Then do you think, maybe, you could offer up a narrative blaming someone else that actually makes sense? Look, I just went back through pages of that thread, and— —yes, and being mentioned more than once is not as persuasive or meaningful to me as it might be to you, but, really, I'm not going to nitpick the point because, yes, this attitude does exist. You and I could probably have a fascinating discussion about what we think it's made of and how we think its influence works; there are some clues suggesting we view the attitude in different contexts. Still, though— —neither would I contest this. I can even remember one moderator who quit over the issue, some years ago. Interestingly, his were some of the most bigoted arguments against "religion" we have seen; it's only because I was here to witness the decline that I wouldn't believe him a religious provocateur trying to discredit atheists. However— —I'm sorry, this point requires some manner of resolution before it even begins to make sense. James wanted Religion and Fringe so directly juxtaposed? Which page was that on? I'm sure that means something to you. Look: Who forced you to juxtapose the two like that? There is no rational reason to do so. That you actually have such trouble seeing this point is kind of weird. Do you disagree with the proposition that one should at least respond to certain information before demanding that what is already there be presented? Since it's on the record, what is the honest point of pretending it's not? Consider the record: • Post describing bigotry↑ • Response: "Please identify the bigotry"↑ Honestly, Kittamaru, do you have some objection to addressing what is there? It's one thing if a person disagrees, but do you consider the proper and honest thing to do to skip out and make excuses↑? No, really, priorities are each to the beholder, but still, pride before fact never really works out. You can't justify the juxtaposition; you might help me understand why we're looking to James on this one. Really, I'm happy to climb the ladder on this one. Right over James, too, and have out with whichever members we're supposedly accommodating by this bullshit. But I need you to please finish blaming other people, first, or at least explain how some perception of market conditions means the marketplace has a clue. Seriously, people will buy anything; welcome to the world. Is that what we're selling, though? † You've lived through a period in which our society has continued to insist, for whatever reasons, that it needed to vote to approve or disapprove of people's human rights. To some degree, this is simply a bad idea inasmach as the only reason anyone ever wants to vote about human rights like that is in order to forestall them. There are not any noncontroversial or not unpleasant setups, so, right. The part I would like you to consider about that is quite simply whether or not certain questions, having been asked, are still bad ideas, such that it doesn't really matter that someone asked insofar as we're not going there because it is a bad idea to do so. If that concept at least makes sense to you, that, "Yeah, someone asked, but still, no", we're in a weird range of that. I do think framing the Sciforums community as incapable of rationally and responsibly attending records historical and literary is rather quite a "bad idea™". And maybe it's one thing to say, "Oh, hey, that's the marketplace", but you can't even see the problem beyond pointing to James, and eventually resorting to bottom-shelf theatrical politicking↑. So, yeah, if you want to point to the marketplace, okay, I get that there is some swirling sentiment of some sort out there, but c'mon, really, if that poll reflects this marketplace, holy shit. If the marketplace says this issue needs consideration, and the marketplace says that issue needs consideration, then we might immediately note there is nothing about such conditions requiring that we juxtapose this and that, nor that we address the two elements as one. If we simply shrug those points off, well, right, we can construe marketplace circumstances suggesting any number of questions any number of people find unpalatable, but the point remains that regardless of politics I would still find them utterly dysfunctional. Remember questions of function any time you see a public poll, for instance, having to do with sexual harassment and including some bit about women tempting, confusing, or otherwise compelling men to the behavior. The "marketplace" might be able to construe enough of a squeaky wheel that one can flaccidly pretend they had no choice if they intended to be fair to the marketplace, but legitimizing a bad idea for the sake of market satisfaction is still a bad idea. I mean, I'm quite certain you're already aware that much of the "both sides" equivocation necessarily omits consideration of function. † It might be worth considering that the "fabled 'conversation'" probably means different things to different people, which is part of the reason it doesn't happen in any way you and I might agree on in order to say it happened. And it's true, it generally doesn't happen. Nothing about any of that means any assertion of said discussion actually achieves the fact of being that conversation. † By the way, does it ever stand out to you that no matter how many times we tell people why the Fringe subfora exist, people just ask why they exist? It's not like there's any evolution of the question. Then again, that might not be our problem to worry about? I mean, not just as people who might have to deal with that behavior in the community, but also as the moderators people generally never pay attention to, anyway. Y'know, it's possible. † So, hey, here's a way of looking at it: So, are we talking about disqualifying the whole of the human historical and literary record, or just whatever parts one happens to prefer not dealing with? That's the problem with the juxtaposition; there is no rational justification for such rhetorical catastrophe. You know, in terms of proverbial conversations we never get through, there is also one you're probably familiar with in which the objection asks who decides what constitutes intellectual dishonesty. Well, this is a different vector: Who decides what part of the historical record doesn't count? You know, there are days with intellectual dishonesty when you and I might be sitting there, thinking, "How is there any doubt about this bullshit?" and yet find ourselves disagreeing with a colleague who just doesn't see the problem, or, really, anything amiss about the episode. But it's also true we already had an answer to the question: The poll considers disqualifying a significant and influential portion of the historical record because some portion of the marketplace disdains those aspects. Regardless of how you think you got there, it's an astonishing characterization of the marketplace.