Petition to make religion a blockable topic on your threads list.

[Misery]

Oh My ______ (Insert name or non-name reference to your acceptable deity. Alternately, name or refer to your favorite idolized musician or sports figure.)

IMHO...
There are only two topics of any lasting importance. How we relate to our creator and how we relate to our fellow man. Religion and politics.

NT or ND, many of the problems we have touch on these seminal issues. They emerge all over the place. What now? We're going to task the site staff with hunting down and obliterating any post on any thread that touches on religion?

I'm convinced we're made of nobler stuff than that.

It can be necessary sometimes.

It really depends heavily on the forum as a whole, and the purpose/function of that forum.

There's another forum I frequent and in fact moderate, which is related to an indie dev I've contracted with a few times. There's a rule there, which I will enforce with unflinching ruthlessness, which is: No politics. Period. If a political topic pops up, or if a non-political topic GETS political, I lock it. It's that simple.

WHY, you ask?

The official reason is that the developer as a whole... who DOES function as a business selling a product (the games they make) doesnt want to be seen as being linked to ANY specific political thing at all. They dont want the potential customer's purchase decision to be linked to "oh this developer supports THAT guy, huh?". The decision to buy or not should be about the product being considered, nothing more. So.... yeah. No politics, period. Every now and then someone on the forum expresses a dislike for that rule, but... bloody tough. It is what it is, and it is there for a reason.

Okay and the other reason is to avoid ridiculous flame wars, as political topics have a tendency to be quite flammable on the Internet. And I will admit that reason #3 is my utter loathing for the topic as a whole.

My point though, is that there can be genuine reasons for even an entire forum to avoid certain topics, and those reasons are, in the end, entirely up to those who own/control the forum. Agree or disagree, it's their decision for their reasons in the end.


NOW, that all being said, I must also say in response to the OP... there's little point in complaining about it either way, from the point of view of a general "user". Just... dont click on the things you dont like. It's the freaking Internet... if you cant manage to avoid doing that, you will soon be driven to absolute madness. I mean, seriously, "just ignore X thing instead of reacting to it" is like Internet Usage 101 here.

 

[Mia]

It's one of the reasons I come to this site less and less. Religious quotes and 'read the Bible or the Torah or Koran' as answers to individual difficulties are only helpful to people who believe.

 

[unperson]

No way. The people who post in 'religion' make interesting contributions elsewhere. You're suggesting block people rather than give people a choice as to which section they see?

Yes.

 

[The Pandector]

I understand your point, @Mia. We all lose if you come here less. Nevertheless, as an individual, you're able to neglect religious advice and move on... without infringing the other person's message. But if you legislate that people can't respond in certain ways, then you absolutely are infringing that person's expression.

It frustrates me that so many people these days think that the way to handle interpersonal friction is to grab the levers of power and beat others over the head with them. How about we savor what we like and ignore the rest?

'Eat the meat and spit out the bones.' Oops! That's an oft-used phrase in Pacific Northwest Protestant churches as advice to those who disagree with something the preacher says. So then, this very valuable piece of advice is absolutely off-limits on AutismForums? Tell me... how distant does a paraphrase have to be before it's an acceptable alternative to the *tainted* original quote? Wait! What if I can prove that the saying was originally used by people who could only catch trout for food? Does that mean this wisdom is then free of the original sin of association with religion?

For anyone thinking, 'Oh, that's just ridiculous,' I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Magna]

I'm saying the less something is seen the more some people give an excuse that I didn't see it so I can do whatever ! I want

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[The Pandector]

Religious quotes and 'read the Bible or the Torah or Koran' as answers to individual difficulties are only helpful to people who believe.

Just to be clear, this is not true. Many--most?--believers come to be such because someone shared with them when they were not believers. And, regardless of your personal experience or opinion, they experience a better life for it. These are the people that those you find offensive are trying to find and help. And they will probably find a way, with or without your help. It's been going on for eons.

 

[Aspychata]

It just seems to be cynical, like the real estate bubble. Sometimes we have a lot of new members that rely on religion to help them get thru a difficult life, other times, we have a group that seems not really involved with any religion.

So l may become perturbed because it can litter conversations and yes, l feel uncomfortable, however, l feel that we all deserve to be treated with respect.

 

[VernalSole1355]

I would like to point out that I am a Christian. I also voted "yes" on this poll. That might sound odd, or even unexplainable to you. Allow me to explain a bit more in detail, but I'll keep it as plain as I can.

As Christians, we believe in loving one another, no matter who you are. I do not believe that people should be FORCED to look at religious stuff, i.e. get notifications if they do not want to get them or it throws them off, ESPECIALLY in the case of an Aspie or anyone with some sort of trauma or stress related to the Church or religion in general.

Think of it this way: If someone tries to cram food down your throat, what's your body's natural reaction?
We're not accomplishing our mission by forcing people to hear what we have to say in terms of Christianity. They will just ignore it.

I 100% support this petition and think it would be a great addition to the forums.

 

[SimonSays]

I understand your point, @Mia. We all lose if you come here less.

Agree.

It frustrates me that so many people these days think that the way to handle interpersonal friction is to grab the levers of power and beat others over the head with them. How about we savor what we like and ignore the rest?

'Eat the meat and spit out the bones.' Oops! That's an oft-used phrase in Pacific Northwest Protestant churches as advice to those who disagree with something the preacher says. So then, this very valuable piece of advice is absolutely off-limits on AutismForums? Tell me... how distant does a paraphrase have to be before it's an acceptable alternative to the *tainted* original quote? Wait! What if I can prove that the saying was originally used by people who could only catch trout for food? Does that mean this wisdom is then free of the original sin of association with religion?

Good point.

I'm of the mindset that I focus on what I'm interested in and don't focus on what I'm not. I prefer to roll on by.
I occasionally post something in 'religion' (would prefer a spiritually section but that's me), but I'd like to think I make a contribution in other areas too, so wouldn't like to be 'ignored' just because I play in that room sometimes.

 

[Aspychata]

Just to be clear, this is not true. Many--most?--believers come to be such because someone shared with them when they were not believers. And, regardless of your personal experience or opinion, they experience a better life for it. These are the people that those you find offensive are trying to find and help. And they will probably find a way, with or without your help. It's been going on for eons.

This was disrespectful to @Mia. She clearly stated her views which she is entitled to just as you are entitled to your views.

Religion is a personal choice, and there are quite a few of us here who do not choose it for many different reasons.

 

[ForestGumpett]

No way. The people who post in 'religion' make interesting contributions elsewhere. You're suggesting block people rather than give people a choice as to which section they see?

Exactly!

Some countries allow blocking of the whole, well, the whole country [ie: China, N. Korea] There are people out there in other countries that would have body parts cut off or killed for even contributing to a conversation as this.

What I’m starting to hear in the background here is the “cancel culture” at best...or rather at worse.

Our family has started canceling back, and our boycott list is long (hello walmart/target/amazon/Kroger/mrs. Butterworth just to name a few)
No our little bit of money may not matter right now, but it will. We (our family) are not the only one’s that have started this. I’m not on FB so don’t know if it’s there but it’s in other places. People have had enough I believe. We use our money as a way to fight back what we don’t agree with, not crawl into a hole and ask people to hide their words - I’m an adult and can handle it just fine no worries.

 

[The Pandector]

So, now we live in a world where simply mentioning God is deemed 'cramming it down the other's throat?' Of course this isn't such a problem for the sexually indeterminate. They frequently go deeply into their angst on these boards. How is this not 'cramming it down our throats' when the mention of God as a potential solution to human problems is just that? Yet I don't hear the religious people screaming to have the non-binaries muffled in the public arena.

This is just like the rest of the PC culture; sounds really good until they start coming after you.

 

[VernalSole1355]

So, now we live in a world where simply mentioning God is deemed 'cramming it down the other's throat?'

For clarification, I mean that FORCING people to listen to it is wrong. If you make the choice to go to Church, then that's perfectly fine & acceptable. You chose to go there and to hear the preaching. But we should NOT, and I repeat, NOT, force anyone to listen to our preaching. You shouldn't just drag someone to Church and make them listen to it, because they are going to just ignore it.

 

[ForestGumpett]

Although I have no real opinion or preference when it comes to seeing religious posts, just wanted to correct this damaging stereotype:
No, it's not required by law for Muslim women to wear a Hijab or walk behind her husband. It may be required in some regions in the world as part of the local culture, but it's not required by Islam. I have many Muslim friends who don't follow either of these practices.

That is very informative, thank you. I didn’t know that this was not a rule. And I also think this proves how easily getting religion and politics and pretty much the whole idea of religion=rules or religion=politics mixed up.

It’s almost impossible to separate them as much as many want too. You cannot get to the fruit in the orange without pealing the orange first, so does one just not talk about the peeling and you still have the whole orange?

 

[Butterfly88]

I'm sort of religious but can see benefits to having it be an opt-in forum. The political forum is an opt-in so you would think another controversial topic like religion would be as well.

 

[The Pandector]

This was disrespectful to @Mia. She clearly stated her views which she is entitled to just as you are entitled to your views.

I'm sorry you feel that way, my friend. But I can't see how it was disrespectful in any way.

I didn't disrespect any particular opinion. What she stated about 'only believers' was simply false, as I explained. If I'm wrong on that point, please jump in and explain. If I seemed to be saying that her opinion or feelings wouldn't change the course of millennia-old dynamics, then I got my point across. If I said these things in an offensive way, then maybe I failed in my effort to be simply factual and logical. Of course she's entitled to her views, and to their expression.

It's a fact of my life that I am positively savant at saying credible things in incredibly insensitive ways. I would be open to an explanation of what I did wrong.

 

[Mia]

I'm also suggesting if it's such a great idea opting out of atheism

That is your personal choice Streetwise. Atheism is the lack of any specific position, considering many. I don't attempt to force atheism on others.

 

[Barymore]

Why is it opt-in rather than opt-out, anyway? Shouldnt seeing everything be default?

*change topic*

We could start a list of trigger-topics and if a certain nr of people would like that on the opt list, its added... I have no problem seeing gender issues on that list, together with religion and politics, maybe some others too?

I quite like the birthday thread, and some of the games, but sometimes it can be a long scroll down through them, I admit.

I tend to avoid blocking topics because I quite like being challenged and trying to understand others opinions or why something is maybe getting me angry.

Also, I am worried about the power of echo chambers, but I think as long as we cant overly curate whose posts we see, there is little risk of that, right?

 

[VernalSole1355]

I like the idea of having some sort of trigger list. Different people have different triggers. +1

 

[Barymore]

@Mia .... I thing agnosticism is the lack of any specific position. Atheism (which I identify with) is the stance that there are no deities or an active denial of such. Well known adherents are evolutionary biologist richard dawkins (he has a number of books on the topic). There are, however, also many scientists who believe in a deity.