I'm sick of this forum.

[Milton Platt]

There is too much hatred and bigotry on this site. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, bashing Muslims, bashing Jews, etc. It's way out of hand here. In one thread, you have a poster accusing transgender people of being mentally ill sexual predators and in another, you have a poster going on an anti-black racist rant (with a "like" from a staff member, no less!). And that's only what I've seen tonight. It's getting to the point where I do not feel this is a welcoming or respectful message board. I have more productive and respectful discussions on Facebook. At least there I do not have to pretend to be nice to people who obviously see me as subhuman.

This site needs to change and do better. I really don't want to leave this site as I have friends here and good memories, but I often find myself angry, hurt and sad reading posts on this site. I really wonder why I bother when this place can be so toxic. I just wanted to air my concerns. It's something that's been on my mind for awhile.

Yeah, all of what you said........but that is the very reason for rational heads to participate. Otherwise, it just becomes a huge echo chamber for the racists, homophobes, and general rabble.
Every now and then, someone begins to self-reflect because of the interactions. It may be long after the interaction takes place, but it does happen to a modest extent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't want to.

You're compelled to believe that abuse is OK when you
agree with the abusers....against your own wishes?
This makes no sense.

 

[Father Heathen]

You're compelled to believe that abuse is OK when you
agree with the abusers....against your own wishes?
This makes no sense.

Of course that makes no sense, because that's not what I'm saying.

 

[columbus]

There is too much hatred and bigotry on this site.

Then why do you keep posting here and abusing the other members?
Tom

 

[savagewind]

Is @Lvcifer Invictvs @Frankenstein? They call him "Frank".

 

[columbus]

Is @Lvcifer Invictvs @Frankenstein? They call him "Frank".

Yep
Tom

 

[Curious George]

Yep
Tom

Technically no. He used to have user name Saint Frankenstein and long contributed to rf. I have no idea who @Frankenstein is.

 

[columbus]

Technically no. He used to have user name Saint Frankenstein and long contributed to rf. I have no idea who @Frankenstein is.

"He"?
You don't know who that is?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course that makes no sense, because that's not what I'm saying.

Good.
Who are you saying is saying it?

 

[savagewind]

Technically no. He used to have user name Saint Frankenstein and long contributed to rf. I have no idea who @Frankenstein is.

So, a perfect memory I have not. Not even close.

 

[savagewind]

Technically no. He used to have user name Saint Frankenstein and long contributed to rf. I have no idea who @Frankenstein is.

But, cute is good. I shall not rate the post for the reason that cute is not there.

 

[Father Heathen]

Good.
Who are you saying is saying it?

You say that people should oppose abusive vitriol, yet you have patted some on the back for spewing it. So which is it?

 

[savagewind]

You say that people should oppose abusive vitriol, yet you have patted some on the back for spewing it. So which is it?

We are all for patting on the back, except for one, of course. You KNOW who you are.

 

[icehorse]

Let me get this straight, putting some ideas above discussion leads to violence ? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

What about subjects below discussion ? I have no desire to discuss necrophilia,for example. Is that being dogmatic ?

Sorry for the slow response, somehow I missed this post...

Let's take sectarian violence as an example. In the case of Islam, there are two groups Sunni and Shia, that have been at war with each other for 1400 years! Why? Because both groups hold certain ideas that they simply will not compromise on. Both groups hold these ideas as being above discussion, so the only way for them to attempt to resolve the conflict is through violence.

 

[icehorse]

No, you are missing the point by thinking it's "nothing more than words." Autistic children are often bullied and harassed (and the letter going around the internet from someone complaining about the "awful wailing" is real). They don't need to "man up," society needs a serious attitude readjustment.

Here's the dilemma I see:

- On the one hand the world would be a better place if we all treated each other well - no argument there.
- But on the other hand there are bad ideas in the world and there are bad actors in the world. Free speech - while not perfect - is one of our most powerful tools to combat bad ideas and bad actors.

So it seems to me that the benefits of free speech far, far, far outweigh the downsides (e.g.hate speech). And often things like "hate speech" aren't really hate speech at all but are instead just criticism of cherished ideas. So, of course we shouldn't bully and harass the weak, but we can't throw the free speech baby out with the bath water and be quick to censor harsh criticism.

 

[icehorse]

I never said that criticizing posts is wrong, but name calling and bashing is, and it’s a rule violation. Not sure what this has to do with guns.

As I said earlier, I haven't really seen that on this forum, and I find that strange because I would have thought that the forums I frequent would be where stuff like that might come up?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here's the dilemma I see:

- On the one hand the world would be a better place if we all treated each other well - no argument there.
- But on the other hand there are bad ideas in the world and there are bad actors in the world. Free speech - while not perfect - is one of our most powerful tools to combat bad ideas and bad actors.

So it seems to me that the benefits of free speech far, far, far outweigh the downsides (e.g.hate speech). And often things like "hate speech" aren't really hate speech at all but are instead just criticism of cherished ideas. So, of course we shouldn't bully and harass the weak, but we can't throw the free speech baby out with the bath water and be quick to censor harsh criticism.

It's nothing to do with free speech or hate speech, but the fact society collectively deserves a ***** slapping for the way it treats certain people. But, even with legislation, society still needs a serious attitude readjustment for anything to effectively happen.
Really, it's more of a problem with our philosophically libertarian view of free will, and our collective reluctance to accept our words have consequences. With free will, we lose accountability once it slips our lips. But, with acknowledging that the actions, including words, of ourselves and of others has a direct impact on those around them, comes the acknowledgement we aren't as free as we like to think we are.

 

[Axe Elf]

In the case of Islam, there are two groups Sunni and Shia, that have been at war with each other for 1400 years! Why? Because both groups hold certain ideas that they simply will not compromise on. Both groups hold these ideas as being above discussion, so the only way for them to attempt to resolve the conflict is through violence.

I've always thought that I could make a fortune selling "Shiite Happens" t-shirts in Baghdad.

 

[Revoltingest]

You say that people should oppose abusive vitriol, yet you have patted some on the back for spewing it. So which is it?

Perhaps I fruballed someone for an aspect
of a post which also had something negative?
But I've also chided posters who are like
minded on an issue for being uncivil.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry for the slow response, somehow I missed this post...

Let's take sectarian violence as an example. In the case of Islam, there are two groups Sunni and Shia, that have been at war with each other for 1400 years! Why? Because both groups hold certain ideas that they simply will not compromise on. Both groups hold these ideas as being above discussion, so the only way for them to attempt to resolve the conflict is through violence.

In that culture sure. That is how they resolve all problems. But all unresolved problems don't end in violence in Western culture. Discussion isn't a panacea, and if someone dogmatically has no desire to discuss what they believe is cast in concrete, I can't see how that makes them de facto violent. Two opposing dogmatists each may not want to talk about what they know to be true, why bother ? No one is going to be convinced of anything. Mutual assassination isn't the ultimate result !