NOTICE:

[xenologer]

LGBT activism isn't about creating more gay people; it's about supporting and advocating for the ones who're here. Still, atheist activism is framed (by people who aren't doing it) as evangelism. We don't care about converting you; we're just... out. Get over it.

Jeez.

Comments

[knitminder]

When it comes to religion or the lack thereof, I guess merely asserting one's existence is stepping on some people's toes.

[silveradept]

More that some people choose to take offense that you exist, because your existence might prove them wrong about the nature of the universe, and they're far too bound up in their belief to entertain that possibility.

[silveradept]

For the people who claim that kind of thing, your mere existence means you're evangelizing for your lifestyle, much like they believe their existence is to evangelize for theirs. After all, once they acknowledge you exist, people might decide they like you better than their own system, and zOMG mass exodus.

I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I wish I could agree, but that's not the case, at least not in the contexts many people are exposed to.

To put it bluntly, atheism isn't the same as gayness - it's a position, not a lifestyle, and certainly not something born into you like race, sexual preference, or gender. And, while there are efforts at reducing discrimination against atheism out there, the internet is also FULL of Dawkins-esque atheist evangelism right now. A huge number of atheists (at least by volume of discourse, if not number) ARE trying to make converts, or, much more irritatingly, are spamming discussions with "You believe in a bearded dude in the sky, so everything you say is crap."

I'm well aware that it's not a majority share of the atheist population, but it's over-represented through the magic of the internet. If you want an example, look at any article tangentially touching on religion in any of the major content aggregation sites (Slashdot, Digg, Reddit).

Note that I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic with a strong hatred of the fundies.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between simply hating religion and actually making a concerted effort to be an activist. Every single time anybody talks about "the atheist movement" (in this case, Greta Christina talking about how atheist activists need to make a special effort to be inclusive of women and people of color (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/09/race-sex-atheism.html), a situation which is clearly and unambiguously about "the movement" to advocate for atheists), someone thinks it's so fucking clever to accuse atheists of "evangelizing."

There is literally no way for atheists to organize around their atheism without somebody (generally a theist, but sometimes just somebody sufficiently clueless) coming in and calling it "evangelism." There's no way for atheists to get together or work with each other or talk to each other that wouldn't get classified as "preaching" or "evangelizing." To people who don't see atheist activism as important, they reframe it so that it's all about them and how badly we want to recruit them and not about how badly atheists need to support each other.

There are some cases where atheists are literally setting out to tell as many theists as possible that there's no Santa Claus. I'm a redditor and I've seen them, though they're pretty goddamn rare even on /r/atheism and /r/debateanatheist/ (though they do show up at /r/debateachristian with fair frequency). However, at the risk of pulling a No True Scotsman, I don't think most of them would call themselves "activists" the way that Greta Christina is an activist or I'm an activist or the Center for Inquiry is full of activists.

As an aside: What the hell is all the animosity toward Dawkins? He's probably the most scrupulously-polite and delicately British gentleman I've ever seen talk about these issues. Forthright, sure, but he's not rude. I mean, I get that he's insufficiently appeasing and calls a spade a spade, but it's curious that he's the one that people have latched onto as the symbol of All That Is Asshole Atheism.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

But no one I've seen talking about atheist evangelizing is actually limiting it to "atheists who consider themselves activists." And, well, to a certain extent, any atheist activism that centers around atheism has a certain evangelical aspect to it, in the sense that you're working for acceptance of atheism and for decisions to be made from a secular (and, in some cases, explicitly atheist) position. Note, again, that I'm not by any means saying that this is something EVIL or even that I'm necessarily opposed to this goal, but I think acknowledging that most atheists have some interest in convincing others of their conclusions isn't unwarranted.

The issue isn't that there aren't substantial evangelizing elements in the atheist community, it's that evangelism is an atheist swear-word (for some good, or at least understandable reasons) and the set of jerks on the theist side are capitalizing on this. If you drop the religious connotations, all evangelize means is to try and convert someone to your position; the correct response to the "you're evangelizing" is "Well, yes - because I believe this is so, and want to convince you. If you aren't convinced, well, I guess we're through here. Goodbye." Note that I'm not saying this is a working script or something; just that "We don't want to convince you" is a weird message to try and send.

He's only "calls a spade a spade" if you already agree with him. Otherwise, he's telling you that your deeply held beliefs are hokum, in so many words, and that the church group you go to on Sunday is a source of evil. He's also prominent and massively, massively quoted by both the irritating fringe with the internet megaphone AND the polite, reasonable mainstream. Thus making his name both legitimately associated with bad behavior AND a convenient handle to lump all atheists together.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

But no one I've seen talking about atheist evangelizing is actually limiting it to "atheists who consider themselves activists."

I am, and did in my entry. Once again, there is no way to talk about atheist activism without having to have a long conversation about the nasty and mean arrogant evangelizing atheist fundies everybody hates. They're the atheist movement's bra-burning separatist feminists who want to lobotomize anybody with a Y chromosome so that they can be traded like cattle in the new hairy-legged Amazon society. They're not the reason atheists (or feminists) aren't taken seriously. They're an excuse.

I have had a conversation before on LJ (though this was years ago by now, I think) about evangelism in which all persuasive speaking was classified as "evangelizing," and it's important to note that I think conflating all persuasive speech that way is inaccurate, unfairly damaging to the credibility of people who aren't doing it, and unfairly generous to the people who are.

Evangelism means "speading the good news," and anybody who has been actually evangelized to (who's had a religious person come and try to convert them, as opposed to read or heard anything intended to be persuasive in any way) can't help but be pretty clear on the fact that evangelists are not engaging in good faith. There is no back and forth. There is no real dialogue. The would-be evangelist isn't interested in anything coming from their target's mouth; they're just waiting for a key word to latch onto so that they can give their next talking point.

There are people who do this in all movements: people who are trying to be persuade without allowing for the possibility that they might be persuaded. This still doesn't mean all persuasive speech is evangelism. Evangelism, to me, is a subset of persuasive debate in which one or more parties is doing a really shitty job of engaging in good faith.

The label "evangelist" gets thrown at any atheist who so much as explains why they're an atheist. I see three reasons why this might be happening.

1. Some of them are evangelizing, in the sense that they take their atheism as an article of faith, are not interested in allowing contradiction, and want to share that article of faith with others. It's important to note that not even Dawkins is this kind of gnostic atheist hardliner, and has stated so clearly several times.

2. Religious terms get slapped onto atheists as insults because critics know that atheists will take it that way. It's going to piss an atheist off to be called a "fundamentalist" or an "evangelist" more than it would an anti-nuclear power activist, an LGBT civil rights activist, etc. It's not any more likely to be accurate, but for somebody who's pre-emptively tone trolling, it's the sort of dog-whistle insult that atheists get really pissed at but that outsiders won't always understand as an insult. In that sense it's like dismissing what a woman says by saying she's being hysterical and overemotional. It doesn't have to be true; it just has to piss her off so that people can see how unreasonable she is.

3. Some people just seriously don't fucking understand that it's possible to speak or write persuasively about one's own view and still actually listen to opposing ones. People who have only ever evangelized and don't know there's any other way to speak about their own views are going to think it's the default because they don't know how to tell the difference. These are the same sorts of people who think atheism is a religion with dogma handed down from revered authority figures, because they can't imagine believing anything important any other way.

I'm so picky about this because I used to do persuasive speaking for a living, and when canvassers talk to people at the door without actually listening to contacts and thinking about what they say... it shows, they do a shitty job as canvassers, they don't raise any money, and they get fired. The people who stick around know that there's a difference between giving the viewpoint of the organization and having a conversation about it, and knocking on somebody's door to ask if they want you to read the Watchtower with them.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I am, and did in my entry.

I'm sorry, I was hell of unclear. I meant that the people attacking atheists on those grounds aren't making that distinction, and thus defending it on that assumption results in a terms mismatch.

Evangelism means "speading the good news," and anybody who has been actually evangelized to (who's had a religious person come and try to convert them, as opposed to read or heard anything intended to be persuasive in any way) can't help but be pretty clear on the fact that evangelists are not engaging in good faith. There is no back and forth. There is no real dialogue. The would-be evangelist isn't interested in anything coming from their target's mouth; they're just waiting for a key word to latch onto so that they can give their next talking point.

And I've personally seen all of the criteria you use here satisfied by pro-atheist arguments - very often online, occasionally in person. No, it's not 100%, or even the majority of people who are pro-atheist - but then, it's not actually 100%, or even the majority of pro-religion people. It sucks that that generalization gets made, and it's certainly unfair, but it's not a generalization coming out of nowhere, which is my objection to your original argument.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that your definition of evangelism isn't the one commonly used by religious people, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to take your definition formed at least partially out of resentment at religious evangelism and apply it to the speech of people with positive perceptions of the value of evangelism. I don't think that it's unfair in all cases - vehemently "BOTH OF YOU JUST SHUT UP, CARING ABOUT THINGS IS STUPID" types might very well have that definition attached to it, but it's not universal.

As far as your three numbered points, I largely agree, although I feel that picking on Jehovah's witnesses is a little problematic. Yes, they're annoying as hell, but they're also, by and large, perfectly willing to debate things out with you till the cows come home, and usually politely. It's very unlikely you'll convince them, but that's not (always) a lack of good faith - it's that they've thought about it, come to a different conclusion than you, and they aren't obliged to see your position as special any more than you're obliged to convert to their position.

It's also worth pointing out that evangelical sects make up a severe (although not vanishingly so) minority within Christianity; I'd be surprised if it was a larger minority proportionately than "evangelist atheists."

I'm so picky about this because I used to do persuasive speaking for a living, and when canvassers talk to people at the door without actually listening to contacts and thinking about what they say... it shows, they do a shitty job as canvassers, they don't raise any money, and they get fired.

I feel to a certain extent that you're talking about politesse and claiming that it equates to argument in good faith. The most open-minded, listens-well canvasser is still not arguing from a position of potential conversion - heck, if they were convinced of the opposite argument, they'd also be fired (or have to quit) because they'd no longer be arguing for the side that hired them. I'm not saying that this is immoral, just that the function of canvassers DOES have a closed bias, at least on the topic they're canvassing in support of.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

I already conceded to you that there are atheists who use the shitty evangelism-style attempts at persuasion, so I'm not going to sit here and argue it with you. What I'm saying is that I'm sick and fucking tired of talking about them and having to answer for them at the most random goddamn times. I'm not saying that they're all a myth; I'm saying that they don't have to be the center of every conversation.

And yet! There is no conversation into which it won't be injected by somebody. There is no conversation atheists can have for or about each other that won't have this brought into it, whether it makes any topical sense or not.

You know how this rant all started for me a couple days ago? Greta Christina posted the entry I linked you about how people who are advocating on behalf of atheists absolutely must make more of an effort to be more welcoming to women and people of color. This is not because there need to be more woman and POC atheists, but because there already are plenty and nobody sees them in a predominantly white and male movement. Then she put out a request for blogs by atheist women and POC so that she could give them some specific attention and get them some better representation.

There is absolutely no way that this could be construed as being some kind of fucking atheist evangelism recruitment drive. At least... no honest way. And yet, somebody replied to this to state that if they wanted to get involved in organized evangelism, they would have stayed religious and "would be a fucking Mormon."

So when I get frustrated that every single conversation atheists have gets derailed to be about this shit, I do mean every conversation. It's not just the ones which are about talking to non-atheists about atheism, or the ones about dismantling the grotesquely-oversized privilege and special status that religious institutions have, or even the ones about other religions and how some of us just plain think they're silly.

I was just in a conversation which was literally centered on how to give diverse races and genders and orientations who are already atheist fair representation, and somebody was so used to the "shut the atheists up by calling everything they do evangelism" card, that we got hit with it again even though it was in no way germane to the conversation.

I'm sick of this. "Oh, atheists are talking again. EVANGELIZERS!"

I'm annoyed for the same reason that I would get annoyed if my efforts at supporting LGBT people, or other women, or POC, or poor people, or whoever, all got reframed as me shoving my values down some poor bystander's throat. Why? Because it isn't always about those other people, no matter how badly they think they need to make it about them.

Just for once ever I would like a conversation started about us hanging together and sticking up for each other to stay about that for any length of time, rather than turning into how best to appease theists. There is always somebody who apparently can't stand to allow a conversation to occur about atheists supporting other atheists without making it about our relations with non-atheists. It's always somebody.

Now, the point is not that you've done this terrible awful thing, but that it becomes terrible and awful when atheists get hit with it every single time. It's exhausting, to have to fight in every single conversation just to get the smallest acknowledgement that it is even slightly legitimate for atheists to try and create a support system for other atheists. Never mind talking about how best to do it; it never seems like we're allowed to get that far. Why? Because before that point, someone comes in and derails and then we end up having to have the same conversation for the hundredth time about how everybody thinks we're assholes for good reason because look at us here evangelizing.

This is why it's a sore spot, and this is why you have atheists griping in this thread. We're tired of having this conversation, especially when we set out trying to have a different one. It's like this is the only conversation non-atheists want us able to have, and it's frustrating.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for contributing to the irritation, and I'll drop it. I get way easily caught up in point-by-point dissection, and miss the larger point, and I feel like I've done that here.

I'm very sorry.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

Also, feel free to ignore and/or not unscreen the other post I just made - it was made prior to reading this entry or making the immediately previous response.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

RE: Dawkins. Just because some people will get irrationally upset no matter how politely somebody says that they fervently believe things which are patently untrue, doesn't mean the person who said it wasn't polite or civil enough. Dawkins would get called an asshole, and so would anybody who cited him, no matter how courteous he was. I mean, to an American the man is preternaturally soft-spoken because he's not just American-courteous, he's British-courteous. I don't think there's any tone of criticism of religion that is satisfactorily obsequious.

I mean, if you can find a way to tell a devoutly religious person, "You know. If there weren't so many Christians, we would classify your beliefs as a mental illness. In fact, we already institutionalize people who clearly actually believe what most Christians only say they do," in a way that is so polite and gentle that you are immune to the tone argument while doing so, you are magic and need to be doing all the talking for all the rest of us.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I mean, if you can find a way to tell a devoutly religious person, "You know. If there weren't so many Christians, we would classify your beliefs as a mental illness. In fact, we already institutionalize people who clearly actually believe what most Christians only say they do," in a way that is so polite and gentle that you are immune to the tone argument while doing so, you are magic and need to be doing all the talking for all the rest of us.

That's kind of my point - people are upset about that because, from a non-atheist perspective, it's inherently offensive as hell. It doesn't matter how many layers of indirection you cloak "You're stupid and also crazy" in, it's STILL not polite. It's like saying "Excuse me, but your mother regularly enjoys the coitus of dogs and cattle, beg my pardon." Or, to bring it back to atheism, it's like saying "With the greatest of respect, the only source of morality is religion - any Atheist who seemingly behaves morally is just going through the motions."

And, frankly, the argument "The majority of people through out history are mentally ill" is a bad argument. You can argue that the religious impulse is incorrect, unfounded in evidence, and has a problematic history, but if you argue that the religious impulse is a mental illness, I'm sorry, but you're not arguing in good faith, and you don't have a chance in hell of converting anyone no matter how nicely you say it, because you just said that the normal condition of humanity is a mental disease. It doesn't even matter if you're right, because that dog just won't hunt.

It sucks for atheists (and often for everyone) that they have to coexist with religious persons, impulses, and institutions. It's also a fact, and not one amenable to change.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

That's kind of my point - people are upset about that because, from a non-atheist perspective, it's inherently offensive as hell. It doesn't matter how many layers of indirection you cloak "You're stupid and also crazy" in, it's STILL not polite.

This is why the tone argument is bullshit. If there's no right way to say something, stop dismissing the people who say it "wrong," just because they didn't say it in the completely nonexistent correct fashion.

It sucks for atheists (and often for everyone) that they have to coexist with religious persons, impulses, and institutions. It's also a fact, and not one amenable to change.

No, actually, it doesn't. You misunderstand my problem and the goal of being "out" as an atheist, and it's showing all throughout this comment thread. I don't care that there are religious people and I'm not on some kind of eliminationist mission to make sure that their ideas disappear. I don't need them all to convert. I just want them to stop treating atheists like evil fundamentalist sociopaths just because we can't convince ourselves of unbelievable things.

That's the problem here. I do not give a single blue slippery fuck whether there are religious people; I care about how people treat each other, and specifically (when it comes to activism by atheists for other atheists) I care about how atheists get treated when they're "out" as atheists.

Unfortunately there is no conversation about atheists or atheism that someone will not come in and totally derail into a discussion of the ethics of "deconverting" people to the cause. See also: You. Here.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of beliefs that held me back before I gave up agnosticism, and they were firmly tied to religion. I never did see a convincing argument that there was a more "biblically sound" interpretation that just happened to agree with everything that I ended up believing instead, and being straightjacketed with the artificial constraint would've been bizarre and artificial to me. I really don't see how you can believe that the Bible really does document the actions of God and still make decisions about things without needless baggage. And if I think it's needless baggage, then I'll say so if the topic comes up.

I didn't appreciate the baggage of guilt and hellfire growing up, and I don't appreciate people loading their kids with it now. Telling kids that they're probably *not* going to be set ablaze burning bush-style forever and ever amen if they don't fall down and submit to Jesus is... a somewhat more humane form of "evangelism" that I'm ready to get behind, within some limits of tact.

I don't hate conventional evangelists because they believe something and want other people to believe it. I hate them because what they believe is fucking awful.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

And thanks for jumping right in and making my point. Note that you say "limits of tact" in the same post as "what they believe is fucking awful" and "needless baggage." That's not exactly tactful. And, frankly, neither is Richard Dawkins, although it's considerably closer.

I think one of the problems with a lot of atheist rhetoric currently out there (at least the informal, SlashDiggDdit variety) is that it comes from the position that the arguments for atheism are not just persuasive, but so thoroughly, unquestionably correct that they can be used as common premises. This doesn't function too well in an argument on the validity of those premises.

In discussion with a religious (or even agnostic) person, this simply isn't true - the other person by definition hasn't, thus far, found atheism persuasive, and holds different beliefs that they find equally persuasive. Their premises may seem ridiculous and horrible to you, but I assure you, they look just as askance as yours. You may see your position as infinitely superior to theirs, and by pure logical reasoning, you may even be right - but it isn't going to win you the argument. Not even atheists actually argue from pure reason all the time - no human does - and humans who believe in religion will base their arguments, rational and not, from a perspective of that religion being correct, especially if pushed into a defensive stance by offensive behavior.

TL;DR version: it don't matter if you're right, if all your argument convinces the other person of is your own disagreeableness.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

I think one of the problems with a lot of atheist rhetoric currently out there (at least the informal, SlashDiggDdit variety) is that it comes from the position that the arguments for atheism are not just persuasive, but so thoroughly, unquestionably correct that they can be used as common premises.

Could you clarify this for me? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

It's hard to express.

I think a number of atheist arguments ignore that religious sentiment is, in fact, the majority position, and that its premise isn't experimental validity. Thus, when "there's no evidence for God" fails to convince the other person, they instantly denounce that person as irrational, because their premise is valueless. There's a lack of understanding that, from the religious person's perspective, their premises aren't valueless, and since they're not based on the idea that evidence is the final arbiter of truth, arguments based on lack of evidence aren't a killing word to them.

Note that I'm not saying that only atheists do this - there are tons of religious people who assume that their logic deriving from faith-based premises will trump atheist arguments.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

I think a number of atheist arguments ignore that religious sentiment is, in fact, the majority position, and that its premise isn't experimental validity.

I can't think of a polite way to ask this, but what universe are you in that the atheists you know have somehow managed to go a single day without awareness of these things? I'm a little surprised by this, because it sounds like it's coming from somebody who's heard more about atheists than from atheists, and that doesn't seem like you.

Also, for the millionth fucking time in my life that I have to make this point (and please understand that I am angry in general and don't hate you specifically or anything), just because theists don't understand the difference between calling a belief irrational and calling them irrational does not mean there isn't a difference, and it certainly doesn't make it the atheist's fault for not making it clear enough. There is no amount of clarity and fairness that will immunize criticism of religion from being taken as a personal attack, which means that constantly making it about how atheists are failing in their presentation is total bullshit, because there is no such thing as "good enough."

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I honestly run into these arguments on a weekly basis on Slashdot, and rarely but not never in person. I do want to make it clear again that I'm not claiming this is the majority or even a large minority of atheists; but I run into it a LOT online, I'm guessing because of the "megaphone for crazy" factor of the internet.

My wife runs into it a lot in person, but she goes to a super-libertarian law school, so the well is somewhat poisoned as far as her environment goes.

It's not that theists don't understand the distinction, it's that the distinction doesn't prevent it from being offensive to them, just as the difference between someone saying "your atheism makes you immoral" and saying "atheism is an immoral stance" doesn't actually mitigate the impact on you.

I'm not saying that atheists should stop making the argument, or that if they played nicer, they would convince all the religious folks. What I'm trying to get across is that it's useless pretending that it's a polite stance to say "Religion is a mental disease" to the religious, any more than it would be to say "atheism is a failure of morals" to an atheist.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

"Limits of tact" can also be a matter of when and where. I don't knock on people's doors to tell people what I think about religion and why. They have to follow me over to Livejournal or Facebook, and I don't confront believers uninvited in their spaces - churches, wall posts, whatever. That's my policy for now, anyway. I don't think tact is the end-all and be-all of discussion. Substituting "theist" for "blonde" in a joke would be out of the question, for example, while referring to a lake of fire as a dwelling place for unbelievers "fucking awful" is totally warranted.

Only if I were actually having a sincere conversation with someone who really didn't understand that would I go to any extra lengths to try to break that down further in a less polemical way. It takes a lot of effort to have that kind of conversation, and I don't want to bother unless I'm specifically writing an outreach piece or if I have a very specific audience.

I don't know if there is any way to beat the immortal "I want to believe" argument. In any case, I would've found Dawkins convincing if I had read it when I was a very young agnostic. I also oppose the use of "evangelism" because it's overloaded with connotation and was invented as a word specifically for Christianity. Yeah, that's not atheism. Calling it "atheist evangelism" because "it just means trying to convince someone of something you believe" is just a bait and switch for conflating science with superstition, and inquiry with submission. Anyone who makes a point of using the term has an agenda, and anyone who's ever seen street preachers scare the young and the naive with talk of hellfire should know better.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I don't think tact is the be-all and end-all of discussion either. Also, I think the "not in their spaces" thing is certainly an important distinction, but I'm not sure how it maps onto the discussion - as far as I could tell, we were mostly talking about situations where it's nobody's explicit space.

I can certainly see making that case against using the term "evangelism," in fact, I largely agree, but that's not (as far as I could tell) the case V_Fell was arguing, or the case I was arguing against.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

Funny, I got a reply from count_fenring which was promptly deleted. I don't know whether VF deleted it or if CF did, but in the latter case, it really explains the "chicken" icon. That's a really cute way of getting the last word, I guess.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

Comments from people who aren't on my friends list are automatically screened until I come in and manually unscreen them. Just so that you know.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

Oh, ok. My mistake, clearly. Sorry.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

Just to be very clear, the tone of this post is neutral, and I mean everything in it literally:

Is this a behavior pattern that exists? I honestly don't see how that would get someone the last word - it seems to, as far as I can tell, boil down to taking the argument into private messages, which isn't actually a kill-tactic as far as I know.

Note that I'm aware this is moot, as I wasn't doing it - I'm just wondering if people do this, and why?

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen exactly that behavior before, but I've been around the internet enough to have thought it was possible, apparently. I don't know why I forgot about screening.