lonebadger6 said:Did you seriously start this thread just to thank the mods for being in such a good mood today so you didn't get slapped with a 500-point penalty for your racist garbage, or are you just here to troll?
If it's the first one—well, don't mention it, but cut it out already.
If it's the second one—I'm not interested. Like I've said a million times before, people post thousands upon thousands of comments on the Politics board every single day, and dozens get nuked for all sorts of reasons. We aren't obligated, nor do we have the damn time, to sit around explaining to every single person why their specific post got deleted, and we sure as hell aren't doing it for you. Cheers.
And what about that post that was actually responding to your "I'd kill a terrorist on sight without blinking" comment? What exactly are we calling that little hate speech outburst of yours? My response to that was perfectly reasonable—that such behavior isn't even civilized or how we act in America. Maybe a lightbulb finally went off in your head and you realized what you actually wrote, which is probably why you scrubbed it.
Nicholas Watson said:So basically, if there are a bunch of Muslims at a concert, there’s gotta be at least one suicide bomber in the crowd somewhere.
Could you maybe walk me through that logic? Because to me, it sounds like you're just twisting things until they snap into this totally irrational, baseless fear.
Honestly, I'd be way more worried about showing up to a Thompson concert.
It doesn't have to be, but recent events suggest it really could happen. Like, look at those concerts in Paris or even what just went down in Chicago. Personally, I'd definitely be looking at the crowd at shows like that with some concern. I wouldn't just ignore it. In fact, I'd probably steer clear of any massive gatherings in "multi-cultural" Europe altogether, just because of everything that's been happening.
As for Thompson, there's nothing to worry about there—out of the hundreds or thousands of shows he's played over the years, not once has a bomb gone off, and I seriously doubt one ever will.
Btw, it’s pretty funny how my buddy Google claimed he’d just take out terrorists on the spot without a trial—and then, when I pointed out how "civilized and American" that sounds—killing people without due process—he went ahead and deleted my comment. Probably because he realized how unhinged he sounded once it actually sank in. Of course, he didn't touch his own post, though if I—or anyone else here—had dared to say we wanted to execute people on sight without a judge, we would’ve been slapped with a warning or probably just banned outright.
He tried to backtrack later, typing out some nonsense about how "that's not really what he meant"... but the bottom line is he scrubbed my reply to his totally anti-civilization rant.
Nicholas Watson said:I wouldn't feel even a little bit awkward asking who it *wouldn't* be. But honestly, shouldn't you feel a little embarrassed typing out such racist garbage?
Look, this isn't some "racist garbage"—it’s just a perfectly normal question forced upon us by everything happening in the world right now.
Two of my posts on this thread just got nuked—gone—without any damn reason and without breaking a single rule on this forum.
The first one was just a regular, honest-to-God question: how would he, Google, feel if there were a few thousand Muslims at a concert he was attending with his kid? Would he feel the same way he does now, since there aren't really people here with Middle Eastern roots, or would he feel even a little bit uneasy? It’s a normal, human question—no insults, no rule-breaking, nothing. Personally, I’d definitely feel more uncomfortable knowing there were a few thousand people from the Middle East at a concert with my child. I don't know about anyone else...
The second one was just my response to the moderator Google saying he’d kill terrorists on the spot without a trial (I guess that's allowed to be said?), and my reply was simply that, as far as I know, there is no death penalty in the US, which is where we differ from others (apparently, that's not allowed to be mentioned either).
I am asking for both of those posts to be restored because they DO NOT violate ANY RULES. They were deleted solely because the moderator apparently doesn't like what was written.
Daniel Ward87 said:The moderator is just following the current laws of the United States—abortion is a legal medical procedure. To be precise, an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removing or expelling an embryo or fetus from the uterus before the human fetus is capable of independent life. According to U.S. law established back in the 70s, a pregnancy can be terminated up to the 10th week of conception upon the request of the pregnant woman. For requests after the 10th week—whether at the woman's own wish or suggested by a doctor, though always requiring her consent—decision-making falls to the appropriate hospital boards or OB-GYN departments based on medical, eugenic, and legal-ethical indications.
Look, if you personally view this as murder, that’s your right—but honestly, that’s your problem, not mine.
Fine, but why on earth is it forbidden to express a personal opinion or simply disagree with an existing law?
If someone, say, disagrees with the fact that marijuana is treated as a drug and instead advocates for its full legalization—basically going against current statutes—they don't get flagged here. But if someone disagrees with abortion being legal and pushes for it to be abolished, they suddenly start racking up "penalty points" or whatever. It's ridiculous! Either balance the scales and punish EVERYONE who disagrees with any legal regulation, or just let there be actual freedom of thought and speech. This kind of selective moderation—this total lack of consistency—makes it look like you're moderating specifically to wipe out and sanction posts based solely on your own personal opinions and biases.
You only hide behind the law and demand respect for it when it happens to align with your own views. Of course, laws should be respected, but then you should also penalize EVERY single person who fails to follow ANY law, not just the ones that happen to suit your mood.
I'll say it again: how you choose to moderate these discussions is your business, just like it's your right to be selective and biased while doing it—I'm just here to point out the glaring inconsistencies.
Look, I’m not trying to start some massive debate or spend ten paragraphs defending my own views on this—honestly, I don't have the energy today—but I am genuinely curious about one thing. Why is it the official stance of the moderator team that abortion shouldn't be categorized as the murder of an unborn child? Like, what was the logic there? How did the moderator group actually land on this specific conclusion, and why has it become the "gold standard" rule that everyone here has to follow?
I just want to understand the reasoning, that's all.
Don't get me wrong, I'll play by the rules. At the end of the day, the moderator team calls the shots on what stays up and what gets nuked, and that's just how these forums work—we adapt to the house rules whether we like them or not. But seriously, I just need to know: why does calling abortion the murder of an unborn child feel like waving a red flag in front of a pissed-off bull to the leadership?
Look, let’s be real here—nothing ever actually gets updated or improved on this forum. It’s been years of the exact same cycle. Just look at that legendary search engine tool, for crying out loud! Thousands of users have asked about it, and every single time the response is the same canned line: "we're working on it." Seriously? Don't hold your breath. It reminds me of those shady little corner shops or dive bars that go belly up; they always slap that "Closed for Renovations" sign on the door, which is really just code for "we're broke and out of business." That’s exactly what's happening here. Nothing is being done, nothing *will* be done, the threads are getting lonelier by the day, and people are posting less and less. It’s all just a slow slide toward the lights going out for good.
lonebadger6 said:Alright, enough with the trolling. No, not every single opinion someone holds is a "right"—it’s actually becoming a tragicomically delusional way of looking at things.
"If someone thinks Black people are scum that should be kicked back to Africa, that's their right." No, it isn't (unless they just keep it to themselves).
My favorite part is when the trolling starts with this totally insane idea that any stupid thought popping into someone's head qualifies as an "opinion" protected by "freedom of speech." It doesn't. No, it absolutely does not. Not here, not anywhere on the planet.
Maybe take a second to look up what "anywhere on the planet" actually means. In the US, freedom of speech is almost absolute—for instance, Nazi parties are perfectly legal over there, and waving Nazi symbols or voicing those views is totally allowed by law. You can even be a member of the Ku Klux Klan and hold the opinion that Black people are subhuman, and it's still legal. Basically, you can say almost anything there. We aren't the USA, but I just want to smash this myth that "every opinion someone has falls under freedom of speech anywhere on the planet." Take New York City, for example (I've got family there, so I know how things work)—in certain mosques, they openly preach about how to properly kill non-believers (meaning anyone who isn't Muslim), all while being shielded by some minority rights law or freedom of speech regulation. So, yeah, freedom of speech is a super broad, elastic concept and it varies wildly from one country to the next.
From what I can see, everyone here just takes any random OPINION—yeah, you heard me, an actual opinion—and immediately screams "fascism!" Like, seriously? In a functioning democracy, people are supposed to be allowed to say what they think. But hey, maybe we aren’t living in a functional democracy anymore. Clearly, we aren't.
Look, if someone thinks gender reassignment is unnatural, wrong, or just plain messed up, that is their right to believe. Period.
And besides—I haven't seen anyone actually suggesting a total ban on these surgeries, have you? Where is this being proposed? Who is even calling for that?
William Bennett53 said:Look, Wayne, while Stevo Culej is out there working his tail off to protect his reputation, I don't see any reason why the thread title shouldn't stay the way it is. Your suggestions might hit the mark for some of those politicians—I mean, Joe Biden is definitely a frustrated loser right now, maybe Stazić is just a drunk, and Jimmy Carter really embarrassed himself with those old tapes—but this label for the extremist is just ugly and you shouldn't have gone there. But unlike the insults you threw at the others, with Culej, it’s not just that his subtitle describes him... it actually defines him. He is genuinely trying his hardest to be the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel type of American far-right radical, and honestly, if people were actually calling him out the way you're suggesting they call out the others, he'd be having a much worse time.
That whole thing about Culuja is just your opinion and nothing else! Someone else might look at him and feel the exact opposite.
But look, I'm not here to sit in judgment of Culej’s entire life and legacy, okay? All I am doing here is asking for EQUAL STANDARDS for everyone, and more than anything, I am demanding CONSISTENCY in how the sub moderators handle their editing policy.
So, listen—if we're already allowing this kind of descriptive addition in a thread about Culej, then CONSISTENT WITH THAT, other threads should have the same kinds of additions in their titles. Why should the rules apply to one guy but not to someone else? I am asking for the yardstick to be the same for everybody—I want the SAME CRITERIA applied to everyone! Seriously, if subjective little additions like this are allowed for Culej, then let them happen in all the other threads too, and we can have a colorful variety of titles and descriptors. Why does Culej get to be the only one with a descriptive tag in his thread title? Come on, if you're going to do it, be consistent for once and put them on the others too! Just stick to the same criteria for everyone! Go ahead, put additions in the titles for Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden and everyone else—just have the same standards for everyone instead of just picking on the people you don't like for whatever reason!
So, for what feels like an eternity now—six months, to be exact—there’s been this thread hanging around, and get this, I’m not even kidding—it’s titled "Stevo Culej: The Beacon of Hardcore Chauvinism." We’ve got the subject of the debate, sure, but then there’s that little extra flair tacked onto the end. It was clearly just whatever the guy who started the thread felt like throwing in, and honestly, it seems like the mods have given their silent blessing to this kind of petty insults. I mean, if they hadn't basically okayed this level of trolling, a title like that wouldn't even last five minutes, let alone sit there for half a year! Since apparently we're allowed to slap whatever descriptive labels we want on political figures here, I figured I'd throw out some suggestions for other current headlines on the political scene:
Stjepan Mesic: The Flagbearer of Fascism and Fake Patriotism
Zoran Milanovic: A Frustrated Loser Raised in a Dive Bar
Nenad Stazic: The Drunken Old-School Globalist
Milorad Pupovac: The High-Society Extremist
Does that work? Since we’re clearly picking titles based on whoever wants to vent, and since the moderation team obviously doesn't seem to mind, I’ve put together my own list of ideas. I’d love to hear the moderator weigh in on these proposals.
Gerald Carter53 said:How can you even think you can guarantee anything? With what authority? You got some inside scoop from the players or something? I'm asking seriously here, 🙂
Genesis 1:1
I remember this one guy on a political forum who was absolutely certain—totally adamant—that Hillary would win the presidency. He was bragging about how he dropped 30,000 bucks on her victory because, get this, he claimed the bookies couldn't possibly be wrong. He kept saying, "I guarantee it, this is a sure thing, there’s zero chance anything else happens besides this outcome. I guarantee it."
The point is? Stop "guaranteeing" things, seriously... unless you want to end up looking like a complete idiot.
Chris Chase5 said:This isn't really about Harmon, but I’d appreciate it if those who only read about the war in news snippets showed a bit more respect for what actually happened. If I had been in Harmon's shoes, I wouldn't have been trying to convince the aggressors to stay put; I would have stripped them of their citizenship and revoked their visas immediately. People who occupied our territory and sat there eating bread while ethnic cleansing was happening don't deserve any rights in this country. I actually know someone like that. It honestly makes my blood boil when she sits there with tears in her eyes, acting all victimized and talking about the exodus of people from the occupied territories...
Every single person involved in those crimes should have been locked up tight instead of being allowed to just flee...
Harmon acted with dignity, and trying to equate his actions with theirs is just going to trigger more conflict.
Anyhow, it seems like they might have to start firing shots in the United States of America... or maybe set off massive fireworks just to wake everyone up. At least they managed to stop the influx of new engineers and doctors. It's truly terrifying to see what people are dealing with in Germany, Germany, and the United States of America...
You're calling for the expulsion of Mexicans from the Frontier after the Storm, yet you're voting for Alexander Van der Bellen. That is one weird-ass mix right there...
Susan Green2 said:What makes you think Americans will suddenly undergo a complete change of heart in just six months and hand power over to the Republican Party?
Look, the polls are showing them a massive lead—it's not even close—and honestly, that weird-ass coalition between the conservatives and the socialists is a total disaster that just isn't working at all. So, yeah, it's pretty much a lock that the Republican Party is going to take the next election. Whether they'll actually have enough seats to run the show? Well, we'll just have to wait and see how that plays out.
Carol Newman2 said:I can certainly see why Americans wouldn't be backing the Democratic Party.
The way the Democratic Party (especially Donald Trump) tries to court certain voting blocs is just plain repulsive.
Those people could easily swing their votes toward the Democratic Party if they weren't so obsessed with catering to everyone else.
Look, they’re chasing those Mexican votes because Mexicans are by far the biggest minority group in Austria. It’s pretty obvious, really.
Anyway, regarding the elections, I’m disappointed, sure, but not losing sleep over it since the President's role is basically just ceremonial at this point. Besides, we've got parliamentary elections coming up in six months where nothing can stop the FPO from taking power. In a parliamentary democracy, having a majority in Parliament is what actually matters—not having a President. So, the next election is the big one, and the FPO is definitely going to win that.
Timothy Nelson5 said:Well, I suppose the sample sizes are relatively small. But if we're looking at a gap like 53% versus 47%, that's a 6% difference. That feels like way too much for a serious poll, especially if people are only choosing between two candidates.
What I was trying to get at is how these kinds of polls can swing voters both ways. If a candidate takes the lead in a poll right before an election, it might make their supporters feel like they don't even need to show up, while simultaneously giving the other side that extra push to actually head to the polls. It’s not exactly a harmless phenomenon, I guess.
There wasn't any fraud. Irregularities didn't sway the outcome. Besides, Hofer's supporters in the polling stations were just as involved in those irregularities. There are plenty of pages covering that earlier in this thread.
From what I understand, the final results were flipped by the mail-in ballots, which seemed to lean disproportionately toward Bellen. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Look, from what I remember, Hofer was actually in the lead until those mail-in votes started rolling in, and then suddenly—bam—AfD overtakes him. That's where all those suspicious irregularities popped up, which is exactly why the whole election ended up being tossed out.