Once again you have got it wrong.
You mean like you did when it came to Sriram's OP - which you then ranted about based on your misunderstanding of his OP. Still not seeing why you think it's fine for you to misunderstand someone's post and accuse them of being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping, but you seem to have a problem with me saying your reply #16 comes across as patronising racism. What's the difference?
Your rather unsubtle inference being that I somehow think that because Sriram is from India that he can't write English properly. I've never said this and I don't think it. I have no issue whatsoever with Sriram's written English, - there are a number of posters on this MB who regularly produce posts with written English that comes across as poorly written and incomprehensible. Sriram isn't one of those - his posts, and indeed his blog pieces are always well written.
Nope, I wasn't implying that you think Sriram can't write English properly. That is clearly untrue as you pointed out.
No, my point was that Sriram is from another culture and is politely expressing his thoughts about where atheism meets Hindu philosophy, that stem from his cultural understanding of atheism. Telling him that his interpretation is casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping based on your cultural interpretation of atheism comes across as patronising racism - cultural racism. I don't think your cultural interpretation of atheism carries any more weight than any other culture's interpretation of atheism.
Sriram seems to think atheism can fit in with the Hindu philosophical ideas he posted about, and you don't. Despite Sriram clarifying what he meant at your request you felt it was fine to go on to accuse Sriram in multiple posts of being prejudiced based on your interpretation. Therefore by the same token it's fine for me to say your post is prejudiced based on my interpretation. If you hold a cultural belief that describing your prejudice as patronising racism is worse than accusing Sriram of being prejudiced, it's entirely your right to hold that opinion. I'm not you so I have no idea how it feels for you to be told your opinion comes across as patronising racism. You're not Sriram so you have no idea how it feels for Sriram to be told his opinions are prejudiced and lazy negative stereotyping against atheists.
As far as I can tell Sriram was saying that Hindu philosophy about devotion, selflessness and wisdom makes room for atheists to also follow that philosophy because the philosophy does not require a belief in the supernatural or gods.
Secondly - sometimes a post (from whoever) can post something which is confusing or unclear (we all do it). My approach with others (including yourself) and with Sriram, is often to ask them to clarify, and then if I'm still not clear to pose a straightforward question that gets to the heart of the matter. I've done this with you, I've done this with Vlad, I've done this with AO, I've done this with Jeremy P, I've done this with NS. And I did it with Sriram - so exactly the same approach - why is this somehow racist when used with Sriram, yet not when I use exactly the same approach with you, NS, Jeremy, OA, Vlad etc etc.
I did not say that your reply #1 came across as patronising racism. I referenced reply #16 where after repeatedly telling Sriram in #3, #4, #5, #6, and #8 that he was insulting/ prejudiced based on your misunderstanding, you quoted Sriram confirming that he thinks that according to Hindu philosophy atheists can get salvation. You then thanked him and then went on to say "you could have made things a lot easier by being clear about this in the first place. And I would also urge you not to engage in language the perpetuates lazy stereotypes about groups of people, for example by implying that it is somehow controversial or newsworthy to suggest that atheists can exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom...So please think a little more carefully about your choice of words when discussing attributes that you imply about a group, rather than about an individual person."
Sriram was clear and he repeatedly clarified his meaning that he was saying atheists and theists could both be devoted, selfless and wise according to Hindu philosophy as a belief in gods was not a prerequisite. So not sure why you repeatedly laboured the point that you thought his posts were insulting and prejudiced against atheists.
Third - sometimes people make comments which may not be intended to cause offence, but actually do. That isn't anything about the written English, nor does it relate to whether someone has English as a first language (I've no idea whether Sriram has, but his written English doesn't suggest he doesn't). It relates to the differing perspectives, values and experiences of the writer of the piece and the reader of a piece. It is perfectly acceptable to point out to someone who may have made a point that could cause offence that they might want to think about their choice of words, particularly where as I made plain, I didn't feel that Sriram intended to be insulting.
On this MB I have lost count of the number of times atheists have been insulting to theists and theists have been insulting to atheists- intentionally. Both give as good as they get. Why are we suddenly worrying about
unintentional insults to atheists and asking people to moderate their language to atheists when it comes to a post by Sriram about Hindu philosophy where he is basically saying Hindu philosophy does not require a belief in gods so can apply to atheists too?
What was it about Sriram's post that has set you off? Why worry about insulting atheists now, given all the insults flying back and forth between theists and atheists on this MB?
But the broadest point here is as follows:
Atheists regularly come across arguments that effective run as follows:
'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion'
I perceived Sriram's posts, including following his clarification as another articulation of this trope, which, not unreasonably, I have a problem with. But I don't just have a problem when Sriram posts in this manner - I also have a problem (and make my point) when Vlad makes a similar argument, when AB makes a similar argument, when AO makes a similar argument etc. So why is it racist when I raise the same point with Sriram that I have with others who happen to be based in the UK, ex-UK but Finnish etc etc.
I thought that was obvious - apparently if you have more melanin than people who criticise you for being an annoying narcissist, their criticism is due to racism. Ask Meghan Markle. But seriously, as explained above Sriram is from a different culture with a different cultural outlook on a UK board talking about Hindu philosophy and you launched into multiple posts telling him he was insulting/ prejudiced etc based on your misunderstanding of his posts. I think that seems dismissive of a different cultural outlook. If you have repeatedly told others on here that they are insulting and prejudiced in multiple posts over a short period of time I haven't noticed - perhaps you could reference the threads where you did it.
And, of course, it wasn't just me who took issue with Sriram's moral certainty about his religion/spirituality, which is casually dismissive of other philosophical positions that may also consider devotion, selflessness and wisdom as important. Note that Bramble, Enki, Udayana and Jeremy P did so too.
A lot of people on this MB are casually dismissive of other people's ideas - it doesn't become suddenly more obnoxious when Sriram does it. Also, Bramble, Enki, Udayana and Jeremy P didn't post multiple times accusing Sriram of being insulting and prejudiced. As explained multiple times now, only you did that.
