That should be before, during, and after. All of which applies to me right now. 
Wink wink…nudge nudge? 
This is not what happened in the thread, tom. Like I said, you abused your authority as moderator in order to shut down a discussion that was calling out your statements that were in error:
You claimed
which was clearly false.
Here is the OP of the thread:
Again, nothing about ISIS or Wahabis. That is your own projection.
And then you had your tantrum:
Where did I make that claim? Link to it. Oh, that’s right, you can’t, because I did not make this claim, it is instead another of your endless stream of convenient fabrications. I claimed that you use your authority as moderator to LIMIT criticism of Islam, which you clearly do. This is a fact.
Again, obviously questions about what to do about a problem are going to uncover and involve disagreements and discussions about* the nature of the problem itself*.
And again, due to the bias and naivety of the moderators, this board has developed a culture, in terms of criticism of Islam, that mirrors very closely the manner in which Stormfront.org treats debates about the Holocaust. Discussions are allowed, to a certain degree. But robust criticism of the dominant, denialist stance is discouraged when that stance is robustly challenged. The subject is not outright forbidden, but limited by heavy-handed moderation and termination of discussions using lame excuses like “staying on subject” when little details such as facts and history get in the way of apology.
Dude, stop. We can scroll up. You can’t convince people you didn’t say something we can read for ourselves:
You just flat out said that one cannot say anything negative about Islam in GD. All threads are shut down.
They aren’t. You’re getting your stuff shut down. Because you aren’t listening to what the mods are saying. Instead of changing your behavior, you’d rather believe the mods were out to get you for your beliefs. You ignore the fact that multiple people have been critical of Islam and not had this problem. They’ve even come to this thread to tell you this!
Believe me, I would actually like the mods to crack down harder on this stuff than they have. I think GD threads too often drop into bashing religions of various types rather than discussion about them. You have to go pretty dadblasted far for the mods to step in.
At that point in time all of the ongoing discussions with robust criticism of Islam HAD been shut down. I never stated that criticism was not allowed* at all*. Just look at the sub-forum, the subject is not being discussed because the discussions were terminated for spurious reasons, for supposed violations that, judged by the same extreme standards, are happening in every single ongoing discussion.
And when one complains on Stormfront about the moderation there are posters who will pipe in and say the same. “hey look, my milk toast criticism is allowed, that means you are wrong, look at all the posts in the thread, that means the moderation is fair, and that this is a place that allows opposing views.” The fact that some people learn to modify their behavior to accommodate the culture of the board, to walk on eggshells, consciously or not, means nothing.
Bullshit. You are ignoring the substance of my criticism, which is that, of course, discussion of what to do about a problem is going to involve the nature of the problem. And when we are discussing a historical figure who’s very behavior is considered sacred this discussion is going to, by it’s very nature, be insulting to a great number of people, and thus be able to be dismissed, as you have here, as “bashing”.
I’ve noticed mod prejudiced, sometimes so blatant that another poster once told the mod to get his own house in order first before posting as the mod did the exact same thing they accused me of.
In short the SDMB I have found is a atheistic church and they really don’t like people challenging their mindset of how things should be. Take that for how it is.
An atheistic church that won’t allow a religion to be criticized?
Are you sure that’s an insult?
Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities which doesn’t require any sort of logical consistency or intellectual bravery. It’s not at all unheard of for certain non-believers to have a paternalistic posture towards their hyper-sensitive religious counterparts, and to call for or require censorship of speech likely to offend, in the name of tolerance.
Perhaps Hank is replying to some other message board, one where he doesn’t post. He posts something, denies he said it, then oh wait:
Ok, Hank has reversed himself again. With another falsehood. Let me quote John Mace from the previous page:
John Mace links to a thread critical of Islam. It was active yesterday. It was active when Hank made his original false claim, the one he has since denied saying and has repeated and reinforced with another disproven claim.
I concede that a lot of points of view are shut down here. With facts. Though generally these facts involve google searches as opposed to within thread quotes.
Just out of curiosity, what do you post about on Stormfront?
That is your response, really? To point to a non-nonsensical discussion? “Body Signals and the Fall of Radical Islam”. That this thread was allowed to continue while the the discussions that included robust criticism were terminated is a perfect demonstration of my point that the SDMB employs Stormfront like techniques against criticism of Islam. Allowing only goofball arguments in opposition to oneself is a blatantly obvious method of attempting to cultivate the delusion that only goofballs oppose one’s unsupportable positions.
“Body Signals and the Fall of Radical Islam”? Really? WTF does that even mea… oh fuck it, never mind…
In the past I have posted counterclaims to their Holocaust denial, and gotten drawn into some lengthy debates.
Those darn atheists just can’t win, can they?
Though that’s the solution to this thread. Forget Islam, we all can always agree to dump on atheists. They’re the safe group to hate. And they deserve it. What makes them think they can get away with tolerance?
You’ve never posted there about the evils of Islam? It would seem to be a more receptive audience than here.
Props for responding to my point (made earlier by John Mace) rather than dodging it. I guess. Props for not contradicting yourself.
That said, “Robust criticism” and “Nonsensical discussion” is in the eye of the beholder. For the sake of others, here is Robert163’s OP for the 30 page thread, now closed. In its entirety:
While certainly more lucid than the body signals OP, and with respect to Robert, this isn’t an especially detailed OP, though it is fairly narrow. Specifically, “Muslim teh evil” is borderline nontopical. What would be topical is measurement of the extent of non-Muslim violence in Middle Eastern countries after controlling for population shares. Or the extent of violence among Muslims in other countries after controlling for population shares. That Muslim (or Christian or Druze) violence occurs in the Middle East really isn’t to the point: it’s a premise in the OP.
We’ve discussed “Muslim teh evil” a number of times on this message board as it is in all its glorious specificity. The claim that closing a 30 page thread is evidence of censorship here is somewhere along the spectrum of bizarre and hilarious.
I’m quite sure they would actually refer to something being “milquetoast” instead.
Given even that my reference to Wahhabism was an interpretation of that thread’s OP, nothing I did actually shut down genuie discussion of the OP.
Robert123 persistently demanded that other posters “prove” that his irrelevant comments about Mohammed were wrong. I did not argue that his comments about Mohammed were wrong; those comments were irrelevant to the purpose of the thread.
Posting attacks on the person of Mohammed is an invitation to other posters to post replies defending Mohammed. That does not address the question of what steps our society should take to reduce the hatred and violence.
I also told other posters to avoid responding to the invitation to a hijack; I did not permit challenges to Robert123’s hijack while silencing him.
Having pointed out that Robert123’s first response to the thread provided no workable solution–a point to which neither he nor you ever provided a response–I limited my participation to noting that he was running off the rails until he insisted on furthering his hijack. I was not arguing against his position, having replied to its only expression without receiving an actual response to my comment. So the claim that I “shut down a discussion that was calling out your statements that were in error” is silly and without foundation.
My only effort as a Mod was to prevent the thread from being hijacked while repeatedly offering him, (and you), the option to go open a new thread to pursue the point of his hijack.
Jonathan Chance did not participate in the thread, at all, stepping in as a Mod only when Robert123 flouted my instructions to address the topic of the OP.
The thread was not closed to silence any argument; you had already sidelined the thread by your off-track comments, so Jonathan Chance shut it down for a lack of civility. A claim that he closed the thread to defend an argument in which he was not engaged is silly.
You then opened threads in ATMB and The BBQ Pit to complain. The ATMB thread was closed for a general lack of civility. The Pit thread was closed for being in the wrong forum.
The thread was begun with a premise. Restating one’s personal beliefs regarding the premise is pointless. Demanding that other posters interrupt the thread to argue the premise is a hijack.
Premise: Islam is violent and evil.
Question: How do we address that?
Hijack: Prove that Mohammed was not violent and evil.At no time did Robert123 make any effort to explain how answering his demand for a defense of Mohammed would address the actual OP of that thread. Your knee-jerk reaction to notes telling everyone to stick to the topic did nothing to promote the discussion, either.
Well, since you have provided no evidence of your claim, pointing only to the hijack that Robert123 attempted and your defense of the hijack, we can pretty well ignore your complaint as unfounded. There have been dozens of threads discussing Islam on this board. There was actually a separate thread on the topic that was still open, (and had been open for two months and 1450 posts), when the “What do we do?” thread was closed, until you attempted to hijack that with one more rant about Moderation.
In Great Debates, alone, there are more than 75 such threads–the only two that have been closed being the ones in which you attempted to hijack the threads into discussions of moderating.
There does not appear to be any effort to close discussions regarding Islam, only efforts to keep threads on track until you hijack them with irrelevant complaints.
They don’t like off-shade immigrants that’s for sure, but you might be as surprised as I was that there is a degree of admiration for Islamists there. They have a lot in common with orthodox Sunnis on quite an array of topics: the valuing of women primarily as a means to bear more of their kind, a desire to model their societies on “the good old days” when their antecessors owned and traded slaves, their general rejection of modern enlightened morality as destructive to them and theirs, and of course their intense hatred of da Jooz and admiration for Hitler and the Nazis.