Coffee, Donuts, & Spite?

[Insanis]

The members of this forum seem to almost universally get along well with posters who are mild in their presentation of Catholic teaching.

Look at this thread see what is says, and then who thanked it.

The members of this forum seem to universally get along well with posters who they are familiar with and which don't visibly increase the activity of the forum, unless they are posting threads about me.

And you'll see that some of the people posting against me that get those "thanks" are in fact not Catholic.

If you aren't active enough to see the blasphemies and trolling, then reactions to them might seem to be unusual, but it is better to go see exactly what the background is, to understand the final responses.

[Insanis]

Having been a forum member here for a long time I think the forum very much values mildness.  It is possible to be a character and thrive, but a person needs to  be somewhat mild.  This has to be clearly perceived by others.  Some people who stop being mild or struggle with it wind up not lasting and either dramatically quit or get banned.

I can tell you are distressed because of your zeal and the reception of your ardent words.  If you are looking at a way to examine them for why they might be provoking a certain reaction from this online community perhaps (and I could be wrong) consider if they are presented in a suitable mild way.  The way we treat people who are strangers, eager to help but at the same time formal, friendly and reserved.

I looked through your history since I joined, and it was very sparse. So, it is highly likely you weren't exposed to what I was reacting to.

You posted on this and it was good, but you didn't post any refutations to the vile words published against the saint and his works and the people who defended Catholic doctrine and devotions.

I assume you didn't see it. It was buried in the middle of threads and the person responsible for most of it was careful in his words when he referenced it later.

But it was there, and your forum habits don't seem to expose you to it.

But, I saw it. I read through a lot and now quite deeply. It isn't a surface issue.

Reacting to me because I am highly visible makes sense, but please don't think I'm reacting to nothing or what you see: there are things on this forum that are not apparent even if you did a basic read through.

I read far more than I post. This forum isn't active, but it does have some activity, and there are things in it that are highly offensive to Catholics.

I realize I am very active compared to most, and I wrote about the perspective of a prolific poster and I suggest you read it. The experience of a forum depends heavily on how one uses it.

Using a forum very sparsely would make it very easy to be mild in all things. But it it is also mild in the face of blasphemies and heresies and trolling, that other more active posters may be exposed to.

I'm very mild when it comes to disagreeing with Jayne on a few topics, TradGranny on some political and medical topics, and on other such things. I try not to let any overvaluation of my opinions and what I know to be "right" get in the way of harmony. It is simply Christian.

However, in the face of blasphemies, heresies, attacks on the faith, and other such things, I am not mild. I cannot be: I am Catholic.

[Mono no aware]

I think your (Insanis') use of the forum would benefit from a change in the rules.  At present, the § on non-Catholics reads:

1) Error has no rights. As such, anti-Catholic viewpoints are not permitted to be posted here.
2) Do not attempt to sway traditional Catholics away from the Faith.

The problem as these rules stand is that there is too much left to dispute, and some are willing to view almost anything that is not Catholic as implicitly anti-Catholic.  I would say that someone wanting to merely "chew the fat" about Indophile Nazi eschatology, so long as they are not embracing it or endorsing it, is harmless enough.  You will disagree.  And that is fine.  I defer to the lifelong Roman Catholic (traditional).

But I will propose a third rule which might end the nitpicking.

3) Of non-Catholics, only catechumens or serious inquirers may post.

That would resolve the non-Catholic headache for you.  As for Catholics who are doubters or blasphemers or heretics, I have nothing to offer.  That is much more complicated.  I think the problem there is reminiscent of the Protestant problem, where Protestants mutually excommunicate over disputed interpretations of scripture.  Traditional Catholics are sola scriptura, too, but the appendices are massive, being the entirety of the Church's solemn papal and conciliar decrees, some of which contradict each other no less than the books of the bible.  Though the last statement is offered as the observation of an innocent bystander, I realize you will see it as "anti-Catholic trolling."  Which returns us to the need for the proposed addendum to the policy on non-Catholics.  It would kill off at least me, which would be one less head of the hydra you are trying to slay.

[Jayne]

The problem as these rules stand is that there is too much left to dispute, and some are willing to view almost anything that is not Catholic as implicitly anti-Catholic.  I would say that someone wanting to merely "chew the fat" about Indophile Nazi eschatology, so long as they are not embracing it or endorsing it, is harmless enough.  You will disagree.  And that is fine.  I defer to the lifelong Roman Catholic (traditional).

Insanis, in this case, represents how the forum operated in its earliest years when it was run by its founders.  His reaction to "Indophile Nazi eschatology," pagan demonic religions, etc. would have been swiftly implemented by the moderation team to virtually unanimous approval.  It did not need to be spelled out in the rules then.

Now, we very well may benefit from having things more clearly defined.  Some people seem to making a point of testing the limits of what is allowed to non-Catholics here.  This is unpleasant and annoying.

[Insanis]

I think your (Insanis') use of the forum would benefit from a change in the rules. 

My use?

My use of the forum would benefit from many others using the forum. It is weird to be active on an inactive forum.

As for the rules, focus on the forum first. A traditional Roman Catholic forum has to be a forum first. Get back to basics. This is a discussion forum on the Internet around a topic of traditional Catholicism. Replace "traditional Catholicism" with "Linux, GNU, and FOSS", and just treat users hassling users of free software as trolls. Treat people posting contrary subjects as trolls. Treat people who are promoting non-free software as trolls.

It is one thing for two Linux users to discuss whether they would use Windows in any circumstance or what would be allowed under their philosophy, but it is quite another for a known Windows user to come in and post about the virtues of Windows or treat Linux as merely a curiosity.

It is simple: it doesn't even need moral consideration. It is just how forums work.

Linux forums are not for Windows users to oppose Linux, annoy Linux users, or quibble about FOSS advocates' philosophies. Get your own forum if you don't want to use this one.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

I don't know, I took TheReturnofLive's "fun little read" bit about the link in a "interesting, but not taken too seriously" kind of way when I first read it, myself.  I didn't see it as him, or the topic, trying to "promote" Hinduism or intentionally defy Catholic doctrine. Seemed like there was a bit of knee jerk reacting to it; although it would likely have been better if he'd framed the OP in a different way than he did and therefore perhaps the reactions were not unwarranted, or at least not entirely unexpected.  (And in reply to Clau Clau's humorous post: it brings a whole new meaning to "playing the long game," doesn't it?!  )

I personally think the secular-political angle of that thread was something that could (and did somewhat) merit some interesting and perhaps even helpful Catholic and non-Catholic discussion, as some Catholics have cozied up in varying degrees to people in the alt-right (and far right) who do espouse the Indo-Aryan / Kali Yuga / whatever etc. views... "politics makes strange bedfellows" and whatnot.

Anyway,  RIP Jerry Stiller.

[Insanis]

I don't know, I took TheReturnofLive's "fun little read" bit about the link in a "interesting, but not taken too seriously" kind of way when I first read it, myself. 

It wasn't something that was so bad that it would require immediate removal, but as I wrote in the first reply, it wasn't appropriate.

The fact it is a fun little read to former, ex, and doubting Catholics might indicate that it is indeed the sort of things that Catholics should be extra careful with on a traditional Catholic forum.

[Jayne]

I don't know, I took TheReturnofLive's "fun little read" bit about the link in a "interesting, but not taken too seriously" kind of way when I first read it, myself.

For a traditional Catholic, any discussion of comparative religion is founded on the knowledge that there is one true religion, Catholicism, and multiple false religions.  Most of the people contributing to that discussion were not approaching it from that perspective.  They were were starting from the assumption that Hinduism is the equal of Catholicism, both potentially interesting topics of discussion, but neither of them true. 

TROL lived down to his name, and framed the link in a way that encouraged this sort of response.  The pattern of responses was primarily non-Catholics expressing interest and Catholics expressing concerns that it was inappropriate.

[Mono no aware]

Insanis, in this case, represents how the forum operated in its earliest years when it was run by its founders.  His reaction to "Indophile Nazi eschatology," pagan demonic religions, etc. would have been swiftly implemented by the moderation team to virtually unanimous approval.  It did not need to be spelled out in the rules then.

Now, we very well may benefit from having things more clearly defined.  Some people seem to making a point of testing the limits of what is allowed to non-Catholics here.  This is unpleasant and annoying.

I can't remember the timeline, but over the years there have been a couple Orthodox and Protestant posters.  My favorite poster was an Origenist who some suspected of heresy due to his comments on papal infallibility.  But he was polite and in earnest, and besides, he posted in what some would deride as "walls of text," so perhaps he was able to fly under the radar in a "TL;DR" manner.

Of unbelievers, Kirin and Michael and Probius come to mind.  Kirin was the most outré, and therefore the most hated (unless I have surpassed him).  He may have been banned; I do not recall.  I thought Michael was very good.  He mostly posted on philosophical matters, and I benefited from reading his thoughts on free will and determinism.  I forget the name, but there was an atheist poster who kept coming back as sockpuppets, trying to hide under various genders, ages, and backgrounds.  But they could never repress their "tell," which was an injudicious use of smileys.  That was a banned account.  Overall the policy seems to have been lenient so long as one was respectful to a degree.  What that degree was, no one knows, but the administration knew it when they saw it.  If the former level of tolerance is unacceptable to Insanis (who represents a return to the original paradisaical state), then an addition to the policy on non-Catholics might be needed.

[Insanis]

Overall the policy seems to have been lenient so long as one was respectful to a degree.  What that degree was, no one knows, but the administration knew it when they saw it.  If the former level of tolerance is unacceptable to Insanis (who represents a return to the original paradisaical state), then an addition to the policy on non-Catholics might be needed.

There is a big gap in my participation here.

When I was here, the second time, this was the atmosphere.

You can see some critical of me too.

You'll see references to my dissatisfaction with this forum.

Do you want to know what those criticisms were that everybody back then knew about and which caused some people to want me to join the forum again? I thought that Catholic forums, this one in particular, were too influenced by feminism and secular humanism.

I was not only Roman Catholic, but I was very, very attentive to the finer points of moral theology to the extent I found the lack of awareness of how it influenced people to be a major problem. In practice, it usually was just expressed in people expressing themselves allowing their feelings to influence their judgement of moral matters. The reliance on one's social and cultural background to make moral judgements is dangerous, so dangerous, I made a point of correcting it when I could.

I left forums and the social Internet when my medical condition and my life's circumstances were making things exceptionally difficult for me.

That is my background.

When I joined with this account, I had no intention of using a forum like that again. I just wanted some Catholic interactions, and intended to avoid certain topics which required a lot of theological understanding and nuance.

So, everything I am opposing is extremely basic. It is basic Catholic catechism stuff, basic morality, and basic devotion.

These things are far beyond what were issues before.

These things wouldn't be.

It stands out to me particularly because I haven't seen the decline and the creeping normalization of it.

I would rather have the Feminists back than deal with the issues present here. This forum should stand on its own merits as a traditional Catholic forum.

That was the intent, after all.

[Mono no aware]

Yes, things change—and not always for the better.  As I said, I don't remember the precise timeline, or whether these posters coincided with your tenure on here early on, but there have been non-Catholic posters going considerably far back.  One of the longstanding differences between this forum and CathInfo is this forum's comparative tolerance of non-Catholic posters, and it does affect the atmosphere.

All I am offering is that if things have gotten so deplorably bad since a perceived golden age of c. 2013, then you (or, the administration) may see fit to amend the rules.  Limiting non-Catholic participation to catechumens and sincere seekers would have a cleansing effect, at least on that count.  You can toss this suggestion out if you don't like it.  Obviously the more numerous devils would be those who claim to be Catholic but post what you consider to be heresy or blasphemy.  I did find intriguing the idea floated by you (or maybe it was Jayne) that, given the lack of moderators, there should be a "council" or a "committee" formed, including yourselves of course, to keep the administrator abreast of any problems, especially those pertaining to orthodoxy.  You could call it "the Sanhedrin."

[Lydia Purpuraria]

TROL lived down to his name, and framed the link in a way that encouraged this sort of response.  The pattern of responses was primarily non-Catholics expressing interest and Catholics expressing concerns that it was inappropriate.

Maybe, but I'm not going to assume that he purposely framed it that way just to provoke particular reactions.*  Most of the non-Catholics (and some Catholics) were expressing interest in the secular-political sense of it though, were they not?  Is that type of discussion not allowed or inappropriate on here?

(* My non-infallible observation of TheReturnofLive and with most of his posting history is that he's likely more just wanting to have knowledgeable conversation and get informed feedback and connect things going on in the world, and so on - he's a very intelligent young man, and one who may also at times quickly get his back up a bit and start kicking out like a bucking bronco when he gets excited, or when he's getting pounced on by "the Inquisition," LOL.  But I think pouncing on him or always assuming the worst of him is not a good way to encourage him out of his "doubting Catholic" phase.  If he were my son, I'd cut him some slack and ask him more about what he was thinking and why so that I understood where he was coming from more clearly, and I would try not to assume the worst of intentions from him with every. little. step. he took.  Unless I just wanted to up and push him out the door forever.  My mere two cents, as I realize I'm just someone on the outside looking in.)

[Insanis]

Maybe, but I'm not going to assume that he purposely framed it that way just to provoke particular reactions.

That thread was locked and you can see my first post on it was not harsh. It was just stating a simple thing about it.

What came after were responses to provocation.

He posted something I thought was not fitting, but it was his defense of it that was provoking.

And just look at this person's posts in this very subforum to see what he is like. He calls to ban me, says he won't respond to me, says he won't be posting if I am am, etc.

Do you think it is wrong to think that these recent posts have any pattern to them?

[mikemac]

What TheReturnofLive was doing in that thread that got locked was comparing his "fun little read" about the Age of Kali to Catholicism in a religious relativism kind of way.  And then trying to say that is what Thomas Aquinas did.  Sheesh.

[TheReturnofLive]

What TheReturnofLive was doing in that thread that got locked was comparing his "fun little read" about the Age of Kali to Catholicism in a religious relativism kind of way.  And then trying to say that is what Thomas Aquinas did.  Sheesh.

That's not at all what I did and it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as such.

I have 0 interest in Hinduism as a religious possibility for myself or others (how can a sect which philosophically permits the Cult of Kali's terror (The goddess, not the demon) ever be considered worth following); Indeed, Catholicism's own internal logic would not stoop to that level. If I had to choose a religion that originated in India and is still practiced there (so Buddhism doesn't count), it would be Sikhism, not Jainism (where people worship naked people) nor Hinduism (see above)


I came across it and thought it was a really insightful piece of their scriptures, because it reflects humanity (especially today) all too well, and was relevant for social / political reasons. I think much of it is true (Not all of it), hence why I shared it.

My quoting of Thomas Aquinas was to show how ridiculous your standards of censorship are, because implicitly, you are claiming to be above Thomas Aquinas (who, in fact, read pagan, Islamic, and Jewish theology), and to demonstrate how the Emperor has no clothes - in this case, the Inquisition.