Atlas Forum

About this Site => The Atlas => Topic started by: Lief 🐋 on May 03, 2012, 12:37:47 pm



Title: This is ridiculous
Post by: Lief 🐋 on May 03, 2012, 12:37:47 pm
In a thread about some protestor alleging that Mitt Romney was a racist, I made the following post:

Quote
Have you read the Book of Mormon? I think there's plenty of basis for calling the man a racist.

The post was subsequently deleted and I was infracted two points for "discrimination/hatefulness." Now, apparently pointing out literary and theological facts is now hateful.

Let's take a look at Mormon scripture, shall we?

Quote from:  2 Nephi 5:21-23
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

The Lord God, according to the Book of Mormon (which is, according to the Mormon faith, more correct than any book on earth), created a "black" race that were "loathsome" and an "idle, mischievous and subtle" people.

Quote from: 2 Nephi 30:6
"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure white and a delightsome people."

Later in the Book of Mormon (which I again must emphasize is believed by Mormons to be the most truthful book ever written and the word of God), it is stated that these people can be saved, but when they are they will be come white and "delightsome" once again. In 1981, "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure", when Mitt Romney was in his mid-30s.

Whiteness being a sign of pureness and goodness and blackness being a sign of sinfulness is in fact a common motif in the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 11:8, 1 Nephi 11:13, 1 Nephi 12:23, Alma 3:6, Jacob 3:8).

Let's see what some Mormon Church leaders had to say about black people:

Quote from: Brigham Young, 1863
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Quote from: Brigham Young, 1857
You can see men and women who are sixty or seventy years of age looking young and handsome; but let them apostatize, and they will become grayhaired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil.

Quote from: Joseph Smith
There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

So the facts back up my first sentence. Even if you disagree with my conclusions (and there are certainly some passages in the Book of Mormon that contradict the more sickeningly racist ones), based on the text there is plenty of evidence to come to them. They are not hateful, nor are they discriminatory, but instead opinions based on the actual, factual, physical text of a literary and theological work. Nothing negative is said about people of the Mormon faith; it is an opinion about a book.

Now, perhaps the infraction was instead for alleging that there is evidence enough to believe that Mitt Romney might be a racist? I don't think one can discriminate against a single person, though perhaps the moderators disagree. Surely it's been allowed for years on this forum to voice negative opinions about famous individuals, even individuals on the forum, through the FF/HP polls. Mitt Romney has made it clear that he believes deeply in his faith, he has held leadership positions in the Mormon church, he has gone overseas to convert people to the religion, he attended a Mormon university with strict rules and guidelines based on the Mormon faith and culture. He regards the Book of Mormon as scripture and true, and has as such taught it to his children.

The Mormon church retained its racist policies until well into Mitt Romney's adulthood. The racist portions of the Book of Mormon largely remain in tact to this day. To my knowledge, Romney never spoke out about these policies when they were still in on the books. It is only since he has entered public life that he has denounced them.

In conclusion, I ask that my infraction points be removed, that my post be returned to the thread, and the moderators apologize for being overzealous and stifling a free exchange of ideas. My post said nothing hateful or discriminatory about followers of the Mormon faith; it was simply, based on the facts of Mormon scripture and the facts of Mormon church policies, critical of a single politician, which on a forum devoted to political debate and discussion, should not be a punishable offense.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: ... on May 03, 2012, 12:52:16 pm
xGrumpy Gramps


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on May 03, 2012, 12:55:38 pm
Yeah, I have to agree with you here.  That shouldn't have been infracted nor deleted.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: GM R2D2 on May 03, 2012, 01:21:16 pm
Excellent research, Lief.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on May 03, 2012, 01:22:40 pm
But have you PMed the mod who gave it to you or Nym?

If not, then this thread really isn't the most helpful.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Lief 🐋 on May 03, 2012, 01:50:56 pm
How do I know which mod infracted me?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 03, 2012, 01:54:24 pm
Not that hard. It's either whoever mods the board where the offending post was made, or Eric.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on May 03, 2012, 01:56:02 pm
How do I know which mod infracted me?

I always just assumed it told you.

The mod was Andrew.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: GM R2D2 on May 03, 2012, 04:49:34 pm
How do I know which mod infracted me?

I always just assumed it told you.

The mod was Andrew.

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNN


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 03, 2012, 05:52:20 pm
I have no real opinion one way or another on the general notion of cracking down on unfair bullying of religious folks, or mormons specifically, on this forum but how oversensitive the moderation gets taken can be absurd. That post clearly shouldn't have been infracted. (And I would go so far as to suggest that if that post was made by any other poster it probably wouldn't have been infracted, given how obvious Lief has been singled out specifically by certain mods over this weirdly random anti anti-mormon crusade.)


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: greenforest32 on May 03, 2012, 05:59:34 pm
Quote
Just because someone holds a belief does not make that belief immune from debate and criticism. You don't respect a belief just because it's someone's belief.[1][2]

[1] The topic of religion gets an exception to this
[2] Respect = Shut down of the debate to make sure my feelings aren't hurt

You're not one of those arrogant and disrespectful people are you? This is a place of tolerance and understanding.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: The Mikado on May 04, 2012, 11:51:03 am
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Lief 🐋 on May 04, 2012, 12:08:45 pm
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.

Yes, a belief that is argued by church founders and church leadership is definitely "isolated." Of course you've long been one of the members of what Marokai very acutely summed up as a "weirdly random anti anti-mormon crusade" so your stance on this is unsurprising.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Oakvale on May 04, 2012, 12:15:11 pm
I'm not one to whine about moderation in general, but as someone who got infracted for "hatefulness" for what, in my opinion, was a fairly lighthearted reference to the Mormon practice of "baptising" the dead, I have to side with you on this one.

For the record, I don't believe Romney's a racist, of course - and I'd agree with The Mikado that it's a personal attack, but do we infract those? ??? - but is it really hateful to point out some disturbing stuff that Book of Mormon says?

Aside from a few (swiftly deleted) posts, I haven't had much to say on Mormonism, and don't really have a strong opinion - I don't know enough about it  as a faith, but I don't like the idea that questioning anything about a religion is discriminatory * or hateful.

Of course I recognise that my $0.02 is completely irrelevant and I'm not expecting this to be read by anyone, but I'm bored and felt like chiming in. :)


* Eh, I guess it's technically discriminatory, but only in the sense that criticising anything about any religion is discriminatory by definition. Are we going to get infracted for criticising Scientology next? And, no, I'm not saying that Mormonism is equivalent to Scientology, before this post gets deleted for hatefulness too.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Napoleon on May 04, 2012, 12:18:55 pm
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.

Why can't we personally attack Mitt Romney?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: ... on May 04, 2012, 12:32:27 pm
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.

Why can't we personally attack Mitt Romney?

What, Mikado?  So if I call Mitt Romney a pompous douchebag there will be death points for it?  How about if I call Obama "uppity"?

Can I call Bachmann or Palin psycho biatches?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Lief 🐋 on May 04, 2012, 12:41:56 pm
Yeah, the idea that we're not allowed to "personally attack" politicians is also very strange and completely at odds with what I've experienced in the four or so years I've been posting here.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: © tweed on May 04, 2012, 12:45:53 pm
based on Spade's leaks a while ago the crackdown on anti-Mormonism is a veiled attempt to go after certain posters (such as Lief) who are disliked by at least a faction of the Moderation.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: The Mikado on May 04, 2012, 01:05:18 pm
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.

Yes, a belief that is argued by church founders and church leadership is definitely "isolated." Of course you've long been one of the members of what Marokai very acutely summed up as a "weirdly random anti anti-mormon crusade" so your stance on this is unsurprising.

Only if you import Protestant ideas of sola scriptura into a context where they're utterly out of place and ignore that the Mormon faith is a faith of continuing revelation and that more recent prophetic revelations override the earlier ones.  Judging Mormonism by the writings of Joseph Smith is like trying to discuss Christianity in terms of moksha and samsara...you're importing something fundamentally alien to Mormon doctrine (the Protestant idea that the original doctrine trumps later revelation) into a context where it doesn't fit.

Of course, you have no understanding of theology, so you wouldn't understand that and would work under the assumption that all religions' relationship to their scripture are carbon copies of Martin Luther's views of the Bible.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: © tweed on May 04, 2012, 03:25:57 pm
this is not just the recitation of ancient history - blacks weren't allowed into the LDS preisthood for the first 20-some years of Romney's life.

and besides, you are basically arguing the merits of the claim, which is evidence enough that making the claim is not by-itself infractable.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Boris on May 04, 2012, 03:49:30 pm
He was 31 when God changed His mind about black people. Would be pretty entertaining to see it brought up sometime later in the campaign.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: TRIPLE ROCK on May 04, 2012, 11:51:11 pm
If people were posting stuff about Scientology comparable to the standard anti-Mormon posts we get, it wouldn't be controversial or infracted at all.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Eraserhead on May 05, 2012, 04:51:20 am
X Eraserhead

My post agreeing with you was also deleted but since Spade leaked that we were the main two posters on the watch list for discussing/debating the merits of Mormonism, it's hardly surprising.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 05, 2012, 04:27:54 pm
If attacking public figures viciously and without quarter is infractionable, I would like to know about that, because I do that myself from time to time. Of course, it is unfair to call the Mormon religion (particularly at this juncture) racist, and ludicrous to call Mittens a racist because he is a Mormon, but that is life in the public square. Those that go there in my view simply impeach themselves, res ipsa loquitur.

I would have to see and study the exact context for the instant case at hand, but absent some curve ball such posts should not be infractionable in my opinion. In my mind, there is a bright line between how one interacts and treats posters here, and how one characterizes public figures from afar.

If someone thinks I have this wrong, let's chat about it. Thanks.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 05, 2012, 04:36:01 pm
If people were posting stuff about Scientology comparable to the standard anti-Mormon posts we get, it wouldn't be controversial or infracted at all.

Putting aside the issue at hand, I think it fair to draw a line between Scientology and more "standard" religions. In my view, Scientology is a scam, which uses tactics which are malum in se. They are great for lawyers however, since they create a lot of litigation, particularly when they get some company owner to see the light, and then go about systematically trying to bring all the employees into the fold - or do what it takes to cause them to take a hike. Our office has had a couple of cases like that. We made the Scientologists pay.  :)


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on May 06, 2012, 01:41:19 pm
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.

Why can't we personally attack Mitt Romney?

Calling all Mormons racist isn't necessarily an attack on Mitt Romney, first and foremost. Moreso to the 14 million people worldwide who identify as Mormons.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Lief 🐋 on May 06, 2012, 02:33:34 pm
No one called all Mormons racist.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Napoleon on May 06, 2012, 03:34:33 pm
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.

Why can't we personally attack Mitt Romney?

Calling all Mormons racist isn't necessarily an attack on Mitt Romney, first and foremost. Moreso to the 14 million people worldwide who identify as Mormons.

Not all Mormons identified as such when Mormonism was clearly a racist religion, but Mittens did.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 06, 2012, 03:37:29 pm
He was 31 when God changed His mind about black people. Would be pretty entertaining to see it brought up sometime later in the campaign.

In the Mormon religion, god likes to do sudden 180s sometimes.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Mechaman on May 08, 2012, 08:24:47 am
Calling Mitt Romney a racist because of an outdated and isolated view of Mormon Scripture with no real evidence to back up the claim is...yeah, it's pretty clearly a personal attack, the same way as the occasional "Barack Obama hates white people" stuff is.

Why can't we personally attack Mitt Romney?

Calling all Mormons racist isn't necessarily an attack on Mitt Romney, first and foremost. Moreso to the 14 million people worldwide who identify as Mormons.

Not all Mormons identified as such when Mormonism was clearly a racist religion, but Mittens did.

So did his father, who for the record STRONGLY supported the  Civil Rights Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney) while Mormonism was still a "racist religion".

But yes, making wide assumptions about a person's personal belief structure is so fun, isn't it?

Anyway, whether or not I agree with Lief's post I don't think it's fair that it got deleted.  Then again, I don't think infractions are fair to begin with.  If there is one thing I give this episode credit for is showing a lot of naive people that political correctness isn't simply a made up word for closet racists.  It is very real and it can affect non-racist left wingers just as much, if not more (as in the case of legitimate criticisms of organized religion) than right wingers.

Also, I would like to point out that, at least in Christiany religious sects, it's not at all uncommon to find scary views.  Hell, the Bible is no stranger to them.  See Exodus 21:7-10, which pretty much says it's alright for an adult man to sleep with a young girl (no age specified) if he buys her from her father.
Go to a church and try to argue that it's okay today and they'll report you to Chris Hansen.

Times change, and so do religious perceptions.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: hawkeye59 on May 08, 2012, 03:33:08 pm
Just because the religion's leaders say something doesn't mean that people who are that religion believe it. For example, I'm sure that Lief would be attacking Mo Udall in 1976 for being a Mormon, when he was actually very anti-racism. As was George Romney. I'm pretty sure that most American Catholics don't have a problem with using birth control, despite what the Catholic Church says. It's like attacking Obama for Jeremiah Wright.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: opebo on May 08, 2012, 05:02:01 pm
x opebo

It is hilarious that on a political forum we are now not allowed to criticize politicians.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Eraserhead on May 11, 2012, 04:14:24 am
Well, I got three points and my post deleted for calling Romney a "non-Christian racist".


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: AndrewTX on May 11, 2012, 06:43:45 am
It was me!! I was the turkey all along!!!!!!!

 Unfortunetly, I'm not well versed in the book of Mormon or anything..also, I can't give you back those points. But, if you'd like I can give you store credit on something. Or you could PM me and we can discuss it. Whatevs you want.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: © tweed on May 11, 2012, 11:10:54 am
It was me!! I was the turkey all along!!!!!!!

 Unfortunetly, I'm not well versed in the book of Mormon or anything..also, I can't give you back those points. But, if you'd like I can give you store credit on something. Or you could PM me and we can discuss it. Whatevs you want.

I like this.  Eraserhead has a get-out-of-jail-free card for a three-point level infract post.  reminds me of when I was in high school and I posed a plan to the disciplinary dean that would allow students to attend morning detention before actually being sentenced to it, thus allowing the student to cut class, minor hooliganism, etc.  against the collateral of the time served.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Kalwejt on May 11, 2012, 11:42:31 am
Congrats, Andrew! You made your first controversy as a mod! ;D



Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: AndrewTX on May 11, 2012, 12:47:49 pm
Congrats, Andrew! You made your first controversy as a mod! ;D



Thanks. I was hoping it was going to be something a bit more scandalous, but I guess I'll take what I can get :(


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Kalwejt on May 11, 2012, 01:44:42 pm
Congrats, Andrew! You made your first controversy as a mod! ;D



Thanks. I was hoping it was going to be something a bit more scandalous, but I guess I'll take what I can get :(

Come on, dude, you're just starting!


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on May 11, 2012, 02:01:21 pm
It was me!! I was the turkey all along!!!!!!!

 Unfortunetly, I'm not well versed in the book of Mormon or anything..also, I can't give you back those points. But, if you'd like I can give you store credit on something. Or you could PM me and we can discuss it. Whatevs you want.

Why can't you just remove the points?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: AndrewTX on May 11, 2012, 02:25:43 pm
^^
Thanks, Pal!


^Because my word is my bond.. unless people started a petition. At that point, I'd probably notice it. LOL, J/K. If people went onto facebook and started a page and it got enough likes, I might be able to pull some strings with the big mod daddy.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on May 11, 2012, 11:21:21 pm
^^
Thanks, Pal!


^Because my word is my bond.. unless people started a petition. At that point, I'd probably notice it. LOL, J/K. If people went onto facebook and started a page and it got enough likes, I might be able to pull some strings with the big mod daddy.

I mean... you do realize that it's possible to undo an infraction, right?  You don't have to give a "credit".


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: AndrewTX on May 12, 2012, 06:22:06 am
Yup


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: TRIPLE ROCK on May 12, 2012, 10:51:12 am
So here we have mods admitting they shouldn't have given infraction points but refuse to revoke them for no logical reason at all. Yes it's so nice that this system works so well and is being taken seriously by those responsible for it. ::)

This just proves how the whole thing is a total joke.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: opebo on May 12, 2012, 11:07:09 am
^^
Thanks, Pal!


^Because my word is my bond.. unless people started a petition. At that point, I'd probably notice it. LOL, J/K. If people went onto facebook and started a page and it got enough likes, I might be able to pull some strings with the big mod daddy.

I mean... you do realize that it's possible to undo an infraction, right?  You don't have to give a "credit".

He has absolute power to do whatever he likes, Inks.  You of all people should be celebrating this.  Or is your argument like when Schindler explained about magnanimity to Amon Goeth?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: muon2 on May 12, 2012, 02:15:39 pm
There are some conflicting things in this thread, and I figured I throw my thoughts in as well. There are a number of infraction categories, at least two of which have been mentioned so far: personal attack and discrimination/hatefulness. The infraction was for the latter of those two, so to avoid confusion in my post I'll deal first with the former.

I treat personal attacks as being those directed at another poster. Attacks on political figures or others in the news may get moderated for other reasons, but I would shy away from calling that a personal attack. Public figures are subject to ridicule within reason, but for a well-run forum ridicule should be constrained among posters.

A statement directed at a public figure can cross the line into discrimination. The more public the figure the more cutting a comment can be and probably not cross that line. Statements that accuse a policy of racism are fairly ordinary and can be worthy of debate. An accusation that a person is racist based on a set of policies goes a step further, but can be defended. For me the line usually appears when a public figure is attacked not for their policies or actions but merely by being a member of a group. By saying that X is a member of group G and is therefore racist implies that the syllogism's premise was that all G are racist. In context that can be discriminatory and subject to moderation IMO.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 12, 2012, 04:31:51 pm
So here we have mods admitting they shouldn't have given infraction points but refuse to revoke them for no logical reason at all. Yes it's so nice that this system works so well and is being taken seriously by those responsible for it. ::)

This just proves how the whole thing is a total joke.

I don't even have words for it at this point. How do you responsibly criticize a system when the moderator in question is openly acting like a goofy idiot, as if doing something completely ridiculous and unjustifiable with a smile then makes it okay.

Not all decisions need an explanation. A very small minority of them do, in fact. But of decisions that do need some sort of walk-through on how the decision was made, a serious effort should actually be made to do so. It's not that much to ask for at all.

I appreciate muon's contribution above, and he's right. Raising the question of mormonism being racist is one thing. Arguing that it is is one thing. Snidely saying all mormons are racist in short comments in multiple threads, that's absolutely another and that should be infracted. But Lief's original issue in this thread was not about calling mormonism racist and then trotting on to another thread. He called the book of mormon racist and stated that he could understand why people would say that mormons are racist, considering what's in the Book of Mormon. That's not "hateful" and should almost certainly not be infractable.

Moreover I don't understand the weirdly random and arbitrary nature of this entire "anti-anti-mormon" crusade. But that's best left for another day. The only thing that's pissing me off here is what I once said in another thread on this particular board a long time ago. Moderators have become so used to bad criticism, that when they get asked important questions, the only thing they can do is respond as if it's trolling even when it's not.

I'm not trying to change the world here, I'm not crying foul over the whole system, I'm not screaming fascism, starting petitions, and demanding half of the Mod Squad's resignation. But a little explanation and a little consistency. That'd be good.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: © tweed on May 12, 2012, 05:06:58 pm
^^
Thanks, Pal!


^Because my word is my bond.. unless people started a petition. At that point, I'd probably notice it. LOL, J/K. If people went onto facebook and started a page and it got enough likes, I might be able to pull some strings with the big mod daddy.

I mean... you do realize that it's possible to undo an infraction, right?  You don't have to give a "credit".

He has absolute power to do whatever he likes, Inks.  You of all people should be celebrating this.  Or is your argument like when Schindler explained about magnanimity to Amon Goeth?

how did this get past the filter?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: AndrewTX on May 12, 2012, 08:55:13 pm
So here we have mods admitting they shouldn't have given infraction points but refuse to revoke them for no logical reason at all. Yes it's so nice that this system works so well and is being taken seriously by those responsible for it. ::)

This just proves how the whole thing is a total joke.

I never said that I shouldn't have given the infraction points, and I never said I wouldn't take them off.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: opebo on May 13, 2012, 12:13:24 am
...but for a well-run forum ridicule should be constrained among posters.

So a 'well run forum' is one in which only a narrow range of opinion is allowed.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: muon2 on May 13, 2012, 02:14:06 am
...but for a well-run forum ridicule should be constrained among posters.

So a 'well run forum' is one in which only a narrow range of opinion is allowed.

When it comes to posters ridiculing other posters, yes. A forum that becomes dominated by flame wars is not successful IMO. As my post stated, ridicule of public figures is fair game. That should provide quite a wide range of opinion.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Eraserhead on May 14, 2012, 05:24:43 am
Well, my criticism of a public official wasn't deemed "fair game".

Whatever, at this point I don't really care. I'll just say what I want and you people can sprinkle some points on it if you want. The entire system is a farce and has been since the beginning.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: ... on May 14, 2012, 09:34:42 am
x opebo

It is hilarious that on a political forum we are now not allowed to criticize politicians.

xGrumps


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Bacon! 🔥 on May 15, 2012, 02:26:15 am
Allow me to note, as a representative of the 2012 Board Mod Triumvirate, that my two co-mods and I have reached a decision on this matter; Lief's two death points have been removed.

There are rarely solid rules existing that govern whether a potentially-questionable comment is infractable or not. Different moderators often have different interpretations of whether something is acceptable or not. For what it's worth, here's my two cents:

  • Personal attacks are against fellow posters, not public figures
  • However, making attacks against public figures like saying, "Romney is a Nazi," is potentially infractable as excessive hyperbole (or trolling, in certain contexts), unless the post contains a reasonable attempt to justify the statement to the point that it isn't hyperbolic.
  • On the same token, attacking a public figure by saying something like, "Romney will be a better President because Obama is a black, and black people are lazy," is infractable as "discrimination/hatefulness" because it's making an argument through bigotry alone.

Regarding Romney's Mormonism and discussions of it on the 2012 board, that's certainly an area where my understanding of that last point become somewhat muddled. Honestly, if you want to discuss the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we have a philosophy/religion board where you can argue about it all you want (sorry Gustaf). As far as Romney's affiliation with it, however, I really don't know where the line is. I've usually let Morden or Andrew take those infractions because most of the time I have no idea how to judge them. I suppose the approach here should be pretty nuanced; saying with certainty that "Romney is a racist because he's a Mormon and the Book of Mormon says this" wouldn't be acceptable, certainly. Lief's insinuations in the OP represent probably the acceptable limit, and even then only if it's germane to the topic being discussed.

But yeah, just my two cents. Hope everyone can be more tactful with this sort of stuff in the future (probably not).


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 15, 2012, 11:14:12 am
Someone who posts that Mittens is racist based solely on the alleged tenets or former tenets of the LDS, just reveals that the poster as a fool really, and in some sense, that is worse than getting infraction points in my book. If that same poster however posts the same thing ad nauseum, that to me is a form of infractible "trolling" and spamming. And there is some value in an interaction where a poster posts such nonsense, and then is knocked down for it based on the merits, rather than it just floating out there as some unspoken consideration. After all, that attitude is out there.  That is my two cents.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on May 15, 2012, 01:12:11 pm
Someone who posts that Mittens is racist based solely on the alleged tenets or former tenets of the LDS, just reveals that the poster as a fool really, and in some sense, that is worse than getting infraction points in my book.

the legitimacy of LDS is linked to the legitimacy of Joseph Smith, such that if Joseph Smith's statements prove him to be a clown, then the LDS is full of clowns.

is that not a fair statement?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 15, 2012, 01:30:13 pm
Someone who posts that Mittens is racist based solely on the alleged tenets or former tenets of the LDS, just reveals that the poster as a fool really, and in some sense, that is worse than getting infraction points in my book.

the legitimacy of LDS is linked to the legitimacy of Joseph Smith, such that if Joseph Smith's statements prove him to be a clown, then the LDS is full of clowns.

is that not a fair statement?

No, that is guilt by association. Folks associated with some outfit rarely believe everything the outfit subscribes to anyway.  Moving right along, sure Smith made improbable claims, but then so did Christ, or what the authors of the Bible claimed that Christ did anyway. It's just that the latter has more vintage to it, and the paper trail is murkier and more mysterious. Different leaps for different leapers.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on May 15, 2012, 02:11:51 pm
Someone who posts that Mittens is racist based solely on the alleged tenets or former tenets of the LDS, just reveals that the poster as a fool really, and in some sense, that is worse than getting infraction points in my book.

the legitimacy of LDS is linked to the legitimacy of Joseph Smith, such that if Joseph Smith's statements prove him to be a clown, then the LDS is full of clowns.

is that not a fair statement?

No, that is guilt by association. Folks associated with some outfit rarely believe everything the outfit subscribes to anyway.  Moving right along, sure Smith made improbable claims, but then so did Christ, or what the authors of the Bible claimed that Christ did anyway. It's just that the latter has more vintage to it, and the paper trail is murkier and more mysterious. Different leaps for different leapers.

Your logic jumps off track when it comes to religion, so let me walk you through these simple steps:

From my POV, the legitimacy of Christianity is linked to the legitimacy of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, such that if Jesus Christ and the Apostles statements prove them to be clowns, then Christianity is full of clowns.

Likewise, again from my POV, the legitimacy of LDS is linked to the legitimacy of Joseph Smith (since he claims to the instrument God used to “reestablish the true church”), such that if Joseph Smith's statements prove him to be a clown, then the LDS is full of clowns.

The logic of my POV is objective and consistence.  It plays no favorites and it allows the chips to fall where they may.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 15, 2012, 02:14:55 pm
Putting aside the guilt by association thing, to which I take exception, given your POV, your logic appears flawless to me.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on May 15, 2012, 02:32:51 pm
Putting aside the guilt by association thing, to which I take exception

isn't so much a matter of "guilt" as it is "error"...since Smith claimed to be reestablishing the dormant true church, as long as the LDS church claims to be the one true church, the legitimacy of LDS is linked to the legitimacy of Joseph Smith.

and that's not me being anti-Mormon, for "Smith" and "LDS" can be exchanged in the above statement for any church founder and church that claims to have the sole truth.

--

given your POV, your logic appears flawless to me.

well, that logic holds true with or without my POV...for if Jesus claimed to have embodied all truth, then, obviously, the legitimate of Christianity hinges upon the legitimacy of Jesus.  Same goes for Mohammad and Islam.

Why is that not obvious?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 15, 2012, 03:08:05 pm
This is the wrong place for a heavy duty religious discussion jmfcst, and as one who is Godless, yes of course I question many of the claims made about Jesus.  As to whether or not he was personally a charlatan, or while sincere himself, was marketed by charlatans, I have no idea. Just my POV of course.

Anyway, we need to move on here.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Joe Republic on May 15, 2012, 03:11:24 pm
I haven't really read through this thread, but judging by the last few posts it now belongs in the R&P board.  As do most threads involving jmfcst.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on May 15, 2012, 03:21:38 pm
This is the wrong place for a heavy duty religious discussion jmfcst, and as one who is Godless, yes of course I question many of the claims made about Jesus.  As to whether or not he was personally a charlatan, or while sincere himself, was marketed by charlatans, I have no idea. Just my POV of course.

Anyway, we need to move on here.


dang dude, we are NOT discussing the results of any test of truth, rather we're discussing the validity of having a test to begin with...as if you not only don't want to dicsuss the results of the test, you don't accept anything as testable.

why does the statement "the legitimacy of A is linked to the legitimacy of B" bother you so much?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 15, 2012, 04:05:51 pm
Yes jmfcst, if an outfit is the embodiment of truth, then there is not much potential in trying to tar someone by being associated with it. If it is not, then we get into the guilt by association discussion. Just because an outfit has some warts to it, does not mean one associated with it necessarily does as well ipso facto, res ipse loquitur. The end.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on May 15, 2012, 04:16:44 pm
Yes jmfcst, if an outfit is the embodiment of truth, then there is not much potential in trying to tar someone by being associated with it. If it is not, then we get into the guilt by association discussion. Just because an outfit has some warts to it, does not mean one associated with it necessarily does as well ipso facto, res ipse loquitur. The end.

why not?  if Romney were a member of Scientology or the Branch Davidians, would you be so hesitant to call him crazy?  why is it ok to point out the error of members of a small group but not members of a larger group?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 15, 2012, 04:48:21 pm
Matter of degree I guess. I mean, if a guy were a member of the Nazi SS, I suppose we are getting close to if not actually in, res ipsa loquitur territory. It's a judgment call. And part of that judgment is that some outfits are arguably just plain evil, ala Scientology. The LDS is not in that category. That's my judgment.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: © tweed on May 15, 2012, 06:27:09 pm
would like to take the moment to congratulate Lief and the Community at-large.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: opebo on May 16, 2012, 12:18:49 am
Matter of degree I guess. I mean, if a guy were a member of the Nazi SS, I suppose we are getting close to if not actually in, res ipsa loquitur territory. It's a judgment call. And part of that judgment is that some outfits are arguably just plain evil, ala Scientology. The LDS is not in that category. That's my judgment.

The point is your judgement doesn't enter into it.  We are not allowed to judge anything here - it is judged for us by the moderators.  We only parrot.  LDS may not be questioned, Romney's sanity or racism may not be questioned.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on May 16, 2012, 09:37:43 am
Someone who posts that Mittens is racist based solely on the alleged tenets or former tenets of the LDS, just reveals that the poster as a fool really, and in some sense, that is worse than getting infraction points in my book.

the legitimacy of LDS is linked to the legitimacy of Joseph Smith, such that if Joseph Smith's statements prove him to be a clown, then the LDS is full of clowns.

is that not a fair statement?

No, that is guilt by association. Folks associated with some outfit rarely believe everything the outfit subscribes to anyway.  Moving right along, sure Smith made improbable claims, but then so did Christ, or what the authors of the Bible claimed that Christ did anyway. It's just that the latter has more vintage to it, and the paper trail is murkier and more mysterious. Different leaps for different leapers.

How many Mormons have you met, Torie? Any Mormon who is even somewhat devout will not admit to disagreeing with any portion of the Book of Mormon, it's their one unifying factor: the total lack of dissent emanating from followers of the religion. You either believe or you don't in their eyes.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on May 16, 2012, 09:40:12 am
I, for one, fully support any crusade against Mormonism because it is a disgusting cult that openly lies about major historical facts to its followers and tries to quash dissent and reasonable debate. I expect to receive infraction points for saying this even though the Mods in questions have never met a Mormon while some of my best friends are Mormon and I constantly interact with their families. I'm just speaking from personal experience here: the religion sucks and makes me queasy in a way that Christianity never did.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 16, 2012, 10:06:50 am
The few LDS folks with whom I interact, or have interacted, are upper middle class, and we just don't discuss religion. It's not polite, and it would be even less polite to probe into whether they really believe this or that about their religion. They do get some ribbing for belonging to "the cult" and take it with good nature, and laugh. I had a lawsuit where the other side was represented by the nephew of Senator Crapo, and he was a pleasure to deal with - unusual in the litigation world. I try to interact with folks as individuals, as opposed to filtering them based on their background or beliefs or whatever. Humans are just a lot more complex than that. I find my interactions to be just so much richer and more interesting that way.

Yes, the LDS does have some cult-like tendencies, but I don't consider them evil. Sure they have strange beliefs, but for skeptics, most of these leaps of faith in any religion embracing the supernatural and miracles and so forth are kind of bizarre. You reflect however an animus towards the LDS that is fairly widespread. It would be nice if we had a bit more tolerance, and more of a live, and let live, attitude, rather than just demonizing the other. Among other things, in my experience, it makes one a happier person. We all have our own little unique journeys in life, and our own constraints, and inherited support groups and the like.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Mechaman on May 16, 2012, 10:31:31 am
Someone who posts that Mittens is racist based solely on the alleged tenets or former tenets of the LDS, just reveals that the poster as a fool really, and in some sense, that is worse than getting infraction points in my book.

the legitimacy of LDS is linked to the legitimacy of Joseph Smith, such that if Joseph Smith's statements prove him to be a clown, then the LDS is full of clowns.

is that not a fair statement?

Well then my friend, what is the legitimacy of the Bible?  Don't pull any of that "God wrote it!" BS because we all know that what is written in the Bible is from a bunch of Hebrew guys and Greek writers transcribed from what was passed down onto them.

So given that, would it be fair for me to call Christians clowns because their holy text, their Holy Grail of a Bible includes passages that glorify heterosexual pedophilia and concubines (and don't even get me started on the glorified genocides)?  Because those are there so STFU with your double standard of calling LDS clowns when your own Bible is chockfull of ridiculousness.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: TRIPLE ROCK on May 16, 2012, 10:45:48 am
EMD remInds me of the ex-Catholics in my family, or Mikado on religious Judaism. A case where having more of an interaction with something makes one more opposed to it.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Nym90 on May 16, 2012, 11:26:50 am
Just to clarify my position on the matter of attacks on Mormonism (or any religious or ideological belief, for that matter):

Rational, reasoned arguments about the merits, or lack thereof, of a belief system are strongly encouraged.

Sweeping generalizations about the sanity or character of those who ascribe to a belief system, especially if made alone with no supporting evidence, do not contribute to intellectual discourse and are infractable.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: © tweed on May 16, 2012, 11:33:23 am
EMD remInds me of the ex-Catholics in my family, or Mikado on religious Judaism. A case where having more of an interaction with something makes one more opposed to it.

Mikado is a lapsed Jew?


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Torie on May 16, 2012, 11:35:41 am
EMD remInds me of the ex-Catholics in my family, or Mikado on religious Judaism. A case where having more of an interaction with something makes one more opposed to it.

Mikado is a lapsed Jew?

That is what he has posted, yes.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: opebo on May 16, 2012, 11:41:58 am
Just to clarify my position on the matter of attacks on Mormonism (or any religious or ideological belief, for that matter):

Rational, reasoned arguments about the merits, or lack thereof, of a belief system are strongly encouraged.

Sweeping generalizations about the sanity or character of those who ascribe to a belief system, especially if made alone with no supporting evidence, do not contribute to intellectual discourse and are infractable.

So any correlation between belief and insanity is disallowed.  You may as well say we may not discuss the subject of sanity at all.

The point is not the merits of the belief system (no doubt they are mostly very useful, for certain awful purposes), but the abdication of sanity represented by the act of faith itself.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Badger on May 16, 2012, 12:08:25 pm
There are some conflicting things in this thread, and I figured I throw my thoughts in as well. There are a number of infraction categories, at least two of which have been mentioned so far: personal attack and discrimination/hatefulness. The infraction was for the latter of those two, so to avoid confusion in my post I'll deal first with the former.

I treat personal attacks as being those directed at another poster. Attacks on political figures or others in the news may get moderated for other reasons, but I would shy away from calling that a personal attack. Public figures are subject to ridicule within reason, but for a well-run forum ridicule should be constrained among posters.

A statement directed at a public figure can cross the line into discrimination. The more public the figure the more cutting a comment can be and probably not cross that line. Statements that accuse a policy of racism are fairly ordinary and can be worthy of debate. An accusation that a person is racist based on a set of policies goes a step further, but can be defended. For me the line usually appears when a public figure is attacked not for their policies or actions but merely by being a member of a group. By saying that X is a member of group G and is therefore racist implies that the syllogism's premise was that all G are racist. In context that can be discriminatory and subject to moderation IMO.


Stop being rational this minute, sir, or you will be expelled from teh ForumDrama forthwith!


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: Nym90 on May 16, 2012, 01:48:25 pm
Just to clarify my position on the matter of attacks on Mormonism (or any religious or ideological belief, for that matter):

Rational, reasoned arguments about the merits, or lack thereof, of a belief system are strongly encouraged.

Sweeping generalizations about the sanity or character of those who ascribe to a belief system, especially if made alone with no supporting evidence, do not contribute to intellectual discourse and are infractable.

So any correlation between belief and insanity is disallowed.  You may as well say we may not discuss the subject of sanity at all.

The point is not the merits of the belief system (no doubt they are mostly very useful, for certain awful purposes), but the abdication of sanity represented by the act of faith itself.

Assuming you were offering evidence for your position, that would be perfectly acceptable. I'm referring to stating something like that as fact without offering any defense.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on May 16, 2012, 01:59:17 pm
The few LDS folks with whom I interact, or have interacted, are upper middle class, and we just don't discuss religion. It's not polite, and it would be even less polite to probe into whether they really believe this or that about their religion. They do get some ribbing for belonging to "the cult" and take it with good nature, and laugh. I had a lawsuit where the other side was represented by the nephew of Senator Crapo, and he was a pleasure to deal with - unusual in the litigation world. I try to interact with folks as individuals, as opposed to filtering them based on their background or beliefs or whatever. Humans are just a lot more complex than that. I find my interactions to be just so much richer and more interesting that way.

Yes, the LDS does have some cult-like tendencies, but I don't consider them evil. Sure they have strange beliefs, but for skeptics, most of these leaps of faith in any religion embracing the supernatural and miracles and so forth are kind of bizarre. You reflect however an animus towards the LDS that is fairly widespread. It would be nice if we had a bit more tolerance, and more of a live, and let live, attitude, rather than just demonizing the other. Among other things, in my experience, it makes one a happier person. We all have our own little unique journeys in life, and our own constraints, and inherited support groups and the like.

I'd certainly have this opinion if they weren't my close friends and just mild acquaintances but deeper interactions with their families and seeing how they're manipulated to follow the herd disturbs me greatly. If they were just a few dudes I liked talking to, I wouldn't care but I see them being lead astray by their faith into acting like irrational idiots and it bugs me. The faith serves some well and it serves others horrendously and forces them on an uncomfortable path that they're forced on by their family members. This bugs me.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: TRIPLE ROCK on May 17, 2012, 12:05:23 am
EMD remInds me of the ex-Catholics in my family, or Mikado on religious Judaism. A case where having more of an interaction with something makes one more opposed to it.

Mikado is a lapsed Jew?

He doesn't identify as Jewish anymore, so no.

EMD's last post just basically proved my hypothesis.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: LastVoter on May 17, 2012, 12:10:05 am
The few LDS folks with whom I interact, or have interacted, are upper middle class, and we just don't discuss religion. It's not polite, and it would be even less polite to probe into whether they really believe this or that about their religion. They do get some ribbing for belonging to "the cult" and take it with good nature, and laugh. I had a lawsuit where the other side was represented by the nephew of Senator Crapo, and he was a pleasure to deal with - unusual in the litigation world. I try to interact with folks as individuals, as opposed to filtering them based on their background or beliefs or whatever. Humans are just a lot more complex than that. I find my interactions to be just so much richer and more interesting that way.

Yes, the LDS does have some cult-like tendencies, but I don't consider them evil. Sure they have strange beliefs, but for skeptics, most of these leaps of faith in any religion embracing the supernatural and miracles and so forth are kind of bizarre. You reflect however an animus towards the LDS that is fairly widespread. It would be nice if we had a bit more tolerance, and more of a live, and let live, attitude, rather than just demonizing the other. Among other things, in my experience, it makes one a happier person. We all have our own little unique journeys in life, and our own constraints, and inherited support groups and the like.

I'd certainly have this opinion if they weren't my close friends and just mild acquaintances but deeper interactions with their families and seeing how they're manipulated to follow the herd disturbs me greatly. If they were just a few dudes I liked talking to, I wouldn't care but I see them being lead astray by their faith into acting like irrational idiots and it bugs me. The faith serves some well and it serves others horrendously and forces them on an uncomfortable path that they're forced on by their family members. This bugs me.
I have a friend that lives in Eastern Idaho and he pretty much would explain it the same way.


Title: Re: This is ridiculous
Post by: bgwah on May 19, 2012, 06:05:38 pm
I responded to this thread (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=152568.0) with this:

Quote from: bgwah
He's white.

Ernest gave me five points for it. lol.