Chuck Fristians at IIDB

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.)

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

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.



Warren

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by warrenly

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.

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]

Originally Posted by warrenly

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

When did you try previously?

It was lame, but
here .


* Dingfod 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]

Originally Posted by warrenly

It was lame, but here.

Ah, I remember now. Well I don't think that post was entirely lame. 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]

Originally Posted by wade-w

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]

Originally Posted by Penni

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.