Why I was kicked (Protestantism/Christianity > other religions)

Status
Not open for further replies.
@drewmc2001: I agree wholeheartedly.

The whole reason I started this thread is because I am trying to cover some groundwork so that I can point people to it in order to provide context and thus reduce the likelihood of people taking what I say amiss.

You're picking a particularly divisive way of making your point. Theprofessor was right in his earlier comment about brevity doesn't equal clarity.

I would rather people bypass my wall of text rather than read and misinterpret what I have to say, but one thing is for damn sure, I will be clear in what I say, even if I sacrifice brevity.

Another thing to consider, if you're worldview isn't shared by the majority, then it behooves you to take the time to be diplomatic when you make your case. Otherwise, Calbear or one of the other mods will kick you if you're lucky or ban you, if you're unlucky. If that happens, you lose your platform here for sharing your worldview.
 
The various brands of Protestantism are simply too diverse to claim the whole branch of Christianity (if one could even call it that) is "the best religion" based on theology or religious practices, or even to distinguish it from Catholicism, as there are some Protestant denominations far closer to Catholicsm than other Protestant churches. You seem to simply be spouting stereotypes about Protestantism propagated by anti-Catholic bigots, without any serious exploration into how differences in church doctrine would affect societies (though regardless, trying to apply a label as universal as "best religion" is ignoring that different cultures will react and adapt differently to said religion).
 

fi11222

Banned
Hi everyone. I am about to go offline.

Before I do, I would like to thank all those who participated in this discussion.

Again, this was not an attempt to discuss the merits of protestantism compared to other religions, but a question about whether a debate (or debates) about this question would be allowed on this forum provided it is framed in the terms outlined in the OP.

So far, the debate has been quite balanced. Some have voiced their support. Others their disapproval. In particular, I thank Basileus444 and Danishbro who, although saying in no uncertain terms that they diagree with me, both took the position that there is no reason not to allow the debate to go ahead on the terms I indicated. They both advised caution and carefulness in wording, which is exactly why I have started this thread in the first place.

Thanks to all. I think that now is the time for a response by the moderation.
 
@The Professor: As you probably know, it is impossible to "write exactly what one means". Words are polysemic and interpretation is always open. I know what I mean but is my reader going to understand my words the same way I intended? If we have sufficiently different backgrounds, it is unlikely. Therefore civil discussion requires that people do not immediately jump to the worst possible interpretation and instead, when they think something objectionable is being said, ask questions like "You said: 'XXXX'., What exactly did you mean by that ?".
I disagree. It can be very hard but is not impossible.
Simultaneously the burden is also on you to avoid insulting and recognising when you are.
That's why you need as much clarity in what you are saying as possible; it means you need to deliberately avoid words and phrases that can be open to different interpretation: words like "superior" or "better" need qualification. Consistently not doing that provides a context that you may be doing so deliberately and thus would invite action.
 
This was not the correct section to post this and thus is out of place. I have been kicked three times for various issues, the only way to not be kicked is to avoid topics or areas that can lead to a kick or ban. There is legitimately nothing to be gained by addressing the forum readers in this manner. If you feel that you have been unfairly treated (I do not know what you did) either message the person (@CalBear) who kicked you or message friends you have in the board to talk to the mods about this. However, posting a general thread on the before 1900 section, impedes what most here wish to do (stay out of drama and write/read history) and loses sympathy from many.

Also, bigotry can often be avoided in historical discussions if you are extremely knowledgeable and can out argue anyone. I have had posts that some might/do term as bigoted, however my arguments overcede an attempt at character attack. Thus, to avoid accusations, I advise that you simply study and delves further and further into contemporary accounts abd accumulate as much source material, quotations or memorized knowledge to the point that you can negate any and all arguments from the mods in pre 1900.
 
@fi11222, oh, man, you've kicked the hornests' nest, IMO.

Here's the problem that I have with this. Everyone here is arguing from within their own belief system. And for the sake of civility, we should understand that, and remember that when we lay out our positions. Most of your comments, I believe, would have benefited by a smattering of "I think" or "IMO" or "I believe" or a qualifier that says, "I understand that my opinion or belief system may not be shared by other folks."

I don't believe you're bigoted, largely because I see your argument as grounded in your own worldview. Here's the thing about any of our worldviews (at least as I see it... see, this is a qualifier. For those who disagree with me, this lets them understand I'm not deliberately trying to piss on their leg), I think each person's worldview attempts to frame the world through a set of understandings, ranging from why are we here, what are we to do, how do we interact with each other and where do we go from here.

Because our worldviews are an existential component of who we are, they require a degree of exclusivity. That's why (IMO, here's that qualifier) when you and @Obergruppenführer Smith are in sharp disagreement, its because of opposing worldviews. I'd even argue that you're right and he's wrong as far as whether the comment which offended him was bigoted. My reasoning is because of the exclusive demands placed on each of your own worldviews. A lot of the time, we call someone else's view bigoted because it runs counter to our own worldviews' demands of exclusivity.

I'm not trying to piss you off, but in a semi-anonymous forum like this, civility is important, and in some ways, I think you failed in presenting your argument in a civil manner. I'm not in any way trying to give cover to those who leveled a charge of bigotry against you. The reason for this is that if we exclude from civil discourse those who do not share our worldview and it's inherent demand for exclusivity, it becomes an echo chamber, where everyone repeats similar set of mantras and beliefs. And at the end of the day, the forum benefits from having contrarian worldviews introduced. After all, sometimes it benefits the environment when we allow that voice in the wilderness to cry out.

I feel this entire post is the fluffed-up version of this

I also think this argument it both wrong, and distinctly dangerous and unhelpful in achieving any goal of a discussion forum. Suggesting that someone isn't being prejudiced (AKA, being a bigot) when they patently fit the definition in various reference text (i.e. dictionaries), that facilitate communication of a descriptive language (i.e. English), because "It is grounded in your worldview" is an open door to all sorts of absurdity.

That line of reasoning could justify (To Godwin) Hitler, as not a bigot or prejudiced because "it's his worldview man".

It also completely defeats the object of a discussion forum. The purpose of a forum is, yes, to understand one another, and even conflicting views, which is all well and good. But it is a means to reach a common understanding of each others positions. If one of our best methods of understanding each other (i.e. joint understanding of WORDS) is waived in favor of "It's his worldview man".

As for @fi11222 - If you are unable to see why trying to play "no true scotsman" between different religious faiths when are ostensibly not one (despite seemingly believing you are the cultural adherent/result/beneficiary of one), then lets look at your own argument.

Before "Real Christian Protestants" (who, if you've forgotten, come in 1001+ delicious flavors which more or less agree that all of the others are wrong) come Catholics, who come from the Orthodox tradition, which comes from the Chalcedonian tradition - which is where they explicitly defined what books were in the Bible. (Not ignoring the Nestorians, and other Christian denominations). - You're literally denying reality.

On top of that, you are literally on record saying you think Christianity is superior, and Protestantism superior still. Thankfully you've not gone full religious supremacist on us and declared that Protestants should be in charge, but you have an entire TL that is effectively and indulgence of Christian Manifest Destiny ideology, ignoring every other factor in the rise of Europe in favor of your chosen aspect. It is also incredibly Eurocentrist as it claims superior societal effects, without any objective criteria for why it is better.

Considering that bigot (in English, since you're French, I'll explain it) is a synonym for "Prejudiced Person", and you've come to the forum with a "Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience - Prejudice", you are by textbook, a bigot - and not just someone a bit misinformed who is willing to listen, but one who is (seemingly) intransigent.

Don't get me wrong, a discussion of the impact of Christianity on the development of Europe is certainly an interesting topic of discussion, as it the history.

However, you not only posted in the wrong sub-forum, you've cast aspersions on one of the mods despite getting a minor punishment (it isn't like you've been banned), which last time it happened was a hilarious idiot turning up. This is far more unpleasant.
 
It also completely defeats the object of a discussion forum. The purpose of a forum is, yes, to understand one another, and even conflicting views, which is all well and good. But it is a means to reach a common understanding of each others positions. If one of our best methods of understanding each other (i.e. joint understanding of WORDS) is waived in favor of "It's his worldview man".

I deliberately stayed clear of Godwin's Law. I trust you didn't run to the most extreme of examples as a way to dismiss any view which falls outside your own. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

When I read your comment about a "common understanding" and your following commentary, it is unclear if by "common understanding" you actually meant a "shared view of the world." As I read your commentary, my tendency was to assign the latter, but that may be unfair of me to do so.

How we are educated, raised, and live our lives define how we use words. Pour different ingredients into the mix and you get different outcomes. Now I happen to agree that a shared definition of bigotry and racism are useful, but it is clear by the number of times Ian and the other mods have kicked people for false accusations of both, that we all don't share a common understanding of words. It is possible that you and I couldn't even agree to how precisely these words, which elicit such strong emotions in us, should be used. How many of our former forum members have fallen foul of the ban hammer precisely because of this reason?

Stepping back to @fi11222's original comments, I wonder if we'd be best served by reviewing history a bit like we view an accident. Four different people see the accident from four distinct views. When each recounts the events in question one is left with four distinct interpretations of the event. To the person who watched the "accident" of history from one view, he sees a certain value in what he might call the protestant ethos. Someone else watching from a different perspective sees the "arc of history." Someone else watches it and sees "dialectical materialism" at work and the last one could say, "it's the principals of chaos theory at work."

Where we stand, defines how we see the event in history. IMO, that's what made fi11222's argument flawed. He argued that the frame of reference which others had were invalid. The rest of us should avoid a similar mistake.
 
I deliberately stayed clear of Godwin's Law. I trust you didn't run to the most extreme of examples as a way to dismiss any view which falls outside your own. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

No, I used it to point how quite how wide-ranging your argument can be applied. Ad absurdum occasionally has its uses.

When I read your comment about a "common understanding" and your following commentary, it is unclear if by "common understanding" you actually meant a "shared view of the world." As I read your commentary, my tendency was to assign the latter, but that may be unfair of me to do so.

Yes. Because I said, "common understanding", as this clarification is meant to reinforce - That we understand (to the best of our abilities), what the other person is trying to communicate.

How we are educated, raised, and live our lives define how we use words. Pour different ingredients into the mix and you get different outcomes. Now I happen to agree that a shared definition of bigotry and racism are useful, but it is clear by the number of times Ian and the other mods have kicked people for false accusations of both, that we all don't share a common understanding of words. It is possible that you and I couldn't even agree to how precisely these words, which elicit such strong emotions in us, should be used. How many of our former forum members have fallen foul of the ban hammer precisely because of this reason?

Yes, and besides retreading your original argument, this is WHY we have developed dictionaries and other methods as reference. As tools to assist in communication - which is the responsibility of the listener not to misconstrue, but much more the responsibility of the speaker to be clear, and clarify as required.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As Calbear remarked in his last message kicking me, I was kicked 3 times in the last 13 months.

I believe that this is the result of over-hasty judgment on the part of the moderators and I wish to explain myself before it happens again. I am not overly optimistic about my ability to get my point of view across but I will try nonetheless. This thread is being started in the "before 1900" section because it is directly related to a TL I published here. Also, I almost exclusively publish in this section so it is also where the people who know me are.

The reasons invoked for my latest kicking were "Religious bigotry and some Eurocentric nationalism/racism, all in one pithy post." I have also been called a "troll" multiple times and so I wish to explain why all these labels are wide off the mark as far as I am concerned.
  • I am not a "Troll": I never publish anything for the purpose of offending people. Of course, some of what I say or have said may have offended some but it was never my intention. Also, looking at my likes record (303 likes for 460 posts), it seems that quite a lot of people like what I say.
  • I am not a religious bigot. First of all, I am not Christian and I do not support any established religion. Where I come from (France) religion has long become irrelevant (80% respond to polls that they do not believe in God, let alone attend Church) and you can say pretty much anything about religion without raising an eyebrow. In fact, nobody cares. Of course this is very different from Cold Civil War America where using the words "Christianity" or "Protestantism" automatically brands you a Trump supporter, with all the attendant assumptions. As a result, I was always surprised when I was kicked. In all three cases, I assumed that what I said was either non-controversial or sufficiently carefully worded to avoid any misunderstanding. Obviously, I was wrong.
  • I am not even a conservative. I do not believe there is anything to "conserve". Civilization only moves forward and generally not under conscious human control. So for example "saving Western civilization" is certainly not something I believe in.
  • I am not a "Eurocentrist" or "White Supremacist": The whole point of the TL I published here (which is stalled for the moment) was to explore a scenario in which Christianity spreads East instead of West and therefore produces the same effects in China/Japan that Europe experienced IOTL (Industrial revolution, etc).
Because I do believe that Christianity was superior to other religion in terms of its societal effects. Does that make me a racist or bigot? I do not believe so. The judgment I am making about Christianity, I do in the same spirit as a biologist would say that mammals are superior to reptiles. To me, Christianity is a natural artefact, a product of natural evolution, like the rest of human culture. The point I am making is that Christianity seems to have displayed better evolutionary fitness compared to other religions and I am trying to explain what I mean by that (please refer to my various posts for more details).

If one takes the long view (this is why I always publish in the "pre-1900" section), it becomes pretty obvious that Christianity is not a European religion. Its roots are firmly in the Middle-East (especially in Mesopotamian culture) and most of its key developments took place in Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (modern Turkey) between 100 AD and 600 AD. For most of this period, Europe was a poor, cold, violent backwater which played little part in religious or cultural evolution. What happened later on is that, no one being a prophet in his own country, Christianity was wiped out from the Middle-East and eventually bore fruit, in its protestant incarnation, in far away Europe; the unlikeliest of places.

Again, I am making no metaphysical claim here. I am just saying that Christianity was a mental discipline, like Yoga or Buddhism, and that it has very strong effects, both psychological and social. My claim is that what we call "modernity" is the result of these effects.

Will I be kicked again if I keep arguing in favor of this position, either through TL writing or comments ?
Actually you are less a straight up bigot, as the term is used in common discussion and more of a truly offensive, unrepentant Christian Chauvinist (definition: a person displaying excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for a particular cause, group, or gender).

That being noted, you have also make almost textbook Bigoted statements (definition: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot) primarily, but not exclusively of the sectarian variety. Your explanations seem to center on the fact that since you, yourself, are not a practicing Christian, you can not possibly be demonstrating bigotry by your Chauvinistic statements is, unfortunately, simply untrue, as is illustrated in the definition given above. This is, for the greater world, your own issue, however, this is not the greater world. It is a discussion board, with policies that all are expected to follow.

What is actually troublesome is that you continue to do this, even after repeated actions, and clearly, as illustrated by this entire series of thread posts, feel that you are entitled to continue to do so, despite long-standing Board Policy.

You have presented me with a conundrum, and not an enjoyable one. Few of your individual posts rise to the level of Permanent Ban, yet several have reached the formal "Kick" level, including the Opening post of this thread with its proclamations regarding the "societal superiority of Christianity" which is clearly offensive to a few BILLION people, including more than a few members of this Board..

Your post # 29 in this thread, however, clearly crosses the line into the "8 ways to Crash Land" by bringing up "Threats to inflict "real life" harm, including lawsuits, on other members" options regarding action are pretty much eliminated.

Banned for implying real world harm on a fellow member.

We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top