This is my third time reaching out to the site admins about this, and I really hope it’s the last.
Basically, we're talking about a ruling coming down from the administration. If we set aside the owner—who, as far as I can tell, doesn't get too bogged down in content moderation—it seems like this decision is coming straight from the top. It’s official, and it’s the standard we’re all supposed to follow now, right? It goes like this:
Daniel Ward87 said:I asked the mods to warn users when they start making analogies, because these comparisons involving SA lawyers and fascists aren't okay.
I’m looking for some clarification on this stance. I’ll lay out why I think it’s wrong and actually harmful to this forum, and by extension, to the media, society, and free speech in general (sounds a bit dramatic, I know, but that’s how it feels).
Before I go off on a tangent about linguistic nuances, I should mention that this kind of editorial policy isn't how things used to be; we're seeing a real shift here. I can't provide direct links, but I distinctly remember discussions on this board years ago where both users and mods defended the exact same principle I’m fighting for today. We had the same debates, driven by the same motives (Nazis, communists, etc.—yeah, we've come a long way), and back then, there was pressure from certain users to ban comparisons to fascists or communists as *ad hominem* attacks. But whether it was due to a different era or just a different group of people in charge, the administration at the time defended the right to compare someone's logic or actions to anything—real or fictional. To me, that was the right call, a move worthy of civilized, democratic debate.
As for the specific topic that triggered this new direction, most of the posts that could serve as examples have already been wiped. However, on the "Enron scandal" thread (🙄), you can still find traces of those "problematic" posts. There are two main issues I see here, which are sensitive, but not enough to warrant a heavy-handed censorship crackdown that sets a precedent for the future.
The first issue involves a user being told they have a mindset similar to the leadership in North Korea. Sure, it’s unnecessary, but it’s nothing new on this board. In my experience, reactions to that have always varied depending on the sub-forum or which mod was online. Some let it slide, others give a light slap on the wrist, and honestly, I'm fine with that. This is about comparing someone's
way of thinking to a specific model. A person's thought process and their actual opinion are two different things. Someone might think in a way that suggests restricting certain freedoms would be useful, yet they can still hold the opinion that human rights are essential. Most of us agree on the basic premises, even if our internal logic regarding how we reach them differs. That’s why I don't think it's an issue to point out that someone thinks
in a manner similar to something that isn't necessarily a positive example. If a mod thinks there's a more polite way to say it, they should just jump into the thread or hand out a warning. Banning someone for this feels totally pointless.
The second issue involves the SA lawyers of Robert Rubin. While putting this together, I tried to scrape as much material as possible from the thread, but since most of it was deleted, there wasn't much left. However, the recurring theme is labeling taxpayers as "SA lawyers." Taken out of context, it sounds terrible, but that's exactly why context matters. The discussion is actually about...
The way tax inspectors have been acting this summer has people on the forums drawing parallels to the Nazis in the 1930s. There are enough overlapping elements there to make the comparison stick. It goes even deeper when you look at how the media covers the whole mess—it's eerily similar to how news outlets operated back then. It’s no secret that certain outlets spin stories to help one side while screwing over the other, both now and back then. When you debate within those boundaries, the comparison moves up a notch—it becomes a metaphor. It isn't saying the inspectors are
exactly like Nazi stormtroopers; instead, they become Rubin's stormtroopers. A metaphor isn't an accusation or a literal declaration; it's just a comparison elevated to a higher level (pro tip: check out
Paul Ricoeur: The Living Metaphor).
Here is how that stylistic device is actually defined:
"Metaphor (from Greek meta = change, pherein = to carry; metaphorá = transfer) is a condensed comparison where meaning is transferred so that
one shared characteristic from one area of life or the world is linked to another based on similarity. It is a stylistic tool that replaces a literal story with a more beautiful poetic image."
A cliché example of a metaphor would be calling someone a "lion of a man." Even without context, you get it. You're talking about a brave person whose actions mirror the qualities of a lion. So, the man is (brave as) a lion. Even without direct explanation, relying on symbolic motives we've picked up from stories and fables, people instinctively grasp the metaphor as a high-level comparison. In the case of Rubin's stormtroopers, we have plenty of context to ensure nobody thinks anyone is claiming tax inspectors are hardcore Nazi ideologues who will start systematically wiping out minorities in a year or two with Rubin as their Fuhrer. We aren't children.
One last thing. In America this year, I don't even know how many people were hauled in because they dared to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, whether it was because of some corrupt mogul or political figures in places like Chicago. I'm hitting on this on the forum because I personally feel like the space for free speech in my society is shrinking, and I feel like I have a duty to push back against that.