Obstacles to dialogue, part 2

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Fri Feb 9, 2018, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

This topic has been visited before. But when the same obstacles keep occurring, is it any wonder that there is no real dialogue?

Dialogue is not calling other people names. It is not making unsubstantiated accusations. Dialogue implies reading and responding to what was actually written.

One example:
A claim was made that I mock atheists. That claim implies that I mock atheists as a class of people, or even that I mock atheists because they are atheists. I asked for actual proof for this claim in the form of citations to actual posts that I have made. The accuser has not provided any actual evidence, but persists in repeating the claim.

My view, often stated, is that Democrats must realize that in a big tent, there is room for all. No, there is a real need for all. Our progressive positions must unite us even as we differ on matters of faith. So posts that present people of faith in a positive light should not be reflexively rejected because this does not represent perfection. No one here is perfect.

But we must recognize that we are united in our belief that the Democratic Party is the best vehicle for attaining our shared goals.

[yallerdawg]

1. Also, this obsession with "the exception proving the rule" is another obstacle!

The prurient headlines posted in the "Religious (Group)" appeal to an acknowledged minority of people.

This can only be annoying an awful lot of people we want to attract, need to include, and want to move forward with in unity!

[guillaumeb]

11. Very well said.

It is clear, transparent actually, that for a very prolific few, only negative news should be posted. It can be seen in the objections to my self-captioned "good news" posts, and in the attacks on anyone who actually likes the good news features.

[trotsky]

2. "Dialogue implies reading and responding to what was actually written."

Does dialog also mean that once multiple people have read what someone has written and reacted in the same way, that perhaps the person who wrote the words needs to explain or clarify their position instead of relentlessly posting the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER, expecting the people who disagree with him to eventually just shut the fuck up?

You claim to want dialog. Show yourself capable of it, instead of just screaming the same thing repeatedly.

[PJMcK]

5. Well said

You get a heart for this one, trotsky.

[trotsky]

7. Well thank you!

I appreciate that.

[guillaumeb]

12. Then stop accusing without evidence.

Like your earlier accusation that I mock theists. I might point out the rather blatant tactics that some employ, but that is not attacking atheists, it is attacking the tactics.

I am still waiting, by the way, for your supporting evidence for your accusation.

[Voltaire2]

17. "Like your earlier accusation that I mock theists."

it is more like a parody.

[guillaumeb]

18. Perhaps you misunderstand.

[Voltaire2]

22. woosh

[guillaumeb]

23. One of your better.

[trotsky]

25. I provided the evidence.

Quit with the deceitful attacks.

[trotsky]

3. BTW

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=270288

Should we then start forming an underground railroad of sorts to help atheists flee from intolerant areas to more enlightened areas?

I have a picket fence surrounding my property. What sign should I put on the post by the drive?

That's mocking, guillaumeb. That's what I was referring to.

[guillaumeb]

13. And that was a reference to another's post that certainly seems to be implying that atheists

are in such danger as to require an underground railroad to help them escape persecution in the US. That bit of hyperbole minimizes the historical Underground Railroad, which existed to help actual slaves escape their slavery.

And that is not attacking atheists, it is attacking tactics.

[trotsky]

24. You are trying to make excuses for your behavior.

You were mocking atheists for being subjected to death threats.

Yes, you've made it clear you have nothing but contempt for the concept of an "underground railroad" for atheists.

And when someone points that out, all of a sudden YOU'RE the victim.

Honestly.

[guillaumeb]

28. Honestly?

Honestly indeed.

Amazing also. So you equate actual chattel slavery of blacks for generations with this situation?

[trotsky]

29. Straw man attack.

Try dialog, gil.

No more attacks. You claim you want dialog, let's try it.

Apologize for that straw man attack - at no point has anyone suggested atheists face the same conditions as slaves.

[guillaumeb]

31. Why the reference to an Underground Railroad?

In a 4 year old article, by the way.

[trotsky]

33. Apologize for your straw man attack and I'll explain. n/t

[guillaumeb]

35. Apologize for your previous 2 attacks.

[trotsky]

37. Oh, I see. This again.

What attacks? I provided proof of you mocking atheists, so that dispels your first one. What was the other?

[guillaumeb]

38. Amazing consistency.

You obviously feel you have proven a point.

[trotsky]

41. Oh, I have.

I've proven just how nasty those who claim to be "Christians" can be.

Thanks for the assist, gil. You've always been so helpful with that.

[guillaumeb]

40. 25. I provided the evidence. Quit with the deceitful attacks.

[trotsky]

43. So again we see what you think passes for "dialog."

Refusing to answer a direct question for clarification, and just repeating what's already been said.

[Mariana]

53. It was a mocking response. nt.

[guillaumeb]

55. The poster never mantioned mockery.

Nor do I agree with your answer.

[MineralMan]

4. The Religion Group is the place on DU to discuss Religion

Political discussions take place in many other areas. Religion, in fact, is not even allowed as primary topic in the busiest forum on DU. So, we have a place in the Religion Group for such discussions.

In fact, that's the primary topic here. Politics is not the primary topic in this group. All are welcome to post in the Religion Group, whatever their viewpoint on religion might be.

This thread is a meta thread. It is not about religion at all. It is about a dispute involving you and other members of the Group. It's a meta post. So, I won't address your comments regarding yourself. I'll only address the reason the Religion Group exists.

[trotsky]

6. It's not only meta, it's pure PERSONAL meta.

He's abandoning a thread where he has written things that multiple people found disturbing, and starting a new thread to portray himself as a victim, and whine about the lack of dialog. The irony is strong.

[MineralMan]

9. Oh, well...

I have other things to occupy my mind, so I think I'll do those things. I hate wasting my time in fruitless pursuits.

[Voltaire2]

21. and this is like the third or fourth time/

[trotsky]

26. Correct.

It's one of his standard tactics. He gets his butt kicked in one thread, so he starts a new one on his terms to portray everyone who disagrees with him as a horrible person.

[guillaumeb]

36. Personal atatck and misframing.

Notice how MM immediately started another thread in response to my questioning the hyperbolic framing of a post?

Is a double standard standard tactics?

[trotsky]

39. I understand your need to make those false claims.

It's ok.

[guillaumeb]

42. I understand your reluctance to admit that M did what you accused me of.

No disharmony allowed.

[trotsky]

44. Aw, so cute.

Never change, gil. I love the example you are setting for your religion.

[guillaumeb]

45. Double standard in action.

Just like the double standard displayed when I dared, sinned, by posting an example of intolerance by a group of Boston atheists. That particular type of intolerance was of course justified because of....................something.

[trotsky]

46. Wow, you actually went there again. LMAO

You made a HUGE stink about Boston Atheists kicking out a Trump supporter. A private group rescinding someone's membership. No one was threatened. No one died. No one was harmed. That incident has become your go-to example for "atheistic intolerance."

Then when atheists get death threats, you do everything you can to say it's no big deal.

I am really quite properly astonished this time. You are not only embracing your double standard, you're positively reveling in it.

And then you have the nerve to wonder why there's no "dialog."

[guillaumeb]

14. A meta post like some of your posts?

I understand. I am assuming your are posting this as a hint to others.

[guillaumeb]

16. To help you out:

My view, often stated, is that Democrats must realize that in a big tent, there is room for all. No, there is a real need for all. Our progressive positions must unite us even as we differ on matters of faith. So posts that present people of faith in a positive light should not be reflexively rejected because this does not represent perfection. No one here is perfect.

Thus making it a legitimate subject for discussion.

[Voltaire2]

8. A big tent for what exactly?

Homophobia?
Misogyny?
Anti-intellectualism?
Patent idiocy?

Religions are promoting all of that. I have no interest in bringing that horseshit into the party.

Your constant upset at the discussions here is tedious. If you want validation for your beliefs post in a protected forum. Otherwise, if you are going to post in this forum, for gods' sake stop whinging about it.

[trotsky]

10. Well said. n/t

[guillaumeb]

15. Typical.

But expected.

[Voltaire2]

19. Is this an example of you engaging in dialog?

[guillaumeb]

20. Was your initial response?

No, it was accusations and broad brush attack. But if that is what you see as dialogue, that explains much.

[trotsky]

27. Nice. n/t

[trotsky]

30. Thank you for starting this thread, guillaumeb.

It has certainly shown one of the biggest obstacles to dialog here.

[guillaumeb]

32. Unintended irony on your part?

But yes, it does.

[trotsky]

34. Nope.

But thanks for agreeing.

[trotsky]

47. "united in our belief that the Democratic Party is the best vehicle for attaining our shared goals"

Has anyone here suggested otherwise?

You realize that we can disagree on matters concerning religion, yet still support the progressive agenda, right?

Are you proposing that people who disagree with your religious beliefs are somehow opposed to the Democratic Party?

You're not really doing that, are you?

[guillaumeb]

48. Sigh!!!!

Not again.
No, you misunderstood again, because I wrote exactly what I meant, and if I had wished to imply or state that, I could have done so. Why do you insist on finding these ideas when they are nowhere stated or implied?

[trotsky]

49. These are your EXACT words:

"But we must recognize that we are united in our belief that the Democratic Party is the best vehicle for attaining our shared goals."

Are you aware of anyone on DU that does not recognize this? If not, then why say it? By saying it anyway, it would seem to any reasonable observer that you are passive-aggressively calling out people who disagree with you as somehow attacking the Democratic Party.

[guillaumeb]

50. A reminder of our commonalities.

No more, no less.

[trotsky]

51. Again, why state it?

Do you think people need to be reminded? Why? What's the point, other than to paint yourself in a more favorable light and portray others as less than you?

[guillaumeb]

52. Interesting that you would make such an assumption.

But you are free to infer and assume.

[trotsky]

54. THEN EXPLAIN WHY YOU SAID IT.

You fucking attack me for not understanding, but you won't explain.

Why post a "reminder" about our shared goals? Why is that necessary, when no one has said we don't share them?

WHY?

DIALOG WITH ME GIL, stop the attacks. NOW.

[guillaumeb]

56. #50 was the explanation.

Apparently you needed, or inferred, another hidden explanation.

Stop the attacks? Really? I give you an answer and you insist I refuse to give you an answer.

[trotsky]

57. I'm fucking done.

You win. Jesus wins. This atheist is vanquished. You are perfect and everyone else is "misframing" and not understanding you and fuck them if they ask you to explain, just refuse and link back to words you already wrote that aren't an explanation.

Fucking done. Good luck with your "dialog" gil.

[guillaumeb]

58. #56. Not meant as sarcasm or irony.