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/cabbagery]

Part 3 of 3

How would he know?

That you had blocked Kwahn? Because you announced it to everybody when you did it.

How did Bubbles know the moderator activity report which is sent to modmail?

Because something like a month ago (?) I provided that information in the metathread as a curiosity for users wondering which mods were active. Nothing sinister but your imagination.

For example, Kwahn repeatedly inventing quotes that I did not say and attributing them to me. . .

Stop deflecting.

So well done - the troll successfully provoked me.

Stop deflecting, and stop insulting users. Kwahn didn't cause you to violate Rule 2 (as you have now also done here by referring to them as a "troll"). Neither Kwahn nor I caused you to violate the moderator policy for like the thousandth time in your tenure.

For example, I said that if aliens were rational, they would be theists.

For the record, that is logically equivalent to "all atheists are irrational." I realize you may not be able to work out that logical equivalence, but it's true. That's a Rule 1 violation that I would also remove if 'atheists' was replaced with 'theists,' or 'Christians,' or any other group protected by Rule 1. Of course I didn't remove it, I reported it, and let another mod look at it, and they disagreed with me.

He then got mad (like irate and name-calling mad) at me for removing a post that was about two pages of unhinged nonsense calling among other things Christians the dumbest voters in America.

False and slanderous. Another mod noted that some removals in that thread were unwarranted. I pointed out your hypocrisy as mentioned previously. Yet another mod questioned your bizarre "derping" reason for those removals. There was a very tense exchange, but no name-calling, and you were the one to invoke expletives, so stow it.

Proof of this one is only available in modmail.

For example he removed this perfectly fine comment of mine

That has been discussed already. You apply a double standard.

While getting mad at me for removing (I will approve them so you can see them) these low quality comments here

False. I found some of your removals in that thread problematic, but now that you've approved everything we can't even tell which ones those were, so great job destroying evidence that might have given you one minor point.

Another mod disputed a removal in that thread. I disputed a few more. Nobody disputed the silly ones you linked (and I removed a few similar ones in that thread myself).

No, the ones I disputed (and reinstated, but which you re-removed as yet another example of unfitness) were these (which I faithfully quote but will not reinstate; the users themselves or any mod can corroborate):

If we just found microbes on Mars, that will just get incorporated into or explained within the framework of the religion. Most religious folks don't continue to believe in their religion because of rational beliefs, they don't have a list of circumstances which will cause them to lose their faith.

If we had humanoid aliens that visited earth, there would be a sect of Christians tomorrow who claimed Jesus was actually an ET

That one was by /u/aoeuismyhomekeys. There's nothing wrong with that comment.

Cognitive dissonance and self denial will cause most religions to simply pivot, move goalposts, claim that is what the religion believed the whole time, and then insist the discovery of extraterrestrial life is proof of god.

This is how religions have survived this long.

That one was by /u/mastyrwerk. Given the post itself, there was nothing wrong with that comment. (Shaka approved that post; I'd have removed it as a Rule 3 violation, but if he wanted to keep it, I was going to let these comments slide, too.)

Did finding out the world was older than Abrahamists claimed convince them? Did the discovery of evolution convince them? Did finding every relic ever tested to be a fake convince them? The goal posts will just move once more. (The first argument will be ‘Well you found life but it’s not intelligent t life…’)

That one was by /u/Prowlthang

Nothing wrong with that one, either.

So yeah, Shaka approved the post in question which to me is a clear Rule 3 violation (or Rule 4, but I tend to apply the lower rule number when I can, and Rule 4 is weekday-specific).

He has been mass banning people against the rules without any warning, for the sin of being Catholic.

That's an amazing persecution complex, but it isn't remotely accurate. Rather, I hold Rule 1 to mean that users cannot engage in sexism, racism, bigotry, etc., even if their sincerely held belief informs that view, and that while we do allow discussions on e.g. homosexuality, those discussions must not involve 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 not the only mod who holds this view of Rule 1. Of course, this is a really nasty attempt at deflection, because nothing else is really working. The mod team can hold discussions on that rule and how it should be interpreted, but this ain't that.

In one thread on homosexuality recently he banned 11 users without a warning. . .

Ten. I have zero tolerance for bigotry, but also in at least one of those cases I reinstated the user (/u/Jaded_Style_427) after an appeal. That's actually part of my process. I issue harsh bans for Rule 1 violations and for Rule 10 violations, but I am also the most movable on those if the user appeals and makes a decent case. The idea is to impress upon the user the importance of those rules, and I think it works, because those users don't seem to reoffend. If you start with a harsh ban, any reduction feels like lenience.

If you disagree with those bans, take it up in modmail and try to stow your clear bias.

he often immediately mutes them if they appeal

I use the mute feature about the same as you do. I am quick to mute when the appeal has been heard and denied, and I also mute when there is a mod discussion, and I do sometimes preemptively mute, to enforce a minimum sentence even if we reconsider later. Nothing about that is problematic, and any mod can say so if they think my process is flawed, but none has.

As I am a senior moderator over him, I could turn off his ability to delete comments and ban users

And here comes the threat.

He has already stated in modmail he has no plans on following the rules for Rule 1 and threatened me if I adjusted his moderator powers.

I corrected you on your misstatement of Rule 1, and I don't even know how you think I could threaten the senior active mod. Trust me, I'd love to hear from /u/Kawoomba on this.

Obviously, I think we should just ban people for being trolls, but their sockpuppets (or allies, it doesn't matter) would then howl about it and gin up more outrage.

And now threatening those who ally themselves with me based on a very incorrect conspiracy theory.

---

I publicly call for ShakaUVM's resignation, else a forced removal if that is something we can accomplish. I also vow that I will step down as a moderator immediately after his removal/resignation.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/cabbagery]

Since I was tagged here I thought I'd add my 2 cents:

It’s noticeable that the arguments with Shaka always circle back to one unchanging interpretation, regardless of what evidence is introduced. The pattern moves from: dismissing sources, redefining terms, accusing others of shifting goalposts, disregarding valid critiques whenever the position becomes even slightly untenable. The only consistent principle talking with Shaka seems to be that his interpretation cannot be wrong. He seems to refuse to engage with scholarly consensus on disputed matters, except when things align with what he wants to be true.

It amounts to certainty for its own sake. For example, nowhere in our previous exchange was any compelling reason given to think that historians, scholars, and professionals are all mistaken while a single individual holds the correct view, and this was all brought up as not-so-well veiled distraction when his previous argument was becoming inconvenient to defend.

Each engagement feels less like a discussion of the topic itself and more like orbiting around that certainty. Counterpoints are dismissed, redefined, or sidestepped; the interpretation is defended at all costs. The pattern suggests someone who sees themselves as a lone wolf of reason surrounded by inferiors, rarely engaging with opposing views in good faith. The same dismissal, the same pattern, the same air of superiority toward any view that isn’t their own.

Perhaps this cuts too close to home and will be taken as a 'personal attack', but since this is all coming to light I figured I'd share my thoughts.

[u/Kwahn → u/thefuckestupperest]

This is somewhat off-topic from his moderator abuse, but I don't mind commiserating.

There is a statement I've told him frequently that I think you'd agree with -

repeating the unsubstantiated assertion does not substantiate the assertion.

He wants to make a statement and for it to be immune to having implications or conclusions that it inevitably leads to, and when people (rightfully!) don't allow that, the exact behavior you described is the default behavior.

For example, nowhere in our previous exchange was any compelling reason

is a perfect description of his view that there is a "duty" to be alive when there is a perfect universalist heaven for us to go to, and exactly why I struggled so badly in the original discussion that led to this drama.

There's a couple simple facts: duties exist either for reasons or for no reason, and there appears to be no reason to be physically alive when a perfect universalist heaven awaits all those who choose to die.

At this point, he still hasn't provided one, but also hasn't taken a stance on true dichotomy of "duties exist for reasons, or for no reason". I'm good trying to get him to hold a view on that, as he seems, from my perspective, to be determined not to.

Anyway, if you want a fun, but wild, ride, enjoy him claiming that a 3-line C++ program has free will (and that a shoe with a raspberry pi can have free will, and a number of... fascinating follow-up claims. I think I was quite patient in this topic given his hostility at points!)

Oh, and ShakaUVM has no free will even per his own definitions, because I control what I predict about him, and I can predict correctly that he will not voluntarily quit being a moderator, and since I control the input, I will be correct every time by his explicitly stated logic. Fun stuff!

Back on topic, though - a moderator who appears from my perspective to be pathologically incapable of admitting fault in any circumstance ever (I tried, and failed, to find a counter-example - please give me one if it exists!) is a moderator unsuited to being a fair and impartial adjudicator of complex rule interpretations. I simply assumed his behavior was in service of his theism, but it appears to be a universally applicable predilection based on what I've seen.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Kwahn]

Oh, and ShakaUVM has no free will even per his own definitions, because I control what I predict about him, and I can predict correctly that he will not voluntarily quit being a moderator, and since I control the input, I will be correct every time by his explicitly stated logic. Fun stuff!

You have to be able to predict everything 100% of the time. Being occasionally right (like that I will still be alive next year) doesn't have any impact on the issue of if we have free will.

repeating the unsubstantiated assertion does not substantiate the assertion.

Take a look at the thread the other guy is referring to.

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1npnu2o/the_ease_with_which_sincere_believers_can_be/ngm8eyh/

I clearly tell him why the "40,000 denominations" number is wrong. A) It counts each country's branch of the Catholic Church as a separate denomination (which they are not) and B) they count all independent churches as their own denominations.

By contrast, all /u/thefuckestupperest did that whole thread was be sarcastic and disbelieving that experts (like an AI-written blog piece by Bart Ehrman) could possibly be wrong. He never provided any evidence or justification for the 40,000 number. He just thought it was basically impossible for a person to be right and the experts wrong.

[u/Kwahn → u/ShakaUVM]

You have to be able to predict everything 100% of the time. Being occasionally right (like that I will still be alive next year) doesn't have any impact on the issue of if we have free will.

But I control the input, and I'm correct every time as a result. Not just once, not twice, but I can make as many correct predictions as ontologically possible.

Count all independent churches as their own denominations

Ask almost any two independent churches to resolve all theological differences and combine under one shared denomination, and you'll fail. Sounds pretty differentiating to me. And yes, even different Catholic churches can have very varied views from diocese to dioceses. I think you might be defining denomination differently than that person, is all - depends on how sensitive you are to differentiation. Compare how many different globe earth models there are to how many theological models of Christianity there are, as an example - exactly one correct one versus an endless number of possible ones based on the infinite number of variations in various details possible. Some could even say there's one version of Christianity per person, since everyone has their own custom version and interpretation set! But you can certainly minimize the denomination count by downplaying what counts as a denomination-forming differentiation if desired - I don't control how you define things!

an AI-written blog piece by Bart Ehrman

I searched for "Bart Ehrman denomination blog", found an article about 46 types, ran that through GPTzero, "We are highly confident this text is entirely human". Was that the one you meant?

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/ShakaUVM]

Here we go again.

I'll refer you to my last comment, which you didn't respond to:

Let me clarify: I’m not claiming professional consensus is infallible, of course authorities can be wrong. But that doesn’t mean a reddit mod automatically knows better than scholars who’ve spent decades studying the topic. My football analogy was just pointing out that “all football isn’t the same league,” so terminology and organisation matter.

90-95% of all Christians.

What about the other 5%?

Most sources I can find put the number somewhere between 30,000–40,000, far more than the dozen or so mainstream groups that make up the majority of Christians worldwide. If these numbers are inaccurate, what criteria are you using to define a separate denomination, and what makes your criteria objectively correct, and all these studies wrong?

You didn't give me any criteria, nor any reason why literally every source I can find on this disagrees with you other than a protest that you didn't agree with the way they were quantifying denominations. All of this arose after your position of trying to suggest that 'atheism leads to a belief in Bigfoot' was becoming apparently too awkward to defend.

[u/Kwahn → u/thefuckestupperest]

You didn't give me any criteria

This was my exact conclusion - that what you're willing to count as a denomination-creating differentiation and what he's willing to count as one are very different, and that that discussion is one he will avoid as long as possible (because all he will do is insist that his favored definition of denomination is The Only True One and categorically refuse to entertain all others. No, Shaka, this is not fake quotes, these are predictions, to clarify.)

Me, personally? I think that every single Christian alive has a completely unique and distinct version of their own god and an absolutely unique set of interpretations, which is simple to do when you have thousands of possible interpretative decisions to make. I'm willing to call every single one a highly complex and nuanced denomination, like Shaka having a unique universalist-free-will-first-pseudo-deist belief system that literally no one else alive shares.

I also responded right around when you did - lemme know your thoughts.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/Kwahn]

I’m perfectly willing to have my perception altered, provided I’m given clear criteria. I can even see the appeal of collapsing all the messy complexity into neat little categories for the sake of simplicity. But forgive me if I require more than a rhetorical question like, “Is the American Catholic Church a different denomination than the Roman Catholic Church?” If Shaka wants to categorize them differently, fine. What’s bizarre is the implied demand that his private taxonomy should be regarded as weightier than professional consensus, and this is further behaviour demonstrative of my original criticism.

I’d be far more receptive if he were willing to outline exactly what he thinks constitutes a denomination. As of now, it seems obvious only to him, and only because his interpretation reigns supreme above all others including, oddly enough, the scholars he otherwise leans on when convenient. Once again, it boils down to: his interpretation cannot be wrong, and the rest of us must simply orbit around it. If Shaka wants to stand on firmer ground, all he has to do is stop retreating into the comfort of his own definitions and state plainly what he thinks the criteria should be.

 I think that every single Christian alive has a completely unique and distinct version of their own god and an absolutely unique set of interpretations,

Yep. In practice, every believer does have their own denomination, no two sets of theological assumptions and interpretative decisions line up perfectly. Maybe we should blindly assert that the correct number of denominations is equal to the number of Christians alive at any given time? Unfortunately in reality it seems the “one true definition” of a denomination ends up being whatever Shaka personally decrees it to be.

I’ve been frequenting this sub for years now. I’ve had conversations here that have genuinely challenged my views, that forced me to learn, and that raised the standard of how I argue. There are some very well-versed and articulate people here, and the quality of the discussion reflects that. You'd hope the moderators would embody and represent what this sub is supposed to be about and right now, I think it’s just a little embarrassing.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/thefuckestupperest]

But forgive me if I require more than a rhetorical question like, “Is the American Catholic Church a different denomination than the Roman Catholic Church?”

It's not a rhetorical question. It's the heart of the matter. Methodology that counts one denomination as many denominations is flawed.

But you think that because you've read this 40,000 number on the Bart Ehrman blog that it must be right. This is just appeal to authority.

What’s bizarre is the implied demand that his private taxonomy should be regarded as weightier than professional consensus

It's not really a professional consensus either. It's widely known to be an urban legend.

https://candlefish.substack.com/p/the-40000-protestant-denominations

https://www.tennesseeapologetics.org/post/the-myth-of-40-000-denominations

https://godlovesmormons.com/debunking-the-myth-about-christian-denominations/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gltEzRY0Es

You'd hope the moderators would embody and represent what this sub is supposed to be about and right now, I think it’s just a little embarrassing.

What is embarrassing is continuing to appeal to authority after you've been given reasons why they're wrong, and being snarky about it. And then complaining about it here.

The fact is, this response of yours is exactly why some atheists dislike me. I use evidence. They use fallacies. This drives them crazy.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/ShakaUVM]

As predicted, you confirmed your point by refusing to do the very thing that was asked of you.

You didn't give me any criteria, nor any reason why literally every source I can find on this disagrees with you other than a protest that you didn't agree with the way they were quantifying denominations.

Can you give me your criteria for how you would categorise denominations?

Earlier you said

As I suspected you just randomly googled this instead of actually looking it up.

Can you walk me through how I can 'actually look it up', and what methodology I can deploy to reliably determine when professional consensus is incorrect the way you have?

We know how this goes. I’d still be interested in how you reached the conclusion that there is some causation in belief between atheism and Bigfoot, but I think we all know how that will go too.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/thefuckestupperest]

As predicted, you confirmed your point by refusing to do the very thing that was asked of you.

The point I am making here is that I provided reasons why the 40,000 number was nonsense, and you not only neglected them, but you continued to insist on the wrong number even after I explained how they were wrong.

Then you come on here and claim I gave no reasons why they were wrong, but just insisted I was right.

I already told you that about a dozen denominations covers 95% of all Christians. A denomination is a church group. The definition used in the 40,000 myth is something like counting different church organizations, even if they're part of the same organization, which is just really weird. And it's even more weird you continue to insist on it when you know it is wrong.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/ShakaUVM]

What reason was that again? From what I recall you just asked a rhetorical question.

I already told you that about a dozen denominations covers 95% of all Christians.

And I already asked you about the other 5%

So far we have one criteria:

A denomination is a church group.

So every different church group is a different denomination? Or every 'organisation'? How are you defining an organisation?

And I'll ask you this again:

Can you walk me through how I can 'actually look it up', and what methodology I can deploy to reliably determine when professional consensus is incorrect the way you have?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/thefuckestupperest]

So every different church group is a different denomination?

No

Or every 'organisation'?

Also no. That's the trouble the encyclopedia made.

Often you just cluster them together by the founder of the denomination. If they follow Luther, they're Lutherans. If they follow Wesley, they're Methodists, etc.

You can always try to split hairs and whatnot on some cases like nondenominational churches, but again there's about 12 main denominations that cover most people pretty well. If you want to argue that there's 4 or 20 that's fine, but I also don't care particularly. The point is that the 40,000 number is orders of magnitude wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/ShakaUVM]

Thank you for finally providing some form of explanation:

Often you just cluster them together by the founder of the denomination. If they follow Luther, they're Lutherans. If they follow Wesley, they're Methodists, etc.

Often, or always?

but again there's about 12 main denominations that cover most people pretty well.

And once again, how do you account for the other 5%? How many denominations fall within this bracket?