Why is it okay for bigots to mock Christianity, Catholicism, and/or Evangelicalism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

Please link to any of the posts that you think I should have deleted but did not. This type of post is exactly like the "do you still beat your wife?" type of accusation. If I ignore it, it appears to be true. If I argue that it is not true, I look defensive. So, I end up in a no-win situation while you get to hide behind your anonymous posts.

It is no surprise that you have not read the thread that this thread is about. Yet, while complaining about biases, you feel justified in offering your own unsupported opinion. For your information, I have deleted every post from that thread that was reported. The original poster of this thread did not report a specific post, causing me to read the entire thread which was a giant waste of time. I strongly suggest that you waste an equal amount of time before offering your clearly biased opinion about what I have or haven't done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

What smug, condescending BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

Such a drama queen martyr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

NP. As someone who frequently reports anti-Catholic posts and threads (which Jeff often deletes, but sometimes he reasonably disagrees — those are the borderline ones), I think you are being flatly and totally ridiculous. You make Catholics look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know Katherine Schwarzenegger from a hole in the wall. She seems like a benevolent rich young mother as best as I can tell. But there’s an 8-10 page thread full of women ruthlessly cyberbullying her, much of it centered on her religious beliefs and hearsay about some Christian church she allegedly attends. I am confident you’d rightfully immediately ban any bigoted cyberbullies using Jewish, synagogue, temple, Islam, Muslim, or mosque in the same contexts.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1111796.page

She put herself in the public.

Fair game.

Stop using "bigot" so freely you clearly have no idea what it means. And given your list of who are the "cyberbullies" we can clearly see you are an anti semite, anti muslim ....

You do not know Katherine personally so how do you know she is "benevolent". Her and her husband's social media are anything but that again public. They are just lovely on Rumble & Telegraph.

And no one was "mocking" any other religion.

[Anonymous]

Can you define "mocking"?

Is someone commenting "there is no evidence to support your belief" mocking?

Is comparing your belief in your god to other's belief in other gods mocking?

Is comparing belief in your god to belief in Leprechauns mocking?

Is referring to the god you believe in as "the invisible sky pixie" mocking?

Is referring to a god you don't believe in as "the invisible sky pixie" mocking?

Asking because I want to know where you draw the line.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

Please link to any of the posts that you think I should have deleted but did not. This type of post is exactly like the "do you still beat your wife?" type of accusation. If I ignore it, it appears to be true. If I argue that it is not true, I look defensive. So, I end up in a no-win situation while you get to hide behind your anonymous posts.

It is no surprise that you have not read the thread that this thread is about. Yet, while complaining about biases, you feel justified in offering your own unsupported opinion. For your information, I have deleted every post from that thread that was reported. The original poster of this thread did not report a specific post, causing me to read the entire thread which was a giant waste of time. I strongly suggest that you waste an equal amount of time before offering your clearly biased opinion about what I have or haven't done.

I've seen this from you before, Jeff, when other posters (not me) have called you out about this. You get very defensive and come out swinging. Ever ask yourself why that is?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

Please link to any of the posts that you think I should have deleted but did not. This type of post is exactly like the "do you still beat your wife?" type of accusation. If I ignore it, it appears to be true. If I argue that it is not true, I look defensive. So, I end up in a no-win situation while you get to hide behind your anonymous posts.

It is no surprise that you have not read the thread that this thread is about. Yet, while complaining about biases, you feel justified in offering your own unsupported opinion. For your information, I have deleted every post from that thread that was reported. The original poster of this thread did not report a specific post, causing me to read the entire thread which was a giant waste of time. I strongly suggest that you waste an equal amount of time before offering your clearly biased opinion about what I have or haven't done.

I've seen this from you before, Jeff, when other posters (not me) have called you out about this. You get very defensive and come out swinging. Ever ask yourself why that is?

Exactly as I said above. Posters like you can make any unsubstantiated claim they wish. If I ignore it, the allegations will be accepted as true. If I defend myself, I look defensive. Between the two choices, I prefer to look defensive. You, on the other hand, are still unable to substantiate your allegations. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you can't provide any support to your claims?

[Anonymous]

As the PP who regularly reports, I’d like to see this too. I haven’t seen bigoted posts remain here — Jeff is fast. I’m very skeptical of the claim that there are all these bigoted posts out there that Jeff lets stay after they are reported. I just haven’t seen it, as a frequent reporter.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

Please link to any of the posts that you think I should have deleted but did not. This type of post is exactly like the "do you still beat your wife?" type of accusation. If I ignore it, it appears to be true. If I argue that it is not true, I look defensive. So, I end up in a no-win situation while you get to hide behind your anonymous posts.

It is no surprise that you have not read the thread that this thread is about. Yet, while complaining about biases, you feel justified in offering your own unsupported opinion. For your information, I have deleted every post from that thread that was reported. The original poster of this thread did not report a specific post, causing me to read the entire thread which was a giant waste of time. I strongly suggest that you waste an equal amount of time before offering your clearly biased opinion about what I have or haven't done.

I've seen this from you before, Jeff, when other posters (not me) have called you out about this. You get very defensive and come out swinging. Ever ask yourself why that is?

Exactly as I said above. Posters like you can make any unsubstantiated claim they wish. If I ignore it, the allegations will be accepted as true. If I defend myself, I look defensive. Between the two choices, I prefer to look defensive. You, on the other hand, are still unable to substantiate your allegations. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you can't provide any support to your claims?

You just have to have faith and believe it exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

Don’t blame Jeff just because you are too lazy to report. He can’t read every post FFS.

And don't be so lazy yourself. I said I do report, and too often the ruling is against me. I haven't read the thread that lead to this post, but I guarantee there's stuff in it that is objectively offensive and that has been reported and that Jeff has ruled against the reporter and not deleted the posts. That was my point. This is a good website and Jeff is a good moderator, but like every other human being he has his biases and they affect his decision making whether he acknowledges that or not. And, based on how I've seen him respond to anti-Catholic complaints, both in the context of when offensive posts are reported or when he responds to threads like this to explain his decisions, it's very clear to me that, to put it mildly, he's not exactly a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. And, again, that's fine -- let's just dispense with the pretense that it doesn't affect his decision making in the slightest.

Please link to any of the posts that you think I should have deleted but did not. This type of post is exactly like the "do you still beat your wife?" type of accusation. If I ignore it, it appears to be true. If I argue that it is not true, I look defensive. So, I end up in a no-win situation while you get to hide behind your anonymous posts.

It is no surprise that you have not read the thread that this thread is about. Yet, while complaining about biases, you feel justified in offering your own unsupported opinion. For your information, I have deleted every post from that thread that was reported. The original poster of this thread did not report a specific post, causing me to read the entire thread which was a giant waste of time. I strongly suggest that you waste an equal amount of time before offering your clearly biased opinion about what I have or haven't done.

I've seen this from you before, Jeff, when other posters (not me) have called you out about this. You get very defensive and come out swinging. Ever ask yourself why that is?

Exactly as I said above. Posters like you can make any unsubstantiated claim they wish. If I ignore it, the allegations will be accepted as true. If I defend myself, I look defensive. Between the two choices, I prefer to look defensive. You, on the other hand, are still unable to substantiate your allegations. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you can't provide any support to your claims?

You just have to have faith and believe it exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This website tolerates quite a bit of anti-Catholic baloney. No doubt about it. Jeff will deny it and say the problem can easily be solved if posters would just report offensive posts or threads, but having to do that over and over again is exhausting. Moreover, the "ruling" more often than not is in favor of the offensive post, which does nothing to discourage the bigots from dancing very close to and often veer off of the edge.

It's Jeff's website, of course, and he can do what he wants. All I'm saying is that his insistence that he's a fair and impartial moderator when it comes to anti-Catholic postings on his website rings hallow with many of us. He's human, after all, and like all humans we're not always fully cognizant of our own prejudices and shortcomings.

I completely disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the PP who regularly reports, I’d like to see this too. I haven’t seen bigoted posts remain here — Jeff is fast. I’m very skeptical of the claim that there are all these bigoted posts out there that Jeff lets stay after they are reported. I just haven’t seen it, as a frequent reporter.

+1