Feel free to discuss it in Site Feedback or via PM to me if you want. I would like to listen if you want to share anything.
It's good to know your overall experience is positive!
-
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
Feel free to discuss it in Site Feedback or via PM to me if you want. I would like to listen if you want to share anything.
It's good to know your overall experience is positive!
After reading the feedback in this thread, I passed along the concerns about the posting lag and the erratic page behavior associated with some ads to the owners.
I'm not sure the algorithms are specific to RF; some ads are personalized based on people's browsing history and cookies regardless of the site on which the ads appear. I don't know whether RF has any custom algorithms that determine which ads are shown, but it's not a given that RF does.
Thanks for the detailed feedback!
We (the admins) mentioned this again to the owners today, based on the feedback in this thread. As I said in previous forum-related threads, this is not something the active staff can change, because we have no access to the forum's backend. We can only communicate with the owners about it.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
Does no one click on the "new posts" link? That's how I quickly caught up on two weeks' worth of activity I missed while I was traveling. It's easy enough to scan down the page. It's not all new threads, no. But it's a good snapshot.
New posts
www.religiousforums.com
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
The moderation is good. For those who might disagree, I'd ask if they know what it's like to be at a forum with bad moderation (at whatever forums are left out there).
I like the wide range of member belief systems, and reading the viewpoints of people I'd not likely encounter in real life.
Unlike some others, I don't see RF as an echo chamber. I belong to a political forum which makes it clear that if you don't support the general platform, you're not welcome. Some Christian forums won't tolerate heretical views or posters.
I'm glad there's still a place out there to communicate with people when I'm looking for conversation.
Definitely the positive wins. I can't think of any negatives, to be honest. Good enough is perfect.
Thanks for responding. I'm curious. Who are the owners? Is it for profit or who pays the bills?
The forum is supposed to be for-profit, but it also has expenses. I think the server migration that was needed to fix email verification and alerts probably required some expenses, for example.
The main sources of revenue that I'm aware of are ads and premium memberships.
Patrick66
Member
Thank you. I have started doctrinal discussions in the Christian forums but haven't received any responses. That's ok, but I had hoped to share and learn with others.
Thank you. I have started doctrinal discussions in the Christian forums but haven't received any responses. That's ok, but I had hoped to share and learn with others.
The DIRs tend to get less activity than the open forums. Also, some threads go by mostly unnoticed if a lot of more recent activity shows up above them in the "Latest Posts" section.
This is another reason many members (including staff) want the "New Threads" list or at least a similar feature to be back.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
It is, thank you.
To a point. I think people's views of 'existential threats' in liberal democracies is heavily overstated and hyperbolic. Further, if people actually believe in liberal democracy, they need to pay the price for it. Robust discussions are part of that. I'm not in any way advocating ignoring violence, or calls to violence, or anything of the sort.
Again...I'm talking through a lens of a liberal democracy. And to those people who think that 'civil debate' should be put aside where the issue is really important to them, I would simply say that they're a part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Again...liberal democracy. I think the issues involving speech in other settings is simply too varied and specific to comment on in a global sense. I lived as an atheist in a country which was overwhelmingly Christian and where there are literally hundreds of witch burnings a year. Fair to say I wasn't engaging in open and honest debate about God.
However, if you stray towards an example of marriage equality, OF COURSE there needs to be civil debate. It can be robust, but it is a perfect example of not straw manning your opponents. Not every person who was against marriage equality was a rabid, religious zealout beyond convincing. Even a cursory look at how attitudes towards marriage equality changed since the year 2000 would make it clear that change can happen quickly. I get that it's not quick enough for everyone. But forcing things through is not the path, as it has unintended consequences.
They aren't 'softer approaches'. They are, indeed, the harder path. And the only one that doesn't lead to polarisation.
Believe as you will. I'm almost 50 (!) and have lived in multiple countries, and worked in more. The whole reason you have polarisation in the US is because there are too many willing to put aside good faith debate (robust as it may be) and feel more comfortable picking a team, and thinking that team is always right. You can look at issues honestly, and with self awareness, and STILL come down passionately on one side of the issue. But if you are finding that every single issue you look at has a good team and a bad team, that there are no problems with the approach of the 'good guys' and that you have a dehumanised version of the 'other side', then I'd humbly suggest you're being naive.
Just to add to this, I have a strong belief that the US has a systemic issue with their system of voting. The preclusion of meaningful independent or third party voices due to the nuances of the system is much more impactful than most Americans seem to realise.
In our last federal election (Australia) we had plenty of cashed up, bad faith actors, and we had a conservative party which seemed to become captured (at least in the moment) by the religious right. But this led to reduced votes for those parties, and a markedly increased vote not for the centre-left, but for moderate, independent conservatives, who were progressive on many social issues (particularly climate, and female representation), and conservative fiscally. Letting people have a meaningful voice is important. Forcing them to choose between two opposed camps is NOT helpful to anyone apart from those two opposed camps.
Teal independents: who are they and how did they upend Australia’s election?
What does historic move of voters away from the two major parties mean for the future of Australian politics?
But you don't want to be part of the bridging? Because your team is right, and the others really, really need to put aside their ridiculous prejudices and act rationally?
Last edited:
Incidentally, @Debater Slayer and @Ella S. , the discussion and disagreement we are having here is exactly why Religious Forums remains an important part of my posting life.
Are you talking about the views of a subset of people in liberal democracies about existential threats, or is the statement meant to be general? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I disagree because I think there are examples of such threats even in liberal democracies, such as mass shootings, abortion bans (even in cases of rape and incest), and genocidal, ethnically supremacist movements.
I agree that robust discussions are a part of liberal democracy, but what I'm saying is that not every single person is obliged to have them when the subject is a genuine existential issue for them (e.g., I believe a member of an ethnic minority has no obligation whatsoever to discuss racism with a neo-Nazi or any other type of ethnic supremacist who advocates for genocide). This is especially so when, despite there being a liberal democracy, someone is experiencing severe loss of rights, such as women who have to travel out of state to have an abortion in some parts of the US.
I view the extent of the onus to engage in such discussions as largely dependent on whom we're talking about. For example, I think someone who chooses to have a career in politics or as an influential public thinker has more responsibility to use their position for that purpose in, say, a parliament or political platform than an average citizen with little to no power or influence on society as a whole who would have the discussion online if they chose to do so in the first place.
I didn't say the issue was merely important to them, though. The scenario I specified was one where the issue was existential. Sure, some people's view of that is, as you said, too broad or overstated and hyperbolic, but not everyone's is. I absolutely wouldn't see an average brown or black citizen as a part of the problem for refusing to debate a white supremacist, or an average ex-Muslim citizen as such for refusing to debate someone who believes apostates should get beheaded. In my opinion, they're not obliged to debate how human they are, and someone else may decide to do so in their place anyway.
Personal importance of a subject doesn't necessarily mean the issue is deeply related to one's safety or mere existence like the above examples are.
Exactly, and for many people in such a situation, they may not have the energy or the inclination to debate supporters of the witch-burners even if they could do so safely. I find that understandable, whether or not I would personally make the choice to debate the supporters.
I think there are some situations where forcing things through is the best and most humane approach, although I'd say that such situations are relatively uncommon mainly (but not exclusively) due to impracticality. When members of a group are routinely abused or killed, for example, and the majority either don't care or can't do anything (like in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and multiple other countries), I get why they would want change to be forced through, even if I may not always see that as practical or realistic.
I would also bring up riots and revolutions that erupted due to decades of oppression as examples of forcing things through because the system couldn't protect a subset of the population or even listen to their concerns and issues.
If the Iranian government somehow had a change of heart tomorrow and forced through a measure to abolish execution of people convicted of having homosexual sex, I believe that would be much better than letting the status quo go on as more lives are lost while change is pending (especially given that it may or may not even happen in our lifetime). The need to enshrine certain rights despite what the majority may think is one reason I strongly favor a constitutional republic over a direct democracy, and I think that is one of the best aspects of the US Constitution.
But either way, I don't think everyone needs to participate in order for civil debate to happen. As I said, I choose to discuss such things, myself, and I've even discussed apostasy with ultra-conservative Muslims even though we were essentially discussing whether people like me should be allowed to live. I just don't expect everyone to do the same or blame them if they don't. I can see why many people may not want or be able to.
Where would you draw the line between what you would consider understandable refusal to discuss a specific issue where certain beliefs constitute an existential threat to someone and detrimental or blameworthy refusal to engage in debate? I think it varies depending on the person and context. I'm interested to know what you think.
To add to the question: I mentioned before that a Discord server I was on had a vocal TERF whom a lot of members shunned and disliked. Many of the trans members, who all lived in highly conservative and anti-trans countries without liberal democracy, didn't want to be around her at all, especially the more she posted explicitly anti-trans beliefs.
I discussed things with her a lot in private, but I also didn't fault the trans members for their reaction or find it surprising. There were a lot of details to the situation that I can't cover in one post, so let's take this as a general situation, which I realize entails some lack of nuance.
Assuming a similar situation happened elsewhere, would the trans members have any responsibility to engage her hypothetical counterpart in debate, would it be pointless, or would it be better but not obligatory? Or something else, perhaps?
My personal approach is probably almost identical to yours when it comes to discussing even the most heated and existential subjects, but as I said, I don't believe everyone else has a responsibility to share my approach. I think the issue is too context-dependent and nuanced for a general or uniform answer to be accurate or fair to everyone.
Phhht...I'm broke, and you never called the next day, so...*shrugs*
It was meant to be pretty holistic, but only about relatively free and liberal societies.
Less look at a couple of your examples to try and drill into my meaning.
Mass Shootings - full declaration, I'm pro-gun control. You can argue the line on where that is, of course. My point about civil discourse is merely that I shouldn't be conflating gun enthusiasts and sporting shooters with potential mass murderers, or as unfeeling monsters who don't care about human life. Of course, some people within any group can be 'monsters', but I mean holistically. It's unhelpful and polarising. What I should do is make my case. Quite forcefully, if possible. But not in a way that dehumanises others. Not out of politeness, but pragmatism. So, our discussion would never be around 'are mass shootings good', but instead how should our laws be structured, with mass shootings being a part of the discussion. Where I think we lose nuance is that mass shooting discussions become gun control discussions. There are actually other issues at play, including mental health support for American youth.
Abortion bans...I'm actually not a strict pro-choice person. I'd allow abortion with some limitations (albeit light touch). Others would not. I would argue stridently against the type of abortion bans in place in SOME US states. But if we fail to use argument as our means of discussion, if we fail to acknowledge that there isn't merely 'allow anyone to abort at any time at taxpayers cost and without choice for medical staff' vs 'never allow abortion, even in cases of rape and incest' we simply buy into the most extreme and least informative versions of the argument, and then challenge all people to 'pick a side'. Of course, out of those choices, my 'side' is easy. But it's NOT my side. It's a more extreme position, which apparently I'm supposed to cede to, else I'm effectively an ally of my enemies, and not being strong enough. It's frankly a poor argument. (Not saying it's your argument, I mean generally).
So, let's roll into the Nazis, because arguments always end up there eventually...lol
Nazis are bad. So it's black and white, right? I shouldn't allow any wiggle room there...
I agree! They're bad. It's pretty simple. So, should we imprison self-professed Nazis? Ban Nazi symbology? Chuck them in a concentration camp? Allow websites to exist that allow Nazi speech? If you're point was that I don't need to be polite to Nazis, then sure...I agree. But I think what happens is that less extreme arguments (let's say immigration) get tarred with the white supremacist brush (sometimes correctly, sometimes not). If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, by all means, call it a duck. But we often now seem to figure that a chicken is basically a duck, and calling out the differences is a semantic and useless argument that only duck allies would make.
No, I wouldn't expect someone to have a robust and two-way discussion with someone advocating for genocide. But...and it's worth reflecting on this I think...it's become increasingly hard to take a position that would have been seen as sensible, coherent and worthy (ie. traditional liberalism) without people using the most extreme edge cases to shut the conversation down, and instead return to more polarised...and comfortable...worldviews.
What should be occurring is that effective legal challenges should be mounted. Those legal challenges should be based on effective and robust attendance to the law, and/or challenge that same law. Those things won't be effectively done by polarised posturing.
So I fundamentally disagree with the point you're making here. Too many people are mistaking making noise and taking a stand for effective activism.
They can discuss online if they like. And if they are simply using that platform to make some version of 'my side good, the other side bad', I'll simply have a lower opinion of their worldview. There is no 'side', and there certainly isn't a 'good' side. The left...which I'd think of as my side if forced to...have found it far easier to cast stones and demonise the right than be self-reflective and take care of their own problems. What is actually needed is discussion on issues, and a stronger understanding of the nuance each issue holds.
The average brown or black citizen refusing to debate a white supremacist really isn't where this lies, though. It's an edge case. All we ever deal in these days are edge cases.
Regardless, if a brown or black citizen decided to debate with a white supremacist for whatever reason, the fact that their arguments would stack up and be far more compelling and rational than the white supremacists would be pretty obvious. Whereas increasing the pool of 'white supremacists' to all sorts of mildly xenophobic individuals is counterproductive in my opinion.
If something is important to me in a fundamental sense, what I want is effective activism to promote change.
That's fine. No one is compelled to take part in any debate. But those that do should do so with both mouth and ears. Witch-burning is obviously bad. But what actions should be taken to reduce them? What is the interplay of patriarchy, tradition, and Christianity? These are important questions. A mere shouting of 'Witch burning is bad' does nothing. And indeed, nothing has happened in PNG. Witch burning is as bad as ever.
Those decisions...to force things through...should hopefully be done based on planning and discussion. It might not be a public discussion, but the nature of public discussion would absolutely be one of the considerations, even of an authoritarian regime, if in a different lens to a democracy.
<continued in next post due to length>
Again...I'm talking about liberal democracies. If we want to look at specific examples of rioting in modern America, and judge how effective that path was in implementing change versus the cost, we can. But we shouldn't accept at face value that the path chosen was the 'best' path in any rational sense. Of couse emotions will boil over, and things will happen. History tells us that. Occasionally that results in an improved situation, but not in any easy sense.
Sure. I was against the postal poll in Australia which was used to justify marriage equality. It was needless, a move to marriage equality was a better match to our constitution, and there was no constitutional change or referendum required.
But the very reason I was strongly against it was that there had been a lot of open discourse, and the broad level of support was known.
Where there is not open discourse, of course it can be neccessary to resort to other means. That is one of the reasons I am defensive about open discourse and the need for nuanced debate.
My concerns is more how people who do involve themselves actually discuss things.
Simple. If you're involved, you need to use your mouth and ears. If you're not involved
It depends what their intent is, I would say. If they are looking to be a part of public conversation on the topic, it behooves them to talk to TERFs. Educate them, if you want to see it that way, but also understand that there are variations amongst them and the reasons for their views. I was making the point to one of my daughters the other day that transgender issues are hard for my parents to get their heads around. The angle I take with them is to try and stop them actively opposing social issues I think are important. Marriage equality, trans rights, etc. I'm never going to get them to 'agree' with those things. They have come a long way in their lives, in some ways, and whilst it's hard to understand that when young, or even when older like me (but hopefully more forward looking) the truth is that people like my parents hold a lot of votes...and that matters in a liberal democracy. My mother is also president of a community group with a lot of members, and they spend a lot of time together. There is a little bit of hive mind amongst them, and getting a few of them to be less actively resistent to things can result in the whole group moving on to other more important issues, and ignoring trans rights entirely...which would be a win in many ways.
No...and I was perhaps unclear. If someone chooses to be a part of the discussion, and if they do so in a relatively free and liberal environment, then I think they do have a responsibility to (loosely) share our approach.
Some of the people here including some I disagree with. It's fun to find someone with a very different outlook happens to have something I agree with. And then there are the sparring partners in some of the joke threads.
There are also some knowledgeable people that I learn from.
Since this is a staff started thread, I assume I'm not going to be whacked for posting my opinion.
The system is not fully implemented. I just happened to notice this thread for example because of a recent post. Often I see an interesting thread that I missed but now has many posts and I don't have time/energy to read through it.
Lack of progress in implementing some very easy upgrades that are fully documented and which I pointed to at one time is another issue.
Lack of prior notification for changes as I've noted before. It's a variant of "mushroom management" (keep us in the dark and feed...")
I'm still here which answers the first part of the question. How much? Before the change in software, this was my goto site. Now it's where I spend more time than any place else.
In the not too distant past there was a survey about people's background in this software which led me to assume that something was going to be done at least for the trivial changes. The result? Crickets.