I guess you could say the Swedes have been so brainwashed and stripped of any sense of masculinity that they don't even flinch anymore when they hear a woman screaming for help... Maybe we should run this same experiment over here in the States, just to see if women can watch it and finally decide for themselves where it’s actually safe to live.
Absolutely. Speaking of "experiments," here's one from Cleveland today:
And then there was that incident last week with those convicted rapists in San Diego, dragging a minor across a crowded beach while she was screaming her head off...
If you actually had a legitimate reason to say all that within a normal context, the way you phrased it in your very first comment on this thread, there wouldn't be any issue at all 👍
But if you decide to spin it the way you did in your second comment—basically ignoring half the facts—then the moderators will have to decide whether you deserve a ban or not. For instance, claiming something is just "slang" when it isn't... you'll probably end up getting flagged for that. Because it simply isn't true.
And no, we aren't going to spend forever debating this; you’ve already given your long-winded excuse in your own post, and I’ve given mine in mine, explaining why your version isn't reality. I just don't want to leave anyone else with a skewed impression of how this whole discussion ends...
Has anyone actually pointed out that what you just wrote is totally off-base? 🙂
The facts are simple:
1. It wasn't just the Democrats who walked out of Congress...
2. The Democratic Party voted FOR the Declaration of Independence and every other resolution, except for that specific Constitutional Court ruling—for reasons mentioned in the text that are up for debate, but certainly not in the way this penalized user (or anyone else) tried to spin it.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with someone recounting the events of that day.
The issue is that the narrative is just wrong; the Democrats didn't walk out of Congress, nor did they vote against independence—they voted against the specific content of a court ruling, while having zero issues with independence itself. Why they did it, whether it was smart, and so on... you can talk about all of that, of course. You just can't lie.
Can we please dial back the trolling just a little bit on both sides 😉 Both sides have actually put forward some pretty solid arguments here, so it’s not okay to leave posts suggesting that every single immigrant is a criminal, but then again, it’s also not right to ignore the fact that there are some serious issues happening in certain areas...
You could argue that both sides of the coin hold some truth here. I remember seeing a user from Sweden posting something pretty similar on the immigration thread, making points that went both ways... talking about how integration works wonders in small towns while everything falls apart in the big cities.
Regarding that specific section, I agree it feels a bit clunky sitting there in the warning. But honestly, it isn't some kind of strict "edict" forbidding anyone from expressing a different view. The whole point of the disclaimer—and I think it's pretty obvious, though William Bennett53 can certainly tweak it if needed—is just to make sure we aren't forcing a religious narrative into this story, especially since most American women don't choose to wear head coverings...
I’m sticking by my claim (and Nicholas Watson, you’re really the only one on this thread who doesn't seem to get it, if you'll excuse the bluntness) but I suppose I agree it might not have belonged in the warning itself.
The part about the hijab in the warning matters because people have started dragging it into this conversation, which is totally off base, though it probably just stems from a lack of basic knowledge... since you can see throughout this whole thread how often someone pops up without any clue what a burqa, a niqab, or a hijab actually is.
Regarding the burqa and the niqab—this is a bit of an aside to your question—but I honestly think you ought to look into where those are actually worn, why they're worn there, what the consequences are for not wearing them, and what the status of women is in those countries... You don't even need to go too deep into a Google search, everything is on Wikipedia if you want the links and all that. And you're trolling a bit too much with this, just like in that opening post—asking "where did the moderator get the data" is just as ridiculous as asking where a moderator or a user got the data to claim that EVERY Jew was against wearing yellow armbands, when some might have actually liked it...
So, I'm saying you should study where the burqa and niqab are used and the social standing of women in those societies, and what happens to those who refuse to wear them. I don't think you're a troll, so I'm assuming it's just pure ignorance regarding the subject (though I don't quite grasp why you're being so stubborn about it). None of this has anything to do with the left or the right, nor does it ultimately have anything to do with Islam, because the Quran doesn't mandate the wearing of burqas or niqabs anywhere, nor are they worn in 95% of Muslim countries, and in some places, they are openly banned (not just in France)... Do you follow that part at least? 🙂 There are Muslim countries where it is literally forbidden for a woman to wear a burqa or a niqab. And plenty more where it isn't illegal, but it's actively discouraged and suppressed in every way possible. That should tell you everything you need to know.
If he’d actually called Americans fascists, he’d be facing some serious legal consequences by now. Not really... If you can't pick up on sarcasm, then I guess there's just no hope for us anymore...
First off, if you actually want an answer or a real conversation about some issue, try being civilized next time, because you won't be getting any responses to these kinds of open-ended "complaints." If you can't start a discussion normally without resorting to personal attacks, then don't expect a normal response...
If your reply had been actionable, you would have received a strike. Only one response was left because the topic itself is pointless, and besides, the initial replies already made it clear which way this was going—specifically the one mentioned in the closing explanation.
In short, we really don't need a thread dedicated to theorizing about "unfathomable" reasons why American media writes about Bruce Springsteen or Madonna, yet stays silent on Estonian singers... That's why only that single response remained on the topic.
It's pretty simple. American media covers Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, and Whitney Houston because there are plenty of people in America who listen to them. Meanwhile, 99% of Americans couldn't name a single Estonian singer, writer, or public figure even if their lives depended on it. There’s no conspiracy, no shadow organizations, and no hellish plot to bring back the USSR.
The media writes about celebrities. In America, the media writes about people who are famous in America. It's really that straightforward.
If you're struggling with the fact that Madonna performs in major US arenas and everyone knows her name and clicks on her articles, maybe you could start a different thread in the off-topic section about the musical (non)taste of Americans...
Aha, so it’s necessary after all. Right. Calling for closed borders under the guise that America belongs exclusively to Europeans, white people, Christians, or whatever other label you want to slap on racism... it's pretty obvious that's what they're getting at. Saying we shouldn't just accept millions of refugees without knowing who they are or where they're going isn't inherently racist, nor has it ever been a crime. I assume most decent people on this forum already get that, but if anyone happens to be confused, there's your little clarification...
Just a quick correction— nothing has actually changed. And it won't... If you want the full breakdown, there's more detail in the main thread, if you're interested.
wanderingbadger77 said:Since you went through the trouble of making a formal post just to get my take on this... A lot has already been said, and I’m not going to waste breath repeating myself; I couldn't care less about sanctions, but I am genuinely insulted that I'm being branded as some kind of hate-monger or troll because of posts like this—and it’s not even the first time...
Since we're talking about a ban, and unlike most people here, you actually possess the bare minimum requirements for civilized communication—specifically, providing a clarification—you should know that two or three of your previous posts in this exact style were already deleted, though apparently, that wasn't enough of a hint for you. Nobody is calling you a hate-monger, but the ban for trolling was actually pretty well-deserved...
The reason you got hit is because you keep stubbornly insisting that every single action taken by a Muslim is "Islamic terrorism." That specific obsession is exactly why the terrorism thread was shut down (which, by the way, wasn't my call, but rather a decision made by the entire site moderation team)...
In your last paragraph, you crossed the line of decent debate, so I won't even dignify that part with a response, but since you went with the "you get what you give" approach, it's hardly surprising you let the heat of the moment get to you, which is why you received the rest of this reply. If you have more questions regarding your ban, please head over to the Appeals section, because this isn't the place for it... Regards.
It’s just because we aren't quite sure if we’re going to reopen the old one or just build something entirely new with much clearer rules... It’s a bit of an awkward timing, I’ll give you that.
Just a quick note, I have zero intention of dragging out arguments with people who just can't handle the fact that racism and xenophobia aren't going to fly on this forum... they won't. So, that's that.
Kate Harris50 — I didn't personally shut it down, but of course, I fully support closing it, just like all my other colleagues, mostly for the reasons already laid out regarding Germany (which, by the way, is open now). A few things just spiraled out of control and had to be reined in; deleting posts or handing out light warnings wasn't doing the trick, so we ended up closing it—which, let's face it, mainly bothers those who would have probably been banned anyway if we hadn't provided an explanation (and I don't mean you). Germany is back open exactly as announced, and as for the terrorism topic, we're deciding how to structure it moving forward, whether we stick with this thread or start a new one with a more concrete introduction. I agree it feels a bit awkward to have it closed right now, especially with that new attack in Germany last night, but I believe we'll wrap this part up quickly and then reopen a discussion on terrorism, whether it's the old thread or a brand new one...
Walter Long7 said:This is getting ridiculous... everything regarding politics, especially now with all this terrorism talk, that doesn't align with how the moderators think just gets wiped out until they finally shut the whole thread down.
If you look at the Germany thread, there’s an explanation right there as to why it’s temporarily locked. As for the terrorism discussion, it’ll reopen once the moderators and super-mods iron out a few specifics... maybe it'll be the old thread, maybe it'll be a new one, but it's coming back eventually.
And regarding the deletions and warnings—just a heads up, you can get flagged for trolling on the main subforums too. We aren't punishing people just because they disagree with a moderator's take; we're flagging those who fail to maintain a civilized tone or disregard basic human values. Honestly, I don't even feel like arguing with anyone who can't grasp that on their own. The rules are posted, the warnings are clear... if someone can't follow them, that's on them...
Just as a side note for those who clearly haven't bothered to learn how this forum works, or for those whose egos won't let them actually go look for information—it wasn't the same moderator who closed these two threads, nor are they acting against the consensus of the rest of the mod team.
Look, at this point we just have to assume you aren't getting it, which means you'll eventually have to accept that the mod team doesn't operate on that kind of logic...
Actually, there are plenty of principles at play here, you just don't seem to grasp them... though, based on what you're saying, maybe "don't grasp" is an understatement. Either that, or you simply can't stomach the fact that the moderation team operates under a different set of rules than yours, which isn't really something you can change unless you decide to just go along with it... In any case, insults, accusations, or slander are all treated with the same level of severity, regardless of where a user falls on the political spectrum.
Now, the thing you're failing to see—or perhaps you're just trolling, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you genuinely don't get it—is that calling someone a "thief" isn't the same weight as labeling them a radical extremist... unfortunately, we're powerless to change that distinction. It's the same as if you didn't realize it's not the same thing to smear the entire American left for cooperating with a neighboring country—which, mind you, the right does as well—as it is to accuse a man who writes moving pieces about historical villains, attacks our first President for rejecting those ideologies, and is being framed as a young radical...
So, the principle is there, and the answer is pretty clear; the real issue is whether you like the answer or not. No, you can't claim that Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris are sympathizers of radical extremism... discussing the specific post you're complaining about is pointless because it generalizes the whole American left. If someone actually makes their sympathies for those extremist movements clear, then sure, you can call them out for it. It's actually quite straightforward...
You’re either genuinely confused by all this, or you’re just playing dumb, though I suppose at this point, there isn't much of a difference... Anyway, just as "thieves" and "militants" weren't the same thing in your previous example, calling someone an "extremist" versus a "war criminal" in the independent United States doesn't carry the same weight in the Republic of America... Pizvo has already laid out most of the reasoning behind that.
Regardless, like I told you before—context is everything. I’ve handed out 500 points and permanent bans for much more explicit "opinions" regarding the old regime, including one guy who got labeled "Pavelić's baby" on the community board.
And if I take the liberty of drawing my own conclusion here—no, it wouldn't be trolling to say that Hasanbegović is an extremist, and he really only has himself to blame for that reputation. If someone in America were to support a radical insurgent movement, it wouldn't be trolling to call them a supporter of that movement too. However, getting to that point requires much more than just international cooperation or talk about helping Mexico join the European Union—especially when you consider how the President, representing a sort of center-right faction (since both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party basically sit in the middle), is cozying up to someone with some pretty clear ties to those old radical groups... which doesn't necessarily make her a sympathizer herself, of course.