So since "fuck off, you fucking fucker" isn't considered that big a deal by some, apparently...

[Rob H.]

does that mean anyone can start using it and then blame the people who think it's inappropriate for thinking it's inappropriate?

I'm just asking. For a friend.

[trotsky]

1. Well, you'll take your chances with a jury, BUT....

it will allow us to be hypocritical assholes who can claim, with a straight face, that the person you said it to was actually the uncivil disruptor. So that's pretty cool.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I'm pretty sure the general consensus here in this group

is that telling any poster here to "fuck off you fucking fuck" is a pretty good reason to be asked to not post here anymore. But I could be wrong.

We do allow a pretty open debate on a multitude of issues, or at least we try to when we aren't getting alert trolled by our friends, but flabergastingly rude behavior is pretty much not cool.

Or at least that is my opinion.

Expect a jury.

[mr blur]

3. No Warren, you're absolutely correct.

Telling any poster here to "fuck off you fucking fuck" is a pretty good reason to be asked to not post here anymore.

Of course it's different if the powers that be are willing to excuse such a remark as an acceptable response to someone that they don't like but, fortunately we have certain standards here that others don't always match. And we do it all without god telling us how to behave. Imagine!

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Apparently we had it all wrong. Now, suddenly, that statement is a general sentiment, and not a

personal attack.

Please re-calibrate your equipment accordingly.
(Well, at least the jury got it right.)

[Rob H.]

4. "...flabergastingly rude behavior is pretty much not cool."

Exactly. If I'd told anyone that here I'm pretty sure I'd get blocked from this group (I'd expect it!) despite posting here a lot and being a longtime member, but I would hope that no one here would go into any other groups to make excuses for me or try to downplay/brush off what was said. I can be a jerk sometimes--which just means I'm human, my two-baby-a-day snack habit notwithstanding--but with one exception I've never gotten angry enough to swear at anyone on DU, and it was nowhere near anything along the lines of "fuck off, you fucking fucker."

[kdmorris]

5. Depends on who the poster is

I told one of the now blocked posters to "go the fuck away" and it got hid because I was being nasty and telling him to "fuck off". {shrug} go figure.

The jury didn't like it but the hosts were cool enough to let me stay on account of me being provoked.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. "go the fuck away" is not "fuck off".

But juries are frequently ridiculous.

[kdmorris]

7. I thought it was fairly ridiculous at the time

given that the poster was saying all kinds of homophobic crap (which thankfully also got hidden) about laconicsax.

ETA: had I said "fuck off you fucking fuck" I think the reaction may have been different, even with the provocation.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The interfaithy forum is discussing their sop.

Well so far all two of them. Anyway, it seems the SOP is just fine. Nasty Bad Poopyheads need to stay out. They know who they are.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

10. Two?

When did the second member show up?

[Goblinmonger]

13. I am flabergastered that the revisionist version now

is that el_bryanto was provoked and baited.

My first foray into Interfaith starts here with an explanation of how the term "faithiest" began. el_bryanto starts outright harassment here. How is that possibly him being provoked unless they really think that my mere presence in that group can cause him to just unwillingly act like a dick?

To our nannies lurking and reading, go take a look at these and ponder them. Check the time stamps if you don't believe me.

[trotsky]

29. No GM, it's very simple.

We are evil, horrible disruptors who hate religion and all believers. We are subhuman demons and deserve to be treated like shit.

Because we have said unflattering things about religion, you see.

[cleanhippie]

31. Facts mean little to those with an agenda and a need to believe they are righteous.

Remember, this is what you are dealing with; people that believe total absurdities which from the core of their being. Reason and critical thought are at times, foreign concepts when they need their beliefs to be substantiated.

[Rob H.]

16. Well, at least one amendment has been proposed

and a host, a wishes-she-was-a-host, and someone whose nym I don't recognize find it high-larious.

Nice to see that they're working hard to change the tone over there.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Since Justin is reading this group and I can't ask this in Interfaith

Justin: Where is the link to an Interfaith post? It is being discussed here but I don't see a link.

Additionally, you have said in Religion that you don't think it is wrong to cross-post to a safehaven but know that we here in A/A don't like it. Is it a rule in Interfaith now? And the impact of doing that here is being blocked.

ETA: Yeah, your probably talking about my link to el_bryanto being a complete tool to me. Consider that a de facto post into your meta discussion in Interfaith as a retort to your claim that he was provoked.

And if you aren't happy with me cross-posting, you can block me....oh, yeah.

[cleanhippie]

32. He seems to be treating that group as his own personal fiefdom.

[mr blur]

33. Everybody needs a hobby,

something they can do when everybody else is, you know, getting on with real life.

BTW, yours is my new fave sig-line

[cleanhippie]

35. I question the quality of life of someone who is on-line DU seemingly 24/7.

There are several that fit that category; near immediate response to posts, regardless of time of day. How is it possible to be on DU that much AND have a life in the real world?

[Rob H.]

34. Interesting that when he was a host over in Religion

he never called out believers being complete and utter assholes to atheists and yet asking questions over there is enough to get threatened with a block, to say nothing of being told that it wasn't the person who flew off the handle and swore at another poster who was to blame for his own behavior, the mere presence of the person being told to fuck off was, all by itself, a provocation. I guess that means, in essence, he got what he deserved just for showing up--so much for being a group where believers and non-believers are supposedly welcome. (Then again, I think of who he wanted to be his successor and I'm not all that surprised….)

[cleanhippie]

36. Exactly.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I do have that effect on people.

That is why I have to live in rural areas. Walking down a city street with a constant bombardment of "fuck you you fucking fuck" gets a bit unnerving.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Why do we even have hosts?

[Curmudgeoness]

11. Well, "we" have hosts

here in A&A to keep from allowing someone to say "fuck you, you fucking fucker" to another poster. Why other groups have hosts is sometimes a mystery.

[Rob H.]

12. I would say that hosts are ABSOLUTELY necessary here

due to the disproportionate number of abusive people (both believers and at least a couple of now-blocked non-believers) whose sole purpose in posting here seems to be stirring shit, and I think our hosts do a great job of showing those people the door in pretty short order when they come here. In other groups, though, the title "Host" almost seems to be a ceremonial position, given how often they throw up their hands and say,"Hey, we know there are problems, but what are we supposed to do about them?"

[LostOne4Ever]

14. Just be sure to blame the very presence of the person you are cussing out and it will be cool.

They baited you into it by being polite and civil and, you know, existing. Can't have people existing that disagree with us.

Obviously your, otherwise, totally unprovoked attack is a nefarious plan to get "you" banned.

Though, for that to work the at least one of the hosts would have to blame them for the disruption they did not start or continue, and publicly chastise them while telling you that you did no wrong. Might help if you had a host who was on record of disliking a group your target is associated with. Like, calling skeptics something insulting like septics or something like that.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Well it was suggested to amend the SOP to add "no assholes".

Everyone had a big chuckle over that, although a bit nervously perhaps because GOD WAS WATCHING.

[LostOne4Ever]

18. Well it appears assholes means atheists in general

I don't see how telling a person not to ever post in a room again is any different than a block, unless they simply don't want to be accused of blocking someone for no reason. This is probably the first time in DU history that posters have ever been banned from a room for existing.

YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT NONBELIEVERS ARE WELCOME and then say someone (who has argued from the nonbeliever side in religion) very presence is a disruption and that they are not allowed to post. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Similarly, you can not tell one person not to bring disputes in from religion, and then effectively ban people who are not disrupting because someone else in your group has a grudge against them from religion. Again, hypocrisy. To accuse someone who is being civil of being a disrupter and then pat the actual disrupters on the head and expect not to be called out on it is a bit much.

Honestly, I am flabbergasted.

[onager]

19. Flabbergasted here too. What a goat-rope.

After reading all the linked threads and some other stuff in both Other Groups...

Guess all I can say is "Business As Usual."

I can remember a time, before DU3, when people in the Religion were group were actually civil to each other most of the time. It might have been FORCED civility but it was usually there.

But even back then, I also remember believers who wanted non-believers totally banned from the Religion group. Simply because non-believers asked questions and said things the believers found uncomfortable.

But as soon as the new regime came in, with Hosts instead of Moderators and that wonderful ALERT system, I started reading posts about "a new beginning etc." for the Religion group.

That crap was dressed up in all sorts of fancy language, but it meant exactly the same thing - get rid of those disruptive non-believers we can have SERIOUS discussions about religion.

IMO, this group has become the OTHER Other Group. We discuss all sorts of things besides atheism and I like it that way. If someone wants to discuss, e.g., the origins of atheism, we can do that without a lot of derailing by the Thrift Store Theologians. Who just want to show us how wrong we are, anyway.

[LostOne4Ever]

22. Uhhh...There apparently is one poster there standing up for actual fairness

Last edited Fri Aug 15, 2014, 06:13 AM - Edit history (1)

They even made a post in the R-room trying to build bridges. Maybe civil discussion is not totally dead after all. At least to posters whose usernames pay homage to MST3000.

If they are reading here (cause I wont post there anymore), I must say I respect that and thank you too.

The rest of them are another story

I totally agree with you on your last paragraph. There is no need to leave here and listen to their false diatribes against us.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Noticed that as well, was pleasantly surprised.

Two people in that thread surprised me, one for the better, one for the worse.


As they say in South Park, 'I learned something today.'

[onager]

38. Thanks! You're right, I saw that.

It's most appreciated.

I know that in the past there have been attempts to make peace. But strictly IMO, the other side usually expects us to be this guy...



...and they get annoyed when we're more like...

[trotsky]

30. I'm not flabbergasted at all.

The hatred, hypocrisy, and intolerance of those who think themselves to be paragons of tolerance and virtue is never a surprise.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. THAT thread just got highly educational.

Looks like at least one person I was extending the benefit of the doubt to, never deserved it after all.

Lesson learned.

[mr blur]

28. Andddd when you think of who suggested that,

[Lordquinton]

20. the religious privilege group is very clear

They can't call people out in their sop, but they want to. The people banned in this group have had many chances and were very disruptive and it was clear to any unbiased eye that thy only wanted to cause trouble. The religious privilege group bans anyone who disagrees with them, and might even give you notice (or a reason) it's clear where they stand, and they think they have some divine spirit guiding their hypocrisy.

As someone commented I another thread here, at least they can't burn us at the stake anymore.

[Iggo]

21. Not as bad as poopiehead, I guess.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. I'm not going to look for the referenced thread.

Can I just assume that that language was in a post by a believer? Not that I'm feeling all holier-than-thou here but ...

As for the other other group, I'm doing unto others as I would have done for me -- Staying out. It's their turf. I'll leave it to them.

[Iggo]

27. I along with some others trashed that room the very first day it came out.

I wish they would all do us the same favor and just trash this room. I don't shit in their yard. Why should they shit in mine?

But they won't.

And now my moratorium against even talking about that other room resumes.

[Hissyspit]

39. Link or name of thread?

[LostOne4Ever]

40. Sending you a PM (nt)