I just reported a user who claimed America should have sent tanks into Herzegovina back in 2001 to "wipe everything out." Since my report was flagged as hate speech—resulting in nothing more than his post being deleted without even a ban—I want to know what the actual criteria are here.
If I had written that America should send tanks toward Boston to wipe everything out, would I be getting a red card for hate speech?
Or let's push it further: if I wrote that America needs to acquire nuclear weapons and use them against Mexico, for example, how many points exactly would I lose for that?
I’m looking for straight answers, no stalling. I'm not an idiot, and I don't need any nursery tales like "you can't compare one killer to another because the other killers were on the right side of history." Save those excuses for your own conscience.
I just wanted to say that I have a black van at my company, so when they start handing out those Distinguished Service Medals, don't you dare forget about me...
🤣 Can someone please explain to me how my desire to buy a spare USA national soccer team jersey has anything to do with my intention to return the favor to the people who visited my office and invited me to Mexico City?
I know there are plenty of idiots out there who get offended by jerseys—even back home in the States—but using that as some kind of argument for this is just... honestly, I don't even have the words for it.
slypuma12 said:@Amanda Diaz, Hannah Brown7, and Dario: everyone involved in this debate is totally brainless—some based on their posts, others just overall. Don't play dumb and act like nobody moderated a discussion that was already boiling over. There’s no point in dragging out something that's already over and done with.
I told you once before, and I'll say it again. Stop addressing me as part of some group. If you have something to say to me, just say it. Directly. To me. I'm not playing dumb, and I'm not claiming the discussion wasn't moderated. I'm not looking to drag this topic out further, but I'm here on this thread because Sarah called me out for some supposed extremist nonsense. It was perfectly clear that Dario—who I was seeing on this thread for the first time—was reacting to that. Since my post started the whole thing, I felt targeted. To me, that's an insult. If anyone else doesn't see it that way, fine, that's their problem. And regarding the claims that I'm lying? I provided links to the actual posts so the timeline speaks for itself.
And here is my wife’s post from this same thread. If you look at the timeline, you'll see her response followed mine and was essentially building on what I said. She never once called for people to sing Cavoglave (even if I don't find the song itself controversial), and she definitely didn't say she's disgusted by anyone who won't listen to it.
The least you could do is offer me an apology for accusing me of being some kind of extremist, but honestly, I wouldn't expect much after all the lies you've spun.
Edit: Also, the claim that I have partiality toward any specific sub-forum is a total lie, and anyone can easily verify that. Just because I choose not to post in certain sections I actually founded doesn't mean I'm biased—it's just my choice.
Here’s the link to my original post that kicked this whole debate off:
Just like I explained to that random user—and everyone who actually follows this thread already knows—I called out both our President and the Mayor of New York City.
That’s a lie. I specifically said I’d link my original post that started all this. If you really need me to, fine.
It’s also a total lie to claim I’ve ever posted a link to some Mexican forum on here or anywhere else. It’s simple: I’ve never been on one of those sites in my life. Not to you, and not to anyone else. Seriously, get it together.
There, I just called you a liar. If what you’re saying is actually true, proving me wrong should be easy for you. Come on then, let’s see the links.
I have zero interest in getting dragged into petty arguments that feel incredibly childish. I’m stepping in to say a few things because, for better or worse, my name was dragged into this too. Honestly, I think Wackya is actually a great moderator, even if he did ban me once before. The claim that Dario received a partial ban because of some supposed "fascist" reaction is a flat-out lie. This whole mess started with a post of mine—which I can link here if needed—that he completely misinterpreted when he first jumped into the thread. He just doubled down and kept going regardless of how many times it was explained to him. To me, trying to link my heritage to any kind of imaginary extremist movement is a direct insult to me and my ancestors. That said, I’m not going to report his post on this specific thread.
I don't care about other playground bickering, and I don't bother engaging in those threads. I just felt the need to speak up and show some support for the guy.
It’s been six days since I opened this thread, and I haven't even gotten a simple "we're working on it, hang tight" response.
What's the hold-up? Honestly, if you guys can't manage to pick someone, we'll just start suggesting names of people who actually have the competence to handle the position.
Why on earth is that subforum being left completely unmoderated? Lately, it’s become a breeding ground for users who do nothing but derail discussions and get incredibly toxic with everyone they talk to.
And no, before you suggest it—as someone who actually finds value in reading the data from that PDF—simply dropping links to specific insults isn't going to cut it. I shouldn't have to provide a roadmap for a moderator to click a few posts and then just disappear into the night.
We need someone actually active in there. Someone who can recognize that seeing the same piece of misinformation spammed thirty times just to sabotage a thread is a much bigger issue than the guy who finally snaps and tells the original poster to go jump in a lake after the thirtieth time.
Oh, give me a break. If they’re getting under your skin, just tell them to shove it and don't show up. Don't go looking for permission from every little nobody on the street.
Live long and prosper, man. Hopefully, we can grab a Budweiser together in person one of these days.
I consider Ante Pavelić to be such a dog that I’d probably be speaking Italian today if things had gone his way. But let me remind you all about all those "haha, how funny" and "calm down" comments when I open the "Happy Independence Day" thread on July 4th. Cheers, and stay out of my way.
I’m writing this because a moderator moved my thread to the "appeals" section for absolutely no reason. As the title clearly states—and if you actually bother to read the post itself—I wasn't appealing a ban. I was asking for clarification on the rules and criteria used here. My goal was to make this forum better and more civil, not to argue over a strike. Why can't people just read what's actually being said?
I have a question for the admins. We all saw how things were handled over at the Democratic Party section—threads get nuked the second users start posting anything with a political slant. Does that rule apply to the entire forum, or is it strictly limited to the Democratic Party section? For instance, if someone starts a thread about recipes and I jump in to start a political debate, will my specific posts be flagged and deleted, or does the whole thread get wiped out?
Thanks in advance for clarifying. I just want to make sure this forum stays a decent place for everyone to post.
This "thinker" guy is way over the top. He isn't thinking at all. Not even close. Honestly, just strip him of his credentials; he's out here claiming he’s ready to offer immoral services to anyone who can pull it off.