Militant Atheism?

[Data]

I take issue with echo chambers and lack of critical thinking that can come from this, but at the same time, it's not really all a free speech issue. Many communities require strict moderation to continue existing as they do or they just get overrun by dissenters. If a feminist space tolerates angry men coming on to debate and as a result, women just leave because they don't want to deal with it, then the quality of your unique community is degraded. 

That sounds reasonable, but at the same time if a feminist debate space is intolerant of dissenters it's only real purpose is to promote intolerance. As clear as some controversial subjects are I think there should always be debate. When I go to a forum I check out their rules, and they're pretty much universal, and I make a conscious decision to respect those rules. I may slip up, I may bend the rules slightly if that is the norm or I may decide not to only when I see blatant hypocrisy and bias in enforcement.





If people come in angry, like mentioned earlier somewhere, like formerly religious, or religiously oppressed/suppressed, maybe that should be addressed. But if people come here angry from the other side of the fence screw them?

This may not be a problem here, but it is a problem some communities face.

With nearly 30 years of experience doing this almost exclusively in atheist forums I can safely say there is almost always a "problem" in this regard, the same applies to theist forums. It used to be theist forums were far more intolerant but those types of forums weren't devoted to debate or included an atheist forum where you could just bash atheism. That would be unfair. So far it seems okay here but all of the markers are there. Popcorn emojis, people expecting you to be banned, unfounded and unsupported harsh criticism. One sided. One poster I've seen around on other forums and I know for a fact that one is all about shutting certain people up.

On the last forum I was on I posted something to demonstrate how ideology clouded judgement of science and reason. I picked a very controversial topic to for civil debate, providing photographic and scientific evidence that a certain historic event was highly questionable. Most of the responses in that thread I deleted. The OP can delete any posts in their own thread. People were telling me to kill myself, and labeling me racist, crazy etc. Science and objectivity right out the door. The "mods" (I don't know how they worked that, participants weren't mods or able to ban anyone, it may have been bots or whatever, automated, informed me I had many reports and would I consider editing the content. Although I had done that earlier in a personal heated exchange between me and a "Christian" I didn't in this case and nothing came of it. If I posted it here they would probably call it hate and ban me for some reason connected to that. Disruption, provocation, hate, promotion of violence (which it wasn't but it might be called that)

I think that instead of banning the yelling of "Fire!" in a theater people should be instructed on how not to be so stupid as to go into a panic just because someone yelled "Fire!" in a theater. But I also think it's juvenile to yell "Fire!" in a theater just to watch the idiots panic. On the other hand, if there's a fire there are better ways to communicate that.

Facts About The Holocaust