![mod accountability rule [action taken]](https://lemmy.cafe/pictrs/image/88be0e48-b5fb-4a55-8aac-14ee89f18783.webp){kind=link}
Important context: This was an instance of a crowd crush caused by poor crowd control.
edit: action has now been taken against the offending comment :)
(also some of you guys in the comments here have been yoinked by mods too… just be nice? this post was not an invitation to test out your boundaries)
by opening this spoiler you acknowledge that brigading and harrassment are against the rules
link to post in question: https://lemmy.world/comment/10965360
You must log in or register to comment.
Is expressing atheist beliefs inherently anti-religious?
Seems like a bad cope to me
No, but “I may die in a stupid way (but not as stupid as these religious people who were trampled to death because of a dust storm)” is anti-religious.
I understand your point
Good
deleted by creator
You haven’t seen the thread of comments by flying squid on the topic of taking nude pictures of babies and sharing them with people
I’ll grab the link and come back and edit my comment
deleted by creator
Ah yes, please do complain about it in a community that has nothing to do with it!
😊
for those interested i am working on it :) trying to figure something out because i also recognize this is suboptimal
Ah yes, please do complain about it in a community that has nothing to do with it!
Damn, this post left out some really crucial context. I assumed the comment was left in response to someone martyring themselves, probably after having killed others in the name of their sky fairy. And in that context I’d have backed them 100% in what they were saying about it.
But yeah, your reply there said it better than anyone could. The comment was completely out of place and inappropriate.
Ooh! What context can I add? Obviously I want to make this post as effective as possible and don’t want to mislead folks but I recognize I have proximity bias.
Thanks :)
I think they’re talking about the context of it being a crowd crush.
Yeah 100% it’s that.
thank u
Thanks for adding it in.
I mean… it does say “Crush” in the original title. But not everyone knows what that means.
this was actually a surprise/something of a mandela effect to me too?! like i swear these were usually called stampedes, just like with animals, but apparently “crowd crush” is in fact the more common term 😅 the more you know 🌈
I used to work crowd control. For us a stampede is when people are moving forward and those that fall down are trampled over and can’t get back-up. A crowd crush is when the density of people is so tight that you either suffocate or get crushed. Both are incredibly grim spectacles.
oh! i didn’t even consider there might be a distinction 🫡 thanks for the correction
If you are anyone else is interested the following video is a good 40 second introduction to how a crowd can behave. It was filmed on a potato and shows zero gore. Suitable for work. Hopefully the “piped bot” will show up below too: Oasis Manchester Crowd Surge
Something that always gets me is when people lump in anti-religion with these others. Reglion in any country with freedom of religion is a choice, these other things are not. Someone doesn’t choose to be a particular ethnic group. Someone doesn’t choose to be disabled. People don’t choose to be gay or have gender dysphoria People do choose to believe in things that I think are ridiculous and saying that I cannot call that out is just religious people saying you can’t call them out. If you can tell me I am burning in hell because I don’t believe in your pie man in the sky then I can tell you that you are stupid for believing in a pie man in the sky and comment on absurd actions that are caused by those beliefs.
telling someone they are going to burn in hell for their religion/atheism would also be anti-religious and should be treated as such :)
Yeah nah.
You don’t tell them they’re stupid for faith. You point out that the bullshit they’re spouting is explicitly stated by their pie man in the sky to be the real express road straight to hell. Much more fun.
Like for instance every conservative Christian politician who was piously sworn in on the Bible, despite Jesus himself saying not to swear by anything and calling the practice demonic. By their own stated belief system they are inaugurating their public office with a satanic ritual.
This isn’t some obscure passage either, it’s in the Sermon on the Mount, one of the most famous scenes in the entire Bible. Anyone who swears on the Bible in any capacity clearly doesn’t take it seriously enough to know anything about what it says.
And the alternative given to swearing oaths is just like… idk, maybe be honest in general, guys?
based and yet human decency pilled
People do choose to believe in things that I think are ridiculous and saying that I cannot call that out is just religious people saying you can’t call them out.
And what value does your calling them out add to the discussion? Does it lead to an interesting nuanced conversation? Or is it immediately just people insulting each other while saying nothing other than “you’re wrong”?
If it never leads to useful or interesting discussion and only leads to flame wars and arguments then it should be banned.
To the extent of “what does calling out anyone for anything lead to an interesting nuanced discussion” so should we ban calling people out?
Ultimately it’s ambiguous and we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere, but it’s reasonable for people to disagree where to draw that line.
Calling out irrational religious belief helps remove that pollution from the zeitgeist. It helps take damaging, incorrect beliefs out of important decision-making processes.
Except, it often isn’t a choice? Especially for women? Most people are born with their religion chosen for them. There are also clearly deeply ingrained universal drives that push humans to religious beliefs as well. Otherwise we wouldn’t see them across civilisations on every continent, from antiquity to the modern day.
No such rules in this one – your god is a lie sold to castrate and incapacitate you.
Does that mean you deserve to die in a crowd crush, something not at all unique to religious gatherings?
r/atheism and its consequences have been disastrous to the traditional practice of being a decent human being online
Riiiiiiiight it’s atheists that are the problem. Not just shitty people who happen to be atheist…
Being an atheist and being a member of r/atheism are not the same thing
Claiming that /r/atheism has any significant impact on the internet culture as a whole is just the silliest thing to claim without evidence or explanation of any sort. It doesn’t even say what he’s claiming they did to the internet’s culture just an implication that it was bad.
Pretty empty table pounding statement
This statement hardly merits the same level of proof as a scientific publication. The original post is an example of the obnoxious behavior you find on r/atheism.
They feel superior to and smarter than religious people. In this extreme case, the poster expresses feeling superior to people who died in a stampede that took place at a religious event.
Internet atheists who think they are superior to believers / Believers who think they are superior to atheists are two sides of the same coin.Scientific publication? Jesus dude, I’m just saying you’re showing a whole lot of shit without merit
With emphasis, no, it’s shitty people who happen to be atheist who are the problem. :) Just to clarify, because I would never make that first statement.
“the silliest thing to claim without evidence or explanation of any sort”
You are right, I left a lot implied because my sentiment is a fairly common one. But fair to point out—my apologies. Here is a citation showing that I am far from the first person to hold this opinion on r/atheism.
Note again that I don’t hold any prejudice against any belief system; I only hold that r/atheism in particular historically fostered a culture of toxicity which makes anti-religious prejudice and personal attacks more common compared to offline spaces.
Scribe link for those who don’t want to encounter the medium paywall
Riiiiiiiight it’s atheists that are the problem. Not just shitty people who happen to be atheist…
90% of religious people have a similar reaction when people complain about shitty people who happen to be religious.
Turns out you find shitty people in every group. Who knew?
Problem is atheists are complaining about the people who run the religion, there’s no “head of the atheism”
The linked comment isn’t complaining about the head of anything.
They’re not complaining either. They’re mocking. You’re talked about complaining about bad people when atheists say these are bad Christians. They’re talking about the heads of churches usually or heads of political parties. You know the people with influence and power.
When you talk about bad atheists you talk about randommorons on the internet who are mocking people who don’t deserve it
While not impossible elsewhere. Extremely large crush killings like this happen with alarming regularity at religious events.
Concerts and sporting events have rules and regulations to prevent this nowadays. Guess who cries “persecution” when you try the same for them.
Also, a lot of these events are in the poorer countries, where these regulations don’t exist.
And also because, apparently, god doesn’t want to rescue these people.
No it does not mean that.
No such rules in this one
Though neither specifically mention religion, here are the rules for c/196 and lemmy.blahaj.zone that may cover this case:
lemmy.blahaj.zone’s guidelines:
In addition, lemmy.blahaj.zone’s TOS states that they must follow the laws of Australia, which may have legislation regarding this issue:
Edit: replaced references from lemmy.world’s TOS, I got the instance wrong, my bad! - Also replaced non-image links with archive.org links for posterity (image links have been archived, but they have not been replaced for embedding reasons)
initial version of the comment
No such rules in this one
Though neither specifically mention religion, here are the rules for c/196 and lemmy.world that may cover this case:
In addition, lemmy.world’s TOS states that they must follow the laws of the below three countries, which may have laws regarding this issue:
I read that and don’t see how it’s relevant in this case. I’m simply telling the truth. Invest your tithe into a retirement account and call it a day.
You cannot be telling the truth because not all gods have the same rules. Also no common gods demand castration or incapacitation.
deleted by creator
neither of you or c/196 are from lemmy.world
…that’s embarrassing, I must’ve read it in the post and assumed that this community was on that instance, I’ll correct it in a moment.
Edit: fixed!
deleted by creator
user was banned for this comment 🙃
Flying Squid told me I had psychosis because I disagreed with their views on religion. They’re an asshole.
That’s a stupid thing to say. I recently had an exchange with him and found out he’s kind of off his rocker, so I wouldn’t sweat it too much if I were you.
Sorry. Let me get this right. You had an exchange with a stranger on the internet that didn’t agree with you? They said some crazy stuff so you thought: fuck it. You didn’t argue and start throwing insults. You didn’t take offence from what a rando was saying. You just kinda ignored it and got on with your life? Wtf is wrong with you, my friend? I hope you’re happy in your adult, stress-free, mature life choices.
You should see this comment thread then, gives me the ick
You all may have other issues with this person, but saying you’re going to show embarrassing baby pictures to boyfriends/girlfriends has been standard parenting behavior for as long as there have been photos. Nothing about that makes flying squid a pedo. Stop trying to make fetch happen.
Oh ew that’s some borderline pedo shit. “Here’s the person you’re fucking as a baby. Hahaha you’re sexually attracted to a baby. I created child pornography just to make you uncomfortable because you’re a normal, non-pedophilic person”
Yeah I reported it and this is the lemmy.world response I recieved back as an email
You seem to don’t know what CSAM is.
This was a Joke. Your parents showing your significant other embarrassing Pictures of you, is like the standard things Parents do.
Removed by mod
Holy fuck, I have never seen two people with a more dire need to touch grass in my life. Seriously, log the fuck off of Lemmy, sit in a quiet, dark room, and ponder where your life went so drastically wrong that you’re going to accuse someone of being a pedophile over some baby pictures… All because they called you a name during a disagreement.
touch grass
sit in a quiet, dark room
are you so incensed you forgot how grass works or what
Yeah, never go to the beach, 100% of the people there are pedos. Naked kids everywhere. It’s disgusting /s
Actually though, you don’t really see this that much anymore, when it felt rlly common when I was a kid in the late 90s?
What I actually find way more gross, bordering on pedo-y, is bikini tops for pre-pubescent girls. They weren’t common when I was a kid at all. It’s like people think seeing a young girl’s undeveloped chest would be the draw, when
you’re literally sexualising a part of their body that’s no different from their male peers.It’s still very common in France, at least. I see naked butts all the time as I live near the coast. Dunno about other places, tho…could be different.
As for the two pieces… I think that’s the girls themselves picking those as they wanna appear more mature. Just the other day I was sitting by the changing rooms waiting for my wife and there was a mother and a grandmother with a 10-12 year old girl. They were trying to convince her to buy a one piece and she kept complaining. Dunno, just an anecdote, but it’s the same stuff I hear regarding make-up and stuff as well.
Ok wow crybaby lol
what if you logged on to the internet and were kind
What if you didn’t complain in a totally unrelated community?
imagine posting completely unrelated stuff on 196… who would do that??
it’s always a storm to see .world accounts log on and tell me off for being off topic… in 196 of all places😄
i know this isn’t a genuine question and you mean this just to clap back and be unkind,
but for those interested i am working on it :) trying to figure something out because i also recognize this is suboptimal
Asserting that god exists/doesn’t exist isn’t anti-atheist/anti-religious, hate against (a)theists is.
But it is when you call others stupid for having the belief in a god.
I’m not saying he isn’t a dick in this thread, but a theist may just as easily concern troll and say, “I just want nonbelievers not to go to hell” and that feels equivalent to me.
No one is being swayed by either of these arguments either way.
The user in question is borderline block material anyway based on the rest of their engagement, and they get uuuuuultra defensive when called out.
…and that feels equivalent to me.
wholeheartedly agree, and i would call it out just as i did here. :) either way, such a statement is quite offensive and irresponsible behavior to come from a leader of the “world news” community.
If I recall world news was very toxic and racist on reddit
I recall when stuff about Japan came up on world news it was always misinformed and racist views on how Japan is bad and when people tried to refute they where attacked
It does come from countries that do have an anti-Japan setiment and then spreads to common internet users
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment
And users online resorted to mentioning the “Tiananmen Square Massacre” to stop the trolls from china
If you block FlyingSquid you basically lose ⅓ of all Lemmy content.
Wish I could block their comments and not their link posts
Ask about it on the lemmy github to implement it
Though someone needs to develop a fork of lemmy already because the developers are tankies and they also admin the ml instance
Idk, willful ignorance is kinda stupid
If the mod team on this instance is going to be that prescriptive around how religion is mentioned, then they’re better off just blanket-banning any mention of it altogether, like on Whirlpool.
If you’re a <insert faith>, and in the natural course of discussion people start criticizing ideas that inform <insert faith>'s beliefs and ethics, that’s not a personal attack. It’s not ‘bigotry’ on the basis that you disagree. It’s not ‘trolling’ purely because it made you upset.
I’m going to separately post the famous Charlie Hebdo cover in this thread, the one published after Muslim extremists murdered their people over cartoons. If this instance is so straitjacketed by Australia’s ridiculous lawmaking in this area that it cannot tolerate such a post, then it’s not a forum for adults.
how the fuck is this an appropriate comment to make in response to someone getting yanked over explicitly saying a specific religion was “made up”.
This is not a situation dealing with a critique of “Ideas that inform” this was straight up the statement “Your faith is made up bullshit and people died stupidly because of this made up bullshit”
Religions are made up. Most of us would be better off without that bullshit influencing our lives.
‘Anti-religious comment’ accurately describes my scenario. Anyone who dislikes the hypothetical critique can simply hit the report button and it will get wiped if Rule 4 is read at face value.
Anyone who dislikes the hypothetical critique can simply hit the report button and it will get wiped if Rule 4 is read at face value.
Oh, so you want to throw your terrible take out there for everyone, but you don’t want to actually defend it or have people openly disagree with you?
…is so straitjacketed by Australia’s ridiculous lawmaking in this area…
Seriously? Tell me you’re American without telling me you’re American.
deleted by creator
My ability to stick the boot in on Blahaj-hosted posts is a bit like mods being able to ceaslessly whinge about their voluntary role being thankless/hard to prosecute. It’s really really really important :^)
oops i misunderstood which instance you were criticizing in my other comment my apologies
your comment is a little confusing and i have no opinion on it, take care :)
Kind of off topic, but man it bothers me to see what r/atheism has done to religious discussions. Christianity isn’t religion, it is a singular religion amongst a sea of far less stupid and destructive religions. It’s always so obvious when someone is just talking about their Christian trauma instead of, say, sikhism or something.
every religion has a potential to become what christianity and islam is now. If you tell people to willfully ignore facts and prefer in their place something they wish to be true, and at the same time tell them what to wish for, you have a cult of very gullible people. Religion is not a framework of ethics as religious people like to say, but instead it’s a framework of stupidity.
I don’t think deism has that potential
Deism isn’t a religion
No, Deism isn’t a revealed religion. There’s a distinction.
It’s even worse than that, because Christianity isn’t even a singular religion, it’s a set of related religions, some of which are incredibly problematic and others the worst they have going for them is they “are technically a religion”
Want to see a lack of accountability? Check out necromancer / wintermute_oregon over at [email protected].
Running an echo chamber over there.
Echo chamber in like a theoretical sense? It looks dead silent, even dead, to me. I should mention I think its a good thing. Maybe my instance defederated at some point and I’m “missing out” on all the fun hate speech? /s
No, that dumbass and handful of other morons post occasionally. They are usually mocked pretty heavily if anybody even bothers to acknowledge them.
Locking this post. It’s 2 days old and we’re still getting new reports. Be nice.
deleted by creator
Edited: nvm got more context