Moderating the immigration thread

lonebadger6 says:
Ultimately, it’s actually in Scandinavia where you find huge groups of "North American" (meaning Mexicans, Canadians, Americans, and Roma) criminals, all driven by those exact same reasons.

Dana Robinson4 says: do these North American criminals really go around decapitating mothers in grocery stores?

lonebadger6 says: This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire

edi_bosanceros says:
Many people should just leave these forums and head somewhere else where they can actually find better living conditions.

Dana Robinson4 says: so they climb over fences and stab police officers?

lonebadger6 says: This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire

Bravo, truly impressive work here. 🙏

So, I suppose it's perfectly fine to highlight the similarities between the North America and the Middle East, but the moment you try to point out the differences, suddenly you're just trolling?

Nah.

It’s perfectly fine to say there are "North American criminals" in Scandinavia because, frankly, there are...

But you aren't allowed to suggest that "certain people" are out there decapitating grandmas in grocery stores, because:

1. That specific thing didn't even happen; nobody is out there slicing up grandmas in shops.
2. There was one incident you were hinting at in Sweden, and in that case, nobody actually lost their head.
3. It wasn't even committed by the immigrants we're discussing here, but by a man from Eritrea.

And if you bother to do a quick Google search, you'll find plenty of murders in Sweden committed by North American gang members. Hell, a Mexican even killed a minister once.

If you dig just a little deeper, you'll find Americans who killed a sister's fiancé in Germany, some guy who bludgeoned a homeless person with a rock in Italy, or someone killing a Filipino chef on an American ship... and so on.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt German or Italian forums are filled with generalizations about Americans being killers or demands that we be banned from entering Germany or Italy.

Hopefully, it's clear now why your comment is nothing more than trolling...

Look, everyone here complaining about how certain mods handle things—most of us have been on this forum for years. Do you honestly think we can't tell the difference between actual trolling, hate speech, and everything else? Like, do you really think we don't know what good moderation looks like versus bad?

Don't insult our intelligence. Maybe we aren't right 100% of the time, but when certain moderators shut down a perfectly fine debate with random, unfair bans? Yeah, they definitely did that.

lonebadger6 said:Nah.

It’s perfectly fine to say there are "North American criminals" in Scandinavia because, frankly, there are...

But you aren't allowed to suggest that "certain people" are out there decapitating grandmas in grocery stores, because:

1. That specific thing didn't even happen; nobody is out there slicing up grandmas in shops.
2. There was one incident you were hinting at in Sweden, and in that case, nobody actually lost their head.
3. It wasn't even committed by the immigrants we're discussing here, but by a man from Eritrea.

And if you bother to do a quick Google search, you'll find plenty of murders in Sweden committed by North American gang members. Hell, a Mexican even killed a minister once.

If you dig just a little deeper, you'll find Americans who killed a sister's fiancé in Germany, some guy who bludgeoned a homeless person with a rock in Italy, or someone killing a Filipino chef on an American ship... and so on.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt German or Italian forums are filled with generalizations about Americans being killers or demands that we be banned from entering Germany or Italy.

Hopefully, it's clear now why your comment is nothing more than trolling...

The head was severed—if you have the stomach for it, just look it up...
It was done by an immigrant from Eritrea who was shouting Allahu Akbar during the act...
The second head was only partially severed, and there aren't any photos of that one.

You're right, I should have said "people" instead of "grandmothers." Or does this partial one not count?

@Drew Brooks8 6,634 comments, yet there were only 230 today. A discussion completely suffocated...
By the way, if you actually have grievances, you handle them by providing links and examples of what you consider "pointless and unfair," rather than just making sweeping, baseless claims—that’s how you follow the rules on this sub...

Dana Robinson4 said:The head was severed—if you have the stomach for it, just look it up...
It was done by an immigrant from Eritrea who was shouting Allahu Akbar during the act...
The second head was only partially severed, and there aren't any photos of that one.

You're right, I should have said "people" instead of "grandmothers." Or does this partial one not count?

What part of that didn't click?

How is an Eritrean killing two people at IKEA a reflection of all Eritreans or Muslims, yet an American hitting a homeless person with a rock isn't a reflection of Americans or Christians?

You aren't just trolling, you're being cheap and failing miserably, because equating an entire nation, religion, or group of people—like asylum seekers—with one lunatic is basically a textbook definition of hate speech...

lonebadger6 said:@Drew Brooks8 6,634 comments, yet there were only 230 today. A discussion completely suffocated...
By the way, if you actually have grievances, you handle them by providing links and examples of what you consider "pointless and unfair," rather than just making sweeping, baseless claims—that’s how you follow the rules on this sub...

So now I'm supposed to go hunting for archived or deleted posts just to provide an "argumentative" example? Am I really expected to prove myself to you?😵
Look, you haven't managed to suffocate us yet—if that makes you feel good—but you've definitely gone overboard with the bans and deletions. It’s too much.
I've seen enough. And clearly, I'm not the only one seeing the posts Bradley Sanders4 has been banning. Honestly, I haven't even noticed you around; you don't post about politics or moderate anything. You probably just drifted over from some other subforum.

lonebadger6 said:What part of that didn't click?

How is an Eritrean killing two people at IKEA a reflection of all Eritreans or Muslims, yet an American hitting a homeless person with a rock isn't a reflection of Americans or Christians?

You aren't just trolling, you're being cheap and failing miserably, because equating an entire nation, religion, or group of people—like asylum seekers—with one lunatic is basically a textbook definition of hate speech...

What percentage of a specific group needs to exhibit certain traits before we can actually discuss a connection between that group and those behaviors on this forum?
Not every Nazi committed a crime either, so why is generalization toward Nazis allowed? If the answer is that it's part of their "plan," then I’d suggest reading the Quran.
This is a crucial question, and we really need a clear answer so the forum rules can be consistently applied.

lonebadger6 said:What part of that didn't click?

How is an Eritrean killing two people at IKEA a reflection of all Eritreans or Muslims, yet an American hitting a homeless person with a rock isn't a reflection of Americans or Christians?

You aren't just trolling, you're being cheap and failing miserably, because equating an entire nation, religion, or group of people—like asylum seekers—with one lunatic is basically a textbook definition of hate speech...

well, you equated North American people with criminals just because of a few incidents...
so why shouldn't I go ahead and equate Muslims with headhunters based on a few cases?

mine is considered hate speech while yours is somehow viewed as a message of love? 😵

Look, you’re missing the point here. I never said being North American makes someone a criminal; if anything, I was saying the exact opposite... You really need to work on reading the room and understanding context. It's not like I claimed all Americans were responsible for some guy attacking a homeless person with a rock in my last post either.
Anyway, you asked a question and I gave you an answer, so if you're still feeling salty about getting a ban, there's a specific thread for that...

In the statement, "Do those North American criminals slice up mothers in grocery stores?"—where exactly am I seeing Muslims, Eritreans, or immigrants mentioned?

The focus here is entirely on heads, mothers, and people from the North America.

Instead of answering my question with a simple yes, which would be a lie, or a no, which is the truth, you chose a different path.

Instead, you've been handed 35 points just for the racist assumptions running through your mind.

Here’s an example of some moderation action—I'm looking for a response from the administration and the other policy moderators, not Bradley Sanders4 or lonebadger6.
lonebadger6 claims that Catholics ought to follow Catholic doctrine and the Pope without question.
Well, I’m just following that same logic! If that's the case, then according to him, Muslims should also follow their own doctrine. Since he's such a big advocate for immigration and bringing them here to the US and the EU, doesn't that mean he wants them practicing their own faith right here among us?

And now my post has been deleted!!! Why is that? Was it because I exposed some hypocrisy? Or was it simply because I stated the plain truth?

Your post was nuked because you brought up Islam in the Religion section.
The Catholic doctrine was included in the story for a reason, specifically since it mentions that Papal statement about how failing to welcome refugees is basically a war crime.
If you want to debate interpretations of the Quran, there are other threads for that, and this one was shut down immediately.
If the bit about the Pope and Catholic teaching is somehow an error, then let the admins handle it and delete that too...

@Bradley White73...

This topic is proving to be quite a handful for the moderators...

I wasn't exactly thrilled with those reactions... @Bradley Sanders4 on the thread... Honestly, based on what she wrote there, I'd strip her moderator privileges in a heartbeat...

Well, regarding this whole topic... they're doing the absolute best they can...
You have my full support, if that even matters...

lonebadger6 said:Look, you’re missing the point here. I never said being North American makes someone a criminal; if anything, I was saying the exact opposite... You really need to work on reading the room and understanding context. It's not like I claimed all Americans were responsible for some guy attacking a homeless person with a rock in my last post either.
Anyway, you asked a question and I gave you an answer, so if you're still feeling salty about getting a ban, there's a specific thread for that...

You're just trolling this thread to get a rise out of people.
Even if a moderator issued it, it feels excessive and honestly just irritating...

Let's leave it to the admin@to make the final call.

Sam Alvarez4 said:@Bradley White73...

This topic is proving to be quite a handful for the moderators...

I wasn't exactly thrilled with those reactions... @Bradley Sanders4 on the thread... Honestly, based on what she wrote there, I'd strip her moderator privileges in a heartbeat...

Well, regarding this whole topic... they're doing the absolute best they can...
You have my full support, if that even matters...

I won't get too deep into that other thread since I wasn't really active there—well, maybe I left one post or something. But since you brought it up, yeah, the moderation here seems a bit more solid than over there. The part I’m not quite buying, though, is this idea that they’re doing the absolute best they can. It feels like the moderation is driven more by emotion than anything else, and if you want proof, just look at Maria Booth's warning record. lonebadger6 actually uses her as an example of good moderation, pointing out she only has one strike after 81 posts. Sure, but it feels like that single strike was just held back until the perfect moment to finally nail her for everything else. Plus, handing out 500 points to Maria Booth and some of the other users might create a bit of an uncomfortable vibe for everyone else. I know what hate speech looks like, and I've always reported it whenever I spotted it. Bradley Sanders4, if you have a moment as a moderator, maybe take a look at my report history? I probably wouldn't even be posting in a thread where that kind of stuff is tolerated in the first place, and I’d likely be making much more noise about it than I am now. Honestly, though, I find myself missing that sense of freedom I felt when the conservative moderator, unknown, was in charge. Go figure. 🙂

I’m probably done weighing in on this topic if all we’re doing is airing specific grievances about the bans... there’s already a thread for that, and if the complaints are actually about "my" decisions, I'll address them over there. It seems like whenever someone isn't happy with an answer, instead of having a real, reasoned debate, it just devolves into a pile of trolling and personal attacks... it doesn't bother me, just lesson learned, because most people here don't actually want to talk to the moderators, they just want to fight. That ship has sailed 🙂 and I’m not talking about you, Bradley White73.

I’ll just correct you on one thing, though, purely so nothing gets misinterpreted. I never claimed that was an example of good moderation. What I said was that it disproves the idea that anyone is being forbidden from expressing their opinion. Bradley Sanders4 expressed it 80 times. Once, according to the moderator, he did it in a way that wasn't allowed. Sure, because of that one instance, he ended up banned, and if you think that ban was unfair, it's perfectly natural to conclude the moderation is bad, since from your perspective, an injustice was done. You’re entitled to your opinion on that, no argument there. But that still doesn't mean anyone is being silenced. He voiced his opinion before the ban, after the ban, and another 80 times besides.

lonebadger6 said:I’m probably done weighing in on this topic if all we’re doing is airing specific grievances about the bans... there’s already a thread for that, and if the complaints are actually about "my" decisions, I'll address them over there. It seems like whenever someone isn't happy with an answer, instead of having a real, reasoned debate, it just devolves into a pile of trolling and personal attacks... it doesn't bother me, just lesson learned, because most people here don't actually want to talk to the moderators, they just want to fight. That ship has sailed 🙂 and I’m not talking about you, Bradley White73.

I’ll just correct you on one thing, though, purely so nothing gets misinterpreted. I never claimed that was an example of good moderation. What I said was that it disproves the idea that anyone is being forbidden from expressing their opinion. Bradley Sanders4 expressed it 80 times. Once, according to the moderator, he did it in a way that wasn't allowed. Sure, because of that one instance, he ended up banned, and if you think that ban was unfair, it's perfectly natural to conclude the moderation is bad, since from your perspective, an injustice was done. You’re entitled to your opinion on that, no argument there. But that still doesn't mean anyone is being silenced. He voiced his opinion before the ban, after the ban, and another 80 times besides.

The idea isn't really that expressing an opinion is banned—that’s not what I was getting at. It’s more about how the sense of freedom in writing gets stifled by over-moderating absolutely everything, and I have my doubts that this stems from the moderator's personal biases. Maybe I'll wait to see if Bradley Sanders4 or Charles Fox10 comments on Maria Booth's warning (since I did argue why it applies to others too), and then they'll probably end up complaining about your warning. I wouldn't say yours was undeserved, but I guess there might be another way to look at it. I'll try to explain more once I find a bit of time.

Bradley White73 said:The idea isn't really that expressing an opinion is banned—that’s not what I was getting at. It’s more about how the sense of freedom in writing gets stifled by over-moderating absolutely everything, and I have my doubts that this stems from the moderator's personal biases. Maybe I'll wait to see if Bradley Sanders4 or Charles Fox10 comments on Maria Booth's warning (since I did argue why it applies to others too), and then they'll probably end up complaining about your warning. I wouldn't say yours was undeserved, but I guess there might be another way to look at it. I'll try to explain more once I find a bit of time.

Honestly, I'm on the same page. It might not even be undeserved—you basically got caught in a "sour grapes" situation where things were twisted into trolling, though you might have just paid the price for the general mood of the thread at that exact second. I wouldn't be against the admins lifting it, though...

lonebadger6 said:Honestly, I'm on the same page. It might not even be undeserved—you basically got caught in a "sour grapes" situation where things were twisted into trolling, though you might have just paid the price for the general mood of the thread at that exact second. I wouldn't be against the admins lifting it, though...

Sure, thanks. I really don't have any intention of trolling, but I suppose I need a little breathing room regarding potential strikes—you know, for those times when I think I'm being perfectly on-topic, but the mods decide it's off-topic instead. Like that time Leonas's link about the Ottoman conquests got wiped out. Later, nasmijanonebo posted in that same thread and her post stayed up, and lo and behold, the whole thing didn't turn into a total mess 🙂 Just so I don't end up banned if I misread the room.
Now I'm just waiting to see if Chuck and Bradley Sanders4 get flagged for hate speech 😬