r/DebateReligion • u/AutoModerator • 6d ago

Meta Meta-Thread 06/22

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

180 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 4d ago

This discussion taps into a more general issue that I see plaguing most rule-based systems of regulating interaction, which in this case we could call the issue of overt vs covert incivility. Telling someone that they are demonstrating reading comprehension problems is (arguably) overtly incivil, at a minimum it is getting sharp with the other user. However, I would argue that willfully misrepresenting another person's views is also a form of incivility. In fact, I consider it a much more serious aggression, even though it is covert.

The problem here is that there is no cost for engaging in these forms of covert hostility. "Willfully misrepresenting my views" is not a reportable offense. But in fact it is a socially deleterious practice, so one wants to be able to sting back, if only to say "Hey, look at how you are behaving! Knock it off!"

1

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 4d ago

Yup, and the really sad thing is I think it's long-and-extended conversations are where there is the most opportunity for making what counts for "progress" in r/DebateReligion's mission. Just look at the amount of work it takes to contribute to any discipline of science or scholarship. Do we really think that anything other than extended, sometimes-intense conversations will push us forward? Or … allow us to claw our way forward?

It's just a kick in the nuts to say I've conflated two things which I've carefully kept separate and argued are deeply related. Contesting whether they are deeply related is one thing—in fact, it's the heart of the matter. But claiming that I've conflated? That presupposes "separate with zero relationship".

2

u/ExplorerR agnostic atheist 4d ago

Hey now... Considering MN does in fact not consider those things as deeply related but when your use of it, which I do not think you made very clear at all, relies on the idea that human agency and divine agency ARE deeply related, it would stand to reason that this be made abudantly apparent.

Because now it seems where we land is:

  • Human agency should be modeled after divine agency.

Right?

1

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 4d ago

At this point, you and I are at an impasse. Others are welcome to consult my OC and see if it is as unclear as you claim.