Recently, during an intense discussion, one of the current moderators called me(couched within easily dispelled passive-aggressive wordplay) as egoistic and has refused to further engage any conversation by citing it as a waste of time. How to deal with such personal attacks on this forum? Ignoring their content is not an option since we are all frankly here to engage with the content to learn as well as disseminate our hard-won system of knowledge.

Here's the link to the chatroom as requested in comment below by the moderator in question.

  • 1
    It would be better if you post context of discussion and if possible provide the link for chat room.
    – The Destroyer Mod
    Nov 7 '17 at 7:57
  • 1
    Is personal attack acceptable based on context? Here's the link to the chatroom: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/68186/… Nov 7 '17 at 8:06
  • 7
    This looks like this has nothing to do with moderators. This can happen between any two users of the site.
    – Pandya Mod
    Nov 7 '17 at 12:40
  • 5
    Moderator has also his beliefs and opinions. So, he may react like a normal user since this doesn't deal with moderation.
    – Pandya Mod
    Nov 7 '17 at 12:53
  • 2
    Anyway if you're looking for the way the behaviour or communication can be improved, you may look at Community Building StackExchange or Interpersonal Skills StackExchange
    – Pandya Mod
    Nov 7 '17 at 13:00
  • 2
    Also note that chat messages are considered lesser important than comments (which are considered lesser important than Q/A).
    – Pandya Mod
    Nov 7 '17 at 13:03
  • 1
    @Pandya You are right that this has nothing to do with MODs in particular but more importantly there is absolutely nothing uncivilized in the comment or discussion too. And we all know that The Destroyer is the last person to be rude or something.
    – Rickross
    Nov 7 '17 at 15:03
  • 3
    @Rickross Going around calling people egoistic using thinly veiled passive aggressive comments is not civilised in any sense esp. in our culture. Nov 7 '17 at 16:45
  • 1
    @Pandya You know chat messages have chat flags. If they are of least importance, why is there a moderation there too? It is clear that OP wasn't asking about site recommendation. Your comment about it doesn't make much sense. I question is how to face personal attack from a user especially a moderator. Nov 7 '17 at 16:58
  • 1
    @Pandya As can be seen from the example of this chatroom discussion, the fact that he is moderator is now clearly shown as relevant given how he misused the power of selecting comments(to keep on his answer) to try to gain advantage. Nov 9 '17 at 11:24
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer I feel that some of the messages you have moved are more pertinent to the discussion, in any case, you should have asked. On what basis did you decide which arguments of mine are important or not? If nothing else, you should have stated that before moving. Nov 9 '17 at 12:44
  • 6
    I don't find the particular comment insulting or even passive-aggressive Lakshmi. It is not a personal attack. The user used the label for himself too. That he is a mod is not relevant to this discussion because - what @Pandya said.
    – user1195
    Nov 9 '17 at 17:00
  • 1
    @moonstar2001 In the light of the whole transcript that i've linked, more than one comment was made alluding to my lack of knowledge and/or my general unrealised nature a.k.a egoistic. I don't quite follow what gave him the rights to do so. I can discuss this in detail in chat if you wish. Nov 10 '17 at 1:35
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer You may go around calling yourself unrealised all you want, just stay away from calling others the same. passive-aggression is not a shield or licence to make statements to these effects that they will be left unquesstioned. Nov 10 '17 at 4:42
  • 3
    @LakshmiNarayanan It's not about going around calling someone egoistic...It's about "two ego centric unrealized souls" and that basically means "apravuddha" in the context of the Hinduism discussion (the kind of discussion that was going on). Now if u think that's a personal attack on you, then you are not fit to participate in such discussions yet.
    – Rickross
    Nov 10 '17 at 6:21

Since i'm the one who was involved, i should answer this. Context of my message was very much different. I said two "unrealized egoistic souls" would discuss debate on Supremacy of Shiva and Vishnu. It was general statement and it means two unrealized souls, herein discussion "me and him", would discuss that. Also, word "ego" here means "Ahamkara" or "feeling of I " (which is according to Hindu philosophy), not English "ego", else, i wouldn't use "unrealized".

Also, discussion started there as two users (honestly i don't know why OP used word "Moderator" here) and it turned into debate. Here's the complete comment which OP was saying.

@LakshmiNarayanan It's pure waste of time to discuss with someone who has prejudices and those who can't digest the fact that they are multiple ways to reach ultimate truth. Generally, two unrealized ego centric souls would do that. It's better we stop it and you do your own sadhana of your sampradaya which your Gurus and Paramagrus taught you and i follow the path which i am inclined to.

I will explain my message in great detail. Hinduism has many schools, as you know, each school interprets or understands "ultimate reality" (Brahman) in many ways. Some schools say it is "impersonal God" and other schools say it is "personal". Among Personal Gods, some schools say it "Shiva" or some schools say it is "Vishnu". Some Hindu scriptures even say Supreme Lord created multiple philosophies so that persons with different inclinations choose different philosophies. Also, scriptures say like how different rivers unite with One ocean, different philosophies make person understand the one ultimate truth. They are just different paths. Now, obviously OP doesn't agree with this statement and hence my response was that comment.

  1. Although i agree "pure waste of time" is somewhat harsh, it happened in flow and it is part of human error. Apologies for using adjective "pure" in case if it is harsh. Since OP agreed he doesn't believe "multiple paths can be true", i said it is waste of time.
  2. I already explained "unrealized egoistic souls" meaning from Hindu philosophy. I thought OP would understand since i said "Soul or Atman" and we were discussing a Hindu topic. But OP understood it as mere English meaning. Why would i call myself egoistic (of English meaning) here unless it is about "Sanskrit Ahamkara which shows we two are unrealized".
    "Soul or Atman or Brahman" (in Advaita), it is explained at Vyavaharika level it gets a "feeling of I" (Ahamkara in Sanskrit) and multiplies itself and creation starts. Due to this feeling, every Soul is not realized. I willingly used the word Soul(s) not Jiva or his name to convey this meaning.

  3. Generally, debate between "personal Gods", especially "Shiva and Vishnu" is as age old debate in Hinduism and many Hindu philosophers in recent time after invasions and British rule tried to avoid this debate as we need Hindu unity in India. So, generally it is said to follow your philosophy and i follow mine without any debates respecting each philosophies. Suggested way to stop unnecessary rivalry between sects is to "Agree to disagree" and follow "Sadhana" (spiritual rituals to realize ultimate truth) of their respective sects.

In future you can avoid discussion with any specific users whom you don't agree. Obviously, you base your arguments on Statement "Vishnu is only Supreme" considering it as true at objective level and all users on this site won't agree with that statement. So, you can't even change some users opinions through chat rooms via discussion or debates as both parties have their arguments and counter arguments. So, i felt only plausible solution is to stop the discussion and use it for some fruitful purpose rather than engaging in never ending discussion. I don't think stopping discussion is rude here at all.


You must log in to answer this question.

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