Posted on 01/20/2010 3:36:53 AM PST by markomalley
Some folks are ill-mannered. Some folks can turn any thread, on any topic, into a sewer. Some folks exercise that ability regularly.
The "academic thread" proposal would only work if those who disrupt it face meaningful consequences. Given the behaviour we have all seen on open threads, the academic thread would require a very heavy-handed moderator. No matter the original topic, we're discussing religion here ... things are interconnected, and even valid discussion in good faith will drift. Deciding what comments are valid drift, and what comments are "goat blood" material will require much more intensive moderation than the simple "don't make it personal" rule.
If the mods are willing to take up that burden, of course, the system could work. But let us have no illusions ... it will be a big burden.
The problem as I see it is that we are operating under the assumption that many on the open threads actually desire an honest and this assumption is erroneous.
What I see on most open threads are a half dozen or so lies, that have been proven to be lies countless times, reworded in the gleeful hopes of some “gotcha” moment.
Who's "we", Kemosabe? ;'}
You’re right.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I remember when I first joined FR and ventured onto the RF threads being stunned that such open bigotry actually existed. At the time I thought that surely these were reasonable people, but I eventually found out otherwise. I think that part of what bothers me the most is that I might actually know non-Catholics who feel like this and say such things in private.
Look, my dad was a great guy. At the same time, he had more racist in him than I care to admit. But I like to think I didn't follow his lead on that. I know a lot of my childhood friends were in similar situations, and most didn't pursue the hate path. But for those that went that way, joining the dark side if you will, there is seemingly no end of resources they can find to feed their false beliefs.
That's what we have here. People you know in the real world have been undoubtedly subject to some degree of this borderline psychotic anti-Catholic propaganda. Some may believe it off hand, but then realize when they actually meet and have the ability to listen to Catholics, that a lot of what they have been told by their powers-that-be is indeed wrong. Others never gave a damn in the first place. And then there are those few, very loud but still few, who would rather rant than learn. Who enjoy their anger; who can only feel big if they trample down others, regardless of facts. It's a sad way to go thru life - but few people, thank the Lord, take that path.
Some of the anti-Catholics actually claim to have friends who are Catholic. Either they are lying about having these friends or they don’t have a clue what friendship actually means.
I learned a lot that kinda deals with this from an exchange with some guy on some animal cruelty thread a few years back. It was the same argument of 'what's with you people? How sick are you to care about animals when there are [some horrific number] of babies killed each year?' I pointed out, civilly even (honest!) that instead of taking people to task on this thread, it might be a good place to recruit. Obviously they are compassionate people, and maybe they could be made to change their minds on abortion by exploiting our common points?
The guy literally laughed at me, mocking the idea that he would want "to change anyone's mind." So in his little world, the most important thing about saving babies was that everyone knew he wanted to save babies. If talking nice could help the unborn, well, that wasn't something he could be bothered with. It was all about him.
And so is it with a lot of the anti-Catholic hate. The true haters love to be the ones who prove they know better, regardless what any Catholic tells them about Catholicism. They build up their purity by dumping on us, mouth wide open and eyes and ears sealed shut. Facts be damned. Sad.
Forgot to ping you to post #29’s Hilaire Belloc’s comments that are “right on target”
Wow ... on the one claw, there’s no way that post can be allowed in a “caucus” thread.
On the other claw, you’ve demonstrated the sort of thing we should be able to discuss in an “academic” thread.
Unfortunately, I think this post needs to be pulled.
Two things to consider:
1. The Admin Moderators as a group are spread too thin to enforce labeling across the forum.
2. "Open" threads probably get the most attention for the same reason traffic slows down on the opposite side of a divided highway after a major car crash. As journalists say, "if it bleeds, it leads."
In order to create a reference all you need is an ecumenical thread, that would explain proper role of Mary in the arts. You don’t need to “rip” any articles “to shreds” to do that.
I don't. It's fine that people have an outlet where they can let their hair down and argue in whichever low-brow style they like, within very broad set of rules.
But it would also be great to have an environment where polemics are robust, but there is more light than heat.
I would say, if a rule is difficult to enforce without the Moderator constantly on top of it, let us drop it. For example, if topicality rule proves impractical, it should be relaxed till it becomes practical. But the sourcing rule and substantiality rule are not hard to enforce. We should seek rules that are simple.
I AM following this. I just don’t have anything intelligent to say. But you knew that. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.