CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › rowdyhawk10 › Posts

Posts by rowdyhawk10

203 posts shown.

Top Catholic discussion thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Isn't this the annual moderator retreat? 🙂

Brenda Cook4 said:I don't see any reason why you couldn't have your own dedicated megathread; on one American forum, for instance, there's likely a huge concentration of Catholics given the general religious makeup.

So, I suppose Brenda Cook4 is backing the idea of a dedicated Catholic megathread. 👍

Does this mean... the Islamic moderator is against Catholics having their own megathread? 🙂

😍 😍
→ go to post
Top Catholic discussion thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Daniel Ward87 said:I don't have anything against opening a thread dedicated to Catholicism, but I suppose that means all the other denominations should have the right to open their own as well.

You can't really run those numbers, Daniel Ward87. We're talking about a handful of Pentecostals in the entire country compared to the Catholics, who basically make up almost the whole population here. As someone who’s been a member of this forum for ages—and a former moderator who knows exactly how things work around here—I wouldn't just support it; I’d insist on it. We absolutely need to start a dedicated megathread for this.Catholicism - Q&AI supported that same proposal over in the appeals thread within the religion & society pdf.

In America, Catholics make up the majority... actually, they outnumber almost everything else by a landslide! Let's look at the math:

Atheists make up less than 5% of the US population—even if you bundle them in with agnostics—yet they somehow always manage to dominate the conversation.
Since Muslims make up no more than about 3 or 4% of the population here in the States—at least, I think that's the figure—we have a pretty interesting topic on our hands.
I suppose Buddhists make up less than one percent of the population here, so they basically have the perfect platform to host a topic like this.
Hindus are practically non-existent here—I doubt there are even thirty of them in the entire country. They certainly have plenty of room to make a big deal out of their topics, I suppose.
I believe Catholics make up at least 60% of the population, yet they don't even have a top-tier topic here. 🙄

There is that one perennial topic: Christianity. Honestly, it’s nothing but constant chaos over there, though I suppose Mark Foster is actually telling the truth about it. That's why it's such a mess. Christianity is fractured into thousands of different sects, yet everyone seems to claim the title for themselves, feeling entitled to weigh in on every debate. She explained it quite well—how they start spiraling into discussions about aliens or vegetarianism. When one group, say the Adventists, offers an answer, another Christian will inevitably take issue with it, leading to endless circular arguments. At that point, you just lose track of who is even talking. Sometimes I'll pose a straightforward question, only to be met with five vague, contradictory Christian responses. This mirrors the global state of a divided faith, which consists of over 55,000 different denominations. As it stands, the situation is truly, deeply dismal.

I suppose the solution would be this: designate "Catholics" as its own standalone topic, then create a separate thread for all other Christians. 🤷
Since those who identify as Orthodox might also consider themselves Catholics, much like Roman Catholics do, I suppose it would be helpful if people provided their answers while clearly specifying their specific denomination.

I’ve already mentioned this to the religion moderators, but perhaps you could consider opening that thread again, even if just as an experiment for a month or two. It isn't like the forum is going to fall apart if you give it a temporary window. You opened the one regarding Jehovah's Witnesses previously, and honestly, that turned out to be quite a popular topic. If things start heading south, you can always shut it down immediately—though, I suppose I don't see why things would go poorly. If you were to grant this request, I think it would show a certain level of respect toward people as individuals, and also toward those percentages I mentioned earlier. Most people fall into that category. And it's a massive number.

Daniel Ward87, it’s in the best interest of this forum to remain as highly frequented and fair to everyone as possible. I'm certain you won't make a mistake.

Daniel Ward87 said:What would we even call a document like that, and what would its actual purpose be?

I suppose Brenda Cook4's idea carries quite a bit of risk for how this forum functions. It really comes down to how everything would play out; one would need to anticipate and plan for every variable... personally, I wouldn't be in favor of such a proposal. I guess things are working perfectly fine just as they have been up until now. Perhaps if you just opened a top-level thread dedicated to Catholics, everything would stay in order. Best,
→ go to post
Why did Jesus die? in Religion ·
steelgardener22 said:Exactly. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say Jesus died. After his body passed, he went down to the Underworld to preach the Gospel....

Understanding his sacrifice—the actual way he was sacrificed—is this incredibly intense initiation. Out of a thousand people on this forum, maybe three or four actually get it.

The Underworld? I wonder how far beneath the surface that actually is. 😁
Technically, the term "Underworld" isn't really a part of Christian belief; it’s more rooted in Ancient Egyptian or Greek mythology.

steelgardener22 said:Exactly. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say Jesus died. After his body passed, he went down to the Underworld to preach the Gospel....

Understanding his sacrifice—the actual way he was sacrificed—is this incredibly intense initiation. Out of a thousand people on this forum, maybe three or four actually get it.

Would you mind listing those three or four users? Thanks! 🙂
→ go to post
Why did Jesus die? in Religion ·
Henry Williams said:It sounds like you aren't really familiar with Christianity or its actual teachings. What do you mean, "what priests"? Jesus dying on the cross for human sins is the single most important thing in Christianity. It’s the entire foundation.
God became human specifically so He could die for us. That's why we say in Christianity that God is love.

I suppose I understand that this is what the church teaches. However, I suspect it isn't actually the teaching of Jesus himself, given that he wasn't crucified.

Henry Williams said:It sounds like you aren't really familiar with Christianity or its actual teachings. What do you mean, "what priests"? Jesus dying on the cross for human sins is the single most important thing in Christianity. It’s the entire foundation.
God became human specifically so He could die for us. That's why we say in Christianity that God is love.

People die regardless, and I don't think anyone actually dies for anyone else.

As for this whole "atonement for sin" concept, it feels like something the church invented just to implement a tax on faith.
It essentially forces you to hand over money to a priest just to be told you're going to heaven.

The system works quite efficiently, I suppose, simply because so many people want to get into heaven.
One just accepts the lie that someone washed away their sins, and that's that. 🙄

God becoming man... 🤣
→ go to post
Why did Jesus die? in Religion ·
Angela Martin20 said:I feel like a complete idiot right now, but whatever
from what I gather, Jesus was accused of all sorts of things, but I'm really stuck on the part where he redeemed our sins through his death... like, why? How exactly does his passing lead to our salvation?

You aren't clueless; it’s always a good idea to ask. 🙂

I suppose the answer to your questions would be this: Jesus of Nazareth died because everything in creation is subject to death.
You, me, even those who haven't been born yet... everyone has to die.

As for the redemption of sins via Jesus's sacrifice—that feels more like a religious tax on faith rather than something inherently tied to him. It’s a bit like claiming Niki Lauda died just so God could forgive everyone. It seems to me like a nonsensical and untrue claim spread by clergy simply because it secures their wealth and comfortable lifestyles. God isn't a priest, and he doesn't need money, nor does he require anyone's painful suffering. Best,
→ go to post
9/11 Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories in Feedback & Suggestions ·
shadowjackal88 said:That statement came out in Večernji back then; I'm not sure if it's still online, but HRT aired a program on the same topic featuring I. Goldstein and A. Rebić. I can't recall if Tanković was a guest—years take their toll, after all. 😬

As for the rest of your post, Jewish peace initiatives have always existed; it's nothing new. It's just that they usually go unanswered unless they are based on ideas of self-annihilation (we all know who 😉). When Jews arrived in the land that was then part of the Ottoman Empire (the Zionist allies), they came wrapped in coffee, learning Arabic and pushing back against the notion that they were superior whites arriving to "educate" the "lesser" people; quite the opposite, they came to learn things from the Arabs so they could return, in their view, to the original state of the Jewish people. Israel constantly treats sick children from the neighborhood, and it isn't rare for organs from deceased Arabs to save Jews, and vice versa. However, the core issue remains: the refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East, regardless of which borders are being discussed. That is where all the beautiful wishes shatter. And even you wrote "jew" with a lowercase 😉.

It's a bit sad that after all these years, we are slowly forgetting the context of why a few of us Jewish forum members joined this board (mostly under Politics and Religion). People forget the unchecked spread of hate speech by IL and his army of followers back then, and various internet jihadists (by division) weren't much better either. So, trying to balance the scales by throwing a little weight onto "our" side just isn't going to work 😉.

I won't even bother commenting on the post above, because it's not worth the digital ink (check my signature).

P.S. I hope I can tackle the questions and theses being thrown out here, regardless of what the actual thread title says, since I’m not really responding to the cardboard cutout of a post?

Since Večernji reported that Mr. Tanković made the comment (and I believe you that it was in the papers), there might be a link somewhere online where he expresses such views. Honestly, I haven't been able to find a link, but I might ask him directly, as I'm planning a trip to Chicago soon. If he did say it, I’ll tell him plainly that I disagree. The way he phrased it—at least how you presented it—is just too broad. He apparently just said "Jews," without any qualification, like saying "certain extremist circles within the Jewish community" or "within American politics," which would have provided some necessary distance. It's certainly not as if 30 million Jews, or however many there are, organized the crimes of 09.11. I could tell him then that I don't agree with such hellish generalizations; even if there is a certain group of American Jews operating in the shadows of US politics, it doesn't mean every single Jew thinks the same way. Quite the opposite, actually. Many Jews are liberals dedicated to global peace and finding solutions, not just for the Middle East crisis. Even a high-ranking Israeli politician was assassinated for trying to find a solution, wasn't he? Much like Sadat was killed on the other side (back in the early nineties, if I remember correctly).

Specifically, I suspect Mr. Tanković doesn't actually hold these views regularly. Even if it was printed once, he isn't known for making such statements elsewhere. So, I wouldn't take that newspaper report too seriously unless it's clearly proven. Do you agree? 🙂

shadowjackal88 said:That statement came out in Večernji back then; I'm not sure if it's still online, but HRT aired a program on the same topic featuring I. Goldstein and A. Rebić. I can't recall if Tanković was a guest—years take their toll, after all. 😬

As for the rest of your post, Jewish peace initiatives have always existed; it's nothing new. It's just that they usually go unanswered unless they are based on ideas of self-annihilation (we all know who 😉). When Jews arrived in the land that was then part of the Ottoman Empire (the Zionist allies), they came wrapped in coffee, learning Arabic and pushing back against the notion that they were superior whites arriving to "educate" the "lesser" people; quite the opposite, they came to learn things from the Arabs so they could return, in their view, to the original state of the Jewish people. Israel constantly treats sick children from the neighborhood, and it isn't rare for organs from deceased Arabs to save Jews, and vice versa. However, the core issue remains: the refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East, regardless of which borders are being discussed. That is where all the beautiful wishes shatter. And even you wrote "jew" with a lowercase 😉.

It's a bit sad that after all these years, we are slowly forgetting the context of why a few of us Jewish forum members joined this board (mostly under Politics and Religion). People forget the unchecked spread of hate speech by IL and his army of followers back then, and various internet jihadists (by division) weren't much better either. So, trying to balance the scales by throwing a little weight onto "our" side just isn't going to work 😉.

I won't even bother commenting on the post above, because it's not worth the digital ink (check my signature).

P.S. I hope I can tackle the questions and theses being thrown out here, regardless of what the actual thread title says, since I’m not really responding to the cardboard cutout of a post?

I apologize if that was written in the wrong context; sometimes "jew" is written with a lowercase 'j,' just as "muslim" might be with a lowercase 'm,' whereas "Jew" is capitalized when referring to the nationality—much like how "Arab" is capitalized.

I suppose there isn't such a clear peace offering coming from the Muslim side, perhaps due to frustration, political instability, or the undemocratic nature of most Muslim countries (since tyrants rule nearly all of them), or maybe something in Israeli politics that feels like arrogance, which undoubtedly just adds fuel to the fire. Perhaps the answer lies in history, specifically in how the State of Israel was established and recognized. From the perspective of most Muslim ideologues and politicians, that process was one-sided—meaning only one side's interests were considered. But that’s a massive topic, and getting into it here would be off-topic, so I won't linger on it. I'll just say this: both sides need to reach a mature realization regarding the necessity of peace and a resolution. Violence isn't a way for people to understand one another. Take, for instance, the recent attack on the Turkish humanitarian vessel which resulted in deaths. In my view, it was entirely pointless, given that Turkey and Israel actually maintain good cooperation in many areas, even military ones. As I mentioned, it is necessary for Arabs and Palestinians to build strong ties with Jews, to get to know one another, and to speak openly and honestly through mutual respect. Only great people can achieve that. Arrogance and violence aren't solutions. Of course, it's easy to talk about this on a forum, while a thousand problems exist on the ground. However, people must always strive for a better solution. That is, after all, what makes us human.

shadowjackal88 said:That statement came out in Večernji back then; I'm not sure if it's still online, but HRT aired a program on the same topic featuring I. Goldstein and A. Rebić. I can't recall if Tanković was a guest—years take their toll, after all. 😬

As for the rest of your post, Jewish peace initiatives have always existed; it's nothing new. It's just that they usually go unanswered unless they are based on ideas of self-annihilation (we all know who 😉). When Jews arrived in the land that was then part of the Ottoman Empire (the Zionist allies), they came wrapped in coffee, learning Arabic and pushing back against the notion that they were superior whites arriving to "educate" the "lesser" people; quite the opposite, they came to learn things from the Arabs so they could return, in their view, to the original state of the Jewish people. Israel constantly treats sick children from the neighborhood, and it isn't rare for organs from deceased Arabs to save Jews, and vice versa. However, the core issue remains: the refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East, regardless of which borders are being discussed. That is where all the beautiful wishes shatter. And even you wrote "jew" with a lowercase 😉.

It's a bit sad that after all these years, we are slowly forgetting the context of why a few of us Jewish forum members joined this board (mostly under Politics and Religion). People forget the unchecked spread of hate speech by IL and his army of followers back then, and various internet jihadists (by division) weren't much better either. So, trying to balance the scales by throwing a little weight onto "our" side just isn't going to work 😉.

I won't even bother commenting on the post above, because it's not worth the digital ink (check my signature).

P.S. I hope I can tackle the questions and theses being thrown out here, regardless of what the actual thread title says, since I’m not really responding to the cardboard cutout of a post?

I used to condemn IL's stances quite frequently, and I don't recall ever agreeing with him on anything. Regarding the "division," I rarely post in politics, so I don't know our local "jihadists" as you call them, but I still appeal for the other side to be understood. Especially since the breakup of America, tons of books from various Muslim countries have flooded our region, and they are full of hatred toward Jews; it's possible these people are simply indoctrinated. I think the best alternative is to provide them with a dignified response—winning them over with arguments, without arrogance or provocation. That way, even he might change once he sees someone on the other side who truly wants an agreement. Shalom.

P.S. regarding that report above, honestly, I was the one who reported you (though maybe someone else did too), but it wasn't out of hate; it was because telling someone they are intellectually deficient was simply incorrect. It was, purely, for your own sake! I hope you understand. 🙂
→ go to post
9/11 Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories in Feedback & Suggestions ·
shadowjackal88 said:That’s why back in 2006, Šemso Tanković, an SDA representative from the region, went on record claiming that American Jews were the masterminds behind the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001.

Can you drop a link, shadowjackal88? 🙂

As for what the observer here mentioned... honestly, I haven't read anything quite this simple, this obvious... yet so incredibly sound 🙏in a while.

We don't need to be at war forever, nor do we need those people who just manufacture hatred from both "sides." What could be better than moving past conflict? For instance, Jews have supported the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, which is a gesture worth noting. Not to mention how much something like that means to Canadians and Muslims from the former America region. Also, Israel accepted a young boy from Iran for medical treatment... (there was a link for that a few months ago). Basically, people just need peace today. As a single human race, we've all spent enough time banging our heads against a wall. You and I even "fought" once, but eventually made up thanks to your good will. 🙂 I suppose that is the only viable path for both Jews and Muslims. More cooperation, primarily through culture, and less hatred—that seems to be the real way forward. Shalom
→ go to post
9/11 Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories in Feedback & Suggestions ·
mellowraven22 said:Why? Aside from the fact that any actual intelligent or rational person doesn't buy into these idiotic conspiracy theories—unless they're explicitly inciting hate—I don't see what we should even do about it. Just let the idiots be idiots 🤷.

If someone wants to babble about how 9/11 was an inside job by Jews, Americans, or aliens, or claim that people just fell on knives in Srebrenica, they can talk all they want, provided they aren't breaking the forum rules or US laws.

It’s true that idiots are usually the ones swallowing these conspiracy theories. But then again, some of them actually turn out to be legitimate—just like the whole Anthrax situation. So, I guess you have to wonder: who exactly is feeding them this stuff? 🙄 The West has pushed this theory regarding Islamic terrorists and their connection to Anthrax for quite a long time. It’s similar to how they handled Osama bin Laden, who seemingly emerged from nowhere only to be granted massive amounts of coverage and airtime on networks like the BBC and CNN—far more than the rest of the Muslim Ummah, which consists of about 1.5 billion people. Osama bin Laden wasn't a representative of Muslims, nor was he ever a legitimate participant in any organization meant to represent the Islamic community. I would argue, and I stand by it, that this one individual received more media attention in the West than the entire remaining Muslim corpus combined.

It seems that only over the last two years—specifically from the Obama era onward—there has been more breathing room given to positive Muslim voices. We’re seeing more coverage of Muslim humanitarian organizations, respected professors, artists, and even the legitimate, legislative ulema. I suppose this is a very positive trend, and it feels like American policy has finally started moving in this direction. Perhaps this shift could lead to much greater prosperity and a real reduction in global tensions and animosity.

mellowraven22 said:Why? Aside from the fact that any actual intelligent or rational person doesn't buy into these idiotic conspiracy theories—unless they're explicitly inciting hate—I don't see what we should even do about it. Just let the idiots be idiots 🤷.

If someone wants to babble about how 9/11 was an inside job by Jews, Americans, or aliens, or claim that people just fell on knives in Srebrenica, they can talk all they want, provided they aren't breaking the forum rules or US laws.

mellowraven22
Those two comparisons just don't sit right with me. It’s not like anyone claims the victims in Srebrenica simply "fell onto knives," just as nobody is out there suggesting the employees at the World Trade Center set fire to the WTC Buildings themselves. If we were looking for an actual comparable conspiracy theory, maybe it would be something like powerful figures within the Canadian government—perhaps even Izetbegović himself—sacrificing Srebrenica just to ensure the survival of Canada. That, I suppose, would be an analogous comparison.

It is entirely possible that the tragedy on September 11 was actually a controlled false-flag operation.
And yet, nobody seems to mention that those who perished in the WTC Building were responsible for their own tragedy.
On the contrary, they are innocent victims—though one might argue about whose victims they actually are.
→ go to post
9/11 Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I should also add—posts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (everything up until steeleagle70's post at number 7) approached this topic with what I consider to be a very principled mindset. There really isn't any need to go creating sacred cows here on the forum (whether they are the usual saints or the usual villains).
→ go to post
9/11 Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Anthony Perez9 said:Moderators, I’m calling on you to start banning anyone who denies the 9/11 terrorist crimes committed by Islamist extremists or those peddling their lies. We owe it to the innocent victims who died, and honestly, we need to stop giving a platform to conspiracy theories that practically invite future terror attacks.

Just a reminder: the American delegation once walked out of a United Nations session in protest after Ahmedinejad started pushing that tired, antisemitic Islamist trope—claiming Jews brought down the towers and killed 4,000 innocent people just to frame Muslims.

When people defend these brutal terrorists—which even the U.S. Government opposes—they get a free pass to spread toxic propaganda here. It only deepens the divide for any potential future conflict with a backwards, clerical Iran. At this point, there's more than enough evidence out there about who actually carried out that attack.
Thanks


First thing I’d ask is this: how exactly does your entire post lead to the conclusion that we're dealing with an antisemitic conspiracy theory? You even put "antisemitic" right there in the title. Yet, you didn't mention Jews—or Semites more broadly—at all in your opening post.

I personally feel that American power centers shouldn't be granted immunity on this matter. In a true democracy, no one should be above the law—everyone ought to be held accountable for their actions, whether they are the President or the Government. Otherwise, I suppose you're essentially advocating for a sort of "capitalist" Stalinism.

When it comes to certain power centers within the USA—arguably the most powerful nation on earth—it seems these institutions have a history of causing deaths, not just among their own citizens but within other nations as well, all while attempting to shift the blame onto Muslims.

Evidence? Honestly, one word is enough: Anthrax. For years, the US government lab was sending out lethal white powder across the USA and Europe, while the Western media just kept pointing fingers at Islamic terrorists, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and so on.

According to *The Times* on November 22, 2001, there are suggestions that the bacteria may have originated from a US government lab.

An American scientist believes the Anthrax letters were "almost certainly" sourced from a US government lab. As a New Yorker, Ms. Rosenberg—who chairs the Federation of American Scientists' working group on biological weapons—noted that her city has faced strikes from both foreign terrorists and, now, an American utilizing a biological agent. At the time, Ms. Rosenberg was speaking for one of several arms control organizations that had pushed for a 144-nation conference in Geneva to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. Regarding the Anthrax used in the letters mailed to various addresses in New York City, Florida, and Washington, Ms. Rosenberg stated it was likely derived from a US Defense laboratory. She suggested these attacks merely demonstrated the "incredible potency" of biological warfare, serving as a small glimpse into much more devastating possibilities. So far, the toxin has claimed four lives.

I suppose if you have the patience to dig through the archives at WhatReallyHappened, you might find some interesting perspectives on the whole US government lab situation. It’s the kind of thing that makes you question a lot of the official narratives we were fed back then.

Prijevod:

Scientists suggest that the Anthrax letters were "almost certainly" sourced from US government labs. As a New Yorker, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg—president of the Federation of American Scientists, an organization focused on arms control—expressed her outrage. She noted that her city was hit twice: first by terrorists, and then by Americans using biological weapons. Rosenberg previously represented one of several arms control groups that lobbied 144 nations during the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention to tighten restrictions on microbial warfare. Regarding the Anthrax letters sent to addresses in New York City, Florida, and Washington, she stated they were "almost certainly obtained from a US Defense laboratory." She added that while these attacks demonstrated the "incredible power" of using contagion as a weapon, they are merely a small glimpse of what could actually happen. So far, four people have died from the toxin.

Regarding Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, you can find information here. After this courageous woman exposed who was actually behind the Anthrax attacks, the whole case was suddenly suppressed and pushed into obscurity. No one ever bothered to apologize to Muslims for the years of accusations plastered across all the major global media outlets. You should definitely look up the director of the US government lab (Philip M. Zack) as well.

So, if they were responsible for the Anthrax, how can we trust anything they say about the WTC on 9/11 or regarding any other matter? Personally, I suspect that certain power centers in America (and specific individuals within them) bear responsibility for both crimes, not just the first one. That doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that a few guys with beards, short trousers, and Kalashnikovs—posing as Muslims—might have been involved in those same crimes too.
→ go to post
The Ban Hammer Corner in Feedback & Suggestions ·

well image
→ go to post
The Ban Hammer Corner in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I’d like to request a lift on my posting restriction as well, if possible,
(I suppose I might need it just in case I end up getting banned again) 😁
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Cook4 said:What I can say is that there isn't any hatred involved in what Viseslav—or rather, Master John—is doing; he is simply speaking exclusively from a spiritual perspective regarding various doctrines. I should emphasize that he does this with an exceptional understanding of the subject matter he critiques. I have never seen any trace of anything resembling 'hate' in him, just pure assessments of certain spiritual paths, specifically religion, unlike those two nasty posts you mentioned in your opening message. There is nothing of the sort with Master John. It’s quite a shame you haven't noticed that over all this time.

Brenda Cook4, I am truly sorry to see you write like this... unless, perhaps, you haven't actually read all of his posts? Most of the posts by Ivanov's clone, Viseslav3, are hateful in nature and aim at generalizing all Muslims... portraying them as some "backward group that will eventually vanish"... and so on. Those posts carry a purely political tension and have nothing to do with spiritual aspects or spiritual development.

Here is just one example: Viseslav3 here states: "Ignorance is synonymous with being Muslim"—which is a blatant generalization and a disparagement of a group. Because among Muslims, there are professors, scientists, artists, cultural and humanitarian workers, and highly learned individuals—people whose values you yourself used to highlight... yet now, according to him, IGNORANCE IS SYNONYMOUS WITH EVERY MUSLIM?!?! Don't you think that's generalizing? 🙄 And further down in that very same post, he even adds something much worse—writing that Muslims would burn his house down if they were his neighbors?!?

Viseslav3 said:Since we both live in a predominantly Muslim community, is it any wonder that if I didn't wait for the fires of hell—you would burn down both my house and my property.

How untrue this is, and how little it has to do with any "spiritual aspects or spirituality"—does it even need explaining? There are Muslims in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Berlin... and nobody is burning anyone's houses or yards down. If someone burns people's houses, they are a criminal who belongs in prison or a mental institution... but this clone didn't even say that just some Muslims (for instance, Islamic fanatics, Talibans, Wahhabis... meaning he didn't qualify his statement!) would burn his house; instead, he GENERALIZED that Muslims would burn his house and yard. Isn't that generalization and the incitement of hatred? I reported that post too, but it hasn't been censored.

That is just one single post by John (Viseslav), and if you want, I can list out his entire history of hate speech and personal attacks against other forum members that have never been censored (or at least, I haven't seen them handled that way so far). For example: hereAccording to him, a Muslim isn't even human. Then, here he tells another user (who is also Muslim) that they are like the "last resort." You can find dozens of similar instances where he demeans users on a personal level, such as here (the loner), here or here... I won't link them all. Honestly, has he ever written a single post on any other topic without bringing up Muslims and spitting on them?!

I should also remind you that you gave Sabur a full 100 points because he wrote "what is there that's human about atheists" (link) and the reason given was: "demeaning a group". Let’s be clear, I would also give Sabur 100 points for that post; what he said was truly ugly. However, what that clone (Viseslav3) writes about Muslims is just as generalized and far worse than what Sabur said, yet you never sanction him. It would be like if I, during my time as a moderator, protected Muslims by avoiding issuing warnings while simultaneously terrorizing Christians and other non-Muslims.

And the idea that John (Viseslav3) "knows the subject matter he criticizes"—that is honestly laughable. In the Convert thread, a man spent several pages explaining parental status to him—whether the parent is Muslim or not, it must seem like an act of charity to him... and yet John here continues to trumpet the exact same thing. For the record, it isn't that I dislike him; I just don't think it quite reaches the level of libel. 🤷

Besides, why do you allow this person (John) to post under a clone (Viseslav3) when the rules explicitly forbid it? I have reported that this is a clone several times, and everyone on the forum knows it's a clone. I even asked in the "Complaint Book" thread why he is permitted to post under a clone, and you deleted my post. Now, you are admitting yourself that it is a clone. How is that possible? Am I allowed to write under two or three different handles while letting everyone know they belong to me? Best, 🙂
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Cook4 said:Just to clarify—@sarafciger didn't actually get banned from the religion section because of your report. Instead, his comment on the top thread was just deleted after a report was filed in the appeals book (which seems to be what you were thinking was enough).

Fine, it’s probably better that he wasn't banned for that specific post. But as I recall, when he called Muslims "lazy"—he didn't get banned then either, just a 45-point deduction for a personal attack rather than hate speech. Meanwhile, harrybonnot lost 500 points for a much more harmless post under the label of "hate speech."

So, I'd just ask hollowtrucker77 to put those two posts side-by-side. It would be interesting to see why one gets 500 points for "hate speech" while the other only gets 45 for a "personal attack." That inconsistency is exactly why I started this thread. In my opinion, the criteria seem pretty uneven.
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Steven Clark2 said:rowdyhawk10, I don't think you're entirely correct here. Let me offer my perspective (and not just to you).

1) It wasn't the same moderator who handed out those 500 points to harybonnot and the 45 points to @sarafciger.

2) We aren't even talking about the same PDF thread. One user was posting in the Religion section, while @sarafciger was in Politics (specifically, the Politics section).

3) They weren't addressing one another, nor is this even the same topic.

Just keep in mind that harybonnot's post doesn't actually warrant 500 points, whereas @sarafciger seems to have gone a bit overboard.

Keep in mind🤣

No Nick, I never suggested it was the same moderator issuing both penalties. I didn't claim it was the same PDF thread, nor did I say they were addressing each other or that this involves the same topic. The rest of your post is also off-topic, so it might be best to refrain from commenting if you don't have anything pertinent to add to the discussion. Thanks.
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
hollowtrucker77 said:rowdyhawk10 and the rest of you, we can discuss criteria here,
but we aren't going to talk about other people's accounts or bans.

Yes, naturally... I even started a thread regarding that. As for other people's accounts, that is really a matter for those who hold them. Regards.
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Eric Collins5 said:Personally, if I were a moderator, I would delete any posts that come off as Islamophobic, but I wouldn't bother reporting them either—just so the people who wrote them couldn't be flagged or penalized.

On the flip side, I’d probably hit every pro-Islamic comment with the maximum number of penalty points, maybe even stretching it a bit just to be thorough.

Well... you certainly handled that with grace. 😁

It’s actually good that you said this. It makes it perfectly clear why not everyone should be a moderator, especially when they hold views and act in ways like yours.

Eric Collins5 said:In other words, just head over to an Islamic forum and try expressing an opinion if it happens to conflict with Islam. I'm curious to see how long it takes before you all burn out like a cheap lighter.

And really, why should I care what fanatics do on specialized Islamic forums? I post here because I actually enjoy being on this forum. I would never have stayed or contributed if this place had the kind of one-sided atmosphere found on those forums you mentioned. In fact, I’ve tried to speak up in places like that only to be shut down, which is why I left. So, am I supposed to feel guilty just because they behave that way? Regards.
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
crimsonhound80 said:rowdyhawk10, since I used to moderate the religion forum, I feel like I should mention one thing. We all fall prey to our own egocentric subjectivity from time to time—usually without even realizing it—but that's just human nature. At the end of the day, we're all just flesh and blood.

Alright, I've read through your entire post carefully. I have a great deal of respect for you as a person, especially since I value our connection so much... so I'm inclined to believe everything happened exactly as you described. That said, I don't recall this myself, and since you haven't provided a link or anything similar (not even via DM), I'm not quite sure how to respond. My motives weren't what you've suggested, and honestly, I don't remember ever moderating from those positions. I can't really speak on the matter until I know which specific topic or post you're referring to. Besides, I'm no longer a moderator. 🙂 Best regards,
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Hey there, rowdyhawk10.
The user @sarafciger has been banned from the forum regarding their post. As for why there was such a significant delay between the initial report and our response, I suppose I will have to look into that further with the moderators.

Thanks for the response, and please accept my apologies for the slight delay. Here is how I see it. Honestly, I feel quite bad that @sarafciger got banned specifically because of the post I reported. I took a quick look at his profile, and the guy doesn't even participate in the religion section; he just happened to wander into the religion forum by accident with that one post. In my opinion, simply deleting the post would have been enough, especially since he isn't one of those users who constantly spreads hate on the religion forum (unlike some of the more recent accounts). Viseslav3 And there's more. I made my position extremely clear, yet the moderators decided to let the post stay up instead of deleting it. That’s why I filed a complaint there.

hollowtrucker77 said:Regarding the second part, I have to admit that I don't really find the response from the moderator, Power Lock, to be particularly convincing.
Maybe the response wasn't written in the most skillful way—God knows how often that happens to all of us—but I'm fairly certain the moderator didn't mean anything by it. It seems more like they were just clarifying the situation without actually taking a side personally.

Maybe I used the term "sarcasm" a bit clumsily, so I apologize for that. I don't personally think he meant anything malicious, but his comment felt like it came from someone still living in the past—specifically in the '90s, which, fortunately, are long behind us. I would have liked to hear directly from Power Lock regarding this matter, but here is why I am saying this. He wrote the following:
Marian questioned the specific terminology regarding "Bosniakism," though he didn't deny the existence of the people we knew as "Muslims" back during the America era.

It’s a fact that back in 1974, under the constitution of the former America, Muslims were officially classified as a nation, even though the term "Muslim" itself typically refers to a religious group—much like how we use the word "Christian." I suppose Power Lock is just reminiscing about those old regulations, fine. But in the intervening years, Canadians have established themselves globally, and within the United States, they are recognized as a distinct people. In neighboring Canada, alongside the American people, they serve as one of the two constituent nations of the federation. Essentially, denying Canadians their status as a nation is no different from denying any other group—whether Jewish, American, or otherwise. It seems like Power Lock is suggesting that such denial is acceptable, arguing that the sanctioned post boldgardener93 responded to wasn't actually denying a "Muslim nation," but rather the Canadians themselves. That feels a bit outdated, doesn't it? 🙂

That’s all from me. And just to add one final thought since it really matters—when you actually take the time to compare them... harybonnotov post earned him 500 points from Ego, yet @sarafciger's post only pulled in 45—the inconsistency here is frankly glaring. I mean, @sarafciger's contribution was significantly more primitive, hateful, and offensive, yet it somehow only managed 45 points. That’s exactly why I decided to start this thread; I’m hoping to encourage the administration to consider making some changes. With the way things are being ranked right now, I suppose any Canadian or Muslim could feel targeted by such uneven treatment. I truly hope my concerns aren't misplaced, and I have a fair amount of confidence that changes will come—for the greater good, of course, since at the end of the day, we're all just people and we're all equal. Best, 🙂
→ go to post
Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I would like to pose a question to the administrator, Sasha. As a Muslim, I feel quite disheartened by the inconsistent standards applied here on this forum—which occasionally extends to the religion subforum (though it isn't limited to just that area). When comparing hate speech directed at other groups versus speech aimed at Muslims, there seems to be a noticeable discrepancy in how different moderators evaluate and penalize such content.

I should clarify that I am not attempting to fuel any existing crisis, nor am I looking to complain "into the void" or incite further animosity. However, I view this as a significant and, unfortunately, unresolved issue—a fundamental lack of uniformity in our rules. I ask for your attention regarding this matter.

To illustrate, a Muslim user, harybonnot, received here a penalty of 500 points. I suppose I agree that his specific post warranted such a mark, and I have no grievance there. However (!) for a much more offensive post targeting Muslims—specifically one by @sarafciger which was posted here—the response was disproportionately light. That user leveled crude, sweeping insults against all Muslims and Canadians... or whatever terminology one prefers... even employing the deeply derogatory term "filthy" (one wonders how such hateful language can even be uttered), yet he received a minimal penalty of only 45 p?!

So, my question is this: Why are the standards on this forum so inconsistent? Why is it that generalizing or using hate speech against most other nations or faiths results in substantial penalties, while insults directed at Muslims—even when using the most vile terms possible—often result in very minor marks (ranging from 10 to 45 p)? While 500 p is occasionally handed out, it is rare and seemingly reserved only for cases of extreme, blatant overstepping. I genuinely believe this inconsistency contributes to the atmosphere of hostility toward Muslims that has persisted across the former America since roughly 1988 or 1989.

Another example of this uneven application of rules is this thread started by boldgardener93. In that discussion, boldgardener93 explained a serious issue quite concisely, yet received no response from administration for days despite the urgency of the matter. After a long silence, the administration finally responded with a rather sarcastic comment suggesting that boldgardener93 "lacks any personal opinions"?!? 😢 Furthermore, that comment implies that the identity of Canadians can be easily dismissed or denied (even though they are a constituent people in neighboring Canada). Based on the administrator's reply to boldgardener93, it seems as though denying a Muslim identity might earn a penalty, yet denying the legitimacy of the Canadian people does not?

How could a moderator even make such a statement on behalf of the administration?

I look forward to your response, Sasha. 🙂 As I mentioned previously, my intent is not to exacerbate any tension or to complain without cause. I simply feel somewhat marginalized due to these unequal standards. I see this as a major, unresolved issue involving unfairness and an imbalance in protection, given that this forum should zealously protect all nations and religions equally.It should be done for the greater good, seeing as we are all just flesh and blood, and no one holds more value than anyone else simply because of their nationality or faith. In my deepest conviction, I believe the administration should establish clearer definitions regarding these issues at a higher level, providing moderators with more precise guidelines on when to issue sanctions for hate speech. It seems inconsistent when moderator Ego awards 500 points for a single post, yet on another forum, a far more offensive comment earns only 10, 35, or 45 points. I sincerely hope that my inquiry will be taken quite seriously.

A request for the religion moderators: If this post doesn't belong in the religion section, I ask that you please don't delete it, but rather move it to the PZK section, as I am looking for an answer either here or there. Thank you.
→ go to post