Posts by rowdylynx98

lonebadger6 said:@WEB — Look, if you actually want a transparent discussion, then stop trying to twist things. He didn't say "the vulnerable national minority in Vojvodina," he was talking about the people living in America. We’ve pointed this out multiple times—context is everything here. And look, I’ve dropped a few links to similar or basically identical posts from other users who didn't get penalized either. It means the moderator—or supermod, for that matter—isn't allowed to enforce rules on some people while letting others slide. Among those users are conservatives (in case anyone wants to imply this is some kind of attack on "American values"). It’s clearly just a figure of speech, something used all the time in everyday life in America.

It's the same deal: if you randomly write "Mexicans are retarded" just to stir the pot, you’ll probably get a red card. But if you're engaging in a debate about the political situation in Mexico—who they vote for, who they pick, and how they generally deal with their leaders—you probably won't be touched.

The user wasn't describing everyone in America; he said—and I quote—that the "American people are more severely retarded," that "we as a nation are more severely retarded," and "an example of retarding as a nation..." If we start obsessing over the technical difference between a "nation" and a "people," we're going to get bored real fast, but that first quote definitely encompasses the Americans in Vojvodina too. So, you're wrong. Furthermore, he provided arguments that make it clear he isn't talking about the folks in Vojvodina, but a very specific group of Americans. But hey, that's just one of those two problems I mentioned before.

Personally, I support the fact that nobody is being punished for exercising free speech—even if that speech includes making diagnoses about an entire population. Take Vuk Drašković, for instance; back in 1990, he argued that Americans needed collective psychotherapy because of their hatred toward Mexicans. In my book, both Vuk Drašković and any users who think like him have every right to say that.

Just so we're clear, from here on out, I'm going to try to get bans lifted for anyone who judges entire groups, specifically because of this whole mess. I'll try to push you two to nix the bans on anyone I see being unfairly punished (unless, obviously, the owner decides otherwise directly or via the rules). Honestly, there shouldn't be many cases since I don't usually dive into political debates. I think it's pretty obvious why I stay away from them.

lonebadger6 said:You can't—it’s because the private owner, or rather the people he's put in charge (the admin team), decided that on his private forum, you aren't allowed to insult the users.🙂

(And please, don't start trolling with that whole "there are definitely Americans in the mix here" angle)😁 )

Okay, I totally buy that argument. But if that's the case, then it needs to be laid out clearly right at the start of the discussion. Basically, you aren't allowed to insult anyone the authority figure designates as "protected"—and I don't mean that sarcastically. That’s perfectly fine; I'm just trying to figure out who exactly falls into this protected category and who doesn't.

I have another question: Is it actually possible for a moderator on this forum to be someone who says three separate times that Mexicans are a retarded nation?

Personally, I don't care about people's nationality or their political leanings unless it actually pertains to the debate—which, in this case, it doesn't. In principle, I don't even care about the target of these generalizations; I just want to know how it's even possible for a person—who has gone out of their way three times to call a vulnerable national minority in Vojvodina "retarded"—to be a moderator, and to have that "super" prefix attached to their name, which, for the record, I don't even know what that's supposed to signify.

lonebadger6 said:First off—whether you’re just playing dumb or you genuinely don't get it—that first part of your sentence has absolutely nothing to do with what we've been trying to explain here. If you actually don't understand and you *want* to understand, go back and read the moderator and super-moderator guidelines.

Look, you can't just go around saying things like "Mexicans are Chetniks," "Americans are fascists," or "Immigrants are terrorists."

Sure, depending on the context (meaning, if you're talking about the exact same stuff Daniel Ward87 was bringing up—you know, who people choose, how they live, and whether it actually fits the discussion)—you might be able to say "Mexicans/Americans/Germans are a retarded nation."

Can I say the moderators on this forum are a retarded nation?

I’d argue that I can. Now, obviously, I’d never actually say it because, from what I know, at least a handful of these mods aren't exactly lacking brain cells, but I still think I have the right to say it. Besides, any mod could probably name plenty of non-retarded people from whatever group is being insulted, so that shouldn't stop them from making a judgment call, right?

So, yeah, I can state my opinion that the mods are retarded. Or, at the very least, the users here are retarded—since I'm a user myself, I guess I'm including me in that assessment (just following Daniel Ward87's logic here).

The users and the Mexicans are both retarded.

slycobra5 said:One of the moderators, while responding to a warning about a ban, honestly pointed out that we are on a private forum—and if the owner says using the word RUBBISH (his words) is forbidden, then that word simply cannot be used...
Personally, I get it—you're never going to reach some absolute, universal truth on a site like this because the people moderating are just like us: flesh and blood humans. They’re subject to their own biases and beliefs that sometimes bubble up subconsciously, revealing their true colors and their political leanings or whatever...
The only thing left to do is be honest and admit when you're wrong... both the users and the mods should do that...

I couldn't disagree more. I think that moderator is spot on, and personally, I would never try to override private property rights. At the same time, though, being as transparent as possible is always the best move—which is exactly why we're having this debate in the first place.

slycobra5 said:I’m honestly curious—what happens when someone down the road, armed with these exact same excuses, calls some random person on this forum (doesn't matter if it's one guy or a whole crowd) a moron, and then defends themselves by saying, "Hey, it's just my opinion, and I have a right to express it"... how exactly is the moderation team going to react to that?

Exactly. Honestly, I’m all for banning anyone who directs an insult at any group whatsoever—whether it’s based on nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, class, or ideology—simply because at least one moderator, Daniel Ward87, has already set a totally unpunished precedent here.

For instance, it would be completely wrong to penalize me if I stated my opinion that all nationalists or socialists are morally bankrupt or just repulsive human beings. Or people who follow Orbán or Putin, or the leftists and collectivists. Or even all extremists. Basically, anyone who doesn't label themselves a liberal. Those are all political categories that I personally can't stand, so according to the current established paradigm, we wouldn't be allowed to issue a ban for any insults directed at them anymore.

We really only have two paths here: either we allow everything—which basically means getting rid of moderators and bans entirely—or we start handing out punishments indiscriminately. Personally, I’m leaning toward the first option, but I have a feeling we’ll try to take that "middle ground" again, where someone gets banned for calling Mexicans retarded, but they won't say a word if they say the exact same thing about Americans. It’s insane, it’s dishonest, and there is absolutely no philosophical way to justify it.

Daniel Ward87 said:If you want to think I’m some kind of bigot—fine, that’s your call, and hey, you’re entitled to your opinion. It doesn't offend me, just so we're clear. Also, when I generalize, I'm being honest. I'm an American citizen—I live here, I pay my taxes, I don't cheat the system, and I actually show up to vote when elections roll around. Beyond that, I don't hate anyone. I don't carry any aggression toward any individual regardless of their politics, religion, skin color, whatever. I've been following the political scene since the early '90s, I've been a moderator for the Politics sub-forum for years, and even spent some time as a supermod, so I know a hell of a lot about the political landscape in America and how Americans react to it.

Taking all that into account—as objectively as anyone possibly could—my subjective take, my opinion, whatever you want to call it, is that I honestly believe we are a nation of morons, and a pretty intense bunch at that. That was my reaction to this thread, specifically the very first post, which basically said: "This post is being reported at 9:54 AM today because it's offensive to 85% (according to the latest census) of American believers, as well as to American society at large, which user Silver Bear puts on the same level as Iran or Saudi Arabia where they hang homosexuals in the street."

The guy is asking for a ban because another user thinks Silver Bear's comment is offensive to 85% of believers in America. First off, how does he even know that post is offensive? Second, why 85% of believers? Why not 100%? Third, if it *is* 85%, where did he get those numbers—did he run some sort of poll? Fourth, the post gets reported, and since the mods didn't jump on it immediately in the timeframe the user expected, he immediately starts painting them with an "ideological brush"—claiming that if they didn't sanction it right away, then they support it, meaning they agree with Silver Bear and aren't part of that 85% of believers... and he just keeps going with those assumptions.

Personally, that post by Harold Long21 offends me as a moderator. So what?

I have no intention of getting into a back-and-forth debate over the specific questions you've posed. This is a forum for exchanging ideas and free speech. We have the freedom and the right to express our views in accordance with the Forum rules, the sub-forum guidelines, and obviously, the laws of the United States. Therefore, I believe I have every right to think that we, as Americans, are a nation of idiots, and I am allowed to say that publicly without violating the aforementioned rules.
If I've broken any rules, go ahead and ban me—I won't complain.

Are Mexicans a retarded nation because they chose Slobodan Milošević as President of Mexico in the 1990 and 1992 elections?

Do you see what I'm doing with that question? Can you imagine how wrong that sounds when you write it about any other group?

And why would it matter how that user was born? As an American, a Canadian, a Yugoslav, a South African, a Muslim, or someone who doesn't identify with anything? Birth has nothing to do with opinions; that's just a distorted example of nationalism. There is absolutely no difference between saying "I hate Canadians because they were born Canadian" and "I hate Americans, and I have the right to say so because I was born an American."

Daniel Ward87 said:Why is this insult so fascinatingly crafted? Seriously, that’s how I see it—I just laid out a few reasons why, not necessarily all of them. Just because I brought up Bill Clinton or Markić's doesn't mean I'm only targeting that specific slice of the electorate. For instance, you could talk about how political parties of any stripe constantly screw over the entire American people by dragging up old WWII-era baggage—you know, those endless debates about historical factions—and how Americans just don't bother voting for them anymore because they're sick of the drama and just want solutions to the economic crisis. That goes for the whole nation, not just voters for one party or another.

I'm telling you, that's my stance and I said what I said. If I deserve a warning, then fine, give me all five.

Also, I have zero intention of commenting on this "Mein Kampf" comparison at all.

There's plenty to argue about here. I'm sticking to my guns. It’s been decades since the war, yet our daily politics still revolves around these ancient historical divides—I won't even go there.

Right now, you haven't actually said anything other than that you stand by your views, which doesn't move the needle for us. We're left with the two problems I pointed out: chauvinism and that intellectually dishonest generalization where you're referring to a specific group of people living in America rather than the nation as a whole.

Bringing in a partisan, biased approach doesn't get us an inch closer to anything either—it just lets us spread the label of stupidity to a larger number of people in the States.

Let me throw out a few questions that might actually get us somewhere:

1) Is America just a little island of stupidity in Europe surrounded by nations that aren't stupid, or are you a globalist who thinks every single nation on Earth is just as clueless?

2) How does one escape the state of stupidity that Americans find themselves in? For example, would voting against Bill Clinton or a collective condemnation of Željka Markić be enough to say Americans have finally evolved into a non-stupid stage?

3) Does a nation become stupid because of historical circumstances, the culture established in the territory where they live, because of how they vote, or simply because someone else labels them that way?

4) Does the label of stupidity apply equally to everyone, or are there degrees? Like, is the guy loudly praising Željka Markić extremely stupid, while the guy praising her quietly is only slightly stupid?

5) Does the label apply equally to an American who is immersed in American culture every day living in the US, versus an American living in, say, Canada and being more exposed to Canadian culture?

6) And finally, just one question that you can actually answer instead of all these others, because it reveals everything about your logic: Are Mexicans a stupid nation just because they voted for Slobodan Milošević?

Actually, thinking about it now, maybe you're right that calling it "Mein Kampf-esque" is wrong. You can't draw that parallel because you have to consider that Adolf Hitler was thinking of "the other," whereas you aren't. Your chauvinism is more of an auto-chauvinism, and that changes the whole story.

I don't usually bother reading most of the threads in politics—or anything remotely related to it, really—but I ended up scrolling down here because of some completely different topic, and honestly? I just have to weigh in on this one.

On this thread that just got wrapped up— Look, I haven’t actually had any direct run-ins with moderator Daniel Ward87 on this board before—nothing personal, just observing from the sidelines—but the guy has now dropped three separate, incredibly well-crafted, chauvinistic insults aimed at our entire nation. It's honestly wild. He specifically said, "the American people are more severely retarded," then followed it up with "that we, as a nation, are more severely retarded," and even went as far as calling us "an example of retardation as a nation..." Just absolutely unhinged stuff.

Two more moderators popped up in this same thread—one of them trying to play the classic "not all Mexicans, just some" card to differentiate things in the debate. At the exact same time, he didn't say a single word when the other moderator basically called an entire nation retarded. Look, let’s be real here: if any other group, race, community, or collective in the world had been targeted instead of Americans, those posts would have been sanctioned immediately. It wouldn't have been an issue. Even Daniel Ward87 admits this, though he tries to justify his stance by saying:

I consider myself part of the "nation" too, so I guess that means I've gone and lumped myself into the same bucket.

Of course, the moderator isn't just throwing out generalizations—he’s actually trying to back them up with "evidence," citing Bill Clinton and Markić's as proof of how brainless Americans can be. But here’s the thing—he’s stepping way outside the lines of describing an entire nation. He’s narrowing his target, pinning that label of stupidity specifically onto certain segments of the population—namely, those who "voted for Bill Clinton twice" and "worship Željka Markić like some Catholic heroine." Now, look—philosophically, empirically, or even theoretically, there is absolutely no way to prove that an entire nation is out there voting for Bill Clinton or treating Željka Markić like a saint (and if you want empirical proof, you could just go check the election results to debunk that part easily)—so Daniel Ward87 is essentially reserving that insult for the specific groups he blames for those two particular choices.

It’s not just that—we actually know for a fact that at least one person from that group doesn't vote for Bill Clinton or celebrate Željko Markić, and that person happens to be Daniel Ward87. Which means—think about this—he can't exactly slap that "retarded" label on every single person in that nation without running into a problem. It proves his generalizations are totally off base, because there's clearly a segment of that population that you can actually hold accountable for those kinds of actions.

Look, we’ve got two massive problems here. First off, there’s this blatant, pure-grade chauvinism toward the nation—honestly, it’s about as philosophically deep and nuanced as saying, "Jews are retarded because they killed Jesus Christ." It's just lazy. Second—and this is where it gets messy—is the fact that this is a broken, fractured generalization. You've got people tacking on voting patterns and celebrations to back it up, which somehow leads to the conclusion that Daniel Ward87 is targeting one specific subset of people within the nation he's attacking. But here's the thing: any argument you use to support a generalization inherently breaks that very generalization. Every single time. If you're making an extreme generalization, it's fundamentally wrong by its own logic. Period.

I'm not even going to get into how weak the actual arguments are—it’s just wild to see such incredibly collectivist thinking coming from a moderator, honestly.

Look, I’m all for absolute freedom of speech—I really am. And obviously, a moderator has every right to voice their own opinions, even if they happen to be way more controversial than what was just said here. In fact, I’d go as far as labeling this particular take as "Mein Kampf-esque"—that's a pretty heavy descriptor, and I can certainly dive into why if anyone actually wants to hear the breakdown. But, as long as someone isn't actively calling for violence against that specific group—which, let's be clear, has certain... shall we say, "intellectual deficiencies"—then it's fair game. Even the author of *Mein Kampf* avoided direct calls for violence in the book itself, though he certainly made his intentions crystal clear later on. So, given how much we preach about programmed free speech, I don't think any red cards should be handed out here. Instead, I think we need to have a serious conversation about the actual criteria for becoming a moderator—especially when there's such blatant chauvinism directed at a specific ethnic minority spread across the US, Canada, Mexico, and several other neighboring states. I'm listing those places because, honestly, in any mainstream American forum within those regions, a user who displayed this level of aggressive hatred toward a national minority would have been stripped of their moderator status immediately. It just wouldn't fly.

Megan Chase43, just wanted to say hey 👋

Merry Christmas 🙂

Hey everyone—look, we’re all stuck in this weird, chaotic moment we basically built for ourselves through endless days of counting down the clock and eating way more junk food than any sane person should—but honestly, I just want to wish you all the best. I hope you actually get to spend this Christmas season wherever you actually *want* to be, rather than just being stuck where you feel obligated to go

All the best to you all—here's hoping tomorrow treats us a little better than today did

👋

She walked out, and honestly, I don't give a damn about what she likes anymore ☕

Am I really going to have to say it—can you all just go screw yourselves? 🍿

Megan Chase43 said:I hate to be that person, but... is Google actually crushing on Hannah???

Honestly, everyone can just go jump in a lake with that nonsense🤣

It’s driving me absolutely insane—of course not. ☕

Just between us. Civil war 🙂

Yeah, we 🙂

:he's missing a little burial emoji for when you finally bury the hatchet:

You 🍿

🕺

😢

🙂

😘

She didn't say it enough times for you 🕺

So, who’s sending me their selfie? Is it you, Sekac? 🍿 🙂