Really, tomndebb? I know you have made a career out of moderating opinions you disagree with out of Great Debates, but this is a little transparent even for you. Would you have warned the author of the article in the OP if he posted it here? You’d have to under your standard of trolling.
"Don't discuss why religion is bad or problems in black churches in a thread called 'black atheism'"
A link would be helpful.
What about a link for “a career out of moderating opinions you disagree with out of Great Debates”?
I don’t know whether that’s the case or not, but i think the OP has a point.
In moderating that thread, tomndebb said that Qin Shi Huangdi and Condescending Robot’s posts were “off topic .” It seems to me that a discussion of the role played by black churches, and of the ways that black churches work, is pretty damn “on topic” in a thread about black atheism.
Especially since the OP of that thread specifically quoted a paragraph about black atheists being marginalized and excluded by the rest of the black community. It seems to me that discussing this issue without at least touching on the issue of black churches would be very difficult, and how you can call comments about black churches “off topic” in such a thread is a complete mystery to me.
Also, in his moderating, tomndebb suggested that those two poster take their comments to another thread, “where i would hope you would provide support for your beliefs.” I was under the impression that it was not, in fact, board policy for moderators to acts as arbiters of evidence and accuracy in Great Debates. They have made quite clear, on a number of occasions, that they’re not going to police the accuracy of claims or request citations on behalf of the board. Doing this stuff is the job of the people involved in the debate. As least, that’s how i’ve always understood board policy.
Personally, i have no time for the comments made by Qin Shi Huangdi and Condescending Robot in that thread. If i were interested in joining the thread, i would definitely be arguing against their assertions. I also tend to agree with tomndebb’s claim that they are venting their prejudices. But that sometimes happens in GD, and they haven’t broken the rules, and they are not, despite his claim, “off topic.”
Poor moderation, IMO.
Neither of the chastised posters made an argument regarding the role of religion in the black community.
Both made wholly unsubstantiated attacks on black religious leaders without a shred of supporting evidence and without actually addressing the issue of the role that religion, itself, played in the black community. (Note, for example, that the assertion that the black community is “more religious” than the rest of U.S. society has been both proposed and questioned without drawing any Moderator response. That is a separate assertion from the OP, but is organic to the discussion.)
No topic has been ruled off limits.
The hijackers were told to take their separate discussion to a new thread.
But race and religion do get special treatment. At least Tomndebb is not the worst of the lot when it comes to selective enforcement.
I don’t think the posters would’ve gotten away with something like, “All Italian chicks are drama-queens” or “Synagogues are such a money scam, run by self-serving Jewish rabbis” or whatever. At least, I’d hope not. Casting stereotypical/racist generalizations about an ethnic or racial group is mildly tolerated on SDMB (as we’ve seen with the evolution threads), but jeez, if you’re going to act like a jerk, at least be more subtle about it.
Are you kidding? You understand that the black churches are fundamentally connected to the role of religion in the black community, don’t you?
There was no “assertion” in the OP.
There was a link, and a quotation. That’s it. Hell, the thread itself was originally started in MPSIMS, and there was no actual debate proposed for discussion. It was simply offered as something that people might find interesting. Why is it that you get to decide what specific aspects of black religion will be allowed in the discussion?
Not only that, but the article linked by the OP of that thread contains the following arguments:
And:
Seems to me that these touch directly on a couple of the comments made by the posters you were admonishing.
Aain, as i said before, i think the comments by those posters were stupid and simplistic and reflective of particular prejudices, but there’s no way they were “off topic” or irrelevant to a discussion of black religiosity. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
I wonder if the comments would have stood had they not been overtly racist and gross generalizations. See Farmer Jane’s post in this thread, or the Stormfront-worthy screed in the thread in question:
I guess i could maybe buy that argument if Der Trihs had been included in the admonition. Just five minutes before tomndebb issued his edict, you’ll find this post:
He was agreeing with, and furthering, basically the exact argument that was being made by Condescending Robot. The only difference was that, instead of applying it specifically to black pastors and churches, he was applying it to all religion.
I guess i’d like to know why that doesn’t constitute a similarly unacceptable hijack. The OP of that thread was not, after all, about how shitty religion is, or how much of a scam religion is. It seems to me that Der Trihs’s comments are just as “off topic” as the ones by the other two posters.
And i should add that i actually agree with some of Der Trihs’s argument, although, as usual, he is too absolutist and dogmatic about it. But i still think that it was no more or less “off topic,” and no more or less potentially offensive, than the posts by Condescending Robot and Qin Shi Huangdi.
CLEARLY I should just be a mod.
We’re used to posters constantly derailing religious threads by claiming all religion is bullshit, a scam, for stupid people, etc. Der Trihs has also routinely stated that sending your kid to Sunday School is a form of child abuse. But I hope we never tolerate that…garbage…that Condescending Robot was saying.
eta: Well, it’s tolerated I guess, but I hope you know what I mean. It was a deliberate hijack.
I assume that since it was mod direction–not a warning–that making sure everyone who should have been included in the post was not a priority. Had DT (or anyone) continued on in the same direction after the direction, then I assume a warning would have been applicable.
I also think (though I’m admittedly reading into things) that there is a distinction between the blanket All Religion Is Bad type posts and Crazy Nigger Preachers Are Bad-type posts.
But at its heart, this is an ATMB complaining about well-justified mod direction. No topic was shut down, it was asked to be taken to another thread.
And yet, just 13 minutes after tomndebb’s post:
I guess he must just have missed it.
The only person to use the word “nigger” in either thread was you, in the post i’ve just quoted.
It’s pretty fucking disingenuous to portray those posts in that fashion.
Sorry, I’m not going to shift to whether or not DT should/should not have gotten a warning. It’s irrelevant to anything I initially posted.
Whether or not CR used “Nigger” or not misses the point. The characterization of the post fits: a blatantly racist, repugnant, diatribe.
As mhendo pointed out, nobody posted anything as blatently racist as you claimed. Yes, there were posters who were singling out black religious institutions for condemnation. But this was a discussion specifically about black religious institutions.
Try reading the second block I quoted above.
Racist.
ETA: Try this:
Jews get it even worse than everyone else from religion. In addition to all the effects it causes in terms of warping one’s morality, making it easier to believe other forms of bullshit, and making you easily manipulable by politicians, the “Jew Rabbi” is perhaps the ultimately loathsome parasite in the U.S. Jew Temples in poor areas take money that people don’t have and use it to support unbelievably lavish lifestyles of people who inherit the positions from their fathers. What “Jew Rabbies” do to their communities, poverty-wise, is absolutely disgusting, and they are on the whole the most immoral people I’ve ever met, for this and other reasons.
…
The truth hurts. Try working in sales or retail sometime and dealing with a “Rabbi.” I can forgive the insistence that everyone is “Dr. The Reverend” whatever–the sort of Pokemon-like accumulation of meaningless degrees from intellectually worthless Jew-book colleges is hardly unique to any religious group in the world. But the thing is that even though these “rabbis” live high on the hog from what they leech off their communities, they still demand bribes and kickbacks before they will spend Jew money on anything, and of course they wave their tax-exempt status around on everything they purchase even though most of it is going to personal use. The adulation that big-nose ladies have for these scumsuckers lets them get.away with murder. When thoroughly corrupt con artists holding inherited sinecures are the only leadership your community has, and they’re robbing you besides, it’s worth denouncing strongly.
Stormfront, plain and simple.
No, Stormfront would be claiming that all blacks or all Jews are corrupt not just black pastors or rabbis. The posts you quoted said that the religious leaders in the black community were preying on the other members of that community. That may be an anti-religious claim but it’s not an anti-black claim.
From his posting history,** Qin Shi Huangdi** doesn’t have a problem with Christianity, Jesus, God, or the like. So it would seem that he only has a problem when black pastors are at it. I mean, you know, cause truth hurts, and them danged black pastors keep excusing all those murderers.
I’ve read it, and your claim is preposterous.