So I listed things people would admit if it weren’t for the social consequences. The moderator Parallellines said it was an off topic hijack to discuss political/religious things people would admit if it weren’t for the social consequences in a thread titled 'political/religious things people would admit if it weren’t for the social consequences.
this board has some competent moderators, but some just have an axe to grind and selectively enforce rules to push their personal philosophies (whatexit and parallellines are both big on this). its becoming a real issue and this board is starting to turn into reddit, where the mods just view their microscopic amount of power as a way to punish and censor anyone whose views don’t align with theirs.
As the OP of that thread, I feel I kind of understood what you (Wesley Clark) were getting at, but it was phrased in a very confusing way. If you had written, for instance, “Many liberals would admit that they hold anti-Semitic views,” and “white Christians would admit that they are white nationalists,” that would have made a lot of sense.
Thats a fair criticism. I can try better to express myself in the future. My goal was to make a list of things that many people think but don’t say openly.
Sorry, but you did no such thing. I completely support what @ParallelLines did with your posts. You ranted. You raised a lot of personal complaints. Among other views, you shared that if a white person says they are christian (sic) (in the US), you take that as an immediate red flag that they are a bad person.
Perhaps you meant to say that this is something you would admit to more readily if it weren’t for the social consequences, but that was far from clear in your post. It came off as a rant, and it did completely hijack the thread from its intended purpose.
To reiterate again, the subject of the thread was:
Political/religious things people would admit if it weren’t for social consequence
Unless the topic was what the people themselves would admit, not what others would admit about them.
Like what would Trump supporters admit about themselves if they didn’t face consequences, vs what would leftists who disagree with Trump voters admit about Trump voters but they normally don’t say.
My impression is you selectively enforced the rules so people who disagreed with the majority view on Israel-Palestine-Iran were punished. I even got a message from another user laughing about how unfair the moderation was in that thread.
The goal isn’t to make sure people who disagree with you have the rules selectively enforced to silence them. Its to create safe and honest dialogue. Almost everyone whose views don’t align with the majority on this board have been driven off in the 20 years I’ve been here.