Replies

Which is why when I see one of these personal fights developing, I try to steer clear of it. No one comes out of those with anything useful. I'd love it if someday we could self-moderate. I never use the abuse button when I experience a personal attack. I go into this assuming that attacks will happen, and I've already worked out, at least in theory, what I will do when it does. First, I make a judgment call. Is this an attack that does so much injury to the Gospel that I should respond? Or is it just an expression of frustration on their part that would be so obvious to the average reader that I really don't need to respond. In effect they've conceded my point because they stopped using real ammo and are resorting to spitwads. At that point, I am better of if I just walk away.

This be true, but so many have left Free Republic because they don't want to "walk away." They like discoursing about faith, and quite possibly, have nothing else to do with their day (i.e. no job, no family that needs caring for, they are disabled, their spouse has passed on, they are retired and maybe lonely, not well, etc. and so on).

As far as self-moderating, that was Brian Kopp's idea, too, earlier in the thread; place everyone in a division of the Smoky Back Room [there's no moderation here] for religion discussions.

And if you take notice, there is some civil [touching] discourse between Roman Catholics and NCCs currently going on, only a few commentaries up in the thread. Does a heart good to read them, imo.

...but so many have left Free Republic because they don't want to "walk away." They like discoursing about faith, and quite possibly, have nothing else to do with their day (i.e. no job, no family that needs caring for, they are disabled, their spouse has passed on, they are retired and maybe lonely, not well, etc. and so on)

Surely God has some other purpose for these RC souls who have departed FR and taken their donations to FR with them. You are implying that posting to other like-minded Catholics was the only reason they were FReepers at all. You cannot know this was always the case with every one of the FR-departed souls.

You seem to have confused Internet forum discourse with getting your own way always.

Two quick thought.

1. I didn't mean "walk away" in a permanent sense. More in the sense that when you see a thread that is spiraling downward into personal invective and has gotten off the path of discussing ideas, it's time to walk the dog, or mow the lawn, or get something useful done in that other part of life, the part not lived in the cyberverse of FR. Nevertheless, there are many useful things that happen here, and they make it worthwhile to stay on despite the difficulties. But on a thread-by-thread basis, it's like what Kenny Rogers says, sometimes you hold up, some times you fold up, sometimes you walk away, sometimes you run. But if you're not too emotionally invested in protecting yourself from "sternly worded opposition," it's really not so bad here, and speaking for myself, I find it easy enough to keep coming back in search of the good, despite turning up an occasional nugget of bad.

2. With respect to Brian Kopp's theory on self-moderation, I'd vote against the Smokey Back Room solution, with total self-moderation. I see self-moderation as an extra layer we'd add to the existing rules. The reason is simple. a) We really need a referee, and b) I think it's OK, and maybe even beneficial, to have these conversations in a more public setting. I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I've seen posters here talking like they miss the good old days of the Inquisition. IIRC, when they were called on it, it was minimized as a misunderstanding. But I want to tell you, it's really something else to suddenly realize that people can think that way about you, especially people who profess to be part of the family of Christ. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I did take it personally. I enjoy being alive. I don't want to contemplate that there are people who think it would be better if I weren't, even hypothetically. Except of course Koranic literalists. It's more or less expected from them.

The point I'm making is, when there are some here with such strong feelings, having a referee with real control and good judgment is a good thing. The additional layers of self-moderation would go to things less extreme, but critical to civilized discourse. For example, presently we cannot attribute motives to an individual FReeper, and that's good, because only God knows motives, or degree of sincerity or any of those hidden matters of the heart. But we should also have a self-limitation that we do not make inflammatory generalizations ("all X are liars," "all Y are perverts", etc.), most of which are OK under the rules, but a) are irrational claims that only inject error into the discussion, and b) utterly fail to respect God's exclusive jurisdiction over the heart.

So I'm proposing both/and. And keep it public. Think of it as a motivational aid. If we want to do these conversations, presumably it is to an evangelistic purpose, whether we are the seeker or the propounder of truth. If so, why would we want to hide our light under the bushel of the Smokey Back Room? Let it shine, but let it shine well, seasoned with grace and kindness in the spirit of Christian love. But let it also shine true. Love hates evil, but rejoices in the truth. So we speak truth, according to our best lights, but do so in the spirit of godly wisdom, as James puts it:

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
(James 3:17-18)

Peace,

SR