'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
from the not-to-put-too-fine-a-point-on-it... dept
We've been discussing whether or not a policy of requiring people to use their real names in online communications arenas really makes sense. We've argued repeatedly that there are tremendous benefits to allowing anonymous and pseudonymous speech. One of the standard claims for why "real names" are better is that conversations on sites that require real names are "civil," since people aren't as rude when their identity is attached to their speech.Yet, in practice, we've found that anonymous and pseudonymous commenters often add a lot more value than their "named" counterparts, and that people with names often can be just as likely to fan the flames with ridiculous comments. Putting an even finer point on this, Jonathan Zittrain points us to a recent thread on Fox News' Facebook page, in which thousands of Facebook users with "real names" issued death threats and other general nastiness towards a spokesperson for American Athiests who appeared on the channel.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, civility, free speech, power, pseudonymity, real names
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
almost hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A topical chainsawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typical
For you see, the ability to believe in a religion is illustrative of an inability to reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typical
I love how people ascribe fundamental human nature to social groups. Yes, it is possible for social groups and culture to influence behavior, but it makes no sense to act like it is the majority factor.
Let's play a game:
The ability to believe in abolishing copyright is illustrative of an inability to reason.
The ability to believe in gay marriage is illustrative of an inability to reason.
The ability to believe in global warming is illustrative of an inability to reason.
See how that whole generalization thing kinda fails?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typical
About that thing with stupidity being "unique to social groups and not inherent to the human race" - AFAIK nobody in this discussion claimed that stupidity is unique to social groups. But the level of stupidity or ability to reason is not the same in every social group, do you agree?
Many social groups are self-assigned, you can decide whether you want to be a part of that group or not, and your ability to reason can certainly influence that decision.
BTW, it never ceases to surprise me how strong emotions can atheism provoke in the U.S. - I live in Europe, I am an atheist, so is most of the people I know and never in my life I encountered any negative reaction from anybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
I agree no one said stupidity is unique to social groups and I don't think I was trying to state that. I was addressing the gross generalization of stating that stupidity was by definition inherent in one social group.
My point is, that is at best a correlation not a causation and it is highly ignorant to imply otherwise.
Of course stupidity varies. But I don't think the variation is due to the reasons you might. I don't think the social group itself has much influence on the level of reasoning nor do I believe that a particular group draws people of particular intelligence--there are far greater factors, IMO, that get discounted, such as culture, socioeconomic factors, etc.
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that characterizing a social group in such a manner is bigoted--its no different than saying all gays are promiscuous. Unfortunately in this case, it seems to be in-vogue so there is a high level of acceptance for the bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
But I agree 100% lobo. You can easily generalize that religion does not co-exist with reason. Sure there are great religious ppl that are very wise and reasoned but they are the minority. Personal experience.
And what I see in the US (and in my country) is that several religious fundamentalism are fighting eachother in the Government trying to pass laws that are aligned to their beliefs onto a population that is multi cultural/religious. This can only lead to disaster.
In fact, all kinds of fundamentalism (religious -icluding fundamentalist atheists, racist, scientific) are what forms the world we live in today. And in common, all of them are unable to reason and accept their limitations and that ppl are different and think differently. And yes, even the sciences fundamentalists are unable to reason.
So in summary I'd say that it's not an exclusive problem of the religions (not to be able to reason) but it's a problem of fundamentalists in general. And yes, I am putting Muslims and Christian fundamentalists in the same level because that's where they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
That's people in general. Personal experience.
So in summary I'd say that it's not an exclusive problem of the religions (not to be able to reason) but it's a problem of fundamentalists in general.
Again, I'd say it's a problem of people in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
You do realize the the term "religious fundamentalists" can easily be replaced by many other terms (such as "corporations" or "IP lobbyists") without overly reducing the strength of the statement?
I don't mean to hijack your point, just thought that seemed relevant to the larger discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
In my last paragraph.
Doesn't hijack anything, religion is the most paramount form of fundamentalism and the reason the US Govt used to put a big spiked dildo into their Constitution arse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
As such, it is also possible to be religious and not fundamentalist. In my experience, that is the norm. Others may have different experiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
I decided to lump the terms together precisely because they are so commonly seen that way. I was hoping to avoid general confusion/trolling. That is merely meant as an explanation, it does not excuse my doing so. I also realize that phrasing does (however slightly) contribute to the increase in such misconceptions. As such I tender a general apology for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Let's start with, how exactly would you define the set of people "without the ability to reason"?
Then let's talk about whether "religion" is even the same thing to those two different sets of people. In other words, how that set of people perceives religion in comparison to the set of people that are capable of reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
You certainly have a thin skin.
Maybe if you stopped reading discussions from an "us versus them" perspective you might find them more enlightening. You pretty much never addressed any of my points but instead just attacked me. How am I the troll? Physician, heal thyself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
That is the snark I am referring to.
"Maybe if you stopped reading discussions from an "us versus them" perspective you might find them more enlightening."
You have no one to blame for that but yourself. You come to the table with adversarial intent, expect to get the same treatment.
"I'm truly amazed that you can say those words and still believe you are somehow different than the people discussed in the post above."
Your talent for hyperbole is astounding. When did I ever take it the level of "KILL THEM"? Your intent here is quite plain, to discredit all who possess a point of view that doesn't satisfy you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Please stop dismissing me by categorization. I understand you are very uncomfortable with the idea that you could be being bigoted without realizing. For myself, I could care less if anyone is religious, atheist, or otherwise. That is a personal decision, and one not capable of being judged by anyone else. Anyone who thinks they know all that is knowable is a fool. There may be a god, there may be a hundred gods, there might be no gods... so what?
Yes, people use religion to justify stupidity. People use all kinds of things to justify stupidity: terrorism, drugs, personal freedom, yada, yada, yada.
What I have a problem with is this idea that it is ok to grossly categorize ANY social, ethnic, or whatever group as being of a particular level of intelligence as you have done. YOU did that, not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Your logic escapes me completely. Can you please explain how those two statements are completely different? The end result of both seem to be exactly the same to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
That is the snark I am referring to.
To be fair, this was right after you called him an asshole instead of addressing his arguments. That is about the nicest response you could have expected for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
It lends some support to Greevar's point.
It by no means says that theists cannot be very intelligent or have tremendous ability to reason, just that there is a negative correlation between believing and IQ across a large dataset.
PS: Greevar successfully destroyed your argument that you cannot correlate reason with certain groups. What about the followers of that Harold Camping guy who though the world would end this spring. When it didn't, most of them just modified their calculations, and continued believing. They are Christians...but not a very reasonable bunch. Many other more rational Christians made fun of them for being wacky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
And you both are missing my point... basing one's judgments on weak correlations (yes, I'm familiar with the correlations you point out) is pretty much bigotry at its worst.
There is a correlation between African Americans and poverty, does that mean they are less intelligent?
The difference is that you have somehow concluded that it is uniquely acceptable to generalize and put down those with religious faith--probably because it helps you feel smarter and superior, but this only speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Neither I nor Derek make any assertion of superiority, that's your gross delusion. Are straw men your only recourse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm especially interested in your explanation for why it is ok to abuse one group with highly negative generalizations. All you did was deflect with name calling and claiming a strawman that was never stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You clearly believe judgment is warranted, but don't be surprised when others point out the apparent ignorance and hypocrisy."
Judgement? What judgement? It's just facts. Theists use faith and belief as their measurement of truth, while atheists use the scientific method to determine truth through observable and measurable evidence. I don't really consider theists to be of lesser merit than others, but I do think their methodology for finding truth to be flawed. That's no different than disagreeing with someone trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. They're doing it wrong, but it doesn't imply that they're inferior human beings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly. For example, just because whites are generally more intelligent and less prone to committing violent crimes than blacks does not mean that they are superior, only different. Blacks are still better at rapping and playing basketball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you use blacks as an example without being racist? How about blacks have a skin tone that makes them more resistant to the harsh effects of the sun while whites fairer skin tone allows them to produce more vitamin D through sun exposure? An equally complimentary statement of fact for both groups, without showing a blatant disdain towards one or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The numbers say otherwise.
you can dig up statistics to support the violent crime portion of his statement here in 'Merica, one of the still least progressive nations on the planet with regard to race relations, the same cannot be said of those of African decent throughout the world, so that's a social issue, not a genetic one....
No, that's a general trait throughout the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
No, it means they're more poor. Why did you bring a third variable into it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Why am I not surprised?
...there is a negative correlation between believing and IQ across a large dataset.
Would you like to discuss statistical correlations between race and intelligence or race and criminality as well? Maybe Mike could let you write a front page article about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Mother Theresa lived a life of severe depression, because as she put it, "I did not feel the presence of God."
Ronald Reagan didn't put his faith in the forefront of his acting or political careers.
Neither did John Kennedy. The only time his faith came up was when he was running for President. The U.S. hadn't had a someone who claimed to be Catholic as a President before in a time when Protestants were the norm and Catholics were reviled.
Chris Langan's own writings suggest that his faith and the Bible were of a metaphorical value, not an inherent reality which must be ascribed to without fail.
The ironic thing about AC's comment is that it is religion is a uniquely "human" aspect. No other creature on this planet demonstrates any aspect of supernatural faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Not afraid of cars. Not afraid of beehives. Not afraid of skunks. But fluffy lint. Yep, that's her deity.
What supernatural power she ascribes to that lint, I don't know. But I have considered putting her down for worshiping false idols. I think the god's name is "Ruff".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow!
Mary Magdelene.
Zing!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow!
...oh, I guess it does. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!
It's surprising to me that people are saying "that's so typical of Christians", etc. I disagree. This is typical of a very small portion of extremist fundamentalist Christians. Most of the Christians I've met are likable enough people, despite having beliefs I don't particularly agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V9kSz7OfJQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jesus, much less so.
Interestingly, they pay less attention to those parts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 17th, 2011 @ 2:19pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 17th, 2011 @ 2:19pm
On a separate note I have to say that in my experience fanatical atheists are just as bad as fanatical religious nuts. Then again anyone who subscribes to an absolute view without clear evidence is subjecting themselves to belief (even if that belief is dis-belief).
Personally I prefer to let everyone believe what they like so long as their actions do not hurt others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 17th, 2011 @ 2:19pm
So proselytizing sends people to hell? If the person was never told about the kingdom (or whatever) then they are forgiven, but the minute a christian tells them and they make the decision that it's a bunch of hooey they go to hell?
Nice to know some christians are actively damning people.
"Then again anyone who subscribes to an absolute view without clear evidence is subjecting themselves to belief (even if that belief is dis-belief)."
Where is this evidence that you speak of? If you have evidence of god I think some people might be interested....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 17th, 2011 @ 2:19pm
I try to be a good person and that will just have to be good enough. If there is a god/s and I am sent to hell simply for not being a true believer then I will just have to accept that. But given that very few of my friends attend church it doesn't concern me over much. I expect to have plenty of pleasant company wherever I'm going. (How good can heaven be if it takes evil people simply because they believe, and how bad can hell be if it takes good people simply because they don't believe? Assuming either one exists in the first place.)
As soon as someone comes up with proof I'll be happy to take their side, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
(And please don't rant at me simply because you feel your dis/belief is being threatened. If you need to shore up your assumptions talk to your fellow dis/believers. I'm sure they will agree with you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 17th, 2011 @ 2:19pm
Plus, last week the jehovah's witnesses were making their rounds; I'm still a little touchy. ;)
No offense intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 17th, 2011 @ 2:19pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a difference between merely calling oneself a Christian and actually being one. Sadly, it seems that most people who call themselves Christian actually aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Faux Decider
Bill O'Reilly get's to decide who is Christian and who is not. Here's how it goes:
Norwegian mass murderer: not
People who watch Bill O'Reilly: yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Faux Decider
The comment was that they didn't "seem" to be. That was an opinion, and it was based on observation of their actions. There was no claim to being the one who decides, that will be Christ.
It's also worth noting that the Bible says that those who claim to be believers, but then don't follow the faith, have thus rejected it and are even worse than nonbelievers. Ouch, but I can see the reasoning. Even Satan *believes* in G_d, he just rejects him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Faux Decider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if the opposite were put in place? No attribution to comments. Would we then judge the comments more on merit than authorship? Could this inspire people to share how they actually feel instead of saying things that promote the image of themselves they have created to impress and fit in with friends, family and/or colleagues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand, I also see no problem with having comments tied to a profile.
For example, I agree with this comment of yours and can judge it on its' merit, but it would also be nice to see other comments of yours to see if you are consistent. A profile. A different one for each site if you like. This will be who you really are, on that site.
For the most part, I don't judge people immediately for how they appear, or on one brief exchange with them. I take my time judging people. I could decide after two years, that you aren't really someone I want in my life or be associated with in any way. I am looking at a bigger picture than just one comment/sighting.
A profile would help with accountability as well. The only thing consistent with the shills is that they will flip-flop depending on the circumstances. Just try to pin down what you are buying when making a physical disc purchase. The best I've gotten to is a license that expires when medium it is written on deteriorates. The only license I know of that works that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is why I'm thoroughly against it. Some days I like to troll (some weeks actually). Some days I like to add to the conversation. Some days I pretend to be someone else and try to mimic their writing style. Some days I do my very best to introduce retarded spelling and grammar mistakes into my posts. I don't want to be accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In regards to younger posters especially, it can be interesting to watch how thoughts change. Not just ideas, but processes as well.
I don't see any value in a troll. I see the opposite.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
Finally, I didn't mean to imply all comments needed to be tied to that profile. Maybe you wish to be known as a troll and only sign-in to profile when trolling, your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trolling anonymously serves several purposes, and I've actually seen some good (unintentional) come from it. Since I use the word 'infringe' instead of 'steal' or 'theft' in my posts, I've noticed a few others with dissenting opinions move away from the stealing angle, unless that's their primary schtick. Not tons, but it has happened.
Another purpose is that I can get a rise out of people without it being tied to any account. How am I supposed to impersonate angry dude, Michial Thompson, TAM, or any number of other people by copying their style if I have to sign in? Instead I'll just go somewhere else. Big loss? Not especially. Except you also lose my purposefully constructive comments that I make as well.
Another good reason for not forcing sign in is that someone may be embarrassed by their beliefs (no matter what people think about standing up for them) an may not want to tie that to any account, ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you say, and then you go on to argue against his point.
For example, I agree with this comment of yours and can judge it on its' merit, but it would also be nice to see other comments of yours to see if you are consistent. A profile. A different one for each site if you like. This will be who you really are, on that site.
Huh? Just how are you going to ensure that a person only has one account? Or that one account is only used by one person? To even begin to do that you have to get rid of anonymity and start checking every commenter's ID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TD allows those, which is great. For someone who is going to comment regularly, I think it would be good to comment under a named account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like attribution because I can search on my own screen name and keep up with which threads I've commented on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL - Religious "debate"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people who now call themselves Christians would have been a lot more comfortable hanging out with the Romans than they would have with Jesus. Check out http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/04/24/jesus-was-more-like-me-than-you/ for a graphic illustration.
And yes, I know that the Bible doesn't say that Mary Magdalan was a prostitute. We can blame Pope Gregory for that charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
You don't see it right away because you don't give "the crazy" a chance to show. However, ask someone what they think about Obama, for example, and you will get responses ranging from pure idiocy/verbal aggression/religious furor to denial of facts. It lines up with common republican/conservative viewpoints but is not limited to the political spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
> always a vague, abstract concept. Now it's real. The hate
> in those comments blows my mind.
One thing common to most religions is the peculiar desire of their adherents to kill anyone who doesn't believe what they do. For some reason, it's not enough for them to believe in their god, say their prayers, go to their religious services, etc. Like a drug pusher, they feel compelled to seek out anyone else who doesn't believe in the same things they do and force it down their throats, at the point of a sword, a gun, or an IED.
I think it stems from a deep-seeded insecurity in their own faith. Somewhere, deep down inside, there's a little voice telling them that it's all bullshit, and they can't stand that, so they lash out at the most visible evidence that their beliefs are nonsense: other people who seem to be leading happy, productive lives without having to slavishly worship some invisible sky tyrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
The hate espoused by 'believers' sickens me, and the smug superiority of the atheists irritates me. And the worst part is that I *know* that neither side represents a large percentage of the population. If you took a poll of Christians asking if they wanted all atheists dead, or of atheists asking if they really believed that those who believed in God were incapable of rational thought, I doubt that those voting 'Aye' would break 5%. But they are the loud ones, and they are the ones keep rational discussion from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
Neither of which are the norm for their respective group. These are merely a very vocal and visible extreme. You've probably never met a humble atheist because they know you can't persuade or convert theists. They're intelligent enough to know it's an entirely personal and individual realization that they have to come to on their own; a third party involvement will not produce results. It's something you have to figure out on your own, nobody can make you disbelieve. The smug atheists you are familiar with are no different than those bigots that are calling for blood. They're just rotten people on both sides regardless of their philosophical aspirations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
Read his post. That's what he said.
But your explanation holds merit. The humble one's don't proselytize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
The best atheist I know is a wonderful person. We actually dated a while back. She is reasonable, enjoys religious debate (not just bashing, but actually discussing the merits of general religion for the masses versus the principle of atheism for the individual), and has many friends of many different religions.
I know of these loud-mouthed nut jobs, but I don't know them personally. The people I know on both sides are reasonable and usually get along with each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
-2SA 3:21 Then Abner said to David, "Let me go at once and assemble all Israel for my lord the king, so that they may make a compact with you, and that you may rule over all that your heart desires. And if they resist, I'ma shoot them. Shoot to kill. For 'Merica."
-6:12 "As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, carry out my regulations and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. But if you don't, YOU CAN DIE AN GO TO HELL HAHA IF I COULD ID SHOOT ALL OF YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A 12GUAGE."
-Out of the north he comes in golden splendor; God comes in awesome majesty. And if people don't realize it, i say kill them all and let them see for themselves if there is a God.
-In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. KILL THEM.
-"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And will he not nail them to the cross then display it?"
-"But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, they're atheists so it won't matter if you kill them."
Man....Jesus was mean.
*This mashup of bible quotes and comments by devout hillbilly redneck 'Mericans was brought to you by The You Suck At Your Own Religion Corporation, in conjunction with public funding by The Go Outside And Play Hide And Go Fuck Yourself Group....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. �Get out of here, baldy!� they said. �Get out of here, baldy!� He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."
Christians are not to be fucked with, especially the ones alive before Christ was born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
That's totally one of my favorite episodes of Bible Fiction Television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
2. Why only include comments that happened either 6 hours or 20/21 hours ago (according to the timestamps)? Were there no other offensive comments between those times?
3. The number of people who have accepted this image as - dare I say it? - "gospel" is truly astounding. I thought healthy skepticism was a trademark of the non-believer crowd...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
Putting aside any religious arguments, weather you use your real name or not, it doesn't seem to matter when it comes to flame wars. I'm sure there may have been reasoned arguments mixed in with these, but it wasn't really the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
That wasn't Mike's point in this particular post, but I've been following this for a couple of weeks now and that's definitely how the Christian-bashers are spinning it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
That's rich .... are you implying that only the Christians are picked upon and all other religions get a free pass?
This is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
I probably missed something along the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
There has to be least one Faux News watching Christian who thinks these people are batshit crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
This person, at least, seems plausibly stupid enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
Judges 30-31, 34-39
And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, �If you will let us beat the ever living shit out of the Ammonites then first person I see when I get home, I will set on fire as a burnt offering to you.�
Then Jephthah came home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no other kids. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, �Why did it have to be you. I promised God to set you on fire.� She said to him, �My father, if you have opened your mouth to God, you have to do it.�
'Give me two months to wander the hills and complain that I'll die a virgin and I will return. Two months later she returned-still a virgin, and he set her ass on fire.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
"Kids, don't fuck with god or bears will eat you!"
http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_the-9-most-badass-bible-verses.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
Oh.. you mean JEWS? Oh yeah, definitely not to be fucked with...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sounds familiar.....
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on- fox-news-facebook-page/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Communities are often sociopaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communities are often sociopaths.
Those things were considered good at the time, and people were socially pressured to accept them. The real purpose of real names is discourage people from speaking out against today's bad things (and judge if they have sufficiently supported them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Communities are often sociopaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lolz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lolz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can use their real names here as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me."
If memory serves me...I think most Christian-based religions worship a statue of Jesus on a cross.
By my logic...EVERYONE'S going to hell, so keep the beer cold for when I come join you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm
this would probably have their actual position but i decided i didn't care enough to read it after i looked it up so i dont know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whacking Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your memory does not serve you. There are those in the church who, in my opinion, do pay too much reverence to symbols, but most Christian churches do not ascribe any power to a the cross. It is simply a reminder of sacrifice.
Let's just keep this in mind: every person is an individual. Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc, all are human beings with their own behaviors, fears, loves, and personalities. It is unfortunate that the loudest ones are usually the most wicked of any group.
And the idea that "atheists should just go to hell" is a horrifying position. As Christians, it is our job to show love and share God's Word. That's it. It is not our job to convert. It is not our job to use force. It is not our job to shame. It is not our job to place demands or pass judgment on one's soul. Such prideful and arrogant attempts lead only to violence and resentment. Only the Holy Spirit creates faith. Not threats and bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that this so-called thread merges two of the Left's favorite boogeymen - Christians and Fox News - is setting off all kinds of BS alarms.
What I find interesting is how many people - including in this thread - are using the comments to reaffirm their pre-existing biases without bothering to dig deeper into the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eeep
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news- facebook-page/
From the post:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On more sensible forums with a diversity of opinions (like here), a real name policy would likely filter out the truly fucked up statements because they would not be endorsed by the rest of the community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess that makes me truly f**ked up. Darn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did you think I was endorsing the opinions of the people on the Fox News page?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, the irony is high. Someone supporting real names as a way to "filter out the truly fucked up statements" then not using their real name. What, are you afraid of being "filtered"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I fully agree with this. I would even take it one step further, in that if others appear to agree with the hateful comment it then "feels" easier or safer for others to continue that line of comments.
I see real name displays as only helping to quell comments if the rest of the forum/thread disagrees with the original comment. If it agrees with it or even passively allows it, there is a chance it will actually encourage similar comments from others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask Blizzard about Real Names.....
No only was there a riot on the forums, but they lost several subscribers in the process, from the discussion alone.
Thankfully for them, they backed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
say im the only bee in your bonnet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah. It would be Freetard Coward, since the little punk is copying his parent's genes without paying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Real Names" Policies Are an Abuse of Power
What's most striking is the list of people who are affected by "real names" policies, including abuse survivors, activists, LGBT people, women, and young people.
Over and over again, people keep pointing to Facebook as an example where "real names" policies work. This makes me laugh hysterically. One of the things that became patently clear to me in my fieldwork is that countless teens who signed up to Facebook late into the game chose to use pseudonyms or nicknames. What's even more noticeable in my data is that an extremely high percentage of people of color used pseudonyms as compared to the white teens that I interviewed. Of course, this would make sense...
The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. "Real names" policies aren't empowering; they're an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://ci3hn2uzjw2wby3z.onion/
I find the conversations over TalkMasked to be more civil overall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I guess this is what happens when you don't believe in god. You have all this extra time 'cause you're not praying. You use it for unproductive things like suing about this."
I must admit that I had never realized that not praying gave me extra time. I had also never realized that I was wasting that time. I will pronto start putting that time to good use. I am looking forward to the day when the atheists have become more productive than the religious people and we can crush them under our boots of non-believing.... or something...
Later one of the hosts said something about how:
"We all have to be libertarian about this."
What the hell is libertarian about erecting a religious symbol on taxpayer dollars?
I must say that the most scary part is the comments right next to the smiling pictures. You see that and you start to ask yourself: These people look normal. Yet, they are a bunch of lunatics who seem to be willing to wage religious war. Who else is a lunatic masquerading as a normal person?
PS: I'm pretty sure there are laws against issuing death threat. And I'm pretty sure the people who said: "KILL THEM" or "someone show me where they live&and they will live no mere!" I might go buy myself a gun so I can defend myself against the crazy zombie worshippers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure if you meant that the worshipers were zombies, or that they worship a zombie? Oh well, fits either way.
Ironically, it seems that becoming an atheist made me more abhorrent to violence--the realization that we all only get one go around on this world makes life the most precious thing in all of the cosmos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the more u change urself from the carnal(faith) or monkey-like(science) state, the less violent u will be
if a mopey teenager goes from "dust in the wind" type mind set to realigen(the sane ones at lest) or shallow redneck realizes everyone around them are idiots; it will be a improvement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate speech
On a side note: Google+ is requiring REAL NAMES in order to use the expanded tools. It has been pointed out that special characters and numbers are not allowed. That cuts out a fair number of people! I should be glad that they didn't block me because there is an "'" in my name??!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sample bias
But the real question is not whether people are less rude when they must expose their real names. The real question is twofold:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sample bias
Is it true that they eat their young every full moon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sample bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sample bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sample bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"High Level" of Conversation
I just find it ironic [and quite pathetic, really] that this particular example shows Christians flaming Atheists. I'm Christian too, and I have Atheist friends. Does this make me a bad Christian? Wait a minute - Matthew 7:1, right??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "High Level" of Conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "High Level" of Conversation
With people you don't know, and/or can't gauge how they would react to such discussion, it's easiest to avoid it, in my experience. Facebook, or any service where public posting is permitted, makes these kinds of things worse.
TL;DR: Yes, you can have high levels of conversation with total strangers, even with controversial topics. Avoiding them is best so you get less crap for bringing it up in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "High Level" of Conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill Kill Kill them All !!!
[The following text is from premier Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg. Spurred on by this brand of ethnic hatred, it is no wonder that the Red Army committed such a vast number of atrocities.]
"The Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word German will trigger your rifle. We shall not speak any moe. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German before combat. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another - there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days; do not count miles. Count only the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the German - this is your old mother's prayer. Kill ther German - this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German - this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill."
(Text is found in Ilya Ehrenburg's book Vojna (The war) (Moscow, 1942-43)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kill Kill Kill them All !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kill Kill Kill them All !!!
FREETARD!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well it's true what they say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it's true what they say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real names
Real names for forum type responses is bad because you're more likely to strike up an argument. I'm not a fan of arguments and back&forth on my G+, but I am just fine for responses after an article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an Atheist, I feel no ill will toward those above who have been lied to their entire life, and I hope they find some peace in this lifetime.
If it I am threatened by a fundamentalist Christian in this, the only thing I can do is turn the other cheek. Hate only begets hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And while I'm more than happy to engage in a real debate about religion, when I do I hope that my words will not "convert" someone, but open their mind so that they figure things out for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Angel robes cannot be groped!
Halos cannot be backscatter detected!
Cherubimic wings cannot be grounded!
Celestial Harps cannot be Rick Rolled!
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah AMEN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I highly doubt he would resort to violence. After all, he did die for our sins.
The people aren't Christians, these people are blood hungry semi retarded people looking for a cause to stand behind. They are no better than Islamic/Jewish/Hindu fundamentalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But then, if you're basing your life on a book of fairy tales and legends about an imaginary man in the sky written by a bunch of uneducated goat herders in a desert thousands of years ago, you're probably beyond help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I can't put it past him, now the true God the pastafarian God would never do such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any arrests?
Or does this only happen when you make similar asinine comments via Twitter aimed at infrastructure or political movements?
PS Not that I think people should get arrested for making asinine comments, but some consistency would be a nice change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any arrests?
Response to threats only applies to non-christians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Any arrests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Any arrests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Any arrests?
Response to threats only applies to non-christians.
So you're saying that a person could threaten, say, the president and there would be no response as long as they were Christian? You really believe that? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Responsibility
Yes, I agree. Requiring the use of real names is just the responsible thing to do from the perspective of protecting people's right to sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet IDs don't have to be obvious, they can be completely innocent looking realistic names with backgrounds, physical addresses, account histories, etc. The only thing they can't easily obtain are government documents (unless you live in a country with more relaxed rules). Even non-realistic names can develop solid backgrounds. I've used 'Alien Bard' on a couple of real-life accounts and for mail order purposes with companies I didn't trust.
Personally, I consider 'Alien Bard' to be like a stage name. Among other things it is certainly better known. If I were ever to do something immature like flaming someone I would certainly not want to endanger this persona's reputation. It would be so much safer and more anonymous to simply create a false ID and log in using a proxy.
Be grateful for the existing cultural AKA trend. Anonymity does not need to be so obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Sometimes I feel like I'm the only Christian who actually reads his Bible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why does the Pope hide behind bullet proof glass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the point I believe he was attempting to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]