Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

[Joshpantera]

36 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

On INTJs and weaknesses: "INTJs tend to have complete confidence in their thought process, because rational arguments are almost by definition correct – at least in theory. In practice, emotional considerations and history are hugely influential, and a weak point for INTJs is that they brand these factors and those who embrace them as illogical, dismissing them and considering their proponents to be stuck in some baser mode of thought, making it all but impossible to be heard."

 

This all sounds very true. I agree with most of the analysis of the INTJ personality as most of it seems to apply. My girlfriend is INFJ and we get along really good. We talk about, intellectually, her feelings about not be heard by people and feeling like a door mat at times. She's a highly credentialed PhD, with a law degree, and yet she struggles with these feelings. She's even projected this onto me when it didn't really apply, over things like me being distracted typing a post like this and she thinking I was ignoring here and not hearing what she just said, or that I didn't think it was important. We've literally had to hash out between feelings and thinking a few times, but we're both ultimately adherent's of what can be logically deduced through further discussion. And she is for free speech and expression when it all comes down, despite the feeling personality type. 

 

So feelings can control thoughts, and those feeling controlled thoughts can then lobby for policy. In this self contradiction can slip by unnoticed sometimes, I think. Because the feelings are allowed to control the logical processes. And that can lead to things like wanting to stop other people from speaking if they don't have anything nice to say. Or just stopping their ability to say things that are not nice. 

 

But also, one can step back, recognize this process unfolding, apply another degree or two of thought and see that thoughts can take control of feelings and stop them from resulting in self contradiction, and one sided views of achieving equality, and a lot of the predicaments that feeling controlled thoughts can get us into. I'm sure that you all will eventually find a middle ground somehow if everyone is decided on putting in the effort that it will take to get there. And if there is no middle ground, and it becomes unbalanced towards authority and special pleading for one particular faction of non-believers, the results will be the same and the opposing factions of non-believers will probably move on. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

But also, one can step back, recognize this process unfolding, apply another degree or two of thought and see that thoughts can take control of feelings and stop them from resulting in self contradiction, and one sided views of achieving equality, and a lot of the predicaments that feeling controlled thoughts can get us into. I'm sure that you all will eventually find a middle ground somehow if everyone is decided on putting in the effort that it will take to get there. And if there is no middle ground, and it becomes unbalanced towards authority and special pleading for one particular faction of non-believers, the results will be the same and the opposing factions of non-believers will probably move on. 

How is concern over the power of language and it's role in society, special pleading for one particular faction of non-believers? The odd thing is, that we agree that the use of inflammatory bigoted language etc does no real good, but there is trouble acknowledging that all sides have points and that all are valid. In any case, if my friends decide that my reasoning is less valid or not valid, because I have my own perspective and thought process, it severely damages a friendship as it includes loss of respect, which ultimately is the glue that holds things together. I do not enjoy being analyzed as someone whose thought processes are of inferior value, and not up to par. You see, it's the consideration again for how we should treat each other, with a basic level of respect, valuing that we are all different, and each bring different qualities to the table. If I'm going to sit at that table and be treated as someone who is still in training, I will find another.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Online internet forums are private communities hosted by a particular individual or group of individual who create terms of conditions which are agreed upon by all who participate.  Sometimes, these forums, such as this one have particular purposes to be and outlet for people to come and recover from the effects of being a Christian.  These individuals represent nearly all demographics, there are some who are LGBT, Conservative, Marxist, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, of every ethnic ancestral history, and obviously many men and women deconvert from Christianity.   We should purpose the conditions upon which we come to agree to discuss with one another, and such agreements about respect, which for some of us when breached significantly will induce a backlash, which I would argue is what you've seen manifested here.  I certainly do not think this thinking is analogous to society at large, and the moderation should differ more to the common sense interpretation of moderators who are trusted members of the community, rather than over legally define every last topic that should be discussed.  We should discuss immigration, and cultural interactions of ancient civilizations, but we as former Christians should not undignify the humanity of people because of those contingent circumstances where they found themselves thrust into this world.  Surely we can discuss these things without trolling and overly inflammatory rhetoric.  

I agree, and I think @wellnamedput it best in stating that "people participate in meaningful discussion in a respectful and thoughtful way, and that includes respect for the humanity of members of social groups being discussed in the abstract, not just individual posters". But I do think a certain percentage of us here have been misunderstood in the way that we come to our decisions or what we place more value on, or then we are understood, but in the end some members are placing higher value on their modes of operation, and since they are more thick skinned, they aren't really giving a lot of thought to the fact that some people here don't really feel their thoughts are valued. In the end, I'm not much of a debater for contentious issues and don't thrive on it. I don't enjoy it nearly as much as some people here, and leaving this community isn't actually a big deal for me if certain areas don't become more reasonable. I am mainly here for those new deconverts who need support, and no other reason, as I get a lot more out of helping other people than debating ideas. I would have no problem with ToT continuing as the place it is, if it was password protected.

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But also, one can step back, recognize this process unfolding, apply another degree or two of thought and see that thoughts can take control of feelings and stop them from resulting in self contradiction, and one sided views of achieving equality, and a lot of the predicaments that feeling controlled thoughts can get us into. I'm sure that you all will eventually find a middle ground somehow if everyone is decided on putting in the effort that it will take to get there. And if there is no middle ground, and it becomes unbalanced towards authority and special pleading for one particular faction of non-believers, the results will be the same and the opposing factions of non-believers will probably move on. 

How is concern over the power of language and it's role in society, special pleading for one particular faction of non-believers? The odd thing is, that we agree that the use of inflammatory bigoted language etc does no real good, but there is trouble acknowledging that all sides have points and that all are valid.

 

Because one particular fashion of non-believers, namely those who are so offended by free range open discussion that may include sensitive issues like questioning racism, sexism, or expressing dissent with popular liberal ideologies that have arose around these sensitive issues, have threatened to leave in a huff over it.

 

This must be the 5th or 6th time saying this with no acknowledgement or direct response, but the same group of offended people are largely the same group which is offensive to other members here - or rather members who they've already run off. And who are responsible for running them off? This faction is the left bent, liberal atheist and agnostic, often post modernish, ex christians. And for some members of this faction to then to threaten to leave unless they get their way and shut down the currently existing methods of allowing almost anything, is special pleading for one particular faction that doesn't represent everybody. And it's not, again, "all inclusive" in scope and depth. 

 

Special pleading, special pleading, special pleading. 

 

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

In any case, if my friends decide that my reasoning is less valid or not valid, because I have my own perspective and thought process, it severely damages a friendship as it includes loss of respect, which ultimately is the glue that holds things together. I do not enjoy being analyzed as someone whose thought processes are of inferior value, and not up to par. You see, it's the consideration again for how we should treat each other, with a basic level of respect, valuing that we are all different, and each bring different qualities to the table.

 

I'm looking at friendships as online friendships, on a philosophical, religious, scientific and political board. Impersonal friendships with people I don't really know much about, let alone who they even are. They represent thoughts, and ideas, and philosophies, and beliefs, and ideologies, etc. So they share in the thoughts that they are putting forward for consideration. As far as I know online friends can agree, agree to disagree, or any number of things and remain civil about it and keep the friendship going. Even tolerate one another's bigoted biases, well. For the sake of not making waves and even just giving some one and break and allowing them to be expressive as they see fit. Not trying to box them in, and keep them from expressing unorthodox views sometimes. If some one says something doesn't make sense or is self contradicting, online friends can point that out to one another without it devolving into mankee sling. They can respect one another and yet hold one another's feet the fire on some issue, playfully or whatever. These all seem very reasonable and possible. 

 

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

If I'm going to sit at that table and be treated as someone who is still in training, I will find another.

 

What if the reality is that you are still in training? How do prefer online friends to proceed with that? Ignore it and keep it from your attention, or let you know what they're thinking. Further, why would they get the impression that you're still in training? Because you're fairly new to deconversion or this forum. How many decades have you been deconverted now? 2 decades, 3 decades, 4 or 5 decades? Or is your deconversion numbered in annual years? 

 

Are you considerably new to deconversion, or much older to it? 

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Comparing the expression of atheistic beliefs to bigoted behavior is not really any kind of double standard.  Everyone is on their own journey, and there is no duration or set of philosophies one should arrive at after deconversion.  Myself and other former Christians arrive at atheism, if people can't accept that or feel threatened in a discussion with me, then they should let me know personally.  I don't really know of any Post Modernist Ex Christians here, and just because some of us agree more often doesn't mean we are some organized faction.  This kind of disengenous speculation only drives the divide.

 

They should let you know. I agree. I'm not going to fight you very hard about this, TS. A lot of points have been made. Changes have been proposed. Let's see how it works. Let's just see what happens and whether or not things seem to improve. 

 

 

[florduh]

6 hours ago, wellnamed said:

...consistent with free speech principles to prohibit the kind of "abusive, hateful, or harassing" speech already forbidden by site rules.

Those preexisting rules have not been enforced. They shall be enforced as they always should have been, so there is no substantive change in anything. Just be decent and civil as you argue your points. Sometimes it seems like too much to ask, fer chrissakes.

[disillusioned]

Just a general note: I think one of the wonderful things about being an ex-Christian is that I have left behind the notion that there is a prescribed path which must be followed. I think there are, generally, certain stages that tend to emerge in the deconversion process, but the idea that one who has been out for longer necessarily has a better perspective is not one which should go unchallenged. Those of us who have been out longer may recognize that newer deconverts are displaying "typical" behaviour, but we should not become dismissive, and we should never pretend to be superior. That would be claiming a position of authority. Authority on what? Not believing in non-sense? Please.

 

The way I see it, this site exists to help ex-Christians. Not to help them become anything in particular, but to help them on their own path. So, in my opinion, no one should be regarded as being "in training". I don't think this is helpful. In fact, it could be argued that that is "church think".

[Joshpantera]

On 6/15/2018 at 4:57 PM, florduh said:

Those preexisting rules have not been enforced. They shall be enforced as they always should have been, so there is no substantive change in anything. Just be decent and civil as you argue your points. Sometimes it seems like too much to ask, fer chrissakes.

 

So the only changes are just keeping to rules that were already in place? We sure went the long way around then, didn't we? 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Just a general note: I think one of the wonderful things about being an ex-Christian is that I have left behind the notion that there is a prescribed path which must be followed. I think there are, generally, certain stages that tend to emerge in the deconversion process, but the idea that one who has been out for longer necessarily has a better perspective is not one which should go unchallenged. Those of us who have been out longer may recognize that newer deconverts are displaying "typical" behaviour, but we should not become dismissive, and we should never pretend to be superior. That would be claiming a position of authority. Authority on what? Not believing in non-sense? Please.

 

I was going to go off into some post about this, but I've dumped it. 

[florduh]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

So the only changes are just keeping to rules that were already in place? We sure went the long around then, didn't we? 

A reasonable person might expect more self regulation and adherence to the rules than has been evident. Time to point that out.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

A reasonable person might expect more self regulation and adherence to the rules than has been evident. Time to point that out.

 

So how does it go from here? 

[florduh]

6 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

So how does it go from here?

I guess you could test the limits and find out if the rules of this site apply to you.  Honestly, I don't see why anyone would defend his "right" to insult and demean people. But they do, apparently.

[Joshpantera]

45 minutes ago, florduh said:

I guess you could test the limits and find out if the rules of this site apply to you.  Honestly, I don't see why anyone would defend his "right" to insult and demean people. But they do, apparently.

 

I assume that you don't think I've already tested the limits of the rules of the site in this way? If so, why wasn't I warned about it?  

 

And what's this business about defending his "right" to insult and demean people? Could you clarify that? 

[florduh]

46 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I assume that you don't think I've already tested the limits of the rules of the site in this way? If so, why wasn't I warned about it?  

 

And what's this business about defending his "right" to insult and demean people? Could you clarify that? 

What's your game here?

[Joshpantera]

On 6/15/2018 at 8:33 PM, florduh said:

What's your game here?

 

I took your posts as having a threatening tone aimed my way, in a vague, not so clear sort of way. And I'm just asking you to clarify if that's the case. I don't want to jump to any conclusions. 

 

Whatever the case, I'm drained from of all this. I've burned out before, and I feel it coming on again. I'm not arguing the right to demean people, if that's what you're saying to me. That would be a projection. I'm just arguing against the tendency of people wanting to take down free speech all the time now here in the US. And hating on people they perceive as hater's. It just isn't right, in my view. But it may be a lost cause, the whole thing, honestly.

 

And that national fight, I've projected at all of you. With some cocky aggression mixed in. 

 

I will apologize for doing that. 

 

I didn't mean to hurt anyone in the process. I suppose I got too riled up over the past few days. 

[Guest end3]

Let me clarify.  I've been a large enough ass in the old days to test the rules.  Typically a time out for month or so to allow you to de-stress.  Ex-C is a very tolerant place from the owner/mod standpoint.  Reasonable is the operative word ...  J, you would have to work hard to get out of bounds.  Holler if I can advise.

[florduh]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

I took your posts as having a threatening tone aimed my way

Not at all.

[Joshpantera]

2 minutes ago, florduh said:

Not at all.

 

Ok, thanks. I'm burnt. I'm drained. I've been reading so much my eyes are sore. 

 

Guns are down. 

[florduh]

2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Ok, thanks. I'm burnt. I'm drained. I've been reading so much my eyes are sore. 

 

Guns are down. 

The serial offending assholes know who they are. I'm surprised you think you might be one of them.

[duderonomy]

My unsolicited (and rambling and disjointed) thoughts:

 

Many have pointed out in many paragraphs that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and many of the people calling for strict rules on what can be said and what can't be said will have to follow the same rules as everyone else does. I hope they are aware of the unintended consequences of what they are calling for, because it would apply to them too.

 

It's nice that many of the members here are discussing the ins and outs of policing ourselves but ultimately the direction of this website will be determined by the site owner and his moderators.  Those of us riding the bus should feel free to tell the driver where they should turn, but taking trying to take the wheel and force a change in direction isn't appropriate.

 

Many of us take ourselves too seriously. Honestly, I've seen much more attempted coercion of thought and more attempts at placing guilt trips about declared sins against arbitrary beliefs, more dogmatic preaching of what one must believe in order to be accepted  by some people in some areas of this website than I ever did in any church.

Having said that, I hope I'm not guilty of doing the same. I might be, but I don't think so despite some of the heated discussions I've had in the ToT. 

 

BAA always avoided the political drama and virulent name calling and mankee feces slinging that some of us indulge in from time to time. He always defended the original intent and purpose of this website.

I wish I could live up to that example, but I don't always have the words for people first coming here or encouraging people that have just posted their extimonies.

So these days I mostly hang out in ToT, and that because I've been around here for many years and I know most of the other posters there and what they think. It's a good online hangout until we lose our sense of humor and like I said above, take ourselves too seriously.

Maybe some that are more concerned about what the recently deconverted think of this should spend more time assisting the recently deconverted and less time insisting that everyone agree with their political and sexual views?

 

There is dogged dogmatism on both sides of the political spectrum. I think we (and I mean we, not just you ) should all give each other a wide berth when these things come up. 

One thing that's been discussed is that ignoring a post implies consent. No, it doesn't. Jumping into it with name calling and demands of compliance for opposing views gives it credibility and the opportunity for the poster to add more fuel to the fire they started. It takes two to Tango.

Ignoring it is just ignoring it, and implies that it isn't worth responding to by virtue of your absence. You know, like 'when your phone doesn't ring, it's me'.  

 

What if we let ToT be ToT, and those among us who want a more formal discussion post here in the Colosseum? The rules, it seems, are different between the two, and not 'anything goes' here.  I'm not sure if the rules and mods would allow or want political discussion to be here so that's just food for thought. 

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

My unsolicited (and rambling and disjointed) thoughts:

 

Thanks for your input Dude. I was hoping you'd contribute.

 

I don't have any problem with anyone holding any particular view and defending it. I think the issue arises when people are not so much defending a view or highlighting what they see as a problem, but rather posting flame content, or content so poorly worded that its reasonably foreseeable that people are going to misunderstand what is being said. I think its been mentioned several times, and you hit on it - discuss and disagree sure, but lets not be arseholes.

 

Remember with freedom of speech should come some responsibility to not abuse that free speech. Sadly some here have gone too far, hence this thread.

[florduh]

This isn't difficult. The behavior that has driven away so many people is posts and topics that are intentionally inflammatory, insulting remarks and personal attacks. It's not about prohibited opinions but civility. Read the fucking rules.

[Guest end3]

6 hours ago, florduh said:

This isn't difficult. The behavior that has driven away so many people is posts and topics that are intentionally inflammatory, insulting remarks and personal attacks. It's not about prohibited opinions but civility. Read the fucking rules.

Yes, but some of you are so fucking stupid...lol.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.  It's a control issue.  I'm working that out with the therapist...

[florduh]

20 minutes ago, end3 said:

I'm working that out with the therapist...

I hope you're not spending very much on that therapist! 

[Joshpantera]

20 hours ago, end3 said:

Let me clarify.  I've been a large enough ass in the old days to test the rules.  Typically a time out for month or so to allow you to de-stress.  Ex-C is a very tolerant place from the owner/mod standpoint.  Reasonable is the operative word ...  J, you would have to work hard to get out of bounds.  Holler if I can advise.

 

This is a good example of what I was saying about avoiding an echo chamber. I like having believer christian's around. I support you in some areas, I oppose in others, obviously religion. But a pretty hard atheist, me, and believer christian, you, can get along just fine. Even to the extent of arguing points, we can get along just fine.