omg religion ...or the Billy Goats Gruff

[jumpy]

More of an open observation than a complaint really, but take it how you will-

Religion (or rather the discussion of): should we ban it from subsim.com?
How often has this one been bandied about?

It seems there is a surfeit of moderating going on here just recently, regarding the posting by certain members about religion.
Now being a heathen infidel non-believer myself (I'd even go as far as to say that being a godless blasphemer is an integral part of my life ) I don't really care either way and regardless of the specific content I can appreciate the humour and tongue-in-cheek cut & pasting, which while it can be poking fun at the happy clappers, is hardly anything that a person who is secure in their faith should feel themselves rocked to the very core of their belief by mild satire. Indeed, to me, there is a certain train of thought which says if you cant have a little laugh at yourself or others then you have a problem.
Since when is having a bit of fun albeit at the expense of others (ain't that what most of us have been doing with our topics on saddam/iraq, STEEDS council etc etc) been such a problem here? *puts on serious hat*
From a certain point of view it could look like it's ok for someone to tell me I'm going to hell for being a filthy unbeliever or that by implication through posting something irreverent or from an unusual and not entirely unbiased source, that an individual is somehow lacking in intelligence, but it's not ok for a fictional account of how one of the greatest logical minds of our history has a little chat with a carpenters son about the merits of logic and absolutes and how they can illustrate the gap between faith and reason, in an innocuously trivial sort of way.
Am I and others to take it that this is now recognised as baiting the worthy and as such is subject to thread locking and removal of what is essentially harmless? Or are people loosing the 'feely' from 'touchy-feely' at subsim... Should we re designate General Topics to 'Informative Statements Only' that way we can all be sure that we will not be exposed to discourse contrary to our opinions or that might be exposed as antagonism. Also perhaps we should all be issued with an approved list of speaking topics for the sake of this.
It feels to me that some folk here get moderated for quite unremarkable posts, whilst others have free reign to insult and belittle and make snide implied personal comments concerning the integrity and intelligence of their forum peers with impunity.
I can't help but think some things are not as they once were around here.


Now for some honest trolling :

The Billy Goats Gruff
Once upon a time there were three billy goats called Gruff. In the winter they lived in a barn in the valleyspring came they , but when the longed to travel up to the mountains to eat the lush sweet grass.

On their way to the mountains the three Billy Goats Gruff had to cross a rushing river. But there was only one bridge across it, made of wooden planks. And underneath the bridge there lived a terrible, ugly, one-eyed troll.
Nobody was allowed to cross the bridge without the troll’s permission - and nobody ever got permission. He always ate them up.
The smallest Billy Goat Gruff was first to reach the bridge. Trippity-trop, trippity-trop went his little hooves as he trotted over the wooden planks. Ting-tang, ting-tang went the little bell round his neck.
"Who’s that trotting over my bridge?" growled the troll from under the planks.
"Billy Goat Gruff," squeaked the smallest goat in his little voice. "I’m only going up to the mountain to eat the sweet spring grass."
"Oh no, you’re not!" said the troll. "I’m going to eat you for breakfast!"
"Oh no, please Mr Troll," pleaded the goat. "I’m only the smallest Billy Goat Gruff. I’m much too tiny for you to eat, and I wouldn’t taste very good. Why don’t you wait for my brother, the second Billy Goat Gruff? He’s much bigger than me and would be much more tasty."
The troll did not want to waste his time on a little goat if there was a bigger and better one to eat. "All right, you can cross my bridge," he grunted. "Go and get fatter on the mountain and I’ll eat you on your way back!"
So the smallest Billy Goat Gruff skipped across to the other side.
The troll did not have to wait long for the second Billy Goat Gruff. Clip-clop, clip-clop went his hooves as he clattered over the wooden planks. Ding-dong, ding-dong went the bell around his neck.
"Who’s that clattering across my bridge?" screamed the troll, suddenly appearing from under the planks.
"Billy Goat Gruff," said the second goat in his middle-sized voice. "I’m going up to the mountain to eat the lovely spring grass."
"Oh no you’re not!" said the troll. "I’m going to eat you for breakfast."
"Oh, no, please," said the second goat. "I may be bigger than the first Billy Goat Gruff, but I’m much smaller than my brother, the third Billy Goat Gruff. Why don’t you wait for him? He would be much more of a meal than me."
The troll was getting very hungry, but he did not want to waste his appetite on a middle-sized goat if there was an even bigger one to come. "All right, you can cross my bridge," he rumbled. "Go and get fatter on the mountain and I’ll eat you on your way back!"
So the middle-sized Billy Goat Gruff scampered across to the other side.
The troll did not have to wait long for the third Billy Goat Gruff. Tromp-tramp, tromp-tramp went his hooves as he stomped across the wooden planks. Bong-bang, bong-bang went the big bell round his neck.
"Who’s that stomping over my bridge?" roared the troll, resting his chin on his hands.
"Billy Goat Gruff," said the third goat in a deep voice. "I’m going up to the mountain to eat the lush spring grass."
"Oh no you’re not," said the troll as he clambered up on to the bridge. "I’m going to eat you for breakfast!"
"That’s what you think," said the biggest Billy Goat Gruff. Then he lowered his horns, galloped along the bridge and butted the ugly troll. Up, up, up went the troll into the air... then down, down, down into the rushing river below. He disappeared below the swirling waters, and was drowned.
"So much for his breakfast," thought the biggest Billy Goat Gruff. "Now what about mine!" And he walked in triumph over the bridge to join his two brothers on the mountain pastures. From then on anyone could cross the bridge whenever they liked - thanks to the three Billy Goats Gruff.

[Gizzmoe]

What happened yesterday was a reaction to a certain behaviour someone has shown in the past already. I didn´t try to protect the "worthy", there was no religious bias, I´m a convinced atheist just like von_capo. What I don´t like is baiting and trolling, especially not about religion, since that is a much, much more touchy subject than for example politics, or the question if you prefer GWX or NYGM.

About your remark that "others have free reign to insult and belittle and make snide implied personal comments concerning the integrity and intelligence of their forum peers with impunity." Many of the things Neal and the moderators do are not visible to you, they happen in the background, via PM or email. You would be surprised if I told you which members already got a warning or even final warning for their behaviour. We don´t endlessly tolerate bad behaviour, sooner or later it will have consequences, no matter how highly-ranked a member is.

[StdDev]

Yeah...
I agree with Gizmopolis..
KILL THE HEATHENS!!!!!!!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by StdDev

Yeah...
I agree with Gizmopolis..
KILL THE HEATHENS!!!!!!!

[TteFAboB]

Define discussion jumpy.

Is discussion for each of us to share our knowledge and opinions, and who knows maybe even see if it leads to anything? Or is discussion the sharing of worthless fantasies (opinions that are far away from the reality of the thing being discussed), imputing psychological causes/effects on posters, qualitites and insults.

Now that Gizzmoe already brought Von_capo to the fray I'll say then that I have never seen Von_capo "discuss" religion. He campaigned like a brainless* militant, gluing manifestos, spreading "shocking" (or sensationalist) propaganda. Now, I understand Von_capo's English is even worse than mine but images and little films can only help in a discussion as auxiliaries and they're still always dispensable except when these images are necessary as an element of proof for the affrimations. If you go back you won't see this, you'll see movies where the discussion and conclusions are presuposed and satirical cartoons that prove only how infantile we can be when we want to prove something without studying it. When this is done the result is the liquifying of the brain. Thinking by images is for Cats and Orang-Utans. An image stimulates fantasy and produces a reflex of sympathy or antipathy without passing through conscious reflection.

So it is one thing for us to have a serious discussion. Another thing for us to have an informal conversation. And a third thing to have fun at the expense of others.

The problem starts when you cross the fun at the expense of others (humour) with the serious discussion as if that was part of the latter. When you use the satirical as if it were a serious argument.

If Gizzmoe is reading this and if he received my private-message and if he hasn't yet deleted it I would like to ask you, Mr. Gizzmoe, to forward the last PM I sent you to Jumpy. Anybody else who wants to imply some sort of "touchy-feely" motivation behind my posts may also please ask Gizzmoe for my PM. Or just post it here, what the heck.

If you're up for a conversation or a discussion about religion count me in. If you want to present self-contradictory enunciates, that is, attempting to pass what is fantasious as real and as a serious argument, count me out of the merry-go-round.

EDIT: This asterisk *: when I've said brainless by all means I did not meant that Von_capo did not have a brain or was uncapable of using it. That is illogical. Had that been the case, he wouldn't know how to use the internet. I do not substitute that word now through this edit, unless the moderators consider its use even in exaggerated form innapropriate, because the intention is the same. I can, for example, substitute it for "parroting" or "collage" and maintain the same meaning for all intents and purposes. What I mean is the Anarchist kid who spray-paints the anarchist symbol at the school bathroom or the party militant who walks around town gluing the party's manifesto on trees, walls and telephone poles: it is the almost effortless act of copying (or more appropriately "linking") to somebody else's work without adding a grain of your own thoughts. This is militancy and nothing else and the "Dark ages are coming back" thread is swarming with evidence of this behavior.

[CCIP]

[edit]

I had a rather bitter post up here and decided to remove it in favour of avoiding flames. If anyone read it, I still stand by it but don't want people to feel bitter towards me. Anyone offended - I apologize.

***

Let me say this:

1. I'm here first and foremost because I enjoy subsims. I'm not really here to argue about society, politics, religion etc.

2. On the other hand I genuinely enjoy the open discussion on these side-topics here, provided everyone can state their viewpoints fairly and have a chance to respond to instances where they feel their viewpoint to have been belittled, attacked or unreasonably dismissed. It's called an argument. I've been raised in a context where, really, to debate is to live (almost). Even if I occasionally get bitter, I love a good free debate and am happy I can observe or participate in these at Subsim.

3. However I am not in agreement that the oversensitivity of one group should be given some sort of prerogative in determining what constitutes inappropriate posts at subsim. In the case of yesterday's thread, I'm not sufficiently convinced that what took place is not the result of catering to this oversensitivity.

4. I've kept my own standpoint at bay. In truth I would like to have the right to demand people stop throwing in religious arguments where, in my view, they have no place and damage the discussion. I would like to be able to attack religion and people's rhetorical applications of it, and do not feel this would be inappropriate or damaging to a free-speech context. But I've held back out of trying to be somewhat polite.


Let us assume that anything which could be perceived as an insult to religion is banned from discussion here. I am willing to accept this, but only if religion likewise stays away from what I could view as "poisoning sociopolitical debate". I have my own reasons to be offended by religious rhetoric, but I tolerate it and am willing to continue to do so within reasonable limits.
Otherwise I would see it as preferential treatment.

[Gizzmoe]

I have explained several times why I did what I did. TteFAboB summed up the situation well, although he was a bit too harsh. I´d informed Neal and Tak about my actions yesterday and the feedback that I got from them wasn´t negative. I have nothing more to add.

[TteFAboB]

My intention is not to be harsh but to be honest. If my harshness is offensive please point to me where it is (given the validity of the first sentence of this paragraph, there can only be harshness left because I still haven't noticed it) and I will first apologize, then correct myself.

EDIT: And as we're defining what we're for here, I take this opportunity to repeat what I told jumpy: That I am all for freedom, that if people want to do what I describe in my previous post in this thread, that is, for example, to copy and paste the entire content of the Fourth International post by post, I don't care the slightest and offer no opposition to such a thing. I hope that if any of you guys have read my post you haven't finished with the impression that I suggest locking anything, I'm contesting the concept and purpose of a discussion or a conversation and the difference of those from sheer spamming. I've never contested the locking of any thread but I've never asked for it either. I have supported Takeda after he locked the "dark ages" thread because he was receiving flak from it and that's it.

As far as I care anybody can do whatever they want as long as they don't break the rules or commit any crime.

[AVGWarhawk]

There is an old saying, 'If you want to stay/make friends do not discuss politics or religion.' My 1 cent...I cannot afford 2.

[geetrue]

I saw the thread in question and I said to self,
“Self stay away from that thread”

What Gizzmoe the moderator did was completely acceptable in my
thinking …
The thread he closed was exactly what he said it was.
It was a trap for all four sides.

If I posted something like this verse …


Isaiah 41:13
Fear not I will help you

Who would it be a problem to?

The Muslims believe in Abraham all the way to Isaiah
The Jews believe in Abraham all the way to Micah

The Christians believe in Abraham and all the way to the
Book of Revelations
(which has some very nice end time scenarios in it by the way)

Abraham is considered to be the father of faith for all three …
That leaves people who don’t have faith in God or in a God …
Atheist

We have to respect your rights and opinions in a fair discussion
or debate about the past, present and future.
Why shouldn’t you have to respect ours?

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of thread topic’s …
I agree keep the thread topics from being a flame war with religion
as the theme.

Subsim has had these problems before and overcome them …

You should have been here for the naked girls in signatures,
now that was a flame war.

[Takeda Shingen]

I did discuss this with Gizzmoe, and I agree with his actions. What is of consequence here is not the discussion or critique of religion, Iraqi policy, global trade agreements or the validity of American football. The threads in question were locked due to baiting: The practice of deliberately enflaming the sensitivities of a member or particular group of members for the expressed purpose of drawing them into a hostile discussion. This is expressedly forbidden in the SubSim FAQs, and is one of my pet peeves.

Almost all of the inappropriate discussions on GT, save piracy-related discussions, which are an instant no-no, come as a result of baiting. Personally, I have always tried to cut the baiting off before things hit the fan. This is what Gizzmoe did yesterday. There is a way to discuss any issue here, save, again, for cracks and piracy-related items. This is to sensibly give your thoughts on any matter.

Examples:

1. Sensible posting:

Iraqi policy has left America with more problems than solutions. I think that a course of action must be taken in a new direction to end the American and Iraqi bloodshed.


2. Baiting:

Bush sucks, and is a total loser. Anyone who voted for this man, or approves of his policies is an utterly brainwashed, right-wing, racist, homophobic, war-mongering son of a illegitimately-concieved mule.


Note the difference. Example two attacks a person. It is aggressive and confrontational in tone. Example one questions ideas. It does not provoke an individual, as it does not point squarely at said individual and labels him. We witnessed example two in action yesterday. Let us see more of the first.

[U-533]

I never have a problem with the Moderators... when they tell me to fix some thing I comply or delete...

This is one of very few places one can state a personal view and not be "BANNED"

If anyone does have a problem with my views I welcome the chance to explain or elaborate further...that means some one has taken the time to read and think...

I say "Good work to the Moderators"...

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I did discuss this with Gizzmoe, and I agree with his actions. What is of consequence here is not the discussion or critique of religion, Iraqi policy, global trade agreements or the validity of American football. The threads in question were locked due to baiting: The practice of deliberately enflaming the sensitivities of a member or particular group of members for the expressed purpose of drawing them into a hostile discussion. This is expressedly forbidden in the SubSim FAQs, and is one of my pet peeves.

Almost all of the inappropriate discussions on GT, save piracy-related discussions, which are an instant no-no, come as a result of baiting. Personally, I have always tried to cut the baiting off before things hit the fan. This is what Gizzmoe did yesterday. There is a way to discuss any issue here, save, again, for cracks and piracy-related items. This is to sensibly give your thoughts on any matter.

Examples:

1. Sensible posting:

Iraqi policy has left America with more problems than solutions. I think that a course of action must be taken in a new direction to end the American and Iraqi bloodshed.


2. Baiting:

Bush sucks, and is a total loser. Anyone who voted for this man, or approves of his policies is an utterly brainwashed, right-wing, racist, homophobic, war-mongering son of a illegitimately-concieved mule.


Note the difference. Example two attacks a person. It is aggressive and confrontational in tone. Example one questions ideas. It does not provoke an individual, as it does not point squarely at said individual and labels him. We witnessed example two in action yesterday. Let us see more of the first.

Right on spot!

Abraham

(with moderator cap on)

[bradclark1]

Who's Spot?