|
Post by trike on May 13, 2009 10:46:00 GMT -5
I approved it b/c it is indeed fundie, in my estimation. It shows the same level of intolerance, bigotry and just plain WTF-ness to qualify.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 13, 2009 10:59:17 GMT -5
Hey, Lady Renae. They're accusing you of hand-picking these quotes instead of letting it go through the proper vote process. I'm getting even more of a fundie conspiracy-theorist vibe now, albeit on a smaller scale to what usually happens.
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on May 13, 2009 11:03:12 GMT -5
I hope you are not seriously advocating that we run everyone off from the main page who allows themselves to indulge in blowing off steam, releaseing some pent up anger, or having a good rant? I couldn't agree more! PLEASE, PLEASE don't censor FSTDT. This was my favorite website to visit for fun. But, if it gets all preachy and boring and prohibits free speech, I'll get my jollies elsewhere. Jezebel's Evil Sister, ne? I enjoy your quotes and comments, incidentally <3 I've addressed this on the mainpage, but it may bear repeating here. I think it's really important to recognise that FSTDT exists to mock intolerance. Anybody can be intolerant over pretty much anything. Atheists/anti-theists can be intolerant to the concept of religion, to the point where they preach banning it. Swap "ban religion" with "ban atheism" and you'll see why we consider these comments fundie. So - nobody who espouses intolerance is safe from being quoted. That said, nobody is censoring people. Nobody quotes 'DIAF' or other inane little acronyms, nobody says "don't say X/Y/Z." FSTDT has always reserved the right to quote comments made both on the mainpage and in the forums. Usually these are drive-by apologetics, but twice now it has been atheists, and the only difference is that they are atheists. Everyone can feel entirely free to say whatever they wish. If they come off as a fundie - and I note Grigadil, unlike Pule in his initial reaction, has not conceded that he was behaving intolerantly - then they may be quoted. This is hardly new. At the end of the day, nobody minds if you say "argh, I hate religion" or spend an hour and a half bitching about its negatives. But people will mind when you say stuff like "all religious people are evil/immoral" and "it should be banned". Imposing your views on others is a hallmark of a fundie, and expressing such sentiments will strike people as fundie-by-another-name. One final thing I want to mention, which I haven't yet on the mainpage: FSTDT is not made up merely of atheists and agnostics. We have quite a few religious people who feel the same way we do about fundies. Too often, mainpage commenters think that this is Religious People Are Stupid So We'll Mock Them dot net, and that is not what FSTDT is about. [/soapbox]
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on May 13, 2009 11:04:27 GMT -5
Hey, Lady Renae. They're accusing you of hand-picking these quotes instead of letting it go through the proper vote process. I'm getting even more of a fundie conspiracy-theorist vibe now, albeit on a smaller scale to what usually happens. *Steps in from lurkiness* What has been put through PubAd at the moment has been left for the proper vote process. If they've still been coming through then i have to say those accusing Renae of handpicking the quotes are just whining. *returns to lurkiness*
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 13, 2009 11:25:07 GMT -5
Yeah, they're whining.
But it's like a minor conspiracy theory.
E-drama.
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on May 13, 2009 15:24:28 GMT -5
If one more person declares two atheist comments = THE DRAMATIC END TO FSTDT, I will eat their faces.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on May 13, 2009 15:27:41 GMT -5
If one more person declares two atheist comments = THE DRAMATIC END TO FSTDT, I will eat their faces. We've had atheist comments before and the Internet hasn't imploded. I don't think this one is going to set off a time paradox.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on May 13, 2009 16:33:55 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but the fact that the meaning of words does change does not imply that all changes are warranted, accepted, understood, or pervasive. Your examples of awful and terrific are inappropriate, as the meanings that you are using have been out of use for a long time and not a source of confusion or debate in modern conversation. The same is not the case with the FAQ's pseudodefinition of fundie. A more appropriate and illustrative example would be a word that has a currently mutating definition; for example, marriage in the legal context. No, it doesn't imply that all changes are warranted, accepted, understood or pervasive. But all changes are changes, and the meaning is changing. Ignoring the emerging meaning to cling to the old meaning, because you feel it fits more only leads to pedantic fights. Not that there's much wrong with that, really. Marriage is a good example. The first country to allow homosexual marriage did it in 2001. I can't imagine that the word "marriage" applied to gay couple's relationships in many people's minds until recently, which is pretty recent given the word's relative age. The word's definition is a source of confusion and debate in modern conversation. Yet most, if not all of us here, accept that same-sex marriage is, in fact, a subset of marriage, not something else. This is going to sound kind of jerkish, because I know it's probably impossible, but can you source any of that? Most of the definitions I see tend to explicitly state that fundamentalism is "usually" religious in nature, or has "generally" retained religious connotation, implying that the definition is anything but set in stone. As an aside, we're not arguing with the dictionary, we're arguing with people, which is why it's important to see what people think. You keep saying that "most people" don't use this "non-standard" form of the word, but the fact that we're arguing this proves that the word should be defined before attempting to use it. And though the FAQ is somewhat out of the way, it serves the purpose of giving the general denotation and connotation of the word that the site administrator wants to use. When the word's having arguments over its meaning, it seems best to use whatever meaning is either broad enough to encompass both or is selected by the site owner, as that's the one he intends to use. Heh, I didn't even give a full definition of fundamentalism! I'm not convinced that the root word was used in a different sense than I meant, though. And the definition of fundamentalism (I can't believe that I didn't define that) that I meant involved belief. So chairs can't be fundamentalists. Though perhaps dolphins can? Other apes can, I'm sure. Fundamentalist chimps are probably going to be the end of us all... ...Wait, I think I remember a movie about that.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on May 13, 2009 16:54:13 GMT -5
Hey, Lady Renae. They're accusing you of hand-picking these quotes instead of letting it go through the proper vote process. I'm getting even more of a fundie conspiracy-theorist vibe now, albeit on a smaller scale to what usually happens. They're full of shit. Renae's auto-approved two quotes, both of which recieved awards, and at least one is is in the top 100 last I looked. But, opening the ancient and dusty FAQ: With highlighted relevant portion. I remember at least two of these dating back from before I picked up the site, I may well search for them. if they keep this up. Reminds me of the flap after the wiccian fundie a few years ago...
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 13, 2009 17:09:42 GMT -5
I just want to say this: Someone attacking religion is not a fundie atheist, it's a fundie anti-theist. A fundie adheres strongly to a fundamental, but there's no fundamental of atheism that requires hatred of religion. So, while someone who calls for the banning of religion is certainly a fundie and likely an atheist, they are not a fundie atheist.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 13, 2009 17:11:30 GMT -5
I just want to say this: Someone attacking religion is not a fundie atheist, it's a fundie anti-theist. A fundie adheres strongly to a fundamental, but there's no fundamental of atheism that requires hatred of religion. So, while someone who calls for the banning of religion is certainly a fundie and likely an atheist, they are not a fundie atheist. Ah, the not a true Christian atheist argument.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on May 13, 2009 17:15:47 GMT -5
I just want to say this: Someone attacking religion is not a fundie atheist, it's a fundie anti-theist. A fundie adheres strongly to a fundamental, but there's no fundamental of atheism that requires hatred of religion. So, while someone who calls for the banning of religion is certainly a fundie and likely an atheist, they are not a fundie atheist. Here's my problem with this approach, largely fundies have no clue what they claim to believe actually means. How many of these idiots saying god backs Iraq actually have a clue what thier savior says on the matter? We still call them christian fundies. If someone screams that an atheist cannot, ever be a fundie, I have to laugh. No, someone who actually has a clue and grasps that it amounts to a 'no' in the select a religion column of life, probably couldn't be fundie about it. Most of the people out there? They could manage, and we have at least two occurances of this right in this thread. But they probably don't think twice about saying it, or what they claim to be really means.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 13, 2009 17:18:51 GMT -5
I just want to say this: Someone attacking religion is not a fundie atheist, it's a fundie anti-theist. A fundie adheres strongly to a fundamental, but there's no fundamental of atheism that requires hatred of religion. So, while someone who calls for the banning of religion is certainly a fundie and likely an atheist, they are not a fundie atheist. Ah, the not a true Christian atheist argument. Not what I said. They are still atheists, but they are being fundies about something else.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 13, 2009 17:25:16 GMT -5
I just want to say this: Someone attacking religion is not a fundie atheist, it's a fundie anti-theist. A fundie adheres strongly to a fundamental, but there's no fundamental of atheism that requires hatred of religion. So, while someone who calls for the banning of religion is certainly a fundie and likely an atheist, they are not a fundie atheist. Here's my problem with this approach, largely fundies have no clue what they claim to believe actually means. How many of these idiots saying god backs Iraq actually have a clue what thier savior says on the matter? We still call them christian fundies. A very good point, actually. I suppose they count as Christian fundies because they believe that [being for the Iraq war, for example] is a part of Christianity. Does the same apply to the quoted atheist fundies?
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on May 13, 2009 18:22:40 GMT -5
I just want to say this: Someone attacking religion is not a fundie atheist, it's a fundie anti-theist. A fundie adheres strongly to a fundamental, but there's no fundamental of atheism that requires hatred of religion. So, while someone who calls for the banning of religion is certainly a fundie and likely an atheist, they are not a fundie atheist. Maybe an atheist can't be a fundie in the strictest sense but an atheist certainly can be a bigot, which is exactly what these quotes demonstrate and puts them right in line with 99.99999% of all the other quotes on the main page. I know for a fact there is such a thing as an atheist bigot, I have the misfortune of knowing one.
|
|