Discussion/Questions on new FSGs.

Questions:
What is wrong with the term fundie? I thought it was just a shortening of fundamentalist, which when compared to liberal is in need of being shortened.

Also, concerning starting new threads, if a thread on the subject exist, but has 'died' (is a week+ old) or has be derailed, are we safe starting a new thread?

lawtonfogle said:

Questions:
What is wrong with the term fundie? I thought it was just a shortening of fundamentalist, which when compared to liberal is in need of being shortened.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just special, but I never use the term "fundie" without there being some sort of negative connotation. I can admit it. For me it's a slur, rather than a convenience.

I'm still hoping that some examples of what would be considered "promotion of non-christian religion" since the whole conveying the image that your (or anyone else's) non-christian religion is right or even good is now against the rules. By "good" would that also mean that even hinting that your religion may be acceptable for some people be considered promotion now?

Questions:
What is wrong with the term fundie? I thought it was just a shortening of fundamentalist, which when compared to liberal is in need of being shortened.

Also, concerning starting new threads, if a thread on the subject exist, but has 'died' (is a week+ old) or has be derailed, are we safe starting a new thread?

Click to expand...

Literally, it is a shortening of the word "fundamentalist" as you said. However, in most cases, the word "fundy" is used as a slur towards those of that Christian persuasion.

As to your second question, I would have to get with my Co Admin to answer that one. I would think that that sounds reasonable, but it's been a while since I've been in E&M as a staff member, so I would need to double check before giving a definite answer.

I, personally, don't have any problems with the new flaming rule. I believe, in the interest of productive debate, we could all benefit from using emotive, loaded words to describe the opposing side (i.e., "pro-baby killer", "fundie", "bigot", "heathen", "sodomite", etc.)

In terms of the non-promotion rule, that is one that has always confounded my mind. It's always been vague enough to give way for unfettered moderator interpretation. For example, I've seen some posts where a member will completely get by with saying something like, "how can you not believe in my *insert non-christian religion here*?! It's the only one that makes sense!" Obviously since the moderator did not perceive intent to actively convert, it was allowed to stay. Then other times I've seen posts deleted or threads locked where people said something as simple as, "after I became a Buddhist, I felt a sense of peace like I've never felt before" on the grounds of promoting a non-christian religion.

It's such a vague rule that no one has ever really known where the line is drawn. Granted, most discussions in E&M do not warrant me ever even having to bring my religious affiliation into them. It's usually something that comes up in GA or NCR. But I'm not sure how to respond to questions such as, "what do you get out of following your religion?" without conveying the image of my religion being "good" or "right" for me, personally.

lawtonfogle said:

Questions:
What is wrong with the term fundie? I thought it was just a shortening of fundamentalist, which when compared to liberal is in need of being shortened.

Click to expand...

I had the exact same reaction. I never used it as a derogation. However, in doing a quick search of the term, I came across this>

"Fundie or fundy (plural fundies) is a pejorative slang term used to refer to religious fundamentalists of any denomination, although it is primarily directed towards fundamentalist Christians. The term is intentionally derogatory, and is used most commonly by those opposed to the Christian Right movement. The term is often associated with religiously motivated conservative moral beliefs, especially those regarding social issues."
​

source
​

Of course, as the notice above it says, :

"This article does not cite any references or sources.
​

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources"
​

which may indicate it is simply the judgment of a single individual (From CF perhaps?). In any case, evidently there are those who do see it as derogatory.

Athene said:

The purpose of this rule is really just to stop the first page being cluttered up with threads all on the same topic. Common sense will be applied, if the existing thread is hopelessly derailed or if the thread has died a death of course people are welcome to start a new one.

Click to expand...

My hope is that it cuts back on the back and forth personal beef threads. Someone posts a thread with a poll asking a question. A brawl ensues so disgruntled opposing poster starts a new thread with an overtly snarky question just to keep the fight going.

Will the flaming rule be applied as I have been led to understand by some staffers?

Two opposing examples, would all these be considered violations:

"You're just a fundie", "Fundies annoy me", "the fundie movement annoys me"
"You're an abomination", "Homosexuals are abominations", "Homosexuality is an abomination"

From what i've been told thus far, all six statements would be violations of the flaming rule. If so, I have no problem with it at all and welcome it gladly.

I freely admit I generally use it as a derogatory term. However I try to use it with more focus and at a group that is distinct from historical Christian fundamentalists. I direct it more at those who are prone to say God said it, I believe it, that settles it and then can't follow up with a single citation from scripture. NOTE that last part is rather important, it means those who are so sure they know what God wants and do not know what it has been recorded He said or did.

But I rarely use the term and can't remember the last time I directed it at an individual.

Washington said:

I had the exact same reaction. I never used it as a derogation. However, in doing a quick search of the term, I came across this>

"Fundie or fundy (plural fundies) is a pejorative slang term used to refer to religious fundamentalists of any denomination, although it is primarily directed towards fundamentalist Christians. The term is intentionally derogatory, and is used most commonly by those opposed to the Christian Right movement. The term is often associated with religiously motivated conservative moral beliefs, especially those regarding social issues."
​

source
​

Of course, as the notice above it says, :

"This article does not cite any references or sources.
​

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources"
​

which may indicate it is simply the judgment of a single individual (From CF perhaps?). In any case, evidently there are those who do see it as derogatory.

Click to expand...

I'd really like to know what constitutes blasphemy for the purposes of this forum.

*sighs*

I don't like the banning of "slur" like "he's a fundy" "Your a heathen".... ...If you have legitmate backing to prove this then fine, call me what you like.

I'm more concerned about the tone in which it is used and whether the term is right, rather than the particular vocabularity used.

I've never understood this concept of banning words, I mean swearing is kinda taboo and I'm willing to hold my tongue on those words while I'm here. But does anyone else think that the above is a bit well... ..overly PC.

Athene said:

Yep, I realise there will be some people deeply unhappy with this ''it uses that word in the Bible'' and all that jazz, but, this isn't going to be a forum where certain people are prohibited from saying ''your behaviour is bigoted'' while others are allowed to get away with saying ''homosexuality is an abomination''. The use of such terms in abundance was one of the reasons the forum was closed. Saying that homosexuality is a sin, or sinful behaviour is allowed, the use of Bible verses is not prohibited even if they contain the word abomination.

Click to expand...

Thank God.

Fin12 said:

*sighs*

I don't like the banning of "slur" like "he's a fundy" "Your a heathen".... ...If you have legitmate backing to prove this then fine, call me what you like.

I'm more concerned about the tone in which it is used and whether the term is right, rather than the particular vocabularity used.

I've never understood this concept of banning words, I mean swearing is kinda taboo and I'm willing to hold my tongue on those words while I'm here. But does anyone else think that the above is a bit well... ..overly PC.

Click to expand...

I agree but it's hard to police a person's tone on the internet. It's easy to take something the wrong way without visual clues and body language, not to mention that all the trolls in the world will be protesting "But that's not the *tone* that I meant when I said evil nasty abomination!" That would be a nightmare for the moderators to moderate, but I wish there was a better way than making a list of taboo words.

Athene said:

Member A - ''I believe that God does not approve of homosexuality''
Member B - '' I don't care what your imaginary god has to say''

That response of member B is the kind of thing we don't want because it carries a strong insinuation that Member A's faith is all make believe and that makes the post problematic for us. It Member B had said something along the lines of ''that means nothing to me because I don't believe your god exists'' that would be acceptable because it's simply stating Member B's point of view without demeaning the faith of Member A.

Click to expand...

Conversly would this apply to those of the "heretical" orders.

Member A: "Wanning moon is coming up so I'll be preparing a candle for X ritual.

Member B: "Your false gods are nothing compared to jesus's love. Only he can save you from hell."

Cool cool

Athene said:

Yep, I realise there will be some people deeply unhappy with this ''it uses that word in the Bible'' and all that jazz, but, this isn't going to be a forum where certain people are prohibited from saying ''your behaviour is bigoted'' while others are allowed to get away with saying ''homosexuality is an abomination''. The use of such terms in abundance was one of the reasons the forum was closed. Saying that homosexuality is a sin, or sinful behaviour is allowed, the use of Bible verses is not prohibited even if they contain the word abomination.

Click to expand...

This is good for the forum indeed, as well as the related followup answers to cantata's and fin12's similar questions.

Concerning the last part of this answer Athene, would it be acceptable to respond to such as that with bible verses of a posters choice or to even simply say that bigotry is a sin or sinful behavior?

I ask because I hope we won't see it now degenerate into an issue of using the bible selectively to insult or pushing insults through simply by attaching the word 'sin' to them. Both seem a very possible danger of occuring.