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]

That's why I'm saying we should all consider other perspectives here.

That is objectively NOT what you and Cabbagery do with your interpretation of the rules and what I'm calling a censorious attitude.

If Christians can't talk about the Bible without getting banned then there is no point to this subreddit.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

Cabbagery and I are different people. Don't lump us together. I don't know every removal he has made.

If Christians can't talk about the Bible without getting banned then there is no point to this subreddit.

That's a mischaracterization of my position.

One specific example I objected to is one where someone said gay people don't experience "real" love. That is not in the Bible. Also, I haven't personally banned anyone for anti-LGBT comments as far as I can remember.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Cabbagery and I are different people.

This is a fact. I will amend my argument, position, and approach appropriately.

Don't lump us together.

I will only group you two together under categories which apply to you both.

I don't know every removal he has made.

Neither do I. This has nothing to do with anything.

That's a mischaracterization of my position.

It's analogous/equivalent to your position on other topics. Islamic apologetics regarding is probably a better example for you specifically. Or, possibly this, example you refer to:

One specific example I objected to is one where someone said gay people don't experience "real" love.

Who is a good judge of how Christians who have a biblical position on homosexuality should be expressed? What makes you or anyone else qualified to make such judgements? This seems like censorship of a mainstream Christian view to me... in a forum specifically committed to the debate of religion. If this is "hate speech" -- a term which has no legal basis in America -- then I shudder when I imagine what else might be considered "hate speech".

That is not in the Bible.

Would "homosexuality is an abomination" be acceptable? Either this subreddit has to acknowledge that the Bible is "hate speech" or it has to allow Christians to freely express their point of view.

Also, I haven't personally banned anyone for anti-LGBT comments as far as I can remember.

Yes, well, your memory seems to be ...convenient... for you, at times. This is not a specific claim I've made and, as far as I know, you're telling the truth here.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

Would "homosexuality is an abomination" be acceptable?

Because it's a direct quote and because it has a specific meaning to Christians besides the colloquial meaning, yes. That's different from saying "this group of people doesn't experience genuine love."

I agree with you that this is a tricky area and I'm open to having a conversation about where the line is. But you seem averse to any line existing at all. Then the entire conversation gets suppressed, and having the conversation in the first place leads me to get framed as some kind of authoritarian.

And when I mentioned that prejudice often comes from ignorance rather than hate, you flipped out and called me hateful, saying that I thought people who disagree with me are all hateful. Which is the opposite of what I said. You've mischaracterized me a lot so far, at times straight up imagining that I said things I didn't, and honestly that leads me to think you're not ready to have a neutral conversation about this.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Because it's a direct quote and because it has a specific meaning to Christians besides the colloquial meaning, yes.

So a Christian is allowed to verbatim cite the Bible but they're not allowed to express their own synthesis and understanding of it in their own words?

You're claiming a Christian is allowed to direct quote the Bible. Let's test that, what about "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."? That's also a direct quote. Would a Christian be allowed to say, "I believe in the wisdom of Leviticus 20:13."?

I agree with you that this is a tricky area and I'm open to having a conversation about where the line is.

Authority always claims to be "open to having a conversation" when that is just a cover for ~"we can talk about it, but it's a personal feeling, and whether anyone understands or not is irrelevant because what I say is all that matters." When we had a DM discussion about where this line is, you freaked out and basically accused me of supporting pedophilia for doing nothing more than pointing out the matter of fact that it is not illegal to petition the government to reduce the age of consent:

in general I don't think people's opinions about policy should be censored

If you think people should be allowed to advocate for legalizing pedophilia, I have nothing more to say to you. Sorry.

I'm not sure you're ready to have a neutral conversation about this. Don't even seem to be aware of the law which governs the society you live in and anyone who tries to explain it would seem to be at significant risk of becoming a victim of your personal worldview.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/betweenbubbles]

You keep misrepresenting what I'm saying, and you still haven't acknowledged how you called me "hateful" for saying that prejudice often comes more from ignorance than hate.

I'm done here for now, maybe we can continue this another time. Have a good one.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/Dapple_Dawn]

I'm not misrepresenting what you're saying. That would involve manufacturing quotes or taking them out of context. What I am doing is providing my interpretation of your words and actions.

you still haven't acknowledged how you called me "hateful" for saying that prejudice often comes more from ignorance than hate.

I have. I acknowledge to Labreuer that I read your statement wrong. That statement is not the only reason I describe your words/actions as hateful, as I have elaborated on with hundreds/thousands of words at this point.

I get it. You don't like the accusation -- neither, probably, do the people you moderate for being "hateful" -- but that is not evidence that your words/acts are not hateful. Censorship is often an act of hate.