26

I spotted this gem of an answer to the question 'What do the symbols on the mummy's face mean?'

Highlights include;

Looks like the heretical language of Enochian (which has zero to do with the FIRST ENOCH of the Bible & the apocryphal book of Enoch) but is named after perhaps this gnostic elitist bullshit idea of the 2nd Enoch.

But yeah anyways looks like enochian to me, which wouldn't be surprising thats the same runic language you see on the Satanic Goat pentragram - which is fact. Which would perfectly fit aligned with Hollywood's obsession w all things occult & kabbalah & considering her character worships Set it would make sense that the language & message on her body in this film would be represenrative of that sick twisted but still very real belief system.

...

Lastly I find myself thinking the Rotschilds probably love this film, which is a great reason for me to dislike it & ponder purer positions.

In keeping with our "Be Nice" policy ("Bigotry of any kind. Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. will not be tolerated. At all.") I flagged it as

Contains hate-speech against Kabbalah and low level anti-Semitic content.

And was quite surprised when it was declined by a moderator.


Is it now acceptable to call Kabbalah a "sick and twisted belief system"? Is it acceptable to make coded anti-semitic slurs against the (notably Jewish) Rothschild family?

In short, why was my flag declined?

  • 8
    The general tone and language in that answer could already be enough for a plain old "rude or abusive" flag to begin with. – TARS Jan 6 '18 at 20:21
  • @TARS - Sure, but in the event that OP decided to do it again, I wanted to have a record of the flagged question. – Valorum Jan 6 '18 at 21:17
  • 2
    It's not anti-Semitic to express dislike of some person or group of people who happen to be Jewish. If I say the Nazis were evil, does that make me racist against Germans? (Of course, the answer you link to is certainly a rant and worthy of deletion - indeed, it has now been deleted.) – Rand al'Thor Jan 6 '18 at 23:02
  • 11
    @Randal'Thor - No, but historically hatred of the Rothschilds (a high profile and wealthy Jewish family) has been considered to be "coded" anti-semitism. Everyone knows what you mean. Like if I said that I hated the sort of people who like musical theatre. – Valorum Jan 6 '18 at 23:06
  • 3
    Considered by whom? I've never heard of that. Many people's disdain for the Rothschilds and other super-rich banking families has nothing to do with their religion. – Rand al'Thor Jan 6 '18 at 23:30
  • 18
    @Randal'Thor - Sure, and if that was the only thing he'd said that was troublesome, I'd have probably just edited it out. But apparently he has a deep disdain for the Jewish mysticism associated with Kaballah also. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think that he might just be using them as an example of wealthy bankers? – Valorum Jan 6 '18 at 23:58
  • 11
    The answer criticizes: 1) The Second Book of Enoch, 2) gnosticism, 3) Hollywood, 4) Satanism, 5) Kabbalah, and 6) the Rothschilds. Numbers 1, 5, and 6 are all explicitly Jewish, and number 2 also originated in out of Jewish tradition. Numbers 4 and 6 are also standard subjects of antisemitic attacks. – Buzz Jan 7 '18 at 7:02
  • 4
    I will say (as an aficionado of conspiracy theories) that while the inclusion of the Rothschilds in these theories definitely sprang from an anti-Semitic premise, they've become such a fixture that a number of conspiracy theorists with nothing against Jews mention them. That said, I'd give better than even odds of this particular individual having something against Jews. ;) – Adamant Jan 7 '18 at 17:26
  • @Randal'Thor - Required reading on the subject of the Rothschilds; thejc.com/news/news-features/… – Valorum Feb 23 at 8:10
-1

First things first: the offending answer has long been deleted, so this is all pretty academic now.


Regardless of the text of your flag, it was bringing problematic and delete-worthy content to moderators' attention and therefore should have been marked helpful. Sorry about that.

From a pedantic point of view, though, your flag seems technically invalid, at least at first glance without further research into the issues involved.

  • "hate-speech against Kabbalah" - well, the only explicit mention of Kabbalah in the answer was "Hollywood's obsession w all things occult & kabbalah". Maybe some of the things being insulted also equate to Kabbalah (the language of Enochian"? the "2nd Enoch"?), but moderators shouldn't need this sort of in-depth knowledge of esoteric topics in order to handle flags.

  • "low level anti-Semitic content" - again, there's no explicit mention of Jews or other Semitic peoples in the answer. You mention that they express dislike of the Rothschilds, but disliking someone who happens to be Jewish isn't the same as being racist against Jews (any more than, for example, hating the Nazis makes me racist against Germans).

Pedantry aside, of course, you were right to flag this answer. I'm not sure why you raised a custom mod flag - "not an answer" would have sent it to the review queue for swifter deletion, and "rude or abusive" is best for truly offensive content - but thanks for bringing it to our attention (even though it ended up being deleted without mod involvement). Sorry again for the declinature.

  • 3
    Arguably they're saying that Kabbalah is "sick and twisted." If they are, and they actually understand what Kabbalah (by no means guaranteed), then that would be decent evidence of anti-Semitism. – Adamant Jan 7 '18 at 17:29
  • 7
    It is not academic. If for no other reason than that they're free to continue posting and there's no flag record of their inappropriate content other than a declined flag. – Valorum Jan 7 '18 at 18:00
  • 6
    That wasn't the only mention of Kaballah. What do you think "that sick twisted but still very real belief system" was referring to? – Valorum Jan 7 '18 at 18:01
  • 14
    But why has it been declined? Was that just a misclick or a moment of lacking attention? It's perfectly understandable that such things happen, but it would also be good to know that this is what happened. Or was it declined for any of the "academic" counter-arguments listed herein? – TARS Jan 7 '18 at 18:12
  • 2
    @TARS - An excellent question. Are these arguments (that the post isn't actually that offensive) the reason it was declined? – Valorum Jan 9 '18 at 19:32
  • 5
    @Gnemlock - When someone makes an allegation of anti-semitic content and religious intolerance, you would expect the moderator to perform a quite thorough level of research on their own before declining the flag – Valorum Jan 11 '18 at 7:56
  • 4
    @Valorum, I have no idea how much work goes into moderating, I never flag with the assumption that the moderator will look any further into the matter than I have explicitly stated. – Gnemlock Jan 11 '18 at 11:05
  • 3
    @Gnemlock - Well, I'd like to think that a flag raised by the site's top user, alleging that a user has used offensive language would merit serious review. – Valorum Jan 11 '18 at 16:03
  • 9
    @Valorum, I would like to think that you do not have any such special treatment, top user or not. That's how flag abuse happens. I think your neglecting the fact that these are all volunteer moderators, who are human. They made a mistake. You clearly didn't make much effort to explain yourself, since you've made no such effort to reinforce that you had, even when queried – Gnemlock Jan 12 '18 at 0:22
  • 5
    Why are we unable to get a comment from the moderator who actually took the action? It always seems to be you having to "cover someone's tracks" – Edlothiad Jan 15 '18 at 6:31
  • 2
    @Gnemlock You don't need to be an expert on religion to understand that calling an actively practised faith "sick" and "twisted" is "likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc." Additionally, I am extremely disappointed that no moderator has given a real apology or even seemed to truly grasp what the issue was. – Rogue Jedi Jan 16 '18 at 0:26
  • 6
    @Gnemlock They're describing a religion they believe is real as disgusting. I don't see how it isn't a clear violation of policy. – Rogue Jedi Jan 16 '18 at 13:02
  • 2
    @Edlothiad: I don't think playing the blame game is particularly helpful here. I would greatly prefer to treat this as a process and human factors issue. In that context, the identity of the declining mod is irrelevant. – Kevin Jan 17 '18 at 1:11
  • 3
    @Edlothiad: You're welcome to your opinion, but Rand obviously is acting as a spokesperson here notwithstanding your personal preferences. I don't care whose name is on the answer, I care about what the mod team is going to do about it so that this does not happen again. So far, it looks like the answer to that is "a whole lot of nothing." By demanding a mea culpa from the mod who declined the flag, you're drawing attention away from that reality, and reducing the likelihood that actual progress is made here. – Kevin Jan 17 '18 at 6:19
  • 3
    @Kevin, You too are welcome to your opinion. I personally feel that by knowing why a flag was declined we can discuss how to come to a community agreement on said topic. This isn't a witch hunt. Neither is the mod necessarily at fault as you seem to insinuate. Rand in this case has shown why it may have been mishandled which in this case doesn't put the moderator at fault, but the flagger for lack of being clear. The question isn't about "How do we move on from this rejected flag", it's "Why was this flag rejected". The best answerer to that, is the flag handler. Plain and simple. – Edlothiad Jan 17 '18 at 6:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .