CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Hate speech and religious intolerance on the Religion forum

Hate speech and religious intolerance on the Religion forum

Started by Amy Doyle81 · · 👁 5 views · 53 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Amy Doyle81wiredangler5Steven Clark2Chris Peterson53rowdyhawk10Susan Price30Peter Stewart6granitefox16Angela Newman33Nicole Jamesboldsailor32swiftorca57Lisa Morales4Charles Martin2Brian Edwards6steeleagle2hollowtrucker77
Amy Doyle81 Amy Doyle81 NewcomerOP
7 messages
joined Feb 2010
#1 ·
Honestly, I don't think this kind of talk belongs in the religion section. I really hope comments like this—and anything similar—get dealt with properly. It needs to be clear to everyone else that hate speech just isn't tolerated on a public forum.
wiredangler5 wiredangler5 Active Member
54 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2 ·
The Religion moderators have been notified about this report. Please bear with us for a moment.
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#3 ·
Amy Doyle81 said:I am of the opinion that sentiments such as these have no business being hosted on the Religion forum. It is my sincere hope that comments of this nature—and those similar to them—will be dealt with appropriately, serving as a clear example to everyone else that hate speech will not be tolerated in a public forum.

😕 Are you truly labeling that specific post as hate speech?

If so, how would you characterize these:

Zero points awarded, not even a yellow card.

And what about this one:

10 points. Reason: off-topic/spam (!).

Or perhaps this:

Zero points. Even though it was written by a moderator (!).

According to Article 39 of our Constitution, if that remains the standard we follow (link):

Any incitement to war or the use of violence, or to national, racial, or religious hatred or any form of intolerance, is prohibited and punishable.
Amy Doyle81 Amy Doyle81 NewcomerOP
7 messages
joined Feb 2010
#4 ·
Steven Clark2 said:😕 You're calling that post hate speech or something?

Look at Article 39 of the Constitution—assuming it's even still active (link):

Any incitement to war, violence, or hatred based on race, religion, or nationality—basically any kind of intolerance—is strictly prohibited and punishable by law.

Take a closer look:

todaytonight said:By what right are they banned from "existing within the Islamic State"?
God, I bet Jews and Christians are just thrilled to be given "preference over polytheists" and granted the privilege of paying up just so they can "FREELY" walk around. EEK!

The answer:

Is this supposed to be funny? Ha ha. You got what you wanted. Polytheists aren't allowed in the Islamic State. Period. And honestly, good. They’re basically obsolete until they accept one God—God!!!—until then, they can stay on Earth, just... somewhere else!!!

Then the moderator shuts the thread down and tells everyone they need to provide "proof" for their views against Islam😕. That's the issue. It's just people stating opinions that don't insult anyone and actually answer the title, rather than all this other stuff supporting intolerance toward different religions.

http://forum.us/showpost.php?p=25040525&postcount=65
Chris Peterson53 Chris Peterson53 Active Member
114 messages
joined Dec 2010
#5 ·
Amy Doyle81 said:I honestly believe views like this have no business being on the Religion forum. I really hope comments like this—and anything even remotely similar—get dealt with appropriately, serving as a clear example to everyone else that hate speech simply won't be tolerated in a public forum.


Funny how you decided to report that specific post while completely ignoring all the others, isn't it?

And here is your own post from the exact same thread:

How would you rate your own comment?
Chris Peterson53 Chris Peterson53 Active Member
114 messages
joined Dec 2010
#6 ·
Jonathan Reed5;250411

cut
The moderator just locked the thread—classic move. Now they’re issuing warnings to everyone, basically telling us that if we want to back up our claims, we better bring some actual evidence to the table. kaže:
Against Islam.😕 And that’s her issue—she’s taking offense at nothing. These are just opinions that don't insult anyone, and they actually answer the question asked in the title. Instead of engaging with the topic, she's pivoting toward this nonsense about intolerance toward other religions. Why can't we just stick to the point?

I don't know about you all, but I find this whole line of reasoning absolutely exhausting—honestly, it’s bordering on the absurd. Are we really going to sit here and pretend that these arguments hold any weight at all? It’s pure nonsense. Look, I’ve heard people like wiredangler5 try to spin this a dozen different ways, but let’s be real: it doesn't change the fundamental facts of the situation. You can dress it up with fancy rhetoric all you want, but the core issue remains exactly what it was from the start. Why do we keep circling back to these same tired justifications? And then you have people like Chris Peterson53 coming in with these completely disconnected perspectives—it’s like they aren't even reading the same thread! It’s frustrating, frankly. We need to stop dancing around the truth and actually address the reality of what's happening right in front of us. If we can't have a serious conversation without these constant diversions, then what's the point of even having this discussion?


Don't go twisting my words to fit your own narrative.

The thread isn't locked because of your appeal—it’s being locked because I saw exactly what was going on in here while I was away.
It looks like the moderators aren't exactly sleeping on the job around here, are they?
Amy Doyle81 Amy Doyle81 NewcomerOP
7 messages
joined Feb 2010
#7 ·
I’m counting this as a response to the thread where I made it clear these are just my own personal experiences and my take on things. Everyone else here is sharing their own views without putting anyone down, too. We weren't looking for scientific data here—just forum members' opinions, which was exactly what the topic called for.
Amy Doyle81 Amy Doyle81 NewcomerOP
7 messages
joined Feb 2010
#8 ·
Chris Peterson53 said:Don't twist my words:

The thread wasn't locked because of your appeal,it was locked because I saw the absolute mess happening here while I was away.
The mods aren't sleeping on the job, you know.

So who actually said it was locked for that reason?🤦 And I'm not twisting anything—I'm just repeating exactly what you wrote.🤦 Right here.

Look, I’m asking everyone to really think about this. Why is there such fear regarding Muslim believers and Islam as a religion? Explain yourselves properly. Back up your claims, provide actual evidence, or at least tell us where you're even getting your info regarding all these horrors you're bringing up.
Chris Peterson53 Chris Peterson53 Active Member
114 messages
joined Dec 2010
#9 ·
Amy Doyle81 said:And who exactly is claiming she was locked out for that reason?🤦 I am not twisting your words to suit my own agenda—I am literally just repeating exactly what you wrote.🤦 Right here.

I’m asking everyone to really think about this: why is there such a fear of Muslims and Islam as a religion? If you’re going to make claims, please explain them properly—provide actual arguments, present evidence, or at least tell us where you're getting your information regarding the horror stories being circulated here.


Look, anyone can be afraid of anything—including a specific religion—and the fact that these fears exist is undeniable.
But no one gets a free pass to justify those fears by publicly peddling unproven, baseless anecdotes.
You are intentionally misinterpreting my point to fit your narrative—complaining about a Muslim user's post as if it were intolerance or hate speech, while simultaneously expressing the exact same sentiment in your own post, only in a much more extreme way...
Then, you only look back at other people's posts after the fact, trying to paint the moderator as an Islamophobe just to validate your own prejudice.
In my opinion, your complaint—the way you’ve framed it—is completely unjustified regarding Tamia's post.

PS: Please read my posts in their entirety before quoting snippets.
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#10 ·
Chris Peterson53 said:In my estimation, your complaint, as you have framed it, does not justify Tamia's post.

P.S. I kindly request that my posts be read and quoted in their entirety.

"In your estimation"? Well, if I may be so bold, I believe your judgment might be slightly misguided. It appears you could benefit from some further education regarding the definition of hate speech, intolerance, and similar rhetoric; under our own Constitution, such things remain legally prohibited. If you continue to view matters through such a one-sided lens, you run the risk of fostering a deeply negative atmosphere, given that the implications of certain statements can be quite profound—regardless of which group is being discussed.

A little course correction wouldn't hurt. Perhaps Tamia went a bit too far, and I certainly understand where he is coming from; after all, he likely grew up in a different environment with a different religious background, and those influences matter. Sometimes, one simply fails to realize how much weight certain words can carry. This same logic applies to anyone speaking about Islam in a similar fashion. princess xx—that specific post you wrote, which Veronica quoted—simply doesn't hold water. As a Christian myself, I do not believe Muhammad is the final prophet, nor do I view the Quran as being the same as the Bible, but I would certainly not tempt fate by labeling all Muslims based on those beliefs, just as you did. It is illogical, as it does not align with the truth.

I would suggest that both you and Tamia dial it back a notch and refrain from making such broad generalizations. 🙂
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#11 ·
The question raised in the opening post of this thread might actually be quite well-founded.

I just posted a preemptive response over on the controversial thread, here, though there will probably be more discussion there shortly.

In the meantime, I’d ask everyone on the forum to please bear with us. 🙂

The situation is rather delicate—it isn't really just one single issue, but rather a whole collection of them—but I suppose if everyone approaches this with good intentions, we can find an optimal way to resolve everything.

The moderation team is currently consulting on the matter, and we will follow up both there and here once we have reached a consensus as a team.

Thanks to everyone for responding to the intro and for contributing to this topic.

rowdyhawk10
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#12 ·
Steven Clark2 said:In your opinion? Look, I think your judgment is a bit off here. It seems like you might need to brush up on what actually constitutes hate speech or intolerance—which, according to our Constitution, remains illegal. If you continue to view things through such a one-sided lens, you risk creating a really toxic atmosphere, because the implications of certain statements can be massive (regardless of which group they target).

With all due respect to the moderator Veronica and her good intentions—I agree with the bolded part, and I also agree with what princess xx wrote regarding the promotion of extreme religious intolerance in the quoted post.

Intolerance screams from every single word he wrote.🙄☕
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#13 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:The question raised in the opening post of this thread might actually be very, very well-founded.

I just stepped in preemptively on the controversial thread, specifically here, though we will certainly have more to say regarding that matter over there.

In the meantime, I ask all forum members to please exercise patience. 🙂

The situation is quite delicate—in fact, it isn't just one single issue, but rather a whole cluster of them—but with genuine goodwill, I believe everything can be resolved in an optimal manner.

Our moderation team is currently holding consultations, and we will follow up with a joint statement from the entire moderation staff both there and here.

Greetings to everyone, and thank you for responding to the introduction and for contributing to this discussion.

Snoop Dogg

To be honest, I have some thoughts regarding your use of the term "consultations."

First off, if by this you mean the moderation team consists exclusively of the moderators in the religion section, then they are simply incapable and incompetent of resolving this. To put it bluntly, the intolerance—if not outright hatred—that has characterized that section for years has happened right under the noses of the entire staff, including both former and current moderators. This issue didn't just spontaneously manifest because of today's thread on the unknown forum. Why hasn't it occurred to you to take action before, given the numerous statements made against certain ideologies (regardless of which ones they may be)?

Even worse—how could you fail to notice that even in your own posts, you have used rhetoric that can hardly be described as positive toward certain ideologies, particularly when it comes to Christianity? While this specific topic may have been triggered by a single post or thread, this is an issue the administration should have addressed years ago. Not every single post in the religion section involved hate speech, but there was certainly plenty of intolerant speech. And it all happened under your supervision, especially yours. Because otherwise, how else am I supposed to interpret your statement here:

So, look, good angel, I’m telling you—I am only human. I live on this earth. But to me, that does not represent any kind of salvation. Please don't be angry, because what I wrote just now is my core truth. Okay?

And I will say the same: I will never bow down to something as evil as the symbol of the brutal torture used by the Roman occupier. God is love, not torture. This symbol is actually more of a political symbol than anything else. And whoever represents it as such, or wears it around their neck, is representing a politics of oppression—often quite unconsciously. Again, I am emphasizing that this is simply my sincere, human opinion.

Link.

This is your "sincere, human opinion," yet it carries significant implications. And this isn't your first time. You have mocked Christian views and their ideology repeatedly. In doing so, acting as a moderator (!), you have openly violated—without a shred of guilt or any objection from anyone—the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, provided that applies, which states:

Any calls for war or the incitement of violence—as well as any promotion of hatred based on nationality, race, religion, or any other form of intolerance—are strictly prohibited and subject to punishment. (link)

And that whole period when you were...poticao" "Religious intolerance.Just as...Any form of intolerance whatsoever.That is an interesting point—every single Christian.Quite unconsciously.He truly carries his cross.He actively advocates for policies that facilitate human trafficking.I suspect you are likely aware of the exact same issue, yet you feel entitled to insult someone’s feelings or deeply held beliefs, regardless. You see, when you, in your capacity as a moderator, make statements of this nature—or anything even remotely similar—what kind of standard does that set for the rest of us on this forum?

Here is what some people had to say:

I feel compelled to express my thoughts on this matter. I must admit, I am perhaps being a bit too earnest here, but I truly believe we need to address this directly. It is important that we remain thoughtful and structured in our approach if we want to reach any meaningful conclusion. Please bear with me as I try to articulate this clearly. As I have previously stated:
I am certainly not someone who goes out of my way to spread hate; I truly harbor no animosity toward anyone. However, I find it incredibly aggravating when people claim that Muhammad (PBUH) was a false prophet. Would I ever dare to speak about Jesus in such a disrespectful manner? Absolutely not.
I hold deep faith in Him, just as I do in Muhammad (peace be upon him).
a Shady is here Those photos of the Pope— Little Nazi, this is exactly how they manipulate you.🤣

I believe this perspective is likely correct, wouldn't you agree? It certainly doesn't strike me as an invitation toward intolerance or anything of that nature. Please note that this was post #65 in that specific thread, dated January 6, 2010. You had entries both before and after that particular post, yet you didn't offer a single reaction to any of them.

Zapazi ovaj post:

I must admit, I feel a bit awkward stepping into this discussion, but I find myself compelled to share my perspective on this matter. It is quite a complex situation, isn't it? One can't help but feel a certain weight when contemplating these issues, though perhaps that is simply my own tendency toward overthinking things. Regardless, I believe there is more to be said if we approach it with sincerity. Steven Clark2 says:
You really ought to take a look at the records my brothers put together—it will make everything crystal clear for you. It seems your father has been doing nothing but leading you astray. That very same Pope was actually a Nazi. Some people look at the imagery within our churches and see nothing more than art, but others believe certain depictions serve as ominous symbols signaling the arrival of the Antichrist—think of those cryptic illustrations involving pyramids and the all-seeing eye, and so on.
There is a rather intriguing depiction of Satanism out there—one where two fingers touch, symbolizing the thin veil between our world and the demonic realm.

It is essentially the same topic where you missed that other comment, number 65, only this one was posted earlier—it's actually number 31 in the sequence. And if you want to make matters even more absurd, you actually caught this one, specifically because you handed that particular forum member red cards and docked them 10 points. The reason being:

This thread is strictly for off-topic discussions and spam. Please keep the conversation relevant to the subject at hand.

You haven't responded to either of these posts—and let’s be clear, these aren't even the only instances of this kind of content—certainly not regarding the spread of religious intolerance or similar nonsense. In fact, you were actually a participant in those very discussions yourself. You didn't even react to the complaints filed under the Religion category, despite the fact that both Grazia and I...linkMe too.linkThey suggested the exact same thing—and then they actually have the nerve to ask, "Why don't you just head over to the Appeals section and state your case?" It’s quite bold, if you ask me. Furthermore, that post by Tammy has already been reported to the Oversight Committee. Yet, there hasn't been a single response from any of the moderators in the Appeals section, and I am particularly disappointed by the lack of action from you specifically.

Was it because you were unfamiliar with the concept of religious intolerance—or perhaps its active spread (if we’re being honest, let's call it "religious hatred")—or was it actually triggered by this statement of yours? You seem to be expressing what you truly thought about those Christians who kept calling you out for your various remarks, many of which, I must admit, were quite valid criticisms:

Beyond that, I make it a point never to write anything malicious or untruthful. My intention isn't to attack religion itself, but rather to challenge the politics that have managed to seep into it. It seems to me that whenever you encounter something you dislike, you immediately resort to lamenting and inciting rebellions. Personally, I find that quite disheartening. To my mind, such behavior serves as a clear indicator of disrespect toward an individual's freedom to speak and to believe in whatever way they feel satisfies God. I simply cannot be expected to think with your conscience; I have my own. 🤷

I believe you forgot to include the link! If you could provide it, I would be more than happy to take a look.

First, if your intention was to critique policy within the church—though I must point out that you tended to conflate religious sentiment with politics, which is a choice in itself—then you completely missed the mark regarding the forum's structure. You were posting in the Religion sub-forum, a space specifically designed to nurture religious sentiments. Regardless of whether you agree with those views, it isn't always appropriate to lash out against them. It is quite well-known how you tend to proselytize, frequently attacking stances and beliefs that you personally disagree with in a rather unfortunate manner. Secondly, it should be perfectly clear now why no one could ever truly reach an understanding with you. The issue was your improper approach to moderation; you fostered religious intolerance and encouraged it, while simultaneously "blessing" every single post that aligned with your views, all while dismissing anyone who dared to offer a dissenting opinion as...They are simply being contrarians.I am truly at a loss for words regarding this matter.They are rising up in revolt."What is your take on this?"It is truly disheartening.And honestly, it really just boils down to...Is there any greater indicator of an assault on human liberty than when someone attempts to dictate how a person should speak or believe, simply under the guise of what they claim satisfies God?"

So, you have actually gone so far as to characterize your own speech as...Freedom of speech.You consistently treated any form of speech that challenged your ideology or religious convictions as a direct violation of the rules, responding with increasingly harsh sanctions. At the same time, you dismissed every single objection as entirely worthless or beneath your notice, while effectively ghettoizing Christians by labeling them as being "infected by the virus of dogma."

You know, Shady, I’m a Christian, but I don’t feel the need to wear a cross around my neck. I don't have one hanging on my wall, either. To me, the Bible isn't any more sacred just because there happens to be a cross on the cover. I personally view the Pope as one of the most significant intellectuals of our time; he leads an organization of over a billion people—an institution that many truly cherish and consider a gift from God. Even if someone were to claim the Pope was a Nazi, that the cross is an ultimate evil, or that Catholics are merely infected by the viruses of dogma—those kinds of views shouldn't be championed by moderators. It is simply unacceptable for a major, representative American media platform to promote such things. Personally, having seen how these examples play out, I would never want to behave that way.

Why did you even bother doing this job? Honestly, you could have walked away at any time. Or perhaps you felt like no one could stop you, simply because you dismissed every single legitimate grievance as nothing more than "whining" or "rebellion." To be perfectly blunt, much of the time you spent acting as a moderator—especially lately—has actually involved spreading religious intolerance and fostering what you call "intolerance," whatever that term is supposed to mean in your vocabulary (if anyone who actually understands the nuances of the language wouldn't mind providing a more detailed explanation of that word, I would truly appreciate it, just so I am not left in doubt).

And now you expect us to actually hear something? Notice To the moderation teams from Religion who were responsible for fostering such an incredibly toxic atmosphere on the Religion boards—what exactly was going on there? Why did you suddenly decide that Tammy’s controversial post actually contained enough substance to be classified as hate speech or something similar?

My apologies, Snoop Dogg, but... 🙂 I am far more concerned with ensuring that the administration considers more than just the posts from Ford, Princess XX, and that TT thread. It is vital that they take your specific viewpoints and contributions into account as well. Currently, you are being unfairly blamed for supposedly allowing content that should have been restricted, all while you were busy labeling every legitimate grievance as "rebellion" and dismissing any controversial rhetoric as mere "freedom of speech." Given how this has unfolded, am I to expect any meaningful outcome from your upcoming moderator meeting?

I am open to that, provided we discuss it in the private section. That is actually where my interest lies, because I want us to address this issue at its very foundation together. I would much rather tackle the root cause than watch you all spend eternity debating moderation policies while simultaneously allowing the situation to deteriorate—to varying degrees, depending on who you ask.

_________________________________________

* Referring to the cross.

** To be perfectly honest—this might sound extreme—but I believe this reflects your overall approach to the Religion forum, as well as that of other moderators who have, to some extent, permitted similar behavior.

*** Typically, this manifests through the imposition of various dictates, handing out heavy penalties for posts that don't warrant them, or even violating the rules yourselves... Not everyone does this, and certainly not always, but in many instances, they do.
Peter Stewart6 Peter Stewart6 Member
18 messages
joined May 2010
#14 ·
you got exactly what you wanted, polytheists can't exist within the Islamic State and that's just how it is!!! and I'm glad—they are essentially obsolete until they accept One God—Allah!!! —until then, they can stay on this earth—just somewhere else!!!

This is more than just a tragic statement from someone claiming to be a believer. 😲
Does someone really think saying something like that serves God??? 👎
And what would happen if that same person were treated with the exact same measure?
Jesus's teachings teach me not to do that; they provide an answer for what I should do, and for everyone who believes
in Him: "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven." Mt. 5:44-45.

mean a moderator locks the thread and warns users to provide evidence for their views against Islam😕 and that's her issue—a few opinions that don't insult anyone and which actually answer the question in the title, rather than this other thing where intolerance toward other religions is being supported.

We should be looking for common ground in our faiths, not hunting for "opinions against Islam." 🙄
Searching for opinions against any single faith is just an invitation for conflict, because every believer will defend the faith
they live by or strive to follow. So arguments and bickering are inevitable, and eventually, things just come out of people's hearts.

Chris Peterson53 said:Everyone has the right to feel fear about anything, including a certain religion, and the fact that such fears exist is simply reality.

Why would anyone be afraid of religion? There is no fear in love, and God is love.
Something we all share, across all faiths. 🙂 Fear of religion can only stem from prejudice, and God has nothing to do with prejudice; it doesn't come from Him. If you respect others, there is no fear.

Personally, I have a bit of a fear of reptiles, LOL—or maybe just caution—but not because of prejudice, just the fact that they bite. Because snakes bite, that's a fact, though not every snake and not all the time. 😬 So if you spot a rattlesnake, right? 🙂

Steven Clark2 said:In your opinion? Look, I think your judgment isn't exactly spot on. It seems like you might need to educate yourself a bit on what actually constitutes hate speech, intolerance, and things like that—which, according to the Constitution, is still not legally permitted.

I agree.

If you look at things this one-sidedly, you run the risk of creating a really negative atmosphere, because the implications of certain statements can be huge (regardless of which side is being discussed).

Actually, she’s already created one. ;raspa: I
wrote about this a while ago on both the Book of Complaints and the internal forums. The result? Responses from the moderator were just like the ones
given to princess xx, if not worse. Deleting posts from the Book of Complaints, and so on.
I have nothing personal against her, but the moderation is extremely unfair and
frustrated, becoming more and more similar to Shady's style. Of course, they'll just say I'm
"targeting the moderators." That's wrong; I'm targeting bad moderation.
Under these conditions, posting in the Religion section is just a waste of time and an unnecessary
burden of someone else's malice, since the moderation brings everything down to a personal level and a vendetta against
those who disagree. 👎
I don't have the time, interest, or desire for these kinds of arguments, because reading insults like calling me a
"religious fanatic and obsessed" from this moderator goes way beyond good taste.
So, instead of engaging, I'll just say that what those two are doing with their
moderation in the Religion section is beyond perfidious and rude, constantly citing a lack of respect for the
forum rules and restricting people's expression—like accusing me of "believing in the institution of the Catholic Church,"
"having visions," LOL, etc. And then, based on that, the harassment starts: bans, being called a troll, and so on. That's why I don't write in the Religion section anymore, except for the occasional post, because they claim I'm obsessing over Shady and VeronicaN, or whatever. LOL
Naturally, after this, they'll say it isn't true and paint me as a criminal, an obsessive, a fanatic, a warrior, a Xenu agent, or whatever else they can dream up. LOL And they'll say they have to prevent that and protect the forum. Yeah, right.

So, a little correction wouldn't hurt. Maybe Tami went a little too far; I get it, he probably lives in a different environment, grew up with a different religious background, all that stuff matters, so maybe he doesn't always realize how heavy some things can be.

There's no excuse now for "maybe Tami went a little too far." 🙄 He didn't "go a little too far"—he went way too far. And it doesn't matter who said it; if anyone had written what he wrote, it would be hate speech and as such,
should be sanctioned. Calling someone "technologically redundant," alongside the statement quoted above. 😲
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#15 ·
Susan Brooks83 said:There is simply no excuse left for saying "maybe Tami went a bit too far." 🙄 It isn't just a case of "going too far"; he completely crossed the line. Regardless of who actually typed those words, if anyone else had written them, it would be classified as hate speech and as such
it must be sanctioned. To tell someone they are "technologically redundant," especially given the statement quoted above... 😲

Fair enough—you might be right regarding Tami. However, speaking strictly for myself, I would prefer not to demonize him unnecessarily. I truly believe he will apologize; I find him to be a cultured individual, even if he was swept up in the negative atmosphere that has been festering here for so long, leading him to write what he did. What he said was wrong—that much is indisputable—but I feel we should afford him the opportunity to explain himself, especially since he did, in one instance, directly suggest or at least imply that he may have overstepped.

Tami, if you happen to be reading this, it would be a gracious gesture to apologize to those you offended. Please try to ensure this doesn't happen again; after all, there is no sense in it, is there? While some Christians might behave even worse than you did, that certainly does not give you the right to retaliate in kind.
Peter Stewart6 Peter Stewart6 Member
18 messages
joined May 2010
#16 ·
Steven Clark2 said:Alright, maybe you have a point regarding Tami. But personally, I really don't want to demonize him for no reason. In my view, he’ll probably apologize. He seems like a decent, polite guy, even if he did get swept up in that negative atmosphere that's been building for so long. That's why he wrote what he wrote. What he said wasn't right—that much is true—but I feel like we should give him a chance to explain himself. He actually hinted at it somewhere, or at least implied that he might have gone a bit too far.

Look, I’m not talking about Tami here. I’m talking about the actual statement that was written. And what exactly is it? This is just awful. 😲 It’s just not working.
It’s not about some kind of "demonization of Tami." It's just about evaluating what was said and calling out those horrific statements for what they really are.
Tami and I used to have some really great back-and-forth discussions on the Islam threads. We always held our own. 😂
He’s got his faith, and I’ve got mine. I don't mess with what he believes, but I'm not about to let anyone touch my own beliefs either. If we can sit down and have a decent conversation about God's plans, then fine. But if people start throwing mud...
To force my religious beliefs on me, to use violence, to speak in ways that destroy, or to crush someone's spirit... I'm not talking about Tami here, but...
I'll just keep things general. It’s probably better if I just step away from someone's collision course. 🤷
Honestly, I try to give everyone a fair shot—Tami included. It really breaks my heart to read what he wrote.
😢

Tami, if you’re reading this, it would be a good move to apologize to the people you offended. You should probably try to make sure it doesn't happen again, too. It just doesn't make sense, does it? Maybe some Christians are worse than you, but that doesn't give you the right to pay them back in kind.

It isn't up to you to decide who's better or worse—and honestly, even if you tried, it wouldn't be right. That responsibility doesn't belong to you, and it doesn't belong to anyone else either. 😁
We’re all just people, really. Just humans with our own mix of good traits and flaws. I think we're mainly here to...
How much of our own darkness can we actually turn into light? I find myself wondering how much responsibility lies with us to spread good—not just for others, but for ourselves too. It feels like by choosing to do good, we’re really just letting that spark of God’s light shine through everyone who strives for what's right. And honestly, that commitment to doing good is exactly what keeps us going.
There’s this spark of God inside anyone who tries to do the right thing—even if they’re doing it for God's sake without even realizing He's there. It sounds easy enough to say, I know. But honestly? Putting that into practice is a whole different story. It's much harder than it looks. Because everything that actually benefits us as humans...
Everything comes from God. Every single impulse to do something good? That comes from Him, too.
Look, if a person can't find a way to be good to themselves, they aren't going to be able to do any good for anyone else either. It just doesn't work that way. If you aren't happy and at peace within yourself, then... well, you're just not there yet.
Someone gets hurt by a good deed. It’s strange. I think everyone should try to understand why that happens—why we should still strive to do good whenever possible, regardless. But at the same time, you have to face the reality that sometimes people just don't want to receive kindness. Not because they're being difficult, but simply because they aren't capable of handling it.
You have to know where to draw the line, honestly. You need to figure out exactly how far you can go before things get misread or taken the wrong way. It’s just about protecting yourself. 🙂
granitefox16 granitefox16 Active Member
136 messages
joined Jun 2024
#17 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:The question in the opening post might actually be extremely well-founded.

I just jumped into that other controversial thread, here, to get ahead of things, but we’ll talk more there.

So, please, everyone, just bear with us. 🙂

The situation is pretty sensitive—it's not even one issue, it's a whole mess—but if we play our cards right, we can fix this properly.

The mod team is currently conferring, and we'll follow up here and over there soon with an official collective stance from all of us.

Thanks for speaking up early and for contributing to this thread.

Shady

What are you guys even arguing about? Someone is calling the head of the Catholic Church a Nazi and defending the idea of banning every religion except Islam.

And this is what you're debating?

How are you gonna justify calling polytheists "technological leftovers"?

You think that's cute?
Peter Stewart6 Peter Stewart6 Member
18 messages
joined May 2010
#18 ·
granitefox16 said:What are you people actually arguing about here? Someone calls the head of the Catholic Church a Nazi while simultaneously defending the idea of banning every religion except Islam.

And this is what passes for a debate?

How exactly are you planning to justify calling polytheists "technological excess"?

Think it sounds charming?

Regarding the bolded part, 🤔 some people started talking like that right before World War II. Then
the war broke out, and the "excess" was "cleared away." We all know where that happened, unfortunately. 🤦
It’s obvious, and honestly just sad that those horrors weren't enough to teach anyone a lesson.

So, that comment about the head of the Catholic Church is symptomatic. Following that logic,
calling someone "technological excess" is just another result of that same pathetic attempt at malicious projection. 😢
Amy Doyle81 Amy Doyle81 NewcomerOP
7 messages
joined Feb 2010
#19 ·
Chris Peterson53 said:Look, anyone can be afraid of anything, even a specific religion. That's just a fact.
But you can't justify that fear by making up unproven, baseless claims about things that never happened.
You’re twisting my words to fit your narrative. You claim a Muslim user's post is hate speech, yet you're saying the exact same thing in an even worse way in your own post.
Then you go back and cherry-pick other posts just to try and paint the moderator as Islamophobic to cover for your own intolerance.
The way I see it, your complaint against Tammy's post is totally unjustified.

PS: Please read my entire post before quoting me.

I linked your entire comment specifically so I could highlight what I was talking about.☕

What on earth are you even talking about??? Good grief, is this really what we call a religious moderator?!!!🤦😂

Where am I even painting the moderator as Islamophobic?😕

If you look up, I already stated that the moderator who closed the thread is simply asking people to provide actual evidence for their claims about Islam. Later, I explained that users were just sharing personal opinions and experiences without insulting anyone. Is that clear enough, or do I need to repeat myself?🤦
Everyone else agreed that Tammy was the one being offensive and breaking the rules, but you’re out here claiming he isn't promoting religious intolerance.
Honestly, you should just resign from being a moderator😂 because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Peter Stewart6 Peter Stewart6 Member
18 messages
joined May 2010
#20 ·
Chris Peterson53 said:You’re twisting my words just to suit your own narrative. You complain about a Muslim user's post being intolerance or hate speech, yet you express the exact same sentiment in your own post, only much worse..

Honestly, it feels like everything you say gets intentionally misinterpreted lately. It's like déjà vu. 🤦
I don't see how princess XX expressed anything worse than what was already said in the opening post. It
couldn't possibly be any more extreme than the original message. 🙄

You only look back at other people's posts after the fact just so you can paint the moderator himself as an Islamophobe, all to justify your own bias.
As I see it, your complaint—the way you're framing it—doesn't actually justify the grievance against Tammy's post.

Assumptions, assumptions, psychoanalysis, and insults. ☕
I don't know if you're an "Islamophobe" or not, but using those labels is just a way to bait believers. It's pure nonsense. 🙄 Maybe you've gotten a little too full of yourself since becoming a moderator; as they say down in Dalton, you've become a real loudmouth. 😁 But then again, it's not surprising, since Shady promised you his full support, right? I was reading the banned users section, and I saw Shady's response to no nick—or whoever it was—about some agreement among the three moderators on a PDF.
What's strange, though, is where the other moderators from the Religion PDF fit into this agreement? 🤷
It's really no surprise that Uranium isn't a moderator anymore. 🥳

PS: Please read my posts in their entirety when quoting them.

They are being read and quoted, but nobody seems to bother doing it properly, apparently. Hopefully, that changes soon. Maybe the arrogance will finally stop. ☕

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads