Yes. It’s funny how a little joke by Ed Zotti circa 1998 (?) is impacting board rule decisions in 2022.
What joke was that?
In the description for GD, it says it’s the place for debates, etc., and “if you must, witnessing.”
ETA: Here’s the description for GD:
For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.
The “…if you must, witnessing” phrase in the forum description, going back (I think) to the founding of the SDMB on AOL, in a previous millenium.
It did set a real ground rule, but was really a bit of jocular fun, in typical Cecil Adams style.
(Ninja’d)
If that’s all it is, then perhaps it’s long past time to change it. As has been noted, well constructed debates on religious topics can still go into GD. Free form thought dumps can go into MPSIMS.
These certainly seem at odds. Was your mind changed because you came in on the wrong side of the vote?
I wish people would stop using this as an example of what this board does. In no way has that ever been the “mission” of this board. Since day one this place has had nonsense posts, from popping zits to scientific racism. If you took away all the threads that didn’t fight ignorance, this board would have closed 20 years ago.
But you are wrong in this case. To use your own words, I can’t believe you are putting this much effort into defending the closing one thread. Again, this seems personal on your side. From your attitude, it seems Jim_B is in your sights and his future on this board is a foregone conclusion. Maybe you should recuse yourself from modding any of his posts if he upsets you this much.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a mod argue this much against a group mod decision.
It’s not what the board does, it’s what the board aspires to do,
The board certainly tries to not encourage ignorance. That’s not the same as every thread being required to fight ignorance. But keep pushing the straw man over if that’s your thing.
Why not? As moderators, we’re often called upon to determine if someone is misrepresenting themselves or not. Why should claims about someone’s sexuality be automatically exempt from this consideration?
No it doesn’t. If it did we wouldn’t have the forums we do. If it was about ignorance, the only forum we’d have would be Factual Answers. The fighting ignorance crap is just a holdover from the columns.
No strawman, you brought it up. Ninety-nine percent of this board is idle chit chat. That’s why people like it and why the lighter forums get more posters than the others. If we are aspiring to fight ignorance, we’ve failed since day one. It was Cecil’s column that tried to fight ignorance, and that died a long time ago. The board is way past anything the column claimed to do. And that’s a good thing.
Why would it matter? You would scream bloody murder if someone was questioned about this in person. It’s been pointed out over and over on this board that it’s improper to question how someone identifies. As far as I know, there is no written test to detect if someone is gay or not. A moderator insinuating that is a bad precedent.
BS. I never said “all threads must fight ignorance”, that’s your fabrication.
I don’t share your desire to lower the quality of discourse here, but then again you don’t really contribute outside of griping in ATMB, so I’m not sure why you care.
In any event, I think this is turning into a hijack, this doesn’t have much to do with Jim_B’s closure, I’m dropping this.
The quality of discourse here is just fine. Just because you imagine a different board, doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with it. The board had always mainly been about chit chat and still is. Ask people what their favorite threads are. I’m guessing very few will have to do with fighting ignorance.
The issue was never the poster’s sexual orientation per se, it was the homophobic content of the posts. In real life, you would give people a lot more leeway on commentary on a marginalized group if they are themselves a member of that group. And maybe that’s also okay online with longstanding posters who have always been open and consistent about who they are. But for obvious reasons, online you cannot generally just give people a pass on homophobic comments based on unsubstantiated claims that they themselves are gay.
Especially a poster who says he’s a skeptical atheist in one post and gushing over supposed miracles in another. It’s as if his story changes depending on the thread he wants to start.
Moderator Note
This isn’t the Pit. Don’t attack other users.
You also can’t assume they are not gay due to unsubstantiated feelings you have about them from their posts. I don’t think it’s unusual for gay or transgender people to waver on coming out. His questions about being gay go back to the beginning of the board. He seems to me to be a gay man who is still mostly secretive about his life. Doesn’t mean he is lying about it. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he is a deliberately celibate gay man.
My point being, do we really want to go back to when you were allowed to question publicly whether someone was really gay or transgender? Because I don’t want to see that.
People are different. Just because he doesn’t fit into what others think is a gay profile doesn’t mean he’s not gay. Heck, IIRC, there were gay people against legalizing gay marriage.
Are you really not aware of the conflict some people go thru to get away from the religion they are raised as? Some never do, even tho they haven’t believed in a long time.
Do you read his posts? He states everything firmly and confidently. It just doesn’t jibe with other things he’s stated firmly and confidently.
So? Maybe he’s confident some days , some days he’s not sure. I don’t really understand most peoples relationships with religion. His doesn’t really stand out.
But, Atamasama was right, this is getting really off point.
Yeah, I’m not even sure why this thread is still open, since the original thread is now reopened.
Plus, I think we are just talking past each other at this point, so I’m out. Thanks for the discussion.