I'm a bit slow, can someone explain?

However, I find myself wondering—am I truly so limited or perhaps just slow—that I fail to see what constitutes hate speech in this particular post?

I am not trying to be provocative here; I am asking quite sincerely. Could someone please clarify or explain this to me?
Thank you in advance!

And while we are discussing Trump... I noticed some posts today that were incredibly offensive, yet not a single moderation warning was issued for them...
For instance, @TolkienGeek posted a GIF featuring a sick child as a way to mock Trump, and then there was Christian Torres3, who seemed more interested in nitpicking details than debating, resorting to ad hominem attacks by calling others "outsiders from across the border."

I cannot provide the links because those posts have already been deleted.

My question at the end of all this is: why is that first post labeled "hate speech," while these other examples are treated as "acceptable speech"?

Paul Kern12 said:Meanwhile, @Christian Torres3/">@@Christian Torres3 is out here counting blood cells and hitting people with ad hominem attacks like, "Why am I even debating this guy from the outskirts?"

Your memory clearly isn't doing you any favors because I never said what you're claiming. Just so we're clear.

Christian Torres3 said:Your memory might be failing you just a little bit—since I don't believe I actually wrote what you're claiming. Just an observation.

But how exactly did you phrase it? On another note, it seems your avatar looks rather fascist—though I suppose you probably feel entitled to such things, don't you?

Paul Kern12 said:What do you mean "how did I write it"? By the way, your avatar looks straight-up fascist. But hey, I guess there's always an exception for you, right?

It doesn't look like anything. Go ahead, sue me.

Neither before nor after the sexual revolution of the 70s—which is what this user is banking on—has there been any actual shift in how we define sexual assault.
The post claims that BEHAVIOR and ACTIONS are now the standard, which certainly isn't how the law works here in the States, and it likely wasn't the case in the US even when those massive protests broke out.

I’m wondering about this too. So, Dzonzi gets slapped with a hate speech violation just because Ray-Ban insulted him with all those ethnic slurs and regional insults? And now he's even taking shots at Jews? This looks like nothing more than blatant trolling, not actual hate speech.

On the other hand, you have Christian Torres3 saying, "I couldn't care less about these trolls coming here to act like experts," and he only gets flagged for trolling. Plus, look at that avatar—honestly, I don't even want to get dragged into a stupid argument about what his profile picture represents, because it's blindingly obvious, just like what kind of hat Hasanebgović was wearing. The moderation on this thread lately has been an absolute disaster! 👎

The constant claims that attacking women was somehow acceptable after the 70s? That’s a fast track to getting banned.
If you can't see the distinction here, I truly feel for you. Politics isn't just a narrow debate about left versus right or national identity.

He never actually said attacking women is okay. For God's sake, listen to the recording and try to actually grasp what was said: "when you are a star, they let you do anything." Seriously? This moderation is an absolute disaster. A total catastrophe. Yet somehow, people can get called ethnic slurs or nationalist insults, and folks can openly claim it's fine if protesters call for Trump's assassination. Unbelievable.

I am not even talking about Trump here. I’m talking about the user on this forum and his ridiculous explanation that such behavior is perfectly normal. After he posted that, several more people jumped in to explain how you can just grab someone by their... well, you know. It was an absolute escalation.
If there are any fans of this kind of conduct lurking around, consider yourselves unwelcome here. Given American laws and my own family and cultural values, I have zero tolerance for it.

boldjackal70 said:The constant claim that attacking women was somehow acceptable after the 70s—well, that’s just nonsense.
If you can't see the distinction here, then I suppose I simply cannot help you. Politics isn't just about left versus right, or national identity, and so on.

Forgive me, but I don't see him actually endorsing attacks on women in his post.

but following the sexual revolution of the 60s, it became part of the slang—and, quite frankly, a reality...

This is merely an observation rather than an endorsement or an incitement. He was referring to conversations within male social circles—and "quite frankly, a reality"—meaning that such rhetoric often translates from words into actions.
There is no endorsement or encouragement being offered anywhere here.

I may not be correct, but it is my opinion that you have misunderstood his point.🙂

I already said it myself: this is nothing but low-class bragging. There’s no way he just randomly approached some woman on the street and started acting like that; he was clearly showing off about someone he used to be with. If you can't see the difference there, then we're really speaking two different languages.

Honestly, we need an immediate system here to rate the moderation team. We should be swapping mods out constantly based on their performance ratings because it’s obvious half of you don't actually know the rules. You just interpret them however you want depending on whether you like the person you're arguing with or not. I've reported so many violations over the last week, and I seriously doubt even 5% of them have actually been dealt with...

Justin Cruz25 said:Meanwhile, Christian Torres3 gets slapped with a card just for trolling, basically saying, "I couldn't care less about these trolls from out of town coming here to lecture us." And look at his avatar! I'm not even going to get dragged into some stupid debate over what's on it—it's obvious what it is, just like it was obvious which hat Hasanebgović was wearing. The moderation on this thread lately has been a total disaster! 👎

American Dreiblatt

Hasanebgović was wearing a different insignia, and I've already laid out my stance on that in the relevant thread.

EDIT: for Paul Kern12
It’ll be a lot easier for you to wrap your head around this once you realize I’ve been a woman on this forum for ten years.

The Forumas was given time to deliberate, and I believe that is exactly what it is doing right now.

boldjackal70 said:EDIT: for Paul Kern12
It’ll be easier for you once you realize I’ve been a woman on this forum for ten years.

The Forumas was given some time to think, and I think that's exactly what it's doing.

I'm not even going to argue about it because after 13 years, I have zero intention of changing an avatar that isn't banned in America or anywhere else in the world. Whatever opinion you moderators want to label me with is entirely up to you.

boldjackal70 said:EDIT: for Paul Kern12
It might be easier for you to wrap your head around this once you realize I’ve been a woman on this forum for ten years now.

The Forumas has been given some time to reflect, and honestly, I think that's exactly what's happening right now.

With all due respect to you as a woman and a moderator, you're reading something into that post that absolutely nobody else sees, no matter how hard they try. I don't usually make a habit of weighing in on stuff like this—I've had my fair share of controversial takes—but this one from you... maybe you should take a little time to think things over too?

Thanks for the warm welcome, but I never act without thinking things through first. And just to be clear, when I say "with full respect," I'm providing a reasoned argument here—whereas you're just offering an opinion.

There isn't even a hint of hate speech in that post, let alone any kind of endorsement of attacks against women.
Honestly, a minor warning would have sufficed to smooth things over—treating "off-topic" or "spam" as a catch-all excuse when you just want to hand out a penalty without doing the heavy lifting of an actual explanation is a bit much—but this whole situation? It’s just glaringly wrong.👎

I’m on board with this. I didn't see any hate speech here.

Why is it that the other moderators—specifically those supermods handling the political section—aren't speaking up?
Do you all actually agree with boldjackal70 that what was said qualified as hate speech? I find myself wondering why there is such silence in the face of injustice.

I am closely following the discussion and am currently in the middle of communicating with my colleagues regarding this matter. We will be in touch.