Make Atheist Forums Great Again (Part 1)

[arewethereyet]

I would say decisions have been made and it's a matter of you are good with the new rules and adapt and hang around or you leave.

But then again, a big decision was made not long ago and rescinded almost immediately.

As I said earlier...more observation needed.

These are user-suggested rules adapted to attempt to find the middle ground. They may be tweaked after seeing them in action, but few of any will be going anywhere when we’re done figuring it all out.

I am not looking for argument...just trying to find my way around here.

If you don't see the changes going anywhere then I would have to repeat that decisions have been made.  Yes, I read where it is states that few if any will be done away with though they may be tweaked.  It's essentially a done deal that may require a little polishing.  For the members it's a matter of take it or leave it.

Such is life.

[Shell B]

I wasn’t trying to argue. I was responding.

[Tiberius]

Calling an idea "stupid" isn't the best way to critique something, but ultimately it's a relatively tame expression. Calling an idea "fucking stupid" is less desirable, but still, "fucking" just emphasizes the stupidity you are trying to convey.

Calling an idea "retarded" is literally using a slur for mentally disabled people. So yeah, there's a big difference.


I would say both of those would be allowed. The emphasis of the rule is really on "slurs". "Stupid" and "Inane" are perfectly valid criticisms of ideas; of course they both should be expanded on. Saying "Why Christianity is so retarded" would be disallowed due to the use of the slur.

There are some words which are always slurs (e.g. retarded). There are some words which are slurs in context (e.g. retard). There are some words which are slurs when you purposefully apply them to people, but not when they are applied to ideas (e.g. stupid).

Calling a particular idea stupid is one thing but to characterize any and all facets of Christianity as stupid would require a great deal of explaining.  Otherwise, how is that any different than trashing an entire group of people.  Consider in the political realm how the same sweeping condemnation of conservatism or liberalism would come off sounding.  Wouldn't it become a condemnation of an entire group of people without a narrowed target of criticism along with adequate support for making that case?

For me there is a difference in calling an idea stupid, and calling believers of the idea stupid. Believing in a stupid idea doesn't automatically make one stupid; perhaps it's an idea that they haven't thought about enough, or haven't heard a good argument against, for example.

I agree that calling Christianity as a whole, stupid, requires a great deal of explaining. That's what threads are for though.

I want to keep having user feedback for changes. If the current thread title rule is a success, there may be people wishing to expand it to include other things, we shall have to see.

"Once again, a reminder that this is the first post in a series, there will be more to come"

Okay, fair enough. It's an announcement, not an open discussion.

It is an open discussion. I was taking issue with you saying "That doesn't seem like it will go far enough to inspire measurable change."

Again, there are more changes, some of them related to this new rule (in part) which we have yet to announce. I think people will be pleased, at least I hope they will. The staff are still discussing several changes, we have many agreed to, some we need to flesh out more, etc. I'll be making an announcement hopefully every few days to get feedback.

[ignoramus]

Folks, in future, please do not refer to folks as Min has as described as "How Fucked Up Are Trumptards?"

Please refer to them as dignified upstanding citizens who will make America great again.

Tibs? Have I gone too far right now?

[Shell B]

A better way to do it would be to create a thread title like, "Trump Supporter Does Something Stupid" and then in the thread write, "How fucked up is this Trumptard?" Simple.

[ignoramus]

Are we making a special ONE ONLY exception for "TARD" and ONLY with reference to TRUMP?

I'm old fashioned as still find that word demeaning and disrespectful in any context even though I know it's been colloquialized..

[Angrboda]

[DodosAreDead]

If we're still allowed to call an idea stupid, the overall vibe of the thread titles won't really change. It's essentially a loophole for those looking to put slurs in thread titles.

[Shell B]

If we can’t call an idea stupid, what’s the point of conversing? We’d all be just agreeing with each other. Attacking ideas and not people is the hallmark of decent debate.

[Losty]

If we're still allowed to call an idea stupid, the overall vibe of the thread titles won't really change. It's essentially a loophole for those looking to put slurs in thread titles.

How is it a loophole for putting slurs in thread titles?
Do you really think saying “Christianity is stupid” is a slur? Or am I missing something?