An example was recently made of a mod so I will utilise this as a sticking point in order to gain some understanding as what's allowed, what's not allowed and what is simply bad form.
USS Monitor wrote:Jamzmania wrote:Why does being a Christian make him less trustworthy? The majority of Americans are self-described Christians. I understand that there isn't really enough information available to draw definite conclusions yet, but why is his nominal religion an issue?
It's not the fact that he's Christian. It's the fact that it's one of the first things that he or the author of the article picked to describe him.
If someone happens to be Christian, but they don't make a big deal about it, that's different from someone whose Christianity is front and center every time they talk about themselves. Christians who put their religion front and center are NOT a majority, and compared to atheists or moderate Christians, they are more likely to be Islamophobic asshats. If it's the news source that made that decision rather than him, that's a red flag that the source may have a right-wing bias.
The Archregimancy is an avid traveler and self-described Christian, but does this sound like it could have been a story about him in his younger days? I have a hard time imagining it. There are Christians who go to church and believe whatever, and then there are Christians that make a big stink about being Christian and have a giant persecution complex. This type of story usually involves the latter.
Even if this does turn out to be one of the rare occasions that a Christian crying about religious persecution has a legitimate complaint, you can't blame people for being skeptical after all the times right-wing Christians have cried wolf.
Bolded are my own additions for the purpose of focus.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=407202&start=125
Now, as to make a hypothetical example which is intentionally blunt as I feel the statement above is. By simply changing out the metrics, one could make it sound as.
It's not the fact that he's social-justice oriented. It's the fact that it's one of the first things that he or the author of the article picked to describe him.
If someone happens to be social justice oriented, but they don't make a big deal about it, that's different from someone whose ideology is front and center every time they talk about themselves. Social-justice oriented individuals who put their ideology front and center are NOT a majority, and compared to apathetic or moderate liberals, they are more likely to be femifascist idiots. If it's the news source that made that decision rather than him, that's a red flag that the source may have a left-wing bias.
The example X is an avid traveler and self-described social-justice minded individual, but does this sound like it could have been a story about him in his younger days? I have a hard time imagining it. There are social-justice individuals who go to rallies and believe whatever, and then there are social-justice individuals that make a big stink about being for social justice and have a giant persecution complex. This type of story usually involves the latter.
Even if this does turn out to be one of the rare occasions that a social-justice minded individual is crying about persecution has a legitimate complaint, you can't blame people for being skeptical after all the times left-wing social justice individuals have cried wolf.
Now, in my view. Part of the big issues I have with this quote is that it equates Zeal via probability of having malevolent traits, in this case being islamophobic and all around asshattetry or in the antonym example, femifascism and idiocy. The former group 'Christian' which has nothing directly to do with such and the latter, 'Social Justice', which need not at all even touch on such aspects. This is at best stereotyping by proxy and in my view ill for the discourse when done in such a manner even with clarifications. By such metrics one can cast aspersion over groups within a group and connect it by proxy to zeal which I would consider tantamount to flaming, as it in this instance defines judgements over things like persecution, even when legitimate, as crying, which leaves little hope for nuance. While it is not All X = Y, it is population within the more invested part of X is more likely to be Y. This level of discourse would then allow for some very malevolent statements that at the very least makes groups feel uncomfortable.
Shortened versions of this may include. " Politically apathetic or Moderate Trump Supporters are the majority whom voted for him and decent, but die-hard Trump supporters are more likely to be racist." Or " Cultural or moderate muslims tend not to be any trouble, but zealous muslims are more likely to be terrorists." Neither affirm that die hard Trump Supporters or zealous muslims are racists or terrorists, but it equates the zeal of the idea/group as making such negatives even when such negatives are not inherently a part of the group/idea being discussed. So my question to the mods and forum in general is it within the bounds of the site to make statements that say " The more focused members of group X is likely to be Y." and if so, what nuances need apply when doing so?