Mods do an okay enough job (esp. for the pro bono work they do moderating this giant place), and aren't some perfect monolith that will do an arbitrarily perfect job of assessing each situation against a flurry of both agreeing or dissenting opinions.
Well this just comes across as hilarious tone deaf and out of touch, if not outright apologetic. And I hate the "well, they do it for free so don't critique them" mentality. It's a terrible cop out.
People say a lot of stuff here, and some of the topics are complicated and controversial. Try to work with the mod team and posters here, and less...
lol work with what exactly? The modding here is incredibly opaque. There's a token appeal system that no one actually responds to. And when mistakes are made or folks have issues, it's a "move on or we'll shut down the thread to stop people from talking about it".
Frankly, there kind of hilarious parallels to the American policing system that are blatant and deserves to be called out for what they are - a binary zero tolerance approach with an apparent lack of interest in understanding the community it moderates and so instead resorts to heavy handed tactics to achieve the "peace".
Working social media before you'd get accused of stuff you never even had cross your mind because you used a couple "wrong" words or have a different perspective.
I mean, you say that but that's literally the issue people have with all this. None of that is actually taken into account here by the mods. If it was, then I'd think we'd see a lot more actual engagement, especially in situations like this one - "hey, your post comes across as problematic for the following reasons. Is that what you actually meant or is the wording just a bit off?" Which, instead causing of a multipage thread derailment like you see here, would likely just result in a simple back and forth that could have helped shed some light on the matter. But that would require some, you know, effort.
i think religious leaders deeply tie their power to the faith their followers have in them, actually at a hard to imagine level, like whole buildings, cities, and countries levels, so when that it is questioned they do feel personally insulted because they see themselves as vessels for whatever divine entity they have put their lot in with. so, specifically in Rushdie's book, i think he had a character mocking this type of figure and it was taken personally. Leading to the call for his murder in the guise of after the fact evidence of his blasphemy or whatever you would call it.
On a certain level, I feel like it's just general trait of authoritarianism under any and every denomination. Belief has to be absolute with zero room for even conversation because conversation leads to doubt, doubt leads to questions, and questions lead to change. And if you don't want or can't handle change, you shut down the conversation.
www.bbc.co.uk
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/AMDL4BIFU5OPXGKCHEQQIYTJ3Q.jpg)
www.reuters.com
