h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Incidentally...if a Yikes were to be ruled against - I think that 24h is rather too long for someone to be allowed to get away with it.

Oi! We're a multicultural bunch here. Less of the Christmas, if you please.

TRiG.

Oh, and maybe your post was yikesed because of non-english vocabulary: "eejit" is neither in Chambers nor in Merriam-Webster online dictionaries

Yeah, we all know Ed is a closet Dub.

Purely out of interest...I appreciate that JW's don't celebrate Christmas themselves. Are they also obligated not to attend others' celebrations - eg an office lunch?

(Don't answer if you don't want to - It's purely out of interest and I don't want it to spark off a debate)

'course atheists, being without from obligations are free to celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia *and* the birthday of Sol Invictus. (historical note: Constantine chose 25th Dec as Christmas since it was the birthday of 'Sol Invictus', the undying sun, worshipped by the prominent Mithrain cult. He himself was a Mithran, and its doubtful if he even received a deathbed conversion to Christianity).

Is anyone else as mystified and irritated as I am that what appeared to be a bit full on adult repartee and banter has been removed and the subsequent confusion and input from an italic completely derails the meanderings of an interesting thread?

Irritated - mildly. Mystified - no. I've been patronised by the man before.

Well come on now we are all children who need to be protected from ourselves....

The book I read* suggested that Constantine was baptised on his deathbed by an Arian priest (who would have rejected the Trinity). An interesting end for the man who presided over the Council of Nicea!

JWs don't celebrate Christmas and don't attend other people's Christmas celebrations. (And the fact that it's the birthday of Sol Invictus is part of the reason.)

Incidentally, there are so many Witness students at the Center for Deaf Studies in Dublin (affiliated to Trinity College, University of Dublin), that they've stopped having Christmas parties. They still have a party, but there is absolutely no mention of Christmas and no Christmas decorations. Because they've gone to so much effort, the Witnesses now all feel duty-bound to turn up.

TRiG.

*Vicars of Christ : The dark side of the papacy, by Peter de Rosa.

Trig am I missing something? Why are you banging on about the witnesses. They're just a bunch of pain in the arse weekend doorsteppers, who are about as relevant to the bigger scheme of Western civilisation as the church of scientology or palm readers.

I was unaware that I was 'banging on' about anything. I was asked a question, which I answered.

In the meantime, F1983535?thread=579030&skip=3&show=1.

TRiG.

Fanny: >Trig am I missing something? Why are you banging on about the witnesses.<

Well, one reason he offers comments on the witnesses is because he is one ... our very own resident witness, and not afraid to say so, I might add. All things considered, he deals with all of our athiest, anti-faither guff amazingly well, imo, probably better than I would were I in his shoes.

Well JCN if you'd had your sunday mornings disturbed as often as I have by these door thumping thugs intent upon getting people out of bed just to try to convert them, you wouldn't feel very friendly towards them. I thank God I'm not in his poor deluded shoes. They also frequently pester you when you're just walking along on nice sunny day, enjoying yourself, having a pleasant day dream.

I loathe the lot of them!

Apologies for the vehemance of that outburst; I don't know if you personally engage in such activities, Trig. But they really irritate me with the pesky insensitive evangelism. (And yes I have repeatedly asked them to stop calling on me, with no effect.) I'd love to get some of their addresses and go round blaring out christmas carols through their letter box. Or maybe I should buy a big chain saw to present to them next time they disturb me.

JCN: >it might be a dose of medicine simply to ignore them [racists]<

EtB: >Possibly. I happen to disagree. It's my opinion that people who spout such guff should be publically ridiculed (hence my choice of 'eejit'). We should make it plain that such people - who, one speculates, see a special virtue in their own, limited brand of Englishness - are out of step with polite, decent society. "Not in my name."<

So, Edward, it's still not clear to me, going back to your original hypothetical question (which I gather has been hidden?), regarding which is more objectionable, racism or ignoring racism, do you think that ignoring racism is more objectionable than racism itself? (bearing in mind my analogy: which is worse murder or ignoring murder?) Just trying to get a bit of clarification of your thinking about this.

Crikey, you lot have been busy


>>>
I'd have pur 'eejit' more in the class of ridicule than insult - and fair comment at that. But chacun as son gôut. It does raise the issue of what is an acceptable level of ridicule when faced with flagrant racism. Perhaps we could have some guidance on that?

I would take it that we're not expected to simply ignore racism. Might we also need some guidance on what are deemed appropriate strategies for dealing with it?
<<<

My guess is that the offical line would be that if the post contains racist comments then the way to deal with it is to yikes it (racism being against the House Rules).


Obviously the original post saying that Cat Stevens isn't English isn't the sort of the thing that you'd normally bother yikesing, not least because it's better for the ensuing conversation to point out in what ways that statement was racist.



My understanding of how yikesing works is that the mods err on the side of the complainant in terms of what is offensive. So if someone has a rude comment directed at them, and they yikes saying they were offended, then the mods usually remove the post even if the modded post wasn't that offensive. The onus then is on the poster to get the post reinstated. Like FB I've not had much luck getting posts reinstated, with the exception of the recent 'faggots' (as in bundles of sticks for lighting fires) post where the mods made a mistake in how they read the context. So while eejit might not be considered particularly insulting to many, it may have been enough that it was directed at a specific researcher in a rude way. There does seem to be a pretty low tolerance for that in the modding decisions.

Fanny:
TRiG is a Witness - hence my question

TRiG:
I believe there is some doubt over whether Constantine *was* baptised on his deathbed. It may have been a convenient Christian myth.

JCN:
I'm not suggesting that ignoring racism is worse than racism, merely that it is worse than calling a racist an eejit. At the moment I'm forced to ignore it - of find a way of challenging it which doesn't contain the word 'eejit'

kea:
I can see the point that - in general - the mods might not like people calling others eejits. That wasn't *quite* the context, though. To paraphrase, it went something like this.
"Cat Stevens isn't English"
"He is in my book"
"I'm glad I've been reading a different book"
"OK - I suppose you *could* argue that someone born and raised in England isn't English. If you're an eejit."
"I know people who call themselves Black/British. Are they idiots?"
"No. You're an eejit." [Followed by an 'Idiot's Guide' to identity. This was the first post to be yikesed]

So, yes, I crossed The Bonobo Threshold. My bad. Still know word from the mods, mind.

I've not crossed swords with the man before, but I hear on the grapevine that this is par for the course?

Today's R4 'Anodyne Homily of the Day':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20061207.shtml

The whole thing is based on a mistaken premise, isn't it? Nobody is trying to take the Christ out of Christmas - it's there for anyone who wants it. As an Atheist, I don't object to carol services, nativity scenes. And, JWs and Wee Frees excepted, I know of no faith groups who have raised any objections to a Christian Christmas. But "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." (J. Goebbels)

I saw an interesting comment on the Anodyne Homily message board. People are starting to get polarised about religion:
"We're going to wear our crosses because 'they' won't let us!"
"I'm not buying Christmas stamps because they're not Christian-themed" (said by people who weren't previously evangelical).

Why the laager mentality? When did this madness start?

In short...after two millenia of frivolity, why are ordinary people suddenly wanting to put Christ into Christmas?