The Newly Departed thread: announcements (departures)

[Shell B]

The debate area remains open for anyone who wishes to have a focused discussion without unwelcome distractions. I suggest people use it.

Personally I prefer discussion to a debate.  A debate, I feel needs much more preparation, is more formal, and is limited to a few participants, where others who might have a good idea can't express that.  I don't understand what the issue is, with having something in the middle.

I don't think that's the issue.

[DodosAreDead]

Someone on AF recently said something along the lines of this: we all agree that we don't want AF to lose many members and have the same few people participating in tired discussions. (Paraphrasing here) (I think it was Kevin, but don't remember exactly)
The point is, why are we continuing the discussion about the Civil Discussion forum? It's clearly divisive and polarizing. I'm not saying we should self-Sensor (totally not getting into that) but, is vehemently stating your opinion really worth losing valuable members, in the long run? It's ok to just shut up sometimes.

Drama can be pointless, but not always.

Who's saying anything about pointless? I'm just saying it's having some bad consequences. I happen to like some of the members who're leaving. Whatever, though. I'll just shut up now.

[Aegon]

Happy to report that Vulcanlogician has checked in and he gave me this message:

"I’ve removed [AF.org](http://AF.org) from my bookmarks. I don’t want to even look at that place for a while. If anyone asks, tell them I’ll be back sooner or later, at least to check my PMs."

Good enough for me.  So now that my survivor's guilt is relieved I'll be taking a break until such time as I feel like coming back. It was a pretty intense couple of days for me.  The exhilaration of finding that bright shiny new forum all wrapped up with a bow on it (thank you again, Tibs), followed by the angry resentment on the part of what felt like the overwhelming majority, followed by the bright shiny new toy being bashed and set on fire by the neighborhood punks.

What is really laughable is the vandalism was done in the name of a higher purpose, free speech.  The obsession so many of you had with those of us who went against the herd was startling.  It really mirrored the JW's practice of shunning.  You guys (and I assume you will know which you are and aren't) are such intolerant fundamentalists.  We're often telling theists how there is only one thing we all have in common and I'm very happy to remember that now.  I am not an atheist in the image of the pack that hounded this effort.  You all go on back into your cave now and regale one another with your tales of daring do.  You have driven off the scary shadows once again.  

But there are a good number here I'm happy to rub elbows with in RL anytime.  That hasn't changed.  And I'll be working on forgiving the worst of you because I don't practice shunning.  But for now, fuck you very much.

I think this is a gross oversimplification.  From what I understand, Tibs unilaterally created that section without the support of staff, which, as far as I know, hasn't been how any new rules or subsections have been implemented in my time here.

There's also the fundamental question of who is this new section for?  We already have a debate section.  In fact, the very Christians who left used it to discuss their feelings regarding the forum before they left.  Seems to me like it's working as intended.  Moreover, I find it odd that the same people who have lamented not having a serious conversation hardly ever took advantage of the existing apparatus.  Given that they coordinated both their exit and return, one would think they could figure out who would want to be involved in discussing topics like "Was sin necessary for knowledge?"

And it's not like there aren't tools in place to deal with abuse if it's actually happening.  We can ignore people.  It's not a perfect implementation, but it's there.  We can report people.

Frankly, I think a lot of their disappointment is that a lot of us don't take their religion nearly as seriously as they do.  Where they see centuries of philosophy, scholarship, and tradition, we see a layer cake of absurdity which has created an institutionalized system of actual abuse that deserves derision (not just the RCC).  And for those who do take it seriously, again, there's the debate section.  Or, perhaps, the philosophy section, which seems to be more serious by virtue of the subject matter.

So, for me (and I'm guessing others), it's not a matter of free speech, but rather unilaterally creating a new area purposely set aside for a handful of people no longer willing to engage the rest of us according to the terms we all agreed to when we made our user accounts, despite there being mechanisms already in place that address their concerns.

I don't care about religious discussion. I rarely take part in it, I don't see the point. I see the irony, since this is AtheistForums.org, but I mostly stick to news and politics. If you've noticed, those threads are absolute shitshows. There have been countless examples of times where I am trying to discuss policy issues with someone I disagree with. In the middle of discussing the nuances of unemployment, tax laws, wages, etc users come in like a bulldozer insulting the other side and putting them down, interrupting my discussion and bringing everyone down to their level. I've noticed that the conservative users will be level-headed as long as our liberal users don't swear at them every 30 seconds. And I understand we have users who don't give a shit what the other side says and enjoys insulting; that's precisely why I was excited to have a section free from that! Because that's not the discussion I want.

I was extremely excited to discuss public policy issues in that subforum. Debating politics under those rules would have been so refreshing. As for the debate section, I'm going to echo RoadRunner's sentiments and say that I don't want a heavily structured debate. I'm busy, and I like responding on my own time, piece by piece. I just want a discussion that isn't riddled with insults, whataboutisms, and childish distraction. I don't get that on the general forum, whether it be about religion, politics, or philosophy. 

I just don't understand why users who weren't using it have an issue with its existence. Just don't go in it? I mean, come on. What was the harm in having it? I don't understand!

[Shell B]

It wasn't the section itself, which was explained multiple times by the users who didn't like the idea. There's no use in explaining it over and over.

[LadyForCamus]

You

I think this is a gross oversimplification.  From what I understand, Tibs unilaterally created that section without the support of staff, which, as far as I know, hasn't been how any new rules or subsections have been implemented in my time here.

There's also the fundamental question of who is this new section for?  We already have a debate section.  In fact, the very Christians who left used it to discuss their feelings regarding the forum before they left.  Seems to me like it's working as intended.  Moreover, I find it odd that the same people who have lamented not having a serious conversation hardly ever took advantage of the existing apparatus.  Given that they coordinated both their exit and return, one would think they could figure out who would want to be involved in discussing topics like "Was sin necessary for knowledge?"

And it's not like there aren't tools in place to deal with abuse if it's actually happening.  We can ignore people.  It's not a perfect implementation, but it's there.  We can report people.

Frankly, I think a lot of their disappointment is that a lot of us don't take their religion nearly as seriously as they do.  Where they see centuries of philosophy, scholarship, and tradition, we see a layer cake of absurdity which has created an institutionalized system of actual abuse that deserves derision (not just the RCC).  And for those who do take it seriously, again, there's the debate section.  Or, perhaps, the philosophy section, which seems to be more serious by virtue of the subject matter.

So, for me (and I'm guessing others), it's not a matter of free speech, but rather unilaterally creating a new area purposely set aside for a handful of people no longer willing to engage the rest of us according to the terms we all agreed to when we made our user accounts, despite there being mechanisms already in place that address their concerns.

I don't care about religious discussion. I rarely take part in it, I don't see the point. I see the irony, since this is AtheistForums.org, but I mostly stick to news and politics. If you've noticed, those threads are absolute shitshows. There have been countless examples of times where I am trying to discuss policy issues with someone I disagree with. In the middle of discussing the nuances of unemployment, tax laws, wages, etc users come in like a bulldozer insulting the other side and putting them down, interrupting my discussion and bringing everyone down to their level. I've noticed that the conservative users will be level-headed as long as our liberal users don't swear at them every 30 seconds. And I understand we have users who don't give a shit what the other side says and enjoys insulting; that's precisely why I was excited to have a section free from that! Because that's not the discussion I want.

I was extremely excited to discuss public policy issues in that subforum. Debating politics under those rules would have been so refreshing. As for the debate section, I'm going to echo RoadRunner's sentiments and say that I don't want a heavily structured debate. I'm busy, and I like responding on my own time, piece by piece. I just want a discussion that isn't riddled with insults, whataboutisms, and childish distraction. I don't get that on the general forum, whether it be about religion, politics, or philosophy. 

I just don't understand why users who weren't using it have an issue with its existence. Just don't go in it? I mean, come on. What was the harm in having it? I don't understand!

Ditto. But sadly, there were too many hysterical, “this is what’s gonna happen if!” voices in protest. They drowned out the rest of us.  Maybe in the future we can try making fewer assumptions about what people will and won’t do (considering theists are actually individuals like us; not one big hive mind), and just let an idea play out. I never said I was certain this subforum would be a successful change, but throwing a fit, and wanting it nipped in the bud out of fear and indignation is closed-mindedness of the highest order.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think this is a gross oversimplification.  From what I understand, Tibs unilaterally created that section without the support of staff, which, as far as I know, hasn't been how any new rules or subsections have been implemented in my time here.

There's also the fundamental question of who is this new section for?  We already have a debate section.  In fact, the very Christians who left used it to discuss their feelings regarding the forum before they left.  Seems to me like it's working as intended.  Moreover, I find it odd that the same people who have lamented not having a serious conversation hardly ever took advantage of the existing apparatus.  Given that they coordinated both their exit and return, one would think they could figure out who would want to be involved in discussing topics like "Was sin necessary for knowledge?"

And it's not like there aren't tools in place to deal with abuse if it's actually happening.  We can ignore people.  It's not a perfect implementation, but it's there.  We can report people.

Frankly, I think a lot of their disappointment is that a lot of us don't take their religion nearly as seriously as they do.  Where they see centuries of philosophy, scholarship, and tradition, we see a layer cake of absurdity which has created an institutionalized system of actual abuse that deserves derision (not just the RCC).  And for those who do take it seriously, again, there's the debate section.  Or, perhaps, the philosophy section, which seems to be more serious by virtue of the subject matter.

So, for me (and I'm guessing others), it's not a matter of free speech, but rather unilaterally creating a new area purposely set aside for a handful of people no longer willing to engage the rest of us according to the terms we all agreed to when we made our user accounts, despite there being mechanisms already in place that address their concerns.

I don't care about religious discussion. I rarely take part in it, I don't see the point. I see the irony, since this is AtheistForums.org, but I mostly stick to news and politics. If you've noticed, those threads are absolute shitshows. There have been countless examples of times where I am trying to discuss policy issues with someone I disagree with. In the middle of discussing the nuances of unemployment, tax laws, wages, etc users come in like a bulldozer insulting the other side and putting them down, interrupting my discussion and bringing everyone down to their level. I've noticed that the conservative users will be level-headed as long as our liberal users don't swear at them every 30 seconds. And I understand we have users who don't give a shit what the other side says and enjoys insulting; that's precisely why I was excited to have a section free from that! Because that's not the discussion I want.

I was extremely excited to discuss public policy issues in that subforum. Debating politics under those rules would have been so refreshing. As for the debate section, I'm going to echo RoadRunner's sentiments and say that I don't want a heavily structured debate. I'm busy, and I like responding on my own time, piece by piece. I just want a discussion that isn't riddled with insults, whataboutisms, and childish distraction. I don't get that on the general forum, whether it be about religion, politics, or philosophy. 

I just don't understand why users who weren't using it have an issue with its existence. Just don't go in it? I mean, come on. What was the harm in having it? I don't understand!

This post from Egg is a great example of why the section was not a "safe space" for theists, as some claimed.

There are plenty of atheists here who like the idea, including the forum creator himself. And there were plenty of posts and even threads from atheists in that section for the 2 days it existed. Also, everyone would have to abide by the same rules - theists and atheists alike, so the notion that the section was a way for theists to get special treatment is totally off base.

It even seems a bit insulting to Tibs that anyone would think he is interested in making a safe space for theists or give them (us) special treatment. From what I understand (and he can correct me if I'm wrong, as I have no intent on speaking for him) he liked the idea of such a section because he values diversity of thought here, and values productive discussion of differing views. Not because he was taken advantage of by a pack of theists and figured he'd just cave and give us what we want, like a coward. That's not him. And that isn't at all how things went down behind the scenes.

In fact, when I went back to re read through our group PM's, I saw that he actually brought up trying out the subforum before any of us did. That's right. He brought it up first.

For my own part, I wanted that section because I want to talk to you guys. Hear your views and share my own. It's the whole reason I sought out this forum. And as Egg explained above, it becomes increasingly tedious and not enjoyable to do so with all the shit posting.

Anyway, just wanted to make that all clear, if I hadn't effectively done so already.

[Whateverist]

I was extremely excited to discuss public policy issues in that subforum. Debating politics under those rules would have been so refreshing. As for the debate section, I'm going to echo RoadRunner's sentiments and say that I don't want a heavily structured debate. I'm busy, and I like responding on my own time, piece by piece. I just want a discussion that isn't riddled with insults, whataboutisms, and childish distraction. I don't get that on the general forum, whether it be about religion, politics, or philosophy. 

I just don't understand why users who weren't using it have an issue with its existence. Just don't go in it? I mean, come on. What was the harm in having it? I don't understand!

That's what the rabid hoard here won't acknowledge. That sub-forum was not just for the half dozen xtians who left. Jorm, Khem, Tibs and myself were also choosing to trade our freedom to be spastically rude for the opportunity for a better level of discussion. But the hoard wants to insist it was just a place where the xtians could hold up and say stuff unchallenged.

Oh well it was great while it lasted. Too bad atheists-must-be-rude-to-be-free hoard was so effective. Though I really think it was too taxing for Tibs to do alone. If any sustainable way is ever found to moderate such a thing and if they can beat back the hoard I'd be game to try again. But otherwise, not worth it here like this.

---

Maybe in the future we can try making fewer assumptions about what people will and won’t do (considering theists are actually individuals like us; not one big hive mind), and just let an idea play out. I never said I was certain this subforum would be a successful change, but throwing a fit, and wanting it nipped in the bud out of fear and indignation is closed-mindedness of the highest order.

Lets hope.  Something pretty weird about censorship in the name of freedom of speech.

[Catholic_Lady]

I was extremely excited to discuss public policy issues in that subforum. Debating politics under those rules would have been so refreshing. As for the debate section, I'm going to echo RoadRunner's sentiments and say that I don't want a heavily structured debate. I'm busy, and I like responding on my own time, piece by piece. I just want a discussion that isn't riddled with insults, whataboutisms, and childish distraction. I don't get that on the general forum, whether it be about religion, politics, or philosophy. 

I just don't understand why users who weren't using it have an issue with its existence. Just don't go in it? I mean, come on. What was the harm in having it? I don't understand!

That's what the rabid hoard here won't acknowledge. That sub-forum was not just for the half dozen xtians who left. Jorm, Khem, Tibs and myself were also choosing to trade our freedom to be spastically rude for the opportunity for a better level of discussion. But the hoard wants to insist it was just a place where the xtians could hold up and say stuff unchallenged.

Oh well it was great while it lasted. Too bad atheists-must-be-rude-to-be-free hoard was so effective. Though I really think it was too taxing for Tibs to do alone. If any sustainable way is ever found to moderate such a thing and if they can beat back the hoard I'd be game to try again. But otherwise, not worth it here like this.

Yep, plenty of respected atheists here liked the idea and intended on putting it to use. Whateverist, VulcanLogician, LadyForCamus, Aegon, Tiberius, Poca, Fat&Faithless, Belaqua, Mooney, etc... and even Khem, who I otherwise despise, was really impressing me and I was for once able to relate to some of what he was saying and see his point of view.

If part of the reason the uproar happened is because people perceived it as having been "for the theists", or that we "took advantage of Tibs," please see my post above.

[LadyForCamus]

Assuming that theists want or need a safe space is unfair. Wanting to have a thoughtful discussion with a small group of interested people without all the background noise doesn’t necessarily mean that a person feels “unsafe”, or that they’re afraid of having their positions challenged. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure someone at some point would use it as such. Someone at some time is going to couch shitty opinions in passive aggressive niceties. Some theists might hide there and not venture to the rest of the forums. So what? How about we cross those bridges when we come to them? Maybe we also have several awesome, rewarding, productive discussions as well? I’m
thinking of that “Seeing Red” thread with Neo, Emjay, and Jorm. No one is a mind reader, and now we won’t even get the opportunity to see where it could have gone.

---

That's what the rabid hoard here won't acknowledge.  That sub-forum was not just for the half dozen xtians who left.  Jorm, Khem, Tibs and myself were also choosing to trade our freedom to be spastically rude for the opportunity for a better level of discussion.  But the hoard wants to insist it was just a place where the xtians could hold up and say stuff unchallenged.  

Oh well it was great while it lasted.  Too bad atheists-must-be-rude-to-be-free hoard was so effective.  Though I really think it was too taxing for Tibs to do alone.  If any sustainable way is ever found to moderate such a thing and if they can beat back the hoard I'd be game to try again.  But otherwise, not worth it here like this.

Yep, plenty of respected atheists here liked the idea and intended on putting it to use. Whateverist, VulcanLogician, LadyForCamus, Aegon, Tiberius, Poca, Fat&Faithless, Belaqua, Mooney, etc... and even Khem, who I otherwise despise, was really impressing me and I was for once able to relate to some of what he was saying and see his point of view.

If part of the reason the uproar happened is because people perceived it as having been "for the theists", or that we "took advantage of Tibs," please see my post above.

I feel like Emjay would have been very interested as well.  Has anyone heard from him btw?

[Shell B]

Opposition to how something went down =/= hysteria. It's funny how insulting the proponents of the civility section are being while talking about how much they can't stand that anyone opposed it. Fuck's sake. How do any of you not notice the hypocrisy and realize how much it cripples your argument? I've seen people called petty, hysterical, dramatic, etc. all by people who want this place to be more civil.

We're working on something, so stop being assholes for five seconds so we can feel like our time is worth it.