[Discussion] - The norms in regards to group aspersions

[Herskerstad]

One of the problems one frequently can run into when going to forums is group aspersions, statements that are uncomfortable towards groups and the such. Now many forums have rules against equating X = Y, but ever so often statements are made which makes the nuance of the rules come into question.

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.

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?

[Smolenski]

Wow, that really was terrifically blunt.

[The East Marches II]

The attempt to clean it up merely showed more of the bias inherent in the statement. It is an interesting situation that you have brought to attention.

[Luminesa]

The unprofessional bias is obviously very unbecoming of a mod, who is supposed to uphold the rules and to act in fairness to all groups. It's one thing to make a statement about your disagreements with a group. It's entirely another thing to say, "Those devout Christians? You'll probably find Islamophobes with persecution-complexes." Moderation is a parliamentary system, not a dictatorship where a person can use their power to essentially say whatever they want.

[USS Monitor]

Are you guys saying that post is actionable or are you saying you don't think mods should have opinions? Obviously, the other mods are allowed to review stuff that I posted, but I don't think we want to shut down all posts that refer to patterns of behavior. It would hinder debate. Statements like, "I have met more racist asshat liberals than racist asshat conservatives," serve a legitimate function in debate, even if they sometimes annoy people.

[Luminesa]

Are you guys saying that post is actionable or are you saying you don't think mods should have opinions? Obviously, the other mods are allowed to review stuff that I posted, but I don't think we want to shut down all posts that refer to patterns of behavior. It would hinder debate. Statements like, "I have met more racist asshat liberals than racist asshat conservatives," serve a legitimate function in debate, even if they sometimes annoy people.

Mods can have opinions, but talking about entire groups of people (devout Christians) "crying" about persecution gives other posters the idea that they can act with the intent of attacking religious groups and receive no punishment. Funny how you shoot down other people for what you presume to be a religious bias, when your own religious bias is as clear as day.

[Bressen]

Are you guys saying that post is actionable or are you saying you don't think mods should have opinions?

Personally, I'd say that moderators should never put themselves into a position where their posts are actionable. Of course, this applies to everyone on NS, but moderators have the additional 'lead by example' expectation to live up to, so at the very least there should be some thought into your posts - "could this post be actionable?" - before you post them.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Aaaand here we go again ... this ought to be interesting. Because I seem to recall being screamed at for similar. That said, happen to agree that moderators ought to be able to post like other posters, have dissenting or unpopular opinions, be able to joke with, be angry with, be insulted by, or otherwise be put out with players just like anyone else. Of course, like it or not, there is this nagging expectation that all these things aside, moderators are /supposed/ to be held to a higher standard, hence why they've been made moderators, and that in doing so, are expected to be more careful with how one phrases one's posts. Core message, fine and well. How it's posted, there's the kicker.

Might have been wiser to have posted that 'in my opinion, there is a higher probability for Islamophobic asshats to be found amongst those who put their religion front and center' or 'it has been my experience that yadda yadda' or what not. Not that I've had any practice at such things. Nor been expected to uphold such lofty expectations.

Seriously though, none of this is an appeal to prior perceived authority, just a reminder that it's sometimes difficult to navigate those lofty heights, and that if one expects it in others, one had best take care that one's own house is in order. So to speak.

[Chrinthanium]

If you feel a post is actionable, then you should report it as such rather than holding a discussion about it. Moderators are allowed to have opinions and are also allowed to express those opinions.

[Luminesa]

If you feel a post is actionable, then you should report it as such rather than holding a discussion about it. Moderators are allowed to have opinions and are also allowed to express those opinions.

There's a proper way to express them, however, going into a rant against all devout Christians is unnecessary. But I see your point.

[Herskerstad]

Are you guys saying that post is actionable or are you saying you don't think mods should have opinions?

First part. It's a discussion thread. Now if you are asking me what I think, I've seen warnings for less, I don't know how mods would rule if mods themselves broke certain rules and I consider your post on the murkier part of forum discourse. Clarifying even legitimate complaints as 'crying' is at best highly uncharitable to the point that if I held such of another group, I would permanently recuse myself from making judgements on situations which relate to complaints of a similar nature as the group you referenced in the post if I was in said position, but those are my subjective standards. Either way, clarification from the mods as to the norms in regards to group aspersions, as posted in the examples of the OP, would be wonderful. Second part in the bold-ed is nowhere inferred in the OP and seems to be an utterly irrelevant detour, but to answer it. No, I think mods can have opinions, but the way they posts should either be within or set norms for the forum itself. If it is the latter case, then we will wish to be informed as to the formalities that specifically is allowed at it's extremities.

Obviously, the other mods are allowed to review stuff that I posted, but I don't think we want to shut down all posts that refer to patterns of behavior.

That rather depends on the sense. Nobody is going to get angry about an observation like - "Valedictorians tend to be smart." Statements like. " The more zealous people of 'mainstream group X' are more likely to be 'malevolent trait' is an entirely different matter and more pertinent as to what is being discussed. There exists versions of rules which I doubt would violate the de-facto rules. A person who would say for example . " All Valedictorians are smart." Might make an X=Y inference without any danger since there is nothing disparaging or ill attributed to a blunt inference, but a person who said. " All Valedictorians are violent asshats." has likely stepped beyond the line precisely based on the connection and inference. The controversy in the discourse then becomes if one makes a qualifier " Compared to moderate valedictorians, the zealous valedictorians are more likely to be violent asshats." It attributes 'malevolent and unrelated to the group trait', in this case violence, with 'disparaging trait', in said case asshatetry, in higher proportion to the more zealous within the group as opposed to those less invested. Which is why the model on it's own would allow for statements like. " 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 are the majority, but zealous muslims are more likely to be terrorists." Given that it is the idea and the group in relation to it's zeal which is given the probability proxy to be both 'malevolent aspect' and 'disparaging trait', in particular when the group in question have no direct connection with either, is of concern, because it allows for disparagement of groups by proxy and taste.

It would hinder debate. Statements like, "I have met more racist asshat liberals than racist asshat conservatives," serve a legitimate function in debate, even if they sometimes annoy people.

That's not the model that was presented. First of all there was no counter-nuance, not that it would help. If you look at last paragraph with the examples or the corrupted one of your own post it presented versions of the statements which I found problematic, for if the above is within the bounds of forum etiquette, then it will be of use for those whom get reported for similar to have a clarified understanding of it. Which is largely the purpose of this thread, though I hope the examples and OP will be addressed in said regards.

[Chrinthanium]

If you feel a post is actionable, then you should report it as such rather than holding a discussion about it. Moderators are allowed to have opinions and are also allowed to express those opinions.

There's a proper way to express them, however, going into a rant against all devout Christians is unnecessary. But I see your point.

At the risk of being RedBoxed, even though I'm not a mod, I don't see Monitor's comments as All X are Y. "They are more likely" is probably the key part of the whole phrase. I could be wrong, though, which is why a Mod would be able to better answer.

[Herskerstad]

Aaaand here we go again ... this ought to be interesting. Because I seem to recall being screamed at for similar. That said, happen to agree that moderators ought to be able to post like other posters, have dissenting or unpopular opinions, be able to joke with, be angry with, be insulted by, or otherwise be put out with players just like anyone else. Of course, like it or not, there is this nagging expectation that all these things aside, moderators are /supposed/ to be held to a higher standard, hence why they've been made moderators, and that in doing so, are expected to be more careful with how one phrases one's posts. Core message, fine and well. How it's posted, there's the kicker.

Might have been wiser to have posted that 'in my opinion, there is a higher probability for Islamophobic asshats to be found amongst those who put their religion front and center' or 'it has been my experience that yadda yadda' or what not. Not that I've had any practice at such things. Nor been expected to uphold such lofty expectations.

Seriously though, none of this is an appeal to prior perceived authority, just a reminder that it's sometimes difficult to navigate those lofty heights, and that if one expects it in others, one had best take care that one's own house is in order. So to speak.

Well I should clarify perhaps what I would expect. During the only warning I so far have recived, over a situation I disputed. I was told in a GHR which really did not adress any of my points something of the likes that " If you think something may cause misunderstandings when you post it that can be actionable, then it is your job to ensure such inferences may not be made."

Personally I'd be more charitable than that, in particular when dealing with individuals whom do not have English as their first language, even in this situation. I am however curious as to the degrees put on display by the mod in this case, and to the degree it is acceptable. If we can associate certain negative traits and groups, and make the metric zeal to justify the propensity of negative traits then I can imagine that would influence both rulings and discourse to follow on the forums.

[Herskerstad]

There's a proper way to express them, however, going into a rant against all devout Christians is unnecessary. But I see your point.

At the risk of being RedBoxed, even though I'm not a mod, I don't see Monitor's comments as All X are Y. "They are more likely" is probably the key part of the whole phrase. I could be wrong, though, which is why a Mod would be able to better answer.

To clarify this is a discussion thread. It's open for diverse views and takes on the issue. The discussion around Monitor's comments is not a charge that the inference was made that "All X are Y." If there was such in this case and extremely clear-cut I would have made it a report.

[Chrinthanium]

At the risk of being RedBoxed, even though I'm not a mod, I don't see Monitor's comments as All X are Y. "They are more likely" is probably the key part of the whole phrase. I could be wrong, though, which is why a Mod would be able to better answer.

To clarify this is a discussion thread. It's open for diverse views and takes on the issue. The discussion around Monitor's comments is not a charge that the inference was made that "All X are Y." If there was such in this case and extremely clear-cut I would have made it a report.

I am well aware this is a discussion thread. The idea behind the post is that you feel it could be misconstrued what Monitor was saying and that, if she were not a Mod, the redbox warning would have been considered if not issued for the comment. It also strikes me that there's an inference that if non-Christians and/or liberal were at the business end of the statement as opposed to Christians that a redbox warning would be considered; however since the reverse is true, that no punishment will be discussed. Is this a rough idea of the thoughts you're espousing?

[Herskerstad]

To clarify this is a discussion thread. It's open for diverse views and takes on the issue. The discussion around Monitor's comments is not a charge that the inference was made that "All X are Y." If there was such in this case and extremely clear-cut I would have made it a report.

I am well aware this is a discussion thread. The idea behind the post is that you feel it could be misconstrued what Monitor was saying and that, if she were not a Mod, the redbox warning would have been considered if not issued for the comment. It also strikes me that there's an inference that if non-Christians and/or liberal were at the business end of the statement as opposed to Christians that a redbox warning would be considered; however since the reverse is true, that no punishment will be discussed. Is this a rough idea of the thoughts you're espousing?

Not entirely so, but I can see why some would make that inference. On the former part, it's not so much what could be misconstrued that I have a problem with, as such is an arbitrary standard. It's what that can be directly attributed from it, and if it stands acceptable, then it would have implications to how ugly conversations can within the rules get on NS. As for the latter part, it was more an instance of keeping the structure, but changing the groups as to keep consistent with what sort of statements would be acceptable. If the above is, the below also must be. I did not make the claim so much that the below would have gotten the warning and the above not, I am not clairvoyant as to how mods would judge that matter and I see both as sub-par to reasonable discourse. I am not a rulesetter so of course their take may vary from that, but if it does, then I can imagine future cases where warnings are issued or not taking from the norms decided upon in this thread should such be made.

[Chrinthanium]

I am well aware this is a discussion thread. The idea behind the post is that you feel it could be misconstrued what Monitor was saying and that, if she were not a Mod, the redbox warning would have been considered if not issued for the comment. It also strikes me that there's an inference that if non-Christians and/or liberal were at the business end of the statement as opposed to Christians that a redbox warning would be considered; however since the reverse is true, that no punishment will be discussed. Is this a rough idea of the thoughts you're espousing?

Not entirely so, but I can see why some would make that inference. On the former part, it's not so much what could be misconstrued that I have a problem with, as such is an arbitrary standard. It's what that can be directly attributed from it, and if it stands acceptable, then it would have implications to how ugly conversations can within the rules get on NS. As for the latter part, it was more an instance of keeping the structure, but changing the groups as to keep consistent with what sort of statements would be acceptable. If the above is, the below also must be. I did not make the claim so much that the below would have gotten the warning and the above not, I am not clairvoyant as to how mods would judge that matter and I see both as sub-par to reasonable discourse. I am not a rulesetter so of course their take may vary from that, but if it does, then I can imagine future cases where warnings are issued or not taking from the norms decided upon in this thread should such be made.

I get your point. I really do. The fact is, most folks on this site, from the newest members to the most venerated administrators, do not believe true debate is always sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. Sometimes things are said people don't like. Sometimes even things that push, but don't break, the rules. Take, for instance, back in the day long before many people on this website were born, when Sen. Lloyd Bentsen told Sen. Dan Quayle that he was no Jack Kennedy. Some found that an unfair attack, others cheered and applauded him smacking Quayle down. It didn't violate the rules of the debate even if it may have been a questionable tactic.

[Chrinthanium]

If you feel a post is actionable, then you should report it as such rather than holding a discussion about it. Moderators are allowed to have opinions and are also allowed to express those opinions.

There's a proper way to express them, however, going into a rant against all devout Christians is unnecessary. But I see your point.

I do not believe that Monitor ranted against all devout Christians. Of course, I am not a Christian. Perhaps, and entirely in my own opinion, you possibly, every once in a while, take a slight against Christianity far more personally than it was intended. I could be very wrong. That's just, in my opinion, what I see.

[Luminesa]

There's a proper way to express them, however, going into a rant against all devout Christians is unnecessary. But I see your point.

I do not believe that Monitor ranted against all devout Christians. Of course, I am not a Christian. Perhaps, as I can tell by reading Moderation on a daily basis, and entirely within my own opinion, you possibly, every once in a while, take a slight against Christianity far more personally than it was intended. I could be very wrong. That's just, in my opinion, what I see.

I am devout, I will admit, and I feel strongly about my faith. I suppose I do have a bit of a bias on that account, though the situations in which I reported others aren't the topics of the discussion. I am aware of my flaws, one of them being my occasional hot-headedness. I probably would have to recuse myself from judging any such situations, if I was a mod. I am willing to admit if I have acted a little too heatedly in the past.

However, that is because a mod is expected to be a balanced individual, who judges actions against any group with respect and proper authority. If I was to post, "Devout Muslims are more likely to be a bunch of rabid, ISIS-supporting killers," then it seems USS Monitor would, based on her supposedly strong inclination toward Muslims, probably call me an "Islamophobe". That's fine, and that's fair, because my statement is labeling a group as being more-likely to commit a crime. But that means that she has no excuse to do such things with Christians, otherwise it shows that perhaps she is not willing to uphold her position as a fair judge.

[Chrinthanium]

I do not believe that Monitor ranted against all devout Christians. Of course, I am not a Christian. Perhaps, as I can tell by reading Moderation on a daily basis, and entirely within my own opinion, you possibly, every once in a while, take a slight against Christianity far more personally than it was intended. I could be very wrong. That's just, in my opinion, what I see.

I am devout, I will admit, and I feel strongly about my faith. I suppose I do have a bit of a bias on that account, though the situations in which I reported others aren't the topics of the discussion. I am aware of my flaws, one of them being my occasional hot-headedness. I probably would have to recuse myself from judging any such situations, if I was a mod. I am willing to admit if I have acted a little too heatedly in the past.

However, that is because a mod is expected to be a balanced individual, who judges actions against any group with respect and proper authority. If I was to post, "Devout Muslims are more likely to be a bunch of rabid, ISIS-supporting killers," then it seems USS Monitor would, based on her supposedly strong inclination toward Muslims, probably call me an "Islamophobe". That's fine, and that's fair, because my statement is labeling a group as being more-likely to commit a crime. But that means that she has no excuse to do such things with Christians, otherwise it shows that perhaps she is not willing to uphold her position as a fair judge.

I would have to say that I, personally, may not have used the precise wording that Monitor used, but I would have, most likely, expressed a similar viewpoint. It isn't a dislike of Christianity or an All X are Y, but it is rational and factual to state there is a percentage of devout Christians who think Islam is inherently evil and would prefer it to be wiped off the face of the Earth. And the reverse is also true. It is also factual and rational to state that a percentage self-professed Christians have, frankly, resorted to asshattery in their opposition to Islam. And the same is true in reverse. Because I believe that, I don't actually see a real problem with Monitor's post at all for the most part. I, perhaps, may have just added the words "a percentage of" before the asshattery comment.

[Lady Scylla]

I don't read this as X=Y -- is it perhaps an unpopular opinion? Sure. But I'd like to point out that Lumi, and Hersker (to my knowledge) are Christians, and so it makes sense why you might have an issue. This doesn't make it right, but in itself, I think you're jumping over the ledge here. Lumi was upset at me a little while ago because I said something that was unpopular in opinion among Christians and had stepped on some toes. And I'd have to question if there's any underlying issues with Hersker bringing this up just to rule out any potential libel or 'vendetta'.

It should be noted among Christians on this site, that there are people who don't like Christians. There are people who don't like their beliefs. Assuming they can argue these without trying to be malicious -- there's no rule breaking; just opinions that Christians on this site might not like. That's a fact that one will have to deal with, and a general fact of life. Zealotry is often attributed with being a negative personality trait as is. So I don't see that as an argument.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I would have to say that I, personally, may not have used the precise wording that Monitor used, but I would have, most likely, expressed a similar viewpoint. It isn't a dislike of Christianity or an All X are Y, but it is rational and factual to state there is a percentage of devout Christians who think Islam is inherently evil and would prefer it to be wiped off the face of the Earth. And the reverse is also true. It is also factual and rational to state that a percentage self-professed Christians have, frankly, resorted to asshattery in their opposition to Islam. And the same is true in reverse. Because I believe that, I don't actually see a real problem with Monitor's post at all for the most part. I, perhaps, may have just added the words "a percentage of" before the asshattery comment.

If not for a proven-over-time (and an incident which must needs go unmentioned but of which at least some of the moderators are well aware) bias against persons of deep religious convictions (often exacerbated by some of their own actions and words, granted), I might just buy some of that. But there have been countless situations where it boiled down to 'liberal-leaning opinion of equal weight gets the green flag and conservative-leaning opinion of the same gets warned'. Anyone who's spent enough time on here has likely seen it, though they may have agreed with it for various reasons (such as some of the really prolific posters touting 'God Above All Else, You Heathens' being so damnably annoying and failing to learn site rules). Often the very mention of a religious viewpoint is enough to invalidate one's opinion in any given discussion. No, it isn't absolute, no, it isn't so crippling as to make it impossible for those sorts to post any more than the 'no swastika' bit keeps nazi types from posting. However, there have been some oversights. And there have been some calls that some of us have thought questionable on account. And it is worth at least discussing, whatever the powers that be decide about it.

I get where the concern comes from. Not seeing it as horribly egregious in nature in the grand scheme of things, but as mentioned before, it probably could have been phrased better while keeping the same tone and message. We often slip by inches rather than yards at a time, after all. Nothing wrong with a moment of introspection and consideration.

[Lady Scylla]

I would have to say that I, personally, may not have used the precise wording that Monitor used, but I would have, most likely, expressed a similar viewpoint. It isn't a dislike of Christianity or an All X are Y, but it is rational and factual to state there is a percentage of devout Christians who think Islam is inherently evil and would prefer it to be wiped off the face of the Earth. And the reverse is also true. It is also factual and rational to state that a percentage self-professed Christians have, frankly, resorted to asshattery in their opposition to Islam. And the same is true in reverse. Because I believe that, I don't actually see a real problem with Monitor's post at all for the most part. I, perhaps, may have just added the words "a percentage of" before the asshattery comment.

If not for a proven-over-time (and an incident which must needs go unmentioned but of which at least some of the moderators are well aware) bias against persons of deep religious convictions (often exacerbated by some of their own actions and words, granted), I might just buy some of that. But there have been countless situations where it boiled down to 'liberal-leaning opinion of equal weight gets the green flag and conservative-leaning opinion of the same gets warned'. Anyone who's spent enough time on here has likely seen it, though they may have agreed with it for various reasons (such as some of the really prolific posters touting 'God Above All Else, You Heathens' being so damnably annoying and failing to learn site rules). Often the very mention of a religious viewpoint is enough to invalidate one's opinion in any given discussion. No, it isn't absolute, no, it isn't so crippling as to make it impossible for those sorts to post any more than the 'no swastika' bit keeps nazi types from posting. However, there have been some oversights. And there have been some calls that some of us have thought questionable on account. And it is worth at least discussing, whatever the powers that be decide about it.

I get where the concern comes from. Not seeing it as horribly egregious in nature in the grand scheme of things, but as mentioned before, it probably could have been phrased better while keeping the same tone and message. We often slip by inches rather than yards at a time, after all. Nothing wrong with a moment of introspection and consideration.

I think it also depends on which Moderator is dealing with it. Some can be far more hard-assed than others.

[Luminesa]

I don't read this as X=Y -- is it perhaps an unpopular opinion? Sure. But I'd like to point out that Lumi, and Hersker (to my knowledge) are Christians, and so it makes sense why you might have an issue. This doesn't make it right, but in itself, I think you're jumping over the ledge here. Lumi was upset at me a little while ago because I said something that was unpopular in opinion among Christians and had stepped on some toes. And I'd have to question if there's any underlying issues with Hersker bringing this up just to rule out any potential libel or 'vendetta'.

It should be noted among Christians on this site, that there are people who don't like Christians. There are people who don't like their beliefs. Assuming they can argue these without trying to be malicious -- there's no rule breaking; just opinions that Christians on this site might not like. That's a fact that one will have to deal with, and a general fact of life. Zealotry is often attributed with being a negative personality trait as is. So I don't see that as an argument.

Yes, Herskerstad is Calvinist.

Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to say, "Well they're Christians, they're just upset because someone doesn't agree with their beliefs." That would be entirely fine if she just said that she doesn't agree with Christian beliefs. But she accused Christians of "crying" about persecution, and ignored me when I posted instances of Christians being legitimately martyred around the world.

Again, she would most likely not say the same about Muslims, given her response, or I would at least hope so. I'm not asking for her to agree with my beliefs, but I would rather not she depict us as being inclined toward whining, considering the same thing probably would not fly if she said such things about people of other faiths.

Finally, a mod once told me that belief sometimes inflames people to speak out about their beliefs, and that this is something I should accept. Perhaps that is paraphrasing, but it states my point. And that is a general point of life as well. Though I can perhaps try to be more careful about how I speak of others in the future, I would expect the mods to uphold that sort of respect as their job.

[Lady Scylla]

I don't read this as X=Y -- is it perhaps an unpopular opinion? Sure. But I'd like to point out that Lumi, and Hersker (to my knowledge) are Christians, and so it makes sense why you might have an issue. This doesn't make it right, but in itself, I think you're jumping over the ledge here. Lumi was upset at me a little while ago because I said something that was unpopular in opinion among Christians and had stepped on some toes. And I'd have to question if there's any underlying issues with Hersker bringing this up just to rule out any potential libel or 'vendetta'.

It should be noted among Christians on this site, that there are people who don't like Christians. There are people who don't like their beliefs. Assuming they can argue these without trying to be malicious -- there's no rule breaking; just opinions that Christians on this site might not like. That's a fact that one will have to deal with, and a general fact of life. Zealotry is often attributed with being a negative personality trait as is. So I don't see that as an argument.

Yes, Herskerstad is Calvinist.

Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to say, "Well they're Christians, they're just upset because someone doesn't agree with their beliefs." That would be entirely fine if she just said that she doesn't agree with Christian beliefs. But she accused Christians of "crying" about persecution, and ignored me when I posted instances of Christians being legitimately martyred around the world.

Which isn't rulebreaking. Bad debate, perhaps.

Again, she would most likely not say the same about Muslims, given her response, or I would at least hope so. I'm not asking for her to agree with my beliefs, but I would rather not she depict us as being inclined toward whining, considering the same thing probably would not fly if she said such things about people of other faiths.

Paradox in beliefs isn't rulebreaking either. Half this site has contradictory beliefs -- hell, I'm a hypocrite and fully acknowledge the fact.

Finally, a mod

Name?

[...]once told me that belief sometimes inflames people to speak out about their beliefs, and that this is something I should accept. Perhaps that is paraphrasing, but it states my point. And that is a general point of life as well. Though I can perhaps try to be more careful about how I speak of others in the future, I would expect the mods to uphold that sort of respect as their job.

Mods are users just like you and me. They're entitled to the same chance in expressing and holding their opinions and beliefs. When Moderators get involved in threads -- they don't rule in them because of the conflict in interest. Monitor has been very good about that, and very good about flagging down her colleagues for additional rulings. The complaints here strike me as character attacks by both you, and especially Hersker -- especially since both of you have been involved in threads where a ruling was carried out that you disagreed with. The RWDT being a very notable example following Conservative and TEMs bans. As such, I'm less inclined to take such complaints in good faith.