41 posts shown.
Brian Edwards78 said:I don't get this Doublethink.
You’re talking about land grabs without even considering the massive ones being carried out by the USA and Israel. 🙂
P.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionnaire
Brian Edwards78 said:Are you actually being serious right now, or do you honestly believe this? 😕
Justin Harris12 said:That’s just not true. The Council of Europe resolution condemned the crimes of the communist regime, not communism itself.
Justin Harris12 said:Communism is built on the premise of a classless society. The core idea is to abolish private property and transition everything to collective ownership, supposedly for the benefit of the people.
Justin Harris12 said:Let’s not conflate the crimes committed under communism with the ideology itself. Communism isn't the same thing as fascism; fascism doesn't even pretend to be built on equality.
Kate Harris50 said:Strile, there’s a full-blown propaganda war happening online. There are about a dozen sites populated by neo-Nazi fanatics who do nothing but churn out disinformation.
bluecyclist64 said:Here is what Strile says:
Everything would be fine if it weren't for the fact that once a user is unbanned, anyone can read their old posts that never received a warning.
Personally, I was shocked by some older posts that went completely unflagged. The author might be banned or even permanently banned, but the post itself lacks any indication that such content shouldn't be allowed on this forum.
Then again, maybe it should be marked. Perhaps it's naive to assume the administration actually cares about maintaining high-quality discussions. Maybe their goal is just to fuel eternal bickering—fascists vs. communists, liberals vs. conservatives, Catholics vs. anti-Christians, and so on.
The same Strile accepts tabloid articles as valid arguments while suggesting I hunt for counterarguments somewhere in the media universe.
Specifically, we’re talking about the neo-Nazi thesis that Marshall is responsible for a million deaths—a narrative pushed relentlessly by casualharbor3. Strile doesn't dispute it because this so-called "thesis" finds its footing in yellow journalism.
And then this same Strile suggests I PROVE THAT MARSHALL DID NOT KILL A MILLION PEOPLE.
Strile, this isn't a direct attack on you, but rather a critique of poor forum policy. Why not just address the entire community and admit you were wrong?
You’d have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Setting that aside, I believe problematic posts should carry a label indicating they aren't welcome here. It would guide the younger users—at least some of them—by setting a clear example of what kind of behavior won't be tolerated on this platform.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:That victim reached out to the one person she actually needed help from, while you clearly don't give a damn about her.
silverpanther13 said:We share historical, cultural, linguistic, economic, familial, and future ties with those nations unlike any other.
Edward Fisher86 said:You're clearly demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you're actually commenting on in this thread.
This isn't about any kind of DZ Day celebration. Unless you were personally involved or actually took the time to find the answer yourself, you really shouldn't be weighing in on something you know absolutely nothing about.Now you're just trolling again without offering a single actual argument. You clearly did your research.🤣
Anonymous users on the forum are venting their frustrations about that terrible forum user, slybison8. Think what you will.☕
This is just part of an informal exchange between me and Sam Wright21. How she feels about my response isn't your business to weigh in on.
If you've been following this thread, you've probably realized by now that I don't just make claims for the sake of talking—I actually know how to back up my arguments with facts.
Sure, they’re high quality—I mean, they haven't been vaccinated against anything, so it’s perfectly legitimate to start a thread like this just to "shake up" the current events and see what sticks.
I have no idea who was specifically put in charge of moderating the Fiscalization discussions, but things have spiraled way too far, and yet nobody who witnessed this mess is stepping up to react.
We were dealing with an egregious violation of the forum rules. There isn't really any room for special interpretations here.And what exactly was the motivation behind all of that? One deserved penalty point for that blatant attempt at being a troll. Come on, please...
That's just not true. The man explained himself clearly several times—you should probably go back and actually read what he said. 😉.
Sam Wright21 said:Alright, look, if he isn't perfectly 'orthodox' by your specific standards, so what? Does being a moderator mean one has to forfeit their right to an individual opinion? If that were the case, we might as well just have some automated software running the moderation duties instead. 🤷
No matter how much you vent, you haven't actually provided a single shred of evidence to suggest that slybison8 is anything less than a credible figure.
By the way, casualharbor3, take a breath and chill out—have you forgotten which discussion thread we're even in?
Steven King74 said:Of course they have their little clique. They’ll always jump in to defend one another, whether it’s by handing out bans or just stubbornly clinging to their positions during a debate. And don't go thinking the moderators actually coordinate behind the scenes to protect specific interests; they just work hard to make sure that's exactly how it looks to the public.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that Sean Cooper65 shows up here just to defend slybison8?
So, what exactly did slybison8 explain to Sean Cooper65 via private message?
Sam Wright21, I honestly think you aren't even part of that clique—you’re just genuinely naive.
Fine, I’ll answer you using your own words.
If we went by the polls on this forum, the Oak party would be running the government. 🤣
It’s just a collection of extremists here, so honestly, these results don't surprise me one bit.
Rude? Please. That's about as much as saying "it's not Sanders, it's Doctor Sanders." 🤣
Discussing laws during Mass *is* political speech. And as for not messing around in church—that's because doing so disrupts public order. The same goes for a national holiday or the 4th of July; you don't disrupt the peace then either.
I won't go any further on this topic, as it's strictly a matter of Politics.
Steven King74 said:Of course they have their little clique. They’ll always jump in to defend one another, whether it’s by handing out bans or just stubbornly clinging to their positions during a debate. And don't go thinking the moderators actually coordinate behind the scenes to protect specific interests; they just work hard to make sure that's exactly how it looks to the public.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that Sean Cooper65 shows up here just to defend slybison8?
So, what exactly did slybison8 explain to Sean Cooper65 via private message?
Sam Wright21, I honestly think you aren't even part of that clique—you’re just genuinely naive.
Fine, I’ll answer you using your own words.
If we went by the polls on this forum, the Oak party would be running the government. 🤣
It’s just a collection of extremists here, so honestly, these results don't surprise me one bit.
Rude? Please. That's about as much as saying "it's not Sanders, it's Doctor Sanders." 🤣
Discussing laws during Mass *is* political speech. And as for not messing around in church—that's because doing so disrupts public order. The same goes for a national holiday or the 4th of July; you don't disrupt the peace then either.
I won't go any further on this topic, as it's strictly a matter of Politics.
Steven King74 said:Of course they have their little clique. They’ll always jump in to defend one another, whether it’s by handing out bans or just stubbornly clinging to their positions during a debate. And don't go thinking the moderators actually coordinate behind the scenes to protect specific interests; they just work hard to make sure that's exactly how it looks to the public.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that Sean Cooper65 shows up here just to defend slybison8?
So, what exactly did slybison8 explain to Sean Cooper65 via private message?
Sam Wright21, I honestly think you aren't even part of that clique—you’re just genuinely naive.
Fine, I’ll answer you using your own words.
If we went by the polls on this forum, the Oak party would be running the government. 🤣
It’s just a collection of extremists here, so honestly, these results don't surprise me one bit.
Rude? Please. That's about as much as saying "it's not Sanders, it's Doctor Sanders." 🤣
Discussing laws during Mass *is* political speech. And as for not messing around in church—that's because doing so disrupts public order. The same goes for a national holiday or the 4th of July; you don't disrupt the peace then either.
I won't go any further on this topic, as it's strictly a matter of Politics.
Steven King74 said:Of course they have their little clique. They’ll always jump in to defend one another, whether it’s by handing out bans or just stubbornly clinging to their positions during a debate. And don't go thinking the moderators actually coordinate behind the scenes to protect specific interests; they just work hard to make sure that's exactly how it looks to the public.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that Sean Cooper65 shows up here just to defend slybison8?
So, what exactly did slybison8 explain to Sean Cooper65 via private message?
Sam Wright21, I honestly think you aren't even part of that clique—you’re just genuinely naive.
Fine, I’ll answer you using your own words.
If we went by the polls on this forum, the Oak party would be running the government. 🤣
It’s just a collection of extremists here, so honestly, these results don't surprise me one bit.
Rude? Please. That's about as much as saying "it's not Sanders, it's Doctor Sanders." 🤣
Discussing laws during Mass *is* political speech. And as for not messing around in church—that's because doing so disrupts public order. The same goes for a national holiday or the 4th of July; you don't disrupt the peace then either.
I won't go any further on this topic, as it's strictly a matter of Politics.
Jerry Rogers6 said:Regarding the situation with slybison8—it wasn't just hinted at; honestly, looking back, it was pointed out far too many times if you actually take a moment to think about it properly.
Clear, concise, and backed by facts.
The truth is, people simply lack the will to act anymore.
The administration found it easier to play dumb and treat the users like idiots rather than seriously addressing a moderator who is clearly problematic and unfit for the role.
And all this self-promotion about how there’s been no retaliation or any kind of abuse? That’s just childish nonsense.🙂
Anyway, personally, I’m glad to see more and more people finally noticing what we’ve been calling out for ages—back when his outbursts were much more frequent than they are today.
There isn't a pair of gloves in existence thick enough to hide the sheer extent of his "hospitality" and supposed competence.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Edward Fisher86 said:A PL fan because you showed up to this thread just to play "defender." I wasn't thinking anything particularly serious 😉.
The clique—those are just PL supporters in the thread about Fiscalization. I'm not being biased; they really are being shielded.
The group was mocking Linić, treating him like he was mentally unstable or sick, saying he lost his mind because he doesn't have kids.
One guy even went so far as to seriously explain how he has experience dealing with middle-aged people who don't have children 🙄. They moved on to Linić's sexual preferences, suggesting S&M and all sorts of other nonsense.
That isn't freedom of speech. It's more like public defamation, insults, or whatever else you want to call it, directed at a person. If someone were targeted like that in real life, they could sue. They are publicly making fun of a specific individual with a name and a reputation. The Moderator should have stepped in to stop it.
The Moderator is there not just to guide discussions, but to ensure no one gets unfairly harmed.
You can express an opinion on the Minister's tax policy without comparing him to Nazis.
PL let all of it slide, as if it were just one little comment. He allowed this disgusting mockery from his own supporters, even after calling my post pathetic 🤣—think what you will. Criteria?
Two days after Homeland Thanksgiving, when something entirely different was under scrutiny, PL shows up waving a finger, telling everyone to watch what they say. Right after this thread. Only he knows why.
Communication rules and censorship are not the same thing. There have to be certain general rules of the game.
In the meantime, I did a bit of digging into PL (since I haven't had any direct or indirect contact with him until now), and honestly, I wouldn't say he's all that great; if anything, it's the opposite.
But it's good that my own personal experience came first.
That's it. I don't feel like bothering myself with this anymore. Let the authorities do whatever they feel they need to do.
🙂 Night.
Steven King74 said:I believe this complaint was clearly intended for the administration. But since they refuse to step up and instead we have random Forum users chiming in who don't know the first thing about the topic, I have no choice but to accept this chat being turned into whatever this is.
I’m going to lay out my complaint one more time in full detail, just in case certain points were misunderstood.
I’m jumping into this discussion with the following observation:
What’s so strange about that? This is an official state celebration. If you don't like it, you don't have to show up. Personally, I can't stand it when Cardinal Bozanić gives a political speech from the altar on Christmas, so I don't bother going. If something bothers you, just look away or be somewhere else. Why does anyone feel the need to force their opinions on everyone else and ruin a celebration that others actually came to see?
I think this post is perfectly fine and should actually spark some debate. I’ve laid out a very clean comparison between celebrating Independence Day and attending an official Christmas Mass. My question to those who claim that booing during an Independence Day celebration isn't a breach of public order is this: do you also believe it would be appropriate to boo through Cardinal Bozanić's entire sermon during Mass? Or would that, too, be considered a disturbance of the peace?
So, this is the response I get:
It’s strange, isn't it? You only find that kind of thinking in places like North Korea or China.
This kind of mindset has no place in Europe. So, if anyone actually finds our version of democracy offensive, I suggest they pack their bags and move to countries like that.
In my opinion, this is nothing but a pure troll response. It has absolutely zero connection to anything I actually wrote. There isn't a single valid argument here—just someone accusing me of being exactly what they claim. Just like me. (Ad hominem) He thinks I’m living in North Korea or China (communism). You think some people—who, heaven knows who—actually move to those countries? So, instead of getting a single meaningful argument against my point, all I get is an accusation that I'm a communist. That is the only reason this entire post was even written.
That’s my response:
Listen here, Scum.
This is how thinking works in a democracy. Just because you’ve convinced yourself that your opinion carries more weight than everyone else's doesn't make it true. That kind of arrogance only flies in Canada—which is probably where you're posting from.
It should be obvious that calling someone "Listen, Scum" isn't an insult, nor is it some derogatory play on their username. It’s no different than if I had written "Listen, slybison8." If I had said, for example... What kind of Scum are you being here? That would be playing games with someone else's handle.
In part. And what exactly makes you think your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's? I don't believe any rules were broken here. That comment wasn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it an insult. I only said it for the reason I already laid out above: the same people cheering for booing the Prime Minister during the official Homeland Thanksgiving celebration wouldn't dream of doing that during a formal Mass for Christmas when Cardinal Bozanić is speaking. They clearly think their own opinion carries more weight than everyone else's.
I'm continuing. You're barely getting by. You probably aren't even writing this from here—more likely you're posting from Canada.This isn't an attack on any residents of Canada or the users from there. It’s an indictment of Canada as a state that lacks true democracy. I used this rhetoric simply as a parallel to those accusations that anyone who thinks like me must be living under Communism.
Let’s go through the ad hominem attacks one more time. Shall we?
The kind of thinking you're doing only happens in places like North Korea or China.
If someone actually finds this version of democracy offensive, I have a simple suggestion: pack your bags and move to one of those other countries. Why stay?
vs
You’re just passing through Canada anyway—that’s probably where you're writing from.
What exactly did we say to each other that was so different? He sent me to North Korea and China, while I sent him to Canada. Even looking at the rhetoric, I’d argue his was less civil. Why is one post flagged as an ad hominem attack while the other isn't? Let's be clear: this isn't just a complaint about a ban. Posts like these—both of them—have no place in a serious, reasoned debate. In my opinion, both posts deserved a penalty far greater than just a single point. What makes this a legitimate grievance is the blatant double standard in how those two posts were treated.
And this isn't just about those two specific posts. This entire thread is drowning in trolling and ad hominem attacks—at least, that’s how they define it here. Selective banning like this does absolutely nothing to maintain order on the forum. I am simply asking for equal treatment. If you’re going to allow general chaos and unhinged nonsense, then let everyone participate in it. If someone attacks me, let me defend myself; trust me, I know how to handle it. If the goal is to bring order to the discussion, this isn't the way to do it. Right now, the moderation team is sending me a clear message through their politics: I have to sit here and endure insults, yet I can't respond without being the only one getting hit with a ban. What am I supposed to be, a punching bag? All I wanted was an actual, reasoned debate. After being treated like this by the moderators, why on earth should I feel motivated to write anything else?
Here are a few more posts from this same thread that weren't deemed worthy of a ban. Honestly, tell me: is my post any worse than these?
(disgusting and vile hypocrites among the users)
(classic trolling)
(this is hate speech)
(accusing a user of having a petty, small-minded mentality and warped logic—which, by these standards, shouldn't be considered an ad hominem)
(an insulting response claiming a user is from Mexico based on their writing style; what's the difference compared to the one regarding Canada?)
(calling users Titoist hedonists and communists—is that an insult or at least an ad hominem?)
(no comment)
(now, this one is a story in itself. Every other post from this individual is a subtle call for violence. I've personally reported posts where he mentions who deserves a bullet, yet those posts just vanish. It would be interesting if the administration checked if they were actually banned. Also, the very next post after this is slybison8's, so he surely had to see it. Though, if we recall, slybison8 left the moderation team for a while because of his support for this guy, so it’s hardly surprising he didn't want to look. In fact, it was only during that specific administration that we truly saw what slybison8 is capable of. I remember the thread about Breivik and slybison8's comments suggesting he could understand why someone like Breivik would snap after 20 years of leftist rule in the country, trying to explain the whole thing through a leftist lens, which was apparently all that mattered at the time)
If that's how you feel, it would be nice if you backed up those claims with something concrete. Which post isn't proof of what I'm saying? I believe they all confirm my point, one by one. But let me summarize.
Why is it considered acceptable for slybison8 to accuse a perfectly orderly post by Alexis of having a secret police mentality? Is that merely a matter of political opinion, or is it an insult to a user, or even an ad hominem?
And why is it fine for a post by Edward Fisher86 to be labeled as wretched, pathetic, cheap, and shameless demagoguery? Seriously, what is the difference between that and calling a female user a pathetic, wretched, cheap, and shameless demagogue directly? To me...I have no idea where you’re likely writing this from, yet you somehow manage to frame everything as an ad hominem attack. Seriously, can't this be interpreted as someone straight-up insulting a Forum user?
On top of that, I won't bother repeating myself since there are plenty of links provided, but it seems we just look the other way when there's a pile of direct insults and comparisons between Forum users and Communists or Nazis.
Look, if you've decided to join the World and Discussion, please just be specific. Or is the rule here "I see, but I'm not allowed to see"?
Steven King74 said:I believe this complaint was clearly intended for the administration. But since they refuse to step up and instead we have random Forum users chiming in who don't know the first thing about the topic, I have no choice but to accept this chat being turned into whatever this is.
I’m going to lay out my complaint one more time in full detail, just in case certain points were misunderstood.
I’m jumping into this discussion with the following observation:
What’s so strange about that? This is an official state celebration. If you don't like it, you don't have to show up. Personally, I can't stand it when Cardinal Bozanić gives a political speech from the altar on Christmas, so I don't bother going. If something bothers you, just look away or be somewhere else. Why does anyone feel the need to force their opinions on everyone else and ruin a celebration that others actually came to see?
I think this post is perfectly fine and should actually spark some debate. I’ve laid out a very clean comparison between celebrating Independence Day and attending an official Christmas Mass. My question to those who claim that booing during an Independence Day celebration isn't a breach of public order is this: do you also believe it would be appropriate to boo through Cardinal Bozanić's entire sermon during Mass? Or would that, too, be considered a disturbance of the peace?
So, this is the response I get:
It’s strange, isn't it? You only find that kind of thinking in places like North Korea or China.
This kind of mindset has no place in Europe. So, if anyone actually finds our version of democracy offensive, I suggest they pack their bags and move to countries like that.
In my opinion, this is nothing but a pure troll response. It has absolutely zero connection to anything I actually wrote. There isn't a single valid argument here—just someone accusing me of being exactly what they claim. Just like me. (Ad hominem) He thinks I’m living in North Korea or China (communism). You think some people—who, heaven knows who—actually move to those countries? So, instead of getting a single meaningful argument against my point, all I get is an accusation that I'm a communist. That is the only reason this entire post was even written.
That’s my response:
Listen here, Scum.
This is how thinking works in a democracy. Just because you’ve convinced yourself that your opinion carries more weight than everyone else's doesn't make it true. That kind of arrogance only flies in Canada—which is probably where you're posting from.
It should be obvious that calling someone "Listen, Scum" isn't an insult, nor is it some derogatory play on their username. It’s no different than if I had written "Listen, slybison8." If I had said, for example... What kind of Scum are you being here? That would be playing games with someone else's handle.
In part. And what exactly makes you think your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's? I don't believe any rules were broken here. That comment wasn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it an insult. I only said it for the reason I already laid out above: the same people cheering for booing the Prime Minister during the official Homeland Thanksgiving celebration wouldn't dream of doing that during a formal Mass for Christmas when Cardinal Bozanić is speaking. They clearly think their own opinion carries more weight than everyone else's.
I'm continuing. You're barely getting by. You probably aren't even writing this from here—more likely you're posting from Canada.This isn't an attack on any residents of Canada or the users from there. It’s an indictment of Canada as a state that lacks true democracy. I used this rhetoric simply as a parallel to those accusations that anyone who thinks like me must be living under Communism.
Let’s go through the ad hominem attacks one more time. Shall we?
The kind of thinking you're doing only happens in places like North Korea or China.
If someone actually finds this version of democracy offensive, I have a simple suggestion: pack your bags and move to one of those other countries. Why stay?
vs
You’re just passing through Canada anyway—that’s probably where you're writing from.
What exactly did we say to each other that was so different? He sent me to North Korea and China, while I sent him to Canada. Even looking at the rhetoric, I’d argue his was less civil. Why is one post flagged as an ad hominem attack while the other isn't? Let's be clear: this isn't just a complaint about a ban. Posts like these—both of them—have no place in a serious, reasoned debate. In my opinion, both posts deserved a penalty far greater than just a single point. What makes this a legitimate grievance is the blatant double standard in how those two posts were treated.
And this isn't just about those two specific posts. This entire thread is drowning in trolling and ad hominem attacks—at least, that’s how they define it here. Selective banning like this does absolutely nothing to maintain order on the forum. I am simply asking for equal treatment. If you’re going to allow general chaos and unhinged nonsense, then let everyone participate in it. If someone attacks me, let me defend myself; trust me, I know how to handle it. If the goal is to bring order to the discussion, this isn't the way to do it. Right now, the moderation team is sending me a clear message through their politics: I have to sit here and endure insults, yet I can't respond without being the only one getting hit with a ban. What am I supposed to be, a punching bag? All I wanted was an actual, reasoned debate. After being treated like this by the moderators, why on earth should I feel motivated to write anything else?
Here are a few more posts from this same thread that weren't deemed worthy of a ban. Honestly, tell me: is my post any worse than these?
(disgusting and vile hypocrites among the users)
(classic trolling)
(this is hate speech)
(accusing a user of having a petty, small-minded mentality and warped logic—which, by these standards, shouldn't be considered an ad hominem)
(an insulting response claiming a user is from Mexico based on their writing style; what's the difference compared to the one regarding Canada?)
(calling users Titoist hedonists and communists—is that an insult or at least an ad hominem?)
(no comment)
(now, this one is a story in itself. Every other post from this individual is a subtle call for violence. I've personally reported posts where he mentions who deserves a bullet, yet those posts just vanish. It would be interesting if the administration checked if they were actually banned. Also, the very next post after this is slybison8's, so he surely had to see it. Though, if we recall, slybison8 left the moderation team for a while because of his support for this guy, so it’s hardly surprising he didn't want to look. In fact, it was only during that specific administration that we truly saw what slybison8 is capable of. I remember the thread about Breivik and slybison8's comments suggesting he could understand why someone like Breivik would snap after 20 years of leftist rule in the country, trying to explain the whole thing through a leftist lens, which was apparently all that mattered at the time)
If that's how you feel, it would be nice if you backed up those claims with something concrete. Which post isn't proof of what I'm saying? I believe they all confirm my point, one by one. But let me summarize.
Why is it considered acceptable for slybison8 to accuse a perfectly orderly post by Alexis of having a secret police mentality? Is that merely a matter of political opinion, or is it an insult to a user, or even an ad hominem?
And why is it fine for a post by Edward Fisher86 to be labeled as wretched, pathetic, cheap, and shameless demagoguery? Seriously, what is the difference between that and calling a female user a pathetic, wretched, cheap, and shameless demagogue directly? To me...I have no idea where you’re likely writing this from, yet you somehow manage to frame everything as an ad hominem attack. Seriously, can't this be interpreted as someone straight-up insulting a Forum user?
On top of that, I won't bother repeating myself since there are plenty of links provided, but it seems we just look the other way when there's a pile of direct insults and comparisons between Forum users and Communists or Nazis.
Look, if you've decided to join the World and Discussion, please just be specific. Or is the rule here "I see, but I'm not allowed to see"?
Steven King74 said:I believe this complaint was clearly intended for the administration. But since they refuse to step up and instead we have random Forum users chiming in who don't know the first thing about the topic, I have no choice but to accept this chat being turned into whatever this is.
I’m going to lay out my complaint one more time in full detail, just in case certain points were misunderstood.
I’m jumping into this discussion with the following observation:
What’s so strange about that? This is an official state celebration. If you don't like it, you don't have to show up. Personally, I can't stand it when Cardinal Bozanić gives a political speech from the altar on Christmas, so I don't bother going. If something bothers you, just look away or be somewhere else. Why does anyone feel the need to force their opinions on everyone else and ruin a celebration that others actually came to see?
I think this post is perfectly fine and should actually spark some debate. I’ve laid out a very clean comparison between celebrating Independence Day and attending an official Christmas Mass. My question to those who claim that booing during an Independence Day celebration isn't a breach of public order is this: do you also believe it would be appropriate to boo through Cardinal Bozanić's entire sermon during Mass? Or would that, too, be considered a disturbance of the peace?
So, this is the response I get:
It’s strange, isn't it? You only find that kind of thinking in places like North Korea or China.
This kind of mindset has no place in Europe. So, if anyone actually finds our version of democracy offensive, I suggest they pack their bags and move to countries like that.
In my opinion, this is nothing but a pure troll response. It has absolutely zero connection to anything I actually wrote. There isn't a single valid argument here—just someone accusing me of being exactly what they claim. Just like me. (Ad hominem) He thinks I’m living in North Korea or China (communism). You think some people—who, heaven knows who—actually move to those countries? So, instead of getting a single meaningful argument against my point, all I get is an accusation that I'm a communist. That is the only reason this entire post was even written.
That’s my response:
Listen here, Scum.
This is how thinking works in a democracy. Just because you’ve convinced yourself that your opinion carries more weight than everyone else's doesn't make it true. That kind of arrogance only flies in Canada—which is probably where you're posting from.
It should be obvious that calling someone "Listen, Scum" isn't an insult, nor is it some derogatory play on their username. It’s no different than if I had written "Listen, slybison8." If I had said, for example... What kind of Scum are you being here? That would be playing games with someone else's handle.
In part. And what exactly makes you think your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's? I don't believe any rules were broken here. That comment wasn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it an insult. I only said it for the reason I already laid out above: the same people cheering for booing the Prime Minister during the official Homeland Thanksgiving celebration wouldn't dream of doing that during a formal Mass for Christmas when Cardinal Bozanić is speaking. They clearly think their own opinion carries more weight than everyone else's.
I'm continuing. You're barely getting by. You probably aren't even writing this from here—more likely you're posting from Canada.This isn't an attack on any residents of Canada or the users from there. It’s an indictment of Canada as a state that lacks true democracy. I used this rhetoric simply as a parallel to those accusations that anyone who thinks like me must be living under Communism.
Let’s go through the ad hominem attacks one more time. Shall we?
The kind of thinking you're doing only happens in places like North Korea or China.
If someone actually finds this version of democracy offensive, I have a simple suggestion: pack your bags and move to one of those other countries. Why stay?
vs
You’re just passing through Canada anyway—that’s probably where you're writing from.
What exactly did we say to each other that was so different? He sent me to North Korea and China, while I sent him to Canada. Even looking at the rhetoric, I’d argue his was less civil. Why is one post flagged as an ad hominem attack while the other isn't? Let's be clear: this isn't just a complaint about a ban. Posts like these—both of them—have no place in a serious, reasoned debate. In my opinion, both posts deserved a penalty far greater than just a single point. What makes this a legitimate grievance is the blatant double standard in how those two posts were treated.
And this isn't just about those two specific posts. This entire thread is drowning in trolling and ad hominem attacks—at least, that’s how they define it here. Selective banning like this does absolutely nothing to maintain order on the forum. I am simply asking for equal treatment. If you’re going to allow general chaos and unhinged nonsense, then let everyone participate in it. If someone attacks me, let me defend myself; trust me, I know how to handle it. If the goal is to bring order to the discussion, this isn't the way to do it. Right now, the moderation team is sending me a clear message through their politics: I have to sit here and endure insults, yet I can't respond without being the only one getting hit with a ban. What am I supposed to be, a punching bag? All I wanted was an actual, reasoned debate. After being treated like this by the moderators, why on earth should I feel motivated to write anything else?
Here are a few more posts from this same thread that weren't deemed worthy of a ban. Honestly, tell me: is my post any worse than these?
(disgusting and vile hypocrites among the users)
(classic trolling)
(this is hate speech)
(accusing a user of having a petty, small-minded mentality and warped logic—which, by these standards, shouldn't be considered an ad hominem)
(an insulting response claiming a user is from Mexico based on their writing style; what's the difference compared to the one regarding Canada?)
(calling users Titoist hedonists and communists—is that an insult or at least an ad hominem?)
(no comment)
(now, this one is a story in itself. Every other post from this individual is a subtle call for violence. I've personally reported posts where he mentions who deserves a bullet, yet those posts just vanish. It would be interesting if the administration checked if they were actually banned. Also, the very next post after this is slybison8's, so he surely had to see it. Though, if we recall, slybison8 left the moderation team for a while because of his support for this guy, so it’s hardly surprising he didn't want to look. In fact, it was only during that specific administration that we truly saw what slybison8 is capable of. I remember the thread about Breivik and slybison8's comments suggesting he could understand why someone like Breivik would snap after 20 years of leftist rule in the country, trying to explain the whole thing through a leftist lens, which was apparently all that mattered at the time)
If that's how you feel, it would be nice if you backed up those claims with something concrete. Which post isn't proof of what I'm saying? I believe they all confirm my point, one by one. But let me summarize.
Why is it considered acceptable for slybison8 to accuse a perfectly orderly post by Alexis of having a secret police mentality? Is that merely a matter of political opinion, or is it an insult to a user, or even an ad hominem?
And why is it fine for a post by Edward Fisher86 to be labeled as wretched, pathetic, cheap, and shameless demagoguery? Seriously, what is the difference between that and calling a female user a pathetic, wretched, cheap, and shameless demagogue directly? To me...I have no idea where you’re likely writing this from, yet you somehow manage to frame everything as an ad hominem attack. Seriously, can't this be interpreted as someone straight-up insulting a Forum user?
On top of that, I won't bother repeating myself since there are plenty of links provided, but it seems we just look the other way when there's a pile of direct insults and comparisons between Forum users and Communists or Nazis.
Look, if you've decided to join the World and Discussion, please just be specific. Or is the rule here "I see, but I'm not allowed to see"?
Steven King74 said:I believe this complaint was clearly intended for the administration. But since they refuse to step up and instead we have random Forum users chiming in who don't know the first thing about the topic, I have no choice but to accept this chat being turned into whatever this is.
I’m going to lay out my complaint one more time in full detail, just in case certain points were misunderstood.
I’m jumping into this discussion with the following observation:
What’s so strange about that? This is an official state celebration. If you don't like it, you don't have to show up. Personally, I can't stand it when Cardinal Bozanić gives a political speech from the altar on Christmas, so I don't bother going. If something bothers you, just look away or be somewhere else. Why does anyone feel the need to force their opinions on everyone else and ruin a celebration that others actually came to see?
I think this post is perfectly fine and should actually spark some debate. I’ve laid out a very clean comparison between celebrating Independence Day and attending an official Christmas Mass. My question to those who claim that booing during an Independence Day celebration isn't a breach of public order is this: do you also believe it would be appropriate to boo through Cardinal Bozanić's entire sermon during Mass? Or would that, too, be considered a disturbance of the peace?
So, this is the response I get:
It’s strange, isn't it? You only find that kind of thinking in places like North Korea or China.
This kind of mindset has no place in Europe. So, if anyone actually finds our version of democracy offensive, I suggest they pack their bags and move to countries like that.
In my opinion, this is nothing but a pure troll response. It has absolutely zero connection to anything I actually wrote. There isn't a single valid argument here—just someone accusing me of being exactly what they claim. Just like me. (Ad hominem) He thinks I’m living in North Korea or China (communism). You think some people—who, heaven knows who—actually move to those countries? So, instead of getting a single meaningful argument against my point, all I get is an accusation that I'm a communist. That is the only reason this entire post was even written.
That’s my response:
Listen here, Scum.
This is how thinking works in a democracy. Just because you’ve convinced yourself that your opinion carries more weight than everyone else's doesn't make it true. That kind of arrogance only flies in Canada—which is probably where you're posting from.
It should be obvious that calling someone "Listen, Scum" isn't an insult, nor is it some derogatory play on their username. It’s no different than if I had written "Listen, slybison8." If I had said, for example... What kind of Scum are you being here? That would be playing games with someone else's handle.
In part. And what exactly makes you think your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's? I don't believe any rules were broken here. That comment wasn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it an insult. I only said it for the reason I already laid out above: the same people cheering for booing the Prime Minister during the official Homeland Thanksgiving celebration wouldn't dream of doing that during a formal Mass for Christmas when Cardinal Bozanić is speaking. They clearly think their own opinion carries more weight than everyone else's.
I'm continuing. You're barely getting by. You probably aren't even writing this from here—more likely you're posting from Canada.This isn't an attack on any residents of Canada or the users from there. It’s an indictment of Canada as a state that lacks true democracy. I used this rhetoric simply as a parallel to those accusations that anyone who thinks like me must be living under Communism.
Let’s go through the ad hominem attacks one more time. Shall we?
The kind of thinking you're doing only happens in places like North Korea or China.
If someone actually finds this version of democracy offensive, I have a simple suggestion: pack your bags and move to one of those other countries. Why stay?
vs
You’re just passing through Canada anyway—that’s probably where you're writing from.
What exactly did we say to each other that was so different? He sent me to North Korea and China, while I sent him to Canada. Even looking at the rhetoric, I’d argue his was less civil. Why is one post flagged as an ad hominem attack while the other isn't? Let's be clear: this isn't just a complaint about a ban. Posts like these—both of them—have no place in a serious, reasoned debate. In my opinion, both posts deserved a penalty far greater than just a single point. What makes this a legitimate grievance is the blatant double standard in how those two posts were treated.
And this isn't just about those two specific posts. This entire thread is drowning in trolling and ad hominem attacks—at least, that’s how they define it here. Selective banning like this does absolutely nothing to maintain order on the forum. I am simply asking for equal treatment. If you’re going to allow general chaos and unhinged nonsense, then let everyone participate in it. If someone attacks me, let me defend myself; trust me, I know how to handle it. If the goal is to bring order to the discussion, this isn't the way to do it. Right now, the moderation team is sending me a clear message through their politics: I have to sit here and endure insults, yet I can't respond without being the only one getting hit with a ban. What am I supposed to be, a punching bag? All I wanted was an actual, reasoned debate. After being treated like this by the moderators, why on earth should I feel motivated to write anything else?
Here are a few more posts from this same thread that weren't deemed worthy of a ban. Honestly, tell me: is my post any worse than these?
(disgusting and vile hypocrites among the users)
(classic trolling)
(this is hate speech)
(accusing a user of having a petty, small-minded mentality and warped logic—which, by these standards, shouldn't be considered an ad hominem)
(an insulting response claiming a user is from Mexico based on their writing style; what's the difference compared to the one regarding Canada?)
(calling users Titoist hedonists and communists—is that an insult or at least an ad hominem?)
(no comment)
(now, this one is a story in itself. Every other post from this individual is a subtle call for violence. I've personally reported posts where he mentions who deserves a bullet, yet those posts just vanish. It would be interesting if the administration checked if they were actually banned. Also, the very next post after this is slybison8's, so he surely had to see it. Though, if we recall, slybison8 left the moderation team for a while because of his support for this guy, so it’s hardly surprising he didn't want to look. In fact, it was only during that specific administration that we truly saw what slybison8 is capable of. I remember the thread about Breivik and slybison8's comments suggesting he could understand why someone like Breivik would snap after 20 years of leftist rule in the country, trying to explain the whole thing through a leftist lens, which was apparently all that mattered at the time)
If that's how you feel, it would be nice if you backed up those claims with something concrete. Which post isn't proof of what I'm saying? I believe they all confirm my point, one by one. But let me summarize.
Why is it considered acceptable for slybison8 to accuse a perfectly orderly post by Alexis of having a secret police mentality? Is that merely a matter of political opinion, or is it an insult to a user, or even an ad hominem?
And why is it fine for a post by Edward Fisher86 to be labeled as wretched, pathetic, cheap, and shameless demagoguery? Seriously, what is the difference between that and calling a female user a pathetic, wretched, cheap, and shameless demagogue directly? To me...I have no idea where you’re likely writing this from, yet you somehow manage to frame everything as an ad hominem attack. Seriously, can't this be interpreted as someone straight-up insulting a Forum user?
On top of that, I won't bother repeating myself since there are plenty of links provided, but it seems we just look the other way when there's a pile of direct insults and comparisons between Forum users and Communists or Nazis.
Look, if you've decided to join the World and Discussion, please just be specific. Or is the rule here "I see, but I'm not allowed to see"?
Steven King74 said:I am filing a formal complaint against the moderator slybison8 regarding the Politics sub-forum.
I believe this moderator is abusing his authority to manipulate the forum rather than actually moderating it. Specifically, he uses his privilege to hand out warnings only to those who disagree with him in threads where he participates, while posts from Forum users who share his views remain untouched, even when reported. I will explain why.
The final straw was the decision to issue a warning for an ad hominem attack in the following post:
First, I should mention that the Forum user I was arguing with called *me* Scum first, so it wasn't an insult. I was a bit surprised by the warning given the type of posts usually seen in this thread, but upon reflection, I suppose it passes. I used an argument about origin to refute someone's view; if we're being pedantic, sure, call it an ad hominem. Fine.
However, my reaction to that was simply reporting the post made by that Scum, which is what I was responding to in the first place.
And yet, that post received no warning. I must point out that I used the exact same rhetoric as the Forum user Scum. If refuting an opinion based on where someone is from in Canada is an ad hominem, then it is also an ad hominem to claim that my way of thinking only exists in North Korea or China.
Incidentally, this post is the opinion that started all of this.
I received a symbolic one-point penalty for the post. Normally, I wouldn't waste my time with an appeal, but I believe the issue goes much deeper. First, I see this warning as slybison8 flexing his muscles—a signal that I should watch what I say whenever he's around. Second, I believe I have ended up on slybison8's blacklist because of this post from another thread. It isn't a coincidence that slybison8 warned a post where I mentioned Canada and the diaspora interfering in our domestic affairs; he feels personally targeted by the same criteria since he lives in the US, and Forum users frequently call him out on it.
To understand the full context of this problem, one would need to examine the thread currently titled Fiscalization and Tax Discipline - The Political Mission of Minister Linić.
and slybison8's behavior in this same thread. It’s vital to point out that while these two threads were merged, the original one functioned with surprising quality for a US politics subforum. Users were responding to one another in an orderly, well-argued manner without trolling; arguments were backed by evidence. In reality, slybison8 was the biggest troll in that discussion.
Here are a few examples.
Forum user Alexis, offering a counterargument regarding a cafe closing due to a mere $0.35 difference, writes this post where she reveals the actual owners of the establishment, suggesting that information provided by only one side should be taken with a grain of salt. slybison8's reaction is extremely heated, accusing her of having a "secret police" mentality just for daring to present that information. If we want to be blunt, the argument stands—it’s a classic ad hominem attack, even if it does highlight the questionable nature of the source claiming a business closed over pennies. But why doesn't slybison8 react as aggressively to posts like this first one and this second one, where he accuses Linić and the users defending him of being losers because they don't have children? Isn't that also, in every sense, an ad hominem argument? It’s also worth noting that Alexis hasn't posted once since slybison8's outburst, likely because she expects a disciplinary warning or a ban. slybison8 achieved his goal: he drove her away from the thread.
Finally, here are two of slybison8's posts from that thread, where he attempted to derail what was otherwise a civil debate through sheer trolling ( first and second ).
What kind of Moderator calls other users' posts "pathetic, miserable, cheap, and shameless demagoguery"? Who describes America as a totalitarian, despotic dictatorship? Who can't write a single post without mentioning communism, neo-communism, or secret police tactics? Who uses their authority to settle scores with those who disagree?
I’ve tried to illustrate the problem with these examples, and I hope you see what I mean. These aren't the only instances of such behavior; it happens across many threads, but I simply don't have the time or the energy to go through them all in detail. That should be the administration's job.
In closing, I am directing this complaint to the administration. I have no intention of getting into a back-and-forth with slybison8 here or anywhere else. Handle that in your own corner. Honestly, I’m not holding my breath that this complaint will yield results, but I might as well try. The US politics section should be a serious space, but I have to admit, it's functioning poorly. It is a massive mistake to appoint Moderators where some pull left and others pull right, then expect balance. Proper moderation means defining clear, unambiguous rules and enforcing them regardless of who is involved. After opening this thread, I feel like there's nothing left for me to ask of the US politics section, because I know I'd have to weigh every word just to avoid giving slybison8 a reason for revenge. Perhaps one day, if the administration decides to get things in order, they will appoint well-meaning Moderators who take the job seriously—rather than having a Moderator who is the very first person I want to put on my ignore list.
Steven King74 said:Just so I can put what Edward Fisher86 added into the context of this complaint. As you can see from the examples provided, the PDF is riddled with ad hominem attacks and trolling that mostly goes unpunished. I’d also add that the go-to argument against anyone defending anything coming from the Democratic Party is to label them a communist, an agent of the old regime, a nostalgic, or a traitor. I hope it’s clear to the administration just how stupid and baseless those accusations are. If not, let me clarify. The Democratic Party grew out of the social-democratic wing of the former Communist Party of America, and it is a member of the Socialist Party, a group based in Brussels that includes 32 different European parties. Part of the party's name doesn't imply communism—because if it did, we wouldn't have elections or the privatization of state assets; we'd be looking at nationalization instead. This persistent counter-argument used against any Forum user defending the party by calling them a communist is becoming irritating, and I would declare it as trolling. In those cases, the attacked user starts defending themselves, and the discussion gets derailed from the actual topic.
I’ll leave it to chance whether all sorts of people write on Politics, but slybison8 isn't stupid; he's more than educated enough to know this. When the same moderator uses such arguments in their own discussions, while leaving a forest of similar posts unsanctioned—yet hands out bans to people who are genuinely using aggressive ad hominems simply because they hold a different political view—it raises the question: what is this moderator's motivation for working on this site? Honestly, I believe this moderator is actively trolling and abusing their authority to tilt the discussion toward whatever side suits them personally.
Therefore, I would ask the administration: is it the official stance of this platform as a legal entity that the Democratic Party is trying to bring communism back to America? Or is such a stance merely a matter of political opinion? Would you agree with me that such views constitute trolling? And if you agree that it is trolling, then I think I am asking a perfectly reasonable question: by what criteria did you decide that slybison8 was fit for moderator duties?
Jerry Rogers6 said:Regarding the situation with slybison8—it wasn't just hinted at; honestly, looking back, it was pointed out far too many times if you actually take a moment to think about it properly.
Clear, concise, and backed by facts.
The truth is, people simply lack the will to act anymore.
The administration found it easier to play dumb and treat the users like idiots rather than seriously addressing a moderator who is clearly problematic and unfit for the role.
And all this self-promotion about how there’s been no retaliation or any kind of abuse? That’s just childish nonsense.🙂
Anyway, personally, I’m glad to see more and more people finally noticing what we’ve been calling out for ages—back when his outbursts were much more frequent than they are today.
There isn't a pair of gloves in existence thick enough to hide the sheer extent of his "hospitality" and supposed competence.
Charles Doyle6 said:Absolute devil's advocate. ☕
http://www.reddit.com/r/threads/734487
Apparently, I’m not the first person to deal with an oppressive upper management... ☕
this should probably be merged with that other thread...
And why does a permanent ban mean I can't even read the posts? What's the goal here? Why not just disable my ability to type instead?
Daniel Ward87 said:The ultimate punishment for anyone on a Forum is getting promoted to moderator. 🙂
ambermason16 said:🙂
Let me break this down for you... just look at what happened the other day. Someone dug up a thread from 2005 and reignited a massive argument they weren't even part of, all because some moronic post hadn't been deleted yet. By the time I checked back a few hours later, four people were already locked in a total meltdown. 😬 The issue isn't about suppressing views or being "primitive." The real problem is that most users—with very few exceptions—get way too emotionally invested in the Forum. They lose all sense of restraint and launch into these collective pile-ons the second they spot a disgusting post. It’s constant mockery when someone posts something that clearly wasn't written by a Mensa member, or endless off-topic chatter when someone drops a chat-style comment. Nobody is hiding anyone's opinions or covering anything up; we are simply steering the conversation back to the actual topic and making sure it stays in a format that everyone can actually tolerate.
Just imagine walking into a thread for the first time, only to find twenty pages of pure chaos because someone decided to claim women belong in the kitchen when the topic was supposed to be interior design. Wouldn't you immediately think the moderators had lost their minds? 😁
The fact that we might archive or "card" a post before leaving it up doesn't stop people from jumping in to argue, and argue, and argue again. Honestly, I get it sometimes because an absolutely unforgivable comment will pop up every now and then... but that doesn't change the reality: a post needs to be scrubbed before it ruins both the entire thread and the reputation of the community.
ambermason16 said:🙂
Let me break this down for you... just look at what happened the other day. Someone dug up a thread from 2005 and reignited a massive argument they weren't even part of, all because some moronic post hadn't been deleted yet. By the time I checked back a few hours later, four people were already locked in a total meltdown. 😬 The issue isn't about suppressing views or being "primitive." The real problem is that most users—with very few exceptions—get way too emotionally invested in the Forum. They lose all sense of restraint and launch into these collective pile-ons the second they spot a disgusting post. It’s constant mockery when someone posts something that clearly wasn't written by a Mensa member, or endless off-topic chatter when someone drops a chat-style comment. Nobody is hiding anyone's opinions or covering anything up; we are simply steering the conversation back to the actual topic and making sure it stays in a format that everyone can actually tolerate.
Just imagine walking into a thread for the first time, only to find twenty pages of pure chaos because someone decided to claim women belong in the kitchen when the topic was supposed to be interior design. Wouldn't you immediately think the moderators had lost their minds? 😁
The fact that we might archive or "card" a post before leaving it up doesn't stop people from jumping in to argue, and argue, and argue again. Honestly, I get it sometimes because an absolutely unforgivable comment will pop up every now and then... but that doesn't change the reality: a post needs to be scrubbed before it ruins both the entire thread and the reputation of the community.
Henry Hernandez7 said:As it stands, your proposal isn't going to work. The Constitution of the United States incorporates legacies from the era of anti-fascist struggle as fundamental pillars of the current legal framework.
This section is written in the Constitution:
"...in establishing the foundations of national sovereignty during the period..."
During World War II, there was significant opposition to the proclamation of the Independent State of America.
The decisions made by the Independent State of America (1941) within the framework of ZAVNOH.
The National Liberation Councils of America (established in 1943), which were subsequently codified in the Constitution.
The People's Republic era (starting around 1947) and everything that followed in the subsequent constitutions.
The era of the Socialist Republic of America (1963–1990)...
Look, since symbols like those from the Communist era, the red star, or even my avatar (the emblem of the Socialist Republic of America) fall under the umbrella of the anti-fascist struggle—along with a few other specific markers—there’s simply no room for your proposal.
Your proposal only works if the EU transforms itself into a federal state. In that scenario, the EU Constitution would become the standard for all member states, effectively suspending the current Constitution of the US.
Respectfully,
Henry Hernandez7