Discussion, not Provocation

[Cyberman]

I think generalising isn't really the problem, but rather unfair/untrue generalising. Particularly when done for the purpose of not initiating discussion.

[Jackalope]

I would also like to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion without generalizing. There is nothing wrong with making the generalization that "men are taller than women." People should be smart enough to recognize that a generalization is by its very nature an expression of normative properties. People who need all manner of qualifications like "some" and "most" and "many" aren't being reasonable. If I say that political progressives are left-wing, I suppose that could mean that some progressive some where is a right-winger, but no one would call that normative. So it doesn't make sense to call it false equivocation. If someone makes an thread or post about "Christians" it isn't hard to figure out if they are thinking about Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. I don't need anyone to qualify their generalizations. But heaven forbid anyone make a generalization about atheists suggesting that they are by and large naturalists or moral relativists even though those are clearly normative traits.

This isn't the sort of generalization this rule addresses.

"Leftists are fascists"
"Conservatives are racist"

...are the sorts we're addressing, and in *these* cases it's perfectly reasonable to require a qualification.

[Amarok]

The unborn are human beings? Misogynist.
Gender Dysphoria is a medical issue? Bigot.
Religious artists shouldn't be compelled to create? Homophobe.
Personal choices and culture play a part in individual success? Racist.
Immigration laws should be enforced? xenophobe
Trump Supporter? White supremacist. KKK, etc.

So many straw men

---

How about insisting everyone on the left is the Taliban

---

And the only point you proved Wooter is that your as guilty as those you protest

[Minimalist]

"Conservatives are racist"

Yeah, I wonder where we ever got that idea?









Oh.  Right.

[Amarok]

Next your analogy fails Wooter 

Christianity has absolute overarching themes that are essential regardless of denomination  . Atheism only equivalency is not believing in god thus the only thing point to without going into a false generalization .

[Tiberius]

"Conservatives are racist"

Yeah, I wonder where we ever got that idea?

---

---

Oh.  Right.

Sure, but for every racist conservative you find, there's multiple non-racist ones. It's a false equivocation to say that conservatives are racists. What is more accurate is that some conservatives are racist, or perhaps that most racists are conservative.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am extremely happy with this rule.

And that was my first thought, too. "This rule is awesome!"

My second thought was "Well, that's Min, Neo and Pool fucked!"

---

Poor min. Many times he posts threads with links that are news related or politics related and doesn't include much more than brief commentary. Is this to say that he can no longer include his witty one-liners?

We would rather see some attempt at starting a discussion. This is, after all, a discussion forum. We aren't a news site, people really shouldn't be getting their news from here at all, considering that in all likelihood there is a left-wing bias among members. I would rather like to see continuous, developing threads about certain newsworthy subjects that multiple small threads about every small thing that happens.

I 100% agree with the rule.

P.S. I get all my news from AF

---

I'm just saying what we'd prefer to see, I'm hoping the community can take that in mind when they create a new thread. There's no rule that says you have to encourage discussion, but it certainly helps when you do.

This announcement is more about provocation than anything.

Another reason I agree with this rule so much is that provocative threads provoke provocative responses and people can get into trouble for responding with provocative posts to a thread that provoked provocative responses . . . which isn't very fair. This rule makes everything far more fair. I know that the trolling rule itself also disallows troll threads but I feel like this rule makes it much clearer and more difficult for people to make troll threads - or unhelpful/provocative threads that provoke provocative responses which then get deemed "trolling" even when the responses are made by a person who clearly isn't a troll - and get away with it.

[Catholic_Lady]

I would also like to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion without generalizing. There is nothing wrong with making the generalization that "men are taller than women." People should be smart enough to recognize that a generalization is by its very nature an expression of normative properties. People who need all manner of qualifications like "some" and "most" and "many" aren't being reasonable. If I say that political progressives are left-wing, I suppose that could mean that some progressive some where is a right-winger, but no one would call that normative. So it doesn't make sense to call it false equivocation. If someone makes an thread or post about "Christians" it isn't hard to figure out if they are thinking about Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. I don't need anyone to qualify their generalizations. But heaven forbid anyone make a generalization about atheists suggesting that they are by and large naturalists or moral relativists even though those are clearly normative traits.

Let me clarify that by "generalizations", in the context I was using, I meant things like "Christians are idots", "Atheists are pompous ass holes", "republicans are racist", "liberals are hypocrites", .... Or making threads to back up these generalizations by posting a story every time someone from one of these groups does something bad.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, I wonder where we ever got that idea?

---

---

Oh.  Right.

Sure, but for every racist conservative you find, there's multiple non-racist ones. It's a false equivocation to say that conservatives are racists. What is more accurate is that some conservatives are racist, or perhaps that most racists are conservative.

Maybe what you need is a Safe Zone Forum so no one's "personal space" is invaded?

And in the Safe Zone everyone can be free from ever having to think about anything "icky."

You might also consider changing the name of the site to the CUTE KITTY FORUM because, you know, religitards get upset just thinking that there are atheists in the world who are not impressed with their bullshit.

[Edwardo Piet]

I would also like to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion without generalizing. There is nothing wrong with making the generalization that "men are taller than women." People should be smart enough to recognize that a generalization is by its very nature an expression of normative properties. People who need all manner of qualifications like "some" and "most" and "many" aren't being reasonable. If I say that political progressives are left-wing, I suppose that could mean that some progressive some where is a right-winger, but no one would call that normative. So it doesn't make sense to call it false equivocation. If someone makes an thread or post about "Christians" it isn't hard to figure out if they are thinking about Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. I don't need anyone to qualify their generalizations. But heaven forbid anyone make a generalization about atheists suggesting that they are by and large naturalists or moral relativists even though those are clearly normative traits.

Translation: You are guilty for making threads that are clearly provocative bullshit with a biased political agenda and you want the truisms you stated about generalization in this post here to excuse your making clearly provocative bullshit threads with a biased political agenda.

---

There go all the threads made by religious folk!!

Obviously we aren't trying to be the arbiters of truth here, but it stands to reason that if someone calls a square a circle, they don't have any intentions of having a serious discussion.

Goodbye Little Rik!

---

I did it for a purpose and have made my point. My only hope is that people will recognize the blatant hypocrisy. We shall see.

Blatant hypocrisy by whom? That's what I want to know. I've seen you an CL making accusations of hypocrisy but it seems like apart from a small group everyone is fed up with this from both sides. Religious or atheist, liberal or conservative, I know for me at least I'm tired of seeing the forum be nothing but trolling and flaming. We used to have real discussions and a much friendlier atmosphere and I'm ready to see that again.

Me too! I even found myself becoming something I'm not here on AF (an aggressive side I don't normally have to me). I think this rule will do wonders to improve the atmosphere provided that people hit the report button when they see the troll threads.

---

To be honest, one of the main reasons I have given up on discussing religious-related topics productively is due to the fact that as soon as I come in swinging with my strong atheist logic, the other person stops responding to me. The discussion cannot continue if I'm ignored.

You'll never get that problem with me. It's a pity I'm not a theist!

---

Actually no, no it's not

---

---

Blatant hypocrisy by whom? That's what I want to know. I've seen you an CL making accusations of hypocrisy but it seems like apart from a small group everyone is fed up with this from both sides. Religious or atheist, liberal or conservative, I know for me at least I'm tired of seeing the forum be nothing but trolling and flaming. We used to have real discussions and a much friendlier atmosphere and I'm ready to see that again.

Me too. I'm glad for the new rule. It stopped being fun after Trump. But I would invite you to look at who is flaming and trolling instead of encouraging debate and discussion. We social conservatives would like to be able to have a conversation without being accused at every turn by false charges. Here is how it really plays out:

The unborn are human beings? Misogynist.
Gender Dysphoria is a medical issue? Bigot.
Religious artists shouldn't be compelled to create? Homophobe.
Personal choices and culture play a part in individual success? Racist.
Immigration laws should be enforced? xenophobe
Trump Supporter? White supremacist. KKK, etc.

Maybe if more of these so-called moderates who say they want civil discussions wouldn't stay silent and defend their fellow forum members while these sorts of accusations are flying our way, we would be a little less bitter.

Well when you make provocative threads because you're bitter about something and then end up doing the same thing you criticize others for: then that's what makes you a hypocrite.