Should moderation be applied equally - even to theists?

Sorry, no time to read all the replies now, but I will quickly reply to two examples raised of my poor moderation, while I think of it.

The first thing to say is that both infractions were Warnings, which accrued no infraction points. Neither poster was banned. Each was merely slapped on the wrist, so to speak.

The second thing to say is that in both cases the relevant posts were reported by a member; I did not take unilateral action on either of them, but responded to specific complaints made using the "report" button.

phlogistician's warning was for insulting other members. In particular, his claim was that no theist can possibly be honest. Any reasonable person would view this as an insult directed at all theists, and by inference at all members of sciforums who are theists. As a matter of context, this one was actually aimed at lightgigantic - a particular theist member.

Call it "weak" to be warned against hurling insults if you like. Maybe you think this is a mild insult, phlog. But then again, you're not a theist, are you? What if lightgigantic had directed at you "Have you ever met an honest atheist?" Water off a duck's back to you, perhaps, but maybe you have a thicker skin than whoever complained about your post.

Bottom line: if you were moderating this complaint, what would you do? Laugh it off. Tell the person who hit "report" to grow a pair? If you did that, you could expect inevitable accusations of being biased against theists: "You let atheists insult theists with impunity. You have double standards, blah blah blah." So.

To adoucette's infraction. It was for "flaming" - namely characterising a post or series of posts by pjdude made seriously by him as "comedy gold". In this particular instance, another member was similarly infracted. What we had there was in essence a schoolyard-like "gang" of people bullying pjdude using ridicule. The posts ridiculing pjdude had no on-topic content. They were solely concerned with taking pjdude down a notch.

Again, if you were the moderator who received the complaint, what would you do? Tell the complainant that pjdude deserved the insult/ridicule? What message does that send? That ridicule in general is acceptable? Looks like it would be impossible ever to issue such an infraction again - at least not in a way that would not attract instant accusations of inconsistency and bias. So.

It's actually worth from time to time stepping out of the "Poor me, I'm wounded. Life is so unfair" mindset and considering the matter from the point of view of the moderator receiving the complaint.

 

phlogistician:

You're splitting hairs. By posting the rhetorical question "Have you ever met an honest theist?" you're clearly not making an innocent enquiry. You're implying that no theists are honest. Whether that follows from your personal experience or your blind bigotry or whatever is beside the point. It is still an insult to all theists to claim that they are universally dishonest.

It appears to me that your view that all theists are dishonest is eminently unreasonable. Maybe you might start to have a point if you qualified that statement in some way, such as by specifying what, exactly, you think they are dishonest about (if you don't think it's everything).

In general, it is not unreasonable to question the honesty of a group. However, I think it would be a rare group indeed which would consist entirely of dishonest members. The chances of a group of billions of people (theists) all being universally dishonest about everything is vanishingly small. And in fact it is an easily-refuted accusation. Just talk to a few other people and don't rely on your own obviously very limited experience.

How could your comment possibly be aimed at lightgigantic? Well, gee, phlogistician, I don't know. Why not look at the context of the thread in which the warning was given, and in particular at who you were discussing things with and responding to prior to the insult you delivered? Then, apply a modicum of intelligence, and what do you know? Two and two make four.

I've handed out many warnings to theists for insulting atheists. I'm not sure about the one you linked to, but it's quite possible that no complaints were received by moderators regarding posts in that thread.

But what's your argument here? That two wrongs make a right? "Theists insult atheists all the time, so it should be ok for atheists to insult theists, too."

Or are you just playing the usual disgruntled moderated poster who yells "bias!" when he receives an infraction?

Yeah. I've GOT THAT loud and clear. You're very strident about it all, and obviously quite angry. I get that you think that dishonest theists shouldn't, in an ideal world, be allowed to post on your precious science boards. And if they do post, they certainly shouldn't be accorded the same respect as good upstanding atheists. Ideally, moderation should be biased against theists, who are ridiculous. So, insulting them ought to be fair game. I get all that.

And yes, I get it that you won't respect the personal beliefs of others. If those beliefs clash with your own, you'll mock them and insult them rather
than trying to carry on a civil discussion of the issues. I get that.

And yes, I get it that you're stating that you're going to take a defiant stand in all this and damn the consequences. Because you have a right to freedom of speech here, which means that you, as a special person, ought to be able to do what you damn well like. And if some moderator doesn't like that, you'll do it anyway, eventually get yourself banned and/or decide to leave the forum. You'll walk away with your head held high, knowing that the reason you left was evil biased moderator James R, and that it had nothing to do with your incapacity to interact with people with opposing views without insulting them.

I guess there aren't many theists on the forums you moderate, then. Your policies would hardly create a conducive atmosphere for them. If you consistently apply clear bias in favour of your own atheist views, no doubt the theists mostly choose to go elsewhere.

In other words, you're urging me to adopt your views and to moderate this forum in accordance with them, and to take steps to kill any semblance of a level playing field for ideas. In your opinion, sciforums should have a big banner at the top of the page saying "We don't believe in God here. So, if you believe in God, go away! You're not welcome. And we don't care what you have to say about anything because you're all dishonest!"

No. I'm the guy that helps ensure that discussions take place in an environment of civility and mutual respect, or - at the very least - without childish name-calling (such as "Liar! Liar! You're all a bunch of liars!").

 

phlogistician:

Yes. Obviously they can be. Obviously, a lot of theists are honest about many many things.

That's the definition of "faith", isn't it? You don't know but you believe anyway. You're not saying anything earth-shattering there.

Honesty is a quite different matter. Just because you have a faith-based belief doesn't mean it's not an honestly-held belief. Do you have trouble understanding that? Be aware also that many people (probably most people in some areas of their lives) don't have access to the foundations of their beliefs about everything. In other words, they don't necessarily spend a lot of time reflecting on questions such as "why do I believe X?" Not everybody is a critical thinker. But if they aren't, that doesn't mean they are dishonest.

No. I'm accusing you of making the silly assumption that somebody who believes in God is automatically dishonest.

All right. So maybe I misinterpreted you. Let's clear this up. Your claim is that theists are not universally dishonest. Correct? Therefore, you think they are dishonest only about certain things. Maybe it would help if you listed (some of) the things you believe they are dishonest about.

Proofs with regard to beliefs can be tricky things.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to believe you if you say you had Wheaties for breakfast last Tuesday. But perhaps you think I should never beleive such a thing without thoroughly checking all the available evidence. In fact, I should never take anything you say at face value without doing extensive background checks to confirm independently, as far as possible, that you're telling the truth.

I never argued that those things are reasonable. You're heading off on an irrelevant tangent. What was that point about straw men you raised later in your post? Or is it ok for you to erect straw men, but not for me?

No. I made no claim about atrocities being reasonable. You're making that up.

Do I think it will happen? Well, there you're asking for my personal opinion. That has no bearing on whether somebody who believes that is being dishonest or not.

Is such a belief reasonable? Good question. Suppose I was brought up in a God-fearing community, going to church every Sunday, reading my bible, hearing pastors talking about the rapture, and my friends, and my parents, and my teachers. Suppose I developed, somehow, the belief that the rapture will happen as described by all these sources? Would I be dishonest in holding that belief? Where, exactly, did I start being dishonest? Where was my fault?

What if I'd read one or two books with contrary views like yours, that say that the rapture is rubbish and will never happen. Would it be unreasonable for me to weigh up what I know of the arguments for and against and to conclude that your sources are wrong and what I was taught is right? I don't think so.

The thing is: reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. What is reasonable for you, in your position, with your background and education etc. may well be totally unreasonable as far as I am concerned. Reasonableness is an ideal that you construct. Generally, you consider reasonable people to be people just like you. Nobody says "I think I'm unreasonable" or "I think my beliefs are unreasonable".

Got a few examples?

Are you asking my personal opinon, or are you asking what a "reasonable" person (defined as one who shares your personal views) would think about that, or something else?

If it's an honest question, it's hunky dory. If it's a snide remark intended as an insult, things are different. Context.

You didn't limit your statement. "Have you ever met an honest theist?" Implication: have you ever met one who is honest about anything? If you meant something else, you should have written it. Maybe you just need to work on expressing yourself more clearly.

Yes, I have met many people who I consider honest theists. In fact, I was an honest theist myself. For all you know, I still am. So, fire away with your questions. I can speak from experience.

I have absolutely no problem at all with that. People should be called out on blatant dishonesty.

As a moderator yourself, I'm surprised to hear you say that. It's a very black-and-white view. Take trolling, for example. Is that always clear-cut? What about posting off-topic? You say that two moderators will always agree on whether a particular post is a troll or off-topic or whatever, do you?

I'm not sure which forums you moderate, but when a forum gets as much traffic as sciforums I can assure you that no moderator is going to read every word posted. In fact, no group of moderators is going to read every word posted.

I agree!

Your complaints don't count as whines, of course. Because they are reasonable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh dear. You were going so well, and then suddenly you felt the need to call me a name. It diminishes the force of your argument to do that.

As far as "acquiescing" goes, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think that theists should be able to state their beliefs in the same way atheists should. Obviously you disagree. I guess you'd just rather I "acquiesced" to your religious sensibilities.

Fine, but if your ridicule crosses the (fine) line into insult, prepare to be moderated. Don't like it? Then maybe this particular forum is not for you.

Their views are respected by some and not by others. Obviously, those who share such views must hold some measure of respect for them. If all you are saying is that the majority here and now doesn't respect those views, then all you're really doing is cheering on the majority of which you are a part.

There is, in general, no justification for treating minorities with poor manners or lack of civility just because you disagree with them, or even because you dislike them. You're American, aren't you? You ought to have absorbed that from your history.

I'm not aware of falling into that trap. This isn't another one of those straw man thingies, is it?

Again, it's not clear to me whether your asking for my personal opinion, or what I think the view of a "reasonable" person would be (defined as one who shares your views) or something else.

If you're asking me whether I think there is scientific evidence for a supernatural God, my answer is "No". But I don't find the claim that there may, nevertheless, be a supernatural God to be ridiculous on its face. To jump to that conclusion would be to assume that science already has all the answers, and that would be... unscientific.

As for bias, you're right. I, personally, don't believe that the chance that God exists is 50/50. In other words, I have a belief one way or the other. Or maybe not so much a belief as a guess. Hopefully, an educated guess, but then again others may be better educated about such things.

Actually, it's probably worse than that. Thinking about it, I think I actually have a belief that based on what is essentially a best guess. Do you think, therefore, that I don't have an honest belief, or even a belief at all? Is anything I say about the existence of God automatically suspect on the grounds that I don't know?

How about you? You seem to believe there is no God. Have you got absolute evidence that there's no God? I'm guessing you don't. So, is your belief dishonest because you have to admit, in the end, that you just don't know? According to your own argument, that would seem to be the case.

If you seriously ask believers in God why they belief, they'll give you reasons. You may not like the reasons. You may think they aren't reasonable reasons. But that's because you place so much emphasis on science - rightly or wrongly.

You claim there are no gods, do you not? That's a claim. It's a negative claim, but a negative claim is still a claim.

Yes, it is. Presumably, though, according to a true Christian, everybody is a sinner - especially if you happen to be Catholic.

By "special person", I really meant something like what I've been saying above. You believe you're in special, superior position to those ridiculous people who believe in God, because you're educated in science and according to your science God is ridiculous. So, you get to look down your nose at all the silly people who aren't bright enough to share your views. And to point at them and laugh and make fun of them.

Sounds a bit threatening. By all means, if you feel strongly enough about our little disagreement, do your worst. Others before you have tried. Do you think that our little spat here will seriously be important enough to the site owners to demote me as an administrator? I mean, you have to consider this disagreement in light of its effects on the forum in general, which are quite negligible. In a sense, this kind of debate/disagreement is exactly what sciforums is about.

I'm not sure what you mean by special treatment. We have two sub-forums specifically set aside for discussion of religious matters. Ergo, religion is a condoned, even encouraged, topic of discussion. The general rules regarding personal insults, flaming, etc. apply equally in the Religion forum as they do in the Biology forum. So where's the special treatment?

Maybe not. Maybe I'm not reasonable like you.

I'd love to see a debate between Jews and Christians over whether Jesus was the messiah or not. Not a pissing contest, but an honest debate. I'd volunteer to referee that. It seems exactly the sort of discussion that is needed when it comes to religion.

I'm not convinced, as you seem to be, that the theist-atheist disagreement is more important than the Muslim-Christian one or the Christian-Jew, or Hindu-Buddhist. Obviously, the one thing that theists have in common is that they believe in one or more gods. On the basis that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, it makes a lot of sense for them to band up to confront the challenge presented by atheists. You can run to mummy and complain that the nasty men are ganging up against poor little you, but that won't achieve much. You ought to expect them to do that, and prepare for it.

We can't calculate the odds until the various arguments for and against have been put. That's where the level playing field comes in. Both sides need to be able to put their best arguments without fear of ridicule. When they are on the table, then we can assess the overall case on one side or the other. Starting from a position where one side is not allowed to speak is just not fair. See?

So you'd advocate abolishing the Religion subforums and kicking all non-atheists off sciforums, I presume. Fine. Your opinion is noted. I will tell you now: in the current administrative/policy/moderator climate of sciforums it's not going to happen. So, your options are to live with things as they are, move along and find a place that suits you better, or marshall your forces and campaign for the change you'd like to see.

I'll take that as a compliment. I try to make my posts moderately entertaining or interesting to read, where possible. I don't do "straight" so well; it's kinda boring. Also, I think it's very important to maintain a sense of humour. Mine's a very dry one, so a lot of people miss it in my posts. That's their problem.

---

I'm glad you've raised these issues, phlogistician. Thankyou for this thread.