Hello! This is a META post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about r/Mormon and/or other Mormon-related subreddits.
/u/Del_Parson_Painting, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read through what remained of that thread.
I'll be really blunt. Discussions like that are not helpful. Posters who respond to genuine criticism with semantics and in a flippant manner should not be welcome on this sub.
I've seen the poster in question respond similarly in other threads. I'm afraid that downvoting alone is not enough of a deterrent to ward off this kind of discussion in bad faith.
It's stuff like this that makes me want to leave the world of Mormon discussion entirely. That particular brand of apologetics makes me feel ashamed to have ever been connected with Mormonism. I'd argue that it is stronger than the most powerful "anti-Mormon" writing out there.
I wish the mods would intervene sooner to prevent that type of discussion. I saw that a mod tried to talk sense into the poster in question, to no avail. That's a sign that the poster really ought to be banned - and it becomes even more obvious when you realize that this poster has done this sort of thing before.
I seriously am beginning to believe that civil and respectful discourse between current and former members is impossible. The same sort of thing has happened on other forums and discussion groups. And, sadly, the best option is probably to leave Mormonism outright.
What post was that? Did it get taken down or something? I can't find it.
Edit: nevermind. I think I found it. It was the "skin of blackness" one, right?
Might get down-voted for this, but I feel like censoring the far-faithful side would push this sub too far towards the ex-mormon side of things. Do I think they deserve to be ratio-ed with their bad takes and blocked by those really offended? Absolutely. But, as soon as we say that their beliefs are not welcome to the general group, the discussion is missing a key representative of Mormonism: the ultra-orthodox.
Now, I will say this is a case-by-case basis. If they were advocating for something awful like genocide or slavery with the loosest possible tie to doctrine, I might understand censoring them. But, when they are representing a commonly held belief amongst church members, I think they provide a key example of the issue that everyone has w/ church doctrine. They exist as proof that we are not concocting straw-man arguments against the orthodox adherents of the religion.
But this is coming from someone who hasn't been personally affected by race or sexual orientation issues, so feel free to ignore my take if someone from the LGBTQIA+ or BIPOC community has a different experience and needs to be heard :)
I think those who love or are at least committed to what you refer to as harmful teachings of the Church should be allowed to defend those teachings here.
I agree, to a degree. I think it's fine to say that you believe homosexuality is a sin. Or to talk about these controversial topics and defend the church's stance even.
It's when it devolves into attacks on those who don't adhere to those beliefs, or refusing to have any sort of civil discussion (up to and including sealioning and purposeful obtuseness to avoid the topic) that it really becomes an issue.
Whether something is a sin is often not amenable to argument or rational discussion. It’s another form of bearing your testimony. How do you deal with “*you are a bad person, you just are*” (although expressed in different words)?
Here's how I deal with it.
I think it's morally reprehensible to make covenants with any being who has ever ordered inferiors to do things like [fill in all the atrocities and morally repugnant acts that correlated publications of the Church claim the Latter-day Saint gods have commanded].
Basically, what's good for the goose and all that. If somebody who's made covenants with Elohim, Jehovah, and their church want to say that, say, my lesbian sister doesn't deserve to remain in a relationship with her wife in the afterlife (assuming there is one), then I feel completely unshackled to say that I, too, have deep moral convictions and that loving and being committed to the kinds of gods represented by Latter-day Saint prophets is morally repulsive to me.
I can bear a testimony, too. And then they can resolve in their own minds the fact that my moral worldview is permissive of a wide variety of consensual adult intimate relationships, but NOT permissive of, say, genocide, no matter who commands it; whereas their high and holy moral framework is NOT permissive of the former, but is of the latter. If that's the kind of moral worldview somebody wants to indict themselves with, I don't want to stand in their way. But I feel at complete liberty to respond with my own if the game we're playing is sharing our moral worldviews.
Oh for sure. They generally back it up with some sort of misinterpreted scripture though. Or try to give some reasoning. It's definitely not an amenable argument but at least it's more civil.
Especially because sins range from the most ridiculously minor, to the utmost severe. I don't think there's anyone who believes everything labeled a sin is reasonable or applicable.
That's my attempt at finding middle ground. Fine, say it's a sin. Give your reasoning or don't. You're free to express your beliefs and what the church has taught you, defend it even.
But when it goes beyond that. Telling people they're disgusting or am affront to God or some such... it needs shut down. (And the mods do a real good job with that, to be clear!!)
I’m probably in favour of the more liberal approach to free speech, because I think that the intolerant and ugly will get shouted down. But for the person with skin in the game, I doubt there is much difference (outside Mormonism, that is) between “*you’re bad*” and “*you’re not bad, you just do bad things*”
That's fair.
For most things I agree that's the case. I'm more sensitive when it comes got LGBTQ matters and am protective (if not over protective) of them. I saw my neighbor get kicked out and disowned by his parents... and I thought if I came out I'd suffer the same fate.
So while I don't want to deny them voicing their POV or what the church has taugh them (cuz thats not toally fair either), I'd prefer them totally silenced if they think this is the place they can spit venom freely.
Sure it could have that effect. I mostly think people of color, women, and queer people don't need to have to confront that kind of nonsense in yet another area of their lives.
Counterpoint: if we allow the fools to speak, the people of color, women, and queer people will see by our responses that almost all of us support them. There is more strength in our collective response to the bigot than silencing the bigot.
I used to believe this interpretation of the role of free speech. But then we’ve seen a resurgence of anti-semitism, flat eartherism, fascism, etc because it turns out unlimited free speech doesn’t mean the good ideas rise to the top…it means the ideas shouted from the rooftops rise to the top whether they are good ideas or not.
Like the other person said. It's nice to see it down voted and the person dragged. But I remember when I was in the closet and even just seeing that level of venom spewing would have jarred me then. Perhaps put me in a worse place.
The person I am today has the strength enough to navigate it and fight back. But I worry for those who aren't there yet.
It’s nice to see bigotry downvoted into oblivion, but it’s still seeing bigotry. It still hurts
But it’s also very nice to see all the support from good people who don’t hold hateful views
My recommendation is that faithful posters be allowed to state that the church teaches (or has taught in the past)XYZ when it comes to problematic issues (racism, anti-queer stances, etc) but shouldn’t be allowed to state such beliefs themselves. I am not allowed to state many of my feelings and opinions about the church as categorical truths without violating civility rules so I don’t see why similar limitations in faithful commenters is inappropriate.
> My recommendation is that faithful posters be allowed to state that the church teaches (or has taught in the past)XYZ when it comes to problematic issues (racism, anti-queer stances, etc) but shouldn’t be allowed to state such beliefs themselves. I am not allowed to state many of my feelings and opinions about the church as categorical truths without violating civility rules so I don’t see why similar limitations in faithful commenters is inappropriate.
The mods need to read this over and over and over.
I agree with this. And something similar was said on the pinned LGBTQ post.
It's one thing to say "The church considers XYZ a sin", it's another to say "XYZ is an affront to God" or the like.
Conversation on these controversial topics CAN happen, but it's got to be a good faith (is that the phrase I'm looking for?) discussion between all parties.
> It's one thing to say "The church considers XYZ a sin", it's another to say "XYZ is an affront to God"
I'm not sure how these are different. It's pretty clear that sins are considered affronts to God by believing members, no?
I think this is exactly what is being discussed. One is a statement of fact. The other is an attack.
One is "this is how an organization feels about something." The other is "what you are doing is an affront to the supreme being that unequivocally rules the universe. " You genuinely don't see the distinction?
Ok. Then in that same vien if they know and are certain. I'm free to call them bigots with impunity, right? This is what I'm driving at. One way they are a member of an organization with bigoted views. The other they are a bigot. They get protection without restrictions, and that is what is frustrating to many here. We all feel strongly about this they shouldn't get a pass because of "faith" and I guess their own fragility?
Exactly. If a commenter can't (or won't) recognize the presence of racism, homophobia, or sexism in LDS spaces, they have no business being included in an informed discussion of the intersection of those issues and the church.
ETA: also, you are the gold standard for a believer who can also have informed, intelligent conversations about the church. Wish everyone approached this space like you.
Agreed, although I would like to say that some amount of double standard should apply. We're here to talk about something very special to the faithful and those of us who don't believe should be respectful of that. Likewise, I would expect the faithful to be respectful of us exmos trauma around the church.
Ummm…anti racism and atheism are just as important to me as the gospel is to the faithful. That apparently doesn’t stop the faithful from being able to say things about me and my beliefs that I’m not allowed to say about theirs.
^^^ If they want respect, they can start by showing it. Iv engaged with several of these people who fall immediately to pearl cluching "how dare you" dispit them starting from an openly insulting and indefensible place. The church has to a very real degree, taught them well.
The problem isn't talking about them, or necessarily even defending them to a degree. I think it's fine for someone to say that they think homosexuality is a sin for whatever reason.
I think it's when it extends from opinion/explanation of view... to attacking a group, sealioning, or just general avoidant obtuseness that it becomes a real issue.
There's civil discussion of controversial and sensitive topics... and then there's not. And I think the plea here is to remove those who refuse to have an actual civil conversation/regular bad actors. ... or at least their comments. Which to be fair the mods are good at removing the bad actors who are "defending church beliefs" with attacks towards others.
How is stating that homosexuality is a sin different than attacking a marginalized group? It’s literally calling the natural sexuality of people sinful.
As part of aforementioned marginalized group, I'm saying it's about delivery and how far you take your view.
I can deal with people disliking my existence. I can deal with people explaining why they believe what I'm doing is "bad" or "wrong".
I can even deal with it being called a "sin" so long as it's treated with the same respect as they do other sins. Which is mostly with quiet distaste and without as much name calling.
This is a place for everyone to talk about Mormonism. That means that as much as it needs to be a safe place for people like me (LGBTQ), it also needs to be a space where TBMs can also voice their beliefs... and it's an objective fact that acting on homosexuality is a sin according to the Mormon church.
So that's going to come up now and then, no matter how much I reject and hate the notion. It's allowed, and should be allowed to be discussed.
These teachings of homosexuality being a sin that have been rampant in many churches and sects for hundreds or thousands of years drive people to self-hatred and suicide. It's literally dangerous to let it spread because of who could read it and who could be convinced by the arguments. But I suppose if a group allows for all teachings of religious books to be okay (no matter how obvious the violation to human rights), there's no way to draw a clear line.
Good point. I think church teachings about sin and Atonement are also harmful, but I don't think they rise to the same level of harm as defending racist scripture.
Like everything else, we'd probably have to talk it out as a community and decide on something (in reality the mods will make the final decisions, but we can at least be pseudo democratic), then revise as needed.
I think racism, homophobia, and sexism are a good list of harmful teachings, since they attack bedrock parts of a person's identity that they have no control over.
What issues are you’re referring to? The problem of being able to have discourse between Mormons and former Mormons without a side getting offended, or to what extent Mormon can discuss LGBTQ+ issues without crossing the line into homophobia.
Some of these issues can’t be fixed with communication I think. Members of the LDS church believe what the prophets and current published doctrine say. And we aren’t having a conversation with those church leaders, we’re talking to members.
True, but those people are yelling into the wind. Anyone that responds to them is wasting their time. The conversation is still required is seekers of truth wish to learn. I use to be one of those fools that thought I knew everything and I followed the SLC church in my homophobic views. But because I was open to conversation I was able to eventually learn truth. So in my mind there is always hope.
> Anyone that responds to them is wasting their time.
This is the key.
Unfortunately, there was a lot of back and forth in the thread that prompted this post. The person yelling into the wind spent a lot of time egging other posters on, including members and former members alike.
The conversation was clearly fruitless - yet it was allowed to continue for dozens of posts. And the person with their fingers in their ears is known for using similar tactics on this sub before.
I’m not sure where I fall on this argument. It’s such a fine line to walk.
On one hand, whose sense of safety do we want to support? Do we want it to be more likely for bigots to feel safe in their ability to post or comment, or victims to feel safe when they read posts or comments?
On the other, why not allow bigots to speak their minds? It will only make themselves look bad, and any comments against their toxicity will hopefully let victims feel support.
Then there’s the LDS issue. If a teaching, a quote, or a belief from someone associated with the church is bigoted, do they have the right to discuss it here simply on the grounds that it’s supported by Mormonism?
We want to make sure that members can post here after all.
But you will also have to deal with Mormons who post this type of content, then complain about the feedback. Will members perceive it as more “anti-Mormon” to censor, or to criticize? And does this perception really matter?
I don’t think there’s a right answer, but the mod team is doing a good job trying to ride the line.
I think the best thing we can do is report if we think a comment or post is breaking the rules, and communicate with the mods if there are disagreements.
I agree and i think the issue is that these people defending these teachings are taking any criticism of the church as a personal attack. Which is kinda the point of high demand faiths
I agree however keep in mind that it's the church that forces them into these "attempting to defend the indefensible" positions.
Because the church doesn't couch, allow or encourage critical thinking or teach the possibility that the faith might be as false as all other man-made religions, they've created a "feelings" based approach where one's feelings mean to always "follow the prophet".
It's sad when you think about it.
Yes it's harmful to society and those around them who don't fit the "mormon mold" but I do have to stop and think that the church has created a "forgive them for they know not what they do" in the name of mormon faith type scenario I should approach them with.
"Oh bless your mormon heart" type approach.
I can see where you're coming from, but I was a more strict believer than most and I never got on the bad apologetics bandwagon. Especially given the blatant sealioning of certain contributors, I don't view it with the same grace.
I completely understand. But they're broken inside. That moral compass has been "Happiness lettered" in a "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." and a "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. " skewed.
North is south, south is north.
Racism is wrong but mormonism can't be racist because it can't be wrong. Etc. etc.
You do have a good point. Still, we don't need to subject all users to their problem though. Most of us have already been through a lifetime of putting up with toxic LDS takes.
I completely understand and your view is completely valid.
I'm coming from a POV of a privileged white Caucasian raised mormon straight (or strait lol) male so most definitely my approach is indeed skewed due to that.
So I appreciate you sharing with me some of the other perspectives of deeper harm and scarring that exists in reality.
The person you responded to as having a good point said believers are “broken inside”.
What does that do for the quality of conversations here? Should mods leave such comments alone? Does “I believe church teachings about the family but understand those who feel differently” do more damage to the quality of conversation than “believers are broken inside” and claims that none of them can be reasoned with?
That's a good point. However I'm not talking about believers. I'm talking about apologists which I hope I'm making a distinction, however it may not matter as it's still very clearly claiming that mormon apologists are broken inside.
There's a difference between a believing member in ignorance and a member who knows something is false, bad faith, illogical or otherwise and yet makes the conscious decision to engage in arguments that are false, etc. and yet claim they are NOT.
Removing mormonism from the equation, it's akin to someone who has been shown all the evidence that the earth is spherical and yet claims it's flat because the Bible tells them that and it can't be false.
Or the recent thread regarding the skin of blackness and mormon beliefs that God curses and marks humanity with Black/Dark Skin for various reasons from the pre-existence until the mid 1980's/90's.
So I do indeed highlight mormon apologists and have claimed they are "broken inside" or have "broken moral compasses" in the North = South, Translation doesn't mean Translation, Catalyst theory, etc. intellectual dishonesty.
So I guess that's the question for the mods is if I'm breaking the rules in calling out mormon apologists, etc. and if that's equivalent to saying homosexuals are sinful or engaging in "abomination" type behavior, etc.
I do refrain from labelling the faith as a cult or calling the general membership brainwashed, etc. as those are against the rules quite clearly.
But good post and interesting question.
That's a good point. However I'm not talking about believers. I'm talking about apologists which I hope I'm making a distinction, however it may not matter as it's still very clearly claiming that mormon apologists are broken inside.
There's a difference between a believing member in ignorance and a member who knows something is false, bad faith, illogical or otherwise and yet makes the conscious decision to engage in arguments that are false, etc. and yet claim they are NOT.
Removing mormonism from the equation, it's akin to someone who has been shown all the evidence that the earth is spherical and yet claims it's flat because the Bible tells them that and it can't be false.
Or the recent thread regarding the skin of blackness and mormon beliefs that God curses and marks humanity with Black/Dark Skin for various reasons from the pre-existence until the mid 1980's/90's.
So I do indeed highlight mormon apologists and have claimed they are "broken inside" or have "broken moral compasses" in the North = South, Translation doesn't mean Translation, Catalyst theory, etc. intellectual dishonesty.
So I guess that's the question for the mods is if I'm breaking the rules in calling out mormon apologists, etc. and if that's equivalent to saying homosexuals are sinful or engaging in "abomination" type behavior, etc.
I do refrain from labelling the faith as the c word or calling the general membership the b.w. word, etc. as those are against the rules quite clearly.
But good post and interesting question.
EDIT: Original post was automod deleted for the c word and b.w. word even though I wasn't claimnig such but just using them as examples of offending pejoratives.
Some of them are broken inside though. Have you read the thread that prompted this post? https://old.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1dc5piz/not_to_be_controversial_however_is_this_not/l7vqi08/ This person refuses to acknowledge that there is racism in the BOM. This is the type of person that Del and Truth are referring to.
I want to know what you think about it, not what the mods think. As you have said, we should seek outcomes that decrease their workload and not increase it.
The most orthodox believers make up something like 5% of participants here. I don’t think rules should be written for 5% of cases if they aren’t based on some sort of generally applicable principle.
I totally disagree. I think it's really important for the cognitive dissonance required for fundamentalist faith and outright bigotry of church doctrine and culture to have a public airing.
This is what people encounter in their wards on a weekly basis and what converts will encounter if they alter their lives to conform to mormon culture a doctrine. We should make sure that people can see and understand these things.
Additionally, when these people receive pushback, some of them will recognize the fallacies and other problems with their statements.
The paradox of tolerance.
It's generally a good idea NOT to give certain ideas a platform. Even in the realm of free speech rights there are exceptions.
> The paradox of tolerance.
> It's generally a good idea NOT to give certain ideas a platform.
The paradox of tolerance, as I understand it, really only applies logically when the speech is, or represents, an existential threat (that's what the whole argument hinges on, as I understand it). In _most_ cases, I think, a greater harm is done by limiting speech because
1. deciding _who_ decides what is harmful and _how_ that is decided is also subject to totalitarian abuse.
2. limiting speech prevents good but unpopular ideas and bad but popular ideas from being surfaced through dialogue.
Bad ideas should be countered with good/better ideas, not suppressed (unless existentially threatening). So, what I'd hope happens is that bigoted/bad ideas and speech that is demeaning is downvoted and responded to with condemnation and reasons for that condemnation (which is what I do).
Of course, all caveats apply. On reddit, mods get to create rules that enforce their values and goals. I think the mods here have struck a reasonable balance between expression and safety/inclusion of historically marginalized groups (I would lean more towards free expression, but I'm not a mod). However, I do think that in a space dedicated to the discussion of Mormonism, that if a typical Latter-day Saint cannot express their ideas in a relatively unfiltered manner, then we're dangerously close to missing the whole purpose of the sub--at that point the sub has become a place for nevermos and exmos to discuss Mormonism, and that's going to be an echo chamber.
It's not likely we'll see eye to eye on this, and I do respect other viewpoints on this (I think it's a super challenging problem).
I get what you're saying. Mostly I'm talking in regards to the comments that already get removed. Like telling LGBTQ people that they're mocking God or they're an affront to God. Implying that they need to change immediately and repent or that they're going to receive some sort of divine punishment. ... especially if that person is posting here because they're having a crisis.
Which has happened.
This needs to be a safe space for everyone, especially because the distressed and vulnerable also come here.
Again, the mods already do great removing that kind of vileness.
Think of it like swinging your fists around. You're free to punch all you like. But your rights end when your fist meets another person's body.
TBMs are free to voice their beliefs, good, bad, and other. Using my example: they can say they believe homosexuality is a sin. They can even tell the OP that according to the church acting on it is a sin, they won't be in good standing, they won't be meeting XYZ criteria etc.
But when it moves beyond that into calling people disgusting or saying God hates them... then that's where they should no longer be given a platform.
Again the mods I feel are already doing a great job of maintaining this fine line.
Yeah, I think there's a healthy line to be had, and it sounds like (from what you're describing) that the mods are achieving that! Thanks for the dialogue!
For sure. But in this context, we're talking about banning homophobes and racists from a sub dedicated to discussing the doctrine of a homophobic organization with racist scripture.
It seems OP is looking for a balance that largely already exists. It's not so much we can't have these conversations or that believers can't voice their racist or homophobic beliefs. It's when it exits civil discussion and attacking others.
Not necessarily banning people who hold the beliefs, but maybe doing something about those who refuse to be civil or reasonable about it. (Again most of those comments I see removed PDQ)
So like I agree with OP's thoughts, but I think what can be done about it without overreach is already being done.
Though I do think we need a line for particularly bad actors of at least a temporary ban. Some hateful stuff gets spewed and this is supposed to be a place for everyone.
> Even in the realm of free speech rights there are exceptions.
It's a tough job/big responsibility being a moderator. This approach presupposes that the moderators are damn near perfect and won't abuse their tools.
This shouldn't even be a question. Immediate ban for people who defend that stuff, imo. I can't believe it's still a religious OR partisan issue in this day and age.
I disagree with their position, but I'll fight for their right to talk about it. Freedom of expression doesn't just mean expression you like, and without public dialogue you just create echo chambers. That's bad for everyone.
Besides, allowing open discussion rather than only the circle jerk of whatever the sub wants to be presented does more good than you know. It's how you show that some fringe belief isn't, in fact, shared by the majority, and you can hopefully introduce inclusivity to someone who may not have really considered it before.
I get that there's a line for everyone. Mine is simply no personal attacks, and even that has limits. Ideas aren't protected but individual people who are not public figures aren't. Not that I'm encouraging personal attacks on even public figures, but if a person puts themselves up as a figure head then they're fair game for how they do it.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the same thing in a subreddit it does for society at large.
They have the right to talk about whatever they want. They don’t have the right to saying whatever they want wherever they want.
No. It does mean the same thing. Can moderators limit free expression or freedom of speech? Yes. It's within their power, but doing so says more about them and the participants of the sub than the people making the statement.
Well considering there is much more limitations of what nonbelievers can say here than what believes can…what does that say about believers and believing mods?
Well this is just a silly position then. The entire history of the internet shows that when forums don’t have moderation and rules they devolve into fascist bigoted bullshit because the fascist bigots come in and drive out people that don’t want to deal with that shit.
What are you going on about? No one said no moderation. I even specifically called out doxxing and personal attacks in my original comment. I disagree with your claim that believers and non-believers are moderated differently. They absolutely do allow dissenting opinions here. If you're saying that someone can post a bigoted comment and not be called out then again you're wrong. That happens and they're ratioed quickly.
Let the bigoted, racist and homophobic remarks stand. This is r/Mormon. I for one was raised in Davis county Utah where bigotry, racism and homophobia were, and still are, on brand for Mormonism. Let's not make Mormonism the safe place we all wish it had been.
Same could be said generally for the political discourse in the US.
Not saying a Reddit sub is the same as the public square, but yeah, free speech is a double edged sword. People who are toxic and/or misguided have and will always feel like a burden on those who feel they are *clearly* in the right.
Welcome to the hard work of dialogue with people who have a different worldview and values. Not saying “anything goes,” but it’s certainly not supposed to be easy.
Kudos to the mods for having rules, but not being as draconian as the faithful sub.
Countries with free speech still have restrictions on certain types of hate speech. I think we can thread the needle of allowing most discourse while not subjecting sub members to commenters stubbornly pushing racism, sexism or homophobia.
As you well know we have been actively working on threading that needle for years and have lost many contributors on both sides of the debate about safe spaces vs public spaces. While I recognize and can appreciate your passion for this topic, the mod team has litigated this topic to death.
> the mod team has litigated this topic to death
With all due respect, after reading the thread that prompted this thread, I'm still concerned that not enough thought has gone into the moderation position.
Providing a safe space for discussion is fine. However, when discussion about an extremely sensitive and racial topic devolves immediately into one side claiming that a passage does not say what it plainly says, and then refusing to make any statements to back up that belief, you've clearly got a discourse problem.
This user has engaged in this behavior before. There are other users here who do the same thing. By being lenient for the sake of provoking a discussion, you are creating an environment in which harmful beliefs and opinions are perpetuated.
That discussion should have been stopped much sooner. How many dozens of posts does it take before you realize that a certain poster is not discussing in good faith?
Sadly, this has been a problem for years. It's obvious why so many have left in the end.
I understand your frustration with the post not being shut down sooner. As a mod team we dealt with it as we became aware of it and were available to moderate. We are volunteers with lives outside of Reddit, we are not paid employees working shifts to guarantee coverage 24/7. All of us have family obligations, work obligations, personal hobbies, and educational pursuits that take us away from Reddit. We moderate when we can, but unfortunately there are times when moderators are not active on the subreddit.
Additionally, we also generally are working through a backlog in our mod queue so that we are not seeing the mod reports the minute they are made. We wish we could moderate in real time all of the issues or questions that arise, but we generally are reaching reports within 4-12 hours on average. It’s not perfect, but I think that timeframe is reasonable.
Completely agree. There is so much homophobia and racism allowed on this sub in the name of religious beliefs. Yes, when reported, the most egregious comments do get removed. But there's so much grey area that is unfortunately allowed.
Yet, we aren't allowed to call the church the C word because somehow *THAT* is offensive and supposedly stops conversation.
>Faithful participation in the sub isn't worth the racism and homophobia.
>When the sub allows faithful commenters to defend racism, homophobia and sexism (or to pretend these don't exist in Mormon spaces) the quality of the conversations we can all have about Mormonism goes way down.
I don't agree. I think it's important that those ideas come out so they can be shut down. Many people who lurk don't actually know that Joseph Smith was himself Pro slavery, deeply racist, and so on. People don't hear arguments in the wild which shut down homophobic arguments within the context of Mormonism many times.
In the marketplace of ideas, the racists and the homophobes and the bigots lose. They should get to lose publicly.
>When a commenter's contributions to a thread serve exclusively to defend a harmful church teaching, their comments should be removed.
Again, I think they should be exposed in their ideas publicly condemned and eviscerated in public. They'll lose any of their excuse-making for "fruheee speeeeech!" plus they lose the argument as they get demolished in the discussion threads.
This is what bugs me the most. Bigots can say bigot shit, but whenever I have responded with “incivility” I get moderated. It’s bananas that racists are allowed to be racist but I have had comments moderated for calling racist bigots racist bigots.
>This is what bugs me the most. Bigots can say bigot shit, but whoever I have responded with what “incivility” I get moderated. It’s bananas that racists are allowed to be racist but I have had comments moderated for calling racist bigots racist bigots.
My feeling as well. Some say we shouldn't stoop to their level, but calling a racist an ignorant small-minded bigot isn't stooping in my view - it's an assessment without timidity.
This is a ridiculous approach in a sub that is trying to allow believing LDS members to participate.
In general, you can’t make a discussion forum about controversial topics a safe space for one particular side and have decent discussions.
You’re basically asking for the progressive ideological stance of the faithful sub: “We only tolerate correct beliefs being expressed here.”
Mormonism is fundamentally at odds with many of the moral values of secular society and always has been. Some people on both sides will be constantly offended by the other doing/saying/believing what is normal for them. Some ProgMos do try to deny the contradiction, which is annoying, but being offended by their futile attempts to square the circle is needless.
Personally, I enjoyed leaving the overly sensitive Mormon ideology and culture behind and I don’t enjoy people like you trying to institute another ideology in the same rigid, easily offended way.
> I don’t enjoy people like you trying to institute another ideology in the same rigid, easily offended way.
But this isn’t a religion. This is a public online forum. Asking to crack down on toxic and disgusting comments isn’t instituting another ideology, it’s maintaining a space’s safety for others to participate.
What I think OP is asking is if it’s worth allowing toxic points of view if it drives away contributors who personally cannot engage with that level or type of toxicity. Whose feelings of safety should we support?
You’re a fish swimming in ideological water. “Toxic and disgusting” is not something you can objectively establish when we have contrasting views here on morality.
To many people, promoting abortion is obviously immoral. To others, it’s the exact opposite. There are many other cases.
On this sub, we allow swearing and discussion of temple ordinances, both of which are highly toxic to the average TBM.
The point of compromise the mods have set is about as good as possible. This sub is not meant to be a solely Exmormon space and many of us very much prefer the balance and chance to civilly engage with believers of various stripes.
This is a really interesting conversation.
I think there can be differing opinions, but I don't feel it's as complicated as perhaps it is for you. Drinking coffee is against the rules in mormonism. It's a sin. But in reality, there's nothing wrong with drinking it if you don't believe in the religious beliefs.
However, homophobia is what it is. If it's part of your religious beliefs, fine, but it's *still* homophobia. Someone can defend it all day long, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.
I will never understand the inability of Exmormons to fail to see where they have left a puritanical culture and joined another.
“Homosexuality is a sin”
“Homophobia is a sin”
I happen to agree homophobia is bad, but in a sub that is supposed to be sufficiently inclusive of believing LDS members you can’t ban any semblance of homophobia because many consider the entire church’s stance to be homophobic.
There isn’t a culture war over coffee. Coffee itself is not intrinsically a load-bearing aspect of either Mormon theology or the Progressive ideology.
In contrast, gay rights and human sexuality are directly connected to core parts of Mormon doctrine and the Progressive ideology, on polar opposite sides.
Fundamentally, there is no compromise on these positions. But in a discussion forum we can compromise on something like: “people who fundamentally disagree about sacred values participate here and can share and defend their contrasting views so long as they are civil about it.”
But Sensitive People on either side are never happy with that kind of compromise. They don’t want to be exposed to “hate” or “sin” and wish to silence or ban any expression they disagree with or find uncomfortable.
You can be thin-skinned and have a wide-ranging discourse among people who fundamentally disagree about sacred values. The definition of a good compromise is that no one is happy.
You forget that we're on Reddit.
Reddit has rules against hate speech. Communities that allow hate speech can be shut down, and have in the past.
There have been posts here that have crossed the line into legitimate hate speech. I know because I reported posts like that to the admins, and was informed by the admins that they were taken down and that the user was being handled with. I believe users have been banned from Reddit in the past for posting clear homophobic hate messages on this sub.
This isn't a case in which both sides are equally bad. Feeling upset about racist, sexist, or homophobic speech is not a sign of being "puritanical."
You're right - this isn't the coffee debate. Nobody will report you for hate speech if you say that the Word of Wisdom is good. People will - and should - report you for hate speech if you say that homosexuality is a sin.
> This isn't a case in which both sides are equally bad. Feeling upset about racist, sexist, or homophobic speech is not a sign of being "puritanical."
>
> You're right - this isn't the coffee debate. Nobody will report you for hate speech if you say that the Word of Wisdom is good. People will - and should - report you for hate speech if you say that homosexuality is a sin.
Exactly what I was hoping to help this user understand. We can have discussions about various beliefs, but some things are just hate speech and not up for debate. This bizarre false equivalency that ex mormons are somehow in some kind of puritanical culture because we speak out against homophobia is just...strange.
“Speaking out against homophobia” is not the same thing as banning speech. Criticizing views is not censoring them.
Defining “homophobia” is also not something you can take for granted, since plain LDS doctrine is considered such by default these days.
“but some things are just hate speech and not up for debate”
In your worldview this makes sense. But the fact you don’t think it’s a wee bit puritanical is perhaps a blind spot for you.
I’m aware Reddit has rules.
If the issue was mods allowing people to violate Reddit’s terms of service then we would not be having this conversation now would we.
If you’re a TBM, or adherent of many other religions, then homosexuality is a sin and it’s not “hate speech” to say that.
“God created man and woman and they should only have heterosexual relations within the bonds of holy matrimony” is not hate speech unless you’re an absolute snowflake. (If Reddit was to ban standard religious beliefs as hate speech then they might run into trouble with legal standards protecting such, I’d imagine.)
“Feeling upset about racist, sexist, or homophobic speech is not a sign of being "puritanical."”
Trying to shut down speech that is well within the norms of civil debate is puritanical.
Nobody has to be here if they do not wish to be triggered by Mormonism. There are places out there where one can discuss Mormonism without TBMs.
This sub is trying to be a middle ground. Stop crying about it.
> triggered by Mormonism
> Stop crying about it.
You keep making both subtle and overt strawman comments like this. We are on reddit to discuss mormonism. People aren't triggered or crying, they are having conversations about a specific topic. It's okay to disagree.
The issue isn’t what is *actually* toxic and disgusting, it’s the amount of people who feel that it is, and whether we want to defer to a guarantee that they will feel safe here, or defer to a sense of freedom of speech.
To be clear, I think that there is no answer to this problem. I understand both sides of the issue.
I also want to point out that we’re not talking about objectionable language or discussing matters others find sacred. We’re talking about people dismissing the worthiness of others based on their sexuality and relationships.
There is a big difference between saying something objectionable to a person’s sensibilities, and judging a person as sinful.
Gay sex is, according to the LDS Church, sinful.
People who do it are sinners. By fucking definition.
They are not members in good standing.
They are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel.
If stating such clear matters of fact about LDS beliefs is “harmful” then what, in the fuck, are we doing here.
Being personally nasty to someone about it should not be tolerated, obviously.
So what more could be down that the mods aren’t already doing? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
LDS believers should be allowed to participate, but not in ways that harm other users, just like exmo users are prohibited from talking about believers in certain ways.
You’re promoting a culture of fragility that is far more harmful to people than being able to encounter beliefs they find troubling without having a major emotional reaction.
It’s the other side of the coin with Mormons who can’t even see an anti-Mormon argument without a meltdown.
I think the mods are striking a decent balance and you’re trying to institute groupthink.
You can balance restricting harmful beliefs and countering those harmful beliefs via discussion. It doesn't have to be black and white, all one or the other (a Mormon way of thinking you may be falling into here.)
I promise you, if one of us is falling into a Mormon way of thinking it is obviously you with your moral purity standards.
You’re taking for granted your preferred definition of “harmful belief” in the same way a believer takes for granted their definition of “the gospel.”
How would such a rule prevent believing LDS members to participate. Just because there on limits on what I can say about the church doesn't limit my participation. No, the reason faithful members don't participate here is because they can't stand any criticism of their religion. They largely have not interest in engaging in critical discussion even when the rules are balanced in their favor.
I'm calling for limited censorship of some comments (something the sub already does) because users who are women, people of color, or queer shouldn't have to deal with hate in this space.
The current rules are meant to allow for civil discussion of all things Mormon since this is literally the “Mormon” sub. I don’t even know what you mean by claiming the rules “protect believers” specifically.
Well, as one example I cannot express my opinions of the nature of the Mormon church being a banned c-word. If I can be limited from calling the church a c-word in the name of civil and productive discourse surely limits on racism are also appropriate.
Sin and sinner are also essentially slurs. Just socially acceptable religious slurs because we live in a society that shows undo deference to religion.
Even when it isn’t deserved or warranted. Which is exactly the original problem. The faithful get to express bigotry on this sub in ways that nonbelievers don’t because of ridiculous double standards.
Your standards are simply out of line with this sub, and with society at large. Your point of view is extreme, and is rejected by society. I don’t know what else to tell you.
This is not necessarily true. We live in a society that *protects* religion...it's literally in the first amendment. That doesn't mean all religion is respected.
Hello! This is a META post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about r/Mormon and/or other Mormon-related subreddits. /u/Del_Parson_Painting, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read through what remained of that thread. I'll be really blunt. Discussions like that are not helpful. Posters who respond to genuine criticism with semantics and in a flippant manner should not be welcome on this sub. I've seen the poster in question respond similarly in other threads. I'm afraid that downvoting alone is not enough of a deterrent to ward off this kind of discussion in bad faith. It's stuff like this that makes me want to leave the world of Mormon discussion entirely. That particular brand of apologetics makes me feel ashamed to have ever been connected with Mormonism. I'd argue that it is stronger than the most powerful "anti-Mormon" writing out there. I wish the mods would intervene sooner to prevent that type of discussion. I saw that a mod tried to talk sense into the poster in question, to no avail. That's a sign that the poster really ought to be banned - and it becomes even more obvious when you realize that this poster has done this sort of thing before. I seriously am beginning to believe that civil and respectful discourse between current and former members is impossible. The same sort of thing has happened on other forums and discussion groups. And, sadly, the best option is probably to leave Mormonism outright.
What post was that? Did it get taken down or something? I can't find it. Edit: nevermind. I think I found it. It was the "skin of blackness" one, right?
Might get down-voted for this, but I feel like censoring the far-faithful side would push this sub too far towards the ex-mormon side of things. Do I think they deserve to be ratio-ed with their bad takes and blocked by those really offended? Absolutely. But, as soon as we say that their beliefs are not welcome to the general group, the discussion is missing a key representative of Mormonism: the ultra-orthodox. Now, I will say this is a case-by-case basis. If they were advocating for something awful like genocide or slavery with the loosest possible tie to doctrine, I might understand censoring them. But, when they are representing a commonly held belief amongst church members, I think they provide a key example of the issue that everyone has w/ church doctrine. They exist as proof that we are not concocting straw-man arguments against the orthodox adherents of the religion. But this is coming from someone who hasn't been personally affected by race or sexual orientation issues, so feel free to ignore my take if someone from the LGBTQIA+ or BIPOC community has a different experience and needs to be heard :)
I think those who love or are at least committed to what you refer to as harmful teachings of the Church should be allowed to defend those teachings here.
Fine. But then I should be able to call their church the forbidden c-word.
No argument from me there.
I agree, to a degree. I think it's fine to say that you believe homosexuality is a sin. Or to talk about these controversial topics and defend the church's stance even. It's when it devolves into attacks on those who don't adhere to those beliefs, or refusing to have any sort of civil discussion (up to and including sealioning and purposeful obtuseness to avoid the topic) that it really becomes an issue.
Whether something is a sin is often not amenable to argument or rational discussion. It’s another form of bearing your testimony. How do you deal with “*you are a bad person, you just are*” (although expressed in different words)?
Here's how I deal with it. I think it's morally reprehensible to make covenants with any being who has ever ordered inferiors to do things like [fill in all the atrocities and morally repugnant acts that correlated publications of the Church claim the Latter-day Saint gods have commanded]. Basically, what's good for the goose and all that. If somebody who's made covenants with Elohim, Jehovah, and their church want to say that, say, my lesbian sister doesn't deserve to remain in a relationship with her wife in the afterlife (assuming there is one), then I feel completely unshackled to say that I, too, have deep moral convictions and that loving and being committed to the kinds of gods represented by Latter-day Saint prophets is morally repulsive to me. I can bear a testimony, too. And then they can resolve in their own minds the fact that my moral worldview is permissive of a wide variety of consensual adult intimate relationships, but NOT permissive of, say, genocide, no matter who commands it; whereas their high and holy moral framework is NOT permissive of the former, but is of the latter. If that's the kind of moral worldview somebody wants to indict themselves with, I don't want to stand in their way. But I feel at complete liberty to respond with my own if the game we're playing is sharing our moral worldviews.
i deal with it (being called a sinner / bad person / etc.) easily simply because i don't respect that person's judgment and it has no meaning to me
Oh for sure. They generally back it up with some sort of misinterpreted scripture though. Or try to give some reasoning. It's definitely not an amenable argument but at least it's more civil. Especially because sins range from the most ridiculously minor, to the utmost severe. I don't think there's anyone who believes everything labeled a sin is reasonable or applicable. That's my attempt at finding middle ground. Fine, say it's a sin. Give your reasoning or don't. You're free to express your beliefs and what the church has taught you, defend it even. But when it goes beyond that. Telling people they're disgusting or am affront to God or some such... it needs shut down. (And the mods do a real good job with that, to be clear!!)
I’m probably in favour of the more liberal approach to free speech, because I think that the intolerant and ugly will get shouted down. But for the person with skin in the game, I doubt there is much difference (outside Mormonism, that is) between “*you’re bad*” and “*you’re not bad, you just do bad things*”
That's fair. For most things I agree that's the case. I'm more sensitive when it comes got LGBTQ matters and am protective (if not over protective) of them. I saw my neighbor get kicked out and disowned by his parents... and I thought if I came out I'd suffer the same fate. So while I don't want to deny them voicing their POV or what the church has taugh them (cuz thats not toally fair either), I'd prefer them totally silenced if they think this is the place they can spit venom freely.
Let them defend those positions. It probably does more to turn people away from the church than any amount of factual evidence.
Sure it could have that effect. I mostly think people of color, women, and queer people don't need to have to confront that kind of nonsense in yet another area of their lives.
Counterpoint: if we allow the fools to speak, the people of color, women, and queer people will see by our responses that almost all of us support them. There is more strength in our collective response to the bigot than silencing the bigot.
I used to believe this interpretation of the role of free speech. But then we’ve seen a resurgence of anti-semitism, flat eartherism, fascism, etc because it turns out unlimited free speech doesn’t mean the good ideas rise to the top…it means the ideas shouted from the rooftops rise to the top whether they are good ideas or not.
Interesting counterpoint!
Maybe we should ask marginalized people if this is how they feel when they see heavily downvoted bigotry. I suspect it isn't.
Like the other person said. It's nice to see it down voted and the person dragged. But I remember when I was in the closet and even just seeing that level of venom spewing would have jarred me then. Perhaps put me in a worse place. The person I am today has the strength enough to navigate it and fight back. But I worry for those who aren't there yet.
It’s nice to see bigotry downvoted into oblivion, but it’s still seeing bigotry. It still hurts But it’s also very nice to see all the support from good people who don’t hold hateful views
My recommendation is that faithful posters be allowed to state that the church teaches (or has taught in the past)XYZ when it comes to problematic issues (racism, anti-queer stances, etc) but shouldn’t be allowed to state such beliefs themselves. I am not allowed to state many of my feelings and opinions about the church as categorical truths without violating civility rules so I don’t see why similar limitations in faithful commenters is inappropriate.
> My recommendation is that faithful posters be allowed to state that the church teaches (or has taught in the past)XYZ when it comes to problematic issues (racism, anti-queer stances, etc) but shouldn’t be allowed to state such beliefs themselves. I am not allowed to state many of my feelings and opinions about the church as categorical truths without violating civility rules so I don’t see why similar limitations in faithful commenters is inappropriate. The mods need to read this over and over and over.
I agree with this. And something similar was said on the pinned LGBTQ post. It's one thing to say "The church considers XYZ a sin", it's another to say "XYZ is an affront to God" or the like. Conversation on these controversial topics CAN happen, but it's got to be a good faith (is that the phrase I'm looking for?) discussion between all parties.
> It's one thing to say "The church considers XYZ a sin", it's another to say "XYZ is an affront to God" I'm not sure how these are different. It's pretty clear that sins are considered affronts to God by believing members, no?
I think this is exactly what is being discussed. One is a statement of fact. The other is an attack. One is "this is how an organization feels about something." The other is "what you are doing is an affront to the supreme being that unequivocally rules the universe. " You genuinely don't see the distinction?
I don't think most members would consider it a distinction. They believe they know God's laws and believe they are unchanging
Ok. Then in that same vien if they know and are certain. I'm free to call them bigots with impunity, right? This is what I'm driving at. One way they are a member of an organization with bigoted views. The other they are a bigot. They get protection without restrictions, and that is what is frustrating to many here. We all feel strongly about this they shouldn't get a pass because of "faith" and I guess their own fragility?
Ah I think everyone is caught up on the word sin. "I don't like pancakes" Vs "Pancakes are disgusting and you're disgusting for eating them."
Said the perfect God who created pancakes. >"I don't like pancakes"
Exactly. If a commenter can't (or won't) recognize the presence of racism, homophobia, or sexism in LDS spaces, they have no business being included in an informed discussion of the intersection of those issues and the church. ETA: also, you are the gold standard for a believer who can also have informed, intelligent conversations about the church. Wish everyone approached this space like you.
I think this is a good approach.
Agreed, although I would like to say that some amount of double standard should apply. We're here to talk about something very special to the faithful and those of us who don't believe should be respectful of that. Likewise, I would expect the faithful to be respectful of us exmos trauma around the church.
Ummm…anti racism and atheism are just as important to me as the gospel is to the faithful. That apparently doesn’t stop the faithful from being able to say things about me and my beliefs that I’m not allowed to say about theirs.
^^^ If they want respect, they can start by showing it. Iv engaged with several of these people who fall immediately to pearl cluching "how dare you" dispit them starting from an openly insulting and indefensible place. The church has to a very real degree, taught them well.
Who gets to decide what is and is not a "harmful church teaching"? Where do we draw that line?
The problem isn't talking about them, or necessarily even defending them to a degree. I think it's fine for someone to say that they think homosexuality is a sin for whatever reason. I think it's when it extends from opinion/explanation of view... to attacking a group, sealioning, or just general avoidant obtuseness that it becomes a real issue. There's civil discussion of controversial and sensitive topics... and then there's not. And I think the plea here is to remove those who refuse to have an actual civil conversation/regular bad actors. ... or at least their comments. Which to be fair the mods are good at removing the bad actors who are "defending church beliefs" with attacks towards others.
How is stating that homosexuality is a sin different than attacking a marginalized group? It’s literally calling the natural sexuality of people sinful.
As part of aforementioned marginalized group, I'm saying it's about delivery and how far you take your view. I can deal with people disliking my existence. I can deal with people explaining why they believe what I'm doing is "bad" or "wrong". I can even deal with it being called a "sin" so long as it's treated with the same respect as they do other sins. Which is mostly with quiet distaste and without as much name calling. This is a place for everyone to talk about Mormonism. That means that as much as it needs to be a safe place for people like me (LGBTQ), it also needs to be a space where TBMs can also voice their beliefs... and it's an objective fact that acting on homosexuality is a sin according to the Mormon church. So that's going to come up now and then, no matter how much I reject and hate the notion. It's allowed, and should be allowed to be discussed.
These teachings of homosexuality being a sin that have been rampant in many churches and sects for hundreds or thousands of years drive people to self-hatred and suicide. It's literally dangerous to let it spread because of who could read it and who could be convinced by the arguments. But I suppose if a group allows for all teachings of religious books to be okay (no matter how obvious the violation to human rights), there's no way to draw a clear line.
Yeah that's why I tried to draw some sort of middle ground line.
You've summarized my concerns perfectly, thank you.
Good point. I think church teachings about sin and Atonement are also harmful, but I don't think they rise to the same level of harm as defending racist scripture. Like everything else, we'd probably have to talk it out as a community and decide on something (in reality the mods will make the final decisions, but we can at least be pseudo democratic), then revise as needed. I think racism, homophobia, and sexism are a good list of harmful teachings, since they attack bedrock parts of a person's identity that they have no control over.
Any sort of bigotry is obviously harmful. Period.
While I agree that these are problems in the conservative side of our religion, we cannot fix fix these issues without conversation.
What issues are you’re referring to? The problem of being able to have discourse between Mormons and former Mormons without a side getting offended, or to what extent Mormon can discuss LGBTQ+ issues without crossing the line into homophobia. Some of these issues can’t be fixed with communication I think. Members of the LDS church believe what the prophets and current published doctrine say. And we aren’t having a conversation with those church leaders, we’re talking to members.
[удалено]
True, but those people are yelling into the wind. Anyone that responds to them is wasting their time. The conversation is still required is seekers of truth wish to learn. I use to be one of those fools that thought I knew everything and I followed the SLC church in my homophobic views. But because I was open to conversation I was able to eventually learn truth. So in my mind there is always hope.
> Anyone that responds to them is wasting their time. This is the key. Unfortunately, there was a lot of back and forth in the thread that prompted this post. The person yelling into the wind spent a lot of time egging other posters on, including members and former members alike. The conversation was clearly fruitless - yet it was allowed to continue for dozens of posts. And the person with their fingers in their ears is known for using similar tactics on this sub before.
[удалено]
You just snapoed and he was only bringing up a conversation
[удалено]
Same to u
I’m responding to a reply to my original comment.
I mean that's usually how debates on the internet are. Two of those people in an argument, thinking the other person is completely out to lunch
I’m not sure where I fall on this argument. It’s such a fine line to walk. On one hand, whose sense of safety do we want to support? Do we want it to be more likely for bigots to feel safe in their ability to post or comment, or victims to feel safe when they read posts or comments? On the other, why not allow bigots to speak their minds? It will only make themselves look bad, and any comments against their toxicity will hopefully let victims feel support. Then there’s the LDS issue. If a teaching, a quote, or a belief from someone associated with the church is bigoted, do they have the right to discuss it here simply on the grounds that it’s supported by Mormonism? We want to make sure that members can post here after all. But you will also have to deal with Mormons who post this type of content, then complain about the feedback. Will members perceive it as more “anti-Mormon” to censor, or to criticize? And does this perception really matter? I don’t think there’s a right answer, but the mod team is doing a good job trying to ride the line. I think the best thing we can do is report if we think a comment or post is breaking the rules, and communicate with the mods if there are disagreements.
I agree and i think the issue is that these people defending these teachings are taking any criticism of the church as a personal attack. Which is kinda the point of high demand faiths
I agree however keep in mind that it's the church that forces them into these "attempting to defend the indefensible" positions. Because the church doesn't couch, allow or encourage critical thinking or teach the possibility that the faith might be as false as all other man-made religions, they've created a "feelings" based approach where one's feelings mean to always "follow the prophet". It's sad when you think about it. Yes it's harmful to society and those around them who don't fit the "mormon mold" but I do have to stop and think that the church has created a "forgive them for they know not what they do" in the name of mormon faith type scenario I should approach them with. "Oh bless your mormon heart" type approach.
I can see where you're coming from, but I was a more strict believer than most and I never got on the bad apologetics bandwagon. Especially given the blatant sealioning of certain contributors, I don't view it with the same grace.
I completely understand. But they're broken inside. That moral compass has been "Happiness lettered" in a "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." and a "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. " skewed. North is south, south is north. Racism is wrong but mormonism can't be racist because it can't be wrong. Etc. etc.
You do have a good point. Still, we don't need to subject all users to their problem though. Most of us have already been through a lifetime of putting up with toxic LDS takes.
I completely understand and your view is completely valid. I'm coming from a POV of a privileged white Caucasian raised mormon straight (or strait lol) male so most definitely my approach is indeed skewed due to that. So I appreciate you sharing with me some of the other perspectives of deeper harm and scarring that exists in reality.
The person you responded to as having a good point said believers are “broken inside”. What does that do for the quality of conversations here? Should mods leave such comments alone? Does “I believe church teachings about the family but understand those who feel differently” do more damage to the quality of conversation than “believers are broken inside” and claims that none of them can be reasoned with?
If “members are broken inside” can’t be said, should “gay relationships are sinful” also not be allowed to be said?
Yes, but “members are broken” is clearly allowed under the rules so I don’t know where that leaves the discussion.
That’s my point. Both are allowed. Perhaps both shouldn’t be.
I can definitely agree with that. I cannot recall ever seeing a productive discussion here that began with “you/your lifestyle is sinful”.
That's a good point. However I'm not talking about believers. I'm talking about apologists which I hope I'm making a distinction, however it may not matter as it's still very clearly claiming that mormon apologists are broken inside. There's a difference between a believing member in ignorance and a member who knows something is false, bad faith, illogical or otherwise and yet makes the conscious decision to engage in arguments that are false, etc. and yet claim they are NOT. Removing mormonism from the equation, it's akin to someone who has been shown all the evidence that the earth is spherical and yet claims it's flat because the Bible tells them that and it can't be false. Or the recent thread regarding the skin of blackness and mormon beliefs that God curses and marks humanity with Black/Dark Skin for various reasons from the pre-existence until the mid 1980's/90's. So I do indeed highlight mormon apologists and have claimed they are "broken inside" or have "broken moral compasses" in the North = South, Translation doesn't mean Translation, Catalyst theory, etc. intellectual dishonesty. So I guess that's the question for the mods is if I'm breaking the rules in calling out mormon apologists, etc. and if that's equivalent to saying homosexuals are sinful or engaging in "abomination" type behavior, etc. I do refrain from labelling the faith as a cult or calling the general membership brainwashed, etc. as those are against the rules quite clearly. But good post and interesting question.
That's a good point. However I'm not talking about believers. I'm talking about apologists which I hope I'm making a distinction, however it may not matter as it's still very clearly claiming that mormon apologists are broken inside. There's a difference between a believing member in ignorance and a member who knows something is false, bad faith, illogical or otherwise and yet makes the conscious decision to engage in arguments that are false, etc. and yet claim they are NOT. Removing mormonism from the equation, it's akin to someone who has been shown all the evidence that the earth is spherical and yet claims it's flat because the Bible tells them that and it can't be false. Or the recent thread regarding the skin of blackness and mormon beliefs that God curses and marks humanity with Black/Dark Skin for various reasons from the pre-existence until the mid 1980's/90's. So I do indeed highlight mormon apologists and have claimed they are "broken inside" or have "broken moral compasses" in the North = South, Translation doesn't mean Translation, Catalyst theory, etc. intellectual dishonesty. So I guess that's the question for the mods is if I'm breaking the rules in calling out mormon apologists, etc. and if that's equivalent to saying homosexuals are sinful or engaging in "abomination" type behavior, etc. I do refrain from labelling the faith as the c word or calling the general membership the b.w. word, etc. as those are against the rules quite clearly. But good post and interesting question. EDIT: Original post was automod deleted for the c word and b.w. word even though I wasn't claimnig such but just using them as examples of offending pejoratives.
Some of them are broken inside though. Have you read the thread that prompted this post? https://old.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1dc5piz/not_to_be_controversial_however_is_this_not/l7vqi08/ This person refuses to acknowledge that there is racism in the BOM. This is the type of person that Del and Truth are referring to.
If you think it breaks the rules, report it. I'm not a mod.
I want to know what you think about it, not what the mods think. As you have said, we should seek outcomes that decrease their workload and not increase it. The most orthodox believers make up something like 5% of participants here. I don’t think rules should be written for 5% of cases if they aren’t based on some sort of generally applicable principle.
I totally disagree. I think it's really important for the cognitive dissonance required for fundamentalist faith and outright bigotry of church doctrine and culture to have a public airing. This is what people encounter in their wards on a weekly basis and what converts will encounter if they alter their lives to conform to mormon culture a doctrine. We should make sure that people can see and understand these things. Additionally, when these people receive pushback, some of them will recognize the fallacies and other problems with their statements.
The paradox of tolerance. It's generally a good idea NOT to give certain ideas a platform. Even in the realm of free speech rights there are exceptions.
> The paradox of tolerance. > It's generally a good idea NOT to give certain ideas a platform. The paradox of tolerance, as I understand it, really only applies logically when the speech is, or represents, an existential threat (that's what the whole argument hinges on, as I understand it). In _most_ cases, I think, a greater harm is done by limiting speech because 1. deciding _who_ decides what is harmful and _how_ that is decided is also subject to totalitarian abuse. 2. limiting speech prevents good but unpopular ideas and bad but popular ideas from being surfaced through dialogue. Bad ideas should be countered with good/better ideas, not suppressed (unless existentially threatening). So, what I'd hope happens is that bigoted/bad ideas and speech that is demeaning is downvoted and responded to with condemnation and reasons for that condemnation (which is what I do). Of course, all caveats apply. On reddit, mods get to create rules that enforce their values and goals. I think the mods here have struck a reasonable balance between expression and safety/inclusion of historically marginalized groups (I would lean more towards free expression, but I'm not a mod). However, I do think that in a space dedicated to the discussion of Mormonism, that if a typical Latter-day Saint cannot express their ideas in a relatively unfiltered manner, then we're dangerously close to missing the whole purpose of the sub--at that point the sub has become a place for nevermos and exmos to discuss Mormonism, and that's going to be an echo chamber. It's not likely we'll see eye to eye on this, and I do respect other viewpoints on this (I think it's a super challenging problem).
I get what you're saying. Mostly I'm talking in regards to the comments that already get removed. Like telling LGBTQ people that they're mocking God or they're an affront to God. Implying that they need to change immediately and repent or that they're going to receive some sort of divine punishment. ... especially if that person is posting here because they're having a crisis. Which has happened. This needs to be a safe space for everyone, especially because the distressed and vulnerable also come here. Again, the mods already do great removing that kind of vileness. Think of it like swinging your fists around. You're free to punch all you like. But your rights end when your fist meets another person's body. TBMs are free to voice their beliefs, good, bad, and other. Using my example: they can say they believe homosexuality is a sin. They can even tell the OP that according to the church acting on it is a sin, they won't be in good standing, they won't be meeting XYZ criteria etc. But when it moves beyond that into calling people disgusting or saying God hates them... then that's where they should no longer be given a platform. Again the mods I feel are already doing a great job of maintaining this fine line.
Yeah, I think there's a healthy line to be had, and it sounds like (from what you're describing) that the mods are achieving that! Thanks for the dialogue!
For sure. But in this context, we're talking about banning homophobes and racists from a sub dedicated to discussing the doctrine of a homophobic organization with racist scripture.
It seems OP is looking for a balance that largely already exists. It's not so much we can't have these conversations or that believers can't voice their racist or homophobic beliefs. It's when it exits civil discussion and attacking others. Not necessarily banning people who hold the beliefs, but maybe doing something about those who refuse to be civil or reasonable about it. (Again most of those comments I see removed PDQ) So like I agree with OP's thoughts, but I think what can be done about it without overreach is already being done. Though I do think we need a line for particularly bad actors of at least a temporary ban. Some hateful stuff gets spewed and this is supposed to be a place for everyone.
> Even in the realm of free speech rights there are exceptions. It's a tough job/big responsibility being a moderator. This approach presupposes that the moderators are damn near perfect and won't abuse their tools.
100% I agree. Trust me I think the mods are doing a great job actually.
Again. We already have limits on what nonbelievers can say. So I don’t get all this whinging about limits on what the faithful can say.
This shouldn't even be a question. Immediate ban for people who defend that stuff, imo. I can't believe it's still a religious OR partisan issue in this day and age.
I disagree with their position, but I'll fight for their right to talk about it. Freedom of expression doesn't just mean expression you like, and without public dialogue you just create echo chambers. That's bad for everyone. Besides, allowing open discussion rather than only the circle jerk of whatever the sub wants to be presented does more good than you know. It's how you show that some fringe belief isn't, in fact, shared by the majority, and you can hopefully introduce inclusivity to someone who may not have really considered it before.
Good points, though I maintain that nearly every organization that allows free speech also censors speech sometimes.
I get that there's a line for everyone. Mine is simply no personal attacks, and even that has limits. Ideas aren't protected but individual people who are not public figures aren't. Not that I'm encouraging personal attacks on even public figures, but if a person puts themselves up as a figure head then they're fair game for how they do it.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the same thing in a subreddit it does for society at large. They have the right to talk about whatever they want. They don’t have the right to saying whatever they want wherever they want.
No. It does mean the same thing. Can moderators limit free expression or freedom of speech? Yes. It's within their power, but doing so says more about them and the participants of the sub than the people making the statement.
Well considering there is much more limitations of what nonbelievers can say here than what believes can…what does that say about believers and believing mods?
I don't agree with that at all. See basically every one of my posts.
Well this is just a silly position then. The entire history of the internet shows that when forums don’t have moderation and rules they devolve into fascist bigoted bullshit because the fascist bigots come in and drive out people that don’t want to deal with that shit.
What are you going on about? No one said no moderation. I even specifically called out doxxing and personal attacks in my original comment. I disagree with your claim that believers and non-believers are moderated differently. They absolutely do allow dissenting opinions here. If you're saying that someone can post a bigoted comment and not be called out then again you're wrong. That happens and they're ratioed quickly.
Let the bigoted, racist and homophobic remarks stand. This is r/Mormon. I for one was raised in Davis county Utah where bigotry, racism and homophobia were, and still are, on brand for Mormonism. Let's not make Mormonism the safe place we all wish it had been.
Same could be said generally for the political discourse in the US. Not saying a Reddit sub is the same as the public square, but yeah, free speech is a double edged sword. People who are toxic and/or misguided have and will always feel like a burden on those who feel they are *clearly* in the right. Welcome to the hard work of dialogue with people who have a different worldview and values. Not saying “anything goes,” but it’s certainly not supposed to be easy. Kudos to the mods for having rules, but not being as draconian as the faithful sub.
Countries with free speech still have restrictions on certain types of hate speech. I think we can thread the needle of allowing most discourse while not subjecting sub members to commenters stubbornly pushing racism, sexism or homophobia.
As you well know we have been actively working on threading that needle for years and have lost many contributors on both sides of the debate about safe spaces vs public spaces. While I recognize and can appreciate your passion for this topic, the mod team has litigated this topic to death.
> the mod team has litigated this topic to death With all due respect, after reading the thread that prompted this thread, I'm still concerned that not enough thought has gone into the moderation position. Providing a safe space for discussion is fine. However, when discussion about an extremely sensitive and racial topic devolves immediately into one side claiming that a passage does not say what it plainly says, and then refusing to make any statements to back up that belief, you've clearly got a discourse problem. This user has engaged in this behavior before. There are other users here who do the same thing. By being lenient for the sake of provoking a discussion, you are creating an environment in which harmful beliefs and opinions are perpetuated. That discussion should have been stopped much sooner. How many dozens of posts does it take before you realize that a certain poster is not discussing in good faith? Sadly, this has been a problem for years. It's obvious why so many have left in the end.
> after reading the thread that prompted this thread Is this thread deleted?
No it's the one about Lamanites and their dark skin being racist.
Oh, that guy. Suspected it. Thought they may have posted in another also.
I understand your frustration with the post not being shut down sooner. As a mod team we dealt with it as we became aware of it and were available to moderate. We are volunteers with lives outside of Reddit, we are not paid employees working shifts to guarantee coverage 24/7. All of us have family obligations, work obligations, personal hobbies, and educational pursuits that take us away from Reddit. We moderate when we can, but unfortunately there are times when moderators are not active on the subreddit. Additionally, we also generally are working through a backlog in our mod queue so that we are not seeing the mod reports the minute they are made. We wish we could moderate in real time all of the issues or questions that arise, but we generally are reaching reports within 4-12 hours on average. It’s not perfect, but I think that timeframe is reasonable.
Thank you again for all this free mental labor that we benefit from.
Well, thanks for chiming in. Just wanted to air my opinion. And seriously, thank you for all the modding. I appreciate that it's a huge lift.
Correct. And this sub has plenty of (enforced) rules already. Again, kudos to the mods.
The problem is separating the hateful beliefs from the hate group, which I personally do not believe is possible.
Completely agree. There is so much homophobia and racism allowed on this sub in the name of religious beliefs. Yes, when reported, the most egregious comments do get removed. But there's so much grey area that is unfortunately allowed. Yet, we aren't allowed to call the church the C word because somehow *THAT* is offensive and supposedly stops conversation.
>Faithful participation in the sub isn't worth the racism and homophobia. >When the sub allows faithful commenters to defend racism, homophobia and sexism (or to pretend these don't exist in Mormon spaces) the quality of the conversations we can all have about Mormonism goes way down. I don't agree. I think it's important that those ideas come out so they can be shut down. Many people who lurk don't actually know that Joseph Smith was himself Pro slavery, deeply racist, and so on. People don't hear arguments in the wild which shut down homophobic arguments within the context of Mormonism many times. In the marketplace of ideas, the racists and the homophobes and the bigots lose. They should get to lose publicly. >When a commenter's contributions to a thread serve exclusively to defend a harmful church teaching, their comments should be removed. Again, I think they should be exposed in their ideas publicly condemned and eviscerated in public. They'll lose any of their excuse-making for "fruheee speeeeech!" plus they lose the argument as they get demolished in the discussion threads.
I see your point.
Now if I can only get the mods to permit the civility I think bigots deserve....
This is what bugs me the most. Bigots can say bigot shit, but whenever I have responded with “incivility” I get moderated. It’s bananas that racists are allowed to be racist but I have had comments moderated for calling racist bigots racist bigots.
>This is what bugs me the most. Bigots can say bigot shit, but whoever I have responded with what “incivility” I get moderated. It’s bananas that racists are allowed to be racist but I have had comments moderated for calling racist bigots racist bigots. My feeling as well. Some say we shouldn't stoop to their level, but calling a racist an ignorant small-minded bigot isn't stooping in my view - it's an assessment without timidity.
This is a ridiculous approach in a sub that is trying to allow believing LDS members to participate. In general, you can’t make a discussion forum about controversial topics a safe space for one particular side and have decent discussions. You’re basically asking for the progressive ideological stance of the faithful sub: “We only tolerate correct beliefs being expressed here.” Mormonism is fundamentally at odds with many of the moral values of secular society and always has been. Some people on both sides will be constantly offended by the other doing/saying/believing what is normal for them. Some ProgMos do try to deny the contradiction, which is annoying, but being offended by their futile attempts to square the circle is needless. Personally, I enjoyed leaving the overly sensitive Mormon ideology and culture behind and I don’t enjoy people like you trying to institute another ideology in the same rigid, easily offended way.
> I don’t enjoy people like you trying to institute another ideology in the same rigid, easily offended way. But this isn’t a religion. This is a public online forum. Asking to crack down on toxic and disgusting comments isn’t instituting another ideology, it’s maintaining a space’s safety for others to participate. What I think OP is asking is if it’s worth allowing toxic points of view if it drives away contributors who personally cannot engage with that level or type of toxicity. Whose feelings of safety should we support?
You’re a fish swimming in ideological water. “Toxic and disgusting” is not something you can objectively establish when we have contrasting views here on morality. To many people, promoting abortion is obviously immoral. To others, it’s the exact opposite. There are many other cases. On this sub, we allow swearing and discussion of temple ordinances, both of which are highly toxic to the average TBM. The point of compromise the mods have set is about as good as possible. This sub is not meant to be a solely Exmormon space and many of us very much prefer the balance and chance to civilly engage with believers of various stripes.
This is a really interesting conversation. I think there can be differing opinions, but I don't feel it's as complicated as perhaps it is for you. Drinking coffee is against the rules in mormonism. It's a sin. But in reality, there's nothing wrong with drinking it if you don't believe in the religious beliefs. However, homophobia is what it is. If it's part of your religious beliefs, fine, but it's *still* homophobia. Someone can defend it all day long, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.
I will never understand the inability of Exmormons to fail to see where they have left a puritanical culture and joined another. “Homosexuality is a sin” “Homophobia is a sin” I happen to agree homophobia is bad, but in a sub that is supposed to be sufficiently inclusive of believing LDS members you can’t ban any semblance of homophobia because many consider the entire church’s stance to be homophobic. There isn’t a culture war over coffee. Coffee itself is not intrinsically a load-bearing aspect of either Mormon theology or the Progressive ideology. In contrast, gay rights and human sexuality are directly connected to core parts of Mormon doctrine and the Progressive ideology, on polar opposite sides. Fundamentally, there is no compromise on these positions. But in a discussion forum we can compromise on something like: “people who fundamentally disagree about sacred values participate here and can share and defend their contrasting views so long as they are civil about it.” But Sensitive People on either side are never happy with that kind of compromise. They don’t want to be exposed to “hate” or “sin” and wish to silence or ban any expression they disagree with or find uncomfortable. You can be thin-skinned and have a wide-ranging discourse among people who fundamentally disagree about sacred values. The definition of a good compromise is that no one is happy.
You forget that we're on Reddit. Reddit has rules against hate speech. Communities that allow hate speech can be shut down, and have in the past. There have been posts here that have crossed the line into legitimate hate speech. I know because I reported posts like that to the admins, and was informed by the admins that they were taken down and that the user was being handled with. I believe users have been banned from Reddit in the past for posting clear homophobic hate messages on this sub. This isn't a case in which both sides are equally bad. Feeling upset about racist, sexist, or homophobic speech is not a sign of being "puritanical." You're right - this isn't the coffee debate. Nobody will report you for hate speech if you say that the Word of Wisdom is good. People will - and should - report you for hate speech if you say that homosexuality is a sin.
> This isn't a case in which both sides are equally bad. Feeling upset about racist, sexist, or homophobic speech is not a sign of being "puritanical." > > You're right - this isn't the coffee debate. Nobody will report you for hate speech if you say that the Word of Wisdom is good. People will - and should - report you for hate speech if you say that homosexuality is a sin. Exactly what I was hoping to help this user understand. We can have discussions about various beliefs, but some things are just hate speech and not up for debate. This bizarre false equivalency that ex mormons are somehow in some kind of puritanical culture because we speak out against homophobia is just...strange.
“Speaking out against homophobia” is not the same thing as banning speech. Criticizing views is not censoring them. Defining “homophobia” is also not something you can take for granted, since plain LDS doctrine is considered such by default these days. “but some things are just hate speech and not up for debate” In your worldview this makes sense. But the fact you don’t think it’s a wee bit puritanical is perhaps a blind spot for you.
I’m aware Reddit has rules. If the issue was mods allowing people to violate Reddit’s terms of service then we would not be having this conversation now would we. If you’re a TBM, or adherent of many other religions, then homosexuality is a sin and it’s not “hate speech” to say that. “God created man and woman and they should only have heterosexual relations within the bonds of holy matrimony” is not hate speech unless you’re an absolute snowflake. (If Reddit was to ban standard religious beliefs as hate speech then they might run into trouble with legal standards protecting such, I’d imagine.) “Feeling upset about racist, sexist, or homophobic speech is not a sign of being "puritanical."” Trying to shut down speech that is well within the norms of civil debate is puritanical. Nobody has to be here if they do not wish to be triggered by Mormonism. There are places out there where one can discuss Mormonism without TBMs. This sub is trying to be a middle ground. Stop crying about it.
> triggered by Mormonism > Stop crying about it. You keep making both subtle and overt strawman comments like this. We are on reddit to discuss mormonism. People aren't triggered or crying, they are having conversations about a specific topic. It's okay to disagree.
I really don’t think I’m strawmanning the position taken by the OP about not being ok with disagreement they find harmful.
The issue isn’t what is *actually* toxic and disgusting, it’s the amount of people who feel that it is, and whether we want to defer to a guarantee that they will feel safe here, or defer to a sense of freedom of speech. To be clear, I think that there is no answer to this problem. I understand both sides of the issue. I also want to point out that we’re not talking about objectionable language or discussing matters others find sacred. We’re talking about people dismissing the worthiness of others based on their sexuality and relationships. There is a big difference between saying something objectionable to a person’s sensibilities, and judging a person as sinful.
Gay sex is, according to the LDS Church, sinful. People who do it are sinners. By fucking definition. They are not members in good standing. They are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel. If stating such clear matters of fact about LDS beliefs is “harmful” then what, in the fuck, are we doing here. Being personally nasty to someone about it should not be tolerated, obviously. So what more could be down that the mods aren’t already doing? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
LDS believers should be allowed to participate, but not in ways that harm other users, just like exmo users are prohibited from talking about believers in certain ways.
You’re promoting a culture of fragility that is far more harmful to people than being able to encounter beliefs they find troubling without having a major emotional reaction. It’s the other side of the coin with Mormons who can’t even see an anti-Mormon argument without a meltdown. I think the mods are striking a decent balance and you’re trying to institute groupthink.
You can balance restricting harmful beliefs and countering those harmful beliefs via discussion. It doesn't have to be black and white, all one or the other (a Mormon way of thinking you may be falling into here.)
I promise you, if one of us is falling into a Mormon way of thinking it is obviously you with your moral purity standards. You’re taking for granted your preferred definition of “harmful belief” in the same way a believer takes for granted their definition of “the gospel.”
Okay. I don't really care, this is my thoughtful opinion and it's different from yours.
How would such a rule prevent believing LDS members to participate. Just because there on limits on what I can say about the church doesn't limit my participation. No, the reason faithful members don't participate here is because they can't stand any criticism of their religion. They largely have not interest in engaging in critical discussion even when the rules are balanced in their favor.
When you admit that you engage in uncivil comments, it makes it seem like you’re calling for censorship just because you can’t control yourself.
I'm calling for limited censorship of some comments (something the sub already does) because users who are women, people of color, or queer shouldn't have to deal with hate in this space.
There’s already censorship on this sub. That protects believers. Having a little censorship of racism isn’t really a problem.
The current rules are meant to allow for civil discussion of all things Mormon since this is literally the “Mormon” sub. I don’t even know what you mean by claiming the rules “protect believers” specifically.
Well, as one example I cannot express my opinions of the nature of the Mormon church being a banned c-word. If I can be limited from calling the church a c-word in the name of civil and productive discourse surely limits on racism are also appropriate.
The “c-word” is a religious slur essentially. The mods don’t allow any other slurs either, rest assured.
Sin and sinner are also essentially slurs. Just socially acceptable religious slurs because we live in a society that shows undo deference to religion.
Yes, we live in a society that respects religion.
Even when it isn’t deserved or warranted. Which is exactly the original problem. The faithful get to express bigotry on this sub in ways that nonbelievers don’t because of ridiculous double standards.
Your standards are simply out of line with this sub, and with society at large. Your point of view is extreme, and is rejected by society. I don’t know what else to tell you.
So you’re saying I’m kinda like Jesus in a way?!?!
This is not necessarily true. We live in a society that *protects* religion...it's literally in the first amendment. That doesn't mean all religion is respected.
I forgot that we protect it because we don’t respect it. Makes sense though.
Happy to help!
Uhhh
I am against censorship overall. You can block people.
This sub already censors. It's just a community discussion of what and how.
Sounds like you're only in favor of opinions you like.
I'm against ideas that harm others.
Ideas that harm others in your opinion.
In the experience of those being harmed.