What is wrong here?

[cladking]

I've seen this as a common phenomenon on the internet, where some arguments might take place, tempers flare, and flames (insults) come out.

When I started out on the internet, I found Usenet and posted to that, as there wasn't much in terms of social media or web-based message boards at that point. Many of the Usenet groups were virtually unmoderated, so you could pretty much say and post whatever you wanted. Someone throws an insult at you, you insult them back - and there were no moderators for anyone to report posts to. So, everyone was on their own, sink or swim.

Then I got AOL and found some of their message boards, but I quickly realized that it wasn't "anything goes" as I got used to on Usenet. They had stricter Terms of Service, and on a few of their message boards, it seemed like there were certain "cliques" of posters who could violate the rules with impunity and insult whoever they wanted, while if anyone insulted them back, they'd get reported.

I also spent some time on the IMDb message boards which were also moderated, but somewhat lightly, I would say. So, a lot of incendiary stuff ended up showing up, especially right around the 2016 election, and then they decided to ashcan those message boards entirely. But it was fun while it lasted.

I guess over the years, I grew a bit of a thick skin, so what people say to me online doesn't really faze me as much as it might have in the past. Here on RF, it's kind of a mixed bag - a zany band of misfits and screwballs. Not everyone gets along necessarily, and sometimes there are arguments. Some people get mad and quit. But it's like that pretty much in any forum.

I loved those old groups and message boards. People quickly learned not to trifle with me.

I never liked insulting people but I'm very good at it.

You needed skin as thick as a water tower to survive anyway though.

 

[cladking]

There's plenty of insults and hateful speech here directed toward non-religious people if you bother to look for it.

I'll try looking for it but it seems relatively little.

 

[Stevicus]

I had different experiences. While usenet was mostly unmoderated, you could still complain to the provider of an offending user, usually a university. They had posting guidelines and they enforced them.
With the advent of the AOLusers, that went away as nobody at AOL seemed to care how their users behaved. Some groups had bans on all AOLusers.

My dad had Compuserve at first, and I started off with a local dial-up, not AOL. But the local company was a bit unreliable, and I found this free trial disk to install AOL. I was really lucky to find that disk, as they were rarer than hen's teeth back in those days. You had to have connections - friends of friends - to be able to get hold of one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My dad had Compuserve at first, and I started off with a local dial-up, not AOL. But the local company was a bit unreliable, and I found this free trial disk to install AOL. I was really lucky to find that disk, as they were rarer than hen's teeth back in those days. You had to have connections - friends of friends - to be able to get hold of one.

At one point, I was throwing those disks away by the ton, just to have the empty jewel cases.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll try looking for it but it seems relatively little.

Consider the possibility that this is because you don't mind when atheists are insulted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Where do you get the idea that only believers get away with insulting?

I don't think the "believers" that are being referred to here are believers in God. The word in this instance has been used in what appears to be as a pejorative for people that support scientific explanations based on evidence. If it were extended, it seems it could potentially be used to dismiss any position based on evidence, even such things as legal views.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Look at ShadowWolfs vacant* reply (I could get the hang of this I think). Instead of addressing the insults or te subjects of the thread "she" instead justifies the behavior by suggesting having a dissenting opinion is unacceptable. This is the same thing archaeologists have begun to do with those who don't accept their doctrine; insults and demean those who spout heresy. If you don't believe that superstition can make anyone wise and strong then you are a bigot today!!!

*it is not the poster who is vacant or ridiculous it is the silly* argument.

*it is not silly because the poster is silly but because...

Have you considered I've seen this drivel before of people insisting it must be science that is wrong because science doesn't support their fringe ideas? It's like Ben Stein boohooing because a supernatural Creation mytho isn't accepted in mainstream science.
And I'm not stupid. You did deliberately add an insult, complete with a lot of complaining about those rules you agreed to abide to be here in the first place being applied you.
You broke the rules and got swat for it. Suck it up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My dad had Compuserve at first, and I started off with a local dial-up, not AOL. But the local company was a bit unreliable, and I found this free trial disk to install AOL. I was really lucky to find that disk, as they were rarer than hen's teeth back in those days. You had to have connections - friends of friends - to be able to get hold of one.

My first was a local, had Compuserve, and Netzero. Didn't mater what, where I lived has such old and obsolete phone lines that 10k was the best you could get until the last decade when wireless broadband thingies started springing up (there's been satellite for awhile, but I knew no one who liked it and some who went back to dialup).

 

[cladking]

I don't think the "believers" that are being referred to here are believers in God. The word in this instance has been used in what appears to be as a pejorative for people that support scientific explanations based on evidence. If it were extended, it seems it could potentially be used to dismiss any position based on evidence, even such things as legal views.

No. It is a term for those who believe science operates on intelligence or evidence rather than experiment in terms metaphysics.

No matter how many armies of strawmen you create you can win no battle.

 

[Heyo]

I'll try looking for it but it seems relatively little.

It's in the menu. Click on "Bible".

 

[Brian2]

I've had an awful temper since I was young but it's usually very well under control.

Thank you for the post. I'm going to abandon this silly thread before I damage myself too badly.



Yes. I did the same thing with the first post here. It would have caused trouble where I started to post it.



I just don't understand why everyone who doesn't believe in science keeps getting insulted. If you and I can delete half a post then why don't believers do it?

It is interesting to use the word "believers" for those who believe in science. It is true for those of the sciencism persuasion but it can make for misunderstanding in a discussion and no doubt will disturb some sciencismists who probably do not like to acknowledge religious type belief in their lives.

 

[Brian2]

More than you, fart face...

Now, now children, play nice.

 

[JustGeorge]

Now, now children, play nice.

He started it.

 

[Secret Chief]

He started it.

No I didn't.

 

[JustGeorge]

No I didn't.

Did so.

 

[Secret Chief]

Did so.

Did not.