Hi comrades,
We’ve received some reports recently and so I’m making this announcement.
In our rules, Lemmygrad does not lean one way or the other towards religion. This means that in effect, we accept all communists no matter their religion or lack thereof.
However, this doesn’t mean we allow feuds or unprincipled criticism. This seems to come especially from our atheist comrades, who sometimes (from what has made its way to us) see it fit to remind religious comrades that religion shouldn’t exist.
While we appreciate that the criticism is about religion and not the particular beliefs of some comrades, this kind of discourse does not have its place on Lemmygrad as we effectively don’t lean one way or another and expect users to lean that way too.
edit: as such, this reminder also applies to religious comrades.
We’re very hands off with moderation and we’d like it to remain that way in a community as tight-knit as ours.
This doesn’t mean that you can’t criticize religion or atheism, as long as it comes in good faith and is done from a Marxist basis.
This principle also applies to other contentious topics that are prone to debate on our platform.
Has he ever commented on how he reconciles Marxism with being religious? If yes then I would like to see that though I don’t mean to imply that the burden of finding it should be on you. If you have a link to it then great otherwise no worries. If he hasn’t then it is not fair to ruminate on his religious bent considering he cannot defend himself. It is not something that crucial that needs to be criticised.
I feel like he said something about religious things maybe someday being scientifically measured like dark matter.
I don’t remember seeing if he outright stated the reasons, but several people in that thread commented about it so i assumed he had somewhere, i didn’t watch all his videos really. Looking at my post there i did not criticized him for being religious, just for wrong stance on Ukraine war. In the post above yours i meant that the angle of critique is fair, not necessarily that the critique itself is correct.
Obviously the burden of proof lies on the person making the critique, but it’s pretty weird to require person having to defend themself each and every time? How would we criticize anyone already being dead then?
True, if he continues just as he is now, it is a very minor nitpick.
Well I didn’t mean it for every time but it would be good if he had the chance to do it once. Otherwise we would be talking about someone else’s beliefs with very little knowledge of them.
Publicists are mostly being known for their writings (or videos or other publication).