'Exorcism' victim Wins Compensation
Comments
-
That's who started all this kerfuffle yes, him!
1 -
I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, just they mentioned profile pics, and I just flapped my gums a bit for the room!
0 -
The original article did not focus on Christian doctrine, liturgy, or theology. It outlined a safeguarding failure shaped by personal ideology, not by any recognised religious tradition. However, once the word “church” appeared, the conversation quickly shifted, from discussing safeguarding to launching broader criticisms of Christian belief, often directed at Christian members of the community.
This shift was not merely rhetorical, it caused real upset. Several contributors responded with open hostility, sidelining the original concern and using the moment to attack religion, particularly Christianity. A serious discussion about safeguarding was derailed by personal antagonism and contempt.
Expressions of distress were met with mockery. Terms like “professional offence taker” and “throwing a wobbly” were used to discredit those raising concerns. These comments remained visible until the individual targeted submitted a formal complaint, highlighting a reactive rather than proactive approach to moderation.
One comment questioned how someone’s core values could be “ripped to shreds so easily.” Rather than showing empathy, it minimised emotional impact and implied that personal pain required justification. This kind of rhetorical distancing, framed as objectivity, ultimately served to dismiss the harm experienced.
Most strikingly, one member described the forum as “safe” and claimed that “abuse isn’t tolerated”, this, in a thread where people had just been mocked and targeted for their beliefs. Far from offering reassurance, the statement minimised the harm caused. It presented the matter as resolved, cast the speaker as a voice of reason, and deflected attention from their own role in the abuse. The irony of declaring safety in the midst of exclusion and hostility was not lost on those affected, and would have been evident to any reader, regardless of their beliefs.
The mention of “church” became a flashpoint, triggering a series of antagonistic responses. In the process, Christian identity was treated not as context, but as provocation. The result was not simply a change in tone, but real harm, harm that was neither acknowledged nor appropriately addressed.
1 -
Goodnight Ranald.
1 -
Who was 'targeted'? What a load of boloney, I mentioned 'professional offence takers', and did not direct it to any member on this forum. The fact that a member chose to take it as directed at them, that is their affair.
Is all this confected outrage really necessary?
0 -
The use of the term “professional offence takers,” followed by a denial of specific direction, constitutes rhetorical deflection. While no individual may have been explicitly named, the language was inherently dismissive of legitimate distress. The subsequent characterisation of responses as “confected outrage” reframes authentic harm as performative, thereby invalidating impact while evading accountability.
0 -
I see no point to this, think what you like, and I have nothing further to say to you.
1 -
I’ll leave you to it. Clearly, the nuance of safeguarding is no match for your commitment to missing the point.
1 -
You get offended by what others believe, yet you want to be allowed to challenge people and even try to ridicule them because of what they believe. even though they don't care about what you do or don't believe, or whether you believe that "religion" always causes problems, which is preposterous anyway, as it has no basis in fact or truth!
1 -
He's never been and never will be my friend. He knew how upset I was and then decided to call me a professional offence taker who is throwing a wobbly.
I don't do friends. People like him who get pleasure from sticking the boot in are exactly why.
0 -
That's because you're an utter helmet. Shown your true colours there.
1 -
Note from online community team:Where possible we like all discussions to continue, but we’re choosing to pause this discussion for now so things can cool down and we can review it. For more information, please read our online community house rules.
We will review it and if we are satisfied the discussion can continue, we will hope to un-pause it by end of day 17/07/2025.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.3K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 87 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 121 Announcements and information
- 24.2K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 412 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 865 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 524 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 884 Relationships
- 256 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 863 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 922 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.4K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.6K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.7K Benefits and income