Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[Calm]

It does not involve Mormonism. It involves Rob's perceived mistreatment by FB. Don't fall for the red herring he has drug across the issue. It is only his supposition that "some" Mormons are involved.

Posting his petty squabble with FB on this site does nothing to further his disagreement with FB. he appears to me to be whining "Oh poor me see how I am being abused."

But he is not only whining, but choosing the audience which to whine to...the very individuals (or at least their community) that he is accusing of attacking him, of trying to silence him.....if this thread got locked down, how useful that would be in his crusade of proving that LDS can't handle criticism of their faith and are willing to use unjust and reprehensible methods to shut others down. Edited December 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Holy smokes, Cal! How many birds are you trying to hit with that stone?

Multiquote is the only way I can keep track of everything I want to reply to. My internet is wonky and I haven't been able to view the board for awhile so I had to start reading from the beginning and I didn't want to err as I've done in the past by responding to something that was already addressed....there is a system to it that does actually make sense even if it appears like a random collection of quotes. If I had kept all I had clicked on to begin with, it would have been twice as long. Edited December 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

We can do that?!? Nemesis!!

Rob please provide evidence or withdraw your statements. This is a fair CFR.

You work too. Thanks, Ares.

[Damien the Leper]

Multiquote is the only way I can keep track of everything I want to reply to.

Good call.

[ERayR]

Do you believe that FB pages that promote the rights of LGBTQ community to marry should be banned? What about those that promote marriage between a man and a woman only?

If they violate FB rules then FB can remove them. It is FB's site. They can administer is even handed or arbitrarily as they see fit. When you are playing with someone else s bat and ball then they can make the rules.

[Sleeper Cell]

That is not the issue. The issue is that they should be consistent with their rules. They shouldn't have double standards. Everybody should be treated the same, not some people be more "equal" than others. Their mods (or whoever they are who enforce their rules) should be trained to apply the rules consistently, correctly, and without discrimination. If somebody feels that they don't, or that he is being discriminated against, they have the right to complain.

He has certainly has been given every opportunity to exercise that right in this Mormon controlled forum.. Perhaps, instead of blaming his unfair treatment on Mormons, he might focus his outrage on the non-Mormons who control Facebook.

From his OP:

I thought some of you might be interested to know that there is evidently some sort of campaign by some Mormons to interfere with the Facebook pages of Christians engaged in what Mormons call "anti-Mormon" ministry.

When asked for supporting evidence of Mormon involvement, he responded with a less than convincing “plausibility argument“ to the effect that it must be a group of Mormons because nobody else would do such a thing.

Why is it so implausible that the person who initially objected to his post(s) was a non-Mormon? After all, the non-Mormons who control Facebook were the ones who removed his posts and then allegedly refused to hear his complaint. On the other hand, the Mormons who control this board have given him ample opportunity to have his complaint heard and have even allowed him to repost the material which Facebook had removed.

Had the OP focused on “the issue” (that he was not being treated fairly by FB), and omitted the gratuitous and unsubstantiated accusation about “some sort of campaign by Mormons,” more of us might have been able to also focus on the issue.

Hopefully, when the OP made his appeal to FB he had the sense to omit the gratuitous stuff about blaming “some sort of campaign by Mormons” and focused solely on the actual content of the posts, themselves.

[jwhitlock]

But he is not only whining, but choosing the audience which to whine to...the very individuals (or at least their community) that he is accusing of attacking him, of trying to silence him.....if this thread got locked down, how useful that would be in his crusade of proving that LDS can't handle criticism of their faith and are willing to use unjust and reprehensible methods to shut others down.

I think you and the others posting this same thought have hit the nail on the head. This just provides more fodder for Rob to manipulate in order to make Mormons and their beliefs look bad.

What I fail to understand is how some can fall for the claim that Rob is "civil" in his discourse. That certainly hasn't been the case with a number of his comments on this thread, and it also ignores the fact that the content of what someone is saying has a great deal to do with how civil that person is really being. Rob's IRR site is certainly not a civil discourse about Mormons and Mormonism by any stretch of the imagination.

[Calm]

Why is it so implausible that the person who initially objected to his post(s) was a non-Mormon? After all, the non-Mormons who control Facebook were the ones who removed his posts and then allegedly refused to hear his complaint. On the other hand, the Mormons who control this board have given him ample opportunity to have his complaint heard and have even allowed him to repost the material which Facebook had removed.

Well said.

[ERayR]

I would say the answer to that is to create a Facebook page which addresses his criticisms, rather than try to ban him from FB altogether. I would like to be able to criticise Calvinism and Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Do I not have the right to? I think that I do. If you are going to deny him that right, then you would have to deny me that right too; and I think that both would be wrong. Everybody has the right to criticise anybody's belief system whatever that is, be it religious, political, philosophical, or any other.

You absolutely have the right to criticize anybody or anything you want. Just not on somebody else s dime if they object.

[juliann]

We can do that?!? Nemesis!!

LOL. We can try. Bowman has created a challenge based on one obviously innocuous post while later admitting it was only the last in a series of removals that has gone on for days. I have no love for FB but I also have absolutely no reason to believe that they are staffed by rogue administrators who are defying their own TOS because some Mormons told them to.

Still waiting for Bowman to send in complaints about another FB page to see if merely complaining results in post removal. Or perhaps he thinks only Mormons can cast the proper spell over FB.

So we have two procedures that would cut to the quick of the problem in no time whatsoever. So is Bowman interested in resolving his complaint....or just creating another way to antagonize Mormons on a message board when FB won't cooperate.

[ERayR]

If you disagree with same sex marriage, are you attacking gays? If you disagree with purgatory or infant baptisms are you attacking Catholics? Sure they are not going to like it; but so what? I think I am big enough to be able to bear criticisms of (even attacks on) my belief systems—and smart enough to be able to give them the appropriate reply! So why should I be bothered? Only those who can't do either will be bothered.

You are following a red herring. The OP was a complaint about FB picking on poor Rob. It was not about the right to disagree but about where you can post those disagreements. Does this site have the right to screen who can post and what is not allowed here? What Rob in the OP fails to realize is that when you are in somebody else s house they make the rules.

Edited December 29, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

So far, Rob has done two things on this thread that are questionable:

- He has accused Mormons of trying to censor him on Facebook, without providing any hard evidence for that accusation.

- He has misled us concerning the posts (plural) that were taken down on FB by only quoting one (or part of one) meant solely to give the impression that he did nothing wrong.

I'll be interested to see if Rob provides any evidence for his accusation, or decides to be more complete in listing the posts that were removed.

SOP for Rob

[juliann]

What I fail to understand is how some can fall for the claim that Rob is "civil" in his discourse. That certainly hasn't been the case with a number of his comments on this thread, and it also ignores the fact that the content of what someone is saying has a great deal to do with how civil that person is really being. Rob's IRR site is certainly not a civil discourse about Mormons and Mormonism by any stretch of the imagination.

It is mystifying. Bowman is going to have an increasingly hard row to hoe as Mormonism becomes more integrated into the culture and has to be considered part of the "..... based on religion" warning. It hasn't quite caught up with some that when there is a warning against attacking others based on religion, Mormons go in there right along with Jews or Muslims and you can't do it to one religion and be exempt.

[ERayR]

I agree; but people have the right to disagree, even if they are disagreeable in doing so.

FB is obviously saying that it is not OK in their house.

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

Fine. Pretend you are FB for a moment. Explain to me what is possibly objectionable about the post that was removed yesterday and that was stated to be the basis for me being banned from FB for three days.

You don't seem to understand, it is not my call as to what FB finds objectionable. For all I know yesterdays post was only the culmination of a more egregious string of posts. You have given us no clue as to what led up to this. I have several children and grand children and your complaint reminds me of attempting to settle their disputes. When ask what started it they inevitably reply "It started when he/she hit me back". Again it is their house so you need to abide by their rules.

[ERayR]

But he is not only whining, but choosing the audience which to whine to...the very individuals (or at least their community) that he is accusing of attacking him, of trying to silence him.....if this thread got locked down, how useful that would be in his crusade of proving that LDS can't handle criticism of their faith and are willing to use unjust and reprehensible methods to shut others down.

Why whine if you can't pick your audience?

[ERayR]

I think you and the others posting this same thought have hit the nail on the head. This just provides more fodder for Rob to manipulate in order to make Mormons and their beliefs look bad.

What I fail to understand is how some can fall for the claim that Rob is "civil" in his discourse. That certainly hasn't been the case with a number of his comments on this thread, and it also ignores the fact that the content of what someone is saying has a great deal to do with how civil that person is really being. Rob's IRR site is certainly not a civil discourse about Mormons and Mormonism by any stretch of the imagination.

Rob isn't civil but he is suave.

[bluebell]

I am re-posting this here since a moderator said it should not have been posted in the Social Hall.

I thought some of you might be interested to know that there is evidently some sort of campaign by some Mormons to interfere with the Facebook pages of Christians engaged in what Mormons call "anti-Mormon" ministry. We have had content removed from our FB page that cannot by any reasonable standard be considered violations of FB's community standards. The penalties have been getting stiffer even as the censorship of "objectionable content" has gotten more absurd. Here is the most recent post that was removed from the Facebook page of the Institute for Religious Research:

That is the entirety of the post that was removed today, and the only post that was removed. For the above "violation" I have been banned from posting on FB for three days.

Similar attacks have been made against several evangelicals I know involved in other organizations. I and others are under threat of having our accounts permanently disabled.

So much for civil discourse.

I'd like to see some comments from Mormons here either denouncing such censorship or defending it. The "Community Standards" of FB clearly state that merely finding something with which one personally disagrees on someone's page is not a violation of their standards. Our page is characterized by extremely cordial discussion in which Mormons and non-Mormons participate with no problems. No one has ever posted a complaint or sent our organization a complaint about our FB page. Instead, someone is using FB's complaint system to sabotage our free expression.

Honestly, I don't think you've provided enough info for me to come to any kind of a conclusion on the matter.

I agree that the one post provided does not seem to be in any way worthy of removal or banning. However, i know that it's not unusual for a moderator, when he or she has already removed parts of a discussion they believe to be against the rules, to continue to remove all references to the delete sections which may follow as well, regardless of whether or not those specific posts broke the rules of their own accord.

It only seems fair, if some kind of judgment on the issue is desired, that more of the 'offending' conversation (if not the full conversation) be provided.

[MorningStar]

Show us the other posts that were taken down, Mr. Bowman!

[Calm]

I have several children and grand children and your complaint reminds me of attempting to settle their disputes.

Nail hit squarely and firmly.

[Calm]

Show us the other posts that were taken down, Mr. Bowman!

Show me the money!

[jwhitlock]

While we're waiting for Rob to respond, I thought I'd go over to his IRR site for a little light reading and found this quote which might explain some of the mentality Rob has in how he views Mormons. Talking about the leadership of the church, the page I was reading (you can search for it on the site) says:

Decisions are made in the tightest secrecy, inevitably giving rise to suspicions and conspiracy theories among outsiders and a substantial number of members.

Quite civil in describing Mormons and the church leadership, isn't it? Rob, of course, would defend this kind of statement and his accusation in the OP as being "obvious", which perhaps it is to people who don't think too deeply about how anti-Mormons phrase things. Hence, from the outset of this thread, we get Rob claiming that there is a Mormon campaign behind what he said has happened on Facebook. It can't be anything else. Mormonism and Mormons are so involved in conspiracies and secrecy, to Rob's way of thinking, that there can be no other explanation for what happened.

[jwhitlock]

Rob isn't civil but he is suave.

Very much so. I think he's very careful in how he phrases things, in order to get a particular negative impression across without actually saying something negative. Format and presentation is everything.

[Damien the Leper]

Very much so. I think he's very careful in how he phrases things, in order to get a particular negative impression across without actually saying something negative. Format and presentation is everything.

Like passive aggression?

[MorningStar]

Don't make the UMW nag you. Terrible things happen when we nag.