New Post
Search
HelpRe: generally ...
in reply to a message by LMS
Link me to where someone has made such a "similar" joke targeted at a religious lifestyle, please.
I've confessed my own opinion of veganism elsewhere on this site.
I don't think your charge that I'm personally partial to vegans (or against the religious) will stick.
But don't just throw it around - show me the posts.
- mirfak
I've confessed my own opinion of veganism elsewhere on this site.
I don't think your charge that I'm personally partial to vegans (or against the religious) will stick.
But don't just throw it around - show me the posts.
- mirfak
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I can't show you a specific post, however, I remember one referring to someone's strong disbelief in a "sky daddy". I'm a church-attender, and reasonably religious. So that kind of hurt. Though all are free to believe or disbelieve, whatever seems right to them.
And certainly, the bible, Old and New Testaments, have many examples of people being ridiculed-and worse!-for their beliefs.
So I guess I can accept a little hurt feelings.
And certainly, the bible, Old and New Testaments, have many examples of people being ridiculed-and worse!-for their beliefs.
So I guess I can accept a little hurt feelings.
1
Good Evening, Tassiegirl:
I recently described a situation in public during which a somewhat famous priest approached me (among a group of people in a restaurant). If this or anything I've mentioned is bothersome to you, I hope you'll please let me know; I'll simple erase the post.
I apologize if anything I've stated has bothered or hurt your feelings in any way.
Peace be with you.
Barbra
I recently described a situation in public during which a somewhat famous priest approached me (among a group of people in a restaurant). If this or anything I've mentioned is bothersome to you, I hope you'll please let me know; I'll simple erase the post.
I apologize if anything I've stated has bothered or hurt your feelings in any way.
Peace be with you.
Barbra
This message was edited 8/29/2018, 7:25 PM
1
I agree with you that it seems snotty.
It's not the kind of thing that I would consider to be hateful, though. Because it doesn't aggressively assert that the God anyone else believes in is in fact a "sky-daddy," nor does it ridicule anyone directly for their belief. It indicates a superior attitude, yeah - but they're stopping short of saying explicitly (even if metaphorically or jokingly) that they think it could be appropriate and OK to openly disrespect *people* for their beliefs. It's one thing to scoff at a belief, it's another to scoff at the people who believe.
Having been an atheist myself ... not so much anymore! but neither can I claim to be religious ... I think they could as well have been trying to express a reason why they don't believe (because they don't understand God as anything but a sky-daddy), but without coming off as disrespectful to people who believe. I personally read that kind of comment as sort of a boomerang, because if they do mean to scoff at other people's belief, it just shows that they are ignorant about what is believed.
I hope you don't feel that the liberty atheists have, to specify what they "don't believe" in their own words, amounts to permission to denigrate religious people including you. I don't think it does. If you can find any instance of someone saying that another person's religious belief is just a belief in a sky-daddy and doesn't deserve respect, I'd be interested to see it.
eta I think there have been discussions in which people have given their opinion that religion is false and went on to state that all believers are willfully ignorant and it's just wish fulfillment etc. And I think you'd be right, if you thought that a religious person making analogous statements about atheists would be, ah, "user moderated" out of the discussion.
If people think it's appropriate for a board moderator here to interfere with that, then we need to ask Mike to get a moderator who enjoys power more than I do. I can't control the philosophical constituency of the board and if there are a lot of vocal atheists and only quiet religious, am I really to be held responsible for equalizing the discussion? I never signed up for that.
It's not the kind of thing that I would consider to be hateful, though. Because it doesn't aggressively assert that the God anyone else believes in is in fact a "sky-daddy," nor does it ridicule anyone directly for their belief. It indicates a superior attitude, yeah - but they're stopping short of saying explicitly (even if metaphorically or jokingly) that they think it could be appropriate and OK to openly disrespect *people* for their beliefs. It's one thing to scoff at a belief, it's another to scoff at the people who believe.
Having been an atheist myself ... not so much anymore! but neither can I claim to be religious ... I think they could as well have been trying to express a reason why they don't believe (because they don't understand God as anything but a sky-daddy), but without coming off as disrespectful to people who believe. I personally read that kind of comment as sort of a boomerang, because if they do mean to scoff at other people's belief, it just shows that they are ignorant about what is believed.
I hope you don't feel that the liberty atheists have, to specify what they "don't believe" in their own words, amounts to permission to denigrate religious people including you. I don't think it does. If you can find any instance of someone saying that another person's religious belief is just a belief in a sky-daddy and doesn't deserve respect, I'd be interested to see it.
eta I think there have been discussions in which people have given their opinion that religion is false and went on to state that all believers are willfully ignorant and it's just wish fulfillment etc. And I think you'd be right, if you thought that a religious person making analogous statements about atheists would be, ah, "user moderated" out of the discussion.
If people think it's appropriate for a board moderator here to interfere with that, then we need to ask Mike to get a moderator who enjoys power more than I do. I can't control the philosophical constituency of the board and if there are a lot of vocal atheists and only quiet religious, am I really to be held responsible for equalizing the discussion? I never signed up for that.
This message was edited 8/25/2018, 7:07 PM
1
By no means am I looking to be defended against atheists.I was brought up in religion, and married into it,it's a way of life to me.Although certainly,I fail to live up to what I know is right, as often as I succeed.
As the old saying goes, "There are many paths up the mountain." We all choose what suits us best. If I find what someone says hurtful, then, that is my prompt to understand why feel as they do.
As the old saying goes, "There are many paths up the mountain." We all choose what suits us best. If I find what someone says hurtful, then, that is my prompt to understand why feel as they do.
1
I don't think that'd really compare, because she was drawing the line at "it's all right to...throw chunks of animal fat at them in the street. lol" by pointing out that laughing at the idea of objects being thrown at people in public because of their beliefs (or cultural/naming practices) is different than mocking the belief itself; it's the difference between being rude and being hateful...or at least that's what I thought mirfak's point was.
1
Yah, pointing out specific posts is difficult but I frequently hear comments like that and it is mean and rude, not to mention religist. I generally don’t point them out to moderators because they don’t really get told off anyway so what’s the point? It seems certain topics just don’t get moderated well and I would guess it has to do with moderator bias.
This message was edited 8/25/2018, 3:30 PM
1
I'm sure I'll have biases no matter how hard I try to be impartial, but my letting something slide isn't necessarily evidence of it. I let almost everything slide. If you believe someone deserves to be admonished, the best thing to do is report it, either to me or directly to Mike.
I want the liberty of people to speak their mind (without hate, cruelty, harassment, trolling) to be maximized, and so you will see the board seem to slant according to what points of view are most often and most abrasively expressed - not directly because of my biases. I'm really bothered by tons of things people say, but I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
My role isn't to balance the conversation, nor is it to make sure no one gets offended. I didn't ever take responsibility for telling people off for being abrasive. My role is to enforce the rules. I agreed to interfere when people say things that, in my judgment, lower the tone of the board, in the process of clearly breaking Mike's rules. If I don't have an argument that the rule is broken, I won't say anything as moderator - if I'm not sure, I'll suggest it might've been broken and see if I get support. I need help judging what the community standards are. That's why I posted a response to Rox instead of just reporting her. I didn't get support, so I guess her words are considered OK. That blows my mind, but whatever.
People don't respect me "telling them off" as moderator. If I tell someone off, I'm only doing it as your fellow poster. And even if I am trying to "moderate" by advising about the rules, people still turn it around and make it about me personally - as you can see in this thread. So if I were to warn people for their attitude, there's no payoff in terms of the board being made more moderate. I often let things slide, even though they do seem rude or mean, for the same reason why you or Tassie do. We don't tangle with opinionated people who say potentially hurtful things about religion. We let them reveal themselves, and don't express our dismay, because we all know that criticism is liable to become an argument about religion. So the thing that will best keep the discussion "moderate," is ignoring that stuff. Just as many people will ignore it when religious people make strong statements that imply judgment of others, which also has happened.
I want the liberty of people to speak their mind (without hate, cruelty, harassment, trolling) to be maximized, and so you will see the board seem to slant according to what points of view are most often and most abrasively expressed - not directly because of my biases. I'm really bothered by tons of things people say, but I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
My role isn't to balance the conversation, nor is it to make sure no one gets offended. I didn't ever take responsibility for telling people off for being abrasive. My role is to enforce the rules. I agreed to interfere when people say things that, in my judgment, lower the tone of the board, in the process of clearly breaking Mike's rules. If I don't have an argument that the rule is broken, I won't say anything as moderator - if I'm not sure, I'll suggest it might've been broken and see if I get support. I need help judging what the community standards are. That's why I posted a response to Rox instead of just reporting her. I didn't get support, so I guess her words are considered OK. That blows my mind, but whatever.
People don't respect me "telling them off" as moderator. If I tell someone off, I'm only doing it as your fellow poster. And even if I am trying to "moderate" by advising about the rules, people still turn it around and make it about me personally - as you can see in this thread. So if I were to warn people for their attitude, there's no payoff in terms of the board being made more moderate. I often let things slide, even though they do seem rude or mean, for the same reason why you or Tassie do. We don't tangle with opinionated people who say potentially hurtful things about religion. We let them reveal themselves, and don't express our dismay, because we all know that criticism is liable to become an argument about religion. So the thing that will best keep the discussion "moderate," is ignoring that stuff. Just as many people will ignore it when religious people make strong statements that imply judgment of others, which also has happened.
This message was edited 8/26/2018, 1:21 PM
1