The disrespect comes from the part of "rather becoming a nazi than a Christian".
The intolerance comes from the act of posting an offensive blog without considering how the original poster would react; another way of saying inconsideration.
I disagree. I'm not really concerned with the content of the video except that it was presented in a disrespectful way toward another member.
Whether or not a matter is offensive isn't a problem. Offensive topics will be discussed at some points in a public forum and so it's only to be expected, even in places meant to be casual and fun like the blog section. The problem is the intent of the poster. If a member intends to offend another particular member or group of members rather than acting to encourage discussion or activity (of the positive kind of course), that's when actions have to and should be taken by the mods.
More accurately, the framing of the matter. I don't care if someone has the worst possible intentions toward DGN. If he or she is contributing positively to the community, even if it's just a front, I don't have a problem. (Though such fronts are often seen through and can still cause problems that have to be dealt with.)
Are you saying that I shouldn't say that I'm an Atheist since it would hurt a Christian's feelings? That's not my problem. If their feelings are hurt, it isn't my fault.
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying you shouldn't say it in such a demeaning way.
many here are assuming that because the blog criticized Christianity, it automatically equates an attack
I noticed that too, and it's a false assumption which is making this issue very difficult to debate properly. Criticize Christianity all you want. There's plenty of that in MD, sigs, blogs, etc. Just don't do it at the expense of another member.
Despite the denials to the contrary, the continued insistence that it was an attack despite a completely and total lack of any proof [1] that it is strongly indicates [2] that this is a religiously motivated attempt at censorship.
[1] The blog's title and timing are proof enough. I don't need to prove Kitsu's motivation because that's not at question here. In fact I believe the evidence points to Kitsu's motivation being unharmful. Unfortunately the action he made
was harmful and that's the issue here.
[2] Now you're guessing at our intentions, even though I've given you the same evidence to the contrary that Kitsu has given me regarding his intentions -- my word, and a reasonable explanation for why my actions took the form they did. Again, Kitsu gave me the same thing, and I believe him. You don't have to agree with me or even believe me, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't automatically assume the opposite.
