Misinformation about other religions

[Kapalika]

This is mostly something I see in the LHP DIR anytime the so called "Eastern" Left Hand Path comes up but it's been a very tense thing for over a year. And it's happened a lot in the religious debates with any number of religions and sometimes in other DIRs as well where someone who's never practiced something claims so and so religion believes or does X when it's not so (at least from x and x's perspective if not more objectively so).

Basically, it seems a lot of people who don't practice a religion speak about it with no practical or theoretical understanding of it. Asserting stuff that isn't true.

It's a little different when it's in a debate but even then it's pretty gross to me. If someone consistently has told you that you are wrong about what they believe and practice, why would you doubt them and go with your own preconceptions?

It just infuriates me that these types of posters continue to be so willfully ignorant. Do you think that there is anything that can be done to curb this? I feel like, normally the staff doesn't know enough about so many varied topics to make an assessment on what's just a matter of opinion and what's truly just untrue. So I don't think that exactly is a solution and hasn't been in the past.

It just feels so wrong. Is there anything we can do to improve an authentic, mutual understanding of eachother's beliefs? Would that help with this kind of thing and maybe sway some of the more stubborn to reconsider?

EDIT: On page 2 I explained better.

I guess really what I'm trying to get at, is that we need to all make an effort to not do it ourselves and point out to others, politely as possible of course, that they are doing it. I think that would go a long way to just simply be more aware of it and address it when it happens.

That's part of the reason I put this in interfaith. Because really it's an interfaith effort. If one of your friend's beliefs are being misrepresented, speak up. Don't let them fare it alone. Hopefully everyone can put in an effort and things will improve.

 

[crossfire]

It's not surprising that all sorts of propaganda comes up regarding antinomian and heterodox religions, and people will insist that the propaganda is true. (Even Satanists use this tactic when insisting that Lucifer is Satan.) We get it in the Buddhism DIR a lot as well.

There is always this passage from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones that could apply to any other belief system.

A Cup of Tea​

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”​

 

[Kapalika]

It's not surprising that all sorts of propaganda comes up regarding antinomian and heterodox religions, and people will insist that the propaganda is true. (Even Satanists use this tactic when insisting that Lucifer is Satan.) We get it in the Buddhism DIR a lot as well.

There is always this passage from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones that could apply to any other belief system.

A Cup of Tea​

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”​

That sounds like the professor was set up for the delivery of some insight lol

 

[Native]

Is there anything we can do to improve an authentic, mutual understanding of eachother's beliefs?

Thanks for posting

Believers and non believers could consider the fact that we all live under the same overall cosmological conditions, which are described in the numerous cultural Stories of Creation. We all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe.

This is the story of creation and this is what science also are investigating. This is our human mutual story and it should be our common approach to understanding each other and accept the smaller differences in any local tradition.

 

[Laika]

This is mostly something I see in the LHP DIR anytime the so called "Eastern" Left Hand Path comes up but it's been a very tense thing for over a year. And it's happened a lot in the religious debates with any number of religions and sometimes in other DIRs as well where someone who's never practiced something claims so and so religion believes or does X when it's not so (at least from x and x's perspective if not more objectively so).

Basically, it seems a lot of people who don't practice a religion speak about it with no practical or theoretical understanding of it. Asserting stuff that isn't true.

It's a little different when it's in a debate but even then it's pretty gross to me. If someone consistently has told you that you are wrong about what they believe and practice, why would you doubt them and go with your own preconceptions?

It just infuriates me that these types of posters continue to be so willfully ignorant. Do you think that there is anything that can be done to curb this? I feel like, normally the staff doesn't know enough about so many varied topics to make an assessment on what's just a matter of opinion and what's truly just untrue. So I don't think that exactly is a solution and hasn't been in the past.

It just feels so wrong. Is there anything we can do to improve an authentic, mutual understanding of eachother's beliefs? Would that help with this kind of thing and maybe sway some of the more stubborn to reconsider?

If you look at Rule 3, Part 2 you can actually report members for that although I'm not aware how common it is moderated on.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviours and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviours and content include:

...

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

Rule 9 can also be read in a similar light depending on how you define "unproductive content".

9. Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission
The mission of Religious Forums is to provide a civil, informative, respectful, and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate. Content members create while debating and discussing must be done in the spirit of productivity. Bashing other forums, creating unproductive content or responses to others, attempting to use this site as a platform for campaigning for or against or furthering a personal agenda, and attempting to undermine the forum mission may result in moderation.

I'm not saying that the moderators are guaranteed to act on a report but the option is there if needed. I think the worst thing about it, is when you end up being in a "war of attrition" defending specific beliefs or positions from counter-factual positions. Its pretty demoralising but in practice beliefs aren't equal and depend very much on how many members there are and how active they are in expressing that point of view. The truth doesn't always win in debates sadly because its partly about power and "might is right".

It's a little different when it's in a debate but even then it's pretty gross to me. If someone consistently has told you that you are wrong about what they believe and practice, why would you doubt them and go with your own preconceptions?

I've had this a few times and it gets upsetting because you feel your being put on the defensive. After some debates, I have to resist the urge to want to hit someone. there are you're genuine trolls who are just screwing with you, but most of the time it is people who are telling you practically to your face that "the world is flat- can't you see the shape of that horizon?" and are utterly sincere in doing so. its shocking and throws you off balance because it turns out something you are certain of, other people don't believe or perhaps never even contemplated.

I've sort of reached the view that people do not have the same conception of reality as I do (even if we ultimately get the information from the same source). It should really be obvious on a religious forum when you have creationists and evolutionists fighting it out- that they don't even agree on the definition of science, knowledge, reality, etc, but its not because we all carry round the idea that what is normal to us is normal for everyone else. there isn't a single universal standard of truth or knowledge amongst all members on RF. truth isn't universal and there isn't some cosmic absolute standard of universal reason in which these dialogues take place. That's a direct consequence of the degree of diversity on here and the danger is that wanting approval or recognition can get us into a trap of trying to convince people to agree with us when they aren't going to.

There is a decent amount of psychology involved in it as well, such as the "backfire effect" where telling someone they are wrong puts them on edge and makes them more insistent of their views. When you debate someone, you get all the person involved- including the emotional, psychological and irrational elements- not just pure cold reason. In terms of how a person's thinking evolves, I think its pretty slow and gradual and the important thing to remember is its not you and your not crazy. its just that the way we expect people to respond to information contrary to their view is wrong and the process is much slower and more complicated than we may at first realise. its been one of the harder lessons of being on RF to say the least and has not been without resentment. the one benefit is that its made me much more philosophical thinking about "how we know what we know" and wondering why another person doesn't know or can't accept something that I know and have the evidence to prove it true to myself. that doesn't mean it works for the other person though and that's the problem.

this is definitely not a conventional view because it undermines ideas of universal reason, truth and science but its where I've evolved towards given the constraints of discussions on RF. its how I try to cope with it.

 

[Kapalika]

I think when it comes to moderation, as I said, the staff isn't equipped or knowledgeable enough to discern what is and isn't misrepresentation versus a matter of difference of opinion without it being really egregious. What more bothers me is when something is a relatively subtle attempt to try to invalidate the status of another path by using what to an outsider might look like a minor difference of opinion but in the context of the topic is actually a big deal assuming they even understand what's being discussed.

 

[Native]

I think when it comes to moderation, as I said, the staff isn't equipped or knowledgeable enough to discern what is and isn't misrepresentation versus a matter of difference of opinion without it being really egregious

IMO it isn´t moderators task to discern anything else but whether the members follows the written rules in a forum which should be known for all participants.

 

[Kapalika]

IMO it isn´t moderators task to discern anything else but whether the members follows the written rules in a forum which should be known for all participants.

Well, it's technically against the rules so that's why it was even brought up.

 

[crossfire]

This is mostly something I see in the LHP DIR anytime the so called "Eastern" Left Hand Path comes up but it's been a very tense thing for over a year. And it's happened a lot in the religious debates with any number of religions and sometimes in other DIRs as well where someone who's never practiced something claims so and so religion believes or does X when it's not so (at least from x and x's perspective if not more objectively so).

Basically, it seems a lot of people who don't practice a religion speak about it with no practical or theoretical understanding of it. Asserting stuff that isn't true.

It's a little different when it's in a debate but even then it's pretty gross to me. If someone consistently has told you that you are wrong about what they believe and practice, why would you doubt them and go with your own preconceptions?

It just infuriates me that these types of posters continue to be so willfully ignorant. Do you think that there is anything that can be done to curb this? I feel like, normally the staff doesn't know enough about so many varied topics to make an assessment on what's just a matter of opinion and what's truly just untrue. So I don't think that exactly is a solution and hasn't been in the past.

It just feels so wrong. Is there anything we can do to improve an authentic, mutual understanding of eachother's beliefs? Would that help with this kind of thing and maybe sway some of the more stubborn to reconsider?

Do you think we need separate DIRs for Antinomianism and Heterodoxy?

 

[Laika]

I think when it comes to moderation, as I said, the staff isn't equipped or knowledgeable enough to discern what is and isn't misrepresentation versus a matter of difference of opinion without it being really egregious.

It is really difficult for the mods and its why its important to have a diversity of beliefs amongst the staff members so they can inform moderation decisions based on a consensus of three mods. Its not perfect, but within the limits of what the forum can muster, its an elegant solution.

What more bothers me is when something is a relatively subtle attempt to try to invalidate the status of another path by using what to an outsider might look like a minor difference of opinion but in the context of the topic is actually a big deal assuming they even understand what's being discussed.

this has happened to me several times where someone thinks they've "debunked" an idea about my beliefs, have done it really badly (because I know the book/author who said it first) and have no idea how offensive and humiliating it is to try to defend something that I find self-evident or important. People don't attribute the same significance to different ideas, so you're engaged in a weird form of unequal exchange. basically, if you're out numbered they can steam roll right over you and the prevailing view will win even if its wrong. its really brutal, all about the balance of power and easy to get hurt by it. its one of the reasons I've tried to quit RF twice but I came back thinking I might know better and just wanted to take the risk as a still like people on here.

For LHPs, I guess it will be to do with how Christian, Jewish and Islamic conceptions of the Devil represent him as evil, when of course LHPs think of satan in terms of enlightenment, self-interest and personal freedom. If someone has never heard the other point of view (and I hadn't until I came to RF) the common misconceptions are going to appear self-evident and it will feel like its backed up by the social proof of "everyone else thinks this way". I found being an LHP was more useful in dealing with these kind of conflicts because there is no obligation on me to convince someone of the truth and I can take a much more selfish attitude to posting. I found the idea of "heroic dissent" is completely wrong because no-one does it out of sacrifice or martyrdom for the "greater good". dissent is a selfish act of non-conformity, telling everyone else where to get off. we just enjoy believing one thing over another and the selfish act of thinking "this feels good so I'm going to keep doing it" has to take precedence over the feeling we have a duty to correct every mis-conception. In the absolute sea of falsehood on the internet I find it better to think of myself as a drop in an ocean and I can't change the tide, so I have to find ways to go with it and "live and let live". it means letting go of a belief in the idea that the truth always wins though and thats pretty sad.

 

[Native]

It is really difficult for the mods and its why its important to have a diversity of beliefs amongst the staff members so they can inform moderation decisions based on a consensus of three mods. Its not perfect, but within the limits of what the forum can muster, its an elegant solution.

I don´t agree in this. The mods only have to react on member violations of the rules themselves. Otherwise we are on the track of using censorship. The mods decisions are only to be based on factual violations of the forum rules and not on members opinions or beliefs.

 

[Vinayaka]

Basically, it seems a lot of people who don't practice a religion speak about it with no practical or theoretical understanding of it. Asserting stuff that isn't true.

One way to make yourself look tall is to make everyone else look short. But generally people see through that illusion.

 

[blü 2]

I'm reminded of Edward FitzGerald's Omar Khayyam placing the virtues of wine well ahead of religious debate ─

The Grape that can with Logic absolute
The Two-and-Seventy jarring Sects confute:

The sovereign Alchemist that in a trice​

Life’s leaden metal into Gold transmute:​

 

[Laika]

I don´t agree in this. The mods only have to react on member violations of the rules themselves. Otherwise we are on the track of using censorship. The mods decisions are only to be based on factual violations of the forum rules and not on members opinions or beliefs.

That's not what I said. I said that the staff have people from multiple beliefs to inform moderation decisions and have a consensus to prevent unintended bias or abuses. I said nothing to the effect that moderation decisions are made to persecute a group of certain political or religious beliefs.

In terms of free speech, I've introduced myself as a Communist sympathiser, started threads on banning the bible and the qu'ran, nihilism, state atheism as a means to deal with religious fundamentalism, attacked Christmas, flirted with fascism/social darwinism and defended the right of fascists to express their views on here among a range of other things. They're are a couple of ex-fascists and ex-nazis on here from Stormfront.org as well as left-wing Anarchists and Libertarians.There is evidence of a few anarcho-capitalists and objectivists from past years as well. I can recall several people claiming to be Jesus and someoone who wanted to unite the Islamic world in a jihad against the west and kept calling people an infidel. There was one member who said the earth was a cube, maths was a racist conspiracy, that the number one was evil and that the Sun orbits the Earth. People literally worship the devil here.

So no. You don't have to worry about censorship here.

 

[Native]

That's not what I said. I said that the staff have people from multiple beliefs to inform moderation decisions and have a consensus to prevent unintended bias or abuses. I said nothing to the effect that moderation decisions are made to persecute a group of certain political or religious beliefs.

Sorry for this misunderstandings

 

[Laika]

Sorry for this misunderstandings

Thanks. I'm an ex-mod (and a free man- hurrah!) but I try to help people understand how things work as it can help out occasionally. I'm currently waiting for a copy of Mein Kamph to come through the post, so being accused of defending censorship is a bit ...

...well...

....unexpected.

 

[Quintessence]

I think when it comes to moderation, as I said, the staff isn't equipped or knowledgeable enough to discern what is and isn't misrepresentation versus a matter of difference of opinion without it being really egregious.

You'd be surprised. There's a reason why team diversity is a consideration with our hires. We can (and have) moderated members in the past for consistently misrepresenting other ideologies. In these cases, the alleged misrepresentation isn't actually the most important component for consideration. What we really look for is a pattern demonstrating an intent to undermine a particular tradition. Such undermining can be done with facts or with fiction, so in most respects, being knowledgable about the tradition isn't important. It's not that hard to pin down a trend of someone undermining a tradition. Honestly, the hardest part seems to be getting members to report this stuff to us so we can look into it. *cough* *cough* *nudge* *jab*

All that said, we like to steer clear of interfering in interfaith debates. Sometimes what one party claims is "misrepresentation" actually represents an ongoing item of dispute within a community. Those discussions are important to see and important to have. We want them here! Just make sure they're in debate areas and remember to play nice.

 

[Rival]

Thanks. I'm an ex-mod (and a free man- hurrah!) but I try to help people understand how things work as it can help out occasionally. I'm currently waiting for a copy of Mein Kamph to come through the post, so being accused of defending censorship is a bit ...

...well...

....unexpected.

It makes for super dull reading, believe me. If only Adolf could write as well as he could speak.

 

[Laika]

It makes for super dull reading, believe me. If only Adolf could write as well as he could speak.

yeah, I'm expecting it will be pretty dull although as someone with so little exposure to Nazism and Fascism it could still be really useful. I think it matters that I actually have a copy and don't buy into the idea its "too dangerous to read". I find the willingness of people to be anti-fascist based on a blind moral panic troubling and deeply unprincipled. its important to actually know how its wrong rather than just claim it because of political correctness, so it deserves a read and some thought to be intellectually honest about what it is rather than what people say about it. I'd guess there will be things I agree with Hitler on even by sheer co-incidence and it will be interesting to see where.

probably not the raging antisemitism though. I'm not seeing that happen any time soon.

 

[Rival]

yeah, I'm expecting it will be pretty dull although as someone with so little exposure to Nazism and Fascism it could still be really useful. I think it matters that I actually have a copy and don't buy into the idea its "too dangerous to read". I find the willingness of people to be anti-fascist based on a blind moral panic troubling and deeply unprincipled. its important to actually know how its wrong rather than just claim it because of political correctness, so it deserves a read and some thought to be intellectually honest about what it is rather than what people say about it. I'd guess there will be things I agree with Hitler on even by sheer co-incidence and it will be interesting to see where.

probably not the raging antisemitism though. I'm not seeing that happen any time soon.

I wish you were straight.