INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

Any topics that are primarily about humanism or other non-religious life stances fit in here.
Message
Author
lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#21 Post by lewist » October 12th, 2010, 7:43 am

Latest post of the previous page:

I for one am grateful for the rules and the way the forum is moderated. When I welcome new people in the Introductions thread I often say that this is a civilised forum with good people and the fact that I can say this largely due to the positive ethos Maria and Alan have promoted. The rules are part of that ethos. They make it clear what will not be tolerated. They promote the Golden Rule.

Perhaps Manuel's is a good idea, Maria, to invite John to come and debate his ideas, to clarify his views. If he turns out to be a troll, he seems to have read the rules and will know what to expect.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#22 Post by Maria Mac » October 12th, 2010, 11:58 am

As Fia said, John knows is he is welcome to join but he won't do so because he doesn't like the rules. So I'm not going exhort him to come to a place he doesn't think is humanist enough for him. Re-reading his last email, I am struck by how poor his arguments are in response to mine, which he frequently misrepresents. I'm definitely in the mood to challenge these today.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#23 Post by animist » October 12th, 2010, 5:46 pm

John wrote:On these grounds, which I think are quite reasonable, Think Humanism is not open to "people of all worldviews". For example fascist or members of the white supremacist group The Western Guard would not be welcome. Furthermore, I would regard it as logically incoherent to suggest that Think Humanism is open to fascist and members of The Western Guard as long as they are interested in humanism, secularism, free thought and I am assuming you would not make such a suggestion.
From this second post of his, John is apparently of highly anarchistic views. I just wondered, is he at all correct in this hypothetical example of an extreme rightwing (even racist) poster who managed to avoid discourtesy? Would such a person be welcome on TH? Obviously they would not be welcome to him!

User avatar
Gurdur
Posts: 610
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:00 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#24 Post by Gurdur » October 12th, 2010, 6:08 pm

Going to cite your OP in a blog post of mine, if you don't mind, Maria, in connection with something else.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#25 Post by Maria Mac » October 12th, 2010, 6:47 pm

Yeah, no problem, Gurdur.

animist wrote:
John wrote:On these grounds, which I think are quite reasonable, Think Humanism is not open to "people of all worldviews". For example fascist or members of the white supremacist group The Western Guard would not be welcome. Furthermore, I would regard it as logically incoherent to suggest that Think Humanism is open to fascist and members of The Western Guard as long as they are interested in humanism, secularism, free thought and I am assuming you would not make such a suggestion.
From this second post of his, John is apparently of highly anarchistic views. I just wondered, is he at all correct in this hypothetical example of an extreme rightwing (even racist) poster who managed to avoid discourtesy? Would such a person be welcome on TH? Obviously they would not be welcome to him!
Yes, as I said to him, he seemed to be arguing for anarchy. His response wasn't to deny it but to berate me for failing to reference where he'd "said such a thing", thereby neatly avoiding the point. LOL.

I have replied to John's last email. I'm afraid I got drawn into responding to just about everything he said, which made my response very long. But, in answer to your question, animist, my reply to him included the following paragraph:
When I say “People of all world views are welcome to participate in the discussions and general socialising that takes place at Think Humanism, including people of religious faith, but all users must abide by the rules, which are set out below,” this is exactly what I mean. If members of the group you mention are able to put across an opinion, present an argument or just socialise with others without breaching any of the rules, they are welcome to join up and register. There is nothing logically incoherent about this. If I excluded from the forum people with opinions diametrically opposed to those of humanists, I would be doing a disservice to all those who join hoping they are going to be engaging in a battle of ideas with a view to sharpening their critical thinking skills, which is one of the reasons people join internet boards.
'Welcome', of course, doesn't mean the same as 'like' or 'sympathise' but, as long as they keep to the guidelines for participation, I'd hope I'd be able to treat them with the same fairness as anyone else, however disgusting their views are.

Dan
Posts: 298
Joined: November 26th, 2007, 5:05 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#26 Post by Dan » October 12th, 2010, 9:07 pm

A collectively or anarchistically run board may or may not be a good idea and may or may not be successful.

This is not such a board.

We all decide for ourselves whether we want to participate, given that it is run the way it is run. And fundamentally the owners can run it whoever they like If we don't like it, we can go somewhere else. We could even create our own space, if we don't like this one.

Faced with someone like this, my alarm bells start sounding. The correct response is, assuming you're not looking to change much, is "it's up to you whether or not you want to join." There's no point getting into a dialogue like this.

Dan

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#27 Post by animist » October 12th, 2010, 9:13 pm

Dan wrote:A collectively or anarchistically run board may or may not be a good idea and may or may not be successful.

This is not such a board.

We all decide for ourselves whether we want to participate, given that it is run the way it is run. And fundamentally the owners can run it whoever they like If we don't like it, we can go somewhere else. We could even create our own space, if we don't like this one.

Faced with someone like this, my alarm bells start sounding. The correct response is, assuming you're not looking to change much, is "it's up to you whether or not you want to join." There's no point getting into a dialogue like this.

Dan
yes, I like the idea of a "mother superior" in some form (sorry Maria, you can't help your name) to keep senile delinquents like myself under some sort of control

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#28 Post by Maria Mac » October 12th, 2010, 10:39 pm

Dan wrote:
Faced with someone like this, my alarm bells start sounding. The correct response is, assuming you're not looking to change much, is "it's up to you whether or not you want to join." There's no point getting into a dialogue like this.

Dan
Thanks, Dan, I agree there's no point beyond the enjoyment derived from getting into pointless dialogues. :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#29 Post by Alan H » October 13th, 2010, 1:21 am

Maria wrote:I agree there's no point beyond the enjoyment derived from getting into pointless dialogues. :)
Tell me about it... :exit:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#30 Post by jaywhat » October 13th, 2010, 11:39 am

Alan H wrote:
Maria wrote:I agree there's no point beyond the enjoyment derived from getting into pointless dialogues. :)
Tell me about it... :exit:
Well, Alan, what Maria actually means is that there's no point beyond the enjoyment derived from getting into pointless dialogues.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#31 Post by Maria Mac » October 13th, 2010, 2:00 pm

:pointlaugh: :hilarity:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#32 Post by Alan H » October 13th, 2010, 2:02 pm

:laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Manuel
Posts: 184
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 8:59 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#33 Post by Manuel » October 22nd, 2010, 2:57 pm

I’ve been giving this thread another scan and wondering, really what the case is against a board with no moderation. After some thought I’m having some sympathy with the wordy views of the OP. Who is to decide what is appropriate for discussion or not or how forum members should behave on a forum designed to discuss matters including free speech and free thought? Well moderators of course, and I understand that they may have been responsible for the forum’s inception but creating a forum and controlling its content are two different things. I understand an admin role is useful for technical issue, spambots etc but wonder what the disadvantages might be of zero moderation. I can see one, that the site might become slightly less ‘tidy’ with perhaps discussions not necessarily falling under the correct headings, which gets a bit of a ‘big deal’ response from me. I can’t think of another single advantage, but instead see a contradiction from a site concerned with secularism and free speech. You disagree with posts? Bad luck. You’ve been sworn at? Bad luck, free speech. If you really can’t bear someone’s views or style of posts one forum I visit employs an ‘ignore function’ whereby their posts simply disappear from your view. Self moderation of a sort I suppose. Anyway, any views?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#34 Post by animist » October 22nd, 2010, 3:16 pm

Manuel wrote:I can’t think of another single advantage, but instead see a contradiction from a site concerned with secularism and free speech. You disagree with posts? Bad luck. You’ve been sworn at? Bad luck, free speech.
I don't think free speech in this context (it is not one's home) extends to making personal remarks or racist remarks, and swearing is pointless and boring; racist remarks anyway run the risk of breaking various anti-racist laws. Resorting to any form of deliberate abuse is a sign of a poor debater and must surely put off other users who are genuinely interested in the issues. It is of course hard to know how to apply these limits, but I support them.

Manuel
Posts: 184
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 8:59 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#35 Post by Manuel » October 22nd, 2010, 6:10 pm

I largely agree with you, and non-moderation does run the risk that a moron might come along who will insult and spam all over the place, but in my experience of forums that sort of activity is rare and short-lived.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#36 Post by Alan C. » October 22nd, 2010, 8:18 pm

I've been a member of many forums for over two decades, I've yet to come across one that wasn't moderated, some mods are too strict (usually religious ones) and some are too lax allowing for flame wars and personal attacks.
I think this forums mods do an excellent job and have no complaints (despite having my wrists slapped a couple of times) :)
Manuel
Who is to decide what is appropriate for discussion or not
The mods here don't do that, anything and everything is open to discussion.
or how forum members should behave on a forum designed to discuss matters including free speech and free thought?
animist already addressed this when he said.
I don't think free speech in this context (it is not one's home) extends to making personal remarks or racist remarks, and swearing is pointless and boring;
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Manuel
Posts: 184
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 8:59 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#37 Post by Manuel » October 22nd, 2010, 8:40 pm

Manuel wrote: Who is to decide what is appropriate for discussion or not
Alan C. wrote:The mods here don't do that, anything and everything is open to discussion.
They have recently. They suspended a member of the forum from posting, deciding that their posts were not appropriate. I don’t want to discuss the specific case, let’s just deal with the principle.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#38 Post by animist » October 22nd, 2010, 9:30 pm

Manuel wrote:
Manuel wrote: Who is to decide what is appropriate for discussion or not
Alan C. wrote:The mods here don't do that, anything and everything is open to discussion.
They have recently. They suspended a member of the forum from posting, deciding that their posts were not appropriate. I don’t want to discuss the specific case, let’s just deal with the principle.
unless I have got it wrong, the specific case involved a new thread which was purely for airing a personal "disagreement", which to me does seem to be outside the proper purposes of the forum; the person was not suspended for their particular views on any relevant issue

Manuel
Posts: 184
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 8:59 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#39 Post by Manuel » October 22nd, 2010, 10:01 pm

Forget specific cases, let's just deal with free speech (or not) on a forum advocating free speech. What is the purpose of moderation in this environement?

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#40 Post by Marian » October 22nd, 2010, 10:51 pm

I don't think 'free speech' means a free-for-all and that's exactly what will happen eventually if a forum isn't moderated to a certain extent. This is unfortunate. Self-moderation would be the best choice but lots of people can't even master self-control so moderation is probably out of the question. I am not talking about people here but generally.
There are some who like the idea of internet forums because they can be anonymous. They can get away with posting whatever they like and do exactly that. Not everyone can or should be exposed to a verbal free-for-all, imo. It's not necessary and can be downright abusive. I think there should be moderation for this.

Besides, 'free speech' is a wonderful concept but we don't actually have free speech in practice. I'm not talking about questioning the gov't or having an opinion about various matters because we do live in a place where we are free to do that. But if we want to live together calmly, we learn that we can't say whatever we want, whenever we want to. We learn social rules. We learn when to speak and when to be quiet (I can't say I've learned that very well though :D )

Free speech is only free if we speak in specific tones, ie. either calmly stating our opinion however whacked out it might be or in a protest. But if we say whatever we want in an out-of-control way, screaming or swearing, for example, we're likely to end up with a knock at the door and two burly, no-nonsense policemen standing there and it doesn't matter how much you plead free speech, they're gonna probably take you to the nearest psychiatric facility.

So there are rules for 'free speech' and we accept them because we want to get along.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Why Think Humanism is a humanist fail.

#41 Post by Alan C. » October 22nd, 2010, 10:56 pm

Manuel
Forget specific cases, let's just deal with free speech (or not) on a forum advocating free speech. What is the purpose of moderation in this environement? (sic)
As I've already said animist dealt with this
don't think free speech in this context (it is not one's home) extends to making personal remarks or racist remarks, and swearing is pointless and boring;
Which bit don't you understand?

Cross posted with Marian.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Post Reply