@ParallelLines can you comment? I’m still confused how what I said was off topic.
My thread title about bias in moderation was excessive and unfair. However I am still confused as to how me answering OP’s question was an off-topic hijack.
In regards to my statement
Islamic nations have worse human rights than non-muslim nation
This is also factually true. There is a discussion in this thread.
From the thread:
Supposedly among muslim nations there are
1 free
15 partly free
33 not freeBy comparison, for the entire world it is:
84 free
58 partly free
53 not freeSo about 62% of ‘not free’ nations are muslim majority nations, despite muslim majority nations only making up about 25% of the world’s countries.
There are only 20 nations on earth that are both ‘not free’ and not muslim majority (Belarus, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc etc)
As I mentioned in the thread itself, ingrained misogyny may be a major factor.
This gap in values mirrors the widening economic divide between the West and the Muslim world. Commenting on the disenfranchisement of women throughout the Middle East, the United Nations Development Programme observed last summer that “no society can achieve the desired state of well-being and human development, or compete in a globalizing world, if half its people remain marginalized and disempowered.” But this “sexual clash of civilizations” taps into far deeper issues than how Muslim countries treat women. A society’s commitment to gender equality and sexual liberalization proves time and again to be the most reliable indicator of how strongly that society supports principles of tolerance and egalitarianism. Thus, the people of the Muslim world overwhelmingly want democracy, but democracy may not be sustainable in their societies.
Sorry, I normally try to give myself some time on these things to make sure I’ve considered it fully, and not reflexively defending myself, to which a night’s sleep is often helpful - thwarted by cats, but I tried.
So, keeping this as direct as possible, the best interpretation I can manage is somewhat similar to @puzzlegal’s take. I can look at the perspectives other posters have offered, that your post suffered from unclear framing, but the first paragraph (and the one I specifically called out) was a massive hijack, which very possibly poisoned my interpretation of the rest of your post.
When I came in to moderate it, including your initial post, there were three replies and an additional follow-up by you to that specific extra-problematic clause. And all of those replies, and your followup were about those specific allegations/opinions rather than any argument that they were specifically held and people would admit them.
Given that, and the fact that at the moment I closed the thread (for a few minutes to hide everything) there were two other posters that were replying, I feel it was the best quick solution to the ongoing hijack. Hiding the posts kept others from replying to it in a way that no amount of Official Notices would have managed.
And stopping the hijack was my first and primary goal.
I will take you at your word that it was not your intent, that it was just poorly framed, and that you continued it because you were intellectually or emotionally involved in the debate. In that sense, I’m glad I kept it to very stern mod-note, and did not warn you or thread-ban you.
As for the OP of this (ATMB) thread, where you accused me and @What_Exit of it coming from sort of bias against you or your ideas, please let me know if I show bias in my current or future modding. I don’t deny I have bias, I’m -human-, but I try very hard to not let it affect how I moderate threads. I can fail at that - One of the reasons for this response is that I owe a minor apology to @Czarcasm and the board for a ruling I made yesterday on one of his OPs.
I decided that a certain new thread wasn’t a good fit for P&E, closed, it and offered to move it to the Pit. But I did editorialize too much in doing so, which was a sign of bias. Czarcasm though graciously allowed the move and didn’t chastise me for the bias.
So again, if you see concrete examples where I’ve overstepped, or showed bias in my moderation (I show Plenty as a poster), DM me, or open it here, as is your right. I won’t promise I’ll always agree, but I do listen to you, the other posters, and my fellow moderators. I value the community, or I wouldn’t be doing this job.
But, like, how was his first line a massive hijack?
The thread asks for “political/religious things that [people are afraid to admit in public.]” Wesley_Clark answers the question:
If a white person says they are a christian (in the US) I take that as an immediate red flag that they are a bad person until proven otherwise.
It’s a political/religious thing that he thinks has social consequences if said in public. Now, he could have framed it like this:
If a white person says they are a christian (in the US), I [think that many people would secretly] take that as an immediate red flag that they are a bad person until proven otherwise.
Which is a similar framing to most of the responses in that thread. But saying that this is a “framing issue” isn’t being generous, it’s beliving that the only valid replies to that thread are things that posters don’t believe but that they think others secretly believe. But I don’t think that’s implied by the OP of that thread. I think posters were fine posting their own beliefs that they’re afraid to say publicly for fear of social consequences, which is exactly what Wesley_Clark did. On topic, 'natch.
One more time - as framed, it read like a statement of the poster’s feelings, and was not attributed to a specific group. Nor were any of the following statements. And it and the following 5 posts (including Wesley_Clark’s followup) were primarily on the details supporting White Christian bias. At the time of moderation, said posts were over 1/3 of the new thread.
Again, I just accepted @Wesley_Clark’s statement of intent, but that first paragraph did take over the thread, and stopping hijacks is a priority in P&E unless the OP chooses the Hijacks Tolerated Option. If there -is- a bias on my part in this particular moderation, it’s the common moderator bias of wanting to keep a thread on track, especially when a major hijack occurs early on.
Again, we can disagree, we’ve had posters agree strongly with stopping the hijack and others who felt (like you) it was at most just laid out poorly. I don’t think it shows any effort on my part to “push [my] personal philosophies” on @Wesley_Clark, but I will certainly consider such if it is pointed out.
Again - glad the hijack was resolved, the thread continued, and considering the impassioned support for @Wesley_Clark that I kept it to a mod note.
I’m still confused by this.
My argument (and I’m not trying to hijack a thread in ATMB, I’m just trying to explain myself) is basically this.
There are 3 psychological metrics that are interconnected.
Right wing authoritarianism (RWA)
Social dominance orientation (SDO)
Religious fundamentalism (RF)
https://www.scilit.com/publications/ddee98b4b0d24d9c87dffd4fa5cccd22
I made this thread before discussing the massive overlap between people who score high on SDO and RWA, and people who strongly support Trump.
But people who score high on RF also tend to score high on SDO and RWA. So if a white person says they are strongly religious I make an assumption that ‘this person probably scores high on RWA and SDO too, until proven otherwise’.
Which I do not feel was off topic.
I do appreciate you leaving the lines of communication open and I’m sorry if this thread title felt offensive. I was upset when I wrote it.
I assumed as much, we all get defensive when we’re criticized. Posting angry has rarely worked out well for me, thus the night’s sleep on the subject before responding. 
But poster is a person, and the OP asked for things that “people” felt…
I’ll let it drop, but this seems to be the disconnect.
Not so with Jordan or Turkey, Albania, Senegal, and Indonesia.
And China is among the worst, being technically a atheist nation, same with North Korea, also Myanmar & Laos (Mostly Buddhist), Nicaragua (Catholic), and so forth.
Of the dozen worst nations , only 4 or 5 are Islamic.
Your scores were measuring Freedom, not Human Rights.
Reminder: This is About This Message Board and not Great Debates, Politics & Elections, In My Humble Opinion or the The BBQ Pit.
It is for posts about the board itself and its moderation.
Sure, you can interpret it that way. But that doesn’t align with the OP’s examples. And, most importantly, the OP at no point attempted to argue the positions.
Wesley_Clark’s post appears to be him stating his own positions and actually arguing for them. His responses show he was interested in arguing them.
And that is what created the hijack. A thread that was supposed to be about listing things people would say if there were no social consequences became arguing over a specific person’s beliefs.
And, finally, if he’s willing to say his own beliefs, then they don’t fit the thread even literally, since the concept is that these are beliefs are something would not say out loud because of the social consequences. He said them out loud.
Do please notice my framing. This is all if these are his own beliefs, which, due to his wording, is how they appear and, I argue, why people engaged with them as such. I make no inference of WC’s intent.
To add to the little disclaimer above: I think Velocity, Aspenglow and ParallelLines all dealt with this beautifully.
And I give PL kudos for how he responds to criticism. Wanting people to let you know possible mistakes so you can improve is very refreshing. I know it’s hard not to take things like this personally.
Well, the topic was about things people DON’T say. But one of your comments was (bolding mine):
Some people on the left, despite claiming they are morally above human flaws like racism, will repeat anti-semitic conspiracy theories about Israel/the Jews controlling the US and controlling the world that are straight out of 19th century conspiracy theories like the protocols of the elders of zion.
There are other things I could pick apart in your post, but let’s just say the whole thing was jarring and at the very least needed to be revised for clarity.
Also, our moderators - certainly both Parallel Lines and What Exit? - are pretty great. I don’t totally agree with 100% of the moderation decisions made here, but on the whole the judgment calls are excellent, and even when I find myself in disagreement, it’s generally minor and I’ve also been done the courtesy of a thoughtful response from whichever moderator I’ve been in conversation with.
I agree. Mind you- as posters- I sometimes disagree with them, but so far, pretty good moderation