Atheists should be treated with compassion, I feel.

[George Glass]

This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the Religion group).

I believe that most of them have been abused by whatever dogma was forced upon them. So they react against it by hating anything associated with the supernatural.

Then you have the "brainy" types who have always felt smarter than others and this is yet another example of their smugness. It's a limited viewpoint but their egos have gotten out of control, plus they rely too much on their intellect, which will never substitute for wisdom.

So treat the atheist with lovingkindness. They know not what they do...

[Goblinmonger]

1. Kiss my ass. n/t

[George Glass]

5. No thanks...

I am about to eat my dinner.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Your friends might think you are witty,

but your post is offensive at a very fundamental level.

[George Glass]

28. And yours was lovely to me.

Kissing your ass. Very gallant, kind sir!

[Goblinmonger]

30. Seemed appropriate

given your attitude toward me and atheists in general.

(edited to fix a typo)

[stepford blogger]

52. Alrighty then...

Two wrong make right. Check!

[MisterP]

2. this OP is contemptuous and lacks evidence

are there any surveys of why people are and aren't atheist? are there any analyses and critiques of those surveys?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. the op is pathetic and this pathetic post reflects poorly on the poster.

[MisterP]

62. how's the post pathetic?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. i also think we should treat people who don't believe in unicorns with compassion

for exactly the same reasons you mentioned

[George Glass]

4. I agree!

Unicorns existed. Faeries still do.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. So you can of course provide evidence for your claims here?

[George Glass]

11. Evidence is for small minds

The staggering order of the Universe is proof enough for me

[immoderate]

16. It's got you staggered?

That's called the anthropic fallacy.

--imm

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. close your eyes. pop in a hallucinogenic

and there lies your evidence

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. lol

at least you are consistent. i'll give you that

[struggle4progress]

10. I really really dislike broad-brush statements.

IMO everyone should be treated with respect and loving-kindness: that's a humanly unattainable ideal but one worth striving for nevertheless

"Atheist" is not a particularly useful social category for me: it's like "People who don't have much interest in measurable cardinals" or "People who don't like polka music very much" or "People who don't ever go to the zoo." A sweeping statement about "most of them" is very unlikely to have any useful content

[George Glass]

12. I am targeting this group because this is a religious forum that seems to draw atheists

There is an atheists/agnostics forum but they seem to enjoy coming to the ASAH group and Theology forum and bothering people. Not me, because my understanding of Life is too strong to be swayed by their cynicism, but for the fragile flowers still struggling to blossom, it is all too much, to quote Beatle George.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. how do you know this? you have been here all of 5 minutes

[immoderate]

17. Hey, he quoted George Harrison. This is a spiritual giant!

--imm

[Goblinmonger]

20. Read the SOP for the group

and then get back to me.

Your 2 seconds of experience here don't bring with it a lot of wisdom.

[rrneck]

15. Well George, it's like this.

I don't need your compassion, understanding, or condescending attitude. We are not, nor do I expect will we ever be, on the same emotional page.

I know exactly what I am doing and at this moment I am telling you to go get a ladder so you can climb up on it and kiss my ass.

But by all means, stick around and allow me the pleasure of blowing each and every one of the arrogant condescending opinions you offer here into dust like so many clay targets. I don't mind fish in a barrel, but please, try not to make them catfish.

[George Glass]

18. First of all, what is up with the hostility?

So you think it's condescending to suggest treating people who sometimes are antagonistic towards my beliefs with compassion? Listen to yourself. You sound angry to a degree that is unreasonable, based upon what I wrote. And why are you here, instead of on the atheists forum? To laugh at people's beliefs?

[Goblinmonger]

22. Reread your OP

and see if you could possibly understand why there is hostility to what you posted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. it would be the text of your OP

Since most atheists have not been abused, you are lumping us into this category:

'Then you have the "brainy" types who have always felt smarter than others and this is yet another example of their smugness. It's a limited viewpoint but their egos have gotten out of control, plus they rely too much on their intellect, which will never substitute for wisdom. '

So you are calling us smug, with an out-of-control ego. There's also the implication that you have wisdom, while we don't, and the one thing that could be called a complement gets quotes around it to make sure we realise you don't really think it.

Since you are either a long term lurker or someone who has returned after being banned, you know very well that this group, and the R&T forum before it, are open to everyone, not just theists. When you write such tosh are you are doing in this thread, you know you should expect your hostility to be returned.

[stepford blogger]

57. Some of this ilk has been infesting the Astrology board with their snarky poison

and upsetting the regulars. For some reason they are still here, despite years of disrespectful attitudes towards others. I am calling them out and will continue to do so but thanks for sharing.

[rrneck]

46. Your passive agressive condescension is insulting.

Your assumption of what anyone has experienced is arrogant.

Your assessment of their response to what they may or may not have experienced is hopelessly obtuse.

Stick around a while and learn who you are talking to and why. You know, get to know people before you start with the broad brush insults and flamebait.

And to give you a bit of a running start, allow me to begin. I don't give a flying fuck what you believe. It's none of my business. And if you are able to stick around long enough you will come to find I have successfully annoyed just about as many atheists as theists around here.

Don't start nut'n. Won't be nut'n.

Welcome to DU.

[stepford blogger]

59. Darlin', I have been here for YEARS so don't patronize me. I know their game. I know it well.

Back atcha!

[rrneck]

96. Was that for me

or did I insult the wrong person?

[Angry Dragon]

114. You have failed to state your beliefs

What are your beliefs??

You talk of compassion, you talk of god, I look at the same universe as you and see forces at work, I see no god.
Unless one says the forces are gods. Which god are you talking about??

[rug]

19. Maybe we do need hosts.

At Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:20 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Broad brush, inaccurate troll shit

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:42 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Thank you.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Thank you for alerting on it.

I appreciate it.

[SecularMotion]

23. Just posted the jury results in A & A

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1230602

[PassingFair]

51. I'm in love with Juror #6

Juror No. 6, please reveal yourself to me!

[TygrBright]

79. Well, I hit the button again and added TOS to the mix---

---because as far as I am concerned this is bigoted hate speech.

disgustedly,
Bright

[trotsky]

26. I second GM's thanks. n/t

[George Glass]

31. Hey! Thanks for giving me ideas on who to put on my "do not judge me" list!

[Goblinmonger]

33. Something tells me

that you are already well aware of the players here and what you are doing.

[trotsky]

39. Ayup. n/t

[stepford blogger]

50. Ooooo....

You have me sussed out!

[cbayer]

27. Good point. We currently have no way to lock the thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Interesting - I alerted 10 minutes after you

and received the same "A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:42 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE. ", but my notification gave no clue that it was in fact your alert that was sent to the jury - it quoted my alert message instead.

If anyone served on this jury, can you tell us what the comments you saw from the alerter?

[SecularMotion]

40. The comments are posted in A & A

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1230602

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Thanks - looks like rug and I were both after you (nt)

[cbayer]

44. Was this an alert on an individual post? If so, which one?

Some of the posts this person made were probably not actionable on their face. I don't think the OP went to any jury, though.

[rug]

48. I alerted on the OP.

There weren't any responses yet.

[cbayer]

53. I alerted it as well and checked the TOS option.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Since the jury has apparently spoken,

this is now a perfect test to see if the theists who say they will fight bigotry and broadbrush attacks against atheists actually come in here and do so.

Thank you to rug for doing that already.

[cbayer]

29. IMO, the only reasonable way to deal with a thread like this is lock or hide it, but we can't do

that until we have a host.

To argue with this kind of broad brushed bigotry in a forum that is already highly contentious seems futile to me.

[trotsky]

35. I think it's a huge problem - not just for this forum but for the jury system and even DU3 itself...

That a jury voted FIVE to one to let the post stand! Are you kidding me?!?

[Goblinmonger]

42. +infinity

I am quite sure that a similar post about Christians would not have the same vote.

[stepford blogger]

69. Democracy...Finally! Bullies suck, too!

(Nanny nanny boo boo )

[sibelian]

106. No, not at all.

Oh dear. It was working so well, too...

[SidDithers]

115. Yeah, that was a bullshit jury response...

Maybe jurors need to be identified, so they have to own their votes.

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

36. I agree

But it would be nice to see some of those that continue to say they would comment on this type of thing but they just don't see it come in here and post a comment that it is inappropriate. rug did and it meant a lot.

[rug]

37. I hope this is an anomaly.

Time will tell. BTW, I think there were several alerts.

[Goblinmonger]

38. I think there were, too

but I'm serious that you vocalizing your displeasure for it means a lot.

[rug]

47. NP, it means a lot to me too.

[kdmorris]

32. Did you read the SOP for this group?

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

Or... maybe not. Your OP is very condescending, as if Atheists all fit into these boxes you've put out.

The funny thing is, if I posted something similar, but said Christians should be treated with compassion because I believe that most of them are brainwashed by whatever dogma that was forced on them, you would alert on it faster than I can say "unfair".

(As a disclaimer, I do not believe that all Christians are brainwashed. I am trying to make a point)

[cbayer]

41. The person who started this thread has been removed by the Malicious Intruder Response team.

The problem we have here is that we can't lock up this piece of offensive flamebait because we have no hosts.

[Goblinmonger]

45. I think it's a good opportunity

to have the discussions about:

1. the need for hosts, since some don't think we need them; and
2. whether the jury system is a good think since a jury of my "peers" thought this was OK.

[cbayer]

49. Agree

The alert went to a random group of members, most of whom never, ever come to this group. They are oblivious to how insensitive and provocative this post was.

However, had we had hosts, the alerts on the OP would have been evaluated by them and action would have definitely been different.

Still working out the bugs, but I feel strongly that we need to get some hosts in place here.

[stepford blogger]

54. And yet you seem to have NO problem whatsoever

with Trotsky, etc. who routinely disrupt people talking about spirituality and alternative health, using disrespectful terms like woo-woo. Very telling...

[cbayer]

55. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[stepford blogger]

60. Then let me edumacate you.

Trotsky is one prime example of a bully on DU who has probably alerted on everyone with whom he disagrees. He is allowed to get away with it--why, I will never know. He is openly disdainful of supernatural views and is very disrespectful to others who express them. Got it, honey?

[Matariki]

63. And you know this how?

I mean, since you are new here and all, lol.

[stepford blogger]

65. No, I am not new. Been here since 2008.

And what? It really has no bearing on the topic at hand. I know that it used to be a great way to marginalize people, by claiming they were furriners if they hadn't been part of the insular little clan for more than a day.

[Matariki]

70. That's not what your profile says. n/t

[maddezmom]

74. and now you're gone again

[laconicsax]

64. The juror comments are disgusting

The jury comments, as posted in A/A by SecularMotion are as follows:

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Why was this alerted on in the Religion forum? Not a broad-brush attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post is obviously intended to be a jab in the eye of any atheist reading it, but atheists certainly have generated enough similar posts at theists in this forum, so it seems to me to be par for the course. The atheists can handle it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: First, right or wrong, the poster is expressing his/her opinion. I don't particularly agree with the contemptuous nature of the post, but, to me, I don't feel it transgresses any rules here at DU, nor does it offend me in such a particular way that I feel it needs to be censored. On factor, also, weighing heavily on my decision (despite the fact that I don't believe in censorship), is the fact that the person who alerted on the post didn't even bother to post a reason as to why he/she felt it was offensive. If the alerter couldn't be bothered to provide a case, then no burden has been met, in my humble view. ~ Fantastic Anarchist
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It seems to me that this person is just trying to give the
nonbelievers a taste of their own medicine. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Its an opinion and an observation. Seems ok. So the person has strong feelings. No problem.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Condescending post. We'd remove it if they said this about a black man, or a Christian, or a member of the gay community. Non-believers have as much a right to feel comfortable here as the person who felt comfortable enough to post this insult.

Jurors #1, #3, and #5 were oblivious to the broad brush and the bigotry of the post. When half the jury can't recognize overt bigotry, we have a problem.

Jurors #2 and #4 recognized it as an overt attack but declined to act because they saw it as fair play. To have two jurors say, "yeah, it breaks the rules, but the victims deserve it" flies in the face of the community guidelines and is beyond the pale.

[stepford blogger]

66. Aw...There's no whining on DU!

[TygrBright]

84. Oh, I love that. Bigotry is okay if some members of the discriminated-against group...

...have acted mean.

Yeh. OK. Well, let's repeal the Voting Rights Act, then, 'cause I know a few black people who are assholes.

outragedly,
Bright

[cleanhippie]

89. And that right there is the flaw in the jury system.

[hlthe2b]

113. I wasn't on that jury, but have seen other very anomolous results....

I agree that that post was exceedingly (and intentionally) condescending to the extent we would have previously labeled "flamebait" on DU2. At the other extreme, seems to be the mildly sarcastic post that I've seen in other groups/forum that gets labeled "disruptive" and hidden, even though no one was attacked, insulted, or inappropriately addressed. We truly don't have consistency.

I have considerable doubts about the jury system as it currently exists. The moderator system had its own problems from time to time, but overall, I think it worked quite well. If we are stuck with the jury system, I think that we should come up with some constructive suggestions as to how to make it work.

[frogmarch]

67. And had his/her posting privileges revoked

according to his/her profile.

[The Magistrate]

72. Then Came Back, Sir, As 'Stepford Blogger', Also Now Expelled

[frogmarch]

76. Yes, I noticed that

right after I posted.

Wow.

[TygrBright]

82. Well if they keep having to deal with the alerts with TOS checked...

...maybe they will finally get the message to hide or lock the thread. I'm glad this particular troll has been given its ticket, though.

Wish the stone pizza was still in service...

regretfully,
Bright

[LiberalAndProud]

58. Speaking of smug ...

You have no idea of my personal journey, yet here you are with your smug religious pomposity. Aren't you special? I'm sure just like Michelle Bachman, you have a direct phone line to God who told you that you should introduce yourself in the new DU forum and disrupt the hell out of the place.

You can keep your superstitions and your pity to yourself, thank you very much.

[LiberalAndProud]

71. No, which is why I found this post particularly offensive.

My background is Liberal Christian -- you know, the kind who don't take the Bible as a literal truth, who interpret scripture in a fashion that adheres to and conforms with their system of beliefs, and who are profoundly hurt when some fundie throws the accusation, "You're not a *true* Christian" in their face. And they are forgiving and kind, but believe in turn that the fundies are the ones who are wrong headed. And you know what? Both of those factions are equally convinced that *they* are the ones who understand the mind of God. Faith. You can't argue with it. You can't measure it or weigh it. You can only believe it.

Or not.

I choose not.

Also, I am respectful of my family's faith. I demand the same courtesy in return.

And don't call me dearie.

[lindysalsagal]

68. I do know what I do, so, go back to church.

We'll be fine here without your pity. Why don't you get off the computer and go do god's work somewhere?

[The Magistrate]

73. Keep An Eye Out, People:This One Will Be Back

Be sure and hit the TOS violation box when you alert;it is in the display that comes up after you hit the 'community standards' button....

[maddezmom]

75. +1000

[TygrBright]

77. OH FFS.... Do we really have to tolerate this kind of bigoted drivel in this forum?

"There must be something wrong with atheists because they're atheists."

Well, pardon my crudity, but FUCK THAT NOISE.

Christ on a pogo stick, does anyone who considers themselves a liberal, progressive supporter of human rights, equal rights, and the US Constitution believe this moldy-ass bullshit anymore?

Obviously, some do.

But I think it's INCREDIBLY OUT OF PLACE HERE.

fumingly,
Bright

[cbayer]

78. OP was banned, but we can't lock the thread because we have no host.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. No hosts yet, so it can't be locked.

3 out of the 5 candidate hosts have expressed their dislike of the OP (the other 2 aren't around, I think), and at least 2 alerted on it. We'd lock it for sure if we had the power. The thread starter has been banned, twice, and the MIRT are aware it's either a sockpuppet or zombie, so perhaps another ban will come out of this.

[trotsky]

81. Yes, apparently, because the jury system said it was A-OK and even that atheists DESERVED it.

Thanks for your sentiments, but welcome to the new DU.

I don't think I'll be here much longer.

[cleanhippie]

88. I agree. How has this clown's post been allowed to remain here?

[trotsky]

90. He even specifically called me out with false charges...

and the posts remain. I'm not even going to bother alerting because juries don't give a fuck about atheists, we deserve whatever crap we get.

[laconicsax]

91. I alerted on those.

I wasn't the first, but the result was 3-3 on all of them.

I posted about this in H&M, so hopefully the admins will take notice.

[trotsky]

92. Direct call-outs, allowed to stand.

Lovely. DU3 is truly the paradise we were promised.

[cleanhippie]

93. I feel like this is a Free Republic lynching...

I see NO progressive values or tolerance from the responses and ESPECIALLY from the jury responses.

[trotsky]

95. We are an unpopular minority.

But really, are you surprised? This is how survey after survey shows what people (even liberal Democrats) think of us, and lo and behold, when DUers are free to anonymously voice their opinions of us, they hold true to the stats.

Welcome to the new DU. Ain't it grand? Well, it sure is if you are in the majority on every topic.

[cleanhippie]

97. I am very, very sad. This is so dissapointing.

Its what we deal with day in and day out in the real world. Its disgusting. Its hateful. Its frustrating because at least in the real world, I can confront this kind of bullshit head on, face to face. Here? Not so much. If I say what needs to be said to some people, I will get banned...

This really sucks.

[darkstar3]

101. Here's what I find REALLY funny.

On a board where "jurors" vote overwhelmingly to allow abuse of atheists to remain visible and unlocked, and even state in their opinions that they think the atheists deserve it, we also have this gem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122220

The only reason I stick around right now is because I feel like leaving is capitulation. I've never been one to bend the knee and shut up just because people think I should.

[knowledgeispwr]

111. I found that thread hilarious.

It's amazing how widely different people can interpret the same situation.

[trotsky]

108. Reasonably consistent enforcement of the rules is out. That's SO DU2, man.

If you feel someone deserves to be attacked, you can vote to allow it to stay.

Fuck off, unpopular minorities!

[cleanhippie]

83. If me calling humblebum "bum" for short is a personal attack, then THIS bullshit CERTAINLY is!

What the fuck. You can take your condescending bullshit and pound sand.

[laconicsax]

85. I feel I should note some of the other jury decisions on this thread:

The blatant call-outs were 3-3, I don't have the details

A TOS alert for sockpuppetry was 1-5 Leave it and a personal attack was 3-3 with this gem "Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Inflammatory with no substantive point."

A personal attack was considered "inflammatory with no substantive point" by one of the jurors who voted to leave it alone.

[cleanhippie]

86. How the fuck has this post and this poster lasted this long. WHAT. THE. FUCK?

DU is no longer the place I like to be.

[laconicsax]

87. We don't have hosts yet, so posts can't get locked.

[trotsky]

94. Atheists are evidently the first group that many DU jurors feel are OK to attack.

When we go away, it will probably be the LGBTers. And so forth.

Welcome to the new DU. So much promise, and so much hate.

[cbayer]

98. This person was banned almost two hours ago. We can't lock the thread because we have no hosts.

She returned under a new name and continued to disrupt.

Everything that could be done was done to remove her as quickly as possible.

[cleanhippie]

99. And what about the BIGOTED jury comments?

"Yes, it is a personal attack, but its okay because they are atheists"?


WHAT. THE. FUCK?

[cbayer]

102. I certainly can't speak for the jurors or their responses.

As I have not seen that kind of blatant hostility openly posted in this group, I found it surprising.

What do you make of it?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

103. I think having no hosts is an open invitation to trolls

Some people get a rush from causing strife.

Unfortunately, the hostility we're seeing is pretty normal to us. We get it every day.

[cbayer]

104. For the record, the person that posted this is very, very well known to the former moderators.

Her goal is to disrupt DU as much as possible and has been banned hundreds of times. She knew exactly what she was doing when she came into this group and posted this.

[laconicsax]

105. Well at least she helped highlight what's wrong with the jury system. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

109. That's for sure.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

107. That's too bad

It's almost pathological, the constant need for negative attention. I almost feel a sorry for her.

[trotsky]

110. OK, so now I know exactly who you are talking about.

She was completely under control on DU2. Mods had banned and deleted all her posts before I would even finish my first alert when I saw her come back!

And she has now just wreaked more havoc than ever on DU3, and her posts with their hateful words are still there mocking everyone. Bonus: they've been joined by juror comments to say "FUCK YOU, YOU DESERVE IT, YOU NASTY ATHEISTS."

This is better? Really? REALLY?

[TygrBright]

112. ahhhh, gotcha. y'think she'd run outta library computers by now... n/t

[maddezmom]

117. zactly

[trotsky]

100. DU3 was supposed to be better.

Fuck that noise.

[Angry Dragon]

116. ..............

[Skinner]

118. I was asked to lock this.

The OP is banned.