apenman

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Crazy Liz

I really appreciate you bringing this up. I posted a new thread yesterday in WWMC about "safehouse rules."

I agree that there is a pattern that is perpetuated by ghetto forums. From the very beginning of the denominational ghettoes, I've fought Catholic-bashing disinformation in Baptist/Anabaptist. I think you have a good point. One we should consider before asking for more safehouse forums.

Crazy Liz

http://www.christianforums.com/t1978...in.html&page=3

post #23. Seebs has a very sharp wit.

TransverseWave

Heh. Actually, I'm more pragmatic than kindly.

My code of ethics is not Christian: it's based on reciprocity, which can include judicious retaliation, to prevent those inclined to abuse from getting away with too much, and to show where the lines of acceptable conduct are drawn. It doesn't include turning the other cheek. However, neither does it include stupid retaliation and escalation: it's easy to poison the atmosphere and introduce enough tension to discourage civility rather than encourage it. In most circumstances I desire to avoid this.

I learned to debate in an unmoderated venue that was set up to host flame wars, but where civil debate and discussion broke out. Techniques for conflict damping involved phrasing one's point in a fashion calculated not to draw blood, a few things never to say, use of the killfile on posters one couldn't get along with and couldn't otherwise ignore, and judicious public plonking of those who were being unacceptably rude not only to oneself but also to other people.

It worked fine for a few years, until, in the course of discussion, at length an orthodoxy emerged, and then people formed up into Us and Them. The above techniques were not adequate to maintain civility at that point, and the community faded away.

One of the things that has interested me about these threads and the reactions to them on the part of CF staff is the way that the development of the Us vs. Them reaction can produce reactions that are of dubious rationality.

There are some people over here going looking to find fault over there, finding picayune things to complain about or to ridicule. The social function of this behavior is to distance oneself from Them, make Them out to be people the tribal ethics don't apply to, people it's OK to harm. This tendency is counterproductive to the ends most of the people here consciously (and probably sincerely) espouse; it's more or less a ape-brain instinctive reaction that it's easy to fall into without noticing. -- This tribalization is, of course, a necessary response that exists for sound evolutionary reasons: humans are social animals, and for a very long time their worst large-sized natural enemy has been other humans. The enemy may indeed be a threat, and it may well be necessary to set aside intratribal social norms to deal with them. Unfortunately for the end of human happiness, the instinct doesn't seem to come with anything much resembling a reliable method for avoiding making new enemies unnecessarily. Casual xenophobic deprecation is remarkably easy (and elicits predictable adverse reactions). (I will note that part of my decision to leave CF involves my own difficulties with this reaction; I was not handling it well.)

The reaction to these threads over at CF has also been, um, interesting. Absurdly unjustified deletions of threads and posts made by Them (that is to say, the participants in these threads). Bizarre and unbalanced reactions as if to an organized conspiracy that was a genuine threat -- when what's here remains what it always was: a collection of disaffected but largely powerless people. The preposterous suggestion that it's an 'Atheist Rebellion,' both terms being inflammatory and inaccurate. -- It sure the blazes isn't circumspect reflection and good sense driving these responses either.

While I favor reflection and reciprocity over Christian ethics, I will say this for Christian ethics: if we cannot have adequate reflection then an assiduous effort to apply them would improve the affair. A sufficient belief either in the fallenness of Man, or in the validity of Jesus' own instructions on conflict resolution, would have prevented the development of this noxious culture of secrecy that has allowed abuses described in these threads to take place; it would also have prevented the scandal of Christians having to come here, of all places, to tell it to the Church. A sufficient dedication to loving one's enemies is some counterbalance to the tendency to treat Them badly and create animosity where its existence was not a foregone conclusion.

zippythepinhead

I would like to thank the following people for making me the man I am today:
Bradford the brave
drstevej(almost like a brother)
ps something or other(for being a friend)
Lel for vegemite
Quijote for fighting windmills
Erwin(still trying to get through)
murron(still there)
infallable(my worthy opponent)
GWIT(rhymes with)
Swart(my aussie friend and commrade)
Old Shepard and his many socks.
Deren(see the UT thread)
Ammon
Alma
Mormonfriend
Fatboys
Jenda
Casiopea
and yes Tiffy Too
Thank you for your assistance in shaping my life.
oh PS add Tasmanogod! :Cheeky:

fragmentsofdreams

I'd be sad if St. Paul wasn't up there.

rigorist

*shnort*

That jailbird!

TheBear

Thanks.

http://www.christianforums.com/showt...4&postcount=36

TasManOfGod

I have 2 days left of my enforced relearning of how to read Leviticus correctly
I wonder if I will graduate
seebs (or any CF mods here ) Is it possible that PM messages that I have stored can be tampered ith I am pretty sure mine have and would have evidence on another computer which I could restore perhaps -but could it be possible?

seebs

In theory, no.

In fact, we have very good evidence to suggest that at least some staff have at least occasionally somehow cracked the system. It'd be bloody hard in standard VB. It may be that one of Erwin's hacks introduced a security hole or something.