I was really set backwards when RF lost the 'new threads' feature. That's how I knew which threads I wanted to get involved in. Now I'd have to go through every category and subcategory everyday to find new threads.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pros, Cons, and Overall Assessment of RF
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I had been posting on RF for a very long time, predating you by 15 years. Like with the current political climate, I've noticed that toxicity has taken over discussions. One of the more insidious aspects is how language has become supercharged much more so than ever before. Words do not mean what they used to mean or now have massively expanded definitions. For example, I've seen very few instances of one person admitting another person made a good point, even if it does not jive with their narrative. That former commeraderie seems missing now.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
That makes sense.
As someone who is quite young, I more or less grew up in a climate where it's considered foolish to give anyone you're in a conflict with any amount of praise. The idea is that, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
It's weird to me to think that there was a time when this was not the case. The cynical part of me thinks it's the older generation's fault for the polemical enmity we have now, though. They gave too many inches and now too many miles have been taken. Hostility is the only way to maintain any semblance of unity now.
I don't see a realistic path out of that. I only see escalation. It's not something that I want to happen, but it feels unstoppable.
The way out of it is for each individual to stop acting like they're part of a team, and instead work out the pros and cons of any issue. To stop straw manning those who disagree, and start steel manning them instead.
We commonly seem to argue against the weakest possible version of our 'opponents' arguments, and convince ourselves that makes us right. The world is much more nuanced than we seem to commonly allow for.
I've noticed this mentality of "never express agreement with an ideological opponent" online in general, although it's something I ironically don't encounter nearly as much, whether from leftists or right-wingers, in my online and offline circles consisting of people from my country, which has a highly conservative society.
I absolutely think it's largely an American political phenomenon at the moment, although it has seeped into other countries' discourse at some points. I tend to find much more realism and nuanced thinking outside social media and online discussions of American politics.
As far as all of that goes, I have also found those discussions on RF to be much more tolerable than on, say, Twitter or Tumblr. In many cases, I wouldn't even classify them as "discussions" in the case of the latter; they often devolve into a contest for public approval, reactions, and one-liners or short comments that favor style over substance.
To be fair, I can also see why any action perceived to be "giving an inch" or "abandoning the team" is viewed with consternation or hesitation by some people when the opposing views advocate for existential threats to them. Many people seem to focus so much on promoting one-dimensional ideas of "civil debate" that they overlook or don't manage to acknowledge that certain issues are far more than "just a disagreement" to many other people. I think acknowledgement of this is crucial to furthering goodwill and understanding.
I believe in engaging almost anyone who is willing to engage in good-faith dialogue, but I don't expect this of everyone, nor do I think they have a duty to do it. I don't expect someone to view certain beliefs as "just an opinion" or engage in "civil debate" about them when their life may be threatened or made significantly more difficult by the beliefs of others who think apostates should be killed or the beliefs of those who think that said person shouldn't even be allowed to marry whom they love.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
To me, these softer approaches seem outright suicidal. It's hard to understand what would make either of you seriously recommend them. I feel extreme dissonance with the mentalities you're bringing up here.
I find it easier to believe that you're both used to living in places that just haven't had your approaches "catch up" with you yet. It seems like only a matter of time before bad faith actors figure out how to abuse your rhetorical democracies to dominate them, as they have here in the US. To me, there can be no quarter for those people. We can't let them sink their hooks in to any degree, because they're already buried too deep.
I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm saying that, if this issue can be resolved, there is a massive rift that needs to be bridged somehow. I think it could form the basis of several threads of running dialogue.
I have lived in highly conservative societies my whole life, and I keep most of my views to myself with the vast majority of people I meet because my worldview would result in life-threatening persecution and discrimination for me if I were open about it. What you describe as a worst-case scenario for the US is almost a fraction of the reality in the societies in which I have lived my entire life so far.
I don't mind that you have a different view of discussions with people who hold different ideologies, but I object to inaccurate assumptions about my beliefs or why I believe what I do.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
This is one of the worst replies you could have given me if you're genuinely interested in finding any form of common ground, for a number of reasons. To me, it's riddled with red flags that put me off of further discussion entirely.
You made an inaccurate assumption about why I hold the beliefs that I do concerning this subject. I clarified why that assumption is inaccurate, especially in this part (coloring mine):
That's a factually incorrect assumption about someone else's background and circumstances. I see no problem with clarifying that and making sure the actual reasons for my beliefs are clear.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
What I appreciate most about RF is its diversity and the openness to discuss topics that interest me, such as the paranormal. I also enjoy conversing with fellow pagans and atheists because we have shared beliefs. I've learned a lot from these other members, and I think that they make this forum enjoyable.
What I dislike most about RF is what I personally consider to be the repeated preaching and proselytizing of Christianity (and Islam at times). I'm referring to blunt statements like or similar to "all people are sinners who need to be saved" and "they need Jesus to be saved" or comments like "people need Islam to be good people." And there isn't always an "I believe" or "in my opinion" accompanied by these statements (see an example here). In fact, these statements or similar ones are stated as if they are definitive facts, which of course is prohibited by Rule 8. There have also been accusations of people being under "demonic influence" and the repeated accusation against me that I'm conversing with demons instead of human spirits. Both of these accusations have often been stated as if they were definitive facts. While I can't speak for others, I consider this issue to be a constant problem on RF, which has contributed to my decision to place most of the Abrahamic theist members who do this on ignore in order to lessen the drama I encounter when I'm on RF and relieve the tension I've felt when I'm online here. To be honest, I don't care what these members believe as long as they don't attempt to impose their beliefs on me or other non-Christians and don't wrongly accuse me or others because they disagree with our beliefs about the afterlife. It gets tiresome after awhile.
If I thought the drawbacks outweighed the benefits, I wouldn't be here.
That being said, I've taken a break and stopped posting because the stress and drama was too much for me.
Last edited:
As you correctly pointed out, stating one's beliefs on religious matters as a fact, such as by forgoing the use of qualifiers of opinion like "I believe" or "in my opinion," is a violation of Rule 8 whether the person doing it is religious or irreligious. Please report any such posts to the staff.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
I have reported posts that I considered to be preaching and proselytizing.
I don’t post here nearly as much as I used to, but I always liked the diversity of beliefs here.
Since I haven’t participated much lately, there hasn’t been anything that stands out to me. As was mentioned before, I do miss the “New Threads” option. Another forum I’m on, which underwent similar upgrades, now also lacks that feature. But that's all I can think of at the moment.
I still check in here almost daily, even though I haven’t posted much. I think RF is a great place.
Patrick66
Member
There is virtually zero theological discussion.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Like: informative, stimulating, funny, friendly
Dislike: the goosestepping
Overall: the jury is still out
Good to see you again! I hope all is well on your end.
What I like most is the lack of hate speech and bigotry that I've experienced elsewhere online. I'm not saying that stuff like that doesn't occasionally break out here, but I think the mods are quick to address it. I also think that the vast majority of members here really make an effort to get along with each other, despite differences of opinion in regard to religion, politics, favorite cheese
, etc. So, cheers to both mods and members here -- especially all who manage to keep a sense of humor.Probably a minor problem I've had that hasn't yet been resolved by the mods, and about which I can't speak because its resolution is pending.
What I like far outweighs what I dislike. RF is a good place to be. It's also commendable the way that you, DS, are always asking for feedback from members -- not only about the site but also about yourself as a moderator/administrator. I think you handle the complaints (whether justified or unjustified) very well.
I see theological discussions almost daily, although the political forum sections get a lot of activity too and sometimes keep some members too busy to participate in other threads.
I would be interested to read your contributions if you started threads about theological topics! It's always good to see new members who have a passion for theology and religion.
What I like most is the lack of hate speech and bigotry that I've experienced elsewhere online. I'm not saying that stuff like that doesn't occasionally break out here, but I think the mods are quick to address it. I also think that the vast majority of members here really make an effort to get along with each other, despite differences of opinion in regard to religion, politics, favorite cheese
Probably a minor problem I've had that hasn't yet been resolved by the mods, and about which I can't speak because its resolution is pending.
What I like far outweighs what I dislike. RF is a good place to be. It's also commendable the way that you, DS, are always asking for feedback from members -- not only about the site but also about yourself as a moderator/administrator. I think you handle the complaints (whether justified or unjustified) very well.
Thanks for the detailed feedback and the kind words!
I'm glad you enjoy it here. I'm also glad you found RF and met all of us!