Archive for 13 February 2010

The Serenity Corner

It is difficult, but not impossible, to get banned from our site. We really don’t like to do it, and disagreeing with what we write does not meet the criteria.

Even though our censorship standards are loose, it does not give a person carte blanche to shut down dialog by whatever means they feel is necessary. We tolerate some pretty nasty comments — not to trivialize them, or because we condone them, but to highlight them. Things like racial slurs and personal attacks say more about the person saying them than we could ever illustrate in our blog. We also realize that we write satirically about a group that many feel is a part of who they are as a person. This makes what is cerebral to us, emotional to those who have made AA a part of them. Obviously, that will create an emotional response in some people. That is why we tolerate a lot of anger, but when it becomes obvious that a person is simply trying disrupt the site by filibustering and making an ass of himself or herself, we have to do something about it.

We created The Serenity Corner at the top of the page to highlight those who choose not to play nice, and who we are forced to block from commenting for a period of time. It isn’t banishment, although it might actually lead to that; and a person has to really show his or her ass in order to get here. It is simply a place for someone sit down and cool their heels until they decide to play reasonably nice.

You may agree or disagree with what we write. Express it any way you see fit, even if that happens to be with a joke or a smartass comment, and even if it is at our expense. We do wish that you do say it while making a valid point, but if you have none, that’s fine. Just don’t let your enthusiasm to make your point turn you into a ranting fuckwad, or we’ll have to put you in the serenity corner.

Quote of the Day

“I’ve heard this argument before and it rubs me the wrong way each time. No one has to go to AA/NA, they can refuse the drug court and go to jail instead if their [sic] that against having to say the word “God”. They should be happy their getting a second chance at all. You would never get a secular program passed in the courts. The religious rights of someone that was caught with a handfull of crack is that last thing on anyones mind.”

jbit, explaining in a conversation about whether or not compelling a person to attend AA breaks the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that a person being coerced into AA really does have a choice: It’s either go to AA, or go jail. Therefore, it is not forced.

Note: Notice jbit writes “you would never get a secular program passed in the courts”. Secular? I thought AA was secular. This slip of the tongue happens all the time from a group that claims to be non-religious.

Stinkin' Thinkin' Flashback

MA’s recent post sparked a little discussion that reminded me of a post I wrote a few months ago, and, just to save myself (and you all) from writing it again, I thought I would pull it back up.

Authoritarian Alcoholics Anonymous

I have long been baffled by people who cannot separate God from morality. I’m talking about those people for whom the two are so inextricable from each other that they don’t see how someone without God could possibly have any sense of morality at all. These are the ones who ask – with every intention of being rhetorical — “If you don’t believe in God, what’s to stop you from murdering someone?” So many pathologies and logical leaps can be teased out of that question that one could write a book – and many have. (Here’s the whole post.)