What happened to Hile Troy's Think Tank?

Free, open, general chat on any topic.

Moderators: Orlion, balon!, aliantha

Post Reply
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I propose we stop. I, at least, am done. We aren't going to move forward by continually digging at this stuff. We have a chance. Let's take it.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
kevinswatch
"High" Lord
Posts: 5584
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: In the dark, lonely cave that dwells within my eternal soul of despair. It's next to a Pizza Hut.
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by kevinswatch »

And you all really wonder why I deleted the Tank. :haha: :haha: :haha:

-jay
User avatar
SerScot
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4678
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:37 pm

Post by SerScot »

kevinswatch wrote:And you all really wonder why I deleted the Tank. :haha: :haha: :haha:

-jay
:(
"Futility is the defining characteristic of life. Pain is proof of existence" - Thomas Covenant
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

There is no question that these issues are contentious. Of course I can feel the tension; I'm not blind to it, and I don't like, either. But the only way to say that this is not civil is to side with one belief system against the other, agreeing with the idea that repudiating a belief system is tantamount to an insult. There is no softer way to describe my disagreement with the actions of the Catholic Church [honestly, I'd take suggestions if you can think of one].

But this is a religious/philosophical issue. We're not even talking politics anymore. If what I've said is an example of incivility that has justified deleting the Tank, then we've got to delete the Close, too.

This is a civil discussion about the parameters of civility.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
StevieG
Andelanian
Posts: 5814
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:47 pm
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post by StevieG »

The key here is what you said earlier, which I strongly agree with:

Any post that references a member instead of their words gets deleted.

I'd add: any post that references a member in order to denigrate them gets deleted.

We can work it out organically in Fist's forum. Wos's posting style defends his ideology, but does not attack a particular poster. The important part of this is to have the discipline to either ignore it if you have no interest in it, or respond to it without a specific attack on Wos.

I was brought up in a strong Catholic environment - rebelled in my mid-teens. I relate strongly to the deception and brainwashing that tortured me as a young person. I have strong feelings about the corruption of religious fanaticism, BUT I will not abuse a poster personally for their beliefs, unless they are shoving down my throat directly. Even then, I will attack their position only.

As I said before, I'm optimistic about the Current Events thread. All going well, it will get unwieldy with the diversity of topics and we will be forced to create a political forum to keep the topics on their own.
Hugs and sh!t ~ lucimay

I think you're right ~ TheFallen
Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

StevieG wrote:The key here is what you said earlier, which I strongly agree with:

Any post that references a member instead of their words gets deleted.

I'd add: any post that references a member in order to denigrate them gets deleted.
I don't think we need the second, in light of the first?


Zarathustra wrote:
Avatar wrote:So we've gone from "I'm allowed to legitimately criticise something" to "I'm allowed to insult people?"
We merely disagree on whether it's an insult. The most negative definition of 'woke' I could find from Merriam Webster was this:

politically liberal (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme


Is that really insulting? Or just criticism? I feel that we've already established that "lie" isn't insulting, it's just part of what atheists believe about religion in general. So I disagree that there was any problem in the original statement.
Why not say "unreasonable" or "extreme"?

Zarathustra wrote:
Avatar wrote: And while I'm all in favour of criticism, I'm not such a big fan of trying somebody for things somebody else did.
Wos has never uttered a single word against the Catholic Church's handling of the child predators in its midst. Instead, he has used child predators or those who protected child predators as moral authorities in his posts, which is what he was criticized for. So no one is trying him for things somebody else did. He is free to distance himself from their crimes by condemning them, but he does the opposite; he venerates them. That's a legitimate reason for criticism . . . if I venerated members of the KKK, I would expect the same.
In the Current Events thread, you would have to remove any references to Wos.
Zarathustra wrote:
Avatar wrote:(And wouldn't calling the pope the antichrist be sorta a religious sentiment? :D )
Yes, that was my point. It's a legitimate religious position to take, as much as any other religious position.
Until the Pope joins the Watch, you can say this in the Current Events thread.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

As I predicted.
The definition of "woke" changes depending on who you ask. The term has recently been used by some conservatives as an insult against progressive values. [ABC News]

Among conservatives, "woke" has been adopted as term of derision for those who hold progressive social justice views. In particular, the word's right-wing connotation implies a "woke" person or entity is being performative or phony. [NBC News]

“Woke� is the most popular four-letter word in the conservative culture wars these days. Republicans appropriated it from the African American community, where it describes someone aware of racial injustice. However, conservatives describe “wokeism� as a “mind virus,� an “intolerant and moralizing ideology,� and even a “cruel and dangerous cult.� [The Hill]
"Woke", the way conservatives use it, is both an insult and a propaganda meme. Unreservedly without question.

And pretending it's not insulting when it is in order to get it "allowed" is a bit underhanded.
.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

That's where I was headed with my question about using "unreasonable" or "extreme" instead. "Woke" is name-calling. Like "sheep." It's intended as an insult. If it doesn't carry more meaning than "unreasonable," then why not say "unreasonable"? It's because it does carry more meaning. Don't try to tell me anyone using it does not intend insult.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9194
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

While I agree there has to be a framework to keep any discussion of current events (or politics) civil, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to not inadvertently use terms that cant be seen as "personal' or insulting. It doesn't help that they terms like "woke" are constantly changing and not everyone is keeping up with those changes.

I don't think we start with trying to scrub all terms that might be considered negative to some other group unless that term has a nearly universal ban. We all know that if we use terms that denigrate another race then that is unacceptable. But we have to be careful or we will find that instead of talking events or politics, that we are instead defending (or reporting to mods) the use of terms that are commonly used to describe aspects of our society. In fact as I was writing this, I used terms in my first draft that I took out because I didn't to sidebar then entire thing into that kind of discussion.

Also it will take time to get used to not putting everyone in the same box. All liberals are not the same. All conservatives are not the same. All Republicans are not the same. All Democrats are not the same. But its so easy to frame our debates in a "black or white" framework and lump everyone into a "you are either for it or against it", because there are some grey areas in between that we will have commonality in.

Where am I going with this? Lets be careful about being so stringent that we cant even have a discussion while keeping the reins on personal attacks against others. Its not impossible unless we make the box so small that no discussion can occur.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9194
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Zarathustra wrote:There is no question that these issues are contentious. Of course I can feel the tension; I'm not blind to it, and I don't like, either.
I agree with this yet in many ways we aren't challenged to learn and change our views until we are made uncomfortable when someone challenges us. Sometimes the contentious nature makes us look inward and realize that we are uncomfortable because a long held belief is not holding up to scrutiny. But we typically only get that when we have those "difficult conversations".
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

I’m not denying that ‘woke’ has a negative connotation. But ‘woke world of lies’ is about a belief system, not a member of the Watch. A belief system can’t be insulted. I could call that belief system ‘BS’ if I wanted, and that’s certainly more harsh than the original quote.

We have never even considered rules against how we describe belief systems before now, and I’m honestly shocked that people here are leaping to the defense. Would you do so if it was my belief system? Of course not. You can call my beliefs fascist or racist or whatever you want without consequence.

Did I mention Wos? Yes, because he mentioned himself and made himself the subject of discussion as an example of things that shouldn’t be said. In the interest of defining those lines, I have challenged his reasoning. With our current rule of not mentioning each other (in the current events thread) all of this is moot so I’m not sure why he brought it up, except as a way to complain about past behavior. But even under the previous rules, there is a world of difference between ‘go fuck a sheep’ and ‘quoting specific members of the Catholic Church as moral authorities who themselves have been charged in child predator cases is a morally dubious argument.’ The former is an insult, the latter is not.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Good posts, SB.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7376
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

Do the official debate rules that Syl once tried to promote and enforce in the Tank take care of all these questions and issues?

I don't know, I didn't read them a the time. Seemed boring to me. :lol:
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

The first post of the Current Events thread has the rules of the thread, which is the only place we can discuss such things at the moment. Nothing about Syl's debate rules.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Zarathustra wrote:Wos, I can be anti-Catholic if I want (and I do). If I think supporting the Catholic Church is evil (and I do), I can say so. It’s a belief system. No belief system is beyond criticism. You don’t cease existing just because I criticize your beliefs.

[…]

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

… But the only way to say that this is not civil is to side with one belief system against the other, agreeing with the idea that repudiating a belief system is tantamount to an insult. …

We have never even considered rules against how we describe belief systems …

[…]

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

I’m not denying that ‘woke’ has a negative connotation. But ‘woke world of lies’ is about a belief system, not a member of the Watch. A belief system can’t be insulted. …

[…]
Although belief is a component, Catholicism is not reducible to a "belief system". Just up-&-deciding one day to mentally affirm the boxes on some checklist of beliefs doesn't thereby — *poof!* — make one a Catholic.

What matters vis-à-vis Catholic Identity is Catholic self-understanding — Catholic lived realty — and not the Zarsplaining of "what Catholicism really is" and why, therefore, Catholics "can't be insulted".


Image


Image
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

If someone is a Catholic, and you go out of your way to insult Catholics right in front of them, then you ARE insulting them AND being underhanded about it.

If someone is a Catholic, and you go out of your way to insult Catholics right in front of them, and you try to pass this off as civil discussion, then you ARE insulting them AND being underhanded about it AND actively subverting the decency of the system.

But most importantly,

If you argument relies on insulting people in order to articulate it, it's not an argument at all, it's ad ad hominem piece of garbage that is just an insult posing as an argument.
.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Saying that the actions of the Catholic Church are evil when they covered up child predators isn't an insult. That's what they *did.* I can have an opinion on those facts. The presence of a member of that church ("right in front of them") doesn't take away my right to have an opinion.

I'm not going out of my way to insult. You two are going out of your way to describe it as an insult. If no one can mention this, then any organization can get away with covering up crimes and no one is allowed to say anything about it. That's not civility, it's helping the organization cover it up.

Wos, regardless of how you define the Church, "woke world of lies" didn't refer to you as a person, so it can't possibly be an insult to you. Belief systems, churches, public figures, etc. aren't members of the Watch, so saying something negative about them doesn't insult any member of the Watch, no matter how much you don't like those things being said.

I can go to the Close right now and start a thread titled, "I believe the Catholic Church is Evil." There are no rules against it. It's a legitimate religious/philosophical position. Characterizing it as an insult is the personal attack. You both feel justified in saying I did something wrong, merely because I've said a church did something wrong, but why are you two the only ones allowed to make an accusation of wrongdoing? Why is yours the righteous position, when you are trying to silence someone who is criticizing child predators? I can't believe it's controversial to say that covering up sex crimes against children is wrong. Is there anyone here who disagrees with that statement?
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
SerScot
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4678
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:37 pm

Post by SerScot »

Zarathustra wrote:Saying that the actions of the Catholic Church are evil when they covered up child predators isn't an insult. That's what they *did.* I can have an opinion on those facts. The presence of a member of that church ("right in front of them") doesn't take away my right to have an opinion.

I'm not going out of my way to insult. You two are going out of your way to describe it as an insult. If no one can mention this, then any organization can get away with covering up crimes and no one is allowed to say anything about it. That's not civility, it's helping the organization cover it up.

Wos, regardless of how you define the Church, "woke world of lies" didn't refer to you as a person, so it can't possibly be an insult to you. Belief systems, churches, public figures, etc. aren't members of the Watch, so saying something negative about them doesn't insult any member of the Watch, no matter how much you don't like those things being said.

I can go to the Close right now and start a thread titled, "I believe the Catholic Church is Evil." There are no rules against it. It's a legitimate religious/philosophical position. Characterizing it as an insult is the personal attack. You both feel justified in saying I did something wrong, merely because I've said a church did something wrong, but why are you two the only ones allowed to make an accusation of wrongdoing? Why is yours the righteous position, when you are trying to silence someone who is criticizing child predators? I can't believe it's controversial to say that covering up sex crimes against children is wrong. Is there anyone here who disagrees with that statement?
Take care that you don’t condemn all Catholics for the actions of some Roman Catholic hierarchy.
"Futility is the defining characteristic of life. Pain is proof of existence" - Thomas Covenant
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7376
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

Z, I think it's more about semantics and blanket statements that offends people.

I'm guilty of doing it plenty of times, especially about the catholic church regarding how court settlements and news stories have revealed how a large amount of clergy and some members have denied and covered up what I believe to be an obscene amount of child raping and abuse.

See, I wrote that in a way that shouldn't be offensive to anyone by using terms that focus on those that are guilty and not a blanket statement about the whole church and all of it's members.

"Some Democrats" rather than Democrats.
Likewise for Republicans.

"I believe" and "I think" rather than declarations.

I don't know if that helps or adds to the discussion but it seems to me that that is where people are getting all pissed off about.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Zarathustra wrote:Saying that the actions of the Catholic Church are evil when they covered up child predators isn't an insult. That's what they *did.* I can have an opinion on those facts. The presence of a member of that church ("right in front of them") doesn't take away my right to have an opinion.
Entirely correct.
Zarathustra wrote:Wos, regardless of how you define the Church, "woke world of lies" didn't refer to you as a person, so it can't possibly be an insult to you. Belief systems, churches, public figures, etc. aren't members of the Watch, so saying something negative about them doesn't insult any member of the Watch, no matter how much you don't like those things being said.
'Catholics are servants of Lucifer who are leading people into "a woke world of lies"' is the problem. And it's not allowed in the Current Events thread.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion Forum”