BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Moderating the Temple

 
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)1011121314... 35

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:17 / 23.09.06
Hmmm again. But, if you are a devout Catholic, what if recent discussions of the Catholic church seem to you to be unduly Christianophobic? Or what if you are a discordian, and see the recent activities in Chaoflux's thread as knee-jerk disrespectful to your religion? The other issue there is whether we're talking about deleting posts or banning users - or both.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:20 / 23.09.06
Right - nearly to bed - long day - but I think my concern is that in order to allow a particular kind of discussion - to wit, one in the Temple about Christianity - to happen, we might set precedents that have implications for the general discussion. On t'other hand, perhaps diversions are more harmful than deletions or bannings - one might say that somebody who trolls threads about Christianity is unlikely to morph into a _terrific_ poster, so we shouldn't be too afraid to lose them.

Hmmm. Again.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
23:33 / 23.09.06
Or what if you are a discordian, and see the recent activities in Chaoflux's thread as knee-jerk disrespectful to your religion?

(Is chaoflux actually a Discordian?) If you are into Discordianism as a philosophy or a means of spiritual development, and into Barbelith as a means of communication, then surely you are willing to step into the latter and defend the former against a) people who are making sweeping generalisations against Discordianism and b) tedious asshats gurving up the kind of stale woo-random-fish! crap that gives the rest of you a bad name?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
10:18 / 24.09.06
Erm... I didn't want to get involved in this as I'm not a regular Temple goer....

However, there does seem to be a fair amount of exclamations on Barbelith using "Christ" or "Jesus". And I doubt they're coming from Christians.

Me? I'm not a Christian, but I have family who are, and they would be offended by people "taking God's name in vein". Indeed, I keep wanting to post "are you a Christian?" every time I see someone doing it on Barbelith. (I did so once before, somewhere around here, and I didn't even get a response, as far as I remember; and I have also previously mentioned my own take on this before in another thread.).

So, while I think Haus is right about being careful of setting precedents for this type of thing, I wonder how everyone would react if I started using (e.g) "Allah!" when I wanted to express dismay, despair, anger, etc. Especially seeing as I'm not a Muslim.

Seems disrespectful to me, to any religion. But I may be wrong. If so, will someone please explain why? (sincere question)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:59 / 24.09.06
I think that's quite a big question, PW, and I don't think it has an immediate relevance to the moderation of the Temple. Probably the very short version is freedom of speech - you can certainly ask people not to do it, and you can explain why they shouldn't, but it's not workable to try to stop people. We had this with "cunt", used as a pejorative - you are free to change your opinion of someone based on it, and you're free to explain why you are offended, but in terms of actually getting moderators to do something about it - well, that's both a free speech and a logistical issue.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
11:08 / 24.09.06
Yeah, sorry, Haus. I didn't mean to go off-topic. It's just that this is a religious issue and one which might require action on the part of the Moderators across all the fora, not just Temple.

Freedom of speech? Hmm.... good point. But then, I'm sure I read someone use the old "shouting FIRE in a cinema" example in respect of 'Freedom of Speech" before on Barbelith (a hypothetical example, I really liked). Also, couldn't other offences on Barbelith be explaned away as being about Freedom of Speech?

Personally, partly due to Barbelith, I've been eradicating "cunt" out of my conversations and replacing it with "cock-cunt" ( a friend's invention, not mine)

Hmm... I need to think more about this. I might start a new thread though, if need be, of course.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:11 / 24.09.06
PW, are you seriously, honestly, telling me that you think someone using eg. "Jesus Christ" as an exclamation is up there with someone creating a thread to discuss how stoopid t3h Xians are? Really and truly?

I wonder how everyone would react if I started using (e.g) "Allah!" when I wanted to express dismay, despair, anger, etc.

For a start, we'd mock you for being a pretentious ninny. Do you originate from a culture where such an exclamation is the norm? Do the people around you tend to yell "Allah!" when they stub their toes? No, you don't. You'd be putting it on to get a reaction.

Arguably, it should be a matter of indifference to a Christian how a non-Christian uses the names of God or Jesus. The Bible tells Christians not to take the name of their God in vain (this would include no cussing, no flippancy, no making false oaths etc). If one is not a Christian, then such a prohibition has no meaning.

Excuse me, I think I need to go and rub lavender oil into my temples for a bit.
 
 
Elettaria
11:15 / 24.09.06
I'm not Christian either, but I am practising a religion and I don't blaspheme. People take God's name in vain, in various permutations, all the time, you just have to get used to it. I generally don't object, but I will protest if someone is attacking or aggressively mocking a religion (any religion, not just mine), by which I mean malicious attack rather than valid critique. I've noticed that a lot of people will only defend their own religion, oddly enough.

Haus said:

Consistent homophobia gets you banned, consistent racism gets you banned, holocaust denial gets you banned, anti-Semitism ought to get you banned, but usually goes hand-in-hand with Holocaust denial. Path bashing? Neither banned nor deleted, usually. I think one would have to expand on what makes a post vile, and what vileness, specifically, entitles one to do to it.

Two points. I'd add Christianophobia, Islamophobia and general religious intolerance to that list. The point is when abuse rather than reasonable crit, as xk said.

Secondly, I have no idea what the history on this forum is, but anti-Semitism does not usually go hand-in-hand with Holocaust denial in my experience. This is because anti-Semitism is far more common than Holocaust denial, which is the extreme end of the spectrum. This is the model of anti-Semitism that I have encountered about 90% of the time, the other 10% usually being evangelicals who helpfully tell me that I'm going to hell.

1) Israel does some things which are bad.
2) The whole of Israel is responsible for this, and everyone who lives there.
3) Everyone who supports Israel's right to exist therefore supports oppression of the Palestinians etc. (the word "fascist" generally appears at this stage).
4) Jews support Israel.
5) All Jews are fascists, racists, acting like the Nazis, committing genocide and so on.

I hope I don't have to point out the flaws in reasoning here. I agree with the first point, but past that I don't: it would be like blaming everyone in the UK for the things our government does which aren't good. The difference is that Israel is in a bloody awkward situation (which still doesn't excuse a lot of stuff, but does excuse some), frequently at war or close to war, and it's under a spotlight and suffers from fairly negative media bias. Anyway, I don't want to turn this into an Israel discussion, it's actually the main reason I stay out of them in the first place. For instance, if I simply mention that I have family in Israel I am frequently attacked just for that (and damn it, one of my cousins is actually a conscientious objector and the other devotes her time to disability rights). Not everyone gets as far as calling Jews Nazis, but plenty do, and a huge number more get to the other points on that list. Simply stating that you are Jewish can be enough to prompt a great deal of hostility. I'm a lot more nervous about mentioning that I'm Jewish than mentioning that I'm queer, to give you some perspective.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
11:17 / 24.09.06
I wasn't comparing those examples. I was bringing up what I thought was a valid point.

And yes, I have many friends who are Muslim, some of who say "Jesus Christ" when they (e.g) stub their toe.

And Mordant, may I suggest you take the personal element out of your criticims of me and my comments? I don't do this to you, do I?

I think most religions preach tolerance. A worthy lesson for all of us to learn.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:32 / 24.09.06
I believe I expressed exasperation at your post, not you personally. If you'd like to point out where I personally criticise you, I'll be happy to edit out the offending passage.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:32 / 24.09.06
xk, for those of us who are late to the discussion, could you maybe offer some background on why Christianophobia should be listed as a bannable 'asshatery'? Does this issue from a specific discussion elsewhere?

I ask because I really don't understand why 'Christianophobia' has come up as a topic of discussion. I fear that raising it seriously as a bannable issue misses the point that this is an English-language board. Judeo-Christianity permeates the modern Euro-American legal system, 'Western' morals, values etc -- things that most of us have been raised within, without our consent. Given that context, people expressing their joking or serious dismay/disgust at the existence of Christianity is probably not a 'phobia' per se, but rather a feeling that arises from familiarity. Therefore, not a phobia. Whereas islamophobia and anti-semitism are generally understood as being in the domain of 'fear of difference'. Depending, of course, on context.

This is why I hate the word tolerance, and the discursive practice of it. It leaches out the ability to understand complex power relations. Ecumenism conceals religion's imbrication in power structures and turns it into some smorgasboard an individual can pick and choose from -- which, for most people in the world, it is not.

Hence... Christ almighty, pw, are you serious?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
11:36 / 24.09.06
Yes, as I thought everyone in this thread was being.

What is your problem with me raising this point? Do you not think there may be Christians on this board who find non-Christians exclaiming the name of the Messiah in jest, anger, etc, to be rude and ill considered?

Here's me backing out again. Why? Because some people seem to like making this a personal issue about posters and posters' intents and not about what they've actually typed.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.
 
 
Ticker
11:36 / 24.09.06
But, if you are a devout Catholic, what if recent discussions of the Catholic church seem to you to be unduly Christianophobic?

Would I be wrong in drawing a comparison between our critiques of the Vatican and some recent critiques of Israel in the Switchboard as both critical of a specific religious structure rather than the religion itself? I realize it is not a direct "Israel is to Judaism as the Vatican is to Christianity" but I do believe we have walked the critical line without being anti-Semitic or Christianophobic. If we haven't been and have crossed into non reasonable uncritical rhetoric I would hope it would be pointed out and we would stop doing it.

Religious intolerance is an ugly thing which in my experience rarely shows up in rational well framed thought. For myself I am comfortable with intense criticism of specific people/institutions with details to back up the perspective but wish to avoid letting general vaporish accusations and negative comments unattached to verifiable details float without calling bullshit.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:43 / 24.09.06
A few nights back I added the following to the Temple History, Identities & Standards page in the wiki:

* No bashing religion. Criticising specific examples of religious intolerance = acceptable; sweeping generalisations against those terrorist Muslims/evil Xtians/fluffy Wiccans = not okay.

Good, bad, anything to add?
 
 
Ticker
11:58 / 24.09.06
xk, for those of us who are late to the discussion, could you maybe offer some background on why Christianophobia should be listed as a bannable 'asshatery'? Does this issue from a specific discussion elsewhere?


I'm after a Temple environment that is welcoming to discussions of many faiths including Christianity. Several posters have made upthread comments regarding comments like this one as having a chilling effect on their desire to post their faith based experiences.


I ask because I really don't understand why 'Christianophobia' has come up as a topic of discussion. I fear that raising it seriously as a bannable issue misses the point that this is an English-language board. Judeo-Christianity permeates the modern Euro-American legal system, 'Western' morals, values etc -- things that most of us have been raised within, without our consent. Given that context, people expressing their joking or serious dismay/disgust at the existence of Christianity is probably not a 'phobia' per se, but rather a feeling that arises from familiarity. Therefore, not a phobia. Whereas islamophobia and anti-semitism are generally understood as being in the domain of 'fear of difference'. Depending, of course, on context.


Christianophobia, while a painful clunky term, does include disgust at the existence of Christianity. It's a term in the Wiki I linked on the previous page of this thread I believe.

, people expressing their joking or serious dismay/disgust at the existence of Christianity is probably not a 'phobia' per se, but rather a feeling that arises from familiarity.

If we take 'Christianity' out of the above statement and replace it with other religions you might begin to see why I'm bringing this up. It is neither constructive nor prudent to allow generalizations to inform our opinions. To speak of my dismay over the actions of specific people who closely align their identity to Christianity (like Pat Robertson) I must not fall into the trap of extending one person's cultural POV onto all people who share commonalities with that person. To allow disgust of an entire religion is to overlook the variety and range of people in that religion.

Judeo-Christianity permeates the modern Euro-American legal system, 'Western' morals, values etc -- things that most of us have been raised within, without our consent.

I agree we need to have dialogue around these points yet I do not think it is needful to frame them as purely religious. Many of these structural issues go back to Greco-Roman political viewpoints. Indeed I'd hazard to offer the founding fathers of my country were being informed as much by their perceptions of ancient pre Christian Greek ideals as much as their current era Christian ones.
 
 
Ticker
11:59 / 24.09.06
sorry to double up but yeah Mordant that is helpful and I'll have to watch my ass on the fluffy pagan issue the most I'm afraid.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
12:00 / 24.09.06
What is your problem with me raising this point? Do you not think there may be Christians on this board who find non-Christians excaliming the name of the Messiah in jest, anger, etc, to be rude and ill considered?

This is not personal, pw, this is an intellectual argument. If I can allow Christians to participate in a belief in a 'Messiah' I do not think exists, perhaps they can allow me the indulgence of using its name for fun and profit.

If not, since I do not believe in capital, could people stop saying 'pounds', 'dollars' and so forth? It offends me.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:09 / 24.09.06
MD, is taking the Michael out of Christians part of your spiritual belief system?

Is Capitalism religious or political/economic?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
12:12 / 24.09.06
If we take 'Christianity' out of the above statement and replace it with other religions you might begin to see why I'm bringing this up. It is neither constructive nor prudent to allow generalizations to inform our opinions.

I'm sorry, but I really don't agree with your logic here. You can't replace 'Christianity' with other religions in the above statement. As I pointd out, different forms of anti-religiosity are completely different to one another and issue from very different historical and political contexts. The only way it would make sense for me to replace 'Christianity' with 'Islam', for example, in my post, would be if I were actually Muslim and this was a board in Arabic or Lebanese or Turkish or Farsi, and most of us had been raised in states where Islam is culturally dominant, or were the grandchildren or children of Muslims. If that were the cae, we would all have quite different perspectives on Christianty -- perspectives that I think would make criticisms of Islam quite different to the criticisms of Islam commonly made in English contexts.

I'm sorry, this is totally off-topic. Maybe I should start a thread in the Headshop on religious 'hatespeech' and its complications?
 
 
sleazenation
12:16 / 24.09.06
Would I be wrong in drawing a comparison between our critiques of the Vatican and some recent critiques of Israel in the Switchboard as both critical of a specific religious structure rather than the religion itself?

Hmmm I'm concerned that focusing on the these recent posts one might miss the possibility of rigourously criticising both the structures of specific religions and religion itself. That is I'm concerned that "hate speech" is a bit of a movable feast depending on ones point of view. Some theists might well attempt to claim that sincere, engaged and rigourous/vigourous criticism is equatable with "hate speech" leaving secular/humanist/atheist/agnostic positions potentially out in the cold.

Lazy thinking is the enemy and I don't thing legislation, in the form of increasing the number of bannable offenses, is an effective means of combating it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:23 / 24.09.06
Would I be wrong in drawing a comparison between our critiques of the Vatican and some recent critiques of Israel in the Switchboard as both critical of a specific religious structure rather than the religion itself?

Ah. Yes, I think you would. Specifically, critiques of the actions of Israel are critiques of a political entity and its international policy. Once you get into the Jewishness or not of the leaders of Israel, you're on trickier ground. The Vatican is trickier, but it still functions as a temporal authority. On t'other hand, the Vatican also represents Roman Catholicism as a communion of hundreds of millions of the faithful, whereas the government and military of Israel does not represent even all observant Jews. Awkward comparison.

There will be people who will see all criticism of Israel's foreign policy as anti-Semitic, and people who will see all criticism of the Vatican as anti-Catholic, and indeed people who will object to the Lord's name being taken in vain. It's the responsibility of the moderators and members of Barbelith to decide how to take those protests, and to reach a consensus. The consensus, I think, is that criticism of the recent speeches of the Pope, the foreign policy of Israel or recent proclamations of President Ahmedinejad of Iran, is not intrinsically offensive to or derogatory towards Roman Catholics, Jews or Muslims.

PW: If you say you're leaving, leave. If you don't want to talk about Moderating the Temple, start a thread about what you _do_ want to talk to elsewhere.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:27 / 24.09.06
Haus, MD had assured me ze wasn't being personal. Hence why I stayed. Fair enough?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:34 / 24.09.06
I'm after a Temple environment that is welcoming to discussions of many faiths including Christianity. Several posters have made upthread comments regarding comments like this one as having a chilling effect on their desire to post their faith based experiences.

Well, yeah - but is that about disrespect for Christianity, or about rampant stupidity and trolling? If khorosho and 30/30 had expressed a disbelief in the tenets of Christianity and the social value of Christian belief, then I don't think it would have been chilling. so, if we want to ban khorosho because he will never, ever (in our opinion) develop into a useful or worthwhile poster to Barbelith, that's one thing. If we want to delete his posts because we find them actively hostile to the continuation of a level of acceptable discussion on Bareblith, also good. Does that have much to do, really, with the need to protect Christianity, though, specifically?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:46 / 24.09.06
I think Christian-bashing is always going to loom a bit larger in Temple meta-discussion simply because it's something that crops up a lot in occult and alternative spirituality fora and we've all got bloody sick of it.

I certainly don't want to see a Barbelith where religion and faith, either in general terms or in specific cases, cannot be critiqued. There is surely no problem with saying "I dislike aspect Y of religion Z." I think what we're really talking about are threads like "God is imaginary," which didn't really constitute a well-reasoned anything.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:11 / 24.09.06

Annnyhoo - I have about three posts on the go, here, so I'll try to round up.

First up, Elettaria:

Secondly, I have no idea what the history on this forum is, but anti-Semitism does not usually go hand-in-hand with Holocaust denial in my experience.

Well, on this board, and specifically in the Temple, anti-Semitism has tended to focus on the Holocaust and the secret conspiracy/Protocols of the Elders of Zion angle - both of which get you kicked pretty easily. Of course, people have different settings - there have been protests on Barbelith that criticism of Israeli domestic policy is anti-Semitic, for example, but those protests were not ultimately supported, in my opinion rightly so.

Mister Disco:

Given that context, people expressing their joking or serious dismay/disgust at the existence of Christianity is probably not a 'phobia' per se, but rather a feeling that arises from familiarity. Therefore, not a phobia. Whereas islamophobia and anti-semitism are generally understood as being in the domain of 'fear of difference'. Depending, of course, on context.

I think there's truth in that - in the same way that attempts to critique and dismantle white privilege on Barbelith are unlikely to get the same treatment from the set of people who aren't idiots as attempts to dismantle "black privilege" - for example, by critcising all that violently misogynistic gangsta rap music, or by highlighting the way that the loud panhandlers are always the black ones, or to dismantle queer privilege by criticising the noisy antics of the "Pride Parade People".

However, we have to balance the duty not to fall in with the programmed defence of power structures with the desire for a decent level of discussion. That balancing act, I think, is why we have to work out what we are actually _doing_ here. Khorosho posts shit. Khorosho has never and probably will never say anything of worth. Khorosho's track record includes posting pictures of aborted foetuses to Barbelith, defending racism against the Rom, and now trolling by Christian-baiting. If we want to delete his posts or ban him, let's do so for the easy reason, not the hard one. I'd suggest that the same applies more generally. A prohibition against "Christian-bashing" is pretty much useless, because we all have different ideas about when discussion becomes bashing - PW has said that he feels that people who use the word "God" as an expletive without believing in God are behaving in a way that would offend some Christians, for example. I don't know about the doctrinal soundness of that, but I imagine it's probably true in some cases. But can we legislate for it, beyond raising the possibility that it might be offensive and seeing how people's better angels guide them?
 
 
grant
13:28 / 24.09.06
Good, bad, anything to add?

Well, you did the thing there that could possibly be emphasized where you drew a distinction between the organization and all members thereof.

Critiques of Christianity as a structure = OK.

Critiques that state or strongly imply, "All Christians are..."= not so much.

Wasn't the problem with Holocaust denial that it was inevitably based on those arguments about "all Jews" being in on it or similar?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:36 / 24.09.06
Haus: Well, yeah, maybe a prohibition-with-bannination wouldn't fly. But I don't see why we can't have a "don't do stuff like this because we will throw stale buns at you" kind of non-rule.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:49 / 24.09.06
OK, I've just changed the wiki to say * No bashing religions or trads. Reasoned critique of specific examples or aspects of a particular religion = acceptable; sweeping generalisations against groups = not okay. Interrogating the Catholic Church's stance on contraception is one thing, rants about how all those Muslims are terrorists/Xtians are evil/Wiccans are fluffy, etc. are another.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:21 / 24.09.06
Hmmm. It's still a bit precedenty, though. For example, no calling Wiccans fluffy. How about suggesting that furries aren't as cool as LARPers? Is that a sweeping generalisation about a group? I think it probably is. Is it a job for the moderators? If not, why not - are we giving religions special protections?

Sweeping generalisations are made on Barbelith quite often, adn generally they are dealt with by the people who make them being corrected, which is essentially what happened in "Religion is imaginary". The people who have made them may then reveal themselves to be utterly without worth to Barbelith - which at the moment we don't usually respond to with banning, and which usually works out by the people in question being asked to engage at a higher level until they leave of their own accord or get the hang of it. Are we looking to change that? I'm OK if we do, but we'll either have to be consistent or explain why the Temple behaves differently - and "that's where we get the uninformed religion-bashing" is certainly a start towards that argument.
 
 
Quantum
21:00 / 24.09.06
Are we looking to change that?

I don't think we are. I don't think we're adding Christian*/discordian/wiccan-bashing as a bannable offense as much as putting it in the local guidebook 'Here be perils, bash not the faith of others'. Leads to trouble and getting a new asshole torn by whichever mod gets there first. That does pretty quickly polarise people into banning or behaviour modification, so it works as is. Let's be explicit and wear our hearts on our sleeves though, religious intolerance is a swift way to get hassled and/or benned.

*As an aside though, let's write Christian instead of Xtian if we're going to be oversensitive, and let's not discuss Qaballah until we're over thirty and have children, and let's not discuss the Hidden Mysteries at all or engage in idolatry or post on the sabbath. In other words, shut up Paranoidwriter.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:06 / 24.09.06
I think this is where (I think) Flyboy's assertion that "offence" is a rubbish criterion comes into play- it covers so many things as to be almost meaningless.

There's a difference between offending someone's sensibilities and attacking them. That, surely, can't be up for debate?

Likewise there's a difference between criticising or debating someone's beliefs and dismissing or shitting on them. This kind of "taking the Lord's name in vain" reductio ad absurdam isn't really getting us anywhere.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
21:10 / 24.09.06
In other words, shut up Paranoidwriter

Care to explain that comment, Quantum? I'm curious as to how or why you feel you can dismiss me so crudely and (I feel) offensively.

Do you fit your own criteria, by any chance?
 
 
Quantum
21:16 / 24.09.06
I feel very strongly that proposing moderating blasphemy is muddying the waters on how to moderate the temple. It's ridiculous and makes me feel that you are distracting readers with irrelevant issues.
I apologise for the curt tone, but please take the blasphemy issue elsewhere.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
21:18 / 24.09.06
OK, whatever you say. Can you recommend which fora?
 
 
Quantum
21:24 / 24.09.06
You said What is your problem with me raising this point? Do you not think there may be Christians on this board who find non-Christians exclaiming the name of the Messiah in jest, anger, etc, to be rude and ill considered?

I say- There may be. What's that got to do with moderating the Temple? Either you're proposing amending posts against the authors will or cajoling people into not blaspheming in-thread. The first is controversial, the second you can do yourself. If you care so much, keep on top of the Temple threads and challenge anyone who blasphemes, you're more than welcome. If you want to do that boardwide, feel free but talk about it in another thread, this one is about moderating the Temple.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)1011121314... 35

 
  
Add Your Reply