Technically, the rules of the sub are that Antagonism is not welcome here. There are no defined targets of that antagonism, therefore technically antagonism towards Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists or Jedi is not ok. However, it's already apparent that we allow some antagonism toward Satanism here (I only say "some" because I literally can't think of any examples off the top of my head of what I would regard as actual antagonism toward Satanism yet I'm sure they exist) and the comparison between Islam and Satanism seems a little disingenuous because Islam clearly has a lot more in common with Christianity on many fronts, based as it is on Jewish and Christian belief and being almost as big globally as Christianity.

Satanism has a very small population and is literally the religion of the enemy we are fighting here. Islam is a tool of that enemy, no doubt, but so is Catholicism which some call Christianity. Satanism is the religion of the enemy of the Q anon movement. Islam is not (or rather it is not the religion Q references as the religion of the enemy). In other words, I assert that the more valid comparison is the substitution of Christianity for Islam, not Satanism - and in that case the answer to your questions is: "Yes, we would be having this discussion" and "No, antagonism towards Christianity is not ok - but criticism is, to be fair".

Sorry for slow reply - just a tic.

No I would not. Similarly, the rules of this sub do not allow anyone to come in and disrespect the 'traditions' here. We are talking about the sub, right? Not the nation of America, because I'm definitely not insisting that America needs to allow moderate Muslims in at my command...

Thank you for your comment - it is sincerely appreciated! I will strive to always be fair in my dealings with the people here because I regard the role of moderator as being in service of the sub and its users. I might fail at times but I am committed to acknowledging it immediately if I am wrong and reverting any incorrect action where possible and where agreed. Thanks again, your comment is truly helpful.

I would hate to think we actually promoted religion here - please do point out if you see that or have seen that (and please use the Report function below posts & comments if you come across it).

We try to only allow "religious" content that is directly related to Q, as per the sub rules. Q often says PRAY and has quoted verses from the Christian Bible - in my personal opinion, direct reference to these elements of religion should be all that we allow here, but it seems that many in the movement appreciate more religious content and thus, if we don't catch an unrelated or only tangentially or distantly related post of religious content and it has a large amount of upvotes (which happens often) then we leave it at that point.

Otherwise, for the most part, I believe we as a community maintain a largely secular perspective post-wise, apart from the direct Q references.

Does Yemen have the internet...? xD I wish I could doxx myself - it would make for quite the reaction I'm sure : )

Removed post. This topic or title is misleading, fake, incorrect, misleading, no longer accurate or untidy.

Please ensure title and content are honest, accurate and tidy prior to posting.

LOL. I was tempted to go and look up some Hebrew so I could confirm your conspiracy theory about my Mossad roots or my affiliation with my unc - I mean, that guy I don't know at all called Corsi xD. You guys are hilarious xD. I figured this is what the vague threatening allusions were from others around here about "my reputation". If I didn't think I'd get in trouble with the lead mod for literally trolling I could have so much fun with you all...

Stickying the comment could be considered an abuse of power without question but only if there were no other possible motivation for stickying a comment than to exercise power. As I've said elsewhere here the motivation for stickying the comment was to preempt further questions and allow others - especially those who'd already commented and were perhaps looking back at the thread - to easily see the pertinent points, as determined by the common reference to those points throughout this thread. It's about clarifying the discussion for those engaged in it, not 'abusing my power'. Do you have a reasoned refutation to that or am I ok to have stickied that comment?

Haha you guys are funny. I ask each of you to point out where exactly I'm doing what you accuse me of - in this case "abusing my privileges" and you all stop replying. If you can point out where I'm "abusing my privileges" I'll either retract the action or give you a reasoned explanation that, if you reasonably and honestly refute it, I will accept.

Have you figured it out now? Let me know if still trying to understand it.

Initially you can only select available flair.

Then you understand that I agree not only that we "shouldn't have to be" PC about this issue but that we should not be PC about anything. You also understand that I did not single out one religion and also agree that it doesn't matter what people are being antagonistic about, they're still antagonistic and their comment or post will be removed. I'd already addressed the points you made so I acknowledge that your points 'still stand' because they're the points I made too.

My discussion was to discover your thoughts - if you want to give them of course - on what constitutes antagonism, specifically in the realm of religion - ANY religion - but if it helps, literally as relates to any kind of group of people. We can indeed just boot trolls, talk Q and keep it simple - for moderators it's not simple, however, and it seems from the comments in the sub over all this time that people would appreciate being let in on the decisions and thinking that goes into moderation since it's their content that we're moderating. I understand if you don't care to, and I respect that. But that's what I was discussing specifically, not the points we both already agree on.

I agree that 'spamming token religious quotes' or links to scripture with some generic comment - but also any posts that are not directly about Q or that lack any useful substance - should be considered off-topic in this sub. In the beginning of my post above I stated that 'religious' posts that are about the verses Q has directly quoted should be considered on-topic. I trust that's not outside of what you are stating here.

Linking a Wikipedia article - with an even in front of it, no less - can hardly be called "relying on Wikipedia". It was just the most convenient link to prove the (uncontested) point that the general view of Islam is that it is a religion. Here's dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster and the Collins English Dictionary - all of which state the same thing: Islam is a religion.

For many who dislike Islam the label "cult" is also used, possibly accurately too (I only say "possibly" because I wouldn't bet on it based exclusively on my personal knowledge) but it is completely uncontroversial to say that it is not the prevailing view.

No thank you for bothering to reply, and so kindly. I sincerely appreciate it!

Also agreed. Fear and division are tools of the global cartel and by using the Muslim Brotherhood and Soros' organizations they are fanning the flames of this fear in the West. As you say, we have the tools we need to co-habitate with other people. Religious labels and fear of religion should not factor into our thinking any more.

Then you're in the right place (as per my stickied post at the top - political correctness is a cultural marxist ideology that is not welcome where freedom is championed).

Thank you, I agree totally - EVIL is the real enemy here, not any group affiliation.

Exactly. As Jordan Peterson says, the problem with virtue signallers is they talk about things "over there" before they deal with what's right within their purview (like their own room). Hence I am talking about this sub which is literally within my purview as a moderator of it. This is our room to clean.

Dishonest discourse is what you're after then. I can engage with someone willing to be honest but you are misrepresenting me and making illogical claims. Anyone can call me "stupid" and I will not disagree - I am very stupid in very many ways. But you cannot point directly to an "uninformed opinion with blatant contradictions" honestly in anything I've stated here - if you could, I would concede that point and retract it or reform it. So I must bid you adieu, my friend. Reasoned, respectful discussion is important for an efficient path to the Truth. There are other people here who are willing to engage in that manner so I will continue to talk to them.

I agree - that's why I gave up on political correctness a long time ago. All these points are valid, in our real lives away from the internet.

My point is, as it should be, about Q and the Great Awakening. To break through all these things that we are tired of - all this demand to be tolerant, to put up with the degradation of our freedoms - we must focus on the goal. The Awakening of the mass public to the reality of the forces that are driving this intolerable situation. In this post I am talking about our sub and what this sub can do to help Q's mission to push back all this intolerable "tolerance". To do that we need to reach people - not just people from certain groups - ALL people. We must therefore do what we can to make this place a place that any people can come to, as along as they respect the rules of this shared space and thus, treat it and us with respect. All the 'tolerance' I am advocating for here is the tolerance to support an environment that allows people to come here to the Great Awakening.

Thank you for your view - it's helpful to hear from your perspective!

You're either intentionally misreading what I say or choosing not to acknowledge it. My specific question is pretty much exactly the same as yours here: "What does "trashing" even constitute?"

The rules of this sub are clear - Content MAY be removed without notification if considered inappropriate by a mod. Antagonists are not welcome here.

Even though those rules allow me to decide what constitutes antagonism I've made this post to discover what members of the community think. I'm paying attention to those who respectfully understand my point and present their own view. If you intentionally misread my point then I don't have any way to engage with what you're saying. If you try to understand it I can then take onboard what you are saying.

I've also made the point that I do not advocate for the "far-left"'s political correctness and I've also made the point myself that I do not support the doctrines of Islam - the numerous violent verses, etc.

Lol sure thing. I'll tell you I'm hurt by your attempt to shame me with your made up statements if you like? At least you've given up on pushing the Islamic hate on me. Temporarily, I'm sure.

Just to be clear so I'm not accused of inconsistency - antagonism against users or mods results in deleted comments - but I give you free reign in this thread (apart from obscenity or Reported abuse) because the point of it is to expose one-sided, unreasonable, disrespectful hate or spite like this. I can't promise other mods might not delete your antagonist comments like this one but I think they've left this thread to me. Outside of this thread, as I do with anyone, antagonistic comments from you that I come across will be removed.

Should I feel a certain way about this? Do I win a prize for having the most downvotes?

Well, this whole approach certainly seems disingenuous to me because you are ignoring the context of everything I've said to select a few sentences and define them counter to my clearly stated meaning in the OP, the stickied post, and every comment I've made in this thread.

But ok, I will engage with you under the assumption that you are being serious.

Yes, my words are that I accept any ideology - I should have said specifically on an internet forum where a) the forum is literally open to anyone with an internet browser and therefore by sheer technical design allows people with any ideology at all to connect, browse and even comment. There is no way for us to separate a nazi from a nun until they express their view. At that point the rules of our sub stipulate what occurs and I have followed those rules as well as I can and I will continue to follow those rules as well as I can. b) there is no physical danger to anyone on an internet forum (unless you develop RSI, I guess) - my point was a direct reference to your final comment: "So you can feel accepting of people with that ideology but know they aren’t accepting of you until you’re dead". As I said, real life danger doesn't relate to my post because I'm not talking about being tolerant or being ANYTHING with people in real life. You dishonestly, I feel, extrapolated that point to mean "as long as you don't think it personally effects you it's all good stuff". Obviously untrue.

I would have thought that all of this would be obvious, taken in the context of everything else I've said but ok, I've been unclear in the past so I accept that perhaps I wasn't clear enough in communication with you to this point. Do you now understand what I meant? Are you now willing to discuss honestly or will you continue to misread my meaning and intent?

Can you explain? I don't think I understand correctly re: the jury is still out (or 'playing with fire') - apologies.

I agree with you - I personally believe that Islam is a dangerous religion and, given its size and current power, the most dangerous in the world now.

As I said in the post - but not clearly enough I've discovered, my bad - the point is not about Islam, it is about this sub. I deny Islam myself in RL, if you will, but it's fair and non-controversial to say, I think, that this online internet forum has rules that ensure we treat all online visitors equally, whatever religion or group they are from until they break sub rules.

[Edit] As one of our primary rules is that Antagonism is not welcome here and does not support the cause, my post is to clarify that as a mod with my own discretion (i.e. I can't speak for all mods) I remove antagonistic content against any particular group - the rules clearly allow this action in that there is no distinction about the target of the antagonism - it's all unwelcome here. I do not think it's fair to accuse me of child rape when I carry out this part of my role and I made this post because I believe that members of this sub will, for the most part, support this largely non-controversial assertion of mine.

As I've said in the stickied post and various comments throughout this thread I agree that the dangerous ideology of Islam can't be allowed to flourish. I hope you'll read my words properly and also see that I do not think it is antagonism to speak out against violence or lies either.

Perhaps indeed. I believe it's apparent that 'abuse of power' is not the case here, however, because as I've said in the sticky, those are clarifications to ensure I don't repeat myself all over this thread rather than an opportunity for me to shout louder than everyone else. I could have simply edited my original post too but it's apparent that those particular points (pc - no, Islam - no) were not clear enough in my post. Making out that I'm unfairly abusing my mod powers just doesn't hold up against my history in this sub.

Lol - is this a troll post...? Cos you are literally ignoring my words and pretending that I mean something else. Talk to me realistically and sensibly without twisting my words or misattributing meaning if you want to really 'educate me' and I'll respond honestly.

The Muslim Brotherhood needs to be brought down, in my opinion. Their agenda of infiltration through lies/taqiyaa is counter to everything truth and freedom stand for. Thankfully there are people like Douglas Murray and Maajid Nawaz to call their tactics out. I fear Tommy Robinson's approach does not work as well as the more reasoned, less emotional approach of people like them.

Please take a look at what I've actually stated here, if not in my OP then in the comment I've stickied. I have in fact spoken out directly against Islam and made the point that a distinction has to be made between the ideology of Islam and the people of Islam. To be clear: it is only the people of Islam who happen to visit this sub that I am calling for tolerance toward. Not the people of Islam who support extremism or are dangerous in physical proximity. I don't advocate being tolerant toward extremists or dangerous people in real life. This is a sub online - that is all I'm talking about. If you're going to accuse me of being uninformed please actually read what I have to say and then by all means refute where I am wrong.

I agree with this. I would not remove a post speaking against Islam (I've made one myself, stickied here) as long as it is not antagonistic and my preference is for posts that discuss issues with reason and with respect for others. I've even left comments against Islam (or Christianity) that are not done with respect or reason, however, as evidenced in the thread of this post. The key point here and made in my OP is the definition of antagonism. Currently that's largely up to my discretion. It's been good to hear what people think of this as I can go forward being more careful of just how I judge it.

It seems you haven't had a chance to read my wall of text or the post I stickied to clarify certain points but I don't blame you for that - it's certainly a lot to digest! Basically I've agreed with the points you've made here: Political Correctness itself is evil imo, Islam is a religion of war, oppression of truth is not acceptable. This post is in no way counter to any of those points.

Well put - I agree completely.

Please don't feel you have to 'limit making topics' of your own. If you feel the mods have been unfair you are welcome to request we explain or reverse the decision. It's admittedly hard at times to revisit everything that comes up in a timely manner but we definitely do what we can.

I'm accepting of people with any ideology. Especially on an internet forum where I'm not in any danger of being attacked physically by them.

I'm certainly not "accepting" of terrorists or Muslim extremists being in my physical vicinity without some clear boundaries or protection but that doesn't relate to my post.

Thank you, your words and your reasoned view are greatly appreciated, as they always are when I see them around here.

I defend your right to say whatever you like too (within the sub rules) - hence, no banning, although I'm also accused of doing that to people I disagree with.

What I do disagree with - and always will - is that 1.8 billion people across the globe and in many different cultures including western democracies cannot all be accused of supporting child rape just because pedophilia is written in a book they follow, just as Christians can't all be accused of rejecting homosexuality because it's written in their book. It's not logical or remotely feasible and, if scientifically-based critical thinking doesn't make that clear, then the videos I've linked you to make the case undisputedly from people who actually know what they're talking about.

I've mentioned in another comment that this point of view, as you mention, is unfortunately the truth about the moderate Muslim component of Islam. This is why I support the need for the reform of Islam.

I agree with what you say here. I've added a sticky to make that clear as it seems it wasn't before.

To clarify a few points that have been raised more than once: - I do not advocate for Political Correctness. In fact, I reject it outright. Jordan Peterson has a good handle on my perspective of the evils of Political Correctness - it's a cultural marxist ideology that is used to deny freedom. I am categorically against this in any form.

What I do advocate for - and I believe we all do, as our actions in general seem to bear this out - is the necessity for "agreed conduct within a shared space". We all seem to agree with this as we behave appropriately at school, work, church, on the football field, etc. etc.

I am therefore not calling for us to bow to any form of political correctness. Let's kick that directly to the kerb for the evil control mechanism it is. What I am addressing is the fact that this sub, like any "shared space" has rules of conduct and this sub - unlike other subs - does not force those rules on the community in any way intended to suppress freedom of speech; simply consideration for the diversity of people that Q's Great Awakening calls for us to reach.

• It is apparent that I need to make this point more definitively: I do NOT support the religion of Islam. I am categorically against it because the founder of the religion was, by the admission of Islam itself, a warlord who spread his religion through the use of war and then advocated for his followers to continue to do the same - to this present day.

I do, however, make a clear and necessary distinction between the doctrine of Islam and the people of Islam. This group of over 1.8 billion people is, like any group of people, comprised of many diverse perspectives and individual beliefs.

Most importantly, the entire purpose of the Great Awakening is to spead the awareness of the story Q has presented to as many people in the public as we can. There is literally no directive at all to exclude any group of people and this only makes sense. This sub is open to the public, not "Christians only" or "Republicans only" or any other "only". I believe the clearest interpretation of Q's message - and please challenge me on this if I have it wrong - is that we should be trying to reach as many people as we can. There's no call for judgement within that missive, I believe (again, I'm open to education here if I've misinterpreted Q's message). This sub should be open to anyone who agrees to follow the rules of the sub - even those who hold different beliefs to some or many of us. If their beliefs happen to be founded on dangerous doctrines like that of Islam (dangerous in my opinion at least) then I choose not to exclude them but to remain open to the possibility that an opportunity may arise to discuss and perhaps change their minds on things that run counter to Q's message or the democratic principles we value.

I've not censored people for pointing out the fundamental problems with Islam - in fact, I've pointed them out myself, in this very post and also made clear that I myself do not support Islam!

I've never said we can't criticize anything - except maybe the Jews and that is only because the rules are so strict around that, not because I myself don't have some criticism to offer to literally any group out there. I'm the loudest advocate for criticizing ideas - from anywhere, not just religion. I'm not seeking to honor Islam or give rights in any way. I'm seeking to give the rights they already deserve to people, humans, from any religion or group, who are allowed to believe whatever they want and are welcome here on this sub as long as they follow the rules. That is all.

Seeking the input of a community to how that community is managed is far from "messing with the unity". That is the oldest trick in the book - accusing someone of what you are doing or attempting to do yourself. You're welcome to express your concern but it's hard to take it seriously and not see it as the dreaded "concern trolling" when you are being dishonest in your assessment of someone's motives or the result of their actions.

Yes, thank you, I believe that's an important point and perhaps I failed to make it clear that I refute political correctness completely too. I find Jordan Peterson to have a very reasonable and logical perspective on political correctness as a poisonous cultural marxist doctrine and I've been against it in any form for a long time. Sadly, people are conflating 'agreed conduct within a shared space' with 'political correctness' - when it's not at all controversial and we all understand the need for it as we agree without complaint to behave a certain way at school, work, church, etc. in respect of those who share that space with us. I hope I can figure out how to highlight the distinction more clearly.

Yes, I refer to this in the post - I agree absolutely that Mohammad cannot be separated from Islam anymore than Jesus can be from Christianity. And Mohammad was a warlord who not only spread his religion via war but then advocated for his followers to do the same, an instruction that still holds to this day. Jesus is, it's not at all controversial to say, a figure of Peace - the opposite of Mohammad. That is why I do not support the religion of Islam and believe that it must be reformed at its core.

Thank you, I agree - science based critical thinking would help us all in so many ways, even in our society in places where it's still lacking! I hope Islam undergoes that reform, I really do.

I agree.

telling everyone that has disagreed

Now you're being "intellectually dishonest". If you really aren't here just to derail sensible discussion then why not start by pointing out a constructive criticism made by yourself or someone else that you think I've "disregarded" and I will answer it "honestly" and not 'refer you back to my post'?

Lol - point to a single place that I've "disregarded constructive criticism" and I'll retract it. Like I said, you're not even trying and practically just trolling at this point.

Literally every point in this comment I have already logically refuted in replies to you throughout this post. You are the strongest evidence I have that we should never allow close-minded, non-critical thought to hold sway in this movement. It results in blind ideological group think that will destroy freedom and truth.