Emerging technology presents new challenges for the social conventions governing the ever increasing amount of time we spend interacting socially. Now that Facebook lets us friend people we don't know and participate in their conversations with an informal ease never previously available for complete strangers to express their opinions, the distance which divides us is brought into sharp focus, as is the importance of maintaining protocols of conduct without which, pointless argument ensues.
As the mores of social networking interaction develop, so new words arise. One of these is 'troll'. A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, off-topic, self serving messages.
The second is 'Christard.' A Christard is a Christain devout to the point of mental retardation, incapable of rational thought and inflexibly drawn to delusional belief.
The young Mr. Zuckerberg in all his prescient wisdom contrived two alternatives for the Troll and the Christard. The Unfriend and the Block option, which I was drawn to yesterday when a South African Christard troll with an uncanny resemblance to the famous silver bearded horse-riding dullard Christard Eugene Terreblanche, took exception to my comment that Leviticus, that odious collection of hateful instruction from the Bible, had its origins in the authors homosexual urge, based on the observation "Can there be any more plausible explanation for this need to kill homosexuals than the inner conflict with that very urge?"
My troll christard correspondent began by name calling. Poep hal (South African for an asshole, often used in a derisory context with homosexuals) and before long addressed me as an idiot who was spouting pro gay rhetoric, for which I was told I would go to hell, and he would help put me out of my misery.
My reply to which follows:
"John, you have labelled me an idiot, which is your right to assume, but to presume I am in 'misery' is a step too far. You have no insight into my emotional state and as is the case with much of what you have written here, presuming my 'misery' is unreliable. Leviticus was gay. Fact. I am not made miserable by this information. Quite the contrary - unlike every Christian believer I am not intolerant of those who do not conform to my blind-faith based belief and would more readily extend the words of friendly banter than the barbs and arrows of outrageous prejudiced toxic-intolerance that characterises both your words here as well as your wildly exposed, ridiculous belief system with its inherent hateful message of condemn and convert - if your not for me your against me and if your against me you go to hell for all eternity - whose legacy is the greatest scourge to have visited mans evolutionary progress through the ages."
What followed was a ream of standard Christian dogma on blasphemy with the assurance that Hell follows that kind of talk and that it was a "Good idea not to mock others' belief systems and worldviews."
Lets examine the arguments merits using the example of pedophilia. Those who allow the sexual attraction toward young children to direct their belief systems and worldviews. I disagree with their views. I feel so strongly that their way, their choices in respect of what they believe, their worldviews and how that act in accordance with those beliefs, is so harmful and at so much at odds with my own belief in a kind and generous, caring model of a wonderful world, that I will stop at nothing to 'mock and offend' their beliefs.
Take Islam. A belief system in which a polygamous prophet slaughtered thousands with his own hand, whilst positioning women as chattels, and happily establishing through his own marriage that sex with a 9 year old is appropriate for a man of 52. This conduct and all that this belief system represents exists at odds with my belief in a kind, caring, sharing wonderful world. Therefore I feel it is not just a good idea to mock this barbaric belief system and the worldviews it presents, but, for anyone with double figure IQ, an ethical responsibility.
Which brings us to why I, and others like me, feel it is a responsibility to ‘mock’ world views that threaten the survival of our species. The arguments in support of this are widely known to anyone willing to invest even basic research into the subject. Clearly, Christian belief allowed to run unchecked will end the world as we know it in the Armageddon nuclear explosion that hundreds of millions of Christians adamantly believe will happen in their lifetimes, and who will support the system of warmongery that best ensures this so called prophecy.
Despite knowing many Christians, and knowing how offended and aggressive they become having their world views challenged and mocked, I feel to do any less would make me complicit in the style of mental-sloth which Christianity demands, being as dangerous as it is unattractive.
I am sure you are a perfectly decent fellow, and that calling me a ‘poep hall’ and an idiot who ‘promotes homosexuality’ is in no way reflective of your usual social etiquette, but simply the demonstration of a thoroughly common reaction to criticism of Religious belief.
My replies have not been personal in any way, which is the point of writing here. It is not personal. There is no call for rudeness or attacks on the person. It is an issue we discuss, in which we hold differing views. The main difference between us is that my belief system, which is essentially strive for a kind caring sharing world that takes care of everyone, does not threaten your existence in any way. I have no provision for an imaginary ‘hell or heaven’ consequence and my need to convince you of how right I am is non-existent. Your views, the Christian doctrine, however are threatening, condemnatory and dangerous, in light of which, remaining silent would make me complicit in, at the very least, conspiracy to commit extinction."
The friendship ended soon after, with a push of the block button, but still the trolling Christard instinct demanded he write to another of the correspondents on the thread, my friend Sir Orpington of Hamburg, serving him with the HELL card and with this lovely reminder for the coward who blocked him because he could not withstand the replies.
This style of content totaled over 6,000 words on one Facebook thread.
A Psychiatrist friend who read Mr. Langermans 6,000 word troll session, commented "patients spouting this sort of delusional nonsense are immediate candidates for 48 hours observation on a lockup ward."
As the mores of social networking interaction develop, so new words arise. One of these is 'troll'. A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, off-topic, self serving messages.
The second is 'Christard.' A Christard is a Christain devout to the point of mental retardation, incapable of rational thought and inflexibly drawn to delusional belief.
My troll christard correspondent began by name calling. Poep hal (South African for an asshole, often used in a derisory context with homosexuals) and before long addressed me as an idiot who was spouting pro gay rhetoric, for which I was told I would go to hell, and he would help put me out of my misery.
My reply to which follows:
"John, you have labelled me an idiot, which is your right to assume, but to presume I am in 'misery' is a step too far. You have no insight into my emotional state and as is the case with much of what you have written here, presuming my 'misery' is unreliable. Leviticus was gay. Fact. I am not made miserable by this information. Quite the contrary - unlike every Christian believer I am not intolerant of those who do not conform to my blind-faith based belief and would more readily extend the words of friendly banter than the barbs and arrows of outrageous prejudiced toxic-intolerance that characterises both your words here as well as your wildly exposed, ridiculous belief system with its inherent hateful message of condemn and convert - if your not for me your against me and if your against me you go to hell for all eternity - whose legacy is the greatest scourge to have visited mans evolutionary progress through the ages."
What followed was a ream of standard Christian dogma on blasphemy with the assurance that Hell follows that kind of talk and that it was a "Good idea not to mock others' belief systems and worldviews."
To which my reply was:
"John, I think you have identified the core issue. The position we take in respect of beliefs that we do not agree with. I disagree with your view that it is 'not a good idea'. I think it is an essential part of defining ones own position in the same way that remaining silent in the face of evil actions makes you complicit in that conduct.
Lets examine the arguments merits using the example of pedophilia. Those who allow the sexual attraction toward young children to direct their belief systems and worldviews. I disagree with their views. I feel so strongly that their way, their choices in respect of what they believe, their worldviews and how that act in accordance with those beliefs, is so harmful and at so much at odds with my own belief in a kind and generous, caring model of a wonderful world, that I will stop at nothing to 'mock and offend' their beliefs.
Take Islam. A belief system in which a polygamous prophet slaughtered thousands with his own hand, whilst positioning women as chattels, and happily establishing through his own marriage that sex with a 9 year old is appropriate for a man of 52. This conduct and all that this belief system represents exists at odds with my belief in a kind, caring, sharing wonderful world. Therefore I feel it is not just a good idea to mock this barbaric belief system and the worldviews it presents, but, for anyone with double figure IQ, an ethical responsibility.
Allowed untouched by the voice and action of reasoned argument, this barbarism in the guise of religious belief will return man to the dark ages. One has to look no further than that most perfect of Islamic sects, Boko Haram, and their right-on-the money understanding that religion can only survive in the absence of education.
Religion without suspension of rational thought, cannot exist. It relies on the unnatural shutting down of rational thought process, in a process called blind faith which might be better named, self-lobotomy. This belief that religious subjugation, the blind faith avenue to a set of polarisingly divisive conditions determining a heaven for the willing and a hell for the rest, always ends in the same place.
Which brings us to why I, and others like me, feel it is a responsibility to ‘mock’ world views that threaten the survival of our species. The arguments in support of this are widely known to anyone willing to invest even basic research into the subject. Clearly, Christian belief allowed to run unchecked will end the world as we know it in the Armageddon nuclear explosion that hundreds of millions of Christians adamantly believe will happen in their lifetimes, and who will support the system of warmongery that best ensures this so called prophecy.
Because I believe the submission to ignorance in the stead of reason enables any form of sheeplike exploitation leading to any form of dreadful conduct, as has been shown to be the case over and over and over again, from Bush the Christian who killed a hundred thousand Muslims to make his daddy proud and because God told him to, to any number of similar instances of what happens when you allow blind faith to be your guide. You become blind to reason and become capable of any form of irrational interpretation for which you have a built in excuse for failure, without any personal accountability. This level of toxic thought, given the widespread extent to which it has taken a hold, threatens the survival of the planet and the existence of mankind. Religious belief more than any other single cause is the one most likely to lead to mans extinction. Like a fungus growing on the lake of life, its spread kills off the light for all the other organisms in the lake, until, allowed to spread unchecked, the entire surface of the lake is clogged with this suffocating fungus and the lakes life ends. You and your beliefs are that spreading fungus.
Despite knowing many Christians, and knowing how offended and aggressive they become having their world views challenged and mocked, I feel to do any less would make me complicit in the style of mental-sloth which Christianity demands, being as dangerous as it is unattractive.
I am sure you are a perfectly decent fellow, and that calling me a ‘poep hall’ and an idiot who ‘promotes homosexuality’ is in no way reflective of your usual social etiquette, but simply the demonstration of a thoroughly common reaction to criticism of Religious belief.
My replies have not been personal in any way, which is the point of writing here. It is not personal. There is no call for rudeness or attacks on the person. It is an issue we discuss, in which we hold differing views. The main difference between us is that my belief system, which is essentially strive for a kind caring sharing world that takes care of everyone, does not threaten your existence in any way. I have no provision for an imaginary ‘hell or heaven’ consequence and my need to convince you of how right I am is non-existent. Your views, the Christian doctrine, however are threatening, condemnatory and dangerous, in light of which, remaining silent would make me complicit in, at the very least, conspiracy to commit extinction."
The friendship ended soon after, with a push of the block button, but still the trolling Christard instinct demanded he write to another of the correspondents on the thread, my friend Sir Orpington of Hamburg, serving him with the HELL card and with this lovely reminder for the coward who blocked him because he could not withstand the replies.
"If you're brave enough, or stupid enough, mock on. After all you have nothing to fear do you, if he's that "silly old imaginary bloke in the sky"? He states clearly a number of times that it is not His desire that any should perish. He's not waiting to whack you over the head, or worse, so that He can ship you off to Hell. He loves every person whom He created, including you, so much, that he sent His Son, Jesus to die on the cross, as a propitiation for everyone's sin, so that they need not die a second (eternal) death.
He is a Holy God and cannot accept, or be in the presence of sin. At the time when He governed over Israel directly, a pure lamb had to be sacrificed so that He could forgive the sin of the perpetrator."
He is a Holy God and cannot accept, or be in the presence of sin. At the time when He governed over Israel directly, a pure lamb had to be sacrificed so that He could forgive the sin of the perpetrator."
This style of content totaled over 6,000 words on one Facebook thread.
A Psychiatrist friend who read Mr. Langermans 6,000 word troll session, commented "patients spouting this sort of delusional nonsense are immediate candidates for 48 hours observation on a lockup ward."
