A new sheriff at r/AcademicBiblical: badge enamored, or on the spectrum?

 First, "badge enamored" is more suave than "mini-Nazi." And, perhaps, somewhat nicer.

Second, "on the spectrum" is "on the spectrum."

OK ...

Early-mid November, current moderators at r/AcademicBiblical put out a call for additional mods.

A few days later, Nov. 22 to be precise, I had multiple notices, all from the same person (who gave said notices to many others as well) that we weren't being "academic" in citations even on short observations.

(Sidebar: I started this post back in late 2022. Updates expanding beyond the new mod most in question are below, as there's perhaps some degree of questionability elsewhere.)

I had a back and forth with him, and the neo-Nazi angle comes from him assuming, and this time the old pun about "assume" is seemingly true on his side, that I don't know what I'm talking about. 

Screengrab:

OK, it got more interesting yet on exchange on another flagged comment by him. I had made reference to a brief Wiki entry, about a particular word used to describe "Judaism" in Hasmonean and early Christian times, and the question as to, similar to today, it was ethnic only, or also religious. Within that page, Jewish scholar Shaye J.D. Cohen had thoughts, to which I was referring, and was told that "shorthand" wasn't good enough.  So, I did a direct quote, with his book's name, then snarked after that.

 Second screengrab:

And, it's that exchange that led me to think "on the spectrum" rather than "neo-Nazi." He just doesn't get the snark. That's very clear. (That said, the two appellations aren't mutually exclusive.)

Naugirth the Nazi is also at it at r/AskBibleScholars. I didn't directly respond to him, but subresponded to myself:

Or? Maybe Naugrith the Nazi, besides or an addition to also being on the spectrum, still lives in his parents' basement. See this Quora thread for how much of a cesspool mods can be. 

And, per a "meet the new mods" post there, he confirms the Nazi part. Yes, you do, starting with writing longer than most and doing it in your own format. I've bolded the most relevant points.:

Why did you want to be a mod here? 

I’ve loved this sub since I joined reddit many moons ago and it’s encouraged me and challenged me to educate myself about the subject as much as possible, just so I can participate in these discussions. I’m delighted to be able to contribute to this superb resource. And to do what I can to clean up this den of ignorance and depravity (but not too much – to badly paraphrase Luther’s prayer). Also I heard there was cake. 

What’s your attitude about moderation? 

I think it’s important to be clear and consistent. The existing Rules are clear but I recognise they are sometimes inconsistently enforced. I hope to be able to provide an extra pair of hands to ensure they can always be consistently and responsibly applied. I generally believe in being fair, generous, and considerate, and prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Everyone makes mistakes, and I’m always open to being corrected by my fellow mods or listening to any (polite) request for reconsideration. But ultimately I believe this kind of sub works best when all comments are informed, respectful, objective, and well-sourced, so my goal is to encourage that as much as I can.

The bolding in the second graf is ... not so true. 

Add to it this Dec. 3 post from the moderators about tweaking the sub's commenting rules. Both the fact that he was appointed — or elbowed his way forward — to making the presentation, some of his particular response comments, AND that he's the only one of the mods to be responding are all "interesting."

Let's add further. On the synoptic problem, dude is a proto-Marker, down to supporting Delbert Burkett's ideas of two of them.

Sidebar: Although mine is rusty, it's "interesting" that NONE of the mods has a graduate degree from the biblical studies world, at least ones that are active mods.

And, relevant to the header and the first sidebar at top? After Christmas, and especially into the new year, all the new mods were dropping the delete hammer hard. There's posts where half the comments have been deleted.

Anyway, I've mulled in the back of my mind creating some sort of subreddit on my own. Maybe I'll follow through. 

And, I did, and got banned shortly thereafter. 

The anonymous comment with the "bro" that I've approved? I suspect it's from one of the mods. As I posted on my own Reddit home page and that subreddit I started as well? He was indeed snide and condescending per the screengrabs above. And, I didn't think of reporting him at the time, because I figured it would have done no good, as I told said mod in a Reddit message.

==

Update, April 28: One of the new mods (before or after I was banned I'm not sure) claims that the rule on "cite your academic sources" was made applicable to lower-level comments more than a year ago. News to me. The poster says, "delete it then," and BobbyBobbie the mod says: "That's the neat part; I already did." A junior Naugrith and another Nazi. And, by their feed, a general idiot on religious issues, as well as a massive Nazi on comment-deletion at Academic Biblical.

And, on AskAChristian, about justifying her morals, after accusing an agnostic or atheist of circular reasoning, this circular reasoning of hers: 

How do I justify their existence? I thought it would have been pretty obvious: they are expressions of God's will and binding upon all moral creatures as the inheritors of a system, not the creator of it. 

Whether or not this creates any supposed dilemma is besides the point. The mere existence of them is supported by theism, and imo unable to be grounded under atheism.

got a rebuke and a block (along with an accusation of being more a Nazi than Naugrith, calling her a 1930s partisan of a Central European state). It's also "interesting" that the atheist to whom she was responding, their comment is now deleted. Such TOLERANCE!