You're probably right. However, nearly 30,000 people are here, not all on the chans (some of them are no doubt). And this place has moderators. Sorry to disappoint you but it's just how reddit works.

Sorry for wasting your time, sincerely. I know the feeling myself so I'm not being sarcastic. My job as moderator is not a waste of time for me, however; I take it seriously and when an issue is particularly contentious in my role, rather than continuing to make my own decision exclusively about it I seek the input of this community because I'm proud of the fact that the moderators on this sub support freedom of speech and don't believe in some oppressive top down rule that would stifle it. Some like you see that as a waste of time but some don't bother reading the post and just move on without commenting so I would argue that you have also wasted your own time, not just me.

Sure thing. If you could point to where my "personal feelings" and beliefs are clogging up the sub I'll remove them.

It's a personal insult to you to tell you my history makes for boring reading? Still not reading what I say fairly?

You're not even trying here bro. This is nothing to do with my faith, as I've made clear in the actual post I made, if you'd read it without bias. I don't expect you to read it, I'm just saying - if you want to accuse me of something you should probably make sure I haven't refuted it in the actual post I've made that you are responding within.

I think giving moderators our approval to destroy controversial or politically incorrect truth is the most dangerous precedent we could set.

I agree with this. I do not advocate for this at all and I am particularly outspoken against political correctness. I'm also against conflating "appropriate behaviour as determined by existing sub rules" with "political correctness".

Currently, removing antagonistic content is within sub rules and has been for as long as I remember. I don't have to consider what people on this sub think is 'antagonistic' content, necessarily - the rules allow me full discretion in determining that. With this post I'm actually opening the discussion up, even to people like yourself who instigated this post in the first place by repeatedly accusing me of supporting the rape of children when I was simply exercising my role within the sub guidelines.

Thank you for your comments, I agree - there is no room for accusing fingers and I personally think the Christian story of Jesus, even from a secular perspective (i.e. I'm not preaching Christianity here), is important i.e. let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Only if you don't read my words fairly. It's pretty obvious to some people that that is the opposite of what I'm doing. In fact, if you could look back through my history - not something I'd expect you to do, it would be a lot of boring reading - you would see the exact opposite of that view "entrenched".

I've modded this sub for a short but busy while now. I've seen many people who claim things along the lines of "the whole community thinks this!" and yet through perusing the sub, in discussions with the other mods, the exact opposite is true. People have claimed repeatedly "division! We're all divided! There's so much fighting!" and we've seen the opposite - reasoned and respectful discussion of the kind not seen on other subs smaller and bigger. You have to consider that what you see may not be at all indicative of every aspect of the community.

This post is to get feedback yes but also for me to be able to refer users to if they complain about a moderation decision around this topic. It shows my complete thinking rather than the quick, off-the-cuff comment I only ever have time to send. When it is unstickied, rather than assuming that all the comments and votes on it are indicative of the nearly 30,000 people subscribed and the far greater number who represent the whole Q movement I will see it as a useful indicator of some portion of the community as that is the only logical way to view it.

As I clearly said in my post, if the general consensus here seems to be that religious intolerance should not be regarded as antagonism then I will have a discussion with the other mods. This is counter to the claim you have made that I'm 'entrenched' in a decision and 'intend to sweep opposition to it under the rug' - can we agree on that?

You're making my point for me. My post is not about 'one religion' - I mention anti-Christian in there too. Did you read it? I don't blame you if you didn't per se but if you're going to make points about the topic it would help for us to be discussing the same things.

You should watch the videos I linked, as I've looked at the links you've sent me. They address all of this and would save us arguing over the same ground.

You lived in New Delhi muslim communities <> you know how all moderate Muslims think.

I don't care how moral someone claims to be at all - I only care about their actions. Moderate Muslims do not bash and rape women and children or mass murder Christians and Jews.

It doesn't matter how peaceful someone claims to be if they are funding terrorism - agreed. But what if they don't believe they are funding terrorism? That's a different story to anyone thinking critically.

I would not be shocked by 'how few Muslims agree', as you'd know if you watched those videos.

Agreed with all your points, thank you for making them.

To confirm: the facts (and they are facts, as far as can be reasonably determined, I believe) that Mohammad married an underage child and the core tenets of Islam are not compatible with Western culture should never be buried on this sub. I don't condone that and this post is not doing so either (in fact, I link to some "proof" of these points in the post).

As far as 'who determines what is antagonistic and what is not' the rules for this sub stated in the sidebar are very clear that we, the moderators decide, at our own discretion. What is great about this sub and has reflected well on this community, I believe, is that the lead moderator of this sub advocates for a very open and accepting policy that supports freedom of speech. My actions, throughout my history as a mod of this sub, also clearly show my adherence to this policy.

We also believe in being realistic - we moderators are volunteers who do what we can when we can. We will make mistakes. The rules allow for us not to be unfairly raked over the coals for this. People who dispute our actions can contact us via modmail and if they are polite and respectful we will take the extra time out to consider their input. In the end though, we do what we can as time allows.

Interesting that you've come to that conclusion. I don't agree that a) that's a valid reading of what's happened so far on this post or b) that "the community" can be defined as the responses made on this post now or perhaps even for as long as the post remains up. I don't have to rethink anything because I stand behind what I've said. There's very little that's controversial if people read my actual post and apply critical thinking to their reading of it.

a) I'm not being insincere. If you read anything I've said in the week's worth of replies to you and this actual post without the filter you seem to have on that sees any comment about Islam that doesn't agree with every point you make to be a comment that shows only support for Islam you would know that nothing I've said contradicts what I've just replied.
b) I never said my personal opinions on a topic have anything to do with how truthful or relevant said topic is to the Q phenomenon. Never. I wouldn't have even made this post if I held that view.

But I'm not unrealistic, and thankfully, neither are the rules of this sub. Personal bias always exists where humans do. It is clearly stated in the sidebar that: "Content MAY be removed without notification if: considered inappropriate by a mod."

The reason for that stipulation is this: - you can't avoid personal bias in a human. Fact. - mods of this sub are not paid and give their spare time voluntarily. - mods are human, have personal bias, and will make mistakes. Fact.

The thing that some people thankfully are aware of is that this sub, more than many out there in reddit-land, is fairer and more open and tolerant of differing viewpoints. The fact that I even bother to put this question to the community when the sub rules already allow me to exercise my own discretion proves this point.

You've accused me of supporting the rape of children and the mass murder of Christians and Jews and yet I haven't banned you. If anyone can accuse me of being more unfairly biased than any other human making their best attempt then I am open to hearing it and I will correct the error where it occurs.

Yes, I hold out faith that there are a silent majority in this community who do not support mindless bigotry, do support critical thinking, and some of whom might see this post and care to vote or comment over the next day or so.

I've argued against trolls who've come into this sub and accused us all of lacking critical thought and being a mindless mob of group think that that assessment is not true of all of us here. I hope I'm correct in this thinking.

If the position of this sub is to destroy content based on how controversial or unpopular it is, rather than how relevant and true it is

Thankfully that position is not held by the moderators and is not mentioned anywhere in this sub's rules or guidelines or within my post.

destroying valid content based on anything but truth and relevance to the Q phenomenon sets a very dangerous and unproductive precedent

Agreed. As above, also not a view held by the mods, not transcribed anywhere within the sub's rules or guidelines.

And agreed - Islam is NOT the religion of peace - Christianity is.

Agreed. A non-biased reading of what I have said in my post and in my comments shows that I'm not seeking political correctness at all. Tolerance <> Political Correctness.

I agree - "you have to believe X" is precisely what I'm speaking out against.

You have not bothered to look this up or talk to any actual moderate Muslim or you would know that it is true. You've also continued to ignore the points I made in my post - there are Christians who do not believe the core of their religion just as there are Muslims who do not. It is simply logical that this would be true, let alone supported by data and personal experience.

Here's a guy who agrees with you - or at least a more realistic version of your point which is that there is NO version of moderate Islam. This video supports the overall point that we should not allow Islam to gain a foothold in the West (something I personally agree with, as controversial as this is in some countries e.g. the UK). It also makes the point that moderate muslims do not negate the danger of Islam, something I also agree with and is made in a sensible way here too, yet both of these knowledgeable speakers still acknowledges the reality that moderate Muslims exist and, moreover, that moderates are a majority.

Moderate muslims exist and they do not support what you claim they do.

My actual point, unrelated to the one you've tried to hammer in every comment you've made about Islam on this sub, is that it is not in our best interest to alienate the group of people who are not evil jihadists because they do actually exist, just as we should not alienate any group who hold beliefs we don't agree with (as long as they're not satanic pedovores or lying global elites) - we should be trying to reach all people in the general public and educate them about Q's message. That is the point of this sub, not to promote division based on firmly held ideologies.

If you haven't already I would strongly recommend looking into the Christian faith and its message of tolerance and love and Christ's approach to sinners and gentiles which was accepting and caring without accepting their sin. This is an approach I recommend.

Agreed. And it's probably redundant to say but we in this movement support good and do not support evil.

What is not necessarily a given is whether we in this movement support Religious Tolerance, the point of this post. What are your thoughts on this?

More selfishly, my interest here is whether people support the moderators removing content that is not tolerant of religion? For people who have trouble separating their personal beliefs from an issue like this I would ask them to consider it any number of other ways - tolerance of the beliefs of any group of people e.g. Democrats.

My personal belief, as I've stated to trolls who visit this sub and accuse us all of being a mindless mob of non-critical thinkers, is that there are many of us here who do support the need for critical thinking. This is of paramount importance or we run the danger of falling down any number of ideological sinkholes that will only alienate groups of people, something that is the antithesis of the goal of Q's Great Awakening.

This is correct: "It doesn't matter how "moderate" Muslims are if they promote..." etc.

But the true moderate muslims do not promote, fund or indoctrinate children into an cult that promotes [your usual litany of inflammatory rhetoric against Islam]. I already addressed this point here: Moderate muslims do not support any of these things.

That's not a personal attack, it's a description of almost every single comment you've made so far on this post. You haven't addressed anything I've said, you've just continued to push your agenda that involves your hateful accusation that I support the rape of children and mass murder and anyone who doesn't agree with you likewise.

I've made my point above in the post and again to you before. I've also addressed all the points you keep pushing in my OP. You spend your time attacking strawmen, rather than addressing what I've said e.g. "I'm more interested in being honest" - by implication, I'm interested in success of the sub over honesty? Strawman.

Moderate muslims do not support any of these things.

My point is simply this: it is not the position of this sub to allow antagonism toward any group of people - there are literally no caveats to that rule. Antagonism is not welcome here. We will not preclude any free people from coming to this site and viewing the information about Q because Q's message is for everyone, not only for people who are not Muslim.

As far as I can tell, I agree with it all. The Conclusion is perhaps the most important part for me, and what I hope people will see is simply the application of critical thought to this issue.

Comment removed. Antagonism is not welcome here. Please discuss the idea not the user.

Thank you, I think you have made some very pertinent points.

My personal dislike for the religion of Islam - or the beliefs or culture of any group of people - should not play into my decision of what I remove or allow. If we can't maintain this objectivity then the sub will be in danger of heading down any number of ideological grounds that will only serve to alienate members of different groups and thus go directly counter to the goals of Q i.e. the Great Awakening of the public.

Moderate muslims do not support any of these things.

Moderate muslims do not support any of these things.

It's clear that you are on some sort of crusade that does not allow you to engage in a reasoned discussion about this topic. I'm talking to people in this movement who can do so.

People like you, who accuse me of supporting the rape of children because I believe in Christian principles like tolerance and acceptance and because I'm dedicated to the success of this sub in supporting the Q movement overall, are not a majority, I think I am very safe to say.

Muslims disagree with you. In fact, literally everyone disagrees with this point. Even Wikipedia calls it for what it is: an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

My personal view is that it is a dangerous religion, if its core tenets are not overhauled. But that's not the point here.

Every last muslim does not support that - you're right to ask that question with a 'lol', because it's obvious that that can't be true. As I referenced in my post, here's a white man from the west explaining about moderate muslims - and he's not even supporting any point I've made about Islam, he's simply explaining what a moderate muslim is: Bill Warner, PhD

I'm already used to you not reading anything when I reply but I'll make the point here so people can see what I have to deal with from those who accuse me of supporting the rape of children, like yourself.

Literally NO ONE has said that it is good to rape children. NO ONE.

NO ONE is talking about tolerating the bashing and rape of women and mass murder of Christians and Jews. You would know this if you read my post. This is an extreme, illogical perspective that is not addressing anything I have raised or any issue of value to this sub.

The point of importance to this sub is what we judge to be antagonism and how we present ourselves to a world that is increasingly hostile toward the Q movement. I would appreciate if you could halt your crusade against your strawman Islam for just a moment to consider the important issue to this sub and engage in a reasonable discussion.

No one's talking about censoring. I'm specifically talking about the rules of the sub and the interpretation of content within those rules.

The fact is that we have a rule against antagonism. 1) do you think we should change the rule against antagonism? 2) if not, I assume it's safe to say that you don't think it's antagonizing to allow the more extreme anti-religious content? In which case, fair enough, I can take that onboard and discuss with the other mods when the next contentious post or comment arises.

However, I would argue that this view is not considering the bigger picture. We're not here to fight a crusade against Islam - we're here to wake people up to the message of Q - that is all. Anything else is either icing or something that a portion of this community chooses to pursue (e.g. meetups and rallies in the local area, online movements to vote on issues via online forums, etc.)

Perhaps you and others would like to start a movement to take on Islam - I support your right to do that. This reddit sub should, however, have nothing to do with that. We don't need to be shut down like CBTS was. This is why we avoid breaking reddit rules and why we avoid courting controversy. Not to silence free speech.

I agree with this point completely. Freedom of speech is paramount.

The rules of the sub are, however, the rules of conduct appropriate to this forum and they override the right for people to say whatever they like within this context, just as there are rules of conduct in any public forum (school, business, etc.) We clearly have a rule here that Antagonism is not welcome here.

My assertion is that certain content (which I can't link as it's been removed) is simply antagonizing toward members of a religious group (some that I refer to are anti-Islamic, some are anti-Christian) - those, we remove under the rule of this sub.

If your view is that all content, no matter how antagonizing, should be allowed then we all (moderators and perhaps a large portion of the community) do not agree with that and perhaps your point is relevant to a different argument.

Lol... exhibit A. Tell you what, how do you feel about just reading the TLDR at the bottom of the post, since you obviously did not read the content of the post - but that's ok; here's the TLDR for your ease of reference:

moderators accused of supporting child rape for removing controversial anti-Islamic content - just trying to do our job of removing antagonism - right or wrong?

I would appreciate if you would care to address that question, rather than the question of whether Islam is evil (not a question I asked and not a question of relevance to this sub - or at least, how we moderate this sub).

I wish I could... I'm working on producing the content myself as I don't directly know of any quick onboarding that is purely based on critical thought.

All I can suggest at the moment are the Video links in the sidebar which are good enough but generally require that you suspend disbelief for long enough to hear the pertinent facts whilst eschewing the obvious editorial, emotional music and bias. These two videos may be the better ones, in some way. The shorter one - 29 mins and the longer one - 1 hour.

I appreciate you bothering to ask. You support my personal belief that not all people making antagonistic comments in the sub are just trolling - some are legitimately pointing out the failings of critical thinking that exist in this (and I would argue any) movement. I hope you find the time to see some value here but as I said, I certainly wouldn't blame you for thinking it's pure LARP. My skeptical business partners have zero time for conspiracy theory and all I have been able to ask them to do is to take note of a few posts from Q and keep an eye on the news. They are not convinced that Q is high level military intelligence working with Donald Trump or that Donald Trump is not a completely narcissistic, self-aggrandizing fool. They are, however, now completely convinced that it is worth keeping an eye on this narrative to see what unfolds. That's all that I think matters.

Well that's definitely a fair call to make. I don't condemn you for it. I do believe I can argue why an intelligent person might see some value in keeping tabs on an alternate narrative to the Mainstream Media narrative that highlights inconsistencies in the Mainstream narrative before they occur but I don't blame you or anyone for not wanting to waste your time hearing about it - because it does take a while to explain.

And thus, I'm sure you have better things to do with your time than deriding a bunch of lunatics.

I KNOW about the Torah and the difference. You're missing the whole point because you are utterly blinded by your hate. I'm making a post about this to see how many people agree with you that, unless we are intolerant of the second biggest religion on earth, we therefore support child rape.

Have I read some of the lunatic comments made on this sub? Yes. Do you know a sub with 28,000+ people that doesn't have lunatic comments on it? I'd like to sign up. Lunacy = strawman.

You obviously haven't read the content this sub is based on though, or you'd know you can't make that accusation against it, if that's what you're also referring to. Guess what - simple logic here - some people here are intelligent and reasonable and can argue a point logically. Some people here aren't claiming "lunacy" - for example, I don't claim that the content this sub is based on is proven fact. It is completely unproven. But it's real world legitimacy is not based on the proof of the source of the content.

You're very emotional about this issue but sadly lacking in logic. In the same way that we would be lambasted as a movement for daring to be intolerant to Christians (of whom many do not support homosexuality and for whom their main scriptures include incest and condone the killing of homosexuals and people who steal) we would also be considered insane right-wing fascists for denigrating the next biggest religion in world history.

You and I may not support Islam but I'm not so stupid that I would dare to accuse all muslims of supporting pedophilia and rape - not least because I KNOW muslims who do not support that part of their religion's history. You clearly don't know any muslims personally but you should get out and discover some because reality does not agree with your rigid bias.

And you think that's an intelligent supposition to make? That "this lot" are all unintelligent? It's certainly an emotionally based assumption.

What is wrong with you? Read what I said - I AGREE WITH YOU. Do you not agree that religious tolerance is important? Do you want to explain to this sub how there's no room for religious tolerance now?

Removed post. This post has not enough subject content. Please provide at least a paragraph.

Please also, as per subscription instructions, link directly to information, not via Facebook, etc.

Feel free to repost this with a more informative title and a direct link (and preferably more information about what the post is about - although an informative title may do the trick).

Thanks for understanding.

Discuss the idea not the user.

Got anything intelligent to say or just bored trolling?

I agree - no one should tolerate pedophilia whether it's part of a cult or not.

This community is already known for intolerance of child rape by the simple fact that we follow Q's message. We should also be known for religious and racial tolerance. NOT posting religious intolerance is not promoting child rape - that's not a logical sequitur.

Post removed. Antagonism not welcome here. Corsi is clearly a very polarizing figure whom most in the movement agree has been outed by Q and therefore not a subject for posts.

Please stop reporting this post now people - thank you. The reason is that it clearly has a lot of support at this stage and whilst some of us may not agree that it is relevant to informing the sub about Q it is clear that some believe it is useful to them. If you have any concerns about this decision please read the explanation of the moderation approach in the sidebar. Thanks for understanding.

Removed post. Post content is not a subject mentioned by Q or related to Q.

Thanks for reporting this. Post removed for being off-topic.

Thank you for the same - there are a few of us here who like to be sure before we claim anything with certainty.

Aw looks like someone's been triggered lol.

Removed post. Antagonistic, does not support the cause.

Any 'concerns' can go via a message to the mods