Civility subsection suggestion

[johan]

Since we're clarifying things CL, I want to make it clear that I have apprehensions with the idea for the reasons I've stated, but only for those reasons. I don't believe I've used the term snowflake nor safe space in this discussion and I know you're weren't accusing me of that but I want to make sure you know I don't feel that way about what you've proposed.

Or at least not entirely. I think I do agree with Shell B as far as cursing goes. I can see the potential benefit of trying to keep the name calling and what not to a minimum. But just like you felt I was being a bit disingenuous with some of what I was saying, I tend to doubt the credibility of someone who says they're genuinely offended because I said the weather was shitty instead of the weather was not very nice.

Wanting to curb the name calling and insults I get. But if everything has to remain rated G, then it really does start to look like a safe space regardless of intentions IMO.

[John V]

It's pretty simple - they're petty assholes.  

---

You can swear on every forum here. Why would one without swearing bother you?

bold mine.

Pot meet kettle.

What's your point? I know I swear - too much actually. I also know that, when swearing isn't allowed, I'm able to control myself. 

Seems there are people who just can't deal with the idea of being excluded from one forum out of ~20 - or controlling their language for a few minutes hear and there.

I don't really care what decision is made. I'm mostly interested in pointing out how this thread came about, because the charges that CL wants a safe space for theists are bullshit.

[Catholic_Lady]

Since we're clarifying things CL, I want to make it clear that I have apprehensions with the idea for the reasons I've stated, but only for those reasons. I don't believe I've used the term snowflake nor safe space in this discussion and I know you're weren't accusing me of that but I want to make sure you know I don't feel that way about what you've proposed.

Or at least not entirely. I think I do agree with Shell B as far as cursing goes. I can see the potential benefit of trying to keep the name calling and what not to a minimum. But just like you felt I was being a bit disingenuous with some of what I was saying, I tend to doubt the credibility of someone who says they're genuinely offended because I said the weather was shitty instead of the weather was not very nice.

Wanting to curb the name calling and insults I get. But if everything has to remain rated G, then it really does start to look like a safe space regardless of intentions IMO.

I appreciate it. And like I said. I dont think the use of swear words would be disruptive to the discussion so long as they weren't being used to cuss people out or whatever.

I can see no swearing being a rule merely for practical purposes, if and only if it would make things easier for the mods. So there doesn't have to be that question of "well, is this being used AT the person or not?"

[Joods]

Since we're clarifying things CL, I want to make it clear that I have apprehensions with the idea for the reasons I've stated, but only for those reasons. I don't believe I've used the term snowflake nor safe space in this discussion and I know you're weren't accusing me of that but I want to make sure you know I don't feel that way about what you've proposed.

Or at least not entirely. I think I do agree with Shell B as far as cursing goes. I can see the potential benefit of trying to keep the name calling and what not to a minimum. But just like you felt I was being a bit disingenuous with some of what I was saying, I tend to doubt the credibility of someone who says they're genuinely offended because I said the weather was shitty instead of the weather was not very nice.

Wanting to curb the name calling and insults I get.  But if everything has to remain rated G, then it really does start to look like a safe space regardless of intentions IMO.

I appreciate it. And like I said. I dont think the use of swear words would be disruptive to the discussion so long as they weren't being used to cuss people out or whatever.

I can see no swearing being a rule merely for practical purposes, if and only if it would make things easier for the mods. So there doesn't have to be that question of "well, is this being used AT the person or not?"

bold mine. 

So basically your only hang up is people using cuss words towards others? If that's the case, then an entirely new subforum isn't necessary. What you want is better enforcement of the  flaming rule already in place. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

---

bold mine.

Pot meet kettle.

What's your point? I know I swear - too much actually. I also know that, when swearing isn't allowed, I'm able to control myself. 

Seems there are people who just can't deal with the idea of being excluded from one forum out of ~20 - or controlling their language for a few minutes hear and there.

I don't really care what decision is made. I'm mostly interested in pointing out how this thread came about, because the charges that CL wants a safe space for theists are bullshit.

What's my point? Go read what I quoted and figure it out, Sherlock.

[Catholic_Lady]

I appreciate it. And like I said. I dont think the use of swear words would be disruptive to the discussion so long as they weren't being used to cuss people out or whatever.

I can see no swearing being a rule merely for practical purposes, if and only if it would make things easier for the mods. So there doesn't have to be that question of "well, is this being used AT the person or not?"

bold mine. 

So basically your only hang up is people using cuss words towards others? If that's the case, then an entirely new subforum isn't necessary. What you want is better enforcement of the  flaming rule already in place. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Is it against the rules to tell someone "fuck off" or call them a cunt, etc?

I was under the impression that name calling and such was allowed, so long as it wasn't done a ton of times to the same person in the same discussion. But perhaps I misunderstood though.

---

.
Also, name calling/cussing out are not the only things detrimental to a productive discussion. I brain stormed a short list of proposed rules some pages back.

[Joods]

bold mine. 

So basically your only hang up is people using cuss words towards others? If that's the case, then an entirely new subforum isn't necessary. What you want is better enforcement of the  flaming rule already in place. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Is it against the rules to tell someone "fuck off" or call them a cunt, etc?

I was under the impression that name calling and such was allowed, so long as it wasn't done a ton of times to the same person in the same discussion. But perhaps I misunderstood though.

---

.
Also, name calling/cussing out are not the only things detrimental to a productive discussion. I brain stormed a short list of proposed rules some pages back.

You didn't answer my question. 

What I'm understanding that you want is a change to the rules. A subforum isn't necessary for that. Plus - asking for a change in the rules may or may not be walking a fine line. It's subjective to what one finds offensive or not. There are plenty of threads going on right now that aren't involving the use of name calling or cussing someone out. If there's a specific pattern in the kinds of threads or topics that this is occurring in, then what you are essentially proposing is a subforum for specific topics to be discussed in. We already have those. 

In addition - what one find detrimental to a productive discussion is, again, subjective. Those points have already been addressed by others. 

My bottom line and my point remains: You want to either police what others can or cannot say or you want a special section for you and your theists to discuss subjects that would severely limit participation by others. There's a rule on that. So you're essentially asking to change that rule.

[Shell B]

I've found strawmen to be the biggest detriment to honest discussion here. I've wasted pages of posts on people who insisted on continuing to strawman the utter fuck out of everything I've said.

[Catholic_Lady]

Is it against the rules to tell someone "fuck off" or call them a cunt, etc?

I was under the impression that name calling and such was allowed, so long as it wasn't done a ton of times to the same person in the same discussion. But perhaps I misunderstood though.

---

.
Also, name calling/cussing out are not the only things detrimental to a productive discussion. I brain stormed a short list of proposed rules some pages back.

You didn't answer my question. 

What I'm understanding that you want is a change to the rules. A subforum isn't necessary for that. Plus - asking for a change in the rules may or may not be walking a fine line. It's subjective to what one finds offensive or not. There are plenty of threads going on right now that aren't involving the use of name calling or cussing someone out. If there's a specific pattern in the kinds of threads or topics that this is occurring in, then what you are essentially proposing is a subforum for specific topics to be discussed in. We already have those. 

In addition - what one find detrimental to a productive discussion is, again, subjective. Those points have already been addressed by others. 

My bottom line and my point remains: You want to either police what others can or cannot say or you want a special section for you and your theists to discuss subjects that would severely limit participation by others. There's a rule on that. So you're essentially asking to change that rule.

I dont want a rule change to the forum because I understand the value of free speech and such. It would just be reasonable and beneficial, imho, to add a single reserved section for those (atheists and theists both) who wanted honest discussion without the various types of detractions and such. Basically like a reverse rlyeh. And no, as I said, I would not want anyone excluded. This would be open to anyone who wanted to participate, and I would love to have discussions there with atheists. As i said That's kind of the whole reason I proposed the subforum, is to have productive discussions with those who have different opinions as myself.

Anyway, I doubt it's gonna happen so I wouldn't be too worried about it.

---

I've found strawmen to be the biggest detriment to honest discussion here. I've wasted pages of posts on people who insisted on continuing to strawman the utter fuck out of everything I've said.

Trust me I know the feeling lol

[Losty]

I may be wrong here, but it seems like part of what CL wants in a new subforum is to disallow insults entirely. If that’s the case our current rules do not cover that. Yes, we have a flaming rule, but simply calling someone an asshole doesn’t count as flaming.

[Catholic_Lady]

.
One of my proposed rules was actually supposed to help against strawmanning:

If you are unsure what a person meant, ask them for clarification rather than assuming the worst and arguing a strawman