OK guys? What's going on?

[Quagmire]

And what can we do about it?

For months now this DIR has been a train wreck.

So instead of us having to close/move/trash thread after thread, handing out PMs, warnings, infractions and restrictions, ect., let's see if we can come up with some workable solutions.

It's been suggested by a DIR member that we create an additional Hinduism DIR, a green (open) one to go along with the blue (restricted) DIR.

That's just one idea. If anyone has any other suggestions, please feel free to bring those up here.

Now remember: this is a DIR, so let's not turn this into a debate thread. If you don't like someone else's suggestion, don't worry about it. the only time you should be concerned is if you see us putting up a poll to vote on the suggestions, and then, of course, you'll have your vote just like everyone else.

Also, please let's not start pointing fingers at anyone: if you feel certain behaviors or practices are having a detrimental effect on the over-all atmosphere here, please point those out, BUT lets leave names out of it.

All the rules still apply, so lets see if we can come up with some kind of comprehensive understanding of the situation without breaking any of those.

If anyone has some input that they'd rather not share here, or that they feel would be impossible to do so without violating rule 10 (or any other rule) please create a thread about it in Site Feedback. Everybody's opinions will be taken into account and we'll see if we can come up with a solution that everyone can live with.

Note: if this thread does become a bash-fest against any member(s) or group of members, we'll close it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have nothing to add, other than that I totally admire the moderators of this forum. You have a tough and often thankless job. So thank you guys for all the hard work you do. I truly appreciate it.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I already stated this elsewhere (in the site feedback), but I personally feel that there should be rules explicitly prohibiting trolling, flaming, or incessantly insulting other members, either directly or indirectly. In addition, while threads may be derailed from time to time or may become prone to debate and I don't necessarily have a problem with that, members should pay heed to requests not to derail the thread. If all members can agree to abide by that, then I'm perfectly fine. I also don't approve of name-calling (calling people extremist or what not) as that contributes to making the overall environment quite hostile.
jai shrI kRiShNa

 

[ametist]

I have nothing to add, other than that I totally admire the moderators of this forum. You have a tough and often thankless job. So thank you guys for all the hard work you do. I truly appreciate it.

Yes, I second that. I havent even noticed something was going on. So, I am sure parties involved will provide all the help, support and ease they can at least for the fact that those outside arent brought face to face with a train wreck and still enjoying the hinduism dir.

 

[Maya3]

How about starting a "get to know each other thread" nothing about Hinduism, just a friendly place to chat about day to day things and what we like.
We can even "bring food" and make it a visiting corner.

Maya

 

[Quagmire]

How about starting a "get to know each other thread" nothing about Hinduism, just a friendly place to chat about day to day things and what we like.
We can even "bring food" and make it a visiting corner.

Maya

You guys can do something like that in here anytime you want.

 

[Maya3]

You guys can do something like that in here anytime you want.

Thanks, ok I´ll start it. I´ll call it "Virtual Ashram."

Maya

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

There is a very real problem here.

And it in fact does have to do with extremists. This is a Hinduism DIR, with members who have been Hindus longer than some of these extremists have been alive (or whatever term you chose to call Sanatana Dharma) who dare tell other Hindus they cannot/should not read Hindu scriptures (e.g. Vedas) because they are not born a certain clan or race, that they are not allowed to earn a living other than servitude because of whom their parents were and their birth, this includes saying such foolish and unacceptable racist things to other Indians even, excluding millions and millions of Indians they want to if given a chance to be excluded from their own faith. These extremists live in the world of "Manu Smriti" promoting even torture of fellow Hindus. In India, what they preach is illegal.

These extremists are promoting human rights abuse.

This is not a minor matter. What is even more twisted in this is, these same then start using vile, unmannered and sexual type talk, I have read it in PMs as well where the vile becomes more vile, and they specifically tell other members they are not allowed to be a Hindu due to factors of birth, there is no mistake in interpretation, and do so calling the most advanced Hindus as being un-Dharmic if they practice their own God given right of religion.

Many are sick of this. They purposely troll for such vile nonsense because they live in such hatred. We Hindus know the specific terms used as part of this game, we know what they mean, and it is no different than using the "N" word. The trouble they reap is their joy.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

You be around, Quagmire. The forum was somewhat un-policed. People will behave better. And thanks.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Actually, this isn't very complicated at all.

But for non-Hindus, especially Westerner non-Hindus, they may not be familiar with "Hindu" words, Sanskrit terms, and so on. For those extremists who want to belittle others birth or race or origin, this works in their advantage because, (1 ) certain terms indeed have multiple meanings, but (2) within a certain framework of A to B the agenda of a meaning becomes very clear to those who are being abused and are knowledgeable of the terminology used.

The only way I can explain it to those who are not familiar with this apartheid agenda and such terms, the only example off the top of my head would be to "translate" this into a "Christian" context, but that isn't an optimal example because there are many, many Westerners who are not Christian. But let me give it a try, it might be fun.

Suppose there is a forum with a "Christism DIR".

There is a member called Adolf who posts on this forum, "Christism is very clear. Those born black, such as those foreigners from Africa who are not born here in our German Fatherland, they are unclean. God Jesus, He marked them with black skin so we can know they are unclean. Here in the Fatherland we have a symbol that represents the Supreme Authority, whose form is Jesus, and it is the Black Iron Cross. This Black is good, but that black skin is dirty. Jesus was a male, and He is White. Only whites can therefore be Christus, not blacks. Did He have any blacks as His disciples? No. So He has judged no black can be his disciple. Jesus in fact was a German, we know that from the Law Book of Baron Von Goering of 1492 AD. The true religion is here in the Fatherland. Most blacks are Catholics, they worship multiple Gods like Mary and Saints. But only Jesus and the Iron Cross are Supreme."

Hmmmm .... ok, that may just be "generalist" enough to get away with posting on many forums, though there are some forums which have very specific terms and rules, such as "no racist postings are allowed, no calling others inferior due to birth, race or origin". Though another forum may have a rule that only says "no threats of violence" and so on, and so the post remains since there is no specific threat. It is just "generalist" enough.

However, 97.65% of other members of the Christism DIR probably would not agree with Adolf. Most would find his post disgusting. Some might say "I do not agree, blacks are not unclean" or something like that. But also so may be gentle in reply or not say anything at all (ignore) because they don't want to be seen as against free speech which most reasonable people agree. "We have extremists like everyone else does" would be their proper response.

Now let us step over the line.

A new member joins the Christism DIR named James Brown. During his ramblings on the forum, James posts certain things which makes it obvious he is African-American.

At some point Adolf figures out James is "black". Some discussion starts, and Adolf's extremist generalizations kick in, but then Adolf specifically replies and directs a comment to James specifically. And Adolf uses the word you to James.

Adolf says you. The you is James specifically. That if James, now identified non-white, "Hey, no one can stop you - but you cannot read the Bible or that would be un-Holy of you". Why? Because James is not born in Germany and is non-white, and thus actually can never be an Adolf, never be an actual Christu, and James is personally ("you") being addressed. James knows he is being called unclean.

Now that is not generalism. That is personal. That is also harassment as recognized by social and civil and corporate and business all over the world and in India.

What do you think is going to happen? Let us say James belongs to the same Christu Church as Joseph who, let's pretend Joe is British in heritage. Maybe James will really be taken back, but not say anything. But Adolf knew exactly what he is trolling for.

Martin is a member, too. He belongs to a Christu Church that thinks Jesus was just a man, not God. Adolf says only those who believe what he believes is a Christu. He wants Martin banned.

Then a line is crossed. Adolf say to Martin, "you are not a Christu". Not a general belief, but specific to Martin.

Moderators can do what they do. For example, in the name of free speech there may not be any rules regarding insulting others based on birth, race, origin. Deciding who to ban or not. In fact Adolf may say "N" is not a bad word, "in fact it is a compliment". It means you are from Niger Africa, you are a foreigner to Germany. But is does identify you, and you dirty to the touch but I will mention that later or "as I have already explained" (per Adolf). So no problem. Very soon, it is ok to say, "you James, you are an "N"" ... it's cool.

Some do not understand, there isn't really an "answer" to these things. It is all arbitary actually.
But one thing I seem to see now in my two years of "Intenet Hindu Forums", there are no Gurus on these forums. There are a couple who are advanced, you find them. But I don't think Gurus are much interested. That might be good, too. Not all "Gurus" are the end all to be all.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I guess what I've noticed is that a lot of non- Hindu members are coming in with legitimate questions, but instead of keeping the thread on topic, it turns into a argument about who is allowed to be called what label. And then when Hindu members try to defend the tenets of their beliefs, they are accused of being closed minded.

Basically a good chunk of what happens in DIR actually belongs in the Religious debate forums and I wish those interested in debate would take their questions and topics there.

You can't come into a forum with a "respectful question" and then argue with those trying to give you an answer. If you know it all, already, why are you here? If you're looking for answers, great, take what you find useful and leave the rest.

As for potential solutions, it seems to be a matter of redirecting people to the debate forums. We could split the forum into two sections, but that seems messy and confusing to me.

You could do a subforum called "Hindu Debate" where those who wish to hash out controversial aspects of Hinduism can do so to their hearts content. Hinduism is a vast and welcoming faith, but we also deserve our own space where we don't have to defend certain tenets over and over and be called "close minded" just because we insist on certain things. Don't like it? That's totally okay, but we end up chasing each other around.

I appreciate the forum moderators bringing this up and trying to come to a solution. :namaste:

:camp:

 

[Vinayaka]

when Hindu members try to defend the tenets of their beliefs, they are accused of being closed minded.

I tried to frugal you again, but apparently I've overfrugaled you.

But I am really glad that some have stopped. Now, I don't know whether it was because they had a clear look at themselves in a moment of introspection, or whether it was because they didn't want to hang out with a bunch of intolerant ____s. but I'm truly hoping it was the former. The end result is the same, more a place of gentle and cooperative discussion, a place to share stuff.

 

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

In my time here and at HDF, I have managed to avoid being drawn into
any wasteful, fruitless descents into ugliness by virtue of two facts:

A) It is made most clear from the beginning that I will not engage in any way
in such nonsense, in any form.

B) If there is the slightest doubt about the direction of a thread, or the ability
of a member to show reasonable restraint or respect for other members, then
I will not participate in the thread.

I do my best to remember why I am here, that I am an adult, and that an online
forum is a place where often persons quickly forget or ignore the boundaries between
public and personal life; words on a screen typed by strangers should never have
the power to disrupt one's serenity.

The positive, I embrace and am grateful for- the negative, I avoid upon recognizing
it.

The behavior of others is not my responsibility, but my own certainly is; I will
continue to "see only the eye of the bird" in this regard

JAI MATA DI

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I guess what I've noticed is that a lot of non- Hindu members are coming in with legitimate questions, but instead of keeping the thread on topic, it turns into a argument about who is allowed to be called what label. And then when Hindu members try to defend the tenets of their beliefs, they are accused of being closed minded.

That's putting it nicely. It's usually more along the line of being labeled as caste extremist or such, like in the recent shUdra-veda discussion. The thread creator and I had agreed to take our discussion outside of the other thread, out of respect for not derailing the thread. However, certain trolls not only derailed the newly-created thread with unproductive posts, but eventually gradually started to engage in harassment, labeling individuals as extremists or making jokes about hitting others with canes. Even on this thread itself, individuals are labeling others as extremists. I was forced to plead with the members not to derail the thread, but it seems that was about as effective as pleading with a five-year old child throwing a temper tantrum. If you lack the maturity to prevent the thread from degenerating into personal insults, then please try to exercise some selfrestraint when asked not to post tangential posts or bully other members (this is not addressed to you, this is adressed to certain members who likely know who they are). Unfortunately, that is a bit much to ask from some people who use the forum for trolling or mockery.

 

[Quagmire]

You be around, Quagmire. The forum was somewhat un-policed. People will behave better. And thanks.

That's not my job, Aupmanyav. Policing the DIRs is the job of the DIR members.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

That's not my job, Aupmanyav. Policing the DIRs is the job of the DIR members.

Yet you must concede that there's only so much an individual by himself can do to "police" others, especially if he himself is the subject of cyber-harassment. For example, I have recently pleaded three times with an individual (who I won't name) to stop derailing a thread, yet he consistently ignored my messages and continued making snide responses (and was assisted by another unnamed individual). By that time, I feel it's necessary to report the posts, since such a situation is out of hand. I would be more than happy to moderate posts if moderators here do not have the time to police offensive posts, except I don't have moderator privilege nor do I have it in me emotionally to threaten others with potential banning,

 

[atanu]

I have only one concern, which in my view is important.

There is a Material Monism view that holds an ontological position that there is only one kind of substance (monism), that this substance is material and that this substance is eternal. According to materialist cosmology all phenomena can (and must) be explained in physical or material terms. Daniel Dennet et al. extend it a bit by adding science to it.

In this, there is no inherent intelligence and thus no Theism. The consciousness is solely emergent. There cannot be any concept of Karma-Rebirth. Man comes accidentally and goes out. That is all. It is just a blind machine (I add: However, the followers of this philosophy are, as if, magically gifted with super intelligence. They are out of the blind determinism. They see the truth.)

Now replace a few words. Since we know that matter and energy are convertible, so, the word 'substance' can be changed to ' physical energy' and a name 'brahman' can be given to this monistic physical energy. The word 'monism' is then changed to advaita (although advaita means non-dual). And finally call this view as Hindu:Atheistic:Advaita.

Is this view Hinduism. Has any teacher taught this?
.......................

My concern is that there is no such Hinduism or no such advaita. I challenge any one to show that brahman is understood as physical energy in any Vedic-Vedantic scripture.

Two problems arise from this interpolation.

First, many new readers may carry away an impression that in Hinduism, the Supreme is a brahman that is of the nature of physical energy. Many will also carry away a notion that this is the teaching of advaita.

The Second concern is more serious, IMO. The Purushartha-s of Hinduism (the goal, end or aim of human existence) is built upon a view with brahman (of the nature of Truth, Intelligence-Knowledge-Consciousness, and Infinity) as transcendental truth that is also immanent in the phenomenal universe as the support for all awareness (approximately Panentheism). The ethics, the morals, the duties, the practices of the Hindu dharma followers are all built upon this fundamental understanding. Now, if we replace the consciousness-brahman (of Hinduism) with a physical energy brahman (of the atheist-materialist-monist), what happens of Hinduism and its Purushartha-s? In my view this is serious. All Vedic darsanas are rendered useless. All teachings of Moksha are rendered void.

.....................

I again beg to be forgiven for my mistakes and also I ask to be forgiven by those whom I may have hurt, especially on this issue.

I again request everyone to kindly reflect objectively on the implications of allowing labeling of brahman as mere physical energy as a Hindu dharma view.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am notoriously dense on these matters and that may be all that there is, but I am really not certain that atheism implies monism, nor materialism.

It seems to me that it truly depends on how one perceives the relationship between the sacred and the divine.

How clear is it that the concept of Advaita must be associated with some kind of belief in deity, even for people who don't work well with that belief? How uncontroversial is that matter?

I truly don't know, although I suspect that as answers go "Not much at all" fits well for both questions. It seems possible to me that there is a considerable degree of disconfort with disbelief clouding matters somewhat.




And... eh, sorry. I will be the first to admit that I know that this is a Blue DIR. I have no excuse, so I have to appeal to your understanding and forgiving. Make no mistake, you do not have to put up with non-Hindus posting here, staff or otherwise.

 

[Tarheeler]

Yet you must concede that there's only so much an individual by himself can do to "police" others.....

The members police the DIRs by using the report function, not actively trying to correct other members. As moderators, we don't monitor or patrol the various areas of the forums; we rely on the people who use each section of the forum to notify us, through the report function, when a problem arises or when a post violates the rules.

We've had many instances where we begin to talk to someone and they bring up all the problem posts they've seen. But no one has bothered to report them to let us know about it.

The Hindu DIR belongs to you guys, and it's up to y'all to let's us know when there's a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[atanu]

I am notoriously dense on these matters and that may be all that there is, but I am really not certain that atheism implies monism, nor materialism.

No. That has not been the point. Atheism neither implies monism nor materialism.

How clear is it that the concept of Advaita must be associated with some kind of belief in deity, even for people who don't work well with that belief? How uncontroversial is that matter?

in the paramarthika view or in actual experience of the advaita, t here is no theism .. But there is no atheism too.

OTOH, Yajur Veda is said be ................ No forget Yajur Veda for now.

Crux of the matter is using (actually misusing) the word 'brahman' while rejecting its self nature of 'jnanam'. Similarly, problematic is the use the word 'advaita' , while rejecting the jnanam nature of brahman. Further, problematic is taking support from 'Samkhya' for the atheism part, but again reject the consciousness nature of the purusha. Rejection of other tenets do not matter much. But rejecting the 'jnanam' -- knowledge nature of brahman, is rejecting the foundation of Vedas.

I wish to reiterate that there is nothing personal about it. Rejection of the 'consciouness' nature of the brahman makes the whole Vedic-Vedantic understanding of thousands of years into philosophy of Daniel Dennet.