Question for the politics subforum moderators

Alright, look... I’m gonna be blunt here, because I am seriously sick of getting flagged and losing points without any actual explanation. Everything just gets lumped under this convenient label of "trolling"—which, honestly, anyone who has been on this forum for more than five minutes and actually knows my style can see is total nonsense. My posts aren't trolling; it's just that they don't align with the specific "vibe" this subforum is trying to project, and since the moderators don't have any real arguments to back up their bans, they just slap the troll label on everything. It’s transparent.

So, I’ve got one direct question regarding the whole refugee/migrant situation, specifically concerning the thread titled "immigration issue."

Here’s what I want: I want the moderators to finally sit down and explain exactly what is ALLOWED to be said and what ISN'T. What stances are acceptable and which ones are off-limits? Let's all just get on the same page once and for all.

As you guys know—and I'll say it plainly—my position is that we, as an American nation, shouldn't be taking in any more migrants, and we really ought to shut our borders tight, much like how Canada did. So...

Question number one: Is that allowed to be written? Is it okay to state that America needs to completely shut its borders?

Number two: Is it permissible to argue that many of these people aren't actually refugees at all, but simply migrants looking for a better life—a point I can back up with plenty of evidence and logic?

Number three: Can I mention the massive risk that among the huge wave of people seeking better lives, there are individuals with bad intentions? Like what we saw during that terrorist attack in Paris, where it was officially confirmed that one of the attackers had slipped in among the "refugees" and traveled right through our own backyard to carry out that insane slaughter? Is it against the rules to say that anyone with half a brain can logically conclude that when millions of people are flooding into Europe, there isn't a damn chance that *not one* of them is a threat? Because last time I pointed that out, I got hit with a ban.

Number four: Am I allowed to draw a comparison between the displaced people from Memphis and today's migrants from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Sudan? Can I point out the striking similarities between those two groups using photos and UNHCR reports as proof?

Number five: Is it okay to be a little sarcastic? For instance, can I suggest that the current American Government seems way more concerned with whether we've humanely fed and housed every single migrant or made sure they have a TV in their room, rather than worrying about whether terrorists are hiding in the chaos? You know, the kind of chaos where someone can just wander from state to state based on nothing but a spoken word—just saying, "I'm Abdul from Syria and my life is in danger, please give me asylum," and being able to move freely?

So, I am asking the moderators of the politics subforum to weigh in. Tell us clearly: what exactly are your orders? What are you instructed to allow and what are you told to suppress regarding this topic?

I just want some guidance so I know what I can actually post. Seriously, you guys are driving everyone crazy by flagging every single post that doesn't fit the script you were handed. Calling it "trolling" is honestly laughable at this point...

One ....... 🤔 I might be wrong here, but I’m fairly certain one of our colleagues was among the first—if not the absolute first—to say at the start of this crisis that we need to seal the border tight, even if it means using heavy machinery. And he didn't face any backlash.
Two .......... you won't be the first one to say that.
Three ............ you aren't being original there either.
Four ........ I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is, so I'd ask you to be quite careful.
Five ........... some people have already said that without a hint of irony.

Instructions🤦you must be joking.

Who's stopping you from sharing your own opinion? Certainly not us, but the only thing we insist on—and will continue to do—is following the rules of this forum.

If you ignore the nonsense, there are actually some pretty decent questions buried in the main part of this post, and the answers will likely be useful to a lot of people...

But before we get to that, let's just speed things up a bit:

Point zero—you aren't allowed to comment on moderation within a thread, which is why your status is currently grayed out. That’s clearly stated in all the forum rules and sub-forum guidelines...

Joseph Stewart38 said:What I really want to know is this—I need the moderators to finally explain what is actually ALLOWED to be written here and what isn't, specifically regarding which viewpoints are permitted and which aren't, so we can all finally know where we stand.

Any opinion is fine as long as it stays within legal boundaries and follows basic civilized norms...

As you know, my position is that we, as an American nation, shouldn't be accepting any more migrants, and that we ought to close the borders just like Canada did. So...

Point one—is that allowed to be written? Is it permissible to say that the US should completely shut its borders?

Yes, and plenty of other users have written that in various posts without getting flagged...

Point two: is it okay to write that many of them aren't actually refugees, but simply migrants looking for a better life, based on several reasons that I can back up with evidence and arguments?

Yes, and numerous users have said exactly that in different posts without receiving any penalties...

Point three: is it allowed to say there's a massive chance that among the many migrants seeking a better life, there are those whose intentions are not good, much like what we just saw with the terrorist attack in Paris, when it was officially confirmed that one of the terrorists had infiltrated the "refugee" groups and passed through America on his way to that insane massacre? Is it allowed to say that anyone with half a brain can logically conclude that among the millions of people arriving in Europe over the last few months, there isn't even a slight chance that *not one* of them is a terrorist? Because last time I wrote that, I got a strike.

Yes, and that* has been written by many users in various posts without being penalized...

Point four. Is it okay to compare the displaced people from Memphis with today's migrants from Syria/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Sudan and point out how similar the two groups actually are? Provided, of course, that it's backed up by photos and UNHCR reports?

Yeah, and plenty of people on this forum have made that exact point in various threads without getting banned...

Under Rule 5. Is it okay to be sarcastic and suggest that the current US Government cares more about whether we’ve humanely fed every migrant or provided them with a flat-screen TV than whether actual terrorists are hiding among them—terrorists who exploit this kind of chaos and lawlessness where anyone without papers can just drift from state to state based on nothing but a verbal claim like, "I'm Abdul from Syria and my life is in danger, please grant me asylum"...?

This is hovering right on the edge of trolling because it’s a bit nonsensical—given the "TV" comment and depending on whether the person actually understands geography or if they're being serious about migrants appearing out of thin air once they hit a portal in Syria versus using it for political points—but you probably wouldn't get flagged for it...

As for that "to*" part, that’s the most telling bit, because sure, you’re allowed to say that in a crowd like that there might be a terrorist or even that it's probable... we don't have to agree, but you can certainly say it.

What you can't do is label all immigrants as terrorists, or claim—without any actual argument—that the majority of them are.

Otherwise, as far as you're concerned, you've already picked up five strikes on threads regarding immigrants and the terror attacks in Paris.

Three of those were for arguing with the moderation. You have every right to disagree with the rules and wage a holy war against them... 🙂 but that won't change the fact that you'll keep getting flagged, and since we have custom sanctions, persistent rule-breaking can lead to much harsher penalties.

The fourth strike was for trolling by pushing political propaganda on an immigrant-related thread, and that happened after multiple warnings from the mods—not directed at you personally, but at the thread itself—to stop doing it.

The fifth strike is regarding what was quoted above. Saying "Immigrants bring insane ideas about terror attacks" isn't an "opinion" about how there might likely be a terrorist among them; it's blatant generalization, which is why you got a relatively light strike. If someone actually wanted to shut you up for that—hence the nonsense about "what were you told" and stuff like that 🤦—you could have easily been slapped with 500 points for hate speech and sent on a long vacation. Had you written what you actually claimed to have written in your comment, you wouldn't have been flagged at all. But you didn't write that.

And it's always the same issue with these sensitive topics. There are rules for civilized behavior, there are laws, and then there are the rules for this private forum. All viewpoints are permitted, and ALL viewpoints can be expressed freely on these topics. But—and I'm not talking specifically to you, but rather to the more heated users on these threads—it is not permitted to express a "viewpoint" like "all Muslims are terrorists," "they should all be killed," or "a Moroccan man raped a woman in a camp in Italy, so half a million rapists are crossing through Europe"—and so on. Those aren't "opinions" or "viewpoints."