I disagree wholeheartedly. Not moderating those comments fosters an environment where it’s OK to make them.
Should we allow misogynistic comments as long as no one complains? How about homophobic comments? Both are also examples of denigrating a select group of people.
If someone in that thread has said “an intelligent woman” or “a sane conservative” or other example that’s clearly inflammatory should it slide unless someone speaks up about it?
Oh, atheists are so persecuted on this board.
What’s so frustrating is that **Czarcasm **and Boyo Jim are so fucking clever, and they’ve gotcha!-d us all good, but we can’t admit it.
Well, I’ll admit it. You’re such clever boys. You’ve outsmarted us all.
Im not an atheist. I think the medicine is worse than the disease, in this specific case, is all.
The topic we are discussing, also isn’t.
Saying that you think God does not exist, is simply not analougous to homophobia or misogyny.
Nonsense. In the context of a CS thread on fictional characters it’s clearly a dig at religious people. It’s one step short of calling them stupid.
If it were IMHO and someone stated that they don’t think god exists that’s an entirely different situation. Throwing out God in that CS thread is clearly insulting on at least some level and serves no purpose other than allowing the poster to stroke his ego and show how much smarter he is than those theist fools who believe in fairy tales.
MODERATOR NOTE:
This is not the Pit, a fact all of you know – or should know – it’s even been mentioned in this very thread.
Your posting privileges are now under discussion.
It’s not the Pit. What in Peter Morris’s post was pittish?
I’ll agree with that. I listen to (for mocking purposes only. I find their conspiracy theories weirdly fascinating) a lot of birther types and with one exception they’re all Amercian.
I’ve got to disagree again. It’s not “favoritism towards theists” in my opinion, it’s not allowing hot-button topics to be bomb-thrown into otherwise benign threads. “Jezus is fictional! LOLZ!” is absolutely fine for a GD topic. “Let’s discuss the Bible as a work of fiction” is perfectly ok for a CS topic*. Dropping the stinkbomb “Gawd is fictional!” in a “Most popular fictional character” thread simply isn’t. And not because of theists. Because of bomb-throwing.
IMO, anyone who says that’s pro-theist is overreacting, since I can think of at least 5 or 6 other non-religious answers that wouldn’t be appropriate in that thread for the same “no bomb-throwing” reason.
*Disclaimer: I am not a mod. Should a mod disagree with this, they’re right, I’m wrong. Following my advice could get you warned, banned or shot. 
Fenris, to me, it’s like those same people who always drag out the same old wornout “I gave up Catholicism for Lent! yuk yuk yuk!” every freaking spring when someone has a thread about giving things up for Lent. It’s so old there have been disclaimers that say, don’t bother, it’s old, we get it. And someone STILL has to has to post it, because hey, “ha ha, stupid Catholics!” C’mon.
What? How on earth was that Pit-worthy? Snarky, but no more than many comments around here.
Attacking the poster and not the post?
Also, is it common practice for a NOTE to cause a review of posting privileges?
Really?
Except he didn’t really “attack” him – or at least, insult him. He simply pointed out how, “hey, you have a history of this kind of behavior, and it’s starting to really piss people off.” And that Czarcasm is being deliberately obtuse when he says otherwise.
He didn’t call him names, or anything like that.
With all due respect, you guys are seriously losing it.
I agree with Peter Morris that it’s obvious what Czarcasm meant (anti-religious snark where it wasn’t on-topic), that he has a long history of this sort of thing, that he’s not particularly subtle about belittling other people’s religious beliefs in fairly nasty ways, and that he’s admitted to posting in a way that begs to be pitted. His post was an attack. His post was a “nasty bit of snark”. His post was begging for a pitting. And twixter was right to warn him for it, because it’s jerky.
If you think expressing any of this is worthy of a warning for me, I think you should probably explain why, because I think a lot of people won’t understand.
So is the normal, earnest worldview of atheists offensive in other contexts, or just this one?
This thread started off about avoidance of hijacks and threadshitting -and (although IMO, the cure is worse than the disease), that’s a fair concern. You’re now talking about trying to protect theists from mean ol’ atheists; that’s a different animal.
Atheism is not analogous to homophobia or misogyny. It is not treated in a similar way to those things anywhere else on the board, as far as I know.
Expecting the moderators to gag atheists because they’re vaguely implying something mean (nevermind that it’s off topic) will achieve one thing: it will make it possible to characterise theists as whiny, spineless pussies, hiding behind big brother. I don’t want that.
You mean, besides changing his name in order to mock him/push buttons, right?
It’s only a bomb because people bite. Once they’ve shot their bolt, they’re out - if they come back and labour the point; “no, really guys, Jesus is like fake - didn’t you hear me?”, it starts to be a problem. I’m all for moderating problems - I just think that to try to nip them all in the bud this way would be pointless, labour-intensive, and premature.
That won’t stop them saying/thinking it.
Sorry, I missed that. I still think that a banning would be way over the top, though.
Not at all. I said in my post that it’s perfectly acceptable to express an atheist viewpoint.
It’s not acceptable to make it a threadshit and it should be called out when it is.
This is a terrible argument. Atheist threadshits should slide and everyone else should just accept them?
What other threadshits get a pass or is it only this one?
You’d have done well not to have gone off on that homophobia/misogyny tangent, then.