Keyboard warrior atheists in AH

Snakeblood

Ghost Buster wrote: »

As an example. My boss as in my superior at work, highly educated will proudly boast that whilst Catholic she doesnt really support The Pope and Rome, doesnt believe in such things as lent and not eating meat on ash Wed's and thinks that transubstantiation is silly. She says this in a 'look how progressive and forward thinking i am about religion'. When I politely ask her if she shouldnt actually just be a protestant she waves her hands about and says something along the lines of "No!!! Im a catholic!!"
Do I think she is stupid?
No.
Is her reaction to my question stupid?
Hell yes if she would actually think about it and still react this way. But she will not think about it as she has too much to lose.

Is she a nun?

gargleblaster

Ghost Buster wrote: »

As an example. My boss as in my superior at work, highly educated will proudly boast that whilst Catholic she doesnt really support The Pope and Rome, doesnt believe in such things as lent and not eating meat on ash Wed's and thinks that transubstantiation is silly. She says this in a 'look how progressive and forward thinking i am about religion'. When I politely ask her if she shouldnt actually just be a protestant she waves her hands about and says something along the lines of "No!!! Im a catholic!!"
Do think she is stupid?
No.
Is her reaction to my question stupid?
Hell yes if she would actually think about it and still react this way but she will not think about it as she has too much to lose.

yes well, i don't agree with that. i think it's just like a sports team really. you grow up supporting your local team and that's just how it is. if they are horrible you don't say 'oh well i'll just switch to supporting utd then' (or at least not if you have a lick of sense :cool:) you just grumble about how horrible they are and you keep on supporting them. it seems like religion is more of a social club at this point than anything else. and like i said i'm fine with that. it's just when the head of that team decides they're going to preach to the masses that they shouldn't use condoms despite the aids epidemic and other such irresponsible nonsense that i have a problem with it. but if more people treated it more like sports / a social club and less like it were very serious and true and if you go against it you'll burn in hell forever then that wouldn't be an issue anyway, he could say whatever he liked.


another thing, it's funny how many people seem to think that because atheists don't believe in gods, that they don't see the point in being good to other people, being considerate, being honest, etc. that to me is just incredible really. as if we need an invisible person in the sky to threaten us with eternal damnation or reward us with whatever in order to get us to behave. maybe some people really do need that, i don't know. i hope not though because that would be sad.

sorry to go on about this, i joined the thread late and find this an interesting and entertaining topic.

twinQuins

SeaSlacker, might I suggest getting a blog? I mean, if people want to discuss these things they're going to, as the rules don't prohibit it and I don't think they should.
DeV has clarified his position and this whole thing was wrapped up on Feedback already.

I get that you don't like the threads but there's plenty of threads I don't like but I don't start threads complaining about them as that, in a rather ironic way, just perpetuates the problem. I just ignore them.
Everyone has threads on subjects they don't like or are sick of seeing but clearly enough people on the forum want to discuss these things.

Yes, some of the threads can be problematic but no more so than other threads and if it becomes the case the mods can just step in.

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

Keyboard warrior atheists & theists in AH. Are you sick of them? cos I am.

A lot of threads in AH seem to follow this format:

Atheist OP: Do you do *insert religious practice*

Atheist 1-there's no god. of course not.

Theist- *insert theological reason for practice*

Atheist 1- rabble rabble rabble

Atheist 2- rabble rabble rabble....

Theist- flame

Atheist-flame

Rest of us- *facepalm*

You're atheist and proud, we get it, we do. Now can we cut the religious debate cr*p and get back to the "yore ma" jokes? Thousands of years of human civilisation has yet to find a definitive solution, I hardly think AH will find what countless billions have failed to.

So SeaSlacker, you started a feedback thread complaining about people discussing religious beliefs in AH and you have decided to follow this up by starting a thread in AH for people to discuss people discussing religious beliefs in AH? Am I following that right?

Show us another miracle!

Daegerty

is there a particular model of keyboard these keyboard warriors prefer? Do they make their own because they are so elite?

farna_boy

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Nope. Theists are not incapable of logic. Thats a daft notion... except when it comes to religion which by its very definition is illogical. Thats where the blind faith bit kicks into play.
BTW its a fallacy to think that all atheists are science heads. Im a Mayo farmer from a staunch Catholic background, no third level education and with only a regularpassing interest in science.
But even with only a passing science interest i think i know where you are heading with your big bang comment and if i have guessed right you are incorrect.
care to unload it and see if my guess is right please?

Knasher wrote: »

Quite curious what you mean by this. Acceptance of the big bang theory (though I make no claim to fully understanding it) is in no way property of atheists alone. In fact one of the bigger names in putting together the big bang theory is Georges Lemaître, who was a catholic priest.

This was exactly the point that I was making. I was pointing out that some atheists claim that if a person is religious, they are automatically incapable of logic. I just always found it amusing that the same atheists would then proclaim great the big bang theory is and how it explains everything, when one of the first proponents of the theory was a priest.

@Ghost Buster: Is this what you thought I was going to say? Can you elaborate on how I am incorrect?

Einhard wrote: »

Atheism doesn't posit any such thing. It's self evidently false. What a thinking atheist would claim however, is that religion is incompatible with logic. There's a subtle but important difference.

I completely agree. I don't have a problem with atheism but I do have a problem with some atheists. Again a subtle but important difference.

farna_boy

gargleblaster wrote: »

yes well, i don't agree with that. i think it's just like a sports team really. you grow up supporting your local team and that's just how it is. if they are horrible you don't say 'oh well i'll just switch to supporting utd then' (or at least not if you have a lick of sense :cool:) you just grumble about how horrible they are and you keep on supporting them. it seems like religion is more of a social club at this point than anything else. and like i said i'm fine with that. it's just when the head of that team decides they're going to preach to the masses that they shouldn't use condoms despite the aids epidemic and other such irresponsible nonsense that i have a problem with it. but if more people treated it more like sports / a social club and less like it were very serious and true and if you go against it you'll burn in hell forever then that wouldn't be an issue anyway, he could say whatever he liked.


another thing, it's funny how many people seem to think that because atheists don't believe in gods, that they don't see the point in being good to other people, being considerate, being honest, etc. that to me is just incredible really. as if we need an invisible person in the sky to threaten us with eternal damnation or reward us with whatever in order to get us to behave. maybe some people really do need that, i don't know. i hope not though because that would be sad.

sorry to go on about this, i joined the thread late and find this an interesting and entertaining topic.

Recently read a thread on another forum about the AIDS/condoms/Church problem that got me thinking more in depth about the problem and where the blame actually lies.

How many Catholics do you think are actually in Africa?

RichieC

Daegerty wrote: »

is there a particular model of keyboard these keyboard warriors prefer? Do they make their own because they are so elite?

Logitech g15 is preferable as you can program anti religion rants into the G buttons.

Daegerty

RichieC wrote: »

Logitech g15 is preferable as you can program anti religion rants into the G buttons.

They're getting lazy. No love for the IBM Model M for hands-on keyboard warring?

Knasher

farna_boy wrote: »

This was exactly the point that I was making. I was pointing out that some atheists claim that if a person is religious, they are automatically incapable of logic. I just always found it amusing that the same atheists would then proclaim great the big bang theory is and how it explains everything, when one of the first proponents of the theory was a priest.

I'd suggest you make more of an effort to clearly state your points then because the only interpretation of your post that I was able to make is that you found the big bang theory illogical and that it amuses you that atheists accept it.

farna_boy wrote: »

I completely agree. I don't have a problem with atheism but I do have a problem with some atheists. Again a subtle but important difference.

farna_boy wrote: »

and people wonder why theists don't like atheists...

A very subtle difference indeed.

gargleblaster

farna_boy wrote: »

Recently read a thread on another forum about the AIDS/condoms/Church problem that got me thinking more in depth about the problem and where the blame actually lies.

How many Catholics do you think are actually in Africa?

that is not the pertinent question imo. it seems to me that the more pertinent question is how many relief organizations are religious in nature, and so refuse to distribute condoms based on religious beliefs?

alandublin15

op topic = vent opportunity
opportunity = accepted
[vent] preachy loud internet atheists automatically assume anyone disagreeing is a theist and not just someone who thinks they sound like a tard with a little knowledge outweighed by much ignorance[/vent]



(aaah my science that felt good)

partyatmygaff

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Nope.
I am saying that if a person is drip fed religion and fear of going against an angry and jealous God from the moment they are able to understand language then regardless of their intelligence they will more than likely carry non believing this.

Strange that. From the way people on AH talk they've spent their entire primary and secondary education being force fed Religion. Supposedly the great thinkers and scientists of the past had "suffered" the same terrible indoctrination yet they didn't abandon their religious beliefs.

partyatmygaff

Calibos wrote: »

In real life I never discuss religion with anyone unless they bring up the subject first. I think people will find that the same applies in after hours for the most part. AH isn't full of religious subject threads started by athiests. Its full of religious threads started by theists where atheists have the cheek to post an opposite viewpoint, or point out that the OP doesn't make sense.

That's exactly it. Except the other way around.

MrStuffins

Who cares whether one side starts the argument? This is a moot point!

it's much more likely for an Atheist to start it because there are so many people who hold beliefs which fly in the face of hundreds of years of scientific work, fly in the face of very basic physics and chemistry, fly in the face of basic common sense........ and what a lot of these people have in common is blind ignorance!

Theists don't start threads trying to disprove the scientific work, the physics, the chemistry etc........... because they can't!

Or if you do, you emd up sounding like a clown like Bill o'Reilly and telling an Atheist that he can't explain how the tides work and why Earth has a moon and Mars doesn't..... even though Mars has 2!

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

Who cares whether one side starts the argument? This is a moot point!

No it's not.

it's much more likely for an Atheist to start it because there are so many people who hold beliefs which fly in the face of hundreds of years of scientific work,

What about the thousands if not millions of Theist scientists? There's no "war" between science and religion as so many people wish to believe.

fly in the face of very basic physics and chemistry,

Wait. Belief in God flys in the face of the very basics of chemistry?

What's the molarity of a solution of Theism?

fly in the face of basic common sense........ and what a lot of these people have in common is blind ignorance!

So the billions of theists who live and have ever lived have no common sense and "these people" share blind ignorance. Do you not see how insulting that is?

Theists don't start threads trying to disprove the scientific work, the physics, the chemistry etc........... because they can't!

Or perhaps because you can't disprove "the physics" or "the chemistry". You can disprove theories or hypotheses if you're a scientist. It doesn't matter if you're Religious or not.

Or if you do, you emd up sounding like a clown like Bill o'Reilly and telling an Atheist that he can't explain how the tides work and why Earth has a moon and Mars doesn't..... even though Mars has 2!

Again. If anyone needs an example of the typical snide thinly veiled insults dished out against theists on AH then here you go.

All theists who regardless of their scientific education and experience end up sounding like clowns when they try and discuss science is what you're saying yet somehow you disagree with me saying that posts like yours are keyboard warriorism.

If you happened to meet a Doctor with a pHD who happened to be religious would you tell him that he lacks common sense and is blindly ignorant? I doubt it. So why do you see it acceptable to insult billions of people's intelligence just because you're on the internet?

deathrider

I've been hearing the words Keyboard Warrior so much on Boards lately, that I think it deserves it's on theme tune. Something nice and cheesy, with an 80's hair rock kinda feel to it...

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What about the thousands if not millions of Theist scientists? There's no "war" between science and religion as so many people wish to believe.

I never claimed there was, so i don't see why you bring it up.

Wait. Belief in God flys in the face of the very basics of chemistry?

Nope, I never said this either.

So the billions of theists who live and have ever lived have no common sense and "these people" share blind ignorance. Do you not see how insulting that is?

Whoa, where are you getting all this from? Where did I say all theists? I think you need to calm down, take a step back and start to read posts!

Again. If anyone needs an example of the typical snide thinly veiled insults dished out against theists on AH then here you go.

How is that thinly veiled? Bill O'Reilly is a f*cking idiot and the things he said were beyond ridiculous!

All theists who regardless of their scientific education and experience end up sounding like clowns when they try and discuss science is what you're saying yet somehow you disagree with me saying that posts like yours are keyboard warriorism.

No, I never said this. Lad, again, please read my posts!

If you happened to meet a Doctor with a pHD who happened to be religious would you tell him that he lacks common sense and is blindly ignorant? I doubt it. So why do you see it acceptable to insult billions of people's intelligence just because you're on the internet?

Earlier I said that no real insulting happens and things get blown out of proportion. I said many people, NOT ALL THEISTS, hold beliefs which fly in the face of common sense, and a lot of THESE people are ignorant.

And all of a sudden i've insulted "billions of people"! You've kinda just proved my point!

Daegerty

Threads like this make me want to start going to mass more than ever.

At least there will be a bit of craic after unlike after a keyboard war.

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

it's much more likely for an Atheist to start it because there are so many people who hold beliefs which fly in the face of hundreds of years of scientific work, fly in the face of very basic physics and chemistry, fly in the face of basic common sense........ and what a lot of these people have in common is blind ignorance!

Theists don't start threads trying to disprove the scientific work, the physics, the chemistry etc........... because they can't!

Or if you do, you emd up sounding like a clown like Bill o'Reilly and telling an Atheist that he can't explain how the tides work and why Earth has a moon and Mars doesn't..... even though Mars has 2!

To address your reply. Let's look at the structure of your post shall we?

First of all you say it's likely for an atheist to start because there are so many people who hold beliefs which...
You said Atheists in the general and then went on to explain why they are the ones who start threads. Considering you mentioned Atheists in the general sense it follows that "so many people" refers to Theists in the general sense.

Then the second paragraph confirms the implication in the first. You start it with "Theists don't start threads trying to..." in a manner that continues on with the first. "So many people" acts as a pronoun in your first paragraph for "Theists".

Then finally the third paragraph which continues on from your statement that Theists can't disprove (Discuss) Science you say that "If (you) do, you end up sounding like a clown like Bill O'Reilly and telling an atheist that...".

Thinly veiled, indeed.

Ghost Buster

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Strange that. From the way people on AH talk they've spent their entire primary and secondary education being force fed Religion. Supposedly the great thinkers and scientists of the past had "suffered" the same terrible indoctrination yet they didn't abandon their religious beliefs.

Did you spot the words "more than likely" in my post meaning very many but not all?
If you stopped interpreting word like 'some' as 'all
or 'occasionally' as 'all the time' for example communications around here would run much more smoothly.
I dont get your point about great thinkers and religious belief being mutually exclusive!??
I have been at pains to point out that atheism and religion have nothing to do ,with intelligence. This may not suit the stereotype you are clinging to Im afraid

partyatmygaff

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Did you spot the words "more than likely" in my post meaning very many but not all?
If you stopped interpreting word like 'some' as 'all
or 'occasionally' as 'all the time' for example communications around here would run much more smoothly.

I don't see how you get the idea I misinterpreted anything in that post.

I dont get your point about great thinkers and religious belief being mutually exclusive!??
I have been at pains to point out that atheism and religion have nothing to do ,with intelligence. This may not suit the stereotype you are clinging to Im afraid

???


The stereotype I'M clinging to? What? I've been telling people for the past age that there is no link between Religious belief or lack thereof and Intelligence.

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To address your reply. Let's look at the structure of your post shall we?

First of all you say it's likely for an atheist to start because there are so many people who hold beliefs which...
You said Atheists in the general and then went on to explain why they are the ones who start threads. Considering you mentioned Atheists in the general sense it follows that "so many people" refers to Theists in the general sense.

Well no it doesn't. Because I would've said "Theists" in that case, not "so many people".

Then the second paragraph confirms the implication in the first. You start it with "Theists don't start threads trying to..." in a manner that continues on with the first. "So many people" acts as a pronoun in your first paragraph for "Theists".

Well even by saying "Theists", i'm still not saying "all Theists". Instead of trying to put words into my mouth, try to read and comprehend the post.

Then finally the third paragraph which continues on from your statement that Theists can't disprove (Discuss) Science you say that "If (you) do, you end up sounding like a clown like Bill O'Reilly and telling an atheist that...".

Thinly veiled, indeed.

Nope, not thinly veiled at all. O'Reilly is an idiot, and at no point did I EVER say "All Theists" or anything of the sort. You just made connections in your mind that didn't exist.

This completely proves my point that, even when these insults don't exist, SOME people (not all people, i will nip this in the bud right now) tend to make a mountain of a mole-hill and take massive offense.

Right then.....

28 odd pages in, here's my take. There's too much in there to reply to all of your thoughts, and frankly I wasn't looking for the wider "why we are atheists" discussion.

---

Aside: I'll place my own religious cards on the table before I get down to the nitty-gritty of what started this.

I call myself Catholic.

I shrug my shoulders at Transubstanciation, and most of the other niggling points of my Faith that have little or no bearing on my moral compass.

I believe that whatever the "Big Truth" is, it is something far greater and more nuanced than any explanation that a human institution or experiment can come up with.

I believe in Darwin's Evolution theory, and that the Bible isn't to be taken literally.

I believe the Bible is open to interpretation, and that there is room for many interpretations of it.

I believe the Universe and all religion is open to interpretation, and that my own interpretation is that "If you live a life of Creation and not Destruction, then whatever's the other side of the Death Wall will probably look after you"

I believe I could be right, I believe I could be wrong.

I believe I have the right to associate myself with whatever religious affiliation I wish as an inalienable human right, just as I have the right to decide my political, sexual, and associative affiliations. I have chosen to associate myself with Catholics. The only way another can stop me from calling myself a Catholic is by denying my human right to life. To do that, they must take my life.

I believe I have the right to stand apart from the Roman Catholic Church on issues which I hold their stance as contrary to my own morals.

I believe criminal actions in the name of extreme religious views are not a matter of faith, but law enforcement. If they want to harm or kill non believers, then they must be stopped, with lethal force if necessary.

I believe that the denial of an adult's right to decide their own religion is a wrong that should be resisted.

I believe that every parent has a right to raise their child with the value set that they hold themselves.

I believe in these statements about Atheists and Theists Arguers:

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
3. In Everyday Life, They're Not That Different
4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
5. One Side's Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to The Other
6. Both Sides Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Side
7. Both Sides Tend to Exaggerate About Themselves, Too
8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You A Dick
9. Both Sides Have Brought Good Stuff to the Table
10. Neither Side Will Ever Harass the Other Side Out of All Existence

(Edit: The above 10 I got from here. I suggest whatever your "creed", you shoud read this)

---

Now, here's a line of questioning:

As we can see here, there are many very vocal atheists on AH, far more than vocal theists. Does that mean that any thread that asks a religious question will be given a predominantly atheist answer?

If a thread is given mostly atheist replies, does that discourage theists from posting?

If theists are discouraged from posting, does that make AH a de facto Atheist forum?

Now I'm not talking about who's "right" or "wrong" about the topic at hand, I'm on about the reaction people have to seeing a large group who vehemently disagree with them on a topic they're not that keen on wasting their breath arguing on an internet forum for.

I had a lot more to post, but I'm tired.

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well no it doesn't. Because I would've said "Theists" in that case, not "so many people".

You don't need to explicitly say something to say it.

Well even by saying "Theists", i'm still not saying "all Theists". Instead of trying to put words into my mouth, try to read and comprehend the post.

By saying Theists "bare" you are implying either "all" or Theists in general. There's no other meaning for it.

Nope, not thinly veiled at all.

If you say so.

O'Reilly is an idiot,

What does O'Reilly and his stupidity have to do with anything?

and at no point did I EVER say "All Theists" or anything of the sort.

The implication was there and that's what matters.

You just made connections in your mind that didn't exist.

No i've made connections in my mind as per my understanding of the English language thus your post.

MrStuffins

Deleted User wrote: »

Right then.....

First off, great post!

Now, here's a line of questioning:

As we can see here, there are many very vocal atheists on AH, far more than vocal theists. Does that mean that any thread that asks a religious question will be given a predominantly atheist answer?

Well there ARE vocal theists, but i guess they are outnumbered.

However, just because there might be 20 Atheists and 1 theist, doesn't make each individual Atheist's opinions any more valid just because they have numbers.

If a thread is given mostly atheist replies, does that discourage theists from posting?

If anything it should be the opposite! If you are truely confident in your beliefs, why would you shy away?

If theists are discouraged from posting, does that make AH a de facto Atheist forum?

I don;t believe they are discouraged. Again, the only way they would be discouraged was if their opinions didn't hold up to scrutiny and they were afraid of being found out.

Now I'm not talking about who's "right" or "wrong" about the topic at hand, I'm on about the reaction people have to seeing a large group who vehemently disagree with them on a topic they're not that keen on wasting their breath arguing on an internet forum for.

I had a lot more to post, but I'm tired.

If there was a thread on kicking puppies to death, just because there was a large group advocating it in a thread, that wouldnt change my desire to post!

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You don't need to explicitly say something to say it.

Well obviously not according to you. You seem to be able to tell me what I was thinking and was saying. And continue to tell me i was saying "All Theists" even though i've made it pretty clear I wasn't.

It REALLY isn't my fault that you can't read posts without making connections that don't exist, so please don't put words into my mouth!

By saying Theists "bare" you are implying either "all" or Theists in general. There's no other meaning for it.

No I am not, or was not. My post was pretty clear, I said "some people". Again, learn to read posts instead of making connections that don't exist.
again, I will point it out, i was NOT saying all Theists.

What does O'Reilly and his stupidity have to do with anything?

Read the post

The implication was there and that's what matters.

It's all that matters to you because this made up implication supports your opinions. Again, I was NOT implying anything, I NEVER said or intended "all Theists"

No i've made connections in my mind as per my understanding of the English language thus your post.

Well then you need to study the English language a little harder in my opinion.

Calibos

Calibos wrote: »

I do try not to post in religious type threads, I really do but when someone posts the yearly thread about what they are giving up for lent, I find it very very hard not to be sarcastic and post...

I am sure your lord Jesus who is the source of all life and morality and who died a horrific death on the cross for the sins of all mankind really appreciates the sacrefice you have made for 40 days in honour of his sacrefice for you......How are you ever going to live without Moro bars for 40 days though!!!"

Heres, where it gets interesting. A true believer could conceivably say the same thing to the Moro giver upper. ie. to all those a la carte believers out there. Those legions of Irish people who only step foot in a church at Christmas, funerals and weddings, who think giving up Moro's are a worthy offering, who ignore most of the rules of their religion, whos understanding of their own religions doctrine is so wrong that unbeknownst to them because they are too lazy to learn about it are actually closer to the beliefs of Protestants (Hiss, spit), people who think the bible is the most important book ever written inspired by the creator of the whole universe, but who have never gotten around to reading it.

These people. These people are usually the ones here giving out about atheists or demanding respect for their religious beliefs......You don't even respect your own religions beliefs so why the fcuk should I??????

Lads, I thought I could resist. I really thought that this was going to be the year that I could resist.....but, but..... half the posters in the Lent thread are giving up.......chocolate.......

Right...I'm going in....

Pray for me!!

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

First off, great post!

Thank you

MrStuffins wrote: »

Again, In My Opinion the only way they would be discouraged was if their opinions didn't hold up to scrutiny and they were afraid of being found out.

First, Fixed your post.

Second, As one of the discouraged, I can honestly say that I have no fear of being "found out" as being definitively "wrong", as I do not believe being difinitively "wrong" is possible. It's down to your own interpretation of the Universe as you find it.

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, here's a line of questioning:

As we can see here, there are many very vocal atheists on AH, far more than vocal theists. Does that mean that any thread that asks a religious question will be given a predominantly atheist answer?

If there are more atheists on AH (which I think you are probably right about) then sure it follows that a thread about religion will contain predominantly answers from atheists.

Does the fact that most posters on here would be capitalists mean a thread about Marxism will be primarily commented on by capitalists?

Yep.

If a thread is given mostly atheist replies, does that discourage theists from posting?

It might for some of them, that's their issue. It won't for others, usually the ones that feel they are willing to and capable of arguing their side and are confident in their beliefs, that's their choice too.

If a thread is given mostly capitalist replies, does that discourage Marxists from posting?

It might for some of them, that's their issue. It won't for others, usually the ones that feel they are willing to and capable of arguing their side and are confident in their beliefs, that's their choice too.

If theists are discouraged from posting, does that make AH a de facto Atheist forum?

Not in my opinion.

If Marxists are discouraged from posting, does that make AH a de facto Capitalist forum?

Not in my opinion.

Now I'm not talking about who's "right" or "wrong" about the topic at hand, I'm on about the reaction people have to seeing a large group who vehemently disagree with them on a topic they're not that keen on wasting their breath arguing on an internet forum for.

They don't have to open and read the threads about Marxism, whether they are for or against it. They can just take a look at the thread title or the OP and say to themselves "this thread will clearly contain a bunch of Marxists and capitalists arguing over the weakness and strengths of Marxism and capitalism and the reasons people accept or reject them" and go happily about their merry day.

Such is the wonder of the internet, you only have to read what you want to read.

I had a lot more to post, but I'm tired.

I'd be happy to hear it when you are well slept and feeling up to it.