Posts by Steven Clark2

feralpilot0 said:No, it seems like you're the only one being targeted here. 🤷

Seko, save your lies for someone else. 🙂 I am fully aware that you can't wrap your head around my logic, and I know exactly why that is. 🙂 There are much more effective ways to address your hidden agendas than resorting to this. You know very well that I have no filter when it comes to speaking my mind—to you or anyone else, regardless of whether it’s polite or not. So, I would advise caution; I saw through you a long time ago, but I haven't said anything yet. I'm saving that moment for when you least expect it.🙂

What's the matter? Are you struggling with insecurities and pride too? 😢

Who am I supposed to applaud?

Are you just messing around, or are you actually being serious here?

If you’re being serious, then I have to disagree with you (and if you're just trolling, there isn't much I can do to help). As an administrator and moderator, I actually understand how this job works, and I know that a moderator has to maintain a certain stance. It doesn't have to be malicious or biased. It *can* be, but in my view, there’s simply no reason for it. Why? Because everyone has their own motives, sure, but when you deal with honest moderators, at least you know where you stand. If you earn a warning, you get one. There isn't some arbitrary punishment just because they don't like your personality; an honest moderator avoids that kind of management style (or at least strives to). The fact that you received a warning might be deserved—I don't know—but you also need to take some accountability. You’re expecting a level of treatment that you aren't even willing to offer yourself, which just doesn't make sense. You aren't a perfect writer, so why should a moderator be? Besides, you can resolve most issues much more easily by just sending them a private message. When that fails, then you move to the Appeals section. That is how I have always handled things, and I don't see a better way to go about it (unless you choose to stay silent and just suffer through it, though even that has its limits). 🙂 It’s just not right for someone to open a massive thread after only twenty or thirty posts—honestly, I would delete threads like that immediately. ☕ On some other forums, you can't even start a new thread until you've earned a certain number of points, say 100, yet here you can jump straight into the Appeals section with only 50 posts? Where is the logic in that?

If you truly want to be a moderator, then fine, bring some actual innovation to the table. 😁

Eric Collins5 said:😢

I'm done...

Actually, never mind. I guess I'll just start sucking up to ZgSash. 😳

Ahm, yeah, you've certainly picked the wrong person to try and butter up. LOL

Henry Evans3 said:Who do I reach out to if I want to apply for a moderator position?

Is there any kind of fee involved?
And how much active time am I expected to put in on the forum if I take on the role?

thanks..👋

The response is provided below. Please read it carefully. 🙂

cosmicskipper39 said:I’d actually have to side with JoW on this one, especially looking back at all those posts you made. 😍

You've still got a whole lot of "brilliant" stuff left to write before the absolute elite of this forum finally shuts you up. 😉

If he's only out here spreading nothing but trash, then I don't want anything to do with him on this forum. Period. 😉

It isn't enough to simply write a lot of intelligent content; you actually have to *be* intelligent. This goes beyond just individual brilliance—it’s about how one conducts themselves in response to the community. You need to remain calm, refusing to be easily provoked, and show genuine respect for others' perspectives, even when you find yourself fundamentally disagreeing with them. When you feel the urge to ban someone because their views clash with yours, you should take a moment to count to ten first. Your goal should be to elevate the atmosphere rather than deepening the divide. A moderator needs to carry themselves with authority, avoiding being a pushover that anyone can manipulate at will. You also need a sense of humor and a genuine appreciation for the sometimes tedious task of reading through the complex outbursts of various personalities. It requires dedicating actual time to cleaning up unnecessary posts, reorganizing threads, and addressing inquiries in the complaints section or via private messages. You must endure minor provocations and insults with grace. Self-control is paramount, especially when you know you are right; after all, it isn't the moderator's job to dictate "the truth." Furthermore, you must stay open to discussion with the reasonable members of the community. For those who aren't quite as balanced, you often need to spend even more time explaining that things aren't always as they seem. You have to be prepared to accept criticism regarding your work—even when critics go overboard—without taking it personally and retreating into a basement of self-defense from which no one can coax you out. A moderator's true character is revealed by how they handle critique; any effective leader must be able to receive it. It is vital to understand and master the specific areas you moderate, and you shouldn't feel slighted when a user proves to be more knowledgeable than you are. You aren't appointed to a moderator position simply because you are the smartest person on the forum—truthfully, the smartest people rarely have the time for this kind of work. You must ensure you never use your position to settle scores with users who hold different ideologies, regardless of what those beliefs may be. Ultimately, you should strive to be a well-rounded individual, staying informed about social trends and current events. Having a solid educational foundation is helpful (though I’ll admit, having more than the basics is certainly an advantage). You need to clearly distinguish between trolling, spam, off-topic remarks, insults, and on-topic discussions—the fundamental nuances of digital communication. And finally, you must know exactly when to slam your hand on the table and say: "Enough!"Enough! " ☕ I refuse to be one of those pushovers who lacks the courage to say "enough." You know, there is a certain danger in constantly playing by everyone else's rules; you lose your own sense of self and your unique identity. You become someone easily swayed, lacking any real substance, and eventually, that lack of character will be your undoing. Why? Because if your moderation style depends entirely on external influences rather than your own principles, it proves you aren't actually in control. Instead of managing the situation, the situation ends up managing you.

If you act like that kind of moderator, you won't earn genuine respect. You certainly won't win over the closeted narcissists—those people who act superior while hiding their true motives behind passive-aggressive comments (since you won't issue warnings or delete posts because, as I've mentioned, you feel you have to tolerate them up to a point, excluding outright insults). Nor will you please the constant trolls and clones who spend their lives hiding behind pseudonyms just to insult others or mock even you. The world is full of fools, and the internet is the perfect playground for them to realize their potential. 😁

Now, if you possess those traits, there are two more things you absolutely need. 😁 First—you must never stop improving. You cannot simply stagnate where you are. The world is constantly evolving through new achievements and ideas; why should you be any different? 🙂

The second, equally vital thing is this: once you step into a moderator role, do not let it go to your head. Don't start acting like some big shot upon whom the entire world depends. Being appointed as a moderator doesn't make you superior to the other users on Reddit (😁); it simply means you appeared at a historical moment when someone with your skills was needed. 😍

P.S. I strongly advise against trying to suck up to the moderators or administrators, because sooner or later, your ulterior motives will come to light. Just be fair, open, and sincere—you have nothing to lose. People will value your opinion much more if you are authentic, rather than being the type of person who pretends to be okay when you truly aren't. An honest and honorable man feels no need to manipulate or flatter anyone. If you believe you are someone capable of bringing positive change to this community and making it better, then you should prove it through your actions. Otherwise, you’ll just look like someone who talks a big game but folds the moment things get difficult. 😍

neonviper92 said:I’m certainly no expert here, so please excuse my clumsy phrasing. However, if you take a moment to look at the context of those few posts and see how much he inserted himself, things might become clearer. As for the disqualifications and the insults (calling people names, etc.), most of us mere mortals would likely face a penalty for that. And how does he even know my views are just some misguided crusade for a secular Canada? Did his psychic friend Demi Moore give him a heads-up?☕

Look, bear one thing in mind. That guy, "Observer," might be the absolute worst forum user and moderator this site has ever seen, but—you really need to have something concrete, a specific statement, to point to. You claim you aren't experienced enough to flesh out a formal complaint, yet somehow you're experienced enough to notice how terrible his moderation is? Perhaps he's simply more seasoned than you are, which is why his style doesn't resonate with you.

Unless you are one of those clones who already knows exactly how things work here (and I say this because there's a real issue with certain clones acting naive like wide-eyed innocent bystanders), I would suggest reaching out to him via private message and politely asking what the issue is. Picking a fight with him—or anyone else, for that matter—isn't necessary, especially when you admit to being so "inexperienced." Once you have some actual tenure on the forum, then you'll have the perspective needed to specify where the problem lies. Right now, saying "I think xxx is a bad mod" is nothing more than your subjective opinion. It’s possible he’s being "bad" toward you for a legitimate reason, or perhaps he isn't like this with everyone. Keep in mind that moderators are human beings too; they get overwhelmed and burnt out, and sometimes they simply make mistakes. Send him a PM about what's bothering you, and maybe you can clear the air. In any case, that is a far better approach than immediately lodging a complaint against a moderator when you only have 55 posts and very little experience (in fact, aside from 14 of them, almost everything you've written was in that thread about Canada—you truly need a lot more time under your belt to understand how a moderator thinks and operates. For the record, you started that topic when you had only 41 posts recorded, and that’s not even counting any deleted ones).

It sounds a bit trivial, doesn't it? 🙂 It’s like a fifth grader complaining to the principal on their second day of school just because someone yelled in the hallway. 😁

Please don't misunderstand me; I have absolutely no reason to advocate for anyone, nor is it my intention (neither is "Observer" paying me for this, nor is he asking me to do anything of the sort), but topics like this compel me to offer my perspective as a fellow forum member. Just consider your options for the future. 🙂

Best regards.

I believe you really ought to be more specific with your appeal, because what you’re describing right now only addresses the lockout. It doesn't actually have much to do with the grievance itself.

Brenda Cook4 said:I have never seen even a hint of anything resembling "hate" in his words—nothing more than a straightforward assessment of a specific spiritual path, specifically religion in this case, unlike those two nasty posts you mentioned in your opening message. There is absolutely none of that from Master John. I am truly sorry you haven't been able to see that during all this time.

I am actually addressing the point hollowtrucker77 made just a moment ago. Perhaps YOU don't perceive any hate speech in Master John's entries—and I am not claiming such speech exists there—but I am saying that your assessment shouldn't necessarily be the only valid one. Someone else might look at certain posts and interpret them as hate speech or similar "ranting." I still maintain that we need established criteria; they shouldn't be invented on a whim or based on someone's personal defaults, regarding what constitutes hate speech or rhetoric that spreads racial, religious, national, or any other form of intolerance, hatred, or hostility.

I believe that should be our starting framework. It shouldn't be the case that you, acting as a moderator, can mock religion in the Religion sub-forum where you yourself serve as a mod, finding it "interesting" or amusing without receiving a warning, while I (or anyone else) cannot justify similar posts to any single moderator. It is fundamentally different when a moderator mocks a religion versus when a regular user does it (who often gets penalized just for stepping on a moderator's toes). Uneven criteria certainly exist, but we are here to resolve them, at least as much as we are able. 🙂 If there were clear criteria for hate speech, or speech spreading any form of intolerance or prejudice—whether on racial, religious, national, political, or even sexual grounds—then moderation would surely be much easier. For now, all we have is "I think this post is trolling/hate speech," and practice has shown that moderators sometimes overreach in their assessments (especially concerning hate speech). No one is perfect, I get that, but as I have said before, in this post, I have tried my best to explain what hate speech is; the definition is simple, but it is certainly better than having no definition at all.

rowdyhawk10 said:And that is all. I should add one final point because it is quite significant—when you actually compare harybonnot's post (which earned him 500 points from Ego) to the post by @sarafciger (which only earned 45 points), the inconsistency is frankly glaring!

rowdyhawk10, I don't think you've quite hit the mark here. Allow me to offer my own perspective (and I mean this to everyone reading, not just you).

1) We aren't looking at the same moderator here; harybonnot was awarded 500 points by Ego, whereas @sarafciger received 45 from Cuka.

2) These weren't even in the same section. harybonnot was posting in the Religion section, while @sarafciger was in Politics (specifically, the Politics section).

3) They weren't even addressing one another, nor were they part of the same discussion thread.

Please keep in mind that harybonnot's contribution certainly doesn't warrant 500 points, just as @sarafciger went too far. You said:

In truth, I feel quite bad that @sarafciger was banned specifically because of the post I reported. I took a quick look at his profile, and the guy doesn't really participate in the Religion section at all; he simply stumbled into the Religion section by accident with that specific post.

Well, as I mentioned, the individual didn't write that 45-point post in Religion, but rather in the Politics section. He didn't "stumble" into Religion. Out of harybonnot's last 100 posts, 58 were in Religion, whereas out of @sarafciger's last 192 posts, there isn't a single one in the Religion section. His 193rd post was merely a Merry Christmas message (link) to the users in the Religion section (actually, looking at his last 300 posts out of a total of 681, he has only written six in Religion).

There may not be a unified consensus among the moderators on this matter, but regardless, we aren't talking about a single thread debating animosity toward the Islamic world. The moderators simply need to reach an agreement on two things: 1) what content is permissible, and 2) how that content should be handled. Beyond that, there is a need for tolerance, understanding, and so on. 🙂

Eric Collins5, I don't believe what we're discussing is off-topic; rather, I feel we should delve deeper into the root causes of the animosity toward Muslims, though I leave that up to you. My only hope is that the administrators gain a more comprehensive perspective on this particular issue. I am not attempting to take sides, nor do I wish to exaggerate anyone's culpability.

Eric Collins5, there is absolutely no doubt that your perspective stems from some level of animosity. In fact, you have every right to feel personal resentment toward anyone you choose. 🙂 Who is in a position to stop you? No one. As long as you aren't threatening someone or inciting violence publicly, what you hold in your own mind is nobody else's business. Don't you agree?

On the other hand, your view of Muslims—defining them strictly as followers of the Quran and its teachings—is quite reductive. I cannot agree with the notion that, by that definition, all Muslims kill dissenters and so on. It simply isn't fair to paint everyone with such a broad brush.

Ultimately, I don't see why the rules shouldn't apply to everyone equally. Why should Muslims be treated as if they are "above the law," or rather, why should they be judged by different standards? If they break the rules or post insults, they should face the exact same consequences as any other member of this forum. Why should they be singled out for extra scrutiny? Are they a threat to the forum? Fine—if you personally dislike a certain pair of shoes, that's your prerogative; I have nothing against that, and I'm sure you have your reasons. That's perfectly fine. However, it is pretentious to claim that all Muslims are identical, backward, and primitive. You didn't explicitly say that, but I am merely holding you to your own words (and even if you do believe it, you still have the right to your opinion—the only difference is that you'd be objectively wrong).

Regarding the supposed imperfections of the Quran—that is a complex issue, but even if it were true, what then? You would need to find explicit statements within the Quran calling for the killing of dissenters, and then determine if those things are actually practiced. If that isn't the case, then claiming all Muslims are the same is misplaced.

Oh, so all Muslims are the same? That's like saying all Germans are the same. They certainly weren't. There are historical examples from WWII where Germans actually worked to save Jews. Surely we aren't going to hate every single German today just because some killed Jewish people, Poles, Russians, and others? 😕

You haven't answered me yet—how does the Nazi stance toward Jews differ from someone's stance toward Muslims?

Eric Collins5 said:No Nick, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by "Muslim."

In my view, someone is considered Muslim if they believe in the tenets preached by Islam; if they follow those teachings, I group them into that category. It really is that straightforward.

Whether their name is Agner, Ahmed, or Anthony—or whether they happen to have blue or purple skin—is completely irrelevant to me.

Well, you've provided an extremely simplistic "definition" of a Muslim. I'm not quite sure what else there is to comment on. Islam is a complex religion with various internal divisions, and it doesn't mean that Islam itself promotes terrorism anywhere. That is simply the work of specific individuals within Islam who use the faith as a shield. Even if they aren't using it as a cover, it's certainly not true that every single Muslim would commit a terrorist attack or anything of that nature. I wouldn't dare lump all Muslims into one basket, because if I did, I'd be following the same logic where it doesn't matter if someone's last name is Spielberg, Goldstein, or Einstein, or if their name is Aaron, David, Judah, or Sharon... you'll notice those are all Jewish names. 🙂

What is the difference, for instance, between your perspective and the Nazi stance during WWII regarding Jews? Without intending to compare you to Nazis—I truly have no intention of doing so—I am simply asking for your opinion. You made some very categorical statements, and the implications could be significant (I'm not diving into those implications myself, nor do I care much for them; I'm just talking here, without any ill intent, or at least I am confident in my own sincerity)?

Eric Collins5 said:Based on that logic you're championing—where you defend someone's right to act however they please—should we also be expected to serve coffee and cookies to a person who walks into our home and puts their muddy shoes right on the dining table?

If someone breaks into your home, feel free to turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek isn't just pure pacifism, as it is so often (and incorrectly) portrayed. Rather, it is a way of making it crystal clear to the person striking you that you are on their level—that you share the same rank and they are in no way superior to you. In fact, it serves as a direct challenge for them to strike you with their other hand. Forget about staying silent or practicing pacifism when your very life is at stake. You will undoubtedly defend your family, your children, and your wife; even if they aren't your own, they certainly are to you.

Honestly, I just can't get on board with that. It seems to me that Islam specifically targets those exact high ethical and moral standards—though, if I may be so bold, I would go as far as to call them weaknesses, even if you don't see them that way.

I didn't say that I couldn't see.

I received a PM today containing a link to a truly fantastic post—honestly, one of the best pieces I have ever read regarding Islam.

Unfortunately, I can't quite say for certain why that's happening, mostly because I am constantly clearing out my inbox.

This user was discussing Islam on the forum and decided to back up his claims by linking to an absolutely bizarre article titled "Piggy Bank" (yet again, this story comes out of Germany). In this piece, Muslims are reportedly feeling deeply offended because schools used to distribute piggy banks to children before anything else.
Believe it or not, they’ve kicked out their own people, and now instead of using a simple piggy bank, they’re distributing entire savings accounts.

Perhaps that is exactly because Germans constantly hold themselves up so high; they view themselves as the pinnacle of morality and ethics, acting as if they have simply outgrown such trivialities.

Are we seriously planning on mass-ripping electrical outlets out of our walls just because they look like pig snouts?

Look, the Germans used a very similar tactic to belittle and mock Jews—at least, that was how they started. The entire nation of Germany became obsessed with the eradication and expulsion of the Jewish people. How that concluded... well, no comment. If you spend your time today mocking an entire nation or a whole religion, fine, maybe you personally will never take it any further. But eventually, someone else will take those ideas to the next level, and when that happens, conflict becomes inevitable.

No matter how much people claim that Islam is "backward" or "primitive," I fail to see why I should be forced to view every single Muslim through that specific lens of regressive thinking. If I did that, I’d essentially be a true fascist, because I would be refusing to distinguish between an individual human being and the faith they follow. The way I approach this is different. I don't spend my energy debating exactly how backward Islam might be—though, in my opinion, it isn't quite as regressive as others portray it to be, but let's not get sidetracked from the main point here. Instead, I focus on not magnifying our differences. Or rather, I simply have no desire to highlight them to the extent that they spark conflict or cause unnecessary offense. So, tell me, what does that make me? How am I any better than those who do indulge in such generalizations? What truly sets me apart?

Not in the slightest.

No, that is simply my own perspective. If you happen to disagree—well, that is perfectly fine by me. You cannot look at the entirety of Islam, or perhaps a few forum members who felt insulted and reacted more sharply to certain posts, and conclude that all Muslims are like that. They are not. There are plenty of Muslims you can actually sit down and talk to, people who are just like everyone else.

The concept of hate speech, as I understand it, applies universally to everyone. Muslims are by no means exempt from these standards under the law. In other words, it isn't acceptable to insult Muslims just because one might view their religion as "backward" or "primitive." If we allow that, what are we actually doing? Are we building a society that intentionally marginalizes specific groups of people? After all, isn't that exactly what dictators throughout history have sought to achieve? It seems fundamentally contradictory to invoke "freedom of speech" or similar demagoguery while simultaneously using that very speech to demean a particular group.

In truth, this entire issue is much deeper than it appears on the surface, though I honestly wonder if there is any point in elaborating further.

From my perspective, this forum does not exist to foster anti-Islamic sentiments or any other "anti-" ideologies; such things are typically driven by individuals. The motivations can be endless. However, if we nurture anti-Islamic ideas today, then anti-Christian ones tomorrow, or anti-LGBT views yesterday—what lies ahead for us? One can only imagine where such attitudes will eventually lead us.

Eric Collins5 said:In one instance we were talking about a more radical forum, while in the other, it was the largest forum in Canada.

Well, regardless. That doesn't give me any right or satisfaction to behave in the same manner. In fact, I actually find a certain enjoyment in being different—in trying to be better.

Islam, by default, views you, me, or any other non-Muslim as inherently inferior. I am not making this up; this is what Islam propagates, and frankly, they boast about it.

Perhaps that is true, but even so, it does not grant me the right to generalize the entire Islamic world, or at least, to address individuals with rhetoric that casts negativity upon all of Islam—speeches that carry undertones of hatred or intolerance, etc. Look, everyone loses their cool occasionally; it is only human. But just because Muslims might not view me as equal, or might see me as lesser, I don't take that as an excuse to view them the same way. Quite the opposite, actually. If that is how they are, what can I do? It only serves as further evidence for me that Islam as a religion lacks such high ethical standards. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every single Muslim thinks this way. Had I never met them, I might agree, but having known them, I know that many Muslims are certainly not the type of people to look down on others.

Eric Collins5 said:In other words, just head over to an Islamic forum and try expressing your views if they happen to clash with Islam.
I’m genuinely curious to see how long you'll last before you burn out like a cheap fuse.

A few points regarding sincerity and honest opinion, if I may...

Look, I'll give you this much: you're probably right about certain (perhaps more radical?) Islamic forums. In fact, rowdyhawk10 was actually banned from one of them once upon a time (just ask him, he'll tell you), but the fact that those specific spaces are restrictive doesn't give me any reason to act similarly toward, in this case, the Islamic world, on forums where there is supposedly more "freedom of speech." What becomes problematic with some comments from certain users—and I am certainly not implying that applies to your posts—is when people fail to grasp the distinction between "free speech" and hate speech, or the spreading of religious, racial, national, or any other kind of intolerance and hostility. That line is often quite thin, so to speak, and it happens far too frequently that someone uses "freedom of expression" as a shield to spread things that are actually punishable under U.S. law (and since this forum operates under U.S. legal standards, that matters).

Let me reiterate.

Hate speech is defined as speech directed at an individual or group based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, as well as speech against specific groups that could result in hatred or any form of aggression.

And the very first thread on this forum (www.forum.hr) and the very first post in that thread states:

To maintain order and ensure discussions remain civil, we ask that you adhere to the rules. It is prohibited on this Forum to:

Violate the laws of the United States (we specifically draw your attention to inciting hatred or discrimination, justifying or glorifying criminal acts, copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, etc.)

According to your Constitution, provided it remains in effect, it states:

It is also forbidden and punishable to incite or provoke war, the use of violence, national, racial, or religious hatred, or any other form of intolerance. (link)

Article 39.

So, while everyone may have the right to express their opinion, one cannot (mis)use that right to spread any form of religious, national, racial, or other types of hatred, intolerance, or hostility.

My advice? Use a more appropriate vocabulary, or simply refrain from commenting altogether. 🙂

boldgardener93 said:☕

This is a perfect example. It’s classic hate speech rhetoric and double standards used to argue that this topic has merit when it really isn't anything more than 🙂

Perhaps you should try to learn what actually constitutes hate speech. Criticizing a religion is not hate speech. Maybe the individual used an inappropriate tone, or perhaps they intentionally used sharp words just to provoke you, but you simply cannot characterize someone or a specific post as hate speech without cause.

P.S.

rowdyhawk10 said:Specifically, the Muslim user harybonnot received a whopping 500 points here on the Religion forum. Now, I agree his post deserved a penalty, and I am not complaining about that!

It is quite strange; I have read that penalized post with the 500 points a few times myself—and I truly believe it did NOT deserve that much. I am not sure what I missed, so could you please point out the basis upon which that post earned 500 points? 😕

I am not concerned with who is who, but rather whether that post inherently calls for violence or constitutes hate speech, or if it is something else entirely. That is the fundamental question. It is not fair—at least, not fair at all—to agree that such a post deserves those points and then complain about another post that directly insults the Islamic world by using the first one as a justification.

The second post is indeed an insult and hate speech, but the first one certainly is not.

Regardless of how certain media outlets or individuals occasionally paint a distorted picture of Muslims—constantly linking them to major terrorists and such—I believe that is a massive overstatement. Not all Muslims are terrorists; in fact, I believe most Muslims have nothing to do with that business, and it is unfair for honest Muslims to suffer because of a lack of understanding regarding Islam itself.

Ultimately, Muslims themselves must take into account the negative image that exists. Perhaps it isn't even coincidental; if we hear about a suicide bomber in a place like Chicago or wherever every single day, we probably won't view Islam in the most favorable light. However, it is unjust to equate the entire Islamic world with terrorism. For those unaware, Jihad in its earliest stages was a spiritual struggle or an internal battle with oneself, not some sort of war against "infidels."

I am not Muslim, nor am I particularly inclined toward the Islamic faith, but I am also not one of those who would demonize all Muslims just because some are fanatics. There are many Muslims on this forum who are perfectly fine people, though they have reacted sharply to falsehoods and misinformation regarding their faith. That is why they faced consequences—a lesson for them to find better ways to demonstrate that not all Muslims are evil.

rowdyhawk10, do not forget that you yourself discriminated against Christians by using all sorts of epithets and belittling their faith. You were acting as a moderator who was supposed to promote peace, yet instead, you fueled conflict (!). You essentially shortchanged the Muslims who disagreed with you as well. Now you are complaining and feeling slighted, which is actually a good sign; at least you finally understand how those you insulted felt, even though you NEVER apologized to them. ☕

I personally forgive you, though I can't speak for anyone else. 🙂

I would like to point out something I have observed regarding this particular thread—something that has been dragging on indefinitely, much like a long, winding road, without ever reaching a resolution. My primary emphasis here is on the fact that we simply cannot seem to settle this matter.

placidjackal36 said:I have watched the video, and frankly, I find the decision to award 500 points for such content absolutely disgraceful. It is truly disheartening to see 500 points handed out for something that essentially glorifies lynchings, murders, and the spread of such profound depravity. Hate speech. It’s a similar situation—though, to be fair, that usually flies under the radar over at The New York Times, but that’s a whole different conversation. If we were grading that controversial post, I’d give it a solid 35 points just for the sheer dedication to trolling. It was truly top-tier work.

It is truly shameful.

steelskipper5 said:That kind of behavior is even more repulsive than seeing crosses displayed in public institutions. And when you consider certain instances of religious influence... Hate speech. I have repeatedly filed multiple reports over a significant period regarding this issue, yet the authorities have failed to take any action whatsoever. For instance, Yivanmukt continues to post without any interference to this day. It truly appears that believers are granted a special dispensation to disregard both the Constitution and our laws. Meanwhile, any single word spoken against them—even something as harmless as minor mockery—is met with much harsher penalties than your typical heated debate on a political forum.

Pathetic.

steelskipper5 said: I find myself quite perplexed by the recent decision to issue a 500-point penalty for a single word that, in my estimation, wasn't even particularly offensive. It feels like a massive overreach—certainly far beyond the standard disciplinary measures for an insult, and honestly, even more severe than what is typically handed out for much more egregious violations. Hate speech.So, we have encountered yet another instance where religious stances are being granted special protection above and beyond all other considerations.
And to make matters worse, religious people just go around insulting everyone else without a second thought.

steelskipper5 As I have previously noted:
In this specific instance, I believe the moderators need to provide a clear justification as to why a relatively mild, generalized insult toward religion is being penalized with the exact same severity as a direct attack. Hate speech.It seems we have reached a point where you can pick almost any topic—say, discussions regarding homosexuality—and immediately stumble upon unsanctioned comments claiming "they are sick." It is quite frankly an insult, given that... De facto. It’s either a complete dismissal of the issue, or someone will inevitably suggest, "They should all just be sent to Alcatraz and left to breed there."

The issue here, quite clearly, is hate speech.

First off, if we are going to engage in a discussion about hate speech, I would suggest we actually learn what the term entails. 🙂

Regarding the definition itself, it might be beneficial for the moderators to undergo a bit of education on the subject. This forum has seen moderators handing out 500 points or more for alleged hate speech—some of whom even seemed to favor certain types of rhetoric themselves, all while remaining unpunished:

Hate speech is defined as language directed at an individual or group based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, as well as speech against specific groups that could result in hatred or any form of aggression.

And according to this link—assuming the laws of the Constitution are still in effect—such speech isn't necessarily criminalized:

It is prohibited and punishable to incite or call for war or the use of violence, or to promote national, racial, or religious hatred or any other form of intolerance.

Article 39. What exactly does "any other form of intolerance" mean? You, my dear steelskipper5, are supposedly a linguist, so perhaps you could explain to me how "any other form of intolerance" is somehow permitted, whether it's on a national, racial, or—even more interestingly—a religious basis? I am particularly focused on that word, "intolerance." It truly piques my curiosity.

On this forum, there has been far too much talk regarding old-fashioned, backward believers (!), and their religious convictions have been insulted far too often. The moderators haven't always responded in the most appropriate manner. There could be many reasons for this; for instance, the moderators simply might not grasp the true meaning of hate speech.

As for myself, I believe the moderators could benefit from some further training in this area. Frankly, I don't care about anyone's personal sacred cows, which football team they root for (it's strange how the Germans blew out the Argentinians, by the way), or which politician they prefer—the rules should apply equally to everyone. If this forum is subject to American law, which I understand it is, then the moderators ought to be somewhat more sensitive to this issue. Before a moderator slaps 500 points onto a post for such rhetoric, it would be prudent to consult with others. Likewise, if they receive a report for hate speech—and as steelskipper5 mentioned, he has reported things only to see nothing happen—it wouldn't be a bad idea for the moderators of that particular sub-forum to consult one another to decide whether a post truly "deserves" to be classified as hate speech or not.

The reason, at least in my estimation, why this problem regarding "hate speech" exists is because most moderators do not know what hate speech actually is.

Gregory Turner71 said:It depends. Obviously, different standards of correctness apply to the Politics section...

I see. So, does that mean insults based on religion are allowed in the Religion section? After all, Politics and Religion are the most volatile topics everywhere, including here on this forum. Just because you lack any sense of understanding regarding religious matters doesn't mean you're equally lost when it comes to politics—those are two different things entirely. When there is inherent tension surrounding politics and religion, it stands to reason that moderation needs to be handled with more care. It is certainly difficult to moderate those two sections, but it is a separate issue altogether when a moderator simply doesn't know how to navigate them.🙄

I found these two posts quite intriguing:

bluecyclist64 said:Well, I have just finished reading the controversial post and I find myself in complete agreement. Awarding 500 points for such content truly feels like introducing verbal offenses to this forum.
It is shameful.

placidjackal36 said:I have looked into the matter and I believe awarding 500 points for this is simply disgraceful. In my view, 500 points should be reserved for spreading vile things like glorifying lynchings, murders, or extreme hate speech (which, incidentally, passes without issue on the Politics board, but that is a different discussion entirely). For a post like this, 35 points for trolling would be the absolute upper limit.

It is shameful.

Two extremes here. 🙂 To save anyone the trouble of hunting down the controversial post that was penalized with 500 points—here is the link. 🙂

I have read that post several times myself. It does not deserve even a single point; honestly, even a 35-point penalty for trolling would be an overreach, as the post isn't even trolling (please, let us finally learn what trolling actually means; so much nonsense goes unpunished, and people simply label anything they dislike as a "troll"—it is quite funny how that works). 500 points is an enormous amount, far too many. This is simply a case of expressing oneself without any inherent negative connotation or incitement to hatred—at least, as a Christian, I did not perceive it as an insult or anything of the sort.

I truly believe that post does not warrant 500 points, and we should not inflate Snack's words or assign them some grand significance when the individual clearly had no intention of being offensive—or at least, I don't see it that way. Perhaps the vocabulary was inappropriate, but calling it hate speech or anything similar is simply incorrect.

I am glad his ban was lifted. 🙂 Just a few minutes ago. 🙂

Harold Evans6 said:Good grief, what kind of censorship is this? It feels just like something out of a fascist regime...

If this were actually censorship on the level of fascism, you would have lost your head long ago. 😁 You honestly got off easy with the thread being deleted; you didn't even get banned. 🙂

Nicholas King said:I am of the opinion that this entire situation is, in truth, a non-existent dilemma.

If there happens to be—though I highly doubt it—a case where someone was sanctioned for "necroposting" or reviving an old, meaningful thread, that is something that can be addressed through the PŽK. On the other hand, one really shouldn't attempt to compare thematic PDFs, like those dedicated to Movies, where certain topics are essentially eternal, with our more lifestyle-oriented PDFs, such as LJES, US, or ŽuD.

Do "life-changing" PDFs actually lack the topics that are truly timeless? 🙂 Think twice. 🙂

I am not entirely certain if reviving old threads on these forums is always the best course of action. In my experience, whenever a new topic is started regarding an existing subject, the moderators typically merge it back into the original discussion anyway. You ultimately end up right back where you started. I believe the only time it truly makes sense to bump a thread is when someone is adding genuinely constructive content to a conversation that has been dormant for a while. Anything else seems rather pointless.

You certainly have more influence at Google than I do. 😢

Please, don't let this weigh too heavily on you; absolutely no one is perfect. 🙂

Nicholas King said:People come to this forum for all sorts of reasons. It seems to me you are focusing exclusively on "rational" motivations, yet the world is teeming with hordes of people who act entirely irrationally.

I don't believe there is any necessity to reopen old threads just for the sake of unconstructive comments, but if a contribution is constructive, innovative, or genuinely useful—well, I actually think that is quite desirable. Furthermore, why shouldn't management implement a rule regarding how much time passes before a thread is locked? They could agree on a standard, perhaps six months (or longer) after the final post. If they did that, everything would run smoothly.😁

As it stands, all topics remain open, so when someone revives one to offer a thoughtful insight, ask a question, or start a meaningful discussion—they end up being penalized? That simply doesn't make sense. Having served as both a moderator and an admin elsewhere, I know firsthand that you cannot always sanction revived threads unless the posts themselves are purely trolling.

P.S.

"I lost a friend." 105,000 results, second link.

167,000 results. 😁

I must ask, what exactly do you mean by "old topics?" I am genuinely curious. Are we talking about a thread that is six months old, two years old, or perhaps even longer? While there is certainly value in revisiting older discussions, if someone decides to revive an ancient topic simply because they made a mindless post, then I find that to be complete nonsense.