Political and religious discussions

[DragnFly]

Anyone who visits the offtopic board knows how frequently religion and politics come into discussion there.

 

 

 

With such controversial topics and the diverse range of users that tip.it has, its no surprise that many will disagree over these issues. However, more often than not, any discussion of either religion or politics often leads to common insults, flaming, and childish behavior. Sometimes these two topics leak over into other posts, tainting them.

 

 

 

Personally, I feel tip.it is a place where everyone is suppose to feel welcome. However, those who go against the grain of whatever is believed or accepted by the majority here, more often than not, find themselves on the receiving end of insults and ridicule.

 

 

 

Back in 2004, it seemed that quite afew people considered themselves conservative/republican, and anyone who identified themselves as liberal/democrat was often thought of and treated negatively. Nowadays, it seems the majority identify themselves as liberal/democrat, and anyone who identifys themselves as conversative/republican are now thought of and treated negatively.

 

 

 

Look at how bad the topic regarding Sarah Palin becomes on occasion. At the moment, she is probably the most controversial of the four presidential/vice presidential candidates running for office in the United States at the moment. Quite a overwhelming majority of attacks are being made against her, including ones in the past that have gone as far as to refer to her daughter as a "[bleep]". You can pretty much guarantee anyone who supports her, will be replied to negatively.

 

 

 

Religion is another hot topic. Whether its christians, jewish, islamic, or other various religions, I would be willing to bet that it has been bashed more than once, openly.

 

 

 

Christianity is probably the single most bashed religion on the board, and often people who identify themselves as christian are often insulted or thought of as less intelligent than the athiets of the board. Not coincidentially, the majority of the offtopic board today consider themselves athiest.

 

 

 

There have been posts in the past, that have gone beyond debating religion, and straight into flame wars. Is it any wonder that you hardly hear any posters openly identifying themselves as religious nowadays?

 

 

 

One topic earlier this year went as far as to ask fellow athiests on how to rid the world of religion. While the replies and discussion were tame compared to other religious based posts, it is still shocking that such a post was even permitted in the first place. Do you think a post about ridding the world of athiests would be permitted? I think not, it would have been locked quickly for forcing its beliefs on others.

 

 

 

So why am I creating this topic, you may ask? I think maybe its time to evaluate the way discussions of these two highly controversial topics are handled on these forums. I think that maybe we need to decide what is and what is not acceptable behavior.

 

 

 

Among the possible solutions would be to set more strict rules and guidelines, disallowing all discussion of them altogether, or perhaps a separate subforum for highly controversial topics.

 

 

 

What do you think?

[Adam007]

I fully disagree. While I don't remember the board ever being that conservative in 2004, just because your viewpoint is a minority view doesn't mean that you should feel like your opinion doesn't count. If you feel you're right about something, your voice is just as loud here as others. That's the great thing about this forum - everyone has an equal voice. If we start regulating where and what things can be said, discussion won't really be free anymore. Getting rid of the inappropriate explicitness was one thing, but the boards don't need to become even more conservative in what isn't allowed. If you provided enough concrete examples you might sway me, but I just don't see the need.

[Cowman_133]

I feel it too. And its why you won't find me posting there very much. The topics on religion and politics go past debate and into flame wars at certain points.

 

 

 

I do not think it is unheard of to limit discussions on these matters. But ignoring this is unheard of, in my opinion. I've found some comments on my religion totally unacceptable and it seems to have just been accepted and allowed, which is wrong.

 

 

 

I don't really have any concrete evidence, as Off Topic totally turned me off when I first posted a little in it, so its been a while.

 

 

 

I'm up for some sort of change to these topics, but leaving it alone is not an option, imo.

[Ginger_Warrior]

As Laterus pointed out in one such topic, to debate religion is not wrong. It frustrates me when a person in an argument turns round and says "you can't attack my opinion because it's religion". Religion isn't something that's sacrosanct to everyone. Remove the theological arguments, and all religion is is a system of common values and beliefs between a group of people.

 

 

 

In that sense, it is an ideology, just as much as capitalism, socialism, democracy, autocracy, fascism (etc.) are.

 

 

 

It is not wrong to question someone's ideology. It is wrong to offend that person directly for believing in that ideology.

 

 

 

In regards to religion, it's also difficult to determine what is and isn't a religion. Look at the world around you - Scientology springs to mind. Where does one draw a line at a "cult" and a "religion"?

 

 

 

These are not answers moderators are meant to decide on, therefore, questioning someone's beliefs should be accepted, but personal attacks should not.

[dsavi]

This is just the reason I don't state I'm a theist on OT. And the fact that the moderators allowed the "How to get rid of religion?" thread was disturbing.

 

I do agree about the personal attacks too.

[InkofDeath]

If you don't post something close enough to the mainstream of ideas or thoughts, people are going to think less of you or whatever. Will always happen, just like in real life, which is why those who compare tip it to real life, or try to say tip.it is full of intelligence are missing a lot of things.

 

 

 

But anyways OT, it's an open discussion forum, trying to stop 'minor' insults to political topics or religious ones isn't going to happen, as some of the mods in OT do often agree, or somewhat say 'I don't mind it, so go ahead' kind of posts, so people just do it without a thought.

 

 

 

Tip.It is already tightly controlled by that rated 'G' thing, and honestly squeezing tighter on OT with whatever kind of solution can be formulated in here probably may help the insults and personal attacks, but users aren't going to be happy with it, as they were with the deletion of immature topics or the 'plan: OT' thing that they were or are still doing.

[Barihawk]

It is not wrong to question someone's ideology. It is wrong to offend that person directly for believing in that ideology.

 

 

 

It ends up happening in several threads. Like the "Professor finds that religious people are less intelligent..." topic in which multiple bashes were made, and no action was taken. Keep in mind this is not bashing on the religion, it was comments such as "only morons believe in religion" or similar items of that nature.

 

 

 

It's also hard to call such conversations a "debate" because it's rare that an open mind is kept. There is no debate, it's just ignoring the other party and stating your opinion or the opinion of someone else without even considering or entertaining the other party.

[chris1216]

There is no debate, it's just ignoring the other party and stating your opinion or the opinion of someone else without even considering or entertaining the other party.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is what happens in most of OT anyways.

 

 

 

As long as the OT mods lock down on flaming other TiF members I see no reason for anything else to be done.

 

 

 

This topic is pretty much just making mountains out of molehills.

[Celt23]

I'd rather that the Off-Topic forum stays as a fully open forum (as long as it's within the current rules).

 

 

 

Since Operation Off-Topic, I think that the moderators have been doing a great job at stopping flaming and trolling before it gets out of hand.

[Phil]

We moderate tightly we get shouted at.

 

We loosen the reigns a little and we get shouted at.

 

 

 

We are always trying to find somewhere in the middle really. :P

 

 

 

Do remember that if you do take offence from some comments then please pm a mod/admin.

[DragnFly]

I fully disagree. While I don't remember the board ever being that conservative in 2004, just because your viewpoint is a minority view doesn't mean that you should feel like your opinion doesn't count. If you feel you're right about something, your voice is just as loud here as others. That's the great thing about this forum - everyone has an equal voice. If we start regulating where and what things can be said, discussion won't really be free anymore. Getting rid of the inappropriate explicitness was one thing, but the boards don't need to become even more conservative in what isn't allowed. If you provided enough concrete examples you might sway me, but I just don't see the need.

 

 

 

I was not meaning to imply the board was overwhelmingly conservative, nor do I think it should be. Note the fact that I said "quite afew" instead of "majority" of conservatives. What I meant was that there were more of them, which is probably for the better as having a variety of views often leads to better debates.

 

 

 

As far as regulating where and what can be said, we already do that. The forum has a set of rules, infact bashing religion is already against those rules.

 

 

 

Intentionally posting false arguments, intentionally misquoting other users, flames or personal attacks for no other purpose than to incite a negative reaction, annoy others or disrupt a discussion is also prohibited. Posts that are disparaging toward any religion, race, nation, social status, gender, or sexual orientation are strictly forbidden. No personal threats or harassment. This includes posting pictures representing an attack. Debate opinions - not the people behind them. This also applies to all forums, threads, posts, private messages, profiles, avatars and signatures. Any post using excessive vulgarity, threatening or harassing, obscene or hateful, deliberately inaccurate or misleading, explicitly sexual in nature, an invasion of a person's privacy, abusing our censor, or in any other way violates the law, may be edited or removed and the user may be banned (at the discretion of the Administrators).

 

 

 

The problem is that, more often than not, its not enforced well enough. Project Offtopic, in my opinion, was about cleaning up the forum in attempt to make it a more pleasant forum to read and post in. Which means getting rid of inappropriate sexual based posts, excessive language, and indeed posts that do nothing but bash others and their beliefs pointlessy.

 

 

 

 

 

As Laterus pointed out in one such topic, to debate religion is not wrong. It frustrates me when a person in an argument turns round and says "you can't attack my opinion because it's religion". Religion isn't something that's sacrosanct to everyone. Remove the theological arguments, and all religion is is a system of common values and beliefs between a group of people.

 

 

 

In that sense, it is an ideology, just as much as capitalism, socialism, democracy, autocracy, fascism (etc.) are.

 

 

 

It is not wrong to question someone's ideology. It is wrong to offend that person directly for believing in that ideology.

 

 

 

In regards to religion, it's also difficult to determine what is and isn't a religion. Look at the world around you - Scientology springs to mind. Where does one draw a line at a "cult" and a "religion"?

 

 

 

These are not answers moderators are meant to decide on, therefore, questioning someone's beliefs should be accepted, but personal attacks should not.

 

 

 

I do not recall reading Laterus' post, so I cannot comment on it.

 

 

 

Where did I say debating religion was wrong? Theres a difference between a debate, and a flat out attack. Although I do sometimes think offtopic has proven it has troubles with mature discussions, which is why "Project Offtopic" was necessary to begin with.

 

 

 

Its true that one could argue that religion is not really debatable, since being based on faith alone means it cannot be either proven or disproven.

 

 

 

Certain subjects do need to be approached with a certain degree of maturity, intelligence and caution. Topics like religion and politics are delicate subjects, that many people often have passionate views on, and its something you should always take into account before posting.

 

 

 

It is not wrong to disagree with someone, or to hold different beliefs. Infact, it can be quite healthy for the forum to have a diverse group of views and opinions. However, how you express those beliefs regarding delicate subjects is quite important.

 

 

 

For example, to say "I disagree with on , for " is quite acceptable. Its also acceptable to say "I am an athiest, I do not accept or agree with it".

 

 

 

However, what I do think is inappropriate (and the reason I made this post) is pointless attacks that are often made, without any sort of punishment. Posts like the one Barihawk mentioned are a good example of what I am referring to.

 

 

 

In short, I feel that pointless attacks leads to nothing but hard feelings, and in cases may discourage or stop people from reading or posting in the forum.

 

 

 

As for what is and is not a religion, thats a tough one. I guess the best bet would be to look at what larger countries like the US and UK officially recognize as a religion. As far as getting into specifics, I am sure you are already aware of the differences between religion and cults.

 

 

 

We moderate tightly we get shouted at.

 

We loosen the reigns a little and we get shouted at.

 

 

 

We are always trying to find somewhere in the middle really. :P

 

 

 

Do remember that if you do take offence from some comments then please pm a mod/admin.

 

 

 

Disrespecting or attacking the staff was not my intention. If anything, we got quite afew good staff members around here, who I respect.

 

 

 

I know it must be a hard spot, and a very fine line for the moderators and administrators to try to walk.

 

 

 

As I said earlier in this posts, some subjects have to be handled more delicately than others, and as a staff member I am sure you are already aware of that.

 

 

 

All I meant is that in regards to either religion or politics, efforts may need to be increased to keep things civil, so that the forum is fun and friendly for all. Maybe clearer rules and guidelines for debating those two might would help matters.

[Phil]

Disrespecting or attacking the staff was not my intention. If anything, we got quite afew good staff members around here, who I respect.

 

 

 

I know it must be a hard spot, and a very fine line for the moderators and administrators to try to walk.

 

 

 

As I said earlier in this posts, some subjects have to be handled more delicately than others, and as a staff member I am sure you are already aware of that.

 

 

 

All I meant is that in regards to either religion or politics, efforts may need to be increased to keep things civil, so that the forum is fun and friendly for all. Maybe clearer rules and guidelines for debating those two might would help matters.

 

Sorry that wasn't directed at your post but meant more in a general way towards the users of OT as a whole.

 

 

 

I can't really talk for other mods or admins but I don't read the religion threads and rarely all the political threads because I know how they always go (arguing on the internet etc etc...). But if I happen to spot a report about a bad post in one of them I would of course act on it.

 

 

 

With a lot of tipit's poters being quite young, having a mature debate on those subjects (and these two subjects are always going to attract the most argumentative) isn't really going to happen no matter what rules we put in place.

 

 

 

But of course one way to start cleaning up the topics is reporting the uncivilised posts.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It is not wrong to question someone's ideology. It is wrong to offend that person directly for believing in that ideology.

 

 

 

It ends up happening in several threads. Like the "Professor finds that religious people are less intelligent..." topic in which multiple bashes were made, and no action was taken. Keep in mind this is not bashing on the religion, it was comments such as "only morons believe in religion" or similar items of that nature.

 

 

 

It's also hard to call such conversations a "debate" because it's rare that an open mind is kept. There is no debate, it's just ignoring the other party and stating your opinion or the opinion of someone else without even considering or entertaining the other party.

 

I don't think I'd support such a thread. Merely stating someone's facts doesn't provide much in the way of discussion, therefore, it should be locked before flamewars begin.

 

 

 

Whilst we're here, I also want a rule that states we can't discuss socialism. Then I can't get called for being a socialist. I also want a rule that says we can't discuss clothes, people get just get ridiculed for wearing them. Music? Another source of personal insults there. Hell, let's not even discuss our favourite colours - those pink fans might get a whole torrent of abuse.

 

 

 

Seriously, if you think religious people are the only ones targeted in the OT forum, you need to open your eyes a little bit more. And when you have, maybe you'll realise clamping down on every thing that causes personal insults to be thrown around means OT would be left with no topics at all.

[Barihawk]

Whilst we're here, I also want a rule that states we can't discuss socialism. Then I can't get called for being a socialist. I also want a rule that says we can't discuss clothes, people get just get ridiculed for wearing them. Music? Another source of personal insults there. Hell, let's not even discuss our favourite colours - those pink fans might get a whole torrent of abuse.

 

 

 

You are comparing mountains and molehills, there. There's a lot fewer people coming into a topic on shoes and saying "Vans suck" and to be honest there's less injury there in that it's a freaking pair of shoes. We are talking about someone's core beliefs.

 

 

 

However, if someone came into a discussion on shoes and said "Only gays wear vans" would we not take action against that? That's not any less offensive than "Only morons go to church/synagogue/mosque."

[Ginger_Warrior]

Exactly. There is a problem with people being offensive, full stop. Where people make generalised comments like that against a group of people it becomes a personal attack and that should be clamped down on. I find topics like that distasteful too.

 

 

 

The problem isn't that religion is involved. The problem is that some people can't control themselves, and those people need to be "educated" in how to keep certain views to themselves. As others have said, Bari, if you want a forum where religious views are protected, go to a religious forum. You know as much as anyone Tip.It has a fairly liberal slant, and liberalism itself tends to be in favour of free scientific thought which itself runs counter to the concept of theism.

 

 

 

Let's face it. The OT forum seldom has any worthwhile debate threads these days. Let's not kill it even more.

 

 

 

I mean, hell, the elections thread produces 70% to Obama and just 20% to McCain - way off the averages.

[Barihawk]

I'm not as concerned about the slant (I have, and always will be able to defend my faith to the point of respect from other members about my civility and knowlegeability) as much as I am those personal attacks.

 

 

 

It seems that ones made against religion are simply written off as "free speech" instead of being trampled on by the moderators as they would be if they were a personal attack made against someone in another area. Topics that seem to be for the sole purpose of bashing religion (such as the "Study finds religious people more stupid than..." blah blah) are left open with the offending comments intact and moderators in fact POSTING their views in them (not personal attacks, but still! If there was a topic that "Studies show that gays likely to listen to Elton John) the poster would be looking at a ban!).

 

 

 

I have no problems with people posting in topics such as "Is there a God" or something like that. It's the threads and posts specifically making generalized statements to the effect of trashing on a religion they don't like that bothers me.

[venomai]

It seems that ones made against religion are simply written off as "free speech" instead of being trampled on by the moderators as they would be if they were a personal attack made against someone in another area.

 

Flame goes both ways. Theists are no more or less entitled than atheists to respond with an ad hominem attack (not that anyone should).

 

 

 

Atheists are often attacked as being less ethical, less moral, less trusted, etc. It saddens me to see atheists or theists remove themselves from debates because of this sort of criticism.

 

 

 

(... Studies show that gays likely to listen to Elton John) the poster would be looking at a ban

 

How is this offensive? And if such statements truly are factual, why should they be suppressed on the grounds of "tolerance"?

 

 

 

The problem is when morons, faced with such a statement, jump to the conclusion that all those who listen to Elton John must be gay, or that all gays listen to Elton John. But what do you expect moderators to do? Edit these posts?

 

 

 

"Moronic content removed. ~mod"

 

 

 

Regardless of what "side" you are on in a debate, you shouldn't hesitate to refute such an illogical claim.

[meol]

I'll also try and explain this from a moderator's point of view, seeing the topic was bumped again. At the moment, the elections thread has more than 1000 posts, and the religion thread more than 2500. It's really hard to keep up with such threads, especially if you're not active in the discussion and you have other duties as a moderator. -That's my case, for example.

 

 

 

We do try to keep the forums as friendly as possible, we just can't be expected to read every single post there is. That's where reports come in handy. However, it's actually uncommon to receive reports from those threads, so feel free to report any obscene posts; it eases our job as moderators. Please remember that regular users usually can't see what action we take, though.

[Beaumonde]

We do try to keep the forums as friendly as possible, we just can't be expected to read every single post there is. That's where reports come in handy. However, it's actually uncommon to receive reports from those threads, so feel free to report any obscene posts; it eases our job as moderators. Please remember that regular users usually can't see what action we take, though.

 

 

 

That is the problem, moderators can't be expected to read every single post and the staff can't rely on users combing through topics and reporting every third post when dealing with those kinds of posts is your job. The only effective way to get rid of the spam and the flame bait and make it easier for the mods to handle it is to rein in topics that have the unyielding potential to be "[...] disparaging toward any religion, race, nation, social status, gender, or sexual orientation [...]"

 

 

 

Lets make a list of the topics in OT right now that I'd like to point out with examples:

 

 

 

The Little Things That Bug You

 

"1. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, be half one religion, half another, due to parents. Religions are beliefs, not genes."

 

Thank you for your commentary Mr Author, not everyone adheres specifically to the ideas of one religion

 

 

 

Christmas Controversies

 

"Society is becoming more and more stupid these days."

 

I don't celebrate Christmas and I wish people happy holidays, and that's how I'd like to be addressed, am I dumb?

 

 

 

Reveal Confessions & Secrets

 

I look at pornz? :^o *whistles* /n Oh wait.. so does every othe person I've ever met

 

Creepy spam?

 

 

 

Teenager commits suicide on webcam

 

I call parenting fail.

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Turning 18

 

No quote here because the entire thread is full of people admitting to a range of nefariously illegal activities

 

 

 

It's that kind of crap that makes the mods lives a living hell (or should if the mods every looked at any of the topics) and makes OT an awful place to have to endure.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Reveal Confessions & Secrets

 

I look at pornz? :^o *whistles* /n Oh wait.. so does every othe person I've ever met

 

Creepy spam?

 

1) How is that creepy? Give an answer without subjective reasoning.

 

2) How is that spam? It was a confession, and that's exactly what the thread demanded.

 

 

 

Turning 18

 

No quote here because the entire thread is full of people admitting to a range of nefariously illegal activities

 

Welcome to Real Life. Do you suggest we go out on a Saturday night as citizens and help the police by reporting everyone who looks under 18? When I go to university next year, and someone admits to drinking underage when they were 16, should I go down to the Head of Department and report them?

 

 

 

There's nothing on that thread at the moment that's that bad. Most people let those things slide...

 

 

 

No one's forcing you to read those topics. If you don't feel the conversations get you going, make some threads of your own that attract people who have the same feelings as you. That's the beautiful thing about a forum.

[venomai]

The Little Things That Bug You

 

"1. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, be half one religion, half another, due to parents. Religions are beliefs, not genes."

 

Thank you for your commentary Mr Author, not everyone adheres specifically to the ideas of one religion

 

Why don't you respond to these posts yourself? :idea:

[Beaumonde]

The Little Things That Bug You

 

"1. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, be half one religion, half another, due to parents. Religions are beliefs, not genes."

 

Thank you for your commentary Mr Author, not everyone adheres specifically to the ideas of one religion

 

Why don't you respond to these posts yourself? :idea:

 

 

 

Because the last thing that thread needs is another flame war, like the one that starts here.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The Little Things That Bug You

 

"1. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, be half one religion, half another, due to parents. Religions are beliefs, not genes."

 

Thank you for your commentary Mr Author, not everyone adheres specifically to the ideas of one religion

 

Why don't you respond to these posts yourself? :idea:

 

 

 

Because the last thing that thread needs is another flame war, like the one that starts here.

 

That wasn't seriously anything to do with political or religious discussion. It was a provocative use of the term "gay" that caused that. Whether or not you accept it as humorous is another matter.