Look, Jason Campbell70, are you actually making a point here or just trolling? It’s hilarious how the liberals suddenly go silent on this one, yet they won't stop spewing their usual garbage. ☕
Well, I'll weigh in on the video... Duhacek really needs to do something about that level of stupidity; it's getting ridiculous. At this rate, he'll have a heart attack just from reading all this.
Well, if they just went ahead and euthanized them all—exactly how some people here seem to suggest I would—I don't think we'd ever actually get to that point.🙂 (responding to redbear12)
Jack Cook7 said:As far as I can tell, Željka Markić has never called for anything like "kill the faggot."
In our culture, "faggot" is an insult just like any other racial slur. People have lost their heads over being called those names in the past. No one is claiming that one specific slur is different from another when people start swinging punches—when the insults start flying, nobody is picking and choosing which ones hurt more.
That's just how it is.
"Clerical fascist" or "Catholic fanatic" are the exact same kind of insults. So why isn't that kind of verbal attack treated with the same weight?
Well, it is treated that way. There are plenty of examples where people are publicly insulted with both terms, but nothing happens because nobody bothers to sue. If someone calls you a clerical fascist in public, you have the right to sue for defamation, just like I would if someone called me a "[slur]." But then again, no one is going to step up and file a lawsuit on your behalf, or mine.
The initiative is a group formed specifically to incite hatred against LGBTQ+ people.
And how would you label calling people clerical fascists or "cathotalibans"?
In everything those activists said, I found all of the bolded parts.
I agree with the sentiment, and if Željka Markić tries to push this through the courts as hate speech, well, good luck to her. Calling someone a clerical fascist or a Catholic Taliban is an insult; it might be hate speech, or it might not, but it’s definitely an insult. It's the same deal with slurs—that's an insult too (even if we don't need to get into that right now). Basically, both could be sued as insults, though whether they qualify as hate speech on their own is debatable. Whereas saying something like "kill the [slur]" or "kill the Catholic Taliban" is clearly hate speech.
Jack Cook7 said:So, who actually did what? Who’s accusing whom of spreading hate, and who filed that defamation lawsuit? And who exactly is this OVA?
Sorry I didn't recall Željka Markić's name right away. Believe it or not, she isn't exactly a major player in my life.
Jack Cook7 said:And who exactly is the one spreading hate, slander, and disinformation here? Who’s actually manipulating things and playing dirty?
I honestly think the courts will be the ones making the final call here. If you’re asking me, this whole association is just a group of frontrunners using disinformation and hate speech to push their agenda. But that's just my take—if this even goes to trial at all, since I suspect this is just another blatant attempt to grab headlines and shift the focus elsewhere.That's why I'm done responding here; I'm just not giving them any more of my attention....
Jack Cook7 said:Will the American legal system finally put an end to this endless cycle of public insults and insinuations? Is there any hope that our courts will actually protect citizens from the terror of certain individuals?
I don't see any of this in the activists' statements: "...with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic hatred, or skin color or sexual orientation-based hate, or to disparage, publicly express or convey notions of superiority or inferiority regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, nation, or notions of superiority or inferiority based on skin color, sexual orientation, or other traits..." I think there's a real shot at a defamation lawsuit here, which is probably what she's aiming for. The tricky part is that you actually have to prove defamation in court, and once that starts, all sorts of things can come to light—plus, there's always the chance it doesn't even qualify as defamation. So, my gut says this isn't going to lead to anything.
If we define poverty solely by who is actually starving in America, then poverty doesn't exist. But there are people here who skip meals just to make sure their kids can eat something decent. Are they poor? There are also those scouring thrift stores and flea markets because it’s the only way they can afford clothes. Does that count as being poor? And then you have the growing number of people losing their homes and apartments to foreclosures. They might be invisible for now since the numbers are still relatively low, but that trend is definitely heading upward; once entire families are tossed out onto the sidewalk, we’ll end up with an army of the homeless, much like what you see in certain parts of the US.
Looks like we’re diving into the heavy stuff now, so I might as well head down to the Capitol building. Someone should probably let out a scream when the votes start going up.
Great, just what we need! I can already tell this is going to be the most democratic administration in modern American history. If Sixo can't handle the culture department (even though he’s actually polite, so I don't see the issue), please just appoint me as the advisor for Church relations.
And don't go thinking there aren't any other sexual minorities in the government besides you.
The Government has one glaring flaw! Where are the representatives for sexual minorities? For a modern, progressive administration like this one clearly aims to be, such an oversight is practically unacceptable. Since I happen to be a member of the LGBTQ+ community 😁 who spends most of my time writing about politics, I feel entitled to ask for a high-paying, albeit completely useless, position within the administration. I promise to raise my hand every single time they need someone to do it.🙂
Richard Wilson4 said:Why on earth would I, as an American, even need to defend myself regarding the American Civil War?
I believe Michael Oak when he says they were lunging at him. But honestly, even if they weren't, those guys were aggressors. They don't deserve a monument in a country they were trying to tear apart.
What kind of monument? From what I gather, someone just lit some lanterns and tucked some flowers into the bridge railing. Then the folks from the association got worked up and ended up tossing the lanterns and tearing the flowers apart.🤷
stormymoose84 said:Did those insurgent militias even bother following the rules of war back then?
They didn't, but most of us did, which is why we can hold our heads up high—we didn't sink to that animalistic level. There are several different accounts regarding the "Oak Bridge" incident. If prisoners attempted to grab weapons, it’s perfectly logical and expected that Michael Oak would have opened fire; there's nothing controversial about self-defense. However, if anyone just started shooting surrendered prisoners... well, that's a war crime, plain and simple, and people should be held accountable for that. That's exactly why we were never, and will never be, on the same level as those insurgents.
Of course I feel that way; I don't have a second option. I was born here and my roots are planted deep, so even if I ended up living somewhere else, this will always be my home. It’s far from perfect—the political elite are revolting and people treat the laws like mere suggestions—but it's my country, and I don't have any other.
Peter Phillips32 said:Look, I just wanted to jump in here and throw my support behind the mods—they’re doing a solid job trying to civilize this absolute zoo of a forum. 😍
I really don't get how these forum bullies think they can scare people away from certain topics, especially when that's exactly what they're trying to achieve in the first place.
Actually, if anything, this just motivates me more; it's a sign that things are finally moving in the right direction. Whatever they're doing is working, so they might as well keep at it.
I'm still going to stand by the liberal, modern believers while staying firmly against the conservative, fundamentalist, and fanatic types with their backwards, stuck-in-the-past ideas.
And as for the whole thing about people threatening to call the cops just because someone was making fun of Islam... 🤣 Or acting like, "Oh, just wait until I call my crew (which is basically just one tiny little slice of the religious community), then you'll see." 🤣
Sure, maybe, but all of that will eventually end once there are more progressive Muslims around.
[my bold] Yeah, 🥳right, in your wildest dreams. ☕
edit: Muslims aren't a race, so that accusation of racism doesn't even hold water.
Because it’s pointless. Everyone who tries ends up getting baited into an argument and handed a ban, which is clearly the end game. Personally, I just get sent links packed with nothing but biases and falsehoods, often paired with being addressed as "OP" as if I'm not even worthy of a proper username. If I had fired back with links showing those same kinds of prejudices regarding Islam (which are certainly present), there would be a massive uproar here; yet, if I actually reported them, people would start screaming about defending freedom of speech and expression (which has happened before). Just more of the same...
Justin Harris12 said:You are one of the primary examples of what I am complaining about; you only need to look back at your post history to see it. You focus exclusively on Islamic topics while being incredibly sneaky about how you quote and twist people's posts. Sure, you can choose to avoid Islamic threads, but I doubt you'll actually stick to it. As for the moderators, they seem "good" to you only because they leave you alone; you write whatever you want, much like the user Nicholas Williams7, who was penalized tonight specifically because of me—otherwise, he wouldn't have been causing trouble. That’s my point. You, Anthony Perez9, Charles Wells71, Nicholas Williams7, Joe, and a whole bunch of other users think you can get away with anything because Tyler Cruz32 lets you. Personally, I have nothing against this moderator; I haven't met her and she might be a perfectly fine person in real life, but I am complaining about her handling of the Religion subforum, the overall state of that section, and what that subforum is turning into: a playground for anti-religion sentiment and an anti-religious dumping ground.
Posts claiming Muhammad was a pedophile or a murderer, saying Aisha was only six years old, or posting fake images of Muhammad that aren't even him—all of this is just blatant trolling, and it's being permitted simply because of the intolerance toward Muslims.
If the forum rules were actually respected—which is all I'm asking for—none of this would happen. Threads would be cleaner, higher quality, and someone might actually learn something about a religion. I have questions myself, but I don't intend to post them there because I know a handful of people will jump in to spread lies, falsehoods, and insults without facing any consequences.
Before this, I tried to resolve things through the proper channels by talking to the moderator and explaining what's bothering me, but she wouldn't listen. After just two posts, she banned me from further appeals. So, the moderator essentially publicly invites me to complain to the Administrator, but when I actually do it, it's treated like it came completely out of nowhere.
So you're claiming I write whatever I want and never get punished? I say you're making things up because you have an animosity toward me that has nothing to do with my posts and everything to do with something else entirely. If I'm wrong, please provide proof of these supposedly offensive posts. Find one single instance where I insulted someone or broke the forum rules and wasn't penalized!
The pressure being put on the moderators over on the Religion subreddits lately has been intense, and honestly, it’s being directed at some really decent people who don't act entitled at all. I actually stumbled onto the Religion community by accident, but I stayed because the vibe was great—until now. I feel bad about starting that "serieses and non-Muslims" thread; I have zero intention of discussing anything related to Islam ever again, and I’d suggest everyone else does the same, especially since people are now threatening each other with police involvement (if someone had told me that was happening, I wouldn't have believed them).
redbear12 said:On the politics subforum, posts get nuked all the time for various reasons. To let one side finish their argument while preventing the other side from feeling censored or targeted, we could start a deleted posts log. Moderators could just pin it and move the removed content there before they wipe it from the main thread.
Wouldn't that be a nice bit of political correctness that actually keeps everyone happy?☕
I'm in.🎉 It’s basically a museum for broken connections where people can go to mourn their lost posts.😍😍
Justin Harris12 said:So what’s the plan when someone else uploads an avatar that offends you next time? Are you just going to retaliate with another one that hurts everyone else's feelings? If something bothers you, why does it have to be a tit-for-tat situation? 🤷
I honestly think he should have just been asked nicely to take it down. There's really no reason for all this mutual spite; we're adults, not children.
And haven't I? And I'm certainly not alone in thinking that. It just made him dig his heels in. Someone actually suggested he swap it out for a Palestinian flag, but no luck. He's just stubborn and loves being difficult.
Justin Harris12 said:I’m just looking at this objectively. I’m not here to challenge the admin's call; I don't know unknown personally, let alone consider him a friend. From an objective standpoint, if you're going to issue a permanent ban, the user should be someone truly problematic and impossible to integrate—someone who is completely unconstructive.
So, you have people using avatars with messages like "destroy jihad," which is essentially a fight for freedom from occupation according to Islamic belief. Just because some people misunderstand the word "jihad" or are ignorant doesn't justify those kinds of avatars.
I won't dwell on the avatars because, frankly, they don't bother me as much as they seem to bother the people reporting them and starting threads about them. It feels like pure malice, just trying to get under everyone's skin. I've seen religious arguments play out elsewhere, and it's being imported here. This thread isn't actually about unknown; the OP started this to complain about something else, so let's respect that. I don't appreciate the attempt to obstruct the OP by treating them as unpredictable; if the OP is as reasonable as any other user, they deserve to be heard and given a chance to speak rather than just being attacked.
And then there's me, getting called out because I also complained about unknown regarding his avatar. My avatar was just a response to his (which I already mentioned), and I stated I'd change it if it offended anyone... but he wasn't willing to change his. I swapped mine out the second his controversial avatar was taken down.
Morgan Carter said:But hey, feel free to say Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from entering any American country. 🤷
EDIT: I finally tracked down his actual post. He wrote, "Most people view homosexuality as an aberration, and that's how I perceive it." So, what you just said isn't actually true.
Find another one where he mentions treatment (if it hasn't been deleted). I remember asking him about his methods right away, but he didn't get a chance to answer.😁 Edit: found it He would punish them through medical treatment.