The Return of Censorship: Part 2

I just opened a thread titled: IS GOD A BULLSHIT PHILOSOPHER? Here is the full introductory post:

To get some context, read this post: (for those under 12: don't read the signature by N/A, it's vulgar)

So, you create the world and then:

1. You hide away in your heavenly skyscraper (only popping out briefly to bark silly orders at Adam and Eve, then retreating back just to punish these poor souls—and all their descendants along with them—for breaking those very rules, all while you've rigged the whole system so everything inevitably leads to breaking them in the first place)

2. You brag to the descendants of Adam and Eve (intelligent beings capable of abstract thought) about how brilliant you are (fine-tuning), yet when it comes to all the absolute garbage in this world (animal slaughter, disease, earthquakes, floods, the agony of childbirth, being born with severe physical or mental deformities, droughts, and resource scarcity that—when mixed with the human element—leads to famine, which ultimately triggers social decay like prostitution, war, and other miseries)—you blame it all on Adam and Eve. LOL

3. To people who actually possess the power of abstract thought, you season their suffering with philosophy. See, people try to find the causes of life's crap through philosophical inquiry, but the only thing they ever arrive at through these attempts is that the one and only REALISTICALLY POSSIBLE culprit for all the misery in life is the very One who created that life, along with the Universe, which was created solely so that George Orwell’s Animal Farm could be realized on this planet.

3A) People realize there is a creator behind the Animal Farm of George Orwell.
3B People realize that this creator is a psychopath.
3C People realize that this creator intentionally ensured that the only thing humans can know about Him (via philosophy/systematic abstract-logical reasoning) is that He exists, but not *why* He is a psychopath.
3D People realize that this creator knew (meaning, He knew "all along") that human philosophical (systematic-logical) reasoning would lead to the conclusions mentioned above.

AND HERE IS THE CHERRY ON TOP:

This specific kind of God expects respect from humans. And not the kind of respect that comes from within a person based on gratitude or other sincere (authentic) and positive emotions, but rather based on fear and blackmail. The blackmail works like this: if respect isn't shown, there will be even worse slaughter, killing, suffering, grief, sorrow, weeping, and gnashing of teeth in the afterlife.

So here is my question: Is such a God actually a bullshit philosopher if He truly expects humans to respect Him?

Let's predict the first possible response: Of course not, because if He were a bullshit philosopher, He couldn't be God; God isn't an idiot.

Hmm. Well, God isn't Satan, but that doesn't mean everything He does isn't worse than anything attributed to the mythical figure of Satan.

In other words, if God isn't Satan, then by that same logic, God is also a mythical figure (just like Satan). Which means that if God isn't a bullshit philosopher (because that, like Satan, doesn't fit our conception of God), then on that basis, God realistically cannot exist (as such), because even the paradigm of "God as a bullshit philosopher" doesn't fit our conception of God.

Žižek would say: Either God doesn't exist, or He is Satan.

quietangler3 says: Either God doesn't exist, or He is a bullshit philosopher.

Richard Dawkins on God: A control freak, vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, pestilential, megalomaniac, sadomasochistic, malevolent bully...

At the beginning of this video, you can hear and see Dawkins reading this description of God from his book:

steelridge58 IS DELETING THE THREAD WITH THIS EXCUSE:

Dear quietangler3,

You have received a warning on the Forum.

Reason:
-------
Trolling

The opening post cannot contain provocation. This will be deleted.

What kind of Jesus Christ-level provocation are we talking about here????

If the moderation on the Philosophy board wants to turn into some religious-fundamentalist silencing of users by Ms. steelridge58, then just say so. We'll know not to bother showing up there anymore...

You wouldn't even experience something like this on a dedicated Religion board! How can steelridge58 take it upon herself to turn the Philosophy section into a private fortress where she can lord it over users by deleting entire threads with such pathetic excuses?

In the previous case (yesterday, when the thread "Is philosophy crap?" was deleted), the excuse was that the title was excessive, provided you read it carefully.

The thread I opened now has an almost identical title, but this time it isn't about an excessive title—it's about steelridge58's perceived "provocation" in the opening post!!!

Absolutely wonderful!!! I can wrap my head around someone on a site like CNN deleting correct posts just because they question certain Christian dogmas, but on a general forum—and specifically on the Philosophy board—to delete a thread under the guise that the opening post is somehow provocative is utterly unbelievable. It’s something a person wouldn't expect to happen even in their wildest dreams. Just because an opening post contains something that could be characterized as provocative doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Honestly, it never even crossed my mind to provoke anyone with anything I wrote in an opening post. And even if I had intended to, that still shouldn't warrant a sanction! On a religion board, every second post is provocative: atheists mock theists and vice versa. They don't spit on them directly, but they ridicule each other's beliefs in the most imaginative ways possible. So what? Should all those posts be deleted too? What would that even turn into? Something as grotesque as what the Philosophy board is becoming under the baton of Ms. steelridge58?

A question for steelridge58: Is the word [EXPLICIT] in N/A's signature also a provocation?

Obviously, it is. But since when did "provocation" become something subject to this kind of sanction? There are countless types of positive provocations. If you are malicious, you can cite just about anything as a reason to harass someone you don't like. The only question left is: does the administration of this forum truly believe that these moderator actions contribute to the positive reputation of this site as a place where free expression is actually allowed?

Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

steelridge58, look, I don’t have anything against you personally, but you were literally out here claiming you didn't deserve to be a mod just a day before you actually got the role. So maybe try being a little more credible, yeah?

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

It isn't trolling! It’s a link to the thread you unjustifiably deleted yesterday. That thread contains nothing but my posts—the original premise and the follow-up clarifications regarding your completely baseless rambling. Look, it's much simpler to provide a link to something already somewhat developed (and connected to this new topic) than to copy everything from that link into a new thread (except for your colorful little outbursts). Besides, your rambling actually serves a purpose; it gives the reader a clearer view of exactly what I'm referencing. You would make a catastrophic judge. Maybe try learning the ABCs of common sense within the judicial profession first: PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST FOR THE LAW; LAWS EXIST FOR THE PEOPLE!!! To put it more bluntly: A MALICIOUS JUDGE CAN BE A GREATER CRIMINAL THAN THE WORST FELON, AND THEY CAN USE THE BEST LAWS AS A TOOL TO COMMIT THEIR OWN CRIMES, AND VICE VERSA. In my humble opinion, your moderation is malicious, and therefore deserves every other epithet that follows from that fact.

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

Why? Is it because poetic license isn't allowed when opening threads? Or because you don't have the slightest clue what a figure of speech is? Or is it because you think nothing is allowed to be provocative (even if it's positive provocation)? Or perhaps it's because using the word "bullshit" is absolutely unquestionable in official discussions across the English-speaking world and nobody considers it problematic, yet you think that word isn't welcome here on this American forum for reasons known only to you—reasons you can't even state, let alone elaborate on? Because if you could elaborate, you'd undoubtedly be a candidate for the Nobel Prize! Or is it just some nonsense from the sixteenth century???

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

You are certainly not invited to pass judgment on the quality of my posts. That is a scientific fact. I am sorry I have to state it so bluntly.

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

Look, any sane person has to—primarily out of a sense of moral duty—reject completely baseless harassment that stems from someone's inferiority complex or personal frustrations. Period.

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

So what? Am I supposed to open a thread asking "Is God a bullshit philosopher?" in Business, Politics, Law, Real Estate, or maybe History? Is that the plan?

Jesus Christ, what else am I going to have to endure in this crazy world...

Whoever decided to appoint you as a moderator really needs to take a long, hard look at that decision after this mess...

Larry Walker24 said:steelridge58, look, I don’t have anything against you personally, but you were literally out here claiming you didn't deserve to be a mod just a day before you actually got the role. So maybe try being a little more credible, yeah?

Such brazen, cold-blooded lying seems to be a natural extension of who you are—someone who has spent yesterday, today, and everything leading up to this point demonstrating a staggering level of incompetence. It’s unbelievable! You claim to be enforcing order, yet all you actually do is create absolute chaos under the guise of "maintaining the rules"...

Larry Walker24 said:steelridge58, look, I don’t have anything against you personally, but you were literally out here claiming you didn't deserve to be a mod just a day before you actually got the role. So maybe try being a little more credible, yeah?

Larry Walker24, I actually saw you post that exact same thing on another thread once, and if I may be so bold as to suggest, I'd really encourage you to go back to wherever you read that—wherever that was—and give it a second look.

quietangler3 said:It isn't trolling! It’s a link to the thread you unjustifiably deleted yesterday. That thread contains nothing but my posts—the original premise and the follow-up clarifications regarding your completely baseless rambling. Look, it's much simpler to provide a link to something already somewhat developed (and connected to this new topic) than to copy everything from that link into a new thread (except for your colorful little outbursts). Besides, your rambling actually serves a purpose; it gives the reader a clearer view of exactly what I'm referencing. You would make a catastrophic judge. Maybe try learning the ABCs of common sense within the judicial profession first: PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST FOR THE LAW; LAWS EXIST FOR THE PEOPLE!!! To put it more bluntly: A MALICIOUS JUDGE CAN BE A GREATER CRIMINAL THAN THE WORST FELON, AND THEY CAN USE THE BEST LAWS AS A TOOL TO COMMIT THEIR OWN CRIMES, AND VICE VERSA. In my humble opinion, your moderation is malicious, and therefore deserves every other epithet that follows from that fact.

Why? Is it because poetic license isn't allowed when opening threads? Or because you don't have the slightest clue what a figure of speech is? Or is it because you think nothing is allowed to be provocative (even if it's positive provocation)? Or perhaps it's because using the word "bullshit" is absolutely unquestionable in official discussions across the English-speaking world and nobody considers it problematic, yet you think that word isn't welcome here on this American forum for reasons known only to you—reasons you can't even state, let alone elaborate on? Because if you could elaborate, you'd undoubtedly be a candidate for the Nobel Prize! Or is it just some nonsense from the sixteenth century???

You are certainly not invited to pass judgment on the quality of my posts. That is a scientific fact. I am sorry I have to state it so bluntly.

Look, any sane person has to—primarily out of a sense of moral duty—reject completely baseless harassment that stems from someone's inferiority complex or personal frustrations. Period.

So what? Am I supposed to open a thread asking "Is God a bullshit philosopher?" in Business, Politics, Law, Real Estate, or maybe History? Is that the plan?

Jesus Christ, what else am I going to have to endure in this crazy world...

Whoever decided to appoint you as a moderator really needs to take a long, hard look at that decision after this mess...

Go for it, honestly, though you might want to tweak the question a bit depending on which board you land on, because I mean, why would God be nothing more than a bullshit philosopher specifically?

steelridge58 said:Go for it, honestly, though you might want to tweak the question a bit depending on which board you land on, because I mean, why would God be nothing more than a bullshit philosopher specifically?

And I’ll tell you what—God isn't just some bullshit philosopher, and neither are you. Honestly, the moderator is basically divine at this point; with her moderation style, she’s practically outdone God Himself. Give my regards to N/A and ask him what he thinks about the "pest control" effects of her divine, bullshit moderation—you know, the kind that only benefits her own pocketbook?

So, you actually put a direct link to your own complaint right in the opening post? Are we really calling that being "original" now? 🤦

rustydrifter10, look, everything’s already been laid out for you, and honestly, this is starting to feel less like a discussion and more like straight-up harassment. If you actually want to stick around and be part of this community, you really need to pull it together and start following the moderator guidelines.