LogicalFallacy

Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

But, more immediately I don't actually care that much if he gets to express his opinion. I care that he is a moderator. You'll recall that a few days ago ToT got a timeout and a bunch of threads were deleted.

 

Discussion of moderator action is prohibited in the public forums here, as well as on most forums. 

51 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

I recall that just in the last day or so we've had posts from ex-Christian women talking about the joy of being liberated from Christian dogma that makes them subservient to fathers and husbands. I wonder how they might feel about a discussion forum for ex-Christians where one of the principle moderators shares those same repressive views?

 

Again, what if he did? It's all spelled out very clearly in the ToT rules.

 

Quote

TOT rules

Former Christian's are liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent, conservationalists, feminists, anti-feminists, kind, harsh, bitter, angry, laid back, hyper, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, brown, yellow, red, capitalist, socialist, spiritual, atheist, etc., etc., etc. 

 

In other words, the only actual commonality between all former Christians is that they all formally considered themselves Christian. 

 

When leaving Christianity, a person gains a certain freedom from needing to ageee with or adhere to others' opinions, no matter how strongly held those opinions might be.  Ex-Christian authoritarian dogma does not exist. The only requirement to belonging to this community of ex-Christians is the act of leaving Christianity. 

 

When posting topics or participating in discussions, please keep the site's foundational purpose in mind: encouraging ex-Christians.  

 

Encouraging ex-christians to think differently about a controversial subject is fine, but insulting and baiting others when they disagree or for sheer entertainment is contrary to this site's purpose. 

 

Feel free to play here, but please try to respect each other and keep potentially heated (and for that matter all) discussions civil.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Again, what if he did?

 

I already answered your question about why I think it matters and what I think should be done. I understand your reasons for not responding to what I wrote, but I don't think it's useful to act as if I didn't already give you an answer. In any case, while I understand the rationale behind the rule against public discussion of moderation, my opinion is that this issue has been festering on this site for literally years (it was a problem the first time I was here in 2015) and absent public discussion I doubt it will ever really be addressed. But at the very least I would encourage you to consider what I actually wrote privately, if not publicly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wellnamed said:

I recall that just in the last day or so we've had posts from ex-Christian women talking about the joy of being liberated from Christian dogma that makes them subservient to fathers and husbands. I wonder how they might feel about a discussion forum for ex-Christians where one of the principle moderators shares those same repressive views?

 

I was one of these women. Since you were wondering...

 

1) I would be curious to know what his actual views are. Who he agrees or disagrees with is his own business. What he thinks about women voting is his business. He has said he thinks people aren't ready for his views and, judging by the responses, I'd say he's probably right. But before we heap the labels and descriptions of his character, I'd want to hear and address what he actually thinks as opposed to the highest speculation.

 

2) I just don't give any sort of fuck, not even the softest or mildest of fucks, what skip thinks about women voting. It doesn't matter in the slightest bit to me, I'm not threatened literally at all. Whether he wants it or not, I can vote and until that right is even remotely close to being threatened, I will continue to not give a fuck. If he thinks what you think he thinks, well.... ha ha I can vote. If he doesn't, he'll clarify. But who cares, women can vote.

 

3) We can bitch about what he thinks all day long but it's not like it's changing his mind to "tsk tsk" him. These kinds of posts are a direct response to people telling other people how they should or should not think. A good "whatever, think what you want" calms this. As much as it pisses people off, his thoughts are his own and we cannot do one goddamn thing about it. Being "intolerant" of it just looks childish in my opinion. "Tolerating" it is not the same as accepting his views or embracing them. When you throw "you should or should not think/believe," around, things get messy.

 

4) I do think the "shit post" drama was not cool for the record, he knows I think this. We've aired grievances now, our options are to continue to make formal complaints, talk with skip directly about what can be done to alleviate the situation, or not tolerate it and leave. If it happens again, maybe more action can be taken. Maybe skip learned from that situation and will not do so again, which fixes some of the problem, right?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does a reaction become hypersensitivity, making a mountain out of a molehill?  There is no evidence that any actual real actions have happened out of what opinion is discussed on here.  This almost sounds like the very old argument that violent music causes physical violence from teenagers or later, violent video games.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

When does a reaction become hypersensitivity, making a mountain out of a molehill?  There is no evidence that any actual real actions have happened out of what opinion is discussed on here.  This almost sounds like the very old argument that violent music causes physical violence from teenagers or later, violent video games.  

 

The things we discuss mostly just impacts our sense of self-importance. :)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, midniterider said:

 

The things we discuss mostly just impacts our sense of self-importance. :)

 

 

 

And who is ultimately responsible for that?  Can someone else force you to feel happy, sad, angry?  NO....only YOU.  How you respond is completely up to you.  There are only two things you HAVE to do in life; 1) live and 2) die.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

And who is ultimately responsible for that?  Can someone else force you to feel happy, sad, angry?  NO....only YOU.  How you respond is completely up to you.  There are only two things you HAVE to do in life; 1) live and 2) die.  

 

Exactly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wellnamed said:

 

I already answered your question about why I think it matters and what I think should be done. I understand your reasons for not responding to what I wrote, but I don't think it's useful to act as if I didn't already give you an answer. In any case, while I understand the rationale behind the rule against public discussion of moderation, my opinion is that this issue has been festering on this site for literally years (it was a problem the first time I was here in 2015) and absent public discussion I doubt it will ever really be addressed. But at the very least I would encourage you to consider what I actually wrote privately, if not publicly.

 

Again, the rules are the rules and I'll be treating them as such. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer, this post is about the above conversation regarding Skip's Roosh V thread, NOT his actions as a mod. 

 

Right, I'll be careful how I tread here. I was just reading the last two pages, primarily of the exchange between @Joshpantera and @wellnamed (WN) regarding Skips agreement or or lack thereof of the posted links of Roosh V. It occurs to me that if we are to post links in discussion we may well be advised to nuance our thoughts about them. Like WN I thought from what Skip was saying that he was in large agreement with Roosh, and even on the first link posted, that gave me grave concerns (As I expressed in that thread) that someone might actually agree with them. Now Skip did say one might find nuggets in Roosh's writing, but one had to look damn hard and endure bleeding eyeballs. (I didn't find anything I liked at all)

 

So coming back to this exchange in this thread aforementioned, it doesn't surprise me that WN considers, rightly or wrongly, that Skip largely agrees with Roosh. My point here is if we are going to post articles, if we don't want members to assume we agree with them, (Or we do want them too) it might pay to clearly state such. I do note BO will at times post something and say "Not saying I agree or disagree" which is pretty handy as a guide to his thoughts on a subject. If we post material and our OP statement gives the strong appearance of agreeing with the material contained while warning others that they may disagree then it is fair to assume we do agree with said material. In fact as WN pointed out Skip does seem to largely agree at least with "Much of Roosh's printed material".

 

Now as to whether or not we should allow Skip to share these views, and this leads back to my OP, I have already made it abundantly clear in this thread that I support the right of anyone to share whatever view they have short of inciting violence. You might share your views that women should be XX and men should be XY and that's fine, but should you start stating that you think this should be enforced... well that's the line crossed. I do agree with Truescotsman et al that such views, should they gain traction, would actually be capable of causing real harm. However I still fall on the side of fight opinions you disagree with, with opinions of your own, rather than attempt to silence them.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now