Why do people dislike us so? D:

[nasher168]

Is this video worth watching? Or making an official response to?

A response, yes. An official response, perhaps not. I mean, I agreed with AW when he said that (especially the "volatile and short-tempered" bit), but nevertheless, his views are not at all "official" or anything, so the response made should be clearly the opinion of one or more members rather than a sort of absolute "This is what the League of Reason has to say on the matter! We think as one!"

 

[Prolescum]

[centre]

[/centre]

Classic.

As for the OP, it's probably because many of us can sustain an argument beyond 3x500 character paragraphs. If Shanedk thinks Andromeda's Wake speaks for anyone but himself, he's as blind as a mouse whose tail has been removed by a kitchen operative.

 

[Laurens]

Where might we find the video?

 

[nemesiss]

*insert meme*

They see me on Lor
They hatin'
patrollin' and tryna catch me postin' dirty

 

[borrofburi]

[centre]

[/centre]

Classic.

I like that, I like it a lot.

As for the OP, it's probably because many of us can sustain an argument beyond 3x500 character paragraphs. If Shanedk thinks Andromeda's Wake speaks for anyone but himself, he's as blind as a mouse whose tail has been removed by a kitchen operative.

Wait... why is the mouse's tail removal making him blind? I'm clearly missing a reference....

 

[nasher168]

Wait... why is the mouse's tail removal making him blind? I'm clearly missing a reference....

You know the rhyme, surely?

Anyway, I've been writing a script for a response. I've said nothing of the issue of censorship, only sought to correct the accusations levelled at the LoR. Don't know whether to actually release the video though if it might blow up and cause loads of drama or whatever...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm not sure what the big deal is. Shanedk is a bit thin-skinned, and his fans are supporting him because he got a little butt hurt here over a year ago. He didn't get banned, but I guess he's not used to having people contradict him or point out how ridiculous some of his viewpoints are. And, you know, there's always the ignore button if things get too bad.

Badmouthing this site on YouTube seems like the absolute height of passive-aggressive bullshit, and hardly seems worth any sort of involved response. A little chuckling over the silliness of it followed by letting it go seems just about the right response.

 

[Jotto999]

Well, a lot of you guys are self-righteous jerks. Not naming names, mind, but some people here need to learn more about restraint and decorum.

I agree.

I've been surprised at how easily people on this site have forgotten something kind of important for discussion on the internet. They do not know you. They know almost nothing about you. In some people's minds, they probably feel as though it's very apparent what their positions are, and they have this assumption that they can just throw out small, incomplete portions of their position on something without seeming like an inconsiderate jerk.

Unless you carefully and clearly describe your position, you are asking for misunderstanding, presumptions, hurt feelings, and generally counterproductive things. Everyone thinks of themselves as very reasonable. What makes some people stand out is how well they portray themselves and their positions. And these obvious skills are painfully lacking in some people on this website.

As for ShaneDK, I'm still not sure what to make of him. He seems very knowledgeable in economics, seems a bit disappointing we didn't get along well.

 

[Aught3]

So I watched the video. It seems like the rules Shane has are pretty fair, more strict than the LoR but not over the top. The question then is, does he follow his own rules when blocking people? Or was AW correct that Shane blocks people for very little reason?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I agree.

I've been surprised at how easily people on this site have forgotten something kind of important for discussion on the internet. They do not know you. They know almost nothing about you. In some people's minds, they probably feel as though it's very apparent what their positions are, and they have this assumption that they can just throw out small, incomplete portions of their position on something without seeming like an inconsiderate jerk.

Unless you carefully and clearly describe your position, you are asking for misunderstanding, presumptions, hurt feelings, and generally counterproductive things. Everyone thinks of themselves as very reasonable. What makes some people stand out is how well they portray themselves and their positions. And these obvious skills are painfully lacking in some people on this website.

Yes because restraint and decorum is coming out of the blue to call a bunch of people "self righteous jerks". Drive by insults really shows us jerks how to conduct a discussion in a civil and classy way.

Sorry, not directed at you, Jotto999, but I found it weird that you'd agree with such a statement especially the way that it was made. It was pretty hypocritical wouldn't you say?

 

[Aught3]

Sorry, not directed at you, Jotto999, but I found it weird that you'd agree with such a statement especially the way that it was made. It was pretty hypocritical wouldn't you say?

It may have been unintentionally ironic but it's not necessarily untrue. There is a lot of good conversation that goes on here, but also some not so good stuff - especially in the politics section.

 

[BrainBlow]

According to one guy who posted on ShaneDK's video, we're a bunch of leftists who have replaced the God of Abraham with the God of government and as an atheist he can't stand us.
I'm hurt.

Can't say I'm any lover of big government. And I like this forum.

Well, a lot of you guys are self-righteous jerks. Not naming names, mind, but some people here need to learn more about restraint and decorum.

I haven't been here very long, so I wouldn't know.
And if I'm a self-righteous jerk then it is only natural that I wouldn't know that I am one. :lol: :roll:

So I watched the video. It seems like the rules Shane has are pretty fair, more strict than the LoR but not over the top. The question then is, does he follow his own rules when blocking people? Or was AW correct that Shane blocks people for very little reason?

"Rules are to be broken", some people like to say. I say "rules are to be abused", which is why I can't take strict forum/channel rules seriously. It is way too easy to abuse with little to no consequence. (much the same thing IRL too)
Easy examples are the channels of conspiracy theorists. They will often claim to "love free speech", yet block you simply because you disagree, no matter how well-mannered you are.

Sorry, not directed at you, Jotto999, but I found it weird that you'd agree with such a statement especially the way that it was made. It was pretty hypocritical wouldn't you say?

especially in the politics section.

One of the reason I almost never argue about economy on the net or IRL. :roll:
As far as I have seen, people are more likely to go from Creationist to Atheist than "people with knowledge of economy" are to switch their economic viewpoint on anything major.

 

[Jotto999]

Yes because restraint and decorum is coming out of the blue to call a bunch of people "self righteous jerks". Drive by insults really shows us jerks how to conduct a discussion in a civil and classy way.

Sorry, not directed at you, Jotto999, but I found it weird that you'd agree with such a statement especially the way that it was made. It was pretty hypocritical wouldn't you say?

I agree that it would have been more consistent if ArthurWilborn hadn't used an insult. Yet I think what he said was totally correct. There are some people on this site (not naming anyone, nor excluding myself necessarily) that have issues in the way they handle the discussions. I think it hurts discussion quality significantly and it's something people need to think about. We often speak of reasonable thinking, but what of reasonable discussion?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I agree that it would have been more consistent if ArthurWilborn hadn't used an insult. Yet I think what he said was totally correct. There are some people on this site (not naming anyone, nor excluding myself necessarily) that have issues in the way they handle the discussions. I think it hurts discussion quality significantly and it's something people need to think about. We often speak of reasonable thinking, but what of reasonable discussion?

It may have been unintentionally ironic but it's not necessarily untrue. There is a lot of good conversation that goes on here, but also some not so good stuff - especially in the politics section.

Well, yes I agree with the message, of course. But I just wanted to point out how it's not supposed to be done, otherwise the message doesn't mean much, right? I mean, we tend to go after fundamentalist for their hypocritical messages about peace and love so I thought it appropriate to jump on the message of civil discussion which was delivered in not such a civil way.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So I watched the video. It seems like the rules Shane has are pretty fair, more strict than the LoR but not over the top. The question then is, does he follow his own rules when blocking people? Or was AW correct that Shane blocks people for very little reason?

To be fair, ultimately don't people have a right to block whoever they like? It seems like sort of a one-way version of the ignore function that people here should take more advantage of. For all that I'm about mixing it up online as much as possible/tolerable, if people don't feel like engaging in that sort of thing they have every right not to do so.

I went back and read that last weird meltdown that shanedk had on this site, and I'm guessing the only reason I didn't fan the flames in that last thread he posted to was because of the ignore feature. If he's got me blocked on YT that's probably a wise move as well, if for no other reason than for the sake of his sanity. Some people just really get under other people's skin, often for no really good or rational reason, and it is usually better for those folks not to mix.

 

[Jotto999]

Well, yes I agree with the message, of course. But I just wanted to point out how it's not supposed to be done, otherwise the message doesn't mean much, right? I mean, we tend to go after fundamentalist for their hypocritical messages about peace and love so I thought it appropriate to jump on the message of civil discussion which was delivered in not such a civil way.

In that case, I agree.

 

[Aught3]

To be fair, ultimately don't people have a right to block whoever they like?

Yeah, but that's not really the disputed issue. AW didn't say that Shane was a flagrant censor who has no right to block people, he just said that Shane was censoring people on his channel. Sure Shane can do it if he wants, but is he?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I do recognise that sometimes I have behaved like a jerk, somedays I just don't have the patience and will try steamroll everything leaving people not liking me. That doesn't justify branding everyone else here as my mirror image minus every positive quality plus everything else bad.
But does any one have a reason to say that AndromedasWake acted in anyway shape or form jerkishly? If there is anyone who I would say never lost his temper that way was AW, and it doesn't seam right to slag him or everyone else like that.
Everyone has it's own opinion and the participants are somewhat diverse (even tough we scared allot of people along the way). Now it seams that what we need is a colective opinion and a public statment as the collective opinion of the League of Reason, is that other than this statment the League Of Reason has no common opinions everyone answers for themself without anyone representing them.
Any other statment about our self righteous basterding ways would be left to nonsense simple because there is no we or they to speak of.
And perhaps we can move on a do better things, like try to reformat the LoR show where we cycle guest speakers to talk about popular topics of interest and answer questions. Or the construction of a body of knowledge of cool things that you can do or have done. And forget about this nonsensical drama, because frankly I rather not be involved in one, I don't care about it, and I'm walking of the front door out of it.

 

[Moky]

This was a topic I was thinking about for a few days because every time I bring this topic up to my boyfriend, he scoffs a bit. He told me one night that he doesn't imagine a forum for Atheists as being very fun because apparently were all humorless, an assumption based on his personal experience with many Atheists. Seen one, you seen them all, right? Some of us have a tendency to do the same thing with Theists, so I guess it's just human nature.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

It has been my general experience that people don't like people who are right. Whatever right may be.

Tough lessons learned in life.


Sarcasm ALERT:

This is why I don't dislike anybody and everybody dislikes me......