http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18840786&postcount=31
It is not even debatable. The mods have stifled criticism of Islam. That is what has happened: the threads are closed, and we are discussing something else now, with criticism of Islam explicitly forbidden in this discussion. If they had not taken the actions they had, a critical discussion of Islam would be under way instead.
That discussion is off limits here, anyway. Unless of course it is a snarky, back-handed comment such as yours towards a poster critical of Islam, of course.
We have had several other people discuss their problems with Islam without getting the threads closed. If the mods were trying to stifle this debate, it would have happened long ago. Hell, the thread you resurrected was one such thread that didn’t get closed until it became clear you were using it to violate moderator instructions.
The instructions were to stop debating whether Islam was violent and come back in a few days. This applied to both sides. You’re only being singled out because you are the only one violating those instructions, not because of your views. If someone had resurrected a pro-Islam thread, the same exact thing would have happened.
And, yes, your 2013 thread is the same topic, just stated in a different way. It’s still “Is Islam a violent religion?”
I started a thread in the Pit that lasted for 25 pages and wasn’t closed.
I think the rules of the Great Debates forum are too…sterile, perhaps, for debates on this topic as they tend to lead inevitably to name-calling, accusations of bigotry, etc.
All in all, the mods do a tremendous job of allowing diverse opinions, imho.
it is the oppression inherent in the system.
Yet they’ve been on going since I’ve been a poster - indeed, before I was a poster as I registered to contribute to such a discussion after having been a lurker for awhile. They keep happening and yours is far from the first voice raised in loud condemnation of Islam. We have quite a long history of it, to the point where I largely burnt out on the topic long ago despite some academic interest.
My experience over 15+ years would tend to indicate that your undebatable point is actually pretty debatable. Unless you think something has radically changed recently. Perhaps so. But I’ve been seeing 1,000+ post threads being shut down for winding down into dust for a decade and a half and I’ve watched a tiny minority of posters who were desperately engaged in whatever debate it was howl in outrage over it for a decade and a half. It’s nothing new, nor do I think it is even topic specific - a Morgenstern noted it is just sometimes time to clean up the mess to make room for another one.
Head fake.
This only shows that they tolerate a certain limited amount of criticism of Islam, and no more, just as Stormfront allows a certain amount of argument against their denial of the Holocaust, until they decide that it has gone too far and the moderators intervene.
Of course a discussion of what to do about the violent aspects of Islam are going to include what those violent aspects are and are not. And I didn’t even bring those subjects up myself, I was responding to the ever-so-slightly off topic ignorance spewed by others in defense of Islam. My second post in that thread was a direct response to the OP, with no discussions of the particulars that were used as an excuse to give out warnings and eventually terminate the discussion altogether. It is obvious that the moderation in that thread was intended to limit criticism of Islam, not to keep the thread directly and perfectly on topic, as was claimed. No other discussions are moderated so strictly, if they were, every thread longer than one page would be closed.
What is not debatable is that the discussions are shut down, right at this very moment. I am not saying threads on other subjects are not moderated, what I am saying is clear is that the standards used to give warnings and to terminate the debates are drastically different in these cases.
Everyone has their sacred cows, and we have located the bovine in this barn, for sure.
Perhaps you should read up on what Sunnah is (hint, it is pretty much modeled on Mo’s personal life). And the debate that was won was the one started in the OP of that thread.
I’m not trying to junior mod, but may I suggest that you take a week or two off the board (or at least off the subject) until you cool down?
I probably hold Islam in lower regard than you do, but I can’t be bothered to care about what might have happened 1400 years ago, let alone claim it as victory points.
I would agree that the point is not debateable–the Mods have done nothing resembling your claim.
There are any number of threads about, (and bashing), Islam. In fact, there was still an open thread on the topic on the first page of Great Debates, this morning, that was only closed after you launched an off-topic attack about how unfair the Moderation is shortly after a Mod noted that any attempts to turn the thread into a trainwreck would cause the thread to be closed. Nice going.
As to the thread that started the current brouhaha, Robert123 persistently insisted on hijacking it to launch his polemics while you refused to address the OP, simply nattering on about the need for Robert123 to argue in favor of the point that was already the given of the OP.
The point of the thread was to seek the answer to the question, granting that Islam is evil, what can we do to reduce or eliminate the violence and evil?
Legitimate responses would include actual steps that could be undertaken by Western governments or actions by NGOs to encourage Muslim states to take actions to reduce the violence. Other thoughts that could be regarded as responses to the question would be to bomb them back to the stone age or to simply shrug and say they are so evil and violent that there is nothing that we can do. In one form or another, each of those types of responses were posted without prompting any Moderator action.
What is not a legitimate response is to simply repeat “Islam bad; Mohammed bad” over and over. That was the premise on which the question was based. We get it. To repeat that without answering the question, “What can or should we do?” is to hijack the thread. It does not respond to the question of the OP and it provokes those who disagree with the premise of the thread to attempt to disprove that point, leading to hijacks, while ignoring the actual question in the thread.
This point was made several times to Robert123 who refused to pay attention and persisted in his pointless attacks on Mohammed. (Pointless because they did not address the question of the OP, regardlees of their truth or falsehood.) On several occasions, I noted that he (and you or anyone else) were welcome to open a new thread to discuss the evil of Mohammed. Until you insisted on attempting to hijack the other thread, early this afternoon, in direct response to a Mod saying “don’t do it,” there was plenty of opportunity for you or anyone else to attack Mohammed in that thread (of 1457 posts), in which no one had been Mod noted or Warned for doing so.
Nothing prevents you from attacking Islam or Mohammed on the SDMB and no effort has been made to shut down threads that present that position. Threads have been shut down when posters have tried to hijack threads by ignoring the point of the OP for the purpose of perseverating on their beliefs or by ignoring the actual discussion in order to attack others, (Mods or posters).
Your claim that one may not attack Islam or Mohammed on the SDMB is utterly false.
Right. You look at that undebatable fact and see suppression of anti-Muslim sentiment. I look at it and see one dude who, after he helped get a thread shut down, keeps bumping zombie threads and getting progressively more outraged when that doesn’t help anything.
There’s a “New Thread” button. Click it on Wednesday the eleventh. Start a new thread in Great Debates about how terrible Islam is. Follow the explicit board rules scrupulously. Have fun with your terrible ideas about Islam!
They’re sneaky like that! They let the thread go on, luring everyone into a mood of docile passivity, and then** WHAM!!** Thread closure. Before the sheep even know they’ve been put out to pasture. Don’t think for a minute that they’re not ALL IN CAHOOTS on this. Every one of them. DON’T LET THEM DO IT TO YOU!!!
Ixnay, aceMay!
It would probably be a good idea to stifle any thread that goes past 10 pages. I doubt any new arguments get posted after the first couple of pages.
I have a very simple solution for people who don’t want to see a thread closed after 30 pages and 1459 posts.
Go into User CP, click on Edit Options and set Number of Posts to Show Per Page from the default to Show 5 Posts per Page. Then the thread will have lasted 292 pages!
But I suppose if you don’t feel your dudgeon is high enough, you could set the setting to Show 200 Posts per Page. Voila! Closed on page 8. There you go, the Everest of dudgeon.