OT - Pet Peeves Thread

[847badgerfan]

Too many people think of this as a reason to not follow it. 

Too many people think they are smart enough to follow it.

Too many are not.

[OrangeAfroMan]

None of it is complicated. 
The evidence leads to conclusions.
You can experiment much of it.
It's not about truth, but explanation.
And it should improve over time, which is evidence of learning.

Yet some bastardize all of that in lieu of an old book that gets more and more wrong as we learn more and more over time. 
Brilliant.

[MikeDeTiger]

You know what my pet peeve is?

Mods who say we can't discuss religion, and then make references to how they don't believe in God, and let another poster take repeated jabs.

And of course the people who follow the rules just have to roll their eyes and let it go.  

At this point, I don't even blame OAM.  He knows there's no consequences.  Why not post every lazy, facile, ignorant thing you think is clever?  Either don't have the rule, or ban the dude.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

You know what my pet peeve is?

Mods who say we can't discuss religion, and then make references to how they don't believe in God, and let another poster take repeated jabs.

And of course the people who follow the rules just have to roll their eyes and let it go. 

At this point, I don't even blame OAM.  He knows there's no consequences.  Why not post every lazy, facile, ignorant thing you think is clever?  Either don't have the rule, or ban the dude. 

There are degrees, my friend...

I wasn't "discussing religion". I was essentially making a joke that the only way IU could win a football natty is via supernatural interference--someone sold their soul to the devil. In my case, I was also not being dismissive of those who do believe in God. There was no value judgment on religion offered, and it was in my opinion in no way trying to open a discussion or religious debate. You may disagree, but when I make a post like that, I run it through my own "is this appropriate or is this crossing a line" filter. 

OAM can't help himself, but sometimes it's easier to just let it lie and see if it escalates. He baits the hook, but if nobody bites, then it's just OAM spouting off and not a religious discussion/debate. We can all just quietly judge him and his behavior, as usual. 

I also didn't get on Badge for his USPS ranting... Technically that probably gets too deep into politics, but in my estimation it wasn't something I felt likely to escalate or get acrimonious. 

IMHO the goal is to make sure that this is a nice place that we all enjoy gathering. I don't think any of us want it to go back to what it was in 2024 during the offseason where more than half (my recollection; may not be accurate) political discussion which crowded much other stuff out and had people at each others' throats. But I also don't think any of us want it to be a thought prison where everyone feels like they're always at risk of getting called out for saying what they think are innocuous things. 

It's about the outcome, not some black and white rule. I try to find balance.

[Cincydawg]

I think if a person says they don't believe in God, if the rest of us let it go at that, it's not "discussing religion", in my view, samd thing in reverse.

If folks start bickering over it, then we're over the line.  For example, I grew up going to a Southern Baptist church regularly, often twice a week, that's a statement of fact.  What I think of SBs now is an opinion.

I think statements of raw fact are OK, maybe with few exceptions.  Statements of OPINION about CFB of course are fine.

[Cincydawg]

I would add that some folks may well think their OPINION is a raw fact when it is not.

Most of us understand that.

[jgvol]

I think if a person says they don't believe in God, if the rest of us let it go at that, it's not "discussing religion", in my view, samd thing in reverse.

If folks start bickering over it, then we're over the line.  For example, I grew up going to a Southern Baptist church regularly, often twice a week, that's a statement of fact.  What I think of SBs now is an opinion.

I think statements of raw fact are OK, maybe with few exceptions.  Statements of OPINION about CFB of course are fine.

How many time must a person tell us they "don't believe in God" before it seems like just a thumb in the eye to believers?

I think that's the issue.

[Cincydawg]

How many time must a person tell us they "don't believe in God" before it seems like just a thumb in the eye to believers?

I think that's the issue.

Sure, that can be, in this specific case I don't recall an antecedent.  It doesn't come up often at all, that I recall.

Now, if someone posted something about their religion, even if factural/historical, over and over, I'd say that is unnecessary and would get clipped, around here.

[jgvol]

Sure, that can be, in this specific case I don't recall an antecedent.  It doesn't come up often at all, that I recall.

Now, if someone posted something about their religion, even if factural/historical, over and over, I'd say that is unnecessary and would get clipped, around here.

Seems to me these toss off comments are quite frequent.  



"in lieu of an old book that gets more and more wrong as we learn more and more over time. 

Brilliant."

[FearlessF]

How many time must a person tell us they "don't believe in God" before it seems like just a thumb in the eye to believers?

I think that's the issue.

well, I'm forgetful and get use guys mixed up from time to time so those reminders are OK for me  

[FearlessF]

Seems to me these toss off comments are quite frequent. 

and very clever

[Cincydawg]

Seems to me these toss off comments are quite frequent. 
"in lieu of an old book that gets more and more wrong as we learn more and more over time.

Brilliant."

I actually agree they are too frequent, but I interpreted the comment as pertaining to a 1904 chemistry text ....

[FearlessF]

your freshman year?

[Cincydawg]

your freshman year?

Nah, I was already teaching that year.