Interfaith Group

LostOne4Ever

(9,667 posts)

15. Uhhhh with all due respect "what?"

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 07:48 AM

Dec 2014

Sorry but I am having problems following you.

If even the Interfaith group has become a place where one cannot escape being "Othered" by atheists disrupting all possible Interfaith discussions with their own issues, then fuck it.

Where did I "other you?" How did I disrupt? You made a post talking about militantism and made comments about militant atheism and how some people wear it as a badge of honor and others see it as a slur. My post was a response to that and explaining why I see it as a slur.

And if you check the info on the group you can see they welcome both believers and nonbelievers into the conversations. Did you not want feed back from other fellow non-believers? I think you are mistaking what "interfaith" means and what you are looking for Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith or one of the many other groups in religion and spirituality.

The abusive online situations I have run into did not involve atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, or Jews. But they did involve people who were extremely militant defenders of other, unnamed, belief systems. In one case, years of pseudonymous cyberstalking and hundreds of hostile references to me by name. In another a declaration, sanctioned by an official authoritative body of a religion, of a list of Apostates with my name at the head of it. No, not outright violent threats but certainly threatening in a serious and longterm way to one's reputation.

Except...you did mention that it was with an atheist:

Being friendly towards all religions but an adherent of none, skeptical of their historical claims but sympathetic to their spiritual sensibilities, has made me only a few enemies in two rather obscure religious groups. But the behavior of those enemies has involved multiple outright falsehoods, published or posted in contexts designed to stir up sectarian antagonism from a particular subgroup based on total misrepresentation of my writings as hostile towards the entire group. Never thought I'd see such a thing from atheists, and only one time has this kind of malicious misreading and disrespect appeared in print from anyone who wasn't a believer.

So I asked you about it specifically.

Making this personally accusing about me is both making a straw man and further intimidating me from discussing the issue. Instead of reaching out for common ground, it pushes one into a corner of being "the opponent"-- arguing that I was equating all levels of "militancy" as being identical, rather than suggesting they are related and on a continuum. (A continuum that Quakers, Unitarians, and agnostics don't seem to be on at all.) They are not identical, and what I see militant atheists doing online is milder than what I've experienced from group A or group B. It is however, intimidating in the sense that they seem completely uninterested in mutually respectful dialogue, and are always out to "defeat the enemy." Not all atheists, but the ones who go online to quarrel with "the Other" and seem rather indiscriminate to lump all manner of agnostics, pantheists, etc. into the "Other" category to have someone to argue with.

Nowhere did I make it personally accusing of you. In fact, I did a quadruple check before posting to make sure the tone was as neutral as possible. Please quote the portion where you think I did otherwise.

I accused you of nothing, but was discussing a topic you yourself brought into the thread:

But recent discussions here led me to look into “militant atheism,” and the results are quite extraordinary. On one hand there are plenty of people openly avowing such a position, identifying as such; on the other there seem to be an equal number of atheists indignantly denying that such a thing exists, and calling it a baseless slur. What I have seen lately certainly indicates that there are a fair number of atheist militants online, however small their real world presence.

If you did not want to discuss that, why bring it up?

Again as I said in my reply to the Host, I did not say there could not be a spectrum. Rather I explained why I (and many others) consider it a slur. I explained how it is used currently in the world we are forced to live in and why it is insulting.

Your typeface style strikes me as a form of bullying-- dominating the conversation both with aggressive confrontational language, and the physical appearance of your posts.

And my type face style is nothing more than something I came up with to add personality and a bit of individuality to my posts. I have been doing it since before Halloween. Here I am saying exactly why I started doing that in the Help forum over a month ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12569424#post3

A few days later someone commented on how they liked it and I explained myself again (and increased the font size and boldness of the font I was using for better readability):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=31027

Had you looked at my post history you would seen me using it in a variety of forums:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=41793
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=22011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=22270
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5908351
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113741316
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113741329

But you just assume I am trying to "bully" you? Aren't you the one who was going on about:

The essence of militancy is to see the subject of religion in a polarized, black and white, two dimensional context in which there is a prolonged struggle between two warring factions. The militarized mind loses all sense of nuances and the possibility of mutually respectful dialogue, and becomes in essence blind to any possible engagement other than fight/flight, attack/defend, right vs. wrong, etc

But you assume my font choice is an attack on you? Must I post exactly as everyone else or I am up to no good? But couldn't just have asked me the reason for my font? Instead you assume I am up to no good?

Is this better? If you really hate my papyrus font so much Ill post my replies to you in this font.

How was my language confrontational? I went over it 4 times to make sure my reply to you and the host were not as aggressive as what I usually post.

If you don't want a conversation just say so. You should have simply said you didn't want any atheist input in your reply or something similar. I am used to being unwanted.

Sorry for bothering you. I won't do it again.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] carolinayellowdog Dec 2014 OP

As a militant atheist, I have nothing but the deepest respect... stone space Dec 2014 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author carolinayellowdog Dec 2014 #9

Here's a couple more militant google links that might get... stone space Dec 2014 #10

When I took a property course, the professor started the clsss with this statement. rug Dec 2014 #2

Law? (nt) stone space Dec 2014 #3

Yeah. It was an unusual school at the time. rug Dec 2014 #4

Phil used to talk about "Property" vs "Improperty". (nt) stone space Dec 2014 #5

Phil who? rug Dec 2014 #6

Phil Berrigan. stone space Dec 2014 #7

Ah, I never heard that phrase. He was a good, good man. rug Dec 2014 #8

The Oxford definition of militant LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #11

It's a legitimate adjective. kentauros Dec 2014 #12

There are a lot of legitimate adjectives that can be used as slurs LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #13

This message was self-deleted by its author carolinayellowdog Dec 2014 #14

Uhhhh with all due respect "what?" LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #15