YLYL Thread and other things...

[woob]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Perhaps you should include more women, minorities, people of faith etc. on your team

Just an FYI, but I believe they're working towards this.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd actually like to see some of the more egregious anti-religion posts cleaned up as well or at least dealt with as well. There are some that are clearly just baiting religious folks and are usually poorly constructed, nonsensical, and add nothing to the discussions. We had what basically amounts to full-on hatespeech occur in one thread recently and I'm not really sure what was done about it (and yes I did report it). Perhaps St. Pats can provide us with an example of what they find offensive so we know what to look for, but I don't think the existence of the discussions themselves can be labelled offensive in the same way that the existence of the YLYL thread could be.

I doubt those people of faith who are on the site want me as their spokesperson. But you provided your own example of the type of behavior that goes on. Nor would those that like the boob thread want me as the one rallying to their cause. But it's dang easy to see the type of behavior going on in various threads. One is worse than the other? The excuses for intolerance are always amusing.

I can see why women would not want to go into that boob thread and I can't for the life of me think why people of faith would go into the anti-religious threads. Don't see any use for either of them.

But to me you either moderate both or you toss them both.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You know what, I think the ladies did a good job by changing their avatars and we can all move back to what is the more important issue(s).

We just need all those with equivalent avatars of female to follow suit.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

We just need all those with equivalent avatars of female to follow suit.

Totes, then we'll get to the dogs.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Totes, then we'll get to the dogs.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< we are not impressed

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

It makes complete sense. You are taking a stance against sexism yet you are fine with religious intolerance for example. Plenty of examples in threads on the page right this minute and brought up a number of times but the answer is (piss off and don't enter the thread or it's just so difficult to moderate). I know you will come back with we aren't tolerating it or we could improve there as well. Then do so.

I find the we have to start somewhere excuse just that. An excuse to pick on one set of individuals over others. Personally I don't like those that pick on people because they are different. I really don't care how they are different. I'm good with live and let live. I'm just as good with this is what we are about and we don't tolerate this and that.

But stick to it consistently then. If we are against demeaning people because of their sex, race, religious views, sexual orientation etc. etc. then follow through all the way. If we are just going allow some and not others based on the biases of the moderation team then yes I would agree it's time to expand the moderation team.

Perhaps you should include more women, minorities, people of faith etc. on your team so there could be an actual attempt at creating a space where anybody of any persuasion would feel free to enter any thread and participate without being attacked for what they are or what they believe.

This post is so telling in regards to you not having read or comprehended the basis for this thread in the first place, the actual original post in the thread, or the subsequent discussion.

They ARE expanding the moderating team. They ARE going to attempt to curtail other previously accepted posts and themes.

You're railing against something that doesn't exist.

This is quite frankly, a bunch of bull####. You're either not reading it, or not caring about the responses:

I find the we have to start somewhere excuse just that. An excuse to pick on one set of individuals over others. Personally I don't like those that pick on people because they are different. I really don't care how they are different. I'm good with live and let live. I'm just as good with this is what we are about and we don't tolerate this and that.

But stick to it consistently then. If we are against demeaning people because of their sex, race, religious views, sexual orientation etc. etc. then follow through all the way. If we are just going allow some and not others based on the biases of the moderation team then yes I would agree it's time to expand the moderation team.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Don't whine about it after the fact that no one else reported it. If you have a problem with the moderation on the board, talk to a mod about it. In my experience, they are pretty responsive and engaging.

It's just so petulant. "They took away my tits, so they'd better take away someone elses toys too, or it's just not fair!".

It's not about the tits. It's about the demeanor and candor of what is acceptable posting behaviour on the forum.

As someone who was previously banned for posting nsfw material, I never understood why the thread was acceptable to begin with. It turns out, many other posters felt the same way, they responded to the moderation team about it, and policy changed.

My apologies for a harsh tone, but this is becoming maddening.

[Eastern Girl]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Totes, then we'll get to the dogs.

And the word totes.

[photon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd actually like to see some of the more egregious anti-religion posts cleaned up as well or at least dealt with as well. There are some that are clearly just baiting religious folks and are usually poorly constructed, nonsensical, and add nothing to the discussions.

The problem is where do we draw the line? I don't want to ban poorly constructed nonsensical non-productive posts. I don't want to ban unpopular opinions, or even offensive ones. People have a right to be completely wrong and intransigent. While we are a private forum we would still like to have free speech except for specific things.

On the flip side insulting someone or advocating action against someone because of their opinions is clearly over the line, but if I say "I think the principles at the foundations of Religion X are morally flawed." is that over the line? What about "I think Religion X is stupid"? What about "I think Religion X is harmful to society"?

Saying "Anyone who follows Religion X is stupid" is usually a flawed argument but is it over the line? In one way yes because anyone who reads that and is a member of Religion X is implicitly being called stupid. But the FoI forum does that every single day for fans of or people from Edmonton or Vancouver.

Saying "Followers of Religion X should be killed" seems over the line, but how can calling for the killing of members of a different group like ISIS be ok then?

Maybe it's because I over analyse things, but it's challenging IMO.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Thor

Well since I'm often involved in the religious discussions, are we suggesting that because it can offend religious people to consider removing those as well? Misogyny is one thing, but debating religion is akin to debating politics. They can be heated and not nice at times, but its something that a lot of people are passionate about discussing.

I agree with the move to remove that thread, but I can't agree with stopping religious discussions because some people might be offended or feel unwelcome, again you can choose to read those threads, if its something that you are sensitive to that is.

You know its funny, and I'm probably going to come out as a bit villainous when I do this.

But is the problem the content and thread ideas or the people?

I find that there is nothing wrong with debating religion, or any other sensitive topic. Lets be honest scholars have been debating topics like the various religions and their texts since Og crawled out of the Ocean and told Wog that his god was the wrong god.

I believe that one of the big issues on this board right now that is causing people to become offended is that this board in some ways (no offense intended) has gone from having a strong debating aspect, to being a soap box with a loud speaker.

I've seen threads where people that have any kind of religious slant are harangued and insulted and laughed at for believing in the giant spaghetti monster in the sky.

I watched a recent thread resolve into so and so is a horrible person and a racist at the drop of a hat.

Whether we've all become thin skinned, or we just don't want to have discussions anymore and rant and rave, its the result that we're having now. More moderators and possibly less interesting topics and debates.

Ok, I get it with the YLYL, it was a thread that really had no value, and I will be the first to admit that I sometimes through out inappropriate sexual comments that on prior reflection were really not needed except to satisfied the inner peteard in me, and I'll strive to clean that up.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Pro-religious posts insult my intelligence. Please remove them all.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Eastern Girl

And the word totes.

bannable, however, I will allow it from my Jambo Bro only.



For what it is worth I liked your avatar

[photon]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

It makes complete sense. You are taking a stance against sexism yet you are fine with religious intolerance for example.

Well first, just because we aren't meeting whatever your expectations are doesn't mean we're "fine" with something, there are lots of reasons why we might not be meeting your expectations ranging from needing to do a better job to your expectations being unreasonable.

I know what I'm "fine" with, I generally know what we want to be fine with as a moderation team, but I don't know what you mean by religious intolerance, so I can't respond your accusation.

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Plenty of examples in threads on the page right this minute and brought up a number of times but the answer is (piss off and don't enter the thread or it's just so difficult to moderate).

Baloney, please show me where a moderator has said to piss off and don't enter the thread.

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Then do so.

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Perhaps you should include more women, minorities, people of faith etc. on your team so there could be an actual attempt at creating a space where anybody of any persuasion would feel free to enter any thread and participate without being attacked for what they are or what they believe.

From the OP...

Expanding the moderation team with an aim to bring in moderators that can give us a broader view point. We will look for strong moderator candidates first, but we hope to find one or more that represent some of the specific groups on this site (e.g. female, LGBT).

And I'm not interested in a forum where people's ideas can't be challenged. If you think apples are the best fruit, and there's a thread about apples are a terrible fruit, yes in that case either participate in the thread but expect your position to be challenged, or stay out of the thread.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You know what, I think the ladies did a good job by changing their avatars and we can all move back to what is the more important issue(s).

That was kind of my whole point... instead of focusing on the important issues and presenting counterarguments, a select few just chose to focus on the avatar.

It is the attitude of those select few that causes these issues to continue.

But I agree the avatar isn't the issue - I was just trying to point out how the discussion evolved as an outsider who hadn't commented until then.

It will be interesting to see how this thread and new direction of the board affects other topics such as religion already being discussed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by photon

The problem is where do we draw the line? I don't want to ban poorly constructed nonsensical non-productive posts. I don't want to ban unpopular opinions, or even offensive ones. People have a right to be completely wrong and intransigent. While we are a private forum we would still like to have free speech except for specific things.

On the flip side insulting someone or advocating action against someone because of their opinions is clearly over the line, but if I say "I think the principles at the foundations of Religion X are morally flawed." is that over the line? What about "I think Religion X is stupid"? What about "I think Religion X is harmful to society"?

Saying "Anyone who follows Religion X is stupid" is usually a flawed argument but is it over the line? In one way yes because anyone who reads that and is a member of Religion X is implicitly being called stupid. But the FoI forum does that every single day for fans of or people from Edmonton or Vancouver.

Saying "Followers of Religion X should be killed" seems over the line, but how can calling for the killing of members of a different group like ISIS be ok then?

Maybe it's because I over analyse things, but it's challenging IMO.

I think its pretty clear to me that when discussing religion's affect on society as a whole or religion in general is obviously okay. Calling people stupid regardless of reason should not be. Especially when done in a general sense. (exclusions being made for liking different hockey teams). I think where religious people should be criticized is if they are using religion as the basis for why they do something and that something is harmful to society. So you shouldn't be allowed to say your are stupid because you believe in god and go to church. But you could say your position on Birth Control and Abstanece only education is harmful to society.

Attack the idea not the person.

One thing to remember is although people say that religion is a choice it isn't really. Essentially religion is brainwashed into children to varying degrees as they age and coming out as an athiest can be as ostricising as coming out. So I think some degree of empathy needs to be taken.

So if the goal is conversion or at least broadening perspectives than the approach shouldn't be your ideas are stupid. It should be your ideas cause harm.

[troutman]

Race/sex is apples and oranges compared to religion/politics. The former is based in biology, and the latter on experience.

The latter is fair game for criticism, but should be done in a respectful way.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by photon

Well first, just because we aren't meeting whatever your expectations are doesn't mean we're "fine" with something, there are lots of reasons why we might not be meeting your expectations ranging from needing to do a better job to your expectations being unreasonable.

I know what I'm "fine" with, I generally know what we want to be fine with as a moderation team, but I don't know what you mean by religious intolerance, so I can't respond your accusation.



Baloney, please show me where a moderator has said to piss off and don't enter the thread.





From the OP...



And I'm not interested in a forum where people's ideas can't be challenged. If you think apples are the best fruit, and there's a thread about apples are a terrible fruit, yes in that case either participate in the thread but expect your position to be challenged, or stay out of the thread.

LOL and there it is. Oh yes it does not say piss off. Threads where ideas can be challenged? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of alternative viewpoint to challenge? A thread where various posters start with "here are some stupid religion stories". Followed by the likes of / yeah I don't respect these dumb farts / can you believe these freaking idiots. Thats what you call challenging thoughts?

The only challenge being a poster who says something along the lines of hey be honest and just call it the piss on religious types thread.

Yeah very challenging. Ever wonder why there are so many people who say they avoid the religion threads like the plague? I'll bet it's because their positions are being challenged(I would have put the last sentence in green never figured out how to change the color).

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Calling people stupid regardless of reason should not be. Especially when done in a general sense.

And in principle I agree but it's easy to say, harder to do. Do we want a forum with absolutely zero tolerance for any kind of negative comment against any person or group of people? Sure would make it easier to moderate, but I don't think it would go well.

"Lining up for 5 days to get a phone is stupid.", allowed? The implication is the people are stupid, but the grammar is that the lining up is stupid.

Originally Posted by GGG

So you shouldn't be allowed to say your are stupid because you believe in god and go to church.

I tend to agree and I don't think I've ever made such an argument myself.

Originally Posted by GGG

Attack the idea not the person.

Which we already kind of promote, in working on the rules I think we made this a higher level more explicit kind of thing.

Originally Posted by GGG

One thing to remember is although people say that religion is a choice it isn't really. Essentially religion is brainwashed into children to varying degrees as they age and coming out as an athiest can be as ostricising as coming out. So I think some degree of empathy needs to be taken.

Oh for sure, I'm much further along that line that most, I've made the same kind point about ISIS members even.

But there still is a basic difference. As you say saying "Religion X is harmful to society" is allowed, but saying "women are harmful to society" or "queers are harmful to society" would not be.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Totes, then we'll get to the dogs.

I'm more of a fan of cats, personally...

[photon]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

LOL and there it is. Oh yes it does not say piss off.

Where did I say piss off? There's a big difference between "don't go there" and "piss off", and the "don't go there" has a conditional attached to it if you read it all.

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Threads where ideas can be challenged? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of alternative viewpoint to challenge?

Which is what I said, you only bolded part of what I wrote, ignoring the rest.

I said stay out of the thread if you don't want your viewpoint to be challenged.

In my example, you like apples. There's a thread that says apples are terrible. What I said was you can participate in the thread, but expect your viewpoint to be challenged. IF you don't want your viewpoint to be challenged, the only other alternative is to stay out of the thread.

Which you don't seem to think is reasonable. In this example what is it that you propose? That viewpoints not be challenged? I thought that's what you were against?

You're going to have to be more clear about what it is that you are expecting. Anti-apple thread exists, you like apples. What should be the moderation stance at this point? If you post you like apples and someone replies why apples are bad, what should be the moderation response?

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Yeah very challenging. Ever wonder why there are so many people who say they avoid the religion threads like the plague? I'll bet it's because their positions are being challenged(I would have put the last sentence in green never figured out how to change the color).

I asked for something more specific, I can't respond to general dissatisfaction.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Ever wonder why there are so many people who say they avoid the religion threads like the plague? .

No, I pretty well have it figured out. Nobody likes being told their entire world-view is utterly mistaken, whether or not that's likely to be true. Add a few over-the-top ranters and ravers against any kind of religious impulse, ever, and you're got a good reason to tell yourself it's not the content but the presentation you cannot abide.