moderation open thread

[someone]

Due to Privacy Concerns, I request the Mods. to please delete these posts of mine here:

http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-606178
http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-599566
http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-597741
http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-571883

Hope you can help me on this on a quick note.

Thank you in advance
Someone

[Kanad Kanhere]

(27-Nov-2016, 01:17 PM)someone Wrote: Due to Privacy Concerns, I request the Mods. to please delete these posts of mine here:

http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-606178
http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-599566
http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-597741
http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-th...ent-571883

Hope you can help me on this on a quick note.

Thank you in advance
Someone

Done.

[charsi]

According to the guidelines posted in Delhi freethinkers group people who believe the following are not welcome

"- You think that the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher have a point about Muslims and Islam."

I can't see how this is justified. I think Dawkins, Hitchens etc have quite clearly stated and defended their views on this. How does nirmukta differ from their stands?

If this is something to guard against the groups becoming a venue for Muslim bashing perhaps the above needs to be reworded to indicate criticism of the religion itself is okay?

[Kanad Kanhere]

(31-Oct-2017, 01:21 AM)charsi Wrote: According to the guidelines posted in Delhi freethinkers group people who believe the following are not welcome

"- You think that the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher have a point about Muslims and Islam."

I can't see how this is justified. I think Dawkins, Hitchens etc have quite clearly stated and defended their views on this. How does nirmukta differ from their stands?

If this is something to guard against the groups becoming a venue for Muslim bashing perhaps the above needs to be reworded to indicate criticism of the religion itself is okay?

Criticism of any religion is fine. That statement is specifically for fanboys who will give free pass to the bigotry of atheist "big-shots". For us no person is exempt from being called out for their regressive attitudes.

Also kindly lets not get into discussion about "what did they do" in this thread. This thread is reserved for moderation concerns. (I know you haven't done anything like this, but just preemptively clarifying it)

Thanks

[Howard]

I have a small grievance with an admin/moderator here. The discussion pertained to what does and does not constitute Ableism. The admin/moderator is stating that a discussion on this is not possible and I have to conform with the definition/description of ableism as is being prescribed by him/her or else this group isn't for me. Additionally he/she has repeatedly accused me of trolling, which I do not think I have done. Infact it is my point of view that the admin/moderator's responses constitute trolling, which includes the phrase "another classic troll response, assuming emotion LOL"  and repeatedly telling that I should see if I belong to the group instead of engaging in a discussion and justifying his/her stand and/or pointing out errors in mine on the matter at hand.

Relevant info:
Admin/Moderator in question: Sat Ya.
link to the conversation: https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?...8&__tn__=R

[Kanad Kanhere]

(03-Aug-2018, 02:40 PM)Howard Wrote: I have a small grievance with an admin/moderator here. The discussion pertained to what does and does not constitute Ableism. The admin/moderator is stating that a discussion on this is not possible and I have to conform with the definition/description of ableism as is being prescribed by him/her or else this group isn't for me. Additionally he/she has repeatedly accused me of trolling, which I do not think I have done. Infact it is my point of view that the admin/moderator's responses constitute trolling, which includes the phrase "another classic troll response, assuming emotion LOL"  and repeatedly telling that I should see if I belong to the group instead of engaging in a discussion and justifying his/her stand and/or pointing out errors in mine on the matter at hand.

Relevant info:
Admin/Moderator in question: Sat Ya.
link to the conversation: https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?...8&__tn__=R

The definition of Ableism wasn't "prescribed". Use of ableist slurs is ableism. Its that simple. And yes you did troll in the thread since you refused to read about slurs and group policies. Indeed if that is the attitude then you don't belong in the group.

Read through the group policies please. Everything is covered there.

[Howard]

As is clear from the conversation on the given link, I did not refuse to read about the definition of ableism provided by the admin in question. I did do it. I pointed out that the interpretation isn't clearly a widely accepted one. It has no mention on the Wikipedia article on the topic, which is well sourced.
Be that as it may, I do not intend to use the words which are being termed as ableist (and I do not recall having used in the past), for my own reasons. I do feel this group is for me. Rest is upto the moderators.
Thank you for your response.