-3

The community has probably seen my recent meta complaint “Be nice” or protecting ideologies with history of violence from criticism. I am writing this because I had another delete crackdown on my new answer.

What I see here is a think-skinned moderator who takes offense at my criticism of some mainstream scholarship traditions in the Islamic world, whether it is the alienating elements in Salafi ideology (as in the first linked answer) or shortcomings of present state of scholarship in the Muslim world by large that I critiqued in my new answer.

Points that I had made in my answers were based on reasoned opinion based on evident and verifiable facts about subjects for those with some familiarity with the subject matter. goldPseudo seems often irated when I mention a merit in the Shia jurisprudence or Sufi theology and the demonstrably sterile theology of the Salafi school of respect for warring companions and their "don't discuss liberal questions" attitude.

I want to see whether other members in the community, whether from Islam.SE or others share his sentiments because it is always him that is finding fault with my critical answers because my previous meta has also remained a one-to-one encounter.

Is it only me thinking that he is thin-skinned and repressive with frank criticism of egregious intellectual flaws in the mainstream petrodollar version of Islam (or that of other literalistic traditions for that matter including our fellow Shia akhbaris here in Iran) or are there others willing to support his decisions to repress my answers on the pretext that they are "offensive" -- which I find quite frankly ridiculous. Of course, my opinion may "alienate" some Muslims here but unless you can show why my reasoned opinion rooted in a particular theological/juridical tradition is invalid, I don't see why it is my fault that some Muslims may feel alienated.

Postscript: goldPseudo proceeded to delete another answer of mine to this question "Societal progress and Islam [closed]". The question was asking whether there's a link between Islamic doctrine and scientific backwardness of the Muslim nations (arguably on-topic) but it was closed with "no peer-support" given as reason. Regardless of how the close reason was irrelevant, goldPsudo proceeded to delete my answer too! Deleting answers on closed questions is not a rule in SE, so we're left with the above bias to explain another biased decision by goldPsuedo. SE admins and mods must really give this a thorough thought. We are dealing with a moderator who suppresses scholarly views only to protect some Muslim ideologies with a history of sectarian bigotry, terrorism and geopolitical catastrophes from even scholarly criticism of their ideological shortcomings.

2
  • 5
    If you feel that a moderator is abusing their privilege, then you can follow the procedure on What recourse do I have if I believe a moderator has abused their privileges?. – Andrew T. Jun 28 '20 at 11:20
  • 1
    @AndrewT. I feel the moderator while pretending to be neutral tries to maintain a false equivalence between nonequivalent sects. For him there's no difference between a sect that preaches violence against other sects, and a sect that forbids violence and instead frankly criticizes the intolerant sect. See this recent debate involving goldPseudo. He is actually tolerant enough to converse with a Salafi user who openly says that Shias must be killed! Yet, deletes my answers for censuring this very same Salafi bigotry! – infatuated Jul 5 '20 at 7:19
4

I've probably spent more time than most people looking through goldPseudo's diamond-deleted posts. In my mind, 95%+ are completely unproblematic---these deletions are essential for a functional site. The <5% disagreement is because we're two distinct human beings.

Despite our differences, we need to figure out how to get along; to see the bigger picture; to work together and foster a productive community.

Islam.SE is part of the whole Stack Exchange network, and expectations on behavior here match those throughout the broader community. Stack Exchange as a whole is attempting to become more welcoming and which led to an updated Code of Conduct; pertinent here is:

We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on ... gender, sexual orientation ... When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.

Nowadays, we stay well away from the boundaries, which is clear in the Code of Conduct ("No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language"). If I may use a modern buzzword: we use an abundance of caution.

This is basically consistent with goldPseudo's comment:

Posts here are expected to be written with respect for all people, not for dismissing and attacking beliefs you disagree with while you prop up your own. Your word choice and inclusion of idealistic personal beliefs here is decidedly biased, misleading, and quite frankly will be found offensive by many: If you are unwilling or unable to take the time to write respectfully, leave the question for someone who can.
goldPseudo♦, 27 June, 2020

Diamond moderators don't get to just pick-and-choose which rules to follow: if it weren't goldPseudo, it'd just be some other diamond moderator (or even a Stack Exchange staff member) enforcing it. [Or if it gets out of control, then Stack Exchange might just turn Islam.SE off entirely.]

I recall bringing up anti-gay content years ago, and one of the underlying concepts raised was:

My take on it is this: it has to be possible to describe Islamic doctrine exactly as it is as well as the scholarly arguments that underpin it. Endorsing the offensive parts (or apologist talk about them) however should not be tolerated.
G. Bach, April 2017

This is reasonable advice for writing such answers.

(The other answer here is rude towards Westerners (and maybe other groups too); it's just routine deletion and any other half-competent diamond moderator would do the same. There's no comment, so it's not clear to me that goldPseudo deleted it; e.g., it could have been automatically deleted after being flagged as "offensive".)

3
  • So we suppress facts because it may offend people, even well-known major mainstream facts. Seriously does this rule also apply to posts that offend Nazis, ISIS, al-Qaeda, White Supremacists, etc, when explaining their bigoted beliefs or conduct? I am really curious. – infatuated Jul 16 '20 at 19:51
  • Basically "offensive material + [anything]" => delete. (I don't really know the answer as to what would happen to material which would exclusively offend members of e.g. a terrorist organization. I asked a related question at one point.) – Rebecca J. Stones Jul 16 '20 at 23:51
  • I understand the dictionary definition of "offensive". The question is whether a post can be taken down simply because it may offend certain ideologies or people, even if it is based on facts and sound reasoning. As for the part you quoted from goldPseudo on my posts being undesirably "idealistic," afaik, there's no SE rule excluding "idealistic" posts, and then Shias are arguably idealist in their understanding of both religion and the world. Does that mean Shia beliefs must be excluded? And ultimately what does idealistic even mean beyond "it goes past convenient or mediocre beliefs"? – infatuated Jul 17 '20 at 7:36
3

My experience is that goldPseudo can be harsh but fair. They seem to take a balanced approach and are willing to discuss issues when asked nicely, but don't seem afraid to take action when necessary.

1
  • Yes, he 'seems' but not really in this case at least. I may consider taking action after more inputs to my meta complaints. – infatuated Jul 16 '20 at 4:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .