, well then I guess that's your problem. :D

Actually, it wasn't any particular thing you said. It's that I'm honestly sick of bulletin board conflicts. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the exchanges in this thread were responsible for my nausea and upset stomach, because once I started walking outside in the sunlight, I started feeling better right away.

[Götterdämmerung]

This is just more evidence that IIDB is a mere shadow of its former self. :doh:

The more public a forum grows, the more concerned it becomes with public relations and political correctness, the more mediocre it gets and the less relevant it becomes.

Pathetic.

[godfry n. glad]

This is just more evidence that IIDB is a mere shadow of its former self. :doh:

The more public a forum grows, the more concerned it becomes with public relations and political correctness, the more mediocre it gets and the less relevant it becomes.

Pathetic.

My sentiments exactly.

godfry

[Dingfod]

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.Stalin, eh? Is there a Stalin equivalent to Godwin's Law? While your last contention may be true, my statement you quoted was neither aimed at you nor representative of my view at all, merely an observation of something Penni posted. However, it does seem to be a widely accepted view by many peoples in the world, as does the "eye for an eye" quid pro quo. An ally is sometimes merely one of convenience, e.g. Osama bin Laden was utilized to fight the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, but he certainly never was anything but than an enemy to America. I know for a fact that some Baptists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, etc, are willing to overlook the godlessness of an atheist or agnostic ally in their battle for Separation of Church and State, and vice versa.


Warren

[viscousmemories]

But not Joshua Therisen? Why?
'Cause to me that's just another name. I don't read that as "God's Salvation" or whatever you said it means, and I doubt most people do either. I do think most people are saavy enough to decipher Chuck Fristians, though.

...and...would it be acceptable for Chuck to revise his first name to Charles, leaving his familial screen name as it is, rendering his screen name as Charles Fristians?
Excellent question, and one I can't answer. Personally, I would say no. But of course it's a judgement call. As you well know when you make the decision to censor speech you have to draw lines. One line they've drawn is that you can't say "You're an asshole" to a Republican, but you can say "All Republicans are assholes" to a Republican. The argument being that they have to draw the line somewhere.

That's why I wouldn't personally suggest that EverlastingGodStopper should change her name. I don't personally think it's as directly insulting to a particular group as Chuck Fristians. Just as I think that EverlastingConservativeStopper is a more general and thereby less offensive statement than Ruck Febublicans. It's a judgement call. *shrug*

[viscousmemories]

Actually, it wasn't any particular thing you said. It's that I'm honestly sick of bulletin board conflicts. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the exchanges in this thread were responsible for my nausea and upset stomach, because once I started walking outside in the sunlight, I started feeling better right away.
I understand, believe me. I get stressed from conflicts on these boards all the time. I also have an anxiety disorder, so I sometimes have full-on panic attacks and other really pretty horrible experiences. However I'm also very stubborn, opinionated, and short-tempered. So I tend to feed conflict with some frequency despite my overall desire to avoid it. Nevertheless I try, and will continue to try, to do my part to prevent it.

[Penni]

Good ideas both. You start the thread and I'll be right behindya. :D

Yikes, I don't know if I am up for it. Aren't I supposed to be working on some kind of pictorial vacation journal anyway? :P

[Dingfod]

Alone again... naturally.


Eveck Furybody

[catalyst]

As I am pressed for time, I am simply going to summarize my position, explain a few things, including the intent of my original comment, and leave it at that. I will not be on line much at all until Sunday, and should not have gotten involved in this knowing that I could not follow-up like I should have.

My original comment about Whuck Finers as a screen name was in no way serious. I was both joking, and attempting to prove a point. The point that many people rush to judgement without obtaining much in the way of information about a particular subject, including a comment made in jest.

Given that no one asked me simply if I was serious, or what my intent was (vm, you did ask if it was directed at you, nothing more), decisions where made about why I did somthing based on pure speculation, without knowledge of my intent or purpose. This is generally a fairly poor practice, whether in response to a sarcastic comment by myself or a screen name by a moderator of great character and responsibility. And I can say that not much was discussed with Mr. Fristians with a certain degree of authority. How many people asked him what his intent was before they started complaining? Not very many.

Words are tools that we use to communicate, and can be put to a variety of uses, both good and bad, based on the intent of the user. Mr. Fristians screen name was judged without respect to its intent, rather like my comment in this thread. Both could have been done fairly simply, as Chuck has his PM's and e-mail enabled, for those who do not wish to post a question instead of simply complaining without talking to Chuck, interacting with him as a moderator (hard to judge his character as a moderator unless you post in PD, or at least read it, and several people here do not), or reviewing his posting history. Many of these decisions were, IMO, fairly ill-informed.

Saying something directly to a person with the intent to insult them is far more abusive than making a joke and accidentally offending someone, not that the difference has been observed by some. Since I should be outraged every time a remark that is said to be offensive is directed at me, I guess I missed the occasions where vm stood up and complained when Roland98 told me to fuck off, called me a bitch, or complained about her previous avatar. After all, these are wrong, and I should be outraged. Obviously I will need to pay more attention in the future.

Much has been said about whether or not Mr. Fristians user name furthered the goals of the Secweb. The answer is simple: of course not. However, neither does the humor forum, Elsewhere, etc. There are several fora that could be expunged with little effect on the mission of the IIDB, and this has been done in the past. Not everything that goes on there furthers the mission, and trying to ensure that it does is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

The question then would be does Chuck's screen name hinder the purpose of IIDB in a significant manor. This is where a judgement call is necessary. And several people in this thread having made many of them, I will make my own personal call and say no. People who chose to be offended by a spoonerism without bothering to contact the individual in question, attempting to determine his intent, etc., well, some people are a little too easily offended IMO, but this is a judgement call, nothing more, nothing less. People are free to disagree with me, and some make a habit out of it.*

And, contrary to certain assertions, I do in fact care about the opinions of the users of IIDB, and answer many of the complaint threads for that very reason. While there are some threads I would be perfectly happy to never see agains (such as the signature/avatar issue), I still take the time to reply, provide links, or whatever is nessesary regardless of my feelings on the issue.

*This was directed at Roland98, so anyone who jumped to another conclusion is wrong.

[godfry n. glad]

'Cause to me that's just another name. I don't read that as "God's Salvation" or whatever you said it means, and I doubt most people do either. I do think most people are saavy enough to decipher Chuck Fristians, though.

So... Your remedy is to protect the dimwits who can figure out the obvious, but if it's not obvious, and only discernible as a offensive statement by sophisticated readers, then it's okay? I read Joshua Therisen as "Jesus the Risen"...a reference to what I consider an absurdist and impossible reanimation of a human and his subsequent divinization. A clear statement of "confessional interest"....not unlike my own moniker. I wonder what would have been expected of me, had I accepted the invitation to moderate at BC&H? Would I have given up my moniker...to moderate at IIDB? I doubt it.


One line they've drawn is that you can't say "You're an asshole" to a Republican, but you can say "All Republicans are assholes" to a Republican. The argument being that they have to draw the line somewhere.

Now...There...You see, I think that's absolutely bassackwards. I think it's possible for an individual poster to draw an opinion of another individual poster that is valid. Others may agree or disagree, but it has validity. Claiming that all members showing a particular characteristic have another characteristic is invalid. "You're an asshole" is far more likely to be accurate than "All x are assholes" because you are far more likely to have sufficient evidence. The larger the set x, the less likely you are to have accurate information about their character.

The real question is what is the evidence.

That's why I wouldn't personally suggest that EverlastingGodStopper should change her name. I don't personally think it's as directly insulting to a particular group as Chuck Fristians. Just as I think that EverlastingConservativeStopper is a more general and thereby less offensive statement than Ruck Febublicans. It's a judgement call. *shrug*

Again, we see it differently. Part of the point of the EverlastingGodStopper is that it is a clever pun on another fictional entity. Changing it as you have cripples the pun. Besides, it's just a matter of categories. Your category allows for the questioning of god, but not christ? Are Christians a protected category for some reason? Is the the sexual, as versus general, insinuations of the name which draws down such censure? Or is it the level of theism?

Then, assuming that even the densest fundamentalist can figure out that switching the first letters of Chuck's full name renders his name "offensive", there's that usage of the word "fuck" as "offensive". Why is that? Isn't "fucking" supposed to be enjoyable? Doesn't scripture support this? Why has the act of sex become such a despicable invective?

"Fuck you" should be a compliment, shouldn't it?:thinkup:

I can see "go fuck yourself" as being offensive, but "fuck you"? :search:

godfry

...I do, however, think that EverlastingGOPStopper would be a clever rendering.

[Roland98]

Anyway, I still think the admins should clear up some policy questions. I believe it was Clutch that asked about discourage vs. disallow. It may be hard to quantify, but it's a good question. And then, I think they should be more clear about what they meant about the future in choosing moderators.

Penni, I did touch on the first part a bit in the IIDB thread. As for the second part, you can certainly start a thread on it, but I can tell you right now we have no answer at the moment, as we haven't even begun discussion on it yet in the ACR, beyond saying "we should do that."

[viscousmemories]

My original comment about Whuck Finers as a screen name was in no way serious. I was both joking, and attempting to prove a point. The point that many people rush to judgement without obtaining much in the way of information about a particular subject, including a comment made in jest.
If you say that was your intent then of course I have no choice but to take you at your word. But I maintain that it was reasonable to infer, based on the context and your refusal to elaborate, that you were in fact accusing anyone who posted on this issue of being a whiner.

Given that no one asked me simply if I was serious, or what my intent was (vm, you did ask if it was directed at you, nothing more), decisions where made about why I did somthing based on pure speculation, without knowledge of my intent or purpose.
Actually I asked if it was directed "at anyone in particular". I'm very careful how I phrase things with you because I seem to misinterpret your comments fairly often. And yes, since you refused to explain your meaning I was forced to draw my own conclusions. It's as if I were to post on someone's thread: "I'm so tired of idiots". If the person who posted before me asks, "Is that directed at anyone in particular?" and I say, "I guess that depends. Are you an idiot?" What conclusion do you think that person is likely to come to?

This is generally a fairly poor practice, whether in response to a sarcastic comment by myself or a screen name by a moderator of great character and responsibility. And I can say that not much was discussed with Mr. Fristians with a certain degree of authority. How many people asked him what his intent was before they started complaining? Not very many.
Unless he claims that Chuck Fristians isn't meant to be a play on Fuck Christians, his intent is irrelevant. Fuck Christians is likely to offend Christians whatever his intent.

Words are tools that we use to communicate, and can be put to a variety of uses, both good and bad, based on the intent of the user. Mr. Fristians screen name was judged without respect to its intent, rather like my comment in this thread. Both could have been done fairly simply, as Chuck has his PM's and e-mail enabled, for those who do not wish to post a question instead of simply complaining without talking to Chuck, interacting with him as a moderator (hard to judge his character as a moderator unless you post in PD, or at least read it, and several people here do not), or reviewing his posting history. Many of these decisions were, IMO, fairly ill-informed.
I am aware of not one comment casting doubt on the quality of Chuck's character in any thread on this subject by anyone, theist or non-theist. I might've missed one, but I don't think so. Nobody ever claimed Chuck is anti-Christian, the claim was that his chosen screen name was offensive.

Saying something directly to a person with the intent to insult them is far more abusive than making a joke and accidentally offending someone, not that the difference has been observed by some.
If you tell an offensive joke within earshot of someone you know is likely to be offended, I don't think it can be called "accidental" when that someone is offended.

Since I should be outraged every time a remark that is said to be offensive is directed at me, I guess I missed the occasions where vm stood up and complained when Roland98 told me to fuck off, called me a bitch, or complained about her previous avatar. After all, these are wrong, and I should be outraged. Obviously I will need to pay more attention in the future.
That wasn't my point. My point was that some things can reasonably be expected to offend just about anyone. Would you expect a waitress to be offended if you called her a whore when ordering your dinner? Why is that? Are waitresses just thin skinned? Do they mostly lack the self-control necessary to take things in stride? Or is it that calling a woman you don't know a whore can reasonably be considered offensive?

Much has been said about whether or not Mr. Fristians user name furthered the goals of the Secweb. The answer is simple: of course not. However, neither does the humor forum, Elsewhere, etc. There are several fora that could be expunged with little effect on the mission of the IIDB, and this has been done in the past. Not everything that goes on there furthers the mission, and trying to ensure that it does is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
For my part I don't believe it's relevant if staff user names further IIDB's goals.

The question then would be does Chuck's screen name hinder the purpose of IIDB in a significant manor. This is where a judgement call is necessary. And several people in this thread having made many of them, I will make my own personal call and say no. People who chose to be offended by a spoonerism without bothering to contact the individual in question, attempting to determine his intent, etc., well, some people are a little too easily offended IMO, but this is a judgement call, nothing more, nothing less. People are free to disagree with me, and some make a habit out of it.*
And of course as I have explained in detail, I disagree.

And, contrary to certain assertions, I do in fact care about the opinions of the users of IIDB, and answer many of the complaint threads for that very reason. While there are some threads I would be perfectly happy to never see agains (such as the signature/avatar issue), I still take the time to reply, provide links, or whatever is nessesary regardless of my feelings on the issue.
FWIW I believe you care, but I also believe you think people who raise policy issues that you personally think are unimportant are whiners.

*This was directed at Roland98, so anyone who jumped to another conclusion is wrong.
Damn, I followed the asterisk down here before I had time to jump to the erroneous conclusion that you were referring to me. :P

[Clutch Munny]

My original comment about Whuck Finers as a screen name was in no way serious. I was both joking, and attempting to prove a point. The point that many people rush to judgement without obtaining much in the way of information about a particular subject, including a comment made in jest.

Given that no one asked me simply if I was serious, or what my intent was (vm, you did ask if it was directed at you, nothing more), decisions where made about why I did somthing based on pure speculation, without knowledge of my intent or purpose. This is generally a fairly poor practice, whether in response to a sarcastic comment by myself or a screen name by a moderator of great character and responsibility.

No, nobody made such decisions. Everything said in reply was also said in irony, to prove the point that you would rush to judgement about what they meant. It saddens me that you just proved this point so compellingly...

Hey, that is easy!


And I can say that not much was discussed with Mr. Fristians with a certain degree of authority. How many people asked him what his intent was before they started complaining? Not very many.

Who was complaining about Chuck's intent? You seem not to have understood the point of the thread very clearly.

[catalyst]

No, nobody made such decisions. Everything said in reply was also said in irony, to prove the point that you would rush to judgement about what they meant. It saddens me that you just proved this point so compellingly...

Hey, that is easy!



Not everything I said was ironic, simply my original comment.



Who was complaining about Chuck's intent? You seem not to have understood the point of the thread very clearly.

I was complaining about most people making no effort to determine his intent. This was based on a summary of information gleaned from the complaint threads about his name on three different boards. This must be some sort of record. However, I probably should have been more clear about that.

[Clutch Munny]

Not everything I said was ironic, simply my original comment.

Yes, you weren't just whining yourself. You were cleverly setting a trap, daring people to point out that you were whining yourself. Got that.


I was complaining about most people making no effort to determine his intent. This was based on a summary of information gleaned from the complaint threads about his name on three different boards. This must be some sort of record. However, I probably should have been more clear about that.

Who was complaining about Chuck's intent?

You charged (with some authority!) that complainers hadn't even investigated Chuck's intent first. What is the complaint to which this would be relevant?

[godfry n. glad]

I say Chuck can do what he damn well pleases. It's his screen name.

If he gives up his cognomen, he submits his identity to the machine...His business entirely.

I just hope that once he realizes his error, he'll reclaim his rightful place and name.

You can chain him to his oar, now.

godfry


...and every time I see Chuck's name, I'll think, "Fuck".

[viscousmemories]

Who was complaining about Chuck's intent?

You charged (with some authority!) that complainers hadn't even investigated Chuck's intent first. What is the complaint to which this would be relevant?
I think he means (though I'm still unsure, of course) that we can't say with any certainty that Chuck meant his name to be a play on Fuck Christians unless we ask him. Of course that would be an ad hoc rationalization to rival any I've seen a fundie fall back on, but it wouldn't be the first of those that's been bandied about lately. More than one participant in these dialogues has made it quite clear that their anti-theist crusade is far more important than adherence to reasoned argument or straightforward communication - though I hesitate to believe it's intentional.

[viscousmemories]

For the record I said some things to Goliath yesterday which I believe were plainly offensive regardless of his subjective interpretation of their meaning, and I think doing so was not one of my better ideas. I won't deny that I was angry and that I disagreed with him, but I only indulged in the use of phrases such as "go fuck yourself" to make the point that some statements are plainly offensive.

Whether I succeeded strikes me as irrelevant now, as I believe that the possiblity for a misinterpretation of my intent is too strong. So while I'm not going to revise history by way of editing the post, I will renounce it and strive to make better decisions in the future.

I apologize to Goliath and anyone else who might've been offended by the comments.

[Gawen]

I think I'm going to go re-read the Politics and Religion page and the What Are Humans Worth page....*sigh*

[godfry n. glad]

heh... Just curious here...

If one is moderated by Chuck, can one respond with the more formal "Mr. Fristians"? Will those in the know be allowed to refer to Mr. Fristians in posts there, or will everybody be required to call him Chuck, and only Chuck? (...so help you, Bob.)

Will you be allowed to say "Chuck you!" (...meaning, of course, that you think somebody should be moderated by Chuck)?

It doesn't affect me, because I'm exiled from IIDB...I'm just curious.

Has anyone started the Free the Fristians Defense Fund yet?

godfry

"....and thus the name 'Fristians' became taboo;
whispered only in back alleys,
after dark, when the moon was new."

[viscousmemories]

heh... Just curious here...

If one is moderated by Chuck, can one respond with the more formal "Mr. Fristians"? Will those in the know be allowed to refer to Mr. Fristians in posts there, or will everybody be required to call him Chuck, and only Chuck? (...so help you, Bob.)
Chuck requested that his name be changed of his own accord, so I doubt there are any restrictions on whether people can refer to him by his old moniker if they choose.

Has anyone started the Free the Fristians Defense Fund yet?
Not that I'm aware of, but apparently some have vowed to forever refer to Christians as 'Fristians' in his honor. Seems a bit silly to me, but then this entire affair was rather saturated with dramatics IMHO.

[godfry n. glad]

Chuck requested that his name be changed of his own accord, so I doubt there are any restrictions on whether people can refer to him by his old moniker if they choose.

If a significant cadre of posters could consistantly refer to Chuck as "Mr. Fristians" publicly, it'd serve to undermine the whole accomodation. I have my doubts as to whether that, or even referring to Christians as Fristians, could be maintained for very long.

Not that I'm aware of, but apparently some have vowed to forever refer to Christians as 'Fristians' in his honor. Seems a bit silly to me, but then this entire affair was rather saturated with dramatics IMHO.

But of course! The whole thing is silly, not just the responses. It's just continued jostling for pride of place.

Look at Worn. He's having a great time.

And I obviously think it's a hoot.

Everybody's gotta get their lashes in on the dead horse, y'know.

godfry

[Dingfod]

Look at Worn. He's having a great time.

And I obviously think it's a hoot.

Everybody's gotta get their lashes in on the dead horse, y'know.The horse ain't dead until it doesn't move when you beat it.

Yes, I'm having a good time with this. I'm glad you are enjoying me having a good time.

I do have a strong opinion on this subject, but it isn't one that sits well with those that want to coddle the sensitivities of theist members of IIDB. I think Chuck caved. I've fallen away from IIDB voluntarily. It is apparently becoming something less desirable for me to participate in and IMHO, is falling away from the stated goal of "fostering a sense of community among atheists". Also the current level of censorship has taken some of the fun out of it for me. Nothing like a good train wreck to draw a crowd.
http://www.agerights.com/art/dingbats/train.jpg


Warren

[viscousmemories]

I do have a strong opinion on this subject, but it isn't one that sits well with those that want to coddle the sensitivities of theist members of IIDB.
I've seen nobody suggesting "coddling the sensitivities of theist members", just making an effort not to be blatantly offensive. And not only to theist members but to theist lurkers as well. If a missionary ever knocked on my door with a "Fuck Atheists" nametag, I would very likely tell them that such is not going to help them get atheists to take them seriously.

I think Chuck caved.
It seems quite possible that he did. I've seen no evidence that he was convinced of the rightness of his action in any case.

I've fallen away from IIDB voluntarily. It is apparently becoming something less desirable for me to participate in and IMHO, is falling away from the stated goal of "fostering a sense of community among atheists".
How is that? What do you think it takes to "foster a sense of community" that IIDB is not currently providing for the atheist members?

Also the current level of censorship has taken some of the fun out of it for me.
I've never been a fan of the censorship myself, but that says nothing about whether it's appropriate to censor some offensive content and not other (more blatant IMO) offensive content. That was my primary point in this.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, Worn...

If you walk away from IIDB, you won't be able to engage Chuck as "Mr. Fristians"....but, then, I do understand. :D

I think we should just tell people that Mr. Fristians is in voluntary servitude. That he has given up his name, much as an acolyte of the Christian brotherhoods does. He has voluntarily subjugated his identity to the group need of IIDB to proselytize amongst theists.

It certainly sounds "cult" to me. Did he have to take an engram reading before they promoted him to moderator?

godfry

Are we clear on this?

"....and thus the name 'Fristians' became taboo;
whispered only in back alleys,
after dark, when the moon was new."

[Dingfod]

vm, I'm not really interested in a point-by-point debate on this any more. That is my opinion, however biased or wrongly based it may be. I'm no longer trying to convince you of the rightness of my view, and nor do I think I'll change my mind on this matter. I'm done.


Warren

[viscousmemories]

vm, I'm not really interested in a point-by-point debate on this any more. That is my opinion, however biased or wrongly based it may be. I'm no longer trying to convince you of the rightness of my view, and nor do I think I'll change my mind on this matter. I'm done.
When did you try previously?

[Dingfod]

When did you try previously?It was lame, but
here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3875&postcount=50) .


/me should've left the "any more" and the "never ever" out of his posts.


In fact, now that I think about my whole participation in anything at all on the internet, including my motorcycle club, amounts to absolute zero.

I'm going away now. I should have better things to do. And, if I don't, I'm fucked, seriously fucked.


Warren

[viscousmemories]

It was lame, but here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3875&postcount=50).
Ah, I remember now. Well I don't think that post was entirely lame. :P I apologize for not replying to it when you posted it though. This being my thread and all I tried to respond to every substantial point raised.

* warrenly should've left the "any more" and the "never ever" out of his posts.
Fair enough, I'll take that into consideration in my long overdue response:

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 think obviously not. But of course there's a whole lot of chucking that can happen between a potentially offensive name and 'everything'.

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.
Well we'll have to leave the "never ever" in for now, 'cause without it the sentence is meaningless. :)

I suspect the very existence of a site to promote a naturalistic worldview offends most theists, so I can't imagine anyone reasonably interpreting "explore common ground" as "never offend theists". However my own take (and apparently that of the IIDB administration) is that exploring common ground requires at least making an effort to minimize offense to theists wherever it can be done with a minimum of sacrifice.

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."
I would say it depends entirely on what your definition of 'is' is. ;)

In fact, now that I think about my whole participation in anything at all on the internet, including my motorcycle club, amounts to absolute zero.
Well by whatever arbitrary ordering system I live by quite a few of your posts have value.

I'm going away now. I should have better things to do. And, if I don't, I'm fucked, seriously fucked.
If posting on discussion boards is a valueless activity, then a big huge chunk of my life is without value too. Fortunately I disagree. :)

[Penni]

Hmmm, I guess I'm still waiting for certain people, also members of IIDB, to rationalize their support for theists moderators, and at the same time, their vehement disagreement with the appropriateness of Chuck's username in light of IIDB's Mission Statement (I'm not sure if I am mistaken in that some people maintain both of these views). Do you not thing the two positions are inconsistent and thus hypocritical? Do you also strongly believe IIDB needs a change in their views toward the adherence of their mission statement, and if so, how would that affect the presence or absence of theist moderators and Chuck's username? It seems some people recognized that one cannot simulataneously condemn Chuck's usenrame and champion theist mods, but I am interested in people's ideas re: proposed resolution of that dichotomy.

[wade-w]

Call me dense, but I really don't see the dichotomy you refer to. Could you be more explicit?

[Penni]

Call me dense, but I really don't see the dichotomy you refer to. Could you be more explicit?

Sure. I mean that many people objected to Chuck's username on the basis that it could alienate theists, which, according to IIDB's mission statement, is against the goals (i.e that IIDB seeks to explore common ground with theists). However, I think we have pretty much agreed that theist mods, are not required to adhere to the mission of IIDB or the SecWeb (i.e. the part about expanding naturalism, I think), therefore, why must Chuck do anything to defend the IIDB's goals? It seems that those who are for Chuck changing his name so as not to offend people should also be against theist mods, and that those against theist mods should pretty much also celebrate Chuck's change of username.

For the record, I am not immune. I am still sketical about the greater value of theist mods, whereas I also do not think Chuck should change his username. I ascribe my lack of consistency to the fact that ultimately I am not in favor of the goals as set out by the BOD, but am a little less on the side of attracting theist champions and participants (however wrong or unproductive as that may be in certain people's views). I see both sides, but that's where my most base feelings lie. So, not to make others seem like lowly hypocrites while I am superior, because I am not, but I wonder if there are others that hold dichotmous positions like I do and what they think about them.

[viscousmemories]

However, I think we have pretty much agreed that theist mods, are not required to adhere to the mission of IIDB or the SecWeb (i.e. the part about expanding naturalism, I think), therefore, why must Chuck do anything to defend the IIDB's goals?
I think saying you aren't required to support the goals is a different thing from saying you are free to actively contradict them.

It seems that those who are for Chuck changing his name so as not to offend people should also be against theist mods, and that those against theist mods should pretty much also celebrate Chuck's change of username.
There are other options. I'm not opposed to the idea of theist mods, but I do believe that all mods should endorse the IIDB mission. In fact I can't even imagine why anyone who doesn't would want to work for the site.

I am still sketical about the greater value of theist mods, whereas I also do not think Chuck should change his username.
In all honesty that doesn't strike me as at all inconsistent. You don't think theists should be mods and you don't think steps should be taken to avoid offending them. Seems like a consistent position to me.

I ascribe my lack of consistency to the fact that ultimately I am not in favor of the goals as set out by the BOD, but am a little less on the side of attracting theist champions and participants (however wrong or unproductive as that may be in certain people's views).
To be honest I'm not a big fan of the mission either, but probably for different reasons than you. But out of curiosity, do you think the IIDB staff members should be required to support the mission statement as written?

I see both sides, but that's where my most base feelings lie. So, not to make others seem like lowly hypocrites while I am superior, because I am not, but I wonder if there are others that hold dichotmous positions like I do and what they think about them.
My strongest opinon about all of this is that I wish people would be logical, respectful and consistent about these issues. While I think you and I probably have a fundamental disagreement about what IIDB's mission should be, at least you've been willing to do that and I personally really appreciate it. I hope I've been able to return the favor.