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.

Originally Posted by Cheetah

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Penni

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 on that thread:

Originally Posted by livius drusus

[…] 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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 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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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

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]

Originally Posted by Penni

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.

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]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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]

Originally Posted by Goliath

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.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I imagine it'll be any day now.

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?

Originally Posted by Goliath

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by Goliath

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by Goliath

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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.



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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by Goliath

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]

Originally Posted by Goliath

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by catalyst

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.