Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I'm the most recent poster in eight threads in this forum (including this one) as of 6/10/26 at 9:32pm PDT
And, no, I don't know why I'm pointing this out.
addendum: Nine as of 6/10 at 9:42pm
I don’t disagree with your analysis that religions oftentimes embed themselves in or create power structures in society. My contention is with the specific idea that this is the “purpose” of religion, which I find dubious. I think there’s a much more fundamental inclination that gives rise to religion, which is the desire to explain the world, especially
I don't think religion gets underway with the purpose of exerting power, no. Then again, few things do. So I agree with the sentiment.
Any belief system organized into ingroups and outgroups can very quickly be used to exert power. We are all primed to move in social flocks; while a select few detach completely from human no life, none of them post here. Even a forum like this will quickly develop social hierarchy. While I doubt there is much power to be had, I'm sure most people have self-censored as a result of it.
However, I do think religion holds a particular place in its ability to exert power and influence over people. On the small scale, churches and temples can rank above the importance of family and friendships. On the large scale, organized religion can move nations and control states. The combination of the two is quite the phenomena.
As for expressions ala "Religion is only used for power", a lot of this has its roots in intellectual rejection of religion in our nations during times when religion still had its root in pretty much everything, to the great detriment of freethinkers. In the best case scenario they were stifled, in the worst case scenario they were ostracized and punished. And of course, there is a political aspect to such slogans. Religion, once it settles in, tends to become reactionary. Those who want to change often butt heads with it. This is still very much relevant today. Our nations might have made it simpler to escape the influence of religion, so we are free to discuss the negative aspects of it on a forum like this without having our lives ruined. In many places of the world this is still not true, and rejecting religion can still lead to ostracization, jail, torture or death.
As for why religion becomes a thing and seems so universal, we are also all primed to look for patterns and answer in the worlds. Religion provides plenty of both. Instead of being scared of thunder, you can tell people about how cool Thor is and that we should all totally get drunk and have a barbeque in his honour.
Fwiw; For the developed world, I think the power structures and impact of social media is a much more important topic than that of religion. Popes pale compared to the power of big tech owners, and bishops can only dream of the influence of social media personalities.
We have advanced to have freedom of religion, so religion is usually a question of personal choice, which I think is fine. There are some vestiges of power remaining, but I'd say on the list of problems it is fairly low these days.
That said, in many parts of the world, it is still a big issue.
Fwiw; For the developed world, I think the power structures and impact of social media is a much more important topic than that of religion. Popes pale compared to the power of big tech owners, and bishops can only dream of the influence of social media personalities.We have advanced to have freedom of religion, so religion is usually a question of personal choice, which I thin
By all accounts social media is having just as big an impact in the developing world as the developed world (we can quibble what exactly is developing and developed). And not in a good way. Extreme amount of divisiveness and nonsense conspiracy theories being pushed by bad actors, often state actors and/or religious leaders (see clerics in Iran).
Every negative aspect of social media in the developed world is amplified in the developing world. And religion is more a part of the problem than the solution.
By all accounts social media is having just as big an impact in the developing world as the developed world (we can quibble what exactly is developing and developed). And not in a good way. Extreme amount of divisiveness and nonsense conspiracy theories being pushed by bad actors, often state actors (see trump and maga) and/or religious leaders (see clerics in Iran). Every
fyp.
A large part of the attraction of religion is it meets a communal need and a need for meaning/belonging. That's not meaning as in an explanation of things but a far less specific sense of feeling our lives have some purpose.
Education gets talked of as an antidote to religious beliefs which is of course true but it is exaggerated as partly it's correlation rather than a causation. People in better educated countries also derived a sense of meaning/position from belief in justice, democracy, progress and social systems that looked after people.
As faith in democracy/justice as any sort of moral functioning system is destroyed we will most likely see a rise in religion to meet the same need (fascism is a variety of this where a person becomes worshiped)
*we could try to do something about it I suppose
I'm over and out until Monday.
Y'all have a splendid weekend!
Yes. I would say that hijacking our evolutionary psychology as social animals and coercing group behavior is the main purpose of religion. With social ostracization being the main "stick" to maintain compliance.
Politics works the same way, and many here are infected in the same manner as the most fervent religious people.
By all accounts social media is having just as big an impact in the developing world as the developed world (we can quibble what exactly is developing and developed). And not in a good way. Extreme amount of divisiveness and nonsense conspiracy theories being pushed by bad actors, often state actors and/or religious leaders (see clerics in Iran). Every negative aspect of s
That is a good point, it is certainly also a huge problem in the developing world. The Myanmar genocide is an exceptional case study in social media's problems, and is just one example.
The centralization of big tech and social media into enormous single entities is obviously also a good fit for authoritarian and totalitarian countries, because it is easier to go after, attack, corrupt or exploit big single actors.
Are the "no personal attacks" rules taken seriously here? We have a poster flagrantly flouting all twoplustwo and forum wide rules, and he seems to post unhindered.
[quote=The Rules](b) Posts that attack another poster rather than address the issue of the thread. This includes rude, insulting, or snarky comments that add nothing to the discussion but rather seek to ridicule, demean or embarrass another poster.[/quote]
Just this month and nearly all of their content here (it's not like this is part of a general discussion)
Your father shouhd have pushed your mother down the stairs.
You’re on ignore now, incel.
And that's just some of them. It's a bit much to read this level of abuse. No one else seems to do this here.
Interesting point, obvious alt. Birds of a feather, ey?
Are the "no personal attacks" rules taken seriously here? We have a poster flagrantly flouting all twoplustwo and forum wide rules, and he seems to post unhindered.
Just this month and nearly all of their content here (it's not like this is part of a general discussion)
And that's just some of them. It's a bit much to read this level of abuse. No one else seems to do this here.
**** off, snowflake
The regulars around here have wanted a less-strict moderating forum for a while now. Not my cup of tea but I manage.
I do point out the-old-rule to a few posters when they step over that line in the sand in-my-opinion but typically the new management/owners don't seem to care about civility.
I suggest wearing a comfortable pair of panties.
Thanks for replying, good to know. When it was bought from Mason there was a "civility only, zero tolerance personal attacks" , guess that didn't last lol
ITT an intentionally bad faith snowflake wants to have his cuck and eat it too
Thanks for replying, good to know. When it was bought from Mason there was a "civility only, zero tolerance personal attacks" , guess that didn't last lol
You haven't posted since before Mason sold the company but seem to be intimately aware of the new owners' stance was on personal attacks when they took over the company. Sure, buddy.
Definitely bigly shoutout to the alt who wants to create a brand new account to hide himself for whatever the ****ing reason having feelings about people being able to insult him
What a derelict piece of ****
90% chance TheBigEasy is like 5'3', weighs about 100 lbs and has a high squeaky voice.
Are the "no personal attacks" rules taken seriously here? We have a poster flagrantly flouting all twoplustwo and forum wide rules, and he seems to post unhindered.
Just this month and nearly all of their content here (it's not like this is part of a general discussion)
And that's just some of them. It's a bit much to read this level of abuse. No one else seems to do this here.
Put me on ignore or maybe even close your computer and get a ****ing life you zero.
