Posts by lonebadger6

Nathan Brooks4 said:I'm dealing with the exact same thing here.
Honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to say the ban was completely baseless, but there's really no explaining it to Bradley Sanders4 since she just refuses to see it—and now the administration is acting like they have the right to ban someone just for having an opinion.

My bad, on that immigration thread you actually picked up two (not one, my mistake) 35-point infractions. One of those combined with your old stuff from the other boards ended up landing you that three-day ban.

Look, our goal isn't to wipe people out or hand out bans for sport. Honestly, I handed out three yellow cards today to users who probably deserved a full red card—which would have triggered an immediate ban—but instead, I gave them a warning and a private message to dial back the rhetoric... if they keep pushing it, well, that’s on them, I guess.

Take today's comment about the American Government as a case in point... it wasn't because that user is "worse" than anyone else, just because it's a clear example. They called the administration "vile scum, even worse than the Mexicans," which obviously isn't allowed here. After being asked to tone it down, they changed it to calling the move by the Government "shameful and disgusting." That's a massive difference, and it's perfectly fine. We aren't banning opinions... we're just policing the way people choose to express them, which seems pretty standard...

Bradley White73, well, all the better for you... 😉 My point is that nobody’s opinion is actually banned—you see plenty of sharp takes here, but as long as they follow basic civilized standards and aren't fueled by hate, they stay, regardless of what some moderator might think about them. You've got 41 posts and you've only been flagged once for "trolling" or maybe just being a bit too blunt when messing with someone else on the forum—not that we need to debate that right now, since there's an actual process for appealing warnings—but you haven't been hit once for simply having an opinion 🙂

Benjamin Reyes52 — sorry, I'm not sure if I can pull that specific number up even if I wanted to (unless I manually count through all 330 pages 😁), maybe the admins can see it, but who knows. All I can tell you is that there are currently 6,604 comments posted here.

That isn't an immigration issue; it’s a matter of "human character." That’s exactly why those specific links aren't allowed here. If crime rates spike in certain countries like Sweden because they're taking in more asylum seekers, that’s a whole different beast—it's way more nuanced than just saying, "they arrived, and now there's more crime because that's just who they are," but we aren't going to get into all that here... still, things like this don't get deleted; they're a perfectly normal part of the conversation.

The fact that one guy (who might have nothing to do with this current wave of immigrants, maybe he's an asylum seeker from Africa who's been here ten years, or who knows, some people were saying he's mentally unstable) attacked someone with a knife... leaving that up in this context only serves to stir up panic and make people think "the killers are coming."

There have been crimes committed by Americans in Germany, too. I doubt anyone would appreciate it if German forums started a movement to ban us from entering Germany just to prevent those kinds of crimes...

By the way, regarding all this whining about "censorship" and people being silenced from expressing different views...

Maria Booth has 81 posts on this thread, and only one got flagged

Bradley White73 started this whole thing with 41 posts, and he’s only been flagged once

Nathan Brooks4 has 33 posts, with just one flag to his name

When we talk about trolling, there’s really only one other way to categorize this kind of post: hate speech (and I already laid out why singling people out just to send a certain "message" falls squarely into that category)... so if you're looking to bump that 30 up to 500 points, just let me know.

That link of yours isn't an opinion; it’s just a blatant violation of the moderator warning posted only a few threads ago, especially since even some users who are, to put it bluntly, "anti-immigrant" have actually called for people to stop posting links to nonsense that just dilutes the discussion.

But I can spell it out for you if you need. What's the actual point of that link? What are you trying to prove? That every single asylum seeker is violent? You really think that's the only crime story coming out of Germany today... as if there hasn't been a single German, white, Christian committing a murder, a rape, or a stabbing there yesterday or today...

So, yeah, that link is just trolling. For both reasons...

No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

Not at all, I don't take it personally 😁
Ali if you ever worked as a moderator, you know firsthand that a post like can land you a serious warning 😉 Ryan Vaughn7 was pretty chill, so he didn't really hand out any penalties 🙂

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The latest example from Policy 🍿

Let’s play a little game, shall we... let's pretend I'm the moderator of this politics forum just so I can walk you through how I’d handle things, along with my reasoning (it doesn't matter if I moderate somewhere else; here I'm just a user, and there I'm just a user, so feel free to play along)...

0. Taking everything that follows into account, I actually agree with what Ryan Vaughn7 did, because honestly, you all brought this on yourselves. From the very jump, the thread wasn't normal, wasn't argued, and lacked any kind of actual quality discussion.

But, let's say it hadn't been locked.

1. The whole thing kicked off because of some banal comment by a man claiming women are more intelligent. It was a pretty stupid take, but calling it outright misandry is a massive stretch. Comparing it to skin color is completely off base, but I won't dive too deep into that, since the point isn't the opening post, but rather how I would have moderated it.
I'd agree that the Morning somewhat misanthropic headline is basically misandrist—though really, it's less about misandry and more just pure stupidity...

2. Morgan Rodriguez57 gets a custom 100 points for trolling, commenting on moderation, and being intentionally obtuse since they know they shouldn't be doing that (there's a separate thread for those kinds of comments).

3. dernakamal gets 30 points for trolling/off-topic posts.

4. Whatever anyone personally thinks about Hap's post—it's fine.

5. Jesse Cook4 -- deletion and a yellow card.

6. dernakamal—this is where you start seeing why the thread needs to be shut down; an unargued claim.

7. surround—all good.

8. Jesse Cook4—confirming there is absolutely no appetite, not just from him, but generally, for even attempting a normal, reasoned debate on this topic.

Ryan Vaughn7 simply took the shortcut and closed the thread without handing out a few deserved cards, which means certain people, especially Morgan Rodriguez57, got off easy. There you have it 🙂

Zachary Turner6 said:I think it's pretty obvious who the "nostalgics" are in these discussions.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a very awkward spot. I suspect they feel much like feminists did a century ago—viewed as oddities, weaklings, or just targets for ridicule. There is almost no organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. And they do it however they can—usually bluntly and without much tact—but that shouldn't be an excuse to shut down the conversation entirely.

I’d love for you to share your thoughts on those who are "blunt and tactless" (and I think you know exactly which user I’m referring to 😉)—has he ever made you wonder if he hates women, or have you, as a woman participating in the debate, ever felt uncomfortable because of him?

On top of everything else, they have to navigate a minefield of stereotypes, the most problematic being the narrative surrounding the prevalence of violence against women. A social climate has been engineered where discussing any male-centric issues is seen as distasteful unless the issue of violence against women is resolved first. It’s become the go-to "argument" used to stall any attempt by men to point out what bothers them. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic regarding men. And honestly, that issue is massively overstated if you look strictly at official statistics. I have to admit, even I was surprised by the scale of it; we aren't just talking about minor statistical padding here, but figures that are gargantuan in scope. Now, maybe that isn't an exaggeration, but it shouldn't be an issue to ask how those numbers are actually derived.

I want to ask lonebadger6 (and the rest of the moderators): if someone claims "a woman is beaten every 15 minutes in America," and they are met dozens of times with Department of Justice statistics regarding domestic violence cases—which are, at the very least, dozens of times lower (even counting reported cases, not just convictions)—and that person keeps doubling down on those claims, will that be treated as trolling in future threads? Specifically, the scenario where a person "isn't intentionally lying, but continues to state the same thing after it has been repeatedly and logically refuted"? Those are quotes from lonebadger6 earlier in this discussion.
If we start punishing people for "speculating on victim counts" (which, frankly, we should—because even if it were only 100 women a year falling victim to domestic violence in the US, that would still be a massive crisis requiring a serious response), then IMO, we should also be punishing those who intentionally weaponize false numbers. Doing so doesn't just demonize men; it insults the actual victims of domestic violence.

The whole Pay-gap issue has been dissected from statistical and methodological angles more times than I can count; if someone looks at the raw data—which shows that women globally earn less than men (an undeniable fact)—and somehow manages to conclude that "women are paid less FOR THE SAME WORK" (a purely arbitrary leap in logic), then I honestly don't think it's an insult to tell them their take has zero connection to statistics, logic, economics, or even basic common sense.
Personally, I’ve spent several massive essays explaining why that specific interpretation is logically flawed and economically baseless (if not outright impossible). And, of course, it isn't just me—it’s not even just other users here (including women like briskotter13, ChienSaintHubber, and many others), but also very serious economists and mathematical experts.

Are there "women's issues" regarding employment and the economy? Of course there are. We’ve debated some of them: hiring trends for young women, how pregnant employees are treated, getting young mothers back into the workforce, social discrimination against women in certain sectors... these are all legitimate problems. Trying to solve them doesn't help one bit when people constantly peddle falsehoods and illogical claims.

And will such claims be dismissed as mere trolling if they lack any actual argument beyond "that's just how it is," "I heard it somewhere," "I read it online," "you just don't get it and you hate women," or my personal favorite, "my neighbor's husband's sister once told me..."?

I was wondering how this even gets passed through, but reading this forum makes it clearer. It's not just that unproven numbers are released into the public sphere, but any attempt at criticism is immediately labeled as misogyny. Because apparently, that’s just "something we all know." These widely accepted untruths and "creative facts" form the foundation of every discussion regarding gender relations. In reality, it feels impossible to touch upon any topic regarding men's vulnerabilities without starting from the premise of creating a negative public attitude toward men (violence, the pay gap, the patriarchy). I believe this is one of the main reasons why the moderators hesitate to open threads about men—they worry about it spiraling out of control. If the issue is the breadth of the topic, maybe it's better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas—which were reached through lobbying by feminist groups—without mentioning the reasons those quotas exist? To me, quotas are just another major evil that feeds into political favoritism and nepotism.

Exactly. It is incredibly difficult to talk about quotas without touching upon the OFFICIAL excuses that necessitated them in the first place.
In logic, you cannot attack a conclusion without attacking either the premises or the method used to derive those conclusions from them.

I would love for a thread about men to be opened, with a formal invitation sent to federal equality institutions and NGOs to participate in the debate. I would truly love to hear them explain the data that everyone is supposedly expected to "just know" without verification. And let it be a debate where users aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and, above all, provided a mathematical and statistical explanation for what they are advocating. Just as there are male trolls, women haven't been lacking in throwing around various platitudes without the need to actually discuss or answer perfectly sensible questions.

Thanks, briskotter13. 🙂
It’s always a bit easier when a woman writes this stuff.

It's true that male trolls exist, and there are certainly misogynistic users on similar topics. As for me, and briskotter13 as well, we are simply interested in whether female and male trolls will be punished equally.
I genuinely enjoy debating topics with someone like north wind—we usually keep things incredibly civil, and honestly, we even enjoy to 😍—but when it comes to subjects like this, her arguments almost always devolve into condescension. It’s the usual "you have no clue," "do some reading," followed by endless facepalming, sipping coffee, and, quite frankly, insulting her interlocutors.
It seems whenever BadPig makes a joke in a much more harmless way or just wants to "grab a coffee," he gets hit with warnings EVERY SINGLE TIME without fail.
And when ZgSash loses his cool after a few posts like that—not at north wind specifically, but just in general—becoming rude or crude, he gets banned.

As for the guys—look, I’m not saying anyone should escape consequences if they deserve them. Quite the opposite! If they break the rules and undermine the discussion, they ought to be penalized. My only point is that it would be fair if the agitators and trolls on the "other side" were treated with the same level of scrutiny.

I remember back in the day, even Eugen C., who is a moderator now, had a style of discourse that nearly brushed against what you'd expect from a pillar of society, just positioned on the other side of the barricade. (Not a complaint about Eugen, mind you—he’s a dear 😉).

Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a regular user here, not as a moderator over in Politics, so my influence on this is exactly the same as yours... 🙂
Generally, I agree that any kind of number-padding should be penalized. I recently posted over in the Attorney General thread that I personally think we should penalize both those who deny the horrors of Jasenovac by citing negligible or insulting figures and those who claim there were 700,000 victims...
The same logic applies here.

The pay-gap is a bit more complicated, at least from where I'm sitting. The media constantly pushes the idea that women earn less on average without providing any real context, so I suspect most users reaching for that argument aren't acting out of malice or trolling, but genuinely believe it's true. Though, I highly doubt anyone actually thinks the levels of physical violence between genders are comparable...

briskotter13 said:Regarding the off-topic section, I viewed this thread as a space where we can offer suggestions to the Attorney General, who seems unsure about how to handle this herself. But she needs to figure it out, because I’m increasingly seeing men push back against female privileges. Sure, some are just nostalgic for the "good old days," but we shouldn't dismiss legitimate, reasoned arguments just because of that.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a tough spot. Honestly, I think they feel exactly how feminists felt a century ago—treated like oddities or weaklings, mocked and ridiculed. There isn't really an organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. They do it however they can, often bluntly or without much tact, but that shouldn't stop the conversation from happening.

To make matters worse, they have to fight through endless stereotypes, especially the one regarding the sheer scale of violence against women. It feels like our society has created a climate where discussing any male issues is considered distasteful until the issue of violence against women is fully resolved. That’s the "trump card" used to shut down any man trying to point out what bothers him. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic related to men. And frankly, if you look strictly at official statistics, that issue is being blown way out of proportion. I have to admit, I was surprised by the scale; we aren't talking about slightly inflated numbers here, but massive, astronomical discrepancies. Maybe that's not an exaggeration, but wanting to know how those numbers are calculated shouldn't be treated as a problem.

I wondered how this gets away with it, but reading this forum makes it clear. It’s not just that unverified figures are released into the public square; it’s that any attempt at criticism is immediately branded as misogyny. Why? Because apparently, "everyone knows" it's true. These widely accepted falsehoods and "creative truths" form the bedrock of every debate on gender relations. In reality, it’s impossible to touch on the vulnerability of men without first addressing the foundation: the creation of a negative public perception of men (violence, Pay-gap, patriarchy). I believe this is exactly why the moderation team hesitates to open threads about men—they worry about things spiraling out of control. If the scope is the problem, maybe it’s better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas resulting from feminist lobbying without mentioning the root causes of those quotas? To me, that looks like just another major evil fueled by political cronyism and nepotism.

I would love to see a dedicated thread on men opened here, followed by a formal invitation to federal equality institutions and various NGOs to join the discussion. I truly want to hear them explain the data points that we are supposedly expected to take on faith without questioning. I envision a debate where forum members aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and provided mathematical or statistical evidence for their claims. Just as there are male trolls, women can be just as bad, throwing out empty platitudes instead of actually engaging with sensible questions.

Even though this is slightly off-topic, I just wanted to weigh in for a second—you probably didn't mean to be so vague, because saying "men who point out gender discrimination" is such a broad generalization that it ends up sounding kind of ridiculous. It’s like Americans complaining about Americans being discriminated against in America... or Catholics. Discrimination is a heavy, serious issue, and you can't just throw the word around every time someone feels slighted by some minor inconvenience.

Now, when we're talking about individual cases—like when a single person deals with actual bias or violence, or when it hits a specific life stage, say, parenting—that's a different conversation entirely. Though even in those instances, the mockery likely comes more from other men, which is really just leftover baggage from patriarchal times. I suspect if a man speaks up about being physically abused by a woman, he'll face more ridicule from certain men than from women...

But it would be totally pointless, if not downright rude (and subject to being flagged under site rules), for anyone to claim that physical violence rates are identical, or that women are the primary aggressors. Using arguments like, "Well, 350 women were victims last year, so what do you have to say to that!" is useless unless you can provide one specific example of a man being victimized...

briskotter13 said:You can't possibly draw that conclusion from what follows.

I don't see much beauty in arguing with people who already agree with me. I'm also not sure how a debunked lie actually ruins a debate. That only happens with lies we don't have the facts to counter. At that point, you really have to ask yourself if it was even a lie to begin with.

Vague terms that lack clear definitions usually exist just to serve a specific purpose. Sure, misogyny and misandry are real things, but people rarely agree on how to identify them. This means someone gets slapped with one of those labels and is left standing there completely bewildered by the accusation. I have to admit, I’ve been there myself—back when I was discussing gender quotas, someone immediately tried to diagnose me with "rationalization squirrel."

That’s the thing—since there isn't one clear definition, everyone just makes up their own. Where you see misogyny, I don't see it at all. And I'm sure it works the other way around, too. My point was that any viewpoint which discourages men from speaking openly about their struggles feels like patriarchy to me. In fact, it could be seen as misogyny because it treats me like someone who needs to be shielded from reality. People are all different, and there are just as many definitions for these terms as there are people.

I see it differently. Nowadays, the term "patriarchy" is defined exclusively as a negative concept. Yet, within that system, men have built many things that women benefited from, some created specifically for women's well-being. Perhaps a user repeats these points simply as a defense against the aggressive stereotype that patriarchy is solely a system designed to oppress women for the benefit of men. Repeating it countless times might just be a reaction to being attacked by that exact logic, not just here, but in much more serious arenas.
We are back to the subjective perception of misogyny again.

Now you're really moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter how many times someone says something if it's true. However, if it's a falsehood, even one instance in the public eye is too many. It needs to be corrected regardless of context, otherwise, we fall into the trap where repeated lies become perceived truths. Some falsehoods are repeated so often that what are we supposed to do? Punish the person who keeps pointing out the problem?

That last sentence highlights the awkward problem I mentioned earlier: there is nothing left to explain because everything is already "known."
Let's look at what is "known." If statistics from last year showed that 350 women were assaulted and recorded, am I asking if those numbers are large or small? Philosophically and humanly, even one victim is too many. Statistically, however, it represents fractions of a percent. That sounds small. Regardless, it shouldn't be enough to make "man" and "violence" synonymous. So, multiply that number by 90, and you get the reality: a woman was assaulted every 15 minutes. I don't have a specific reason for using 90, but it doesn't require a detailed explanation.
If some eccentric guy hits those same numbers but only casts women in the lead roles, everyone immediately screams misogyny.

So what’s the connection? That’s like saying a debate on immigration turned into chaos just because the conservatives showed up—or the liberals, it doesn't matter. People are going to argue using whatever logic they think holds water. If you can't find a solid counterargument for any reason, that isn't his fault; it's yours.

Dorian replied to your question. This topic is pretty provocative, and honestly, that’s the only reason it can exist at all—otherwise, it wouldn't even be a conversation. Personally, I’m all for keeping it on the table.

Women-focused NGO sites are constantly churning out articles like this, often getting their funding indirectly through government institutions. I’m not saying there’s necessarily a problem with that, but we have to remember that Forum.hr is a private platform with its own set of rules. Let's not be hypocrites and go looking for flaws in someone else's backyard when our own house is far from perfect.

The real issue often lies in how "insulting" is defined rather than what was actually said. But I've already made my point. Personal insults don't get under my skin. 🙂

I'll give it a read.

Impressions depend on the context. Forum.hr ended up in annual reports from government agencies, and not in a good way, which isn't great for the owner. Around that time, moderators appeared who are much better at spotting politically incorrect statements. But I'll take your word for it. If it doesn't matter to me, then fine—if it gives you satisfaction, that's your business.

😁 Look, just because I disagree with something here and there, or felt the need to chime in on a certain point, doesn't mean I actually think the post is stupid...

I don't see much point in arguing with people who already agree with me... I just don't get how a debunked lie can completely derail a conversation, unless it's one of those lies where we don't even have a counterargument ready, and then you really have to wonder if it was even a lie to begin with...

That part was specifically referring to that final, desperate line about "wasting everyone's time with futile efforts." Look, it’s one thing when someone spreads misinformation because they genuinely believe it’s true... even if they're doing it on purpose, we can't exactly read minds. But once you've presented them with the actual facts and they just ignore the correction to keep peddling the same lie... well, that’s how you kill a conversation. Take the whole debate over immigration, for instance; nobody was penalized the first time someone dropped a link claiming "refugees are rejecting aid because the Red Cross logo is on the boxes." Not the first person, not even the first five. But after it was debunked several times, the moderators stepped in with warnings to stop spreading it, then started deleting posts, and once people kept doubling down anyway... that's when the real penalties kicked in...

That also means someone accused of being a misogynist or a misandrist will often find themselves staring at a wall in total confusion once they've been slapped with that label...

Just because someone’s acting shocked doesn't mean there's actually anything worth being surprised about... 🙂 Some immigrants actually wonder why people are xenophobic toward them, when all they ever say is that everyone is an ISIS member, and we’ll just have to wait a few years until they start clcetting us because apparently "they" are born with knives in their hands...

Now you’re really starting to play the relativism card...

I shortened the quote since it actually covers two whole paragraphs. Numbers are always tricky, and people can pull all sorts of data points that end up being totally wrong... but that wasn't even my point. I was talking about those claims that domestic violence against women doesn't exist or that the rates of women being violent toward men are exactly the same. I still don't think this needs further explanation—and I'm certainly not going to dive into it here, since we're discussing moderation and the general policy of Forum.hr, not the specifics of violence against women or men...

And what does that have to do with anything...

It matters. I’ve already explained why more than a few times... The Forum.hr administration just doesn't want a thread where there isn't an actual debate, only people venting their intolerance toward women—or honestly, anyone, for that matter. You see a ton of hostility in the immigration threads too, but you also find plenty of actually decent posts...

Dorian already answered this one... the topic is provocative, which is pretty much the only reason it exists at all, and honestly, I'm all for keeping it alive.

Me too. I'd say Dorian just phrased things a bit clumsily, though I suspect the Forum.hr administration isn't actually saying "this can't be a topic," they're more like "we won't allow topics this blunt"...

Insults don't bother me 🙂

Again, that's fine. They don't bother me either, but I actually appreciate that Forum.hr is trying to be a place where that kind of stuff is banned, since the internet is already drowning in sites that exist solely for that purpose... anyone looking to vent their frustrations by attacking others has plenty of other options out there...

The rest was way too off-topic anyway, so there's no point in us debating the subject here—not that you went off-topic, I'm just as responsible for it, we just have to eventually stop 😁)

Zachary Turner6 - same here, we're totally off-topic now, damn it. I read 😉

Stay out of it, we're just on a forum 🙂

We’re speaking in generalities here, obviously, though everything really depends on the specific context. If "felixx" just drops a link to some bizarre study, then sure, it’s trolling and misogyny, especially since he’s posted about 875 things like that so far. But if it isn't that kind of case, there’s no point in punishing someone just because they assumed a link was accurate when it wasn't. Though, usually, it isn't even that hard to tell if someone is being malicious or if they simply... don't know. Just a quick note regarding the specific example—differences in IQ between men and women in the general population do exist. And superficial studies will typically show men are more intelligent because they're being measured within a certain "similar" population. The actual truth is that men are more "spread out." To put it very simply: if you imagine 100 men and 100 women, the men will have 10 "geniuses" and 10 "idiots," while everyone else hovers around the average, whereas the women will have 5 "geniuses" and 5 "idiots."

Besides, that's a trivial study with trivial data. There's no doubt plenty of women have incredibly high IQs. So what’s actually the point of that link in a discussion about gender? That "we" are smarter than "them"? No. It’s a completely trivial fact that says nothing about the capability of a gender, let alone an individual. And there’s a good chance anyone bringing it up in a gender debate is doing it maliciously (and probably isn't one of the smarter ones either)...

On your second point, you're right, I caricatured things quite a bit and went overboard. But the content itself points toward that. What was the point of mentioning Varga and Cacic? I'm not saying it was malicious, but that's where this type of discussion leads. Tirello said something sexist. Period. To me personally (and I don't think I'm alone in this, not by a long shot), mentioning how "men immediately jump in when a man speaks..." makes it sound like the bigger issue is that they jumped in, rather than the fact that they aren't jumping in now. It's pandering to low impulses right in the introduction. Then the topic stops being "this politician said something sexist" and turns into "men are under attack, everyone is treating us unfairly." To me, it feels very similar—and the relationship isn't all that different—to when "hardline nationalists" start whining that certain minority groups have more rights than they do in America.

(I'm not trying to say women are oppressed, nor am I suggesting any minority group is oppressed, not in the slightest. But for a variety of reasons, it's incredibly tasteless to claim women are privileged in American society /they might be in terms of parenting, but that's mostly true everywhere in the world and was true even back when they didn't have the right to vote and were expected to stay in the kitchen and wash the dishes/.)

It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that this is an old statement. This didn't happen yesterday, causing a sudden scandal; this was an interview from February.

Finally, if we want to get into the weeds—those three statements (Cacic, Varga, Tirello) aren't even comparable. Tirello's comment was more stupid than it was sexist. That study was recently all over various media outlets, mostly just trivial stuff. What I find saddest about the whole thing is seeing someone so, hm, "simple" holding relatively high political offices. Not that it's anything new for us. It sounds like a comment from a teenager on Facebook. But it is based on actual research. Varga and Cacic made overtly sexist remarks. Especially Cacic. Varga came off as a bit foolish—a sexist remark, sure, but essentially benign. Cacic had a very serious sexist outburst; behind a seemingly simple sentence lies deep-seated sexism.

briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

briskotter13 said:Political correctness is going to kill free thought and free speech. What’s being shoved down our throats today under the guise of fighting misogyny is crossing all lines of good taste, and in a way, it’s just driving a wedge between men and women. For some people, any sexual interaction is automatically labeled as rape or misogyny. Luckily, our moderators don't fall into that category, though they occasionally have a pretty bizarre sense of what counts as misogyny. Statements can simply be lies or truths. I actually love it when my opponent lies. A few solid arguments and the debate is over. Seeing them persist in useless attempts just makes me smile more.
The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth that we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's where terms like misogyny and misandry come in—they act as tools for people in dominant social positions to silence their opponents.
On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't considered politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.
We can't just label everything we don't want to hear as misogyny. And look, I don't always use the prettiest language. When a user says most inventions came from the male side, that isn't misogyny; it's a fact. On the flip side, is claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes misandry? Because Department of Justice statistics show an interval closer to 90 minutes. Is it misandry or a lie to say there were 75 rapes last year, while estimating that only one in 15 cases was reported because of false accusations against men? Is it misandry or a lie to claim a Pay-gap exists by grouping everyone from CEOs to students into the same bucket?
We can't allow sweeping generalizations on one hand, but we also can't hide the truth on the other. Why shouldn't we be able to speak? Because I see this behavior as a direct insult to me as a woman—an insult to my ability to defend myself and stand as an equal. Sorry, moderators, but what you're doing is patriarchy in its worst form. Tomorrow, women will hold 40% of political offices, and eventually, educated women will shift the ratio of men to women in leadership roles. Will you still try to protect us like we're fragile little children, even when we're wrong, lying, or causing harm? Are you implying that because we're women, we're always the weaker, more delicate ones, and any criticism is misogyny? Are you trying to tell us we're less intelligent or capable?
Don't do us any favors. We are more than capable of defending ourselves against lies and accepting uncomfortable truths. Let men say what's bothering them. Let them vent. If we don't, we might miss vital issues that we'll regret later. Even if they're being offensive, I want to understand the root of those negative feelings so I can try to help fix whatever is eating at people. Okay, this isn't a psychology sub-forum, but here in politics, conflicting views are respected. That is the whole point of a forum—different opinions and the debates they spark. I've learned a lot from banned users. I had no idea how powerful the media is and how easily "untouchable truths" are forced upon us. If you dig beneath some of these narratives, you find very ugly, dirty lies.

I get the impression that with these topics, the moderator's main job isn't managing verbal sparring, but rather making sure they don't miss any "politically incorrect" statements—even when they aren't entirely sure what those look like themselves. You never know when someone might jump down your throat for it, so it's easier to just nip the thread in the bud. It ensures a peaceful night's sleep for the moderators, but it's terrible for gender relations and actually understanding the complex power dynamics in today's world.

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

In principle, you're spot on, but the issue is that this specific way of arguing frames feminism as the dominant ideology in American and global society, which eventually spirals into misogyny and turns into nothing more than a festival of pure hatred toward women...

Just as people would be called out if they claimed the U.S. Government was racist, xenophobic, or Nazi, suggesting we live in a feminist utopia where men are being persecuted is really just a slightly less loud form of trolling...

There are certain areas of life where women face disadvantages, and there are certainly, quite clearly, areas where men are left behind too. Why discussions about women's struggles thrive here while topics regarding men's setbacks never seem to gain traction—well, that’s a question the Forum.hr administration isn't interested in answering...

You've put together a very high-quality, well-argued post, so I highly doubt you need me to explain that there is no conspiracy against men on Forum.hr, though I'm sure even a superficial glance at a topic from "each side" would give you the answer...

🤦 Did you pick up the seventh-grade textbooks yet? 🤦

Joseph Bailey41 said:@ Laura Chavez93, you’re a feminist and I’m a masculinist, so I think we actually see eye to eye on a few things. 😬

@ stormyraven14: I get what you're saying. It just doesn't make sense to me why certain people aren't slapped with a permanent ban or blacklisted, yet some legal expert gets banned just for daring to speculate about Dorian's sexual orientation. Honestly, I don't really care who is sleeping with whom. My main issue is that there shouldn't be any sacred cows here—hate speech needs to be called out immediately and dealt with properly.

@ lonebadger6: I don't really watch TV, so I doubt we have much left to chat about. Sorry about that.

You don't get much of anything, let alone this. You clearly haven't noticed that people actually *do* get flagged and banned, though you haven't given anyone any reason to think they wouldn't be...

There’s plenty of stuff highlighted in this thread; everything you need is right there in front of you, and you've already had your answers. The Attorney General isn't here to hold everyone's hand and explain things that are perfectly obvious, whether you find them confusing because you're bored or for some other reason...

stormyraven14 - look, you actually get it. You should just start a thread... why not?
The thing is, when threads are set up this way, it inevitably triggers these kinds of arguments.
Just open a discussion about this very real issue without having the opening post basically scream, "if a man said this, everyone would lose their minds," or "this place is a women-only zone where men are oppressed," and so on...
A thread without all that baggage might MAYBE be a little easier to moderate...

But some people still aren't catching on. It’s pointless to keep moderating a thread where 90 or 95 percent of the participants are just being misogynistic. If you can only find two or three posts over three pages that actually stick to the topic instead of using it as an excuse to bash women, then there’s no sense in expecting those two or three posts to somehow stop the endless cycle of deleting and banning trolls and haters. It just means the thread hasn't really taken off—other than as a troll magnet, which we usually shut down. If a topic actually gains traction in a meaningful way, rather than just through the stuff we've clearly banned, then we’d be talking about something else entirely...

stormyraven14 said:@Joseph Bailey41, I generally agree with you—don't get me wrong—but look, this specific quote of yours is ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, the starting point for any "debate" regarding gender inequality that actually includes men in the conversation.

Some guy like mistyjackal14 swoops in, and suddenly red alerts go off the second anyone mentions, say, professional feminists.

I'd bet anything that I could write out the next seven or eight (pretty long) posts from this mistyjackal14 guy, depending on which part of his off-topic rant someone decided to latch onto.

I actually wanted to have a real discussion about this once; there wasn't much interest in the Women's Corner, except for the usual group, and over in the politics section, it was the exact same thing every single time—just those five guys rambling indignantly about feminists or whatever other nonsense term they managed to come up with... 🙂🙂🙂

Mods, I really hope you can find some way, any way, to clear out this weeds... because this topic matters. Especially when we're talking about divorce, custody, and asset division—it feels like certain types of discrimination are actually supported by the system, or at least by the individuals who represent it. It’s incredibly frustrating that because of a handful of haters, we haven't been able to have a productive conversation about such an important issue for over a year and a half... 😢

Exactly.

No need for moderation, besides, the rest isn't really our concern...🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:Good grief, you guys have everything at your disposal—warnings, bans, suspensions, the whole nine yards. If you’re going to police hate speech, at least do it with some actual consistency. It seems like it’s much easier to hand out bans and wipes whenever someone’s backside gets called out. You become lightning fast at hitting the delete button just to scrub any evidence of the fallout.

It’s your job to moderate, which really means steering the conversation so it doesn't spiral out of control. I get that it's tough; it’s definitely not a role for everyone... but maybe take a beat, talk it over, and think before acting. Let's try to avoid more of these ridiculous situations. 👍

Which specific part of this isn't clicking for you?

closing a thread is just another moderator tactic, and it's pretty much been the only thing that actually works in situations like this. Just like how on Reddit, after two tries, they had to lock down the immigration threads because users simply wouldn't stop spiraling into xenophobia, racism, fascism, and straight-up personal attacks, similar threads on Politics have always been shut down once people started using "men's rights" as a thin veil to spew hatred toward women.

Let me break it down for you...

What Dorian was making crystal clear is that none of those tools—the warnings, the bans, the whole circus—actually work if a thread is destined to turn into total chaos regardless. Whether it's misogyny, xenophobia, racism, or whatever else...

If 90% of the people interested in a topic are acting like reasonable adults, then getting rid of that toxic 10% is easy...
But there are certain topics where 90% of the posts are complete garbage, and at that point, the tools, the warnings, the bans, and the three hundred other tricks don't mean a thing. There’s really no point in trying to delete 90% of the posts or banning 90% of the users in a single thread... I shouldn't even have to explain why that's a losing battle. So, if—and I'm speaking generally here, not about any one specific instance—after all the warnings, the temporary locks, the pleas, and the appeals, a thread is still just veering in one forbidden direction, then there's really no reason to keep it open...

So, regarding this specific "problem," the issue is really just that they were getting aid from the same boxes, whether it was coming from the Red Cross or just regular people... They weren't taking anything from government agencies, because well, that’s just how they feel about them.