I swear to god (hah), at least 20% of the posts on this website are posts making good points, but in the most hostile way possible.
Why are you surprised that some people reacted defensively to this post? You just stereotyped a bunch of people as crybaby wojacks, if you had instead made a short paragraph of text explaining your feelings, there would be way more people who would be willing to discuss the topic rationally.
People are talking. There are 140+ comments and a huge amount of it is very good. People will be learning from it.
The thread that actually gets people to engage and talk is more effective learning material than the thread that people gloss over and don't engage with because it's entirely reasonable and doesn't rustle any jimmies or have the real guts to properly challenge anyone's position. Challenging other people's positions inspires them to defend it, and what comes from challenge and defence is the valuable good stuff.
There are ways to challenge people's beliefs gently, there doesn't have to be a shitstorm on this website whenever someone wants to discuss a controversial topic.
I feel like that was more about actually controversial topics. Whether or not religion should be completely and totally rejected isn't a controversial topic, it obviously shouldn't. There are specific forms of it that do need to be fought and that comes down very much to analysis of the conditions. The Russian church was embedded into the very government bureaucracy itself for example, or the American christians who are bordering on building a fascistic theocracy. The South American christians on the other hand not so much.
I swear to god (hah), at least 20% of the posts on this website are posts making good points, but in the most hostile way possible.
Why are you surprised that some people reacted defensively to this post? You just stereotyped a bunch of people as crybaby wojacks, if you had instead made a short paragraph of text explaining your feelings, there would be way more people who would be willing to discuss the topic rationally.
I think their approach produced exactly the right results to be honest.
wdym?
People are talking. There are 140+ comments and a huge amount of it is very good. People will be learning from it.
The thread that actually gets people to engage and talk is more effective learning material than the thread that people gloss over and don't engage with because it's entirely reasonable and doesn't rustle any jimmies or have the real guts to properly challenge anyone's position. Challenging other people's positions inspires them to defend it, and what comes from challenge and defence is the valuable good stuff.
There are ways to challenge people's beliefs gently, there doesn't have to be a shitstorm on this website whenever someone wants to discuss a controversial topic.
I don't really see a shitstorm here.
With that said. I like the shitstorms the most.
Probably biased here because I agree with OP.
deleted by creator
I feel like that was more about actually controversial topics. Whether or not religion should be completely and totally rejected isn't a controversial topic, it obviously shouldn't. There are specific forms of it that do need to be fought and that comes down very much to analysis of the conditions. The Russian church was embedded into the very government bureaucracy itself for example, or the American christians who are bordering on building a fascistic theocracy. The South American christians on the other hand not so much.
Plenty of people are arguing, so clearly it was controversial.
A yes, Hexbear.net. The place to challenge people's beliefs gently.
That notion has been dead for a long time. The mods came out and said "all aggression, all the time" and that was it.
The long paragraph thing might just be that people aren't reading it not that the context wouldn't offend them
honestly compared to a lot of the soybaby wojack shit.
this one is pretty on point. a large portion of the people on this site are like that.
seventeen paragraphs later
Wait. Stop. Not like this.