Who banned me and why?

Did I already post about RO over on close to politics?

Anyone?

My last post was wiped—don't tell me which rule I supposedly broke—yet the quote I included is still sitting there. In it, the moderator Ego claims users who rely on SNAP benefits are basically ruining kids' lives, implying that everyone else can't afford children because those people will just drain all the money... or something like that.

I’ve been banned for three days now... how many points did I rack up, you assholes? Was I under hypnosis or something? Because I honestly don't remember committing any murders...

I went ahead and banned you directly. You managed to compare a colleague to Zaharov during a debate, and frankly, I have no idea how you pulled that off. Besides, I already had to scrub several of your posts just yesterday, which really should have earned you some sanctions in the first place.

Charles Fox10 said:I banned you directly because during a debate with a colleague, you managed to compare him to Zaharov. I have no idea how you pulled that off, but there it is—and that’s not allowed. Not to mention, I deleted several of your posts just a day earlier, which honestly warranted some sanctions.

I was comparing his defense of his position to the way the White House operates—and mentioned Zaharov.
I truly thought you knew how to read and comprehend basic logic.

Essentially, ego's argument regarding why this welfare program is bad—claiming any housewife isn't a role model for kids, or if they aren't capable, that the program is just a budget drain—went so far that he actually blamed the recipients for the lack of children...
It is so absurdly illogical, mathematically and otherwise, that it reminded me of how the White House attacks and dismantles things by blaming the victim, claiming they are actually attacking themselves.

I could have told some woman her hair looks like Zaharov's... it's not like she'd be insulted.

It never crossed my mind that you might ban me—not in a sane world—while simultaneously letting his post about having kids slide.
As for calling program recipients "parasites" (a move supported by our own moderator Oštrić), I had given up hope that anyone would even react... I suppose that falls under free speech, just like being a crony or an unemployed clerk at the DMV.

Thanks for the response. Let it be noted that I am deeply surprised by these standards; and I certainly don't consider my colleague ego to be someone worth comparing to those lying killers.

I did tell him earlier that his insistence on a specific lifestyle as the only acceptable one feels like those who would forbid people from living how they choose, whether with or without government support.