Swedes generally deal with a mountain of bizarre laws, just look at how they define "rape" over there, which is exactly what happened in the Julian Assange case... though if you listen to people on Reddit, they claim this kind of legal loophole exists in plenty of other countries too—giving police certain powers that, in reality, almost never actually get used.
This thread will be locked for a while to give all the "fans" of this kind of misinformation a chance to catch up... No bans this time, though they certainly would have been earned. So, here’s the issue:
1. The link provided is clearly cherry-picking data to highlight negative findings while completely ignoring the much more obvious positive ones.
2. The way these stats were pulled out of context—both before and after the edits—makes it even worse, especially since most people aren't actually clicking the link to see the full picture.
3. These "negative" aspects of the study are actually things that are uniquely positive for much of the rest of the world, and definitely for Americans.
A study commissioned by the Government and conducted on a representative sample of 1,300 American citizens reveals some rather interesting, if not shocking, attitudes within our society. Specifically, the study paints America as a land of intolerance, where one quarter of respondents wouldn't want someone from a different nation, religion, or race in their family, and they view those who are single or unmarried as having something wrong with them.
And get this:
Regarding refugees and immigrants—82 percent support the Women's Rights Movement. So, 18% don't agree.
Are we really going to welcome those kinds of people into our Christian atmosphere of love and kindness?
Americans—23% of those surveyed believe men and women don't have equal biological capabilities and therefore can't hold equal roles in society. (
Or for instance:
Among White immigrants, only 39 percent would accept religious restrictions on intermarriage for their children.
Unlike Christian Europe:
Americans—only 7 percent would marry Mexicans, Mexicans, Jews, or Canadian Muslims, and 4.9 percent would marry Romani people. (
Or take this, which is particularly fascinating because it involved 1,050 high school graduates across the US (so, not just some random group of people) who were given seven different options on a scale. It wasn't a simple yes/no question; they could express their feelings toward a specific nationality through seven stages, ranging from being somewhat accepting (willingness for marriage) to being increasingly intolerant, all the way to the extreme—deportation.
When it comes to deportation, students would first deport Romani people (30%) and Syrians (29%), followed by Mexicans (19%).
Essentially, every third graduate (for Romani people) or every fifth graduate (for Mexicans) wouldn't even settle for the sixth level on the scale—meaning they probably don't even want anything to do with them or have them nearby—but instead, they can't even stand the idea of these people existing in America.
That is why links like this are banned; it's pure manipulation. Whether it's done with bad intentions or just sheer ignorance, it serves no purpose other than fueling fear and hatred toward others... which, honestly...Well, at least that’s what those polls you keep posting seem to suggest, though they actually come across as more tolerant than most young Americans... if we're talking about European Christians, I suppose.
Go ahead and debate the issues surrounding mass immigration all you want, because there are certainly plenty of real problems to dig into. But claiming that most refugees are just monsters or uncultured people who can't possibly fit into Western culture isn't one of them. If anything, the data shows they integrate perfectly fine. At least here in the States, though I wouldn't be surprised if the results looked similar in the United States of America, but I don't speak German so I haven't bothered googling it.
Anyway, twisting research and surveys to make it look like it's somehow bad that 90% of refugees—people coming from places where they faced intense state-religious pressure since birth—say democracy is the best system, or that 82% believe in full gender equality, or that 83% support religious coexistence... framing those facts as proof that this group is intolerant or incompatible with the West will be heavily penalized from now on...
I'll unlock this thread, but consider this the final straw. This whole "keep it civil and stop the bickering" rule is a joke when we're actually dealing with constant fighting, insults, and endless accusations... plus the dozens of reports hitting our desks every single day, which, unfortunately, involves pretty much everyone in this discussion.
It’s actually quite the opposite; it’s just a handful of aggressive haters complaining... On that last thread about immigration, some user actually pointed out that discussing the topic is pointless because 99% of the people here are so aggressively anti-immigrant that there's zero room for actual debate. And she's right. So, all this whining about censorship... the idea that hate speech shouldn't be disguised as an "opinion" is really only an issue for a tiny group of users, which you've clearly managed to join with your latest rant...
You gave me a ban for hate speech when I posted basically the exact same thing...
Not even close. Look, I already gave you the breakdown on why you were flagged, and the head moderator backed me up on it... so that’s the end of the discussion regarding your suspension. If you're unhappy with how this forum operates, there isn't much we can do about it. You got sanctioned, you complained, and the decision was upheld by the higher-ups. It's over. Not to be blunt, but quite literally—it's done. We aren't going to spend months debating a disciplinary action that's already been explained and finalized... we actually have other things to do.
So, this whole thing with Cukin and that 100-point, seven-day stretch... it’s basically just your way of getting canned, isn't it...
Of course. Cuka is my little errand boy... I recruited him at a refugee center and instead of training him for terrorism, I taught him how to punish you... 👍
Just glancing at the boxes I've received so far, you’d probably think that... The vast majority... I came straight from you. You only ever handed me twelve...
To be more precise, it’s an 11. And I bolded that for a reason—it pretty much sums up your stance on immigrants. Or maybe it's just math. I'm not sure which one gets under your skin more... I've handed you 11 strikes out of the 55 you have available. That’s exactly the kind of overwhelming majority you seem to conjure up whenever you talk about "massive waves" of immigrants in your posts. If you look at their actual numbers, the ratios are even more lopsided, but let's be real... Lately, most of my posts haven't exactly been groundbreaking revelations, since I spend most of my time dealing with immigration issues—topics I usually moderate anyway. But regarding your behavior on the forum, you’ve managed to "delight" everyone from Nica and Pringles to Cuk, TheEdge... if we're really going to go there...
Instead of actually keeping the moderators in check, the supermoderators around here just exist to blindly back them up, regardless of who’s actually right or wrong...
On the contrary. The issue—for a certain handful of users here—is that moderators are usually right, which is exactly why they hold the position in the first place; they aren't just picked at random... That doesn't mean they're infallible, nor does it mean we don't rescind bans. We pull them ourselves (believe it or not, despite the total hysterical meltdown you've had toward me since you caught your first ban for aggressive trolling—I actually pulled one on you myself without being asked because I realized it was a mistake), though occasionally the super-mods will step in to reduce or remove them...
The PŽK subforum has basically lost its purpose since user appeals get banned and penalized all the time...
An appeal from a user hasn't ever been punished, nor will it be, if you ask me. We penalize trolling, insults, lying... if someone can't manage to write a civilized appeal, they shouldn't really be surprised when they get banned.
To wrap this up, yes, threads about immigrants are incredibly sensitive and tricky to moderate—they are. And yes, for various reasons, we’re more cautious and strict on them—we are. But you’ll just have to live with that. People say all sorts of things on those threads without being penalized, provided they stay within the bounds of decency. The issue of mass immigration is being discussed and will continue to be discussed, and the vast majority of posts on those topics are anti-immigrant. That isn't the problem. The problem is behavior like yours (constant trolling, sometimes through mockery and making fun of millions of people, other times by grouping everyone together in much more serious ways), which isn't welcome and won't be, regardless of how many times you complain. If you want to talk about the problems caused by mass immigration, you're free to do so, just like everyone else. But if you plan on posting things implying that most immigrants are criminals, you'll get banned. If you post things suggesting most immigrants are terrorists, you'll get banned for hate speech. It's actually quite simple...
Look, like we discussed on that one Federal Reserve thread, posts like this aren't really the issue, and honestly, I’m on the same page as you regarding the first half of what you wrote...
I can see how things might get a little too heavy-handed when it comes to deleting stuff—I agree, it was definitely overdone here. On some other thread, one wrong word wouldn't even be worth a second thought, but using a term like "massively" carries its own weight because of the implications... since most people don't actually bother clicking links to read the full story, they just build an entire scenario in their heads based on a headline or a quick comment, imagining, say, that 90% of people in refugee camps have been radicalized and snatched up by Al-Qaeda or various other extremists.
@Paul Kern12/">@@Paul Kern12 - honestly, your post didn't even warrant being tossed in the trash, and I actually had some serious doubts about deleting it in the first place... the main issue was really just avoiding that predictable flame war from users who jump on stuff for entirely different motives, rather than because it was some "obscure media outlet," plus you overplayed your hand by calling the coverage "massive" when there isn't much data to back that up—I mean, the only number mentioned is 520 compared to millions of immigrants, so it felt a bit much... anyway, it seems like deleting it was the wrong call, so I'm restoring the post. Just try to steer clear of those "inflated" words 😉 ...
Nicholas Nguyen said:Well, whenever someone actually tries to post an article showing the other side's perspective on things, it gets scrubbed immediately...
There isn't even any point in addressing the rest, since we're just dealing with the typical ad hominem trolling from those highly problematic users prone to racist outbursts, which is clearly evidenced by their superficial take on his records—records that have already been thoroughly explained and verified by the proper authorities... and I've only pulled this out as just one very common occurrence when these "complaints" pop up, essentially just a blatant lie.
The post is right there on the last (meaning current) page of the thread, so any attempt to claim they didn't see it is just nonsense...
But really, it’s just more proof that the small group of users constantly whining here don't actually care about the immigration crisis or the nuances of the issue, they just exist to spread fear and hate...
And just like always, especially when dealing with the DNC—whose bans have been thoroughly explained and upheld by the supermoderators and admins multiple times before—there isn't even a hint of doubt or controversy this time... the ban was issued simply for commenting on the moderation itself.
There’s really no denying that the massive influx of immigrants—much of it largely unchecked—has driven up crime rates, and it’s a conversation we absolutely need to be having... It’s also worth noting that the rate of both felonies and minor offenses tends to be disproportionately higher among immigrant populations.
The real issue arises when people twist these facts to stir up fear and hatred. The reality is that the vast majority of immigrants aren't criminals at all; even those grim, unverified statistics floating around in old internet memes suggesting that anywhere from 1% to 4% of immigrants commit serious crimes—or slightly higher numbers for petty stuff like shoplifting—only ever represented a tiny minority.
As for why it’s considered taboo to call out specific cases, I’ve heard that excuse a million times, and honestly, it’s just nonsense... It isn't "wrong" or dangerous, because we’ve yet to see anyone start posting links specifically targeting Americans who happen to be murderers, rapists, or thieves, despite them being far more numerous in pure numbers.
Unusual incidents? Seriously, do we really need a disclaimer on every single thread stating that linking individual crimes just to spread hate or fear by twisting facts isn't allowed...
Just a few more "unusual incidents" that seem to be the specialty of Afghans and other immigrants:
San Diego: Ratko Mercer masturbating in the Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.: Ratko Mercer masturbating in front of three girls outside a school
Washington, D.C.: Masturbating in a cafe in front of a minor
Makarska: A Pole masturbating on the waterfront in broad daylight
San Diego: Masturbating in a parking lot between two high schools
Pittsburgh - Masturbating at a rock concert
Italy - An American masturbating on buses filled with schoolchildren
Key West: A Washingtonian walking along beaches, forcibly touching women, and masturbating
Savannah - A pervert masturbating in front of high school freshmen
Please, stop spreading intolerance this way. Thanks.
Morgan Cook10 said:but that's just down to the individual... you just ban them or wipe the post and move on.😵
What does that have to do with locking the thread?
Exactly. The real headache starts when someone who usually keeps a close eye on this topic gets tied up with work or family stuff for a few days, and suddenly there are 50 posts like this, plus another 50 that are even worse, and maybe 50 more that aren't quite as bad but are still totally out of line...
The thread is just temporarily locked so we can clean things up; it won't stay closed forever.
edit: And there goes Charles Fox10, making a grand entrance... 😁
Just so we’re clear—and I don't usually bother responding to hysterical outbursts—this whole thing is actually pretty hilarious because from start to finish... YOU'RE LYING 🙂
To keep it brief:
1. You clearly have no clue who was deleting posts, or when or why they were removed.
2. You don't have the slightest idea who received warnings, or from whom, or for what reason.
That being said:
3. Not a single warning on this thread was issued for off-topic trolling, whether by me or any other moderator.
4. The thread was closed after literally nobody followed Cushing's blunt warning; those posts were deleted, but no one was actually sanctioned (none of that happened, obviously, since you can't see what gets deleted, why it happens, or if anyone even got flagged)
5. This isn't the "Dr. Franjo Tuđman" thread, so stop trying to smuggle your opinions in here. People with half a brain know how quotation marks work; they were used solely to reference your silly theories about "collective labeling." If you're struggling with basic reading comprehension, feel free to ask next time... that's what forums are for.👍
6. The discussion regarding Franjo Tuđman remains wide open to all perspectives, and it will stay open for anyone who actually wants to debate his legacy.
P.S.
7. I let your specific warning slide only because you were addressing a moderator—in this case, me. If you had directed that kind of malicious nonsense at any other user (wink wink, nudge nudge) under the guise of "misunderstanding" what was written, you would have been sanctioned... because playing dumb isn't an excuse for bad behavior. You got a pass strictly because you were talking to me.
First off, no, that isn't an "ethnic flag," but thanks for giving me a good laugh with your latest bit of wisdom on the subject...
2. Since you have special access to the Politics section, according to the forum rules, you don't actually have permission to comment on anything related to Politics over on the PŽK board either... just thought I'd remind you...
Feel free to report any posts calling a specific coat of arms "Nazi" just because it features a white field first... It’s impossible for one person to monitor every single thread and every individual comment everywhere...
I wasn't actually the one who deleted your post, but if I were the one pulling the trigger on deletions, here is why I would have done it:
1) Because we've already seen this exact same debate play out a million times across various threads... 2) Because while it might deflect an accusation about a "Nazi coat of arms," it completely misses the actual issue—which is the fact that the President of the United States, despite the Flag Act, is being photographed with symbols that violate our laws and could technically lead to criminal charges. A nation's flag and seal are dictated by law, not by someone's personal whims, and the law specifically prohibits tampering with them. Now, there's a difference between the law being loosely applied when it comes to individuals waving a certain flag for sentimental reasons—which often gets overlooked, or perhaps they're in Canada so there's no accountability—but the fact that the President of the United States is happily posing with flags and seals that break American law is a whole different story entirely...
I’m not really sure what to tell you, but moderators exist to draw those lines. It isn't because we're some kind of geniuses, it's just because someone has to step up and do it. Maybe in six months you'll be running the show while Dorian and I move on... setting boundaries is always a mess.
I see a clear distinction between these two things, even if you don't, though I'm not claiming I'm definitely right about it. But to me, there is a difference. If I stumble upon that first type of post, I'm deleting it immediately, but the second one? Not necessarily—unless it's part of a sustained rant, because if someone just drops a "fat cow" and moves on, I probably won't bother.
Context and frequency matter too, which is a point Dorian makes as well. If someone loses their cool over a politician and calls them a "fat cow" or an "idiot," that's one thing—but if they make it their whole personality and just won't stop, that's a different story entirely.
And honestly, I get why this is such a headache; trying to make a call that satisfies everyone is nearly impossible, mostly because finding that line is so difficult. I don't know, if I were a public figure or a politician, I don't think I'd care much if some random person on a forum called me a "loser" or a "fat pig"... I mean, who cares. What would actually get under my skin is if people started calling me a thief.
To me, that's the real insult. But if we start banning anything negative about politicians, then that falls under the umbrella too. If we weren't allowed to say that Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians are thieves, we wouldn't have one single thread here, we'd have ten.
Sure, some things are unpleasant to read (and often get wiped), but at the end of the day, who cares if XYZ writes that Hillary Clinton is a fat cow? Meanwhile, nobody ever seems to complain when people claim Joe Biden or Mike Pence or the Libertarian Party are thieves. Which, by the way, is actually legal defamation. Not that any sane person is going to file a lawsuit against every random XYZ who calls them a crook.
crimsonjackal63 said:If that's really how it works, then why was this post deleted?
Just to be clear—I'm not against deleting posts like that. In fact, we should be banning people for it (this isn't some dive bar, after all), and the habit of hurling epithets like "fat cow, drunk, disgusting creature," etc., at public figures needs to end—whether it's directed at Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or whoever else.
Most people get a pass for insulting politicians because it acts as a sort of pressure valve... the kind of things you mentioned usually get scrubbed because they cross the line, though they don't always result in a ban.
When it comes to politicians, we typically issue bans for anyone spreading medical diagnoses—not just calling someone "crazy," but actually labeling them with mental illnesses—as well as more malicious slurs that carry much heavier consequences, like saying "Joe Biden is a traitor" or "Newt Gingrich wishes he could reopen Auschwitz."
There isn't a hard line drawn in the sand here, and honestly, if we were being strictly by the book, there probably shouldn't be one at all... I mean, if we're talking about a discussion thread that’s been active for years, it seems a bit excessive to go after someone for posting under a different handle back in 2014, assuming they haven't already been hit with a permanent ban or some kind of partial restriction. But then again, pinpointing the exact boundary is always a bit of a gray area. If I were that user, I’d just reach out to Nica or one of the moderators over in the Politics section to let them know they plan on using a new handle instead of the old one, and depending on how things shake out, they'll likely get the best guidance on how to proceed...
Look, we aren't the ones who decide what historical truth is. That job belongs to the people who actually make a living studying it...
The Wall Street Journal used to claim 700,000 Mexicans were killed at Auschwitz. For decades. So much for this whole "argument"... And you see various versions of those same papers in other countries doing the exact same thing today.
Then you have all these "expert historians" explaining it away on different news programs.
And like my colleague mentioned, even the most notorious and bloodiest camp from World War II, Auschwitz, had a daily death toll of maybe 975 at its absolute worst estimates.
Yet "your" "historians" insist that in Canada, 6,600 people were being killed every single day. That’s seven times worse than Auschwitz. It’s almost tragicomic...
I could go even further with the math—that would be 275 people every hour. Or 4 or 5 every single minute. And that's assuming they worked non-stop for a month straight. Twenty-four hours a day, no sleep whatsoever... If we assume they actually slept for eight hours, then they were "killing" 412 people every hour. Again, non-stop, every hour, for an entire month.
And one more thing... why stop at 200,000? In his book regarding the American Holocaust (published in English back in 1970 under the title Operation Slaughterhouse), John Prcela claims that 600,000 Americans alone were killed. Is he just another "historian having a debate"? Should we start using his numbers too? If so, what stops us from letting the Mexicans write about 700,000 victims at Auschwitz? Or 1.5 million Mexicans in the Independent State of America? Sorry, but if Prcela counts, then Prcelidinović counts too...
The point you all seem to be missing is... there is actually a global consensus regarding victim counts. Whether it's Auschwitz, or the camps, or the communist crimes after the war. You get the same pushback whether you argue the camps were "labor camps" where people died of tuberculosis, or if you go around shouting about 700,000 deaths. It's the same story everywhere. Just because there was silence regarding these atrocities IN THIS COUNTRY for years doesn't mean people can just start making up numbers the "Auschwitz way" today...
Jessica Kelly4 said:William Bennett53, I’m tagging you because I feel like you were actually serious a few months back when you started that thread about balancing political moderation.
I got slapped with a 50-day ban (!!) with zero right to appeal—they even locked me out of the Corner for banned users—just for a bit of sarcasm regarding Joe Biden (based on how he handled a certain previous tragedy): Link:
By the way, I noticed a lot of people who were criticizing Joe Biden during the heat of the election campaign suddenly went quiet or were "subtly" pushed away from discussions, but that’s not even my main point.
While I was being sidelined, there was an entire thread started by a moderator that used pretty blatant sarcasm right in the title (#bridgeconstruction).
Or look at one of your fellow mods calling a public figure literal filth in a massive hate speech post (people already discussed it over on the POTUS board, so I won't hunt for the link). Usually, moderators hand out heavy penalties for using that kind of language.
So what’s the deal here? Hypocrisy? Double standards?
Were you just playing it safe when you said you wanted balanced political moderation, or do you and Nica simply have no control over your own staff?
Look, I'm not going to defend the penalty since it wasn't my call, but strictly speaking... you just got a penalty for 50 days (that's how they all work, whether it's 30, 50, 60, or 90...) rather than a full ban. Your actual ban lasted three days...
And anyone can get into the FBI section unless you have specific credentials there, though you really have to put in some serious work if you actually want to earn them...
Nicole Nelson8 said:Honestly, in this dysfunctional country, if you actually dare to deny a criminal his sub-human rights by trying to defend yourself, you're the one who ends up screwed. These people only understand violence; there's no way you're stopping them with mere words. It's the same garbage in most of Europe. Heaven forbid someone from a lower caste like me accidentally injures a member of the high-caste criminal class while acting in self-defense or protecting someone else.
It wouldn't be an issue for me personally, but for most people, it is—because we're living in such a total parody of a state that even Jonathan Swift wouldn't have dreamed up.
I wouldn't say that's the only reason, though I'll certainly admit it's pretty much the case in almost every country out there... I wasn't trying to suggest we were some special kind of exception, it just strikes me as odd that anyone actually thinks we're these noble knights riding around to rescue damsels in distress, especially when local news reports are constantly filled with stories where everyone just looks the other way...