Thread: Dead horses: a free-for-all for vivisection Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003430
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Louise, one of the hosts, has just essentially advocated the reason why I find Dead Horses fundamentally dishonest:
"So if someone is posting insulting things about a group you are part of or minority you belong to, you can't take personal issue with them here - but must call them to the Hell board to make negative personal remarks about them."
People can write things which are absolutely attacks on my personhood and I have no effective right of reply. This will not do.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Well surely you could reply, "bigoted evangelical Christians generally fail to account for the context of the Molech cult in relationship to the specific verses" or similar. Whilst not saying "you, Gimble, are a bigoted evangelical Christian" ?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The nature of the Dead Horses board is that some of the subjects discussed will inevitably involve clearly identified groups who will feel attacked by what others believe. There are limits to how personal people can be, and the hosts will call people out when they go too far.
But, you have the choice in responding whether to descend into the sewer or show yourself to be an intelligent and dignified human being. And, there is always Hell if you need to vent.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
It's the fundamental inequality I object to, which is whence my reference to vivisection. My experience of the board is of being dissected while alive without anaesthetic, and having no effective means of self-defence.
This is the more true since many of those wielding the scalpal make a particular point of never visiting or engaging in hell.
[ 28. May 2017, 16:38: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's the fundamental inequality I object to, which is whence my reference to vivisection.
You have one thing that makes you unequal here. Some of us have more. Not that I do not understand your complaint.*
But I agree with the guidelines in that these subjects would be impossible to discuss. And whilst some of the people who makes these comments are irredeemable, perhaps someone reading isn't.
*In fact I have lost my control in regards to this once. Maybe two or twenty times.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
One last comment and then I'm done, as far as I know so far.
I'm not claiming uniqueness; I think it's a problem that is common to all of the Dead Horse topics, in that they're all personal issues for those with actual experience of them, making dismissal of that experience essentially a personal attack in itself, without being acknowledged as such.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
One last comment and then I'm done, as far as I know so far.
I'm not claiming uniqueness; I think it's a problem that is common to all of the Dead Horse topics, in that they're all personal issues for those with actual experience of them, making dismissal of that experience essentially a personal attack in itself, without being acknowledged as such.
It also happens in purg, for some non-DH topics.
It is not balanced, but I am trying to figure out how to make it so without shutting down discussion. Not saying it cannot be better, but that I don't know how it might work.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It's a problem which has been back and forth since the beginning of the Ship's boards. Originally C3 was broader and attacking groups/denominations could come under it, IF there were shipmates in the maligned groups.
The downside was that it made arguing about and critiquing other people's churches/denominations/beliefs very difficult - for example, if you critiqued the Catholic church and that personally offended Catholic shipmates, then that could come under C3, and vice versa if a Catholic poster started attacking eg. Southern Baptist or Anglicans or whatever groups, if there were shipmates in those groups then it could come under C3. I can't remember the exact formulation but it was something like 'if a shipmate is a member of group X' then attacking group X could be a personal attack.
But this was found to limit debate - you only needed one shipmate from group X be they Scientologists, or Fred Phelps clan etc and it could put that entire group off limits for critique outside Hell. The decision was made, years ago, not to have the group definition in C3 but only to outlaw personal attacks outside Hell so as not to curb the latitude to critique and argue about issues, doctrines and denominations.
So if someone posts something ignorant about a group eg. Southern baptists or inerrantists or Catholics or women or Scots, or Liberal Democrats, or orchid-growers, the onus is on individual members of that group to reply in general terms or take them to Hell.
The problem is though, that there is a wide-range of Christian belief and that range includes stuff which many people find personally offensive or hurtful. Because what I'd personally see as homophobic beliefs are so common, I can see that it puts a greater burden on gay people as a group than say, on orchid growers or Lib Dems.
The question is whether you want there to be room for the non-Hellish discussion of traditional homophobic/misogynistic ideas or not. If you want there to be room, then people can't go retaliating on the Dead Horses threads to general expressions of conservative doctrine with personal insults. If you think repeating such doctrines and ideas is, in and of itself, a personal attack and Hellish, then there needs to be a re-negotiation of rules with the admins as to when we should ask people to take it to Hell.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I would also point out that we have Dead Horses to avoid clogging up Purgatory. Clogging up Hell instead is not really an option I'd want to go for.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not that serious discussion doesn't happen in Hell, but I'm not sure DH discussions would be facilitated down there, regardless. It is slightly more satisfying to eviscerate the scum than discourse with them, but it doesn't help with those whose positions are harmful but who do not intend harm and might be amenable to reason.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm not claiming uniqueness; I think it's a problem that is common to all of the Dead Horse topics, in that they're all personal issues for those with actual experience of them, making dismissal of that experience essentially a personal attack in itself, without being acknowledged as such.
Do you have any specific suggestions about changes that would improve the situation?
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Possible solution, may not work, may not be desirable: Two DH's -- one run on Purg rules, and one run on Hell rules.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
This isn't a DH-specific issue, although it comes up in DH more often because that's where the gay threads go. We had a fairly involved trans discussion in Purg a while back that at least one shipmate brought to the Styx with basically the same point that ThunderBunk makes here.
My contention is that it is important to have these discussions, and that it's not possible to have a full and frank discussion without some statements being made that members of the group under discussion might find hurtful.
That being the case, I think that those engaging in such discussions have an obligation to acknowledge this hurt and make special efforts to moderate their language.
It's never going to be comfortable having a discussion which a shipmate might view as being about his right to exist as he sees himself, and so those that hold positions that other shipmates will find hurtful (and everybody knows whether they hold such a position) have IMO a special duty to be cautious with their language.
This isn't a perfect solution, but I don't think there is one. Specifically with respect to Mousethief's suggestion, I think there's a place for trying to have a frank and honest discussion about some of these delicate subjects without resorting to mud-slinging and name-calling. I think it's possible, although it does call for a certain amount of restraint by shipmates engaging in the discussion.
[ 28. May 2017, 22:24: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think it's possible, although it does call for a certain amount of restraint by shipmates engaging in the discussion.
It is possible and it has happened. But it is easy to have someone nominally respect the rules but have the apparent goal of slinging mud. This has happened as well.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
That being the case, I think that those engaging in such discussions have an obligation to acknowledge this hurt and make special efforts to moderate their language.
I agree but people who will do this are not the problem, what recurs is that we get people who simply don't and won't do that.
We currently put the onus on the people being directly attacked by anti-gay/anti-trans posters to play nice, play by the rules and move to Hell (where they need asbestos undies when they may least feel like it). It is a bit like putting the burden of being polite to racists onto the people who are being attacked by racists. The racist gets to spout off unhindered, the person being denigrated has to obey a complex set of rules and watch what they say in return or they may be disciplined: I can't tell people who show up spouting anti-gay talking points to take it to Hell but I must tell anyone they've insulted not to hit back in kind but to take it to Hell, and must warn them if they don't.
On the other hand, Dead Horses means that people have to deliberately choose to go to a particular board to be exposed to this kind of prejudice so it's not in people's faces all the time if they want to post here and it is a choice to engage. Also if we just sit on people the instant they turn up, it doesn't give them a chance to be exposed to people with different thinking or to debate and have their views challenged or for others to debate with them.
It's worth having the discussion anew as attitudes move on and things change. How much do people value having this kind of space? Have we got the balance of responsibilities for posters right or not? Is there a better way to handle this that we're missing?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
it's odd this topic should come up now, just as I decided for the nth time NOT to take on those who insist that all pro-life folks are abusive assholes who hate women and want them to die horribly.
In the past I've been fool enough to post that some of us are actual human beings capable of a smidgen of thought and compassion, but it always slid right off the discussion like Teflon. I've given up.
ETA: And God help the person who attempts to say that there exist non-demonic Republicans. Because we're all Trump loving assholes, of course.
[ 29. May 2017, 02:10: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Sudden thought--
didn't this kind of slippery shit used to get handled by Erin, who would bite the hell out of anybody who managed to slip past the letter of the 10 Cs but was clearly being a jerk nonetheless? That might explain why the ethos of the Ship has changed somewhat.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
No, it isn't something new and recent. There was someone who was particularly unpleasant about homosexuality a few years back, who was banned eventually after quite a few Hell threads. One Hell thread was so bad, and maybe the related Dead Horses thread, that they were not archived but deleted.
I think that what has changed now is the attitude to homophobia, with churches being one of the final bastions.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I didn't think (but may be wrong) that the OP was purely about homophobia. As I pointed out, the phenomenon of insulting groups with no effective retribution goes on in all directions. I'm sure it always did, but perhaps not to this degree--it used to be possible to disagree on a hotly contested subject without sixteen people promptly jumping down the throat of one or the other poster and getting away with it. But whatever was keeping that in check is gone, and I can no longer recommend the Ship to any of my acquaintance who happen to be evangelical, Republican, or (God forbid) Trump voters. Even the customary courtesy to apprentices would probably not save them from tarring and feathering. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
ETA: and how the hell is anybody to be converted if the pre-convert is not allowed breathing room while they learn the error (?) of their ways? As various quiet voices have pointed out, you'll never convert a politically/churchmanshiply/ whateverly benighted soul by yelling at them for being so.
[ 30. May 2017, 03:19: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
We have never had any restriction on multiple people being allowed to voice their opinion - as long as it is within the bounds of the Commandments that apply to any specific board. Other than that, everybody here is bound to face some demographical contingent that aligns with any given philosophy. How those demographics are represented by real humans as a cross-section of old farts who still visit discussion boards is anybody's guess.
But, to pluck a random philosophy out of the eather, it should not be surprising that Nazi slave-owning demagogue-worshippers might find more than a few people who disagree with much that they post. It has always been thus.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
What I was trying to point out was the imbalance created when a shipmate attacks a personal characteristic from a theological perspective. It constitutes a personal attack but the attacker cannot be attacked in kind.
I really don't see how this maps across to Lamb Chopped's example, and not merely because I would in no way wish to defend any of those positions, believing them to be responsible for much of the organised evil on earth. More specifically and defensibly, it's because these are political positions, and therefore subject to argument and change, whereas the object of the kind of attack I have in mind is a personal characteristic, such as gender, sexual orientation, etc. This gets separated from the person and attacked, which I am trying to point out is really a form of gaslighting because it's predicated on a misrepresentation of its object.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Thank you for making my point for me. Goodbye.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
and not merely because I would in no way wish to defend any of those positions, believing them to be responsible for much of the organised evil on earth.
Really, dude? When I think you've gone too far, it might be time to rethink your responses.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
and not merely because I would in no way wish to defend any of those positions, believing them to be responsible for much of the organised evil on earth.
Really, dude? When I think you've gone too far, it might be time to rethink your responses.
Forgive an outbreak of sarcastic hyperbole: right-wing snowflakery is such a shock when happened upon, even in vicarious form.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I do think the Ship's active membership has become more homogeneous during my time over the "hot button" issues which are the bread and butter of DH discussion topics. I think all Shipmates benefit from the understanding that people with more conservative views on these issues are not jerks simply because of that. It depends how they argue, how they respond.
DH, essentially an extension of Purgatory, is a venue for serious discussion of issues. If you find opinions being expressed there which you find offensive, that would I think be normal for some Shipmates. But that doesn't preclude serious discussion, unless such opinions put you in to the Commandment 4 situation i.e. some form of personality conflict with the poster because of their opinion.
If that happens to you, that's your problem. Our advice is drop out of the discussion or take it to Hell. That's entirely logical.
And remember the sense in this observation.
"You don't make me angry. I make me angry".
If we wish to participate in serious discussions of issues, rather than venting that we are offended, then we need to put a rein on our anger. That may not be easy, but it is a genuine consequence of the fact that Ship of Fools is a magazine of unrest, but with guidelines to stop that unrest getting out of hand.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
and not merely because I would in no way wish to defend any of those positions, believing them to be responsible for much of the organised evil on earth.
Really, dude? When I think you've gone too far, it might be time to rethink your responses.
Forgive an outbreak of sarcastic hyperbole: right-wing snowflakery is such a shock when happened upon, even in vicarious form.
There is a lot more nuance in the abortion issue than your comments allow, nor are all the "politics" on one side. The precise outline of why belongs in DH.
tl:dr - I don't think it is snowflakery for someone to feel insulted when you call them evil for their beliefs without knowing how they truly approach the subject.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is a lot more nuance in the abortion issue than your comments allow, nor are all the "politics" on one side. The precise outline of why belongs in DH.
Yes. And if debate can be an attack on personhood, then one example of this would seem to be debate over whether a whole class of persons are actually persons at all. The fact that those persons aren't big enough to get on the internet and say that their personhood is being attacked doesn't seem to change the principle.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is a lot more nuance in the abortion issue than your comments allow, nor are all the "politics" on one side. The precise outline of why belongs in DH.
Yes. And if debate can be an attack on personhood, then one example of this would seem to be debate over whether a whole class of persons are actually persons at all. The fact that those persons aren't big enough to get on the internet and say that their personhood is being attacked doesn't seem to change the principle.
Actually, I think it rather does in the context of this forum. Because the unborn are not members, as far as I know and that is what this Styx thread is about: people who post here.
ISTM, LC is incorrect in her post.
A chosen POV =/= inborn attributes. That POV is a debate and discussion by it nature and ramifications. Not at all the same as homosexuality.
My complaint to Thunderbolt was that his reply was a misrepresentation and an over the top, unnecessary insult.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I can no longer recommend the Ship to any of my acquaintance who happen to be evangelical, Republican, or (God forbid) Trump voters. Even the customary courtesy to apprentices would probably not save them from tarring and feathering.
(the above has been edited)
This is the vicarious snowflakery I was talking about, not any other posts Lamb Chopped has made regarding her own views, here or elsewhere.
And therewith I return to silence, in re this thread.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I can no longer recommend the Ship to any of my acquaintance who happen to be evangelical, Republican, or (God forbid) Trump voters. Even the customary courtesy to apprentices would probably not save them from tarring and feathering.
(the above has been edited)
This is the vicarious snowflakery I was talking about, not any other posts Lamb Chopped has made regarding her own views, here or elsewhere.
And therewith I return to silence, in re this thread.
Apologies for misunderstanding you.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, Lamb Chopped is a veteran of these boards. Some 13 years here, some 20,000 posts. I'm a 12 year veteran, also about 20,000 posts. I'm not nervous about encouraging folks who are conservative, in faith or politics, than me to try putting their wits.
But I preferred the Ship when it had some powerful wranglers from conservative ranks. Watching Trisagion strike down nonsense (including stuff from me) was a part of my learning curve here. Where are the Trisagion of yesterday year? Has there been some gradual shift in Board Culture to the detriment of diversity and unrest? And if so, why?
These are good questions. I don't have the answers to them. Personally, I always try to be courteous in my posting style, avoid characterisations, jumping to conclusions. You can still be vigorous in serious discussions while doing that. And there's no harm in having firm viewpoints challenged.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'd argue that yes, there has been a demographic shift, but one that's overshadowed by the societal shift.
Many aspects of conservative theology are respected and debated - if you want to talk about Real Presence or PSA or the literal Resurrection - then there's no problem. It's when conservative theology collides with liberal society that there's friction.
The society (at least here in the UK) that was okay with Section 28, queer bashing, calling folk 'poofters', denying women equal pay and equal rights and expecting brown people to know their place has gone forever. And the church does, in part, have women celebrants and gay celebrants, and we're used to it.
So to come to a place where someone is using theology to deny your place in the church, or even deny your existence, is going to be a tough call. Conservative posters might complain they're not getting a fair hearing, but I'd urge them to see the other side, and how difficult it is for (example) a gay shipmate to be confronted by someone who, outside of the ship, is saying something that is socially unacceptable. They are the ones that are taking the risk in being here.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I do get that, Doc. From a different context, I can hear Desmond Tutu confronting representatives of apartheid in the police and the military with 'you have already lost'.
Personally, I have no problems in challenging the more conservative folks with 'here are my reasons for thinking you have already lost. What is wrong with them?'
There are reasons, good reasons, for the changes in our culture. So they can be used, counter arguments can be rebutted. You can do that as much as you like in DH - or withdraw, saying 'waste of time'. Maybe these arguments are 'old hat' for many, but not for all. I still think there is value in having a forum where these arguments can be ventilated.
I'll finish with Desmond Tutu's smiling invitation. 'So, since you have already lost - why not join the winning team?'.
There is a value in such self-confidence in discussion. A greater value than simply taking offence.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The difficult part for me is dealing with the people who I am convinced are not engaging honestly. Them, I have no issues dismissing, but keeping the discussion going for those listening who might be persuaded; that is tough.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The difficult part for me is dealing with the people who I am convinced are not engaging honestly. Them, I have no issues dismissing, but keeping the discussion going for those listening who might be persuaded; that is tough.
Precisely. But that's not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the essential asymmetry exemplified by the following exchange: "my theology says that you are" vs "I say that your theology is". One side is always engaged personally, but unable to respond in kind.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is a lot more nuance in the abortion issue than your comments allow, nor are all the "politics" on one side. The precise outline of why belongs in DH.
Yes. And if debate can be an attack on personhood, then one example of this would seem to be debate over whether a whole class of persons are actually persons at all. The fact that those persons aren't big enough to get on the internet and say that their personhood is being attacked doesn't seem to change the principle.
Actually, I think it rather does in the context of this forum. Because the unborn are not members, as far as I know and that is what this Styx thread is about: people who post here.
ISTM, LC is incorrect in her post.
A chosen POV =/= inborn attributes. That POV is a debate and discussion by it nature and ramifications. Not at all the same as homosexuality.
My complaint to Thunderbolt was that his reply was a misrepresentation and an over the top, unnecessary insult.
I do see your position - that one's view on the personhood of the child in the womb is not at all the same as one's sexuality, though I'm not sure it is a point of view that is "chosen" in the same way as other POVs.
But many people have been in a situation where they have been defending their child's personhood against real threat and I suspect that the idea that this is their "choice" would sit a bit uncomfortably with them.
And odds are some of them post here.
[Edited because confusing]
[ 02. June 2017, 08:52: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I think though, that for people who're not gay to say that they don't mind being offended in the cause of making a debate space where anti-gay people feel welcome, and that gay people should ' put a rein on their anger' is a bit like men telling women what level of sexism they should find acceptable. There's a whiff of 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.' It involves us assuming from a position of privilege that one size fits all and everyone is affected the same way.
I don't think the position for straight white blokes and straight white women is the same as for people who still have to face really hurtful and sometimes dangerous prejudice in real life.
It's not the Trisagions or even the Gordon Chengs who march up and just bluntly assert that God has spoken and gay people are sinful and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't a Christian/must be deluded/deliberately misreading the Bible to suit themselves. We're not talking about people who offer an intelligent level of argument but of something more akin to crude racism from the world that time forgot. It's more the 'you can't be gay and and an honest proper christian' stuff.
And this sort of thing instantly derails threads and then the only recourse is to sit on the other posters hard and tell people to take things to hell - which is not ideal when you have a new poster. We did formerly enforce the 50 posts convention - not to call apprentices to hell - but that's a lot of derailing and hurt a new homophobic poster can accomplish in that time. Not to mention that they get driven off too and lose any opportunity to learn to engage differently.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I just do see that we are imposing additional burdens on some people but not on others. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of health warning on the DH board - that it gives a measure of safe space for homophobic views as otherwise debate on these topics can't proceed and that people who find that offensive or hurtful might want to or need to avoid the board.
I don't have the answer just a feeling that the societal shift means that the now rare occurrence of a real anti-gay poster turning up* has despite its rarity become trickier to handle. It's rarer but it's also much more incendiary, as it's like asking black people to play nice with a loud-and-proud-of-it white supremacist and then telling them they have the problem when they get upset.
*(at one point back in the mists of time when the Jeffrey John thread was stickered on the front page we were getting them at the rate of several a week)
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I think though, that for people who're not gay to say that they don't mind being offended in the cause of making a debate space where anti-gay people feel welcome, and that gay people should ' put a rein on their anger' is a bit like men telling women what level of sexism they should find acceptable. There's a whiff of 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.' It involves us assuming from a position of privilege that one size fits all and everyone is affected the same way.
I don't think the position for straight white blokes and straight white women is the same as for people who still have to face really hurtful and sometimes dangerous prejudice in real life.
It's not the Trisagions or even the Gordon Chengs who march up and just bluntly assert that God has spoken and gay people are sinful and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't a Christian/must be deluded/deliberately misreading the Bible to suit themselves. We're not talking about people who offer an intelligent level of argument but of something more akin to crude racism from the world that time forgot. It's more the 'you can't be gay and and an honest proper christian' stuff.
And this sort of thing instantly derails threads and then the only recourse is to sit on the other posters hard and tell people to take things to hell - which is not ideal when you have a new poster. We did formerly enforce the 50 posts convention - not to call apprentices to hell - but that's a lot of derailing and hurt a new homophobic poster can accomplish in that time. Not to mention that they get driven off too and lose any opportunity to learn to engage differently.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I just do see that we are imposing additional burdens on some people but not on others. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of health warning on the DH board - that it gives a measure of safe space for homophobic views as otherwise debate on these topics can't proceed and that people who find that offensive or hurtful might want to or need to avoid the board.
I don't have the answer just a feeling that the societal shift means that the now rare occurrence of a real anti-gay poster turning up* has despite its rarity become trickier to handle. It's rarer but it's also much more incendiary, as it's like asking black people to play nice with a loud-and-proud-of-it white supremacist and then telling them they have the problem when they get upset.
*(at one point back in the mists of time when the Jeffrey John thread was stickered on the front page we were getting them at the rate of several a week)
The problem with that approach is that it prevents us from sharing our experience, and in particular bringing our experience to bear in the debate. To my mind, experience is an absolutely legitimate source of data in a theological debate, offered by God and required in debate as a result of the first commandment (OT, not Ship) . If everything has to be theoretical, heart, soul and strength (i.e. body) cannot engage in the debate and the resultant debate is significantly enfeebled.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
That's part of the problem I'm pointing out - perhaps badly.
Which is why I'm asking the people who favour the current level of protection given to very homophobic posters 'for the sake of debate' whether that is really right and what they are aiming for?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That's part of the problem I'm pointing out - perhaps badly.
Which is why I'm asking the people who favour the current level of protection given to very homophobic posters 'for the sake of debate' whether that is really right and what they are aiming for?
I'll leave it in your entirely capable hands. My motive in starting the discussion was simply that your statement of the principle under which you were operating was the clearest I had seen to date and therefore gave a clear opportunity for the discussion. Well, that, and a degree of frustration, I must admit.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Louise
As I see it, Admin can already classify persistent homophobia in the same way they classify persistent racism i.e. a Commandment 1 plankable offence. The definition of "jerk" is deliberately open-ended.
That isn't a Host's call. Sure we can and do make our own views known, but so long as the diversity of Shipmates includes some homophobes, or Shipmates others see as homophobes, then they have the same obligations and freedoms as any other Shipmate. Whatever offence their views may cause.
That's not a 'rich man' speaking to the 'poor'. That's the way things are here unless and until homophobic, or perceived homophobic, opinions make the opinion holders jerks and plankable.
A personal opinion. I'm quite happy to see Admin make that a specific feature of Commandment 1. Frankly, I think it would make Hosting in DH a lot easier. It would probably kill homosexuality as a DH theme. Maybe it's time?
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
You could, I suppose, require that statements about specific groups be expressed as personal beliefs, rather than statements of fact. So instead of, "All (insert name of group) believe in cacodoxy." posters would instead have to use the form, "I believe all (insert name of group) believe in cacodoxy."
That would affect more discussions than just the Dead Horses topics, however: there are many political and religious discussions that include statements of "truth" that are really just opinion.
Some of us tend to use that approach anyway, but not everyone is comfortable with acknowledging that their view of the world doesn't apply to other people.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There was a judge in the TV series 'The Good Wife' who insisted that advocates before her always used the phrase 'in my opinion's!
Carex, I think that's always implied in most posts. It can get tendentious. In my opinion, it is incontrovertible that the earth revolves around its axis.
But theological opinions about sexual ethics and fair treatment of different groups, being topics people argue about, do not in my mind belong in the same category as the truth that the earth revolves around its axis.
[ 03. June 2017, 06:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There was a judge in the TV series 'The Good Wife' who insisted that advocates before her always used the phrase 'in my opinion's!
But a judge is never interested in my opinion, but in what my submission is in a particular case. My opinion, and that of any other advocate, is irrelevant.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It was when advocates were making submissions on a point of law, Gee D. Plus The Good Wife, being US drama, might do all sorts of things for dramatic effect. Like, for example in UK drama, many Judge John Deed scenes.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It was when advocates were making submissions on a point of law, Gee D. Plus The Good Wife, being US drama, might do all sorts of things for dramatic effect. Like, for example in UK drama, many Judge John Deed scenes.
Even then, a judge is not interested in my opinions, but on my submissions.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OK! My point was that in the SoF context, what people express are personal opinions on issues, whether they say so or not, or claim a degree of certainty for their opinion which may, or may not, be justified.
Wrangling over opinions is what we do.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That's part of the problem I'm pointing out - perhaps badly.
Which is why I'm asking the people who favour the current level of protection given to very homophobic posters 'for the sake of debate' whether that is really right and what they are aiming for?
I don't see how we can lower the level of protection without eliminating the debate altogether.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
True, RuthW. I think that's what I've been saying, a different way. In this context, what is a jerk?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It seems to me we've already decided that we don't debate whether black people are really people any more: out-and-out racism is (more or less) unacceptable anywhere on the boards, including DH, and is generally considered a C1 violation.
Perhaps it's time to send the more egregious examples of homophobic argument to the dustbin of history.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
What is exactly being considered "homophobic" here?
It think that word gets used to label any view that departs from a certain general consensus on the subject by people on the (far?) left and if it used this way on the Ship the Ship is bound to become even more of an echo chamber.
I must also say that, in my personal experience of posting as a shipmate, not everybody's personal experience is valued equally.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What is exactly being considered "homophobic" here?
It think that word gets used to label any view that departs from a certain general consensus on the subject by people on the (far?) left and if it used this way on the Ship the Ship is bound to become even more of an echo chamber.
Dislike of homophobia is not a far left thing. For a rough and ready definition, I'd say believing or treating LGBTABCDEFG people as inferior in any way to cishet people, or less deserving of services, legal protections, or rights under the law.
As to the echo chamber, as pointed out above we do not allow people to debate the relative merits of treating POC as questionably non-human, and yet somehow that hasn't caused us to turn into an echo chamber. Adding one more item to a small don't-go-there list isn't going to destroy the Ship. Except maybe for a small handful of people whose only joy here is talking about the inferiority of the LGBTABCDEFG.
quote:
I must also say that, in my personal experience of posting as a shipmate, not everybody's personal experience is valued equally.
Why should it be? The value of a POV is along something of a spectrum. At one end we have "I really enjoy vanilla ice cream" or "I prefer to worship in the Presbyterian Church rather than the Catholic Church because it's less mystical."
At the other end we have "I enjoy beating up black people and don't see that there should be anything wrong, let alone illegal, about it."
Most of us can agree that the former is unobjectionable and the latter is beyond the pale. But there's a whole range in between, and there has to be a line, albeit a fuzzy one, between the okay and the not-okay. And different people will draw that line in different places.
Because the Ship is a predominantly liberal place, the line will be drawn closer to one end of the spectrum than the more conservative members might like. And that's pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it feature of the Ship, unless and until the management turns over in a conservative direction, including Simon Jenkins, or the conservative members can make a really compelling argument that the line should move. (Compelling to the powers that be, not to other conservatives.)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What is exactly being considered "homophobic" here?
It think that word gets used to label any view that departs from a certain general consensus on the subject by people on the (far?) left and if it used this way on the Ship the Ship is bound to become even more of an echo chamber.
I must also say that, in my personal experience of posting as a shipmate, not everybody's personal experience is valued equally.
Far be it for me to take up the cudgels for Gays and Lesbians (and others), but I think they can spot homophobia pretty accurately, in the way that Jewish people can detect anti-Semitism.
Moreover they can do this pretty much anywhere, whether on a left(ish) online forum like this, from a pulpit or in a newspaper.
In short, it's their call. Sometimes attempts are made to reduce its importance by describing it as "banter" or "having a laugh" but at the most charitable it is bullying and harassment.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I would suggest that denying gay people to be less than people, and less worthy of civil rights (as defined by the UN UDHR) than straight folk, would be my starting point.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 - I don't think accepting its articles is anything particularly controversial.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I don't think egregious is that easy to draw a line.
Personally, I'm happy to leave it to Admin to draw the jerk line where they like. A bit like the old Supreme Court determinations over pornography. Let them know it when they see it.
That's a better solution than trying to find forms of words. Sometimes you really do benefit from leaving the balance between unrest and jerkdom to the folks who have that general responsibility anyway.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I live in a country where the leader of the right-wing Conservative party is both a church member in good standing and engaged to be married to her same sex partner ( which will probably happen in church). The Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland is gay.
The right-wing, pro-Brexit, pro-Donald Trump, anti-immigrant Conservative party governing the UK has cabinet ministers in same sex relationships and supports gay marriage. Indeed it was its predecessor right-wing government which introduced equal marriage for the UK outside Scotland. In the next door country (Ireland) they have just chosen a very right-wing gay bloke as prime minister.
It's simply not a normal part of the right-left political divide any more in UK politics.
It is in America - which leads to culture shock when Americans rock up and start posting stuff which to many British ears will sound like someone just walked into a room of people of different races and started going on about inferior races and 'sending them all home' and 'Enoch [Powell] was right'.
I'm not saying you don't get people like that in Britain and British churches, but for example, someone who said to gay people in my workplace the kind of things that get posted on this board to gay shipmates would get disciplined by HR and sacked if they kept it up. Yet I'm meant to tell gay people off for getting personally irate with them!
It's starting to make me feel complicit. I also feel as a straight woman that I absolutely shouldn't be telling gay people what they should or should not put up with from homophobic posters 'for the sake of debate'. I know the American point of view on this is rather different and stronger on freedom of speech than on being against hate speech, but I'm finding it difficult at the moment.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest that denying gay people to be less than people, and less worthy of civil rights (as defined by the UN UDHR) than straight folk, would be my starting point.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 - I don't think accepting its articles is anything particularly controversial.
...but there would be some who would like to read article 16, for example, as requiring same-sex marriage, medical assistance for same-sex couples to have a child, adoption by same-sex couples and so on, and others who wouldn't.
There's nothing controversial in what might be called a strict, narrow reading of the articles. I don't think that's true about some of the more expansive readings.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, certainly a right to family life would include same-sex marriage. IANAL, but it would be a very mild interpretation of the relevant article.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, certainly a right to family life would include same-sex marriage. IANAL, but it would be a very mild interpretation of the relevant article.
...which is where the controversy lies. I'm pretty sure that none of the signatories of the declaration thought that they were coming out in favour of same-sex marriage by signing it.
IANAL either, but I'm sure that the Ls could have a field day over the precise meaning of "men and women" at the start of article 16, and whether it granted those rights exclusively to a man and a woman, or whether "men and women" just means "people".
You see the same argument with the US constitution, between people who want to search for the "original intent" and those who want to interpret it in the light of contemporary mores.
And the thing about both the declaration of human rights and the US constitution is that they don't tell you what the "right" way is.
You and I agree that the right of same-sex couples to marry and have their private lives respected is a human right. But I don't think that you find that right written in the UDHR, and you do.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK! My point was that in the SoF context, what people express are personal opinions on issues, whether they say so or not, or claim a degree of certainty for their opinion which may, or may not, be justified.
Wrangling over opinions is what we do.
I agree - my argument was with the television judge you quoted.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Doesn't my offence matter? I get offended by homophobic comments. One of our very best friends (Mrs B and I) has been very hurt by homophobic behaviour and attitudes. We identify with that, share her hurt, have wept with her.
I have to rein that in, when Hosting or posting. Unless and until a different balance is struck between unrest and jerkdom, (and RuthW spelled out the difficulty), some measure of self restraint may be necessary for all of us. Whether we see it as a personal attack on identity, or the identity of someone we love.
I guess we can all vote with our feet. This place collapses as a place of serious discussion unless we can cope with discomfort, using the Hell outlet if necessary. That applies to this issue and all others.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, certainly a right to family life would include same-sex marriage. IANAL, but it would be a very mild interpretation of the relevant article.
...which is where the controversy lies. I'm pretty sure that none of the signatories of the declaration thought that they were coming out in favour of same-sex marriage by signing it.
Welcome to the world of the legislative drafter.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And the thing about both the declaration of human rights and the US constitution is that they don't tell you what the "right" way is.
No, but the US has a Supreme Court to do that.
As do we on the Ship. And I think, for the sake of clarity, we need a ruling on this, one way or the other.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Nobody should care what I think. But fwiw, I don't believe that in times past things would have to to this stage. I remember many years ago that Erin would make a big show of chomping up recalcitrant posters.
It seems to me that the choice here is either between allowing our brethren to come under constant and consistent attack (in a way that we'd not find acceptable if the issue under discussion was somehow about skin colour) or looking illiberal with regard to free speech and the 10 Cs.
I think we should be protecting our brethren, free-speech and the over-literal interpretation of the 10 Cs be damned.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I think I've made clear more than once that my big problem is not people arguing against homosexuality in good faith, as frustrating as it may be.
My big problem is people who accuse ME of bad faith. Who assert that one cannot possibly arrive at a view in favour of homosexual relationships without ignoring the Bible / picking and choosing / not being a Christian / disobeying God.
That is not a recipe for debate. It is a pronouncement of judgement.
And yes, there may well be examples of pronouncement of judgement in the other direction as well. But this is where it starts, with people not coming to Dead Horses to have a debate but to announce a conclusion and to claim God's backing for it. And in doing so, to make pretty direct attacks on my integrity.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My big problem is people who accuse ME of bad faith. Who assert that one cannot possibly arrive at a view in favour of homosexual relationships without ignoring the Bible / picking and choosing / not being a Christian / disobeying God.
Or, indeed, people who assume that you haven't given some considerable thought over the years to this particular question.
There is a thin line between someone arguing that you must be being a bad Christian and ignoring the bits of the Bible that you don't like, and someone arguing that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and so therefore you have come to the wrong conclusions, and those conclusions are displeasing to God etc.
But the line is there, and I would happily argue for strong policing of that line.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There is a thin line between someone arguing that you must be being a bad Christian and ignoring the bits of the Bible that you don't like, and someone arguing that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and so therefore you have come to the wrong conclusions, and those conclusions are displeasing to God etc.
But the line is there, and I would happily argue for strong policing of that line.
Which side of that line are you saying is acceptable?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
It might help if people gave specific examples of what they think is acceptable and unacceptable.
For example:
a.) Gay sex is morally wrong
b.) Gay sex is morally wrong because it's non-procreative
c.) Gay sex is morally wrong because it's disgusting
d.) Gay people are sinners who should repent
e.) You are a sinner who should repent.
To my mind, (a) and (b) should be acceptable.
(e) is already prohibited.
(d) I think is allowed but probably shouldn't be. (If conservatives object, this is evidence that they are arguing in bad faith because they always say their problem is with the sin, not the sinner.)
(c) looks homophobic to me - it would be a challenge to draft a law that separates it from (b) but we do have lawyers on the ship plus an all-purpose 'don't be a jerk' rule.
Does this seem reasonable? I admit that all of this is easy for me to say as a straight man.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I dunno, how about we try rewording to see if it would work about some other issue. Let's try interracial sex.
a.) Interracial sex is morally wrong
b.) Interracial sex is morally wrong because it mixes genetics
c.) Interracial sex is morally wrong because it's disgusting
d.) Interracial people are sinners who should repent
e.) You are a sinner who should repent.
I'm not sure we'd see any of these as particularly acceptable. (b) sounds a bit reasonable because it contains [an element of] scientific truth, yet is fairly obviously code for racism. (c)(d) and (e) are just opinions that I don't think we'd allow to be constantly repeated.
Possibly we might just look strange at a poster that occasionally wrote something like (a) and consider it to be a weird belief akin to believing that tattoos are morally wrong.
Clearly some people think their identity is tied up with the idea that interracial sex is unChristian. I just don't think that'd get any truck here. I'm not sure why gay sex is much different.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I think if there was a significant body of people who thought interracial sex was wrong, and did so in apparent good faith, then we would not achieve anything by refusing to discuss it.
I'm not aware that anyone has ever suggested it on the Ship though.
(FWIW I do have a slight interest here in that my wife is half-Czech, which counts as a different race if you are a Nazi.)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think if there was a significant body of people who thought interracial sex was wrong, and did so in apparent good faith, then we would not achieve anything by refusing to discuss it.
That's an interesting point of view.
I'd say it is fairly clear who is pushing the theology that says interracial sex is a sin, and I think they're fairly obviously people we need to protect (in this example) non-white posters from.
[ 04. June 2017, 15:33: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
ISTM the Ship's rules are pragmatic. There is no a priori reason why some topics are Dead Horses and some are allowed in Purgatory. They are separated by how the Ship has found most effective to manage.
IOW, as long as interracial marriage remains a purely hypothetical scenario, there is no reason to rule on it.
The other aspect is that if any members of the KKK or the Christian Council of Britain did show up, then either they would have to leave at the door the behaviours that make them dangerous, or else they would be planked for some other reason (trolling, crusading, being a jerk).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which side of that line are you saying is acceptable?
The latter, although obviously deeply personal to a gay shipmate, is a discussion about theology, and to my mind is OK. Given that the subject is deeply personal to the gay shipmate, but not nearly so personal to the "gay sex is sin" shipmate, the latter should take extra care to avoid being a jerk.
The former is an accusation of bad faith, and certainly out of line outside Hell.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Maybe the time has come to remove Dead Horse topics from discussion on The Ship.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I would be deeply uncomfortable if we started to have any topic that couldn't be discussed on the Ship. One of the Unrestful things we have always done is to say that even subjects other Christian sites might rule off limits can be discussed here.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
The alternative is to allow Dead Horses to become a cesspool of homophobia with no relief except Hell. This was clear from Louise's recent hosting judgement.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
The problem might be non-homosexuals claiming a uniquely sinful status for gay sex, and on the other hand homosexuals insisting their sexual activities are devoid of any moral overtones. The most consistent theme in Jesus's reported words is that he didn't come to tell people what they thought they wanted to hear. That's as true of strangers as his most intimate followers, who he was happy to cut of at the knees when they thought they had him right. On that basis it's impossible to imagine Jesus saying getting on with it boys (and girls), as it is supporting the condemnation of homophobes. Christ was an equal opportunity saviour or He was nothing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would be deeply uncomfortable if we started to have any topic that couldn't be discussed on the Ship. One of the Unrestful things we have always done is to say that even subjects other Christian sites might rule off limits can be discussed here.
I have been thinking about this and I think you are wrong. There clearly are legal topics that some Christians believe and/or discuss which we would not tolerate here.
The truth is, I think, that we are a microcosm of people who generally speaking tolerate a range of beliefs within certain unwritten boundaries. We don't usually push those boundaries and I suspect that there would be considerable upset if anyone tried to.
Up to now, we have determined that discussions about the nature of homosexuals is a free hit for discussion. That we don't mind how often someone starts a thread or makes a post that clearly dehumanises and undermines a homosexual person (providing it is in the right place) - in a way that doesn't happen to others. If we had any regular Muslims posting, I don't think we would expect them to constantly be defending themselves on multiple threads that made all kinds of claims about them, their practices and so on. Such a person would contribute in the normal way and would be listened to rather than attacked. Even a person advocating polygamy of free sex would get an easier ride than the homosexual.
I say it is time for this to stop. We don't have to tolerate it. We don't have to pretend that we are a bastion of free speech or that we equally attack all views when the evidence of decades is in the archives.
I say that the poster who sometimes says something intelligent about the issues - but which is a bit offthewall - is fair. But the poster who spends all their time writing things about homosexual brethren which would be unacceptable about anyone else should be shown the door. I don't think there is a fine line, it is a thick and obvious line.
Tl;dr - several decades of these diacussions are enough. If someone wants to continue only posting stuff which undermines our homosexual brethren, they should be told to do it elsewhere.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
It's funny I think the temperature in DH is far cooler than it's ever been. No disrespect to anyone directly affected and their hurt or offence, but we had far more 'conservative' posters in the past, posting more often and arguably the exchanges were more intense. Take a look at the mega-thread in DH.
I suspect that it feels worse because the gap is wider between those posters and society at large, not to mention the 'average' Shipmate. I also wonder whether in such a climate the ones from that "side" of the debate who choose to remain on the Ship are necessarily the more extreme and therefore tactless/deliberately offensive in style?
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
I admire anyone whose lifestyle is in direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus - which is most of us - and still hangs in there. Most Brits have opted for secularism and fluff. If homosexuals are being singled out for their homosexuality I want to distance myself from it absolutely, I haven't been around long enough to know if that's the case, or people want to put the subject off limits because the circle can't be squared theologically.
The whole subject of human sexuality is fascinating and borderline impossible to adhere to according to tradition, but we keep trying, and for that alone you can all have a gold star. Nevertheless, if Jesus came to make people feel better about their choices he'd have ended up in the Senate, not nailed to a tree. Forgive us our trespasses.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I admire anyone whose lifestyle is in direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus - which is most of us - and still hangs in there.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]
Can you elaborate?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
No. Styx is a place to discuss board policy not your personal pet theology.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No. Styx is a place to discuss board policy not your personal pet theology.
Hang on a tick, you launched into a diatribe which attempted to remove human sexuality from the discourse because it had lead to bullying. I posted to distance myself from any personal sexual attacks, and you post a roll eye emoticon. I ask why and you say I'm promoting a pet theology. Nothing I've said is personal (I have no idea of your sexuality, nor care) neither is it "pet" by any interpretation of that term.
If the topic is boring because it's been done to death and the moderator wants it off the menu, I'll conform 100%, but so far all you've done is make a bunch of accusations none of which you've backed up. I'll ask you once again to elaborate, more in hope than expectation.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
It's funny I think the temperature in DH is far cooler than it's ever been. No disrespect to anyone directly affected and their hurt or offence, but we had far more 'conservative' posters in the past, posting more often and arguably the exchanges were more intense. Take a look at the mega-thread in DH.
True. Louise's unexceptional Hostly post, which triggered this thread, was I thought a timely response to a bit of temperature raising, which now appears to have calmed down.
And I repeat, it is good that we have Admin who regulate the application of Commandment 1, and oversee the application of Commandments 3 and 4, to balance unrest and acceptability. I'm sure they have noted what has been said here.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
[x-post re romanesque]
Respecting the hosts here, I am not replying. I think protecting my homosexual brethren on these boards is a different thing to launching into a diatribe about what is or isn't a "direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus".
The point of this discussion is not to assess what is or isn't the teaching of Jesus.
[ 06. June 2017, 14:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[x-post re romanesque]
Respecting the hosts here, I am not replying. I think protecting my homosexual brethren on these boards is a different thing to launching into a diatribe about what is or isn't a "direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus".
The point of this discussion is not to assess what is or isn't the teaching of Jesus.
Fair enough and I agree, I'm insufficiently familiar with forum taxonomy to know what goes where. I would like more meat on the bones of the other thread which accused my interpretation as being disgusting and shallow.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
romanesque, you may learn about what is appropriate for each board by reading the headers and the guidelines. Dead Horses is the only board where you may discuss the morality of homosexuality. Please cease to do so here.
RuthW
Admin
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
... The most consistent theme in Jesus's reported words is that he didn't come to tell people what they thought they wanted to hear. ...
Which, of course, cuts both ways.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at. If we're arguing a nuanced position on St. Paul, Leviticus, Revelations or whatever with someone from a different Christian persuasion, to find ten pages later the individual thinks the whole idea of the bible is flawed on the basis Jesus was actually a Klingon, the effort might deserve a different focus.
Others people might think it takes the fun out of the enterprise (sic), but something along the lines of Christian, other faith, agnostic, atheist, not-saying, don't know, with an appropriate symbol, would save time by offering a few simple assumptions, however tentative the building block.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at. If we're arguing a nuanced position on St. Paul, Leviticus, Revelations or whatever with someone from a different Christian persuasion, to find ten pages later the individual thinks the whole idea of the bible is flawed on the basis Jesus was actually a Klingon, the effort might deserve a different focus.
Just a thought: but if you bothered to read the thread you're posting on and bothered to engage with the people who are also contributing, you might actually know what they thought on the topic without needing symbols.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at.
Aside from the fact that many people may not wish to declare their allegiance in such a way (there's already a section in the profile that I usually find is not filled in when I bother to check), there's the practical matter of how to implement it. You may have noticed that the board software is ancient and creaky. It's not getting updated any time soon. So if something's not possible in the current software it's almost certainly not happening.
FWIW I think it's a shame that you were wrong-footed by your misperceptions of the nature of this site. I hope you stick around. It is a good place to debate ideas.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just a thought: but if you bothered to read the thread you're posting on and bothered to engage with the people who are also contributing, you might actually know what they thought on the topic without needing symbols. [/QB]
I don't see how. As a newbie all I see is an avatar and an attitude. If someone is arguing the textual and historic underpinnings of Leviticus, and their interlocutor announces they don't believe the bible holds any moral weight or divine inspiration, it promotes parsimony and people can politely agree to differ. If on the other hand they're getting increasingly wound up, making accusations and generally behaving erratically, it might takes pages to reach the same conclusion, with moderators all over it. I'm not yet sure what the purpose of the board is, exegesis, entertainment or spleen venting, and the vying strands and conflicting advice tweak my latent OCD tendencies.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Aside from the fact that many people may not wish to declare their allegiance in such a way (there's already a section in the profile that I usually find is not filled in when I bother to check), there's the practical matter of how to implement it. You may have noticed that the board software is ancient and creaky. It's not getting updated any time soon. So if something's not possible in the current software it's almost certainly not happening.
Like I said, just an idea and I did include don't know and not saying as essential to any such taxonomy. Thanks for the heads up re. the software, I'll keep it in mind.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It's basic manners. Most of us have been here for a long time, blustering in and flinging around wild and generalised claims about what we believe - which is easily established if you bother to take the time to read what any given contributor here has actually written on the thread - is plain rude.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
Thank you for engaging so honestly.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
If I'm not sure where someone is coming from, I either refrain from commenting or comment very specifically on something they've posted. I don't make any assumptions.
Moo
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at.
I am not sure why. A person of a particular view does not inherently know more about that view than someone who might disagree or have no opinion of the veracity of that view.
One can discuss the structure of a frame whether or not one believe the frame is viable.
To put it yet another way, one does not need to believe in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine to argue that including entropy is contra purpose.
pedantic note/
[sic] is used when quoting. /pedantic note
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
In real life, in person to person interactions, people do not generally wear tags identifying their viewpoints. One usually has to get to know them and learn what they believe. Why expect on-line interactions to be any different? Granted, real life interactions give more clues as to what the person is like, but it isn't infallible.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
But adding tags also tends to ignore the individual variations in views. Basically you'd have to assume that all Christians think alike, or, in finer groupings, all Baptists, all Catholics, all Anglicans, all Russian Orthodox, all Coptics, all Korean Presbyterians, all Malaysian Lutherans, all Evangelical Quakers, all Nawar Buddhists, etc. It doesn't require much investigation into any such group to discover conflicting schools of thought therein. Then, of course, you'd have to know where each of those groups stood on the issues you wanted to discuss to make any sense of the tags - it is totally impractical.
So you have to read what others write if you want to understand their perspective.
Part of the ethos of this site that keeps me interested is the high standard of debate: you can't just make a claim and expect everyone to agree with you. Shipmates hold a wide range of beliefs and perspectives, and will question, probe and provide counterexamples from many different directions. It's a wonderful place to learn, but a difficult place to make blanket statements and expect others to agree with them.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
There's a qualitative difference in my experience. People ask How Very Dare You of a newbie expressing any opinion that differs from their own. I don't think newcomers should expect to perform archaeology on the forum to know whether they might step on individual toes when the word Christianity infers a certain perspective, however broad.
There's enough difference within Christian theology to entertain and dismay without a poster having to take on board, nay indulge someone with views that don't recognise the validity of even the most tentative definition of that term. Experience thus far suggests expressing such a sentiment denotes the equivalent of denying Atheists, Agnostics, Satanists, Klingons and Hindus the right to life, never mind an opinion, when it's apparent (to me certainly) that I'm suggesting something that would save heat and light by avoiding misunderstandings.
Walking on eggshells to avoid offending the habitually offended is too much effort just to post on a forum. Political correctness is a poor replacement for good manners.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
There's a qualitative difference in my experience. People ask How Very Dare You of a newbie expressing any opinion that differs from their own. I don't think newcomers should expect to perform archaeology on the forum to know whether they might step on individual toes when the word Christianity infers a certain perspective, however broad.
Oh come on now. You made assumptions about the views of people you were wanting to engage with on several threads because you couldn't be arsed to flick back a few pages to find out what they'd actually written. The problem here isn't with anyone except you.
It is nothing about your opinion, it is about your clumsy way of expressing it.
quote:
There's enough difference within Christian theology to entertain and dismay without a poster having to take on board, nay indulge someone with views that don't recognise the validity of even the most tentative definition of that term. Experience thus far suggests expressing such a sentiment denotes the equivalent of denying Atheists, Agnostics, Satanists, Klingons and Hindus the right to life, never mind an opinion, when it's apparent (to me certainly) that I'm suggesting something that would save heat and light by avoiding misunderstandings.
You seem to think This Is A Christian Website. Wrong.
quote:
Walking on eggshells to avoid offending the habitually offended is too much effort just to post on a forum. Political correctness is a poor replacement for good manners.
No.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
You seem to think This Is A Christian Website. Wrong.
Yes, that was a howler on my part. All the trappings suggest it's predicated on the possibility of Christianity as a working hypothesis, so I'm forgiving myself. I'm undecided as yet whether the site was once a broadly Christian one but has been colonised by siren voices that would rather it wasn't, is liberal to a degree that includes Alain de Botton's Atheist Church as fully on message with scripture, or the Christian details are a kind of running joke on a secular website.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I'm undecided as yet whether the site was once a broadly Christian one but has been colonised by siren voices that would rather it wasn't, is liberal to a degree that includes Alain de Botton's Atheist Church as fully on message with scripture, or the Christian details are a kind of running joke on a secular website.
The fact that this site is called "Ship of Fools, the magazine of Christian unrest" should tell you that it was never intended to be a broadly Christian website. The introductions at the top of each board should also make that clear.
Moo
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
... I don't think newcomers should expect to perform archaeology on the forum to know whether they might step on individual toes ...
Time spent listening / reading isn't archaeology, it's basic good manners when introducing oneself to any group or community.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
... I don't think newcomers should expect to perform archaeology on the forum to know whether they might step on individual toes ...
Time spent listening / reading isn't archaeology, it's basic good manners when introducing oneself to any group or community.
True of a gentleman's club, not necessarily true of an internet site. Will I be blackballed, jump ship or settle into a comfortably worn chair and pass the port?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
True of a gentleman's club, not necessarily true of an internet site. Will I be blackballed, jump ship or settle into a comfortably worn chair and pass the port?
I wouldn't support you getting planked (not my call anyway), but if you continue in the way you've started, you'll likely find the experience one that is unfulfilling because the community here refuses to conform to your expectations of them.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
... I don't think newcomers should expect to perform archaeology on the forum to know whether they might step on individual toes ...
Time spent listening / reading isn't archaeology, it's basic good manners when introducing oneself to any group or community.
True of a gentleman's club, not necessarily true of an internet site.
Why should an internet site be any different to any other group of humans i.e. have group norms?
When joining any new group it's a good idea to figure out what those norms are - even if you eventually want to challenge them.
The reaction you've gotten, or feel you've gotten, has less to do with you having expressed views that are beyond the pale here, and more to do with misreading the room.
Take a breath. Lurk for a while. Dive back in.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
True of a gentleman's club, not necessarily true of an internet site. Will I be blackballed, jump ship or settle into a comfortably worn chair and pass the port?
I wouldn't support you getting planked (not my call anyway), but if you continue in the way you've started, you'll likely find the experience one that is unfulfilling because the community here refuses to conform to your expectations of them.
As I've said nothing that is racist, sexist and only used bad language when it became manifestly clear it was the norm, even for admin, I see no reason why holding an opinion should see me banned. If the site is comprised of delicate sensibilities who require submission to a pecking order, they won't need an excuse to give me the boot. My intention isn't to offend, but that's based on outside world definitions of the term, and this site may have a different ethos. No one as yet is letting on what the agenda is, never mind the subtext, so I assume it's centred around an acceptance of if not subscription to, Christianity. If it's actually an aggressively secular site for recovering religionists, that will no doubt become apparent.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
As we've said, it isn't the opinion but the way you express yourself.
It helps to reply to what people say not what they don't.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
I'm not sure who "we" are, but is there anywhere else we can take this discussion, as it's departing from forum news and announcements and into forum philosophy and personal "attitudes"?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suggest you have a look here.
Particularly guideline 2. It's a matter for the Styx Hosts of course, but maybe you hadn't looked at the present Styx guidelines?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I'm not sure who "we" are, but is there anywhere else we can take this discussion, as it's departing from forum news and announcements and into forum philosophy and personal "attitudes"?
I do hope you're going to hang around for another 17 posts.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suggest you have a look here.
Particularly guideline 2. It's a matter for the Styx Hosts of course, but maybe you hadn't looked at the present Styx guidelines?
Thanks for the heads up, I had looked at the 10 commandments early on and at face value they're entirely sensible. Wielded partially, they're a license to kill but that's true of any code of behaviour in the wrong hands. Until someone proves otherwise I'm happy to trust the rules are implemented with good will and a sense of humour.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Why should an internet site be any different to any other group of humans i.e. have group norms?
It shouldn't.
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
If the site is comprised of delicate sensibilities who require submission to a pecking order, they won't need an excuse to give me the boot.
There is no "pecking order" beyond the running of the site. Owners, Admins and hosts. The rest of us are all the same level.
quote:
My intention isn't to offend, but that's based on outside world definitions of the term, and this site may have a different ethos.
This site has the same definition of offend that anywhere else has. SOF permissions to offend might be different to where you have been previously.
quote:
No one as yet is letting on what the agenda is, never mind the subtext, so I assume it's centred around an acceptance of if not subscription to, Christianity. If it's actually an aggressively secular site for recovering religionists, that will no doubt become apparent.
I could be wrong, but I see a pattern of what could be interpreted as provocative phrasing. Such as this.
Reads all very "wink, wink, nudge, nudge".
[ 09. June 2017, 15:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
someone who said to gay people in my workplace the kind of things that get posted on this board to gay shipmates would get disciplined by HR and sacked if they kept it up. Yet I'm meant to tell gay people off for getting personally irate with them!
The Ship is a unique and special place.
Most real-life discussions are with friends or colleagues, where not offending anybody is far more important than being philosophically or theologically right.
Some of us have been coming here a long time, for the opportunity to engage with political / religious/ philosophical issues in a certain spirit of heroic seriousness (that is found in Chesterton, for example).
The hosts in general do a really good job of refereeing the match, stepping in when in the heat of the moment people are tempted to play the man and not the ball.
Seems to me that's the line that you're meant to draw.
And that does mean that those who want to blur that line - who so identify with a cause that they take contrary views as personal affront - need to be reminded of the rules more often.
I'd hate to see the Ship renege on its position of open debate - all views welcome if you're prepared to argue for them - and capituate to the spirit of the age.
Is there perhaps a need to rotate the hosts between the Dead Horse board and the others, so that you guys get a break from the small number of never-ending topics that are discovered anew by each new intake of Shipmates ?
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Romanesque, most, though not all, of the posters here are Christians of some variety, but they are very varied in their opinions and theology. It seems to me that you had expected most of the posters to more-or-less share your view of Christianity, hence your confusion. Read around the various threads a bit, and you'll get more of a sense of the flavor of this place.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is there perhaps a need to rotate the hosts between the Dead Horse board and the others, so that you guys get a break from the small number of never-ending topics that are discovered anew by each new intake of Shipmates ?
If I couldn't take a joke, I shouldn't have joined!
Seriously. not on current posting volumes. From time to time, we get these discussions about the format and scope of DH, and from time to time, often with relatively new members, we get these kinds of misunderstandings about how Hosting and Admin work here (and over ITTWACWS!). But these tend to be unusual patches of busyness.
DH is not in general all that fiery, requiring a lot of Host intervention. And skimming for 10C violations is not onerous despite the narrow range of topics.
Louise has been doing this for the longest; I'm a relative newbie (2 or 3 years I think), as is John Holding. Three Hosts for current volumes is pretty generous, helps us to cope with any risks of boredom or impatience. There is a bit of the "same old same old", but not as much as you might suppose.
Mind you, if any of our existing Hosts wanted to offer any of us "duty of care" holidays, I doubt whether any of us would say no!
[ 10. June 2017, 08:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Romanesque, most, though not all, of the posters here are Christians of some variety, but they are very varied in their opinions and theology. It seems to me that you had expected most of the posters to more-or-less share your view of Christianity, hence your confusion. Read around the various threads a bit, and you'll get more of a sense of the flavor of this place.
You are mistaken in your view Nicolemr. While I subscribe to a metaphysical world view based on a broad reading of philosophy, religion and life experience, I'm absolutely not here to preach it brother sister. I am interested in unpicking the strands of beliefs generally, including my own and seeing how many stay intact.
I've read the Mystery Worshipper column for a while and thoroughly enjoyed it. Unless it's framed in impenetrably ironic parentheses that eluded me, it seems to take pleasure in Christian worship at least sentimentally, and I assumed the forum reflected a similar mind set. So it's as a turn up to be told the forum does not take Christianity as any kind of reference point, even as a negative. There's an implicit good natured humour in Mystery Worshipper that doesn't come across in the forum, which seem to default to an adversarial mode that borders on a war footing. Whether this is because I haven't put sufficient sugar on my offerings to please, or vinegar is the only spice internet forums apply nowadays, I can't tell. Whether this is all-about-me as people are suggesting and belongs elsewhere, or is a forum issue for The Styx I don't know, but it seems uncomfortably close to a personal spat cluttering up the workings of the board.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
romanesque - Mystery Worship reports are discussed in Ecclesiantics and the whole tone of that board is a wry humour about church and church worship.
Different boards have different flavours. Purgatory and Dead Horses tend to be for intelligent debate without many assumptions made, and an expectation that arguments can be backed up. I often read on my phone while commuting and will not click on arguments made by links to long YouTube clips, and those links break up the discussion. It's better that the protagonists can summarise the argument in their own words. Also on a long thread you may find that much has already been discussed in the previous pages. In Dead Horses, those of us who have been posting on that thread for the last five years may well not be want to engage, again, with an strand of the debate that was discussed four years ago.
There are a number of regular debaters in Purgatory and Dead Horses who are not Christian. There was an influx of atheists when the Dawkins boards folded, and some of those people are still involved. And then there are the people who came here to discuss their doubts / feelings about the Christian faith they were experiencing. When I joined the Ship, I read that many doubters either ended up no longer Christian or Orthodox, and there is a degree of truth in that.
If you want frivolous, try the Circus or Heaven, but don't expect it to be all Christian, because it won't be. Particularly if you expect a certain flavour of Christianity.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
There's an implicit good natured humour in Mystery Worshipper that doesn't come across in the forum, which seem to default to an adversarial mode that borders on a war footing.
I think this is more the case then it used to be, maybe reflecting the political polarisation of US society, spreading to the internet at large, between progressives and conservatives.
What this thread is about seems to be whether the Ship can good-humouredly accommodate the spectrum of views on homosexuality, or whether it will in effect come down on the progressive side by deeming any contrary opinion to violate the rules of civilised discourse between individuals.
If we allow Thunderbunk's approach to apply to all issues - "I identify as a Methodist so any negative view of Methodism is something I'm entitled to take as a personal attack to which I want to be allowed to respond with personal abuse" - then it's hard to see how the Ship could continue.
No-one's suggesting that this should apply to all issues. Yet. But it would set a precedent...
Progressivism is too big a topic to tackle here. But part of it involves the idea of social change as a ratchet, that people have some sort of moral duty to keep up with.
Some of us reject this doctrine.
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
romanesque - Mystery Worship reports are discussed in Ecclesiantics and the whole tone of that board is a wry humour about church and church worship.
Different boards have different flavours. Purgatory and Dead Horses tend to be for intelligent debate without many assumptions made, and an expectation that arguments can be backed up. I often read on my phone while commuting and will not click on arguments made by links to long YouTube clips, and those links break up the discussion. It's better that the protagonists can summarise the argument in their own words. Also on a long thread you may find that much has already been discussed in the previous pages. In Dead Horses, those of us who have been posting on that thread for the last five years may well not be want to engage, again, with an strand of the debate that was discussed four years ago.
There are a number of regular debaters in Purgatory and Dead Horses who are not Christian. There was an influx of atheists when the Dawkins boards folded, and some of those people are still involved. And then there are the people who came here to discuss their doubts / feelings about the Christian faith they were experiencing. When I joined the Ship, I read that many doubters either ended up no longer Christian or Orthodox, and there is a degree of truth in that.
If you want frivolous, try the Circus or Heaven, but don't expect it to be all Christian, because it won't be. Particularly if you expect a certain flavour of Christianity.
Thanks for the reply, particularly the detail about the influx of atheists and the role of SoF in confirming doubt. Also the resistance to links, all of which I'll bear in mind.
Taking replies in the round, it seems I'm being accused of preaching and frivolity. Perhaps it's because I've never seen religious belief as an impermeable and unqualified set of rules to which unquestioning assent has to be offered - and I view science in the same way incidentally - but a doubt filled negotiation with a numinous that's unavoidable. Of course that alone may rub people up the wrong way something rotten, some because I'm a wishy-washy liberal, others because I'm an idolater, and quite a few for having the cheek to suggest the numinous is even a concept, never mind a fact. I don't mind taking flak from multiple positions at once, but I do deny that I'm deliberately provoking it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think you're just getting to know this place, its ethos, its customs and its various people. Speaking as someone who has been here for a dozen years, and remembering back, that can be pretty confusing. I can remember getting shot at a few times (all within the rules) for ways in which I expressed myself that had got, all unknowing by me, under people's skins. Well, you live and learn.
After the first few cuts, I did wonder if I should stay. But I got this intuitive feeling that membership here was going to be good for me and I might be able to do a bit of good myself. That's proved to be right. I'm more aware of variations in belief, and why they exist, I've become better at engaging with folks whose views are markedly different to my own. And I feel warm about this cybercommunity and grateful for the experiences of being here.
I suppose in the end, that's what it gets around to. Always a personal choice. All the best with yours. I hope you feel able to stay and see how you get on.
[ 11. June 2017, 10:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think this is more the case then it used to be, maybe reflecting the political polarisation of US society, spreading to the internet at large, between progressives and conservatives.
Absolutely, and there's a conceptual and practical problem of religious language struggling to transcend a political lexicon. For those who see everything through the prism of politics, everything is indeed political, but I would seriously argue against religion, especially Christianity succumbing to the same impulse. I don't recognise anything in scripture that remotely points to a party political reading of Jesus, yet almost all traditions, not least my own, explain Christianity in terms of liberal, conservative, progressive, traditional and similar polemics.
It's impossible to discuss the transcendent when the terms of reference are anchored in the language of the tribal.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What this thread is about seems to be whether the Ship can good-humouredly accommodate the spectrum of views on homosexuality, or whether it will in effect come down on the progressive side by deeming any contrary opinion to violate the rules of civilised discourse between individuals.
If we allow Thunderbunk's approach to apply to all issues - "I identify as a Methodist so any negative view of Methodism is something I'm entitled to take as a personal attack to which I want to be allowed to respond with personal abuse" - then it's hard to see how the Ship could continue.
You are suggesting that homosexuality is equivalent to churchmanship. If however we believe that homosexuality is an unchangeable part of someone, like race, then Thunderbunk's argument reads:
I identify as black so any negative view of blacks I am entitled to take as racism to which I think should be regarded as an offence against Ship rules
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I have responded to Russ further in Hell
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
What I have always wondered is given that homosexuality is a Dead Horse issue, does that prevent people starting related positive threads? Eg. a 'How are you celebrating Pride Week' thread in Heaven or 'Support for a Christian who is coming out' thread in All Saints. I'm heterosexual but supportive of gay and trans rights and gay marriage and one of my brothers is gay. Sometimes I've wanted to discuss something relevant to gay rights or issues on the ship, but didn't feel comfortable posting in Dead Horses. It's hard to explain my discomfort, but it just seems that some discussions would be better off in All Saints or Heaven where LGBT etc. posters and their supporters can't be attacked for their 'unbiblical' views while trying to have a heavenly conversation or seek support.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
That's a good question.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
From memory, we used to have Gay Pride event threads in All Saints which were akin to local Shipmeets. Not sure how clear the wording makes it, but the DH corral is essentially there for serious discussions. It's not intended as a universal corral.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
The DH rules say "Dead Horses is really an extension of Purgatory"...
Plus, threads about "who's doing X for Pride", and so on aren't really discussions in the way that that is meant on the boards. I see no problem with the kinds of threads that Mili suggested - none of them is a "discussion", and none of them invites "discussion".
For those shipmates who are of the opinion that being gay and being Christian aren't compatible, the proper response to a "help coming out" thread in All Saints is to ignore it.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Thanks for the clarification. I've been on the Ship a long time, but did not know these distinctions, so it's good to know and for anyone else that might have been unsure as well.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd hate to see the Ship renege on its position of open debate - all views welcome if you're prepared to argue for them
Much though I sympathise with the OP of this thread, I have to say - in my personal capacity as just another member of this board - that I agree with this comment.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd hate to see the Ship renege on its position of open debate - all views welcome if you're prepared to argue for them
Much though I sympathise with the OP of this thread, I have to say - in my personal capacity as just another member of this board - that I agree with this comment.
The topics are. What is under discussion is the how, not the if.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I'm just asking for a truly level playing field. Look at the thread now if you're still wondering why I regard apparently theological arguments as being very thinly veiled personal attacks from which the gossamer covering needs to be torn.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is not a level playing field. It isn't that I do not understand and share your frustrations. Biblical justification for anti-homosexuality is mind-numbingly hypocritical, irrational, illogical and anti-Jesus.
I was not certain if you were referring to this thread, on which postings have degenerated, or one in DH. So I looked down there. OMG. OMFG.
I cannot reply to that in DH so a Hell call is in order.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0