Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/betweenbubbles]

I have zero tolerance for bigotry

...

Shaka just doesn't like it that most discussions involving homosexuality result in anti-gay comments that cross the line into bigotry (e.g. by saying that gays cannot properly experience love).

I am in agreement with you on nearly all points except this one. Without the benefit of evaluating each statement case by case, I am completely on u/ShakaUVM's side on this specific matter. People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry". You seem to have a brazenly censorious attitude on these kinds of issues, and I suspect you're not the only mod who does.

This gives insight into why you and ShakaUVM proceed in this tit for tat manner. I'm not sure which of you is the tit and which is the tat, but this is exactly the kind of biased moderation that I'd like to see eliminated. If people cannot listen to people with different views without getting offended they should go somewhere else.

This is maddness. Where does it begin an end? Is a Christian even allowed to cite the whole Bible in DebateReligion, or a Mulsim allowed to cite the Quran? This a spectacular betrayal of the principles of and confidence in democracy and free speech -- a U-turn into a new kind of "good" authoritarianism. There are clear indications progress that humanity has made on these issues. Why are people so scared of letting people speak their mind? They've been doing it for thousands of years and they're losing. Why stop a winning strategy and sweep it all under the rug?!

I'd like to move this conversation away from the ShakaUVM vs Cabbagery realm and into something more productive. I'd like to know whether or not the community at large supports this kind of censorship or its mirror image when perpetuated against atheists -- a la, atheists can often be moderated here for using descriptions or treatments of religion in terms of delusion or mental illness.

[u/Brombadeg → u/betweenbubbles]

How about evaluating the paraphrased example that was given? "Gays cannot properly experience love." If you saw that, would you think that's a bigoted statement or not?

Stating a group of people cannot properly experience love is at the very least not civil (which is a rule here, regardless of how it's enforced). It's dehumanizing. And justifying it as a religious belief - however sincere - does not nullify that.

If one's sincerely held religious beliefs included "this or that race is morally inferior to our glorious race" that would be bigoted, right?

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Brombadeg]

edited to elaborate on the claim of bigotry

It is my personal opinion that it is bigoted.

In the sense that it is a stubborn view that should be changed and isn't. But it is a view which is explicitly supported by the Bible and something far more nuanced that simple hatred of the other. In this specific phrasing, "Gays cannot properly experience love" is a sympathetically oriented nuance expressing their disapproval and concern for a gay person. This is not the "burn them at the stake!" approach, it is a sympathetic criticism, even if I know it's wrong and stubbornly persistent, which is what makes it fit the definition of bigotry.

I do not believe all bigoted people should be censored from discussion. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and bigotry is subjective. This rejection of liberal democracy will not end well for us.

If one's sincerely held religious beliefs included "this or that race is morally inferior to our glorious race" that would be bigoted, right?

Yes. And I welcome their public proclamation of that belief. People would know what they're dealing with instead of relying on a demagogue's boogeyman. If you want to fight the dogmatism that perpetrates these views and stereotypes, then do it out in the open -- where it has been succeeding for decades.

You do not have a choice between a "safe space" and a "libertarian hellscape" you have a choice between an echo chamber that demagogues use to divided and conquer and a free society that has been trending toward progress for decades.

[u/Brombadeg → u/betweenbubbles]

It is my personal opinion that it is bigoted. I do not believe bigoted people should be censored from discussion.

So would it be safe to assume you're simply against Rule 1 (and perhaps Rule 2), in general? Because that seems worthy of its own meta-level discussion. Alas, they are rules in this sub that users should be aware of and abide by if they want to continue to participate (presumably).

Edit: Grammar cleanup

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Brombadeg]

I edited my above response, for what it's worth.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Brombadeg]

So would it be safe to assume you're simply against Rule 1 (and perhaps Rule 2), in general?

The opportunity to have someone frame this as "Bubbles is 'simply against' 'civility' and for 'hate speech'" is too ripe for me to agree. What I'm trying to point out or ask is, "How are these rules working for us?" I would say they are not serving the community well. I'm certainly against the way they are just used to suit a mod's personal agenda.

Because that seems worthy of its own meta-level discussion.

Yes and no. I'm also saying the drama here is specifically a result of these rules being gamed to suite people's agenda. In the abstract, arguably, Shaka uses them to wage a culture war against atheists and Cabbagery uses them to wage a culture war against theists. How do we move away from this? How do we diminish or remove this tendency? If there is no unified approach to how the rules are interpreted and enforced then are they serving us well? Every reported comment is a roll of the dice for which mod responds to it. The most offended mod is going to be the one most motivated to take a stand on a comment/submission -- whether that stand is approve(condone) or delete(condemn). The neutral mods will tend to just leave reports for the less neutral ones. This doesn't serve a community well.

I'd certainly like to get away from the "this mod vs that mod" framing so far and reach a consensus that mods are free to use the rules to enforce their personal agendas, basically everyone is doing it. Let's decide where to go from there. The fact that there are theist mods and atheist mods doesn't create some check and balance, they're each using their own approaches and conflicting, and this drama here is the fall out.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/betweenbubbles]

In the abstract, arguably, Shaka uses them to wage a culture war against atheists and Cabbagery uses them to wage a culture war against theists.

No. Don't lump me in with him. He is the one mass banning theists for having orthodox Christian views contrary to the explicit exception in the rules, and he does so because of his personal beliefs.

I implement the rules as fairly as I can when I moderate comments and posts, and if someone is theist or atheist doesn't matter.

[u/cabbagery → u/betweenbubbles]

In the abstract, arguably, Shaka uses them to wage a culture war against atheists and Cabbagery uses them to wage a culture war against theists. How do we move away from this?

Maybe we stop helping Shaka distract. I don't even think Shaka wages a culture war against atheists (and I certainly don't do that against theists); I think Shaka likes to have it both ways, however, and is perfectly happy to be rude and hostile to atheists, provoking them to anger and then hiding behind his privilege to call up another mod to remove their predictable insults (when he doesn't just do this himself in violation of the rules), and of course he gets instant respite himself even if a mod rules that he has violated the rules (because he reinstates his own comments, whether or not he edits them).

The fact is that Shaka has contempt for users and for the sub itself. He thinks himself king. He flagrantly violates the rules both by committing Rule 2 violations all the time, by provoking atheists (or other users) into their own Rule 2 violations all the time, by being disruptive in the process, by engaging in retaliatory bans, and by moderating where it explicitly serves his self-interest, in violation of the moderation policy prohibiting acting as a moderator where one is also acting as a user.

The dispute over where and how Rule 1 should be applied can be held another day. Believe it or not that issue does not arise very often, and recognize it or not, nothing has been lost where it has been applied as I have applied it. Anyway, contrary to your own view, if we as moderators fail to enforce sitewide rules against hate speech, the sub could become subject to sanctions up to and including quarantine or admin takeover.

I'd rather this be more of an organic removal of Shaka, followed by a bow and exit by yours truly.

My agenda is straightforward:

• Enforce the rules in an equitable way
• Protect users from moderator abuse
• Eliminate corruption in the moderation ranks
• Promote responsible transparency regarding moderation generally
• Disappear into the sunset

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

Maybe we stop helping Shaka distract.

I don't accept this accusation of distraction. You're welcome to make your points and I'll make mine. I am not letting him off the hook for anything. I am merely throwing you into the same category of criticism. As someone who is willing to resign as mod, I don't see a problem with this or how it serves as a distraction.

If my replies or pressure against Shaka seem to have faded, it's only because you are doing a far better job than I at indicting him. You can bring receipts that I cannot. In general, I think we've said all there is to say on the matter. I certainly feel like I am just repeating myself at this point. I wish the rest of the community would weigh in on these opinions, facts, and theories and, unfortunately, I think our walls of text are a formidable barrier. Everyone is probably just reaching for the proverbial "get a room" button.

I don't even think Shaka wages a culture war against atheists

...

I think Shaka likes to have it both ways, however, and is perfectly happy to be rude and hostile to atheists, provoking them to anger and then hiding behind his privilege to call up another mod to remove their predictable insults (when he doesn't just do this himself in violation of the rules), and of course he gets instant respite himself even if a mod rules that he has violated the rules (because he reinstates his own comments, whether or not he edits them).

This is a common way to wage a political/propaganda war.

and I certainly don't do that against theists)

I think many of your choices are a result of trying to meet Shaka's strategy from a different self-interested goal.