RE: Pope Opens Mouth; Inserts Foot
January 17, 2015 at 6:12 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2015 at 7:03 pm by fr0d0.)
(January 17, 2015 at 11:28 am)dyresand Wrote:(January 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes Brian like calling atheists all of those things. Incitement is a thing. Whoever does it.
I disagree about secularists. The ones I've heard have an agenda to deny the identity of theists. They want to remove the right to love God.
Wat? Secularism is good... You are part of a majority in the country well lets just say religion already uses its power for bad already. I mean all religion needs to be equal or else everyone is going out into the streets with the banners of religion and killing each other and want to be the dominant religion.
Say what? I live in the UK. Belief is a minority not a majority position. My brand stand at about 6%according to the stats.
Religion is used for bad, that's a given. I'm actually anti religion too.
Secularism seems to be pro religious freedom, just against any world view used in governance of a country. That's exactly what I want. How about you?
(January 17, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Esquilax Wrote: are you saying that six people, examining these cases individually, from multiple contexts and viewpoints, cannot figure out whether there is a legitimate case for a ban, rather than just an attempt at censorship?
What's particularly frustrating about this is that I can go back through all the mod reports and see how many times the sentiment "what he's saying is offensive, but we can't ban due to that," appears from each and every member of the mod team, and so I actually have some evidentiary basis for my position on this issue. Meanwhile, you have no basis at all, no way of knowing how we operate or the content of our decisions, and yet you see fit to lob accusations and then act all surprised that we take them seriously.
A group of individuals will reach consensus spanning their opinion. A democracy it isn't. Infallible it isn't either.
Sometimes staff have acted in isolation. Maybe not on your watch. Non staff aren't privy to the processes so can't know if they're being carried out fairly or not. I believe you try to be fair.
Some staff often express their dislike of certain members. We're expected to trust that those prejudices don't carry over into staff discussions.
It's bad enough when rule enforcers act in full view. As your deliberations are private you must allow for question. In my opinion, if you want to appear to be fair, you should answer criticism calmly and with reassurance. Anything else doesn't help anyone. You want to silence any criticism? How do you think that looks?
