Posts by darkhawk

Jerry Bishop4 said:I feel the same way, it seems pretty ridiculous 😳

Look, hey—don't be so harsh. There are plenty of us out there in politics who aren't exactly on the left side of the aisle.

So, this whole idea that I’m some kind of "troublemaker" just doesn't hold water—not even close. If anyone here is actually being problematic, it’s you. I’m only becoming "problematic" because you people have gone ahead and nuked ten percent of my posts in just three days. And mind you—get this—there wasn't a single swear word, zero insults, absolutely no trolling, and every single one was strictly on-topic. I haven't violated a single one of those arbitrary linguistic rules you're trying to force into the handbook.
And frankly, I’m only acting out because I clearly find myself in a toxic environment that's practically begging me to react.

The Rules state:

• Article 2.
Cultured and reasoned debate, civilized behavior, the principle of equality among forum participants, tolerance, fairness, unity, efficiency of discussion, respect for individuals, and listening to arguments from all sides are the fundamental and highest values within the Politics subforum.

My post goes here

darkhawk's eraser post said:...

Bold exactly which part of my post violates which specific rule. Please bold that section as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you just do this instead?
Are you actually ashamed for people to see what you erased?
And frankly, you should be—you’re doing shameful work over in Politics. You harbor nothing but spite for forum members who hold certain viewpoints, and you moderate strictly to satisfy those biases. Everyone there knows it—even your own colleagues don't back you up, which is why they deleted that thread about you trying to introduce "verbal offenses" to the forum rules. You were busy lecturing us on how labeling Sanader a pest or calling Milanović a communist was punishable and how you’d be handing out bans for it.

They wiped that thread clean because nobody stood by you. But they let you keep erasing everything else that rubs you the wrong way. It is an embarrassment to this forum that you’re in a moderator role; you're narrow-minded, confrontational, and clearly at odds with your own political identity—and you resent anyone who actually has one. You try to force these arbitrary rules on us stemming from your own political disorientation, but you just end up looking ridiculous—a total relic of a bygone era. Especially with this whole "verbal offense" nonsense you tried to bake into the bylaws.

I’ll take this opportunity to thank the administrators for their very direct and generous assistance regarding this matter, both publicly and through private messages. My dear administrators—when you’re posing for photos behind a pile of garbage, it’s hard not to be perceived as trash yourselves. At the very least, it would be decent to reply to a message, show up to a thread as the responsible party, and actually compel a moderator to perform the duties they are assigned, rather than sitting there silent like some untouchable elites while all of this unfolds.

So, what we have here is a pathetic mess where certain losers use their moderator powers to vent their own inferiority complexes—specifically political ones—while the people who ought to be fixing this simply look the other way and pretend they don't see it. Well, go ahead and keep pretending; I don't need to stay. You're still here, and everyone is watching you. Helloooo, forum members are human beings; perhaps you've forgotten that.

Just sit there and look away. When Moe, who was just sitting there, was asked, "What are you doing, just sitting and thinking?" he replied, "I'm just sitting!"

That’s exactly what you’re doing—just sitting in your positions, and you might as well be proud of them.

I’m genuinely curious—are you going to get a ban for trolling? Because let’s be real, your post is nothing but pure provocation. Instead of actually addressing the questions asked, you seem thrilled just to tear me apart and come here to gloat.

So, if I were to write:

- sometimes asking you people civilized questions just isn't enough; we basically have to go in there and kick your asses instead.

...then I'd really want to know if the moderator is going to skip out on handing you a penalty card...

It’s me, by the way. Regarding those posts flagged as "slated for deletion"—there isn't actually anything controversial or against the rules there. Look, she has her own take, and while it’s the complete opposite of mine, she’s entitled to it. She drew a parallel between two different extradition cases (though, strictly speaking, regarding Perković, we aren't talking about an extradition—it's more of a surrender given it's an internal matter within our own community)—and she reached conclusions that I simply countered with my own arguments. There’s nothing wrong with that. Deleting those posts is totally unnecessary, and frankly, it’s terrible for the thread and for any actual discourse. Sure, things got a little heated—the sparks were flying—but that is precisely the point of a forum! If we all just thought the exact same thing and only posted things we wouldn't challenge with logic and debate, this whole endeavor would be pointless. The moderators should be able to keep the discussion under control through moderation, not by using an eraser.

Apologies for the addendum, but I felt the need to say it. That’s all from me.

Charles Fox10 said:I didn't say those things were in your own posts—I said they were in the posts you quoted, which are the ones that got deleted in the first place.

So, let me get this straight—you wiped my posts because I didn't actually do anything wrong, other than quoting content that was flagged for removal.

You just nuked two massive, fact-heavy posts—posts that were perfectly on-topic and tied directly into a two-day deep dive on this thread—all because they contained quotes from stuff that should have been scrubbed. And we're talking about scrubbing it *now*, after all this time has passed?

Thanks for the explanation; truly, it’s incredibly comforting.

Like I said before, feel free to lock this thing. There's really no point in asking questions here when the answers provided don't even meet the most basic standards of logical argumentation—let alone follow the very rules in Article 2 that you guys are so proudly pinned at the top. Those rules should apply to the actual communication and discussion within the subforum you claim to be "protecting," right? Maybe try reading them yourselves once in a while?

I haven’t engaged in a single instance of trolling, spamming, or any of those other obnoxious little habits people keep accusing me of.

Fine, I get it—I surrender. You guys clearly hold all the cards here. But honestly, if this is how things work, posting on this forum becomes completely pointless. Cheers, and feel free to lock this thread right here.

Two more of my posts have been wiped clean from the thread regarding The Extradition of Josip Perković. I am formally requesting an explanation as to why these specific posts were deleted—which exact rule am I supposedly violating?—and I expect clear, precise instructions on what is actually permissible to write here.

I’m also wondering if there is anyone actually overseeing this administration—someone who looks at the big picture—who can step in and put a stop to this constant practice of deleting posts.

And frankly, I am beyond livid right now.

Sam Green73 said:You’ve thrown out a few accusations against me—so, let's have some answers:

An apology would work just fine, provided you've realized your accusations were completely baseless.

Without that, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

Let's try this one more time, properly.

Moderator said:• Article 2.
Cultured and reasoned debate, civilized behavior, the principle of equality among forum participants, tolerance, fairness, unity, efficient discussion, respect for individuals, and listening to arguments from all sides are the fundamental and highest values of the Politics subforum.

[Copy my post here]

Bold exactly which part of my post violates which specific rule. Please bold that section as well.

P.S. It’s really no big deal to apologize if I actually messed up somewhere. I just ask that you point out precisely what I did wrong and how.
Throwing out these nonsensical sentences isn't "arguing," and I refuse to communicate in such a manner.

Sam Green73 said:What exactly constitutes a lie?

Unless I was actually addressing you in an official capacity, what is the point of your constant "moderator this" and "moderator that" remarks—other than just being a troll?

If I were to write, "Arrival times are scheduled between eight and six," would that somehow negate the possibility that someone might show up at one thirty-five?

Alright, let’s take a breath here.

The fact that I address you as "moderator" is nothing more than pure courtesy. At no point in any of my sentences have I commented on the moderation policies of this site—not regarding you, nor your colleagues. It pains me if you've reached that conclusion, because frankly, it simply isn't true. You presented your opinion on a sentence written elsewhere—not even on this forum—you voiced your stance on the content of that sentence, and I responded to your stance, not to you as a person, nor to you in your role as a moderator. Not once in my entire writing did I resort to *ad hominem* attacks, so my use of your title is entirely irrelevant. If it makes things easier for you, and if it keeps me from breaking any rules, please—go ahead and change every instance where I called you "moderator" to "whatever you want" and restore my deleted post.

Even though I haven't committed the violation I am being accused of, I am willing to apologize if I was misunderstood. Furthermore, I’d like to take the liberty of suggesting something to the administrators to prevent future misunderstandings on this thread.

We are discussing hate speech on the internet and how to combat it. While commenting on site moderation is forbidden in the Politics section, the moderation of online hate speech is the very subject at hand. It is inevitable that we mention moderation on this forum, so I ask the administrators to provide guidelines on how and to what extent we can discuss the suppression of hate speech here.
I hope you’ll agree that it is somewhat absurd for a discussion about combating internet hate speech to prohibit talking about one specific corner of that internet. Now, I must emphasize—this isn't me making excuses for my own writing—but my intention was never to critique moderation; rather, this conclusion arises naturally from the debate itself. I believe we should prevent future misunderstandings by allowing moderators to temporarily, and with certain restrictions, waive part of their immunity to permit polite and general discussion regarding the moderation of hate speech—essentially, how to prevent it on this forum too—all for the purpose of raising awareness about hate speech to a higher level. I believe hate speech can be subtle, and it is vital that we discuss those elements, especially since veiled hate speech is quite frequently used right here on this forum.

But moving on—let’s talk to you as a moderator, meaning as the person performing that function.

Please stop throwing blanket accusations at me that I’ve broken this rule or that rule, and instead, kindly and consistently explain which specific element of the first rule I supposedly violated.

So, it goes like this:

The Rules state:
• Article 2.
Cultured and reasoned debate, civilized behavior, the principle of equality among participants, tolerance, fairness, unity, efficiency of discussion, respect for individuals, and listening to arguments from all sides are the fundamental and highest values of the Politics subforum.

Copy my post here

And then—if you wouldn't mind—bold the specific section of my post where I supposedly violated a rule, and please, for heaven's sake, bold the exact rule itself.

But seriously—and I mean this with all due respect—please spare me the inconsistent or baseless accusations that stem from a moderator's personal feelings—whether those feelings are coming at me as an official or just as a person—and instead, just show me, purely, coldly, and professionally, which part of the rules I actually broke.

If I had been talking to any other random user on this board, rather than communicating with a moderator or Sam Green73, would my post have been met with an eraser?

Sam Green73 said:If you ever actually find the time to read the rules, pay close attention to this part:

Dear Moderator,
I am requesting that you restore my post here and explicitly point out exactly which element of the rule I supposedly violated.

Are you seriously suggesting that on this platform it is forbidden to tell someone their stance is negative, or that it's against the rules to suggest someone fails to grasp a concept?
Therefore, I ask again—revert my post and highlight precisely where I broke the code.

Just a quick note.
When I am not writing in my moderator color, I am just another user, not acting as a moderator.

That is simply untrue. Throughout our entire debate—and within the very terms we were analyzing—not once, nowhere did you write in moderator color. Anyone can verify this by looking at the thread from post 180 onwards.

If you wish to debate a moderator, please use the designated sub-forum intended for discussing moderation: The Feedback Forum.
Commenting on moderation within the Politics sub-forum is strictly prohibited.

I have not uttered a single word regarding "moderation" itself; rather, we were engaged in a discussion on the topic of online hate speech, specifically debating whether a particular sentence qualified as such.
You stepped into this thread as a regular user, offering your opinion, and I countered it with logic—without a single insult. My assertions that you don't understand hate speech and that your stance is purely negative are not insults because every single point I made was backed by argumentation. They were not *ad hominem* attacks; they flowed directly from the discourse. I am certain these two points fall well within the bounds of civilized debate and do not violate any rule of the sub-forum that would justify my post being erased.
If that is indeed the case, then please restore my post. If you still maintain otherwise, I shall feel perfectly free over the next few days to pull similar phrasing in other political threads and demand they be removed, since they clearly escaped the notice of the moderators and their supposed rules.

Where?

Sam Green73 said:Americans, generally speaking, do not share a unified view on the Ku Klux Klan. Opinions vary wildly, ranging from an extremely positive stance toward the Ku Klux Klan to an intensely negative one.

Hate speech—let's call it what it is—would be saying something like "All Americans are Ku Klux Klan," because when other groups hear that, they interpret it as "All Americans are criminals."

Look, I’ve already laid out the arguments in this thread to prove that labeling an American as a member of the Ku Klux Klan perfectly fits your little definition above. When extreme Americans—or certain other groups, for that matter—talk about Americans, they do it by slapping that label on them. To them, every single American is basically a member of the Ku Klux Klan. In that sense, the statement holds water.

However, when extreme Americans want to throw something nasty at Americans, they resort to calling them Ku Klux Klan members. So, what we have here is this process of shoving someone into a group defined by specific traits—you know, criminal nature, genocidal tendencies, and so on—and then, once that individual is lumped in with an "inferior" group, they use that person as a prime example to show what should be done to every member of that group... which is to say, slaughter them. Using "slaughter" as the chosen term for destruction serves a secondary purpose: it conjures up historical terror. Since those rogue militias were busy massacring people in American towns during World War II, there remains this lingering, visceral fear that "the militias will come back and slaughter everyone."

Wikipedia states:
Hate speech is any oral or written communication that functions to publicly incite or provoke hatred toward a specific group (or an individual) based on an inherent characteristic, with the intent to foster intolerance, division, discrimination, and violence—or to fuel existing hatred by allowing it to evolve, strengthen, and deepen through public discourse.

So, please, just repost my erased post right here so the administrators can take a look at it. And I am asking you—plainly and simply—to explain exactly how and why I supposedly violated these famous rules, but do me a favor: leave out the facts that aren't actually true.

I am going to politely ask one more time—will I please get an answer?

Dear Administrators,
Politics—now there’s a topic that really gets the blood pumping, isn't it? Honestly, if you want to start a fight at a backyard BBQ or just watch a family dinner go completely off the rails, just bring up current events. It's practically a science at this point. Everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks they've cracked the code, and half the time, we aren't even talking about the same thing! It's exhausting, really—though I suppose that's why it's so addictive. You can't help but dive in, even when you know it's going to be a total mess. The Department of Homeland Security just rolled out this new national campaign—"No Hate Speech Online"—and, well, here we go again. It’s another one of those sweeping, high-level initiatives aimed at cleaning up the digital wild west, though whether these things actually move the needle or just end up as expensive white papers remains to be seen. Still, it's a massive push by the government to tackle the toxicity spreading through our social feeds. So, one of my posts just got nuked—deleted clean—and I honestly can’t find a single legitimate reason for it, other than my own gut feeling about the moderator's personal biases—which I labeled as a "negative attitude." Since the moderator and I were actually engaged in a direct conversation, I figured I was well within my rights to characterize his views—especially since he’s out here implying that America is nothing more than two warring factions: those who are extreme ultra-nationalists and those who are their polar opposites. Basically, he’s acting like there are only two types of people in this country—those who... Absolutely. Look, I’m just going to say it—and I know this is going to ruffle some feathers—but I have a certain level of respect for those who hold a positive view toward the Ustaše and anyone else who shares that sentiment. It’s a controversial stance, obviously—certainly one that invites a lot of heated debate in these circles—but I believe there's a certain... let's call it an "unfiltered conviction" involved. Some people see it as pure hostility, but from where I sit, it’s more about a specific kind of historical loyalty that most modern Americans have long since abandoned in favor of being politically correct. Is it radical? Sure. Does it make people uncomfortable? Absolutely. But I can't help but admire the sheer, stubborn refusal to bow down to the current social consensus. There’s a grit there—a willingness to stand by a legacy regardless of how much the rest of the country might sneer at it. Absolutely. Look, I’ve got a negative take on this—and before anyone starts, let me clarify: I am rejecting that whole forced "fascist vs. anti-fascist" dichotomy. Honestly? I think that entire framing is fundamentally flawed and, frankly, toxic for our society. It’s a false binary. In my view, the real divide runs on a completely different axis altogether. Americans—just like people anywhere else—don't look at history through those narrow ideological lenses. We don't just pick a side and ignore the rest. Most people hold an intensely negative view toward crimes, regardless of whether they were committed by fascists or anti-fascists, and we hold an equally positive view toward the genuine good done by individuals on both sides. It’s about actions, not labels.

None of that matters—really. It’s all just noise. What actually counts here is the conversation surrounding hate speech, specifically when we look at statements like:

I’ll find you and take you out, you Zionist piece of trash!
I swear, I’m going to hunt that fascist piece of trash down and make them pay for what they've done!
I am going to find you and settle this once and for all—you absolute piece of trash!

Classic hate speech—that’s what I’m calling it—but the moderator is flat-out denying it. He’s out there insisting that:

That is a blatant insult and a direct threat—plain and simple. It’s actionable under our laws and absolutely violates YouTube's Terms of Service. There isn't even a shred of hate speech here; it's just pure harassment.

If someone were to go around claiming that most Americans are fascists—just straight up labeling the whole lot of us as extremists—that would be flagged as hate speech immediately. Case closed.

It’s funny—in a dark, twisted sort of way—how certain extremists over there love to throw around labels like "fascists" whenever they want to spit venom at Americans. It’s a calculated little tactic, really. First, they shove an individual into this broadly defined, villainous category—tagging them with all sorts of labels involving genocide or criminal intent—just so they can paint them as part of some inherently evil group. Once they've successfully shoved someone into that box, they use that one person as a convenient excuse to suggest what should be done to everyone else in that entire group. In their eyes, the logical conclusion isn't debate or disagreement; it’s total annihilation. And let's be honest, using terms that imply mass slaughter isn't just about being violent—it’s psychological warfare. They want to summon up those old, visceral ghosts from history. By invoking those specific types of atrocities committed during the war, they’re trying to trigger a very specific kind of primal terror: the fear that those old monsters will come back to finish the job and wipe everyone out. It's a way of weaponizing historical trauma to keep people living in constant, suffocating fear.

So, here’s the deal—after I went through the trouble of proving to the moderator that his entire analysis was fundamentally flawed—and then, because apparently, one needs a little extra weight behind an argument, I backed up my points with direct citations from Wikipedia—well, he decided to take issue with my breakdown of how Americans fall into those two camps: the staunchly pro-establishment types and the hardcore oppositionists. He actually had the nerve to label my observation as some sort of "negative" outlook! And what happens next? My post gets nuked. Deleted. Gone. When I reached out via private message to see what the hell was going on, all I got was this vague, dismissive response claiming I’d somehow violated the subforum rules. Typical. Look, I am asking you—plain and simple—to tell me exactly which rule I supposedly violated and walk me through the precise sequence of events that led us here. Give me the full breakdown..

I honestly feel it’s vital for this forum that we clear up any gray areas regarding hate speech—especially since this specific thread is *about* online hate speech, and let's face it, this forum itself falls under that umbrella. It wouldn't be particularly wise to just go around deleting posts that point out potential flaws in how moderation is being handled. Instead—and I mean this sincerely—moderators should really try to take critical clarifications in stride. They ought to embrace these different perspectives as a way to sharpen their own judgment and broaden their horizons when it comes to moderator skills. It's all about growth, really.

So, if I could just get a straight answer from the admin here—why exactly was my post nuked? I’d also love to hear their take on whether those specific sentences actually constitute hate speech. Look, I realize that dragging political debates over to this subforum isn't exactly encouraged—and yeah, I know, I'm probably overstepping—but I truly believe that addressing this topic—which is inextricably linked to what we discuss here anyway—would be beneficial. If we can clear the air, maybe the moderation over in the politics section would actually become more consistent and the rules a bit less... murky.

Thanks in advance