@TRiG: Also, if you don't care about his interpretation, then you shouldn't say things like "He can interpret the passage in a less venomous way." rather than attack me verbally when I respond to your statement.

@TRiG If you're not interested in the interpretation of scripture, I'm not sure this is the site for you...

@Flimzy Okay. Poorly phrased. By way I meant his wording and attitude, not his beliefs.

Personally, I rather you stick around though

@TRiG: Okay, understood.

@Ray Well, I do find it interesting, as an intellectual exercise, but it's not my concern in this conversation, except for the real-world effects thereof.

@Ray: I agree... @TRiG, you offer a lot of valuable insight here.

@Flimzy Really?

Really.

A site like this is not particularly valuable when it's just a bunch of like-minded people patting each other on the backs

it's questions and answers... we're here to get more perspectives, more knowledge, more understanding

@TRiG: I have upvoted many of your questions and answers.

ok, my real life date is here

time to stop chatting

later all

Have a good night

I'm going to have to run in a minute as well

Bye.

@TRiG, I'd like to see your question re-opened as well. Hopefully that could generate some better (and less hurtful) answers

Do you plan on reworking it at all to fit the guidelines?

I feel like I'm going to have to drop a massive amount of feminist theory on you lot to get it through to you that language like that actually causes real-world problems, up to and including murder. It contributes to a general culture of hate.

So, is that a no?

I'm not saying that it's wrong to criticise a discriminated-against minority which often faces violence. Being a minority does not make you immune from criticism. But in that cultural context, criticism has to be thoughtful and very carefully phrased, or it'll do damage.

@Ray That's a one day maybe. I'm away this weekend. Shouldn't be on the site at all. But an offensive, stupid, hate-filled, and bigoted answer has been edited to make it far more offensive, far more hateful, and far more dangerous. And I think that should be changed.

And, actually, I'm amazed that people aren't getting this.

Yes, understood. As it stands, his answer is at the top. If you can rework the question so that others can answer, we'd have less hurtful answers bubbling up

Could we at least downvote it to oblivion, or at least to being greyed out.

I do understand how this kind of speech is damaging in broader way

It's not as if I can upvote either of the others. I can't understand them.

I'll tell you what

this is a pretty high-profile question

I mean. An actual valid answer would be "because Christians hate the idea of religious freedom, and want everyone to live by their religious laws".

Maybe I'll just delete the question.

If you can do the work do get it in a position it can be reopened (when you get a chance), I'll drop a bounty on it from my rep

I can ask it again with better phrasing. A separate question, instead of editing it.

None of these answers are really very good

The three answers currently on it would be no loss.

Probably a fair statement

@TRiG This makes it sound like you're of the mindset that you'll only accept an answer that you presently agree with. Am I misinterpreting that? Or is it even a genuine question in that case?

Meh. I can't delete it. I've flagged and asked the mods to delete it.

@Ray Well, an answer I could understand would be a start.

Gotcha

Well, I've got to go. I look forward to seeing the new question

I'll get away from this computer now too.

Maybe I'm so steeped in feminist theory, and the idea of "rape culture" and suchlike, that I don't get how other people don't understand that cultural context matters.

I wouldn't be worried by that post if we didn't live in a world where gay kids are routinely bullied, beaten up, mocked, kicked out of their families (massive numbers of homeless teens are gay), and discriminated against into adult life. But we do live in that world. And in that world, leaving a post like that up on the site is just irresponsible.

We live in a world where a kid can be suspended from school for kissing.

We live in a world where a woman can be denied access to her dying partner.

And we live in a world where a famous Christian spokesman (not a lone nutter, but someone with a following), thinks gay people should be sent to prison.

That's the world we live in. In that world, hate speech isn't just "offensive", it's criminally dangerous. And leaving it on the site is negligence.

But I'm repeating myself now.

Back to BBC Radio 4 drama. And then back to Pratchett's latest.

Bye,

@TRiG Your question has been deleted per requested. If I could suggest something however, if you do plan on asking a related question, do so by editing this one and running it by us to get it undeleted (and maybe take wax up on his offer to help word it).

If we do give it life again, we can actually start by deleting any answers that aren't focused on the new framing of the question and making their OP's edit them before they get un-deleted.

However before you do ask again, make sure you consider the points mentioned on meta about asking about things you really want to know the answer -- that you questions should stem from something you are trying to solve. You don't have to agree with the views represented, but you have to ask in a way that gives a framework for what is a valid answer or not.

The big issue we just went through is that whether anybody liked it or appreciated it, the answer giving anybody trouble here actually did answer what you were asked.

See my meta explanation to the "why suddenly not-constructive" thing a little more on my reasoning on that point.

Alright I'm off for the night --- g'night world.