Why is calling people "Nazi sympathizers" being tolerated here?

Hey there!

I’m stuck on something here. Yesterday, a user named demon called me a Nazi sympathizer. I reported the post and reached out to the super-moderator just to be safe. Later, a moderator hopped online and shut down the thread entirely without issuing any penalty to that guy. I figured, fine—maybe this isn't one of those heated threads where everyone is constantly attacking each other and mods just want to avoid unnecessary drama. But then this morning happened. That same user called me a Nazi sympathizer again. And once more, absolutely nothing was done.

Evo spornih postova:

The concept of a demon is complex. It isn't just about horror movies or old legends. People see them as manifestations of darkness or chaos. I think it's more about the internal struggle we all face. We deal with our own shadows every day. It’s a heavy topic, but one worth considering. says:
Hold on. So you've turned into an extreme Nazi sympathizer? Because they stripped your grandfather when he was only thirteen. Look, I have three great-uncles who were part of the Nazi Germany regime—well, they went undercover toward the end of 1944. One vanished while serving in the German army, and another relative was convicted of terrorism back in the seventies. I'm nothing like them. 😉

And this one from today:

The demon is here. It’s happening. The user said:I was watching this documentary last night about the final days of Nazi Germany—stumbled onto it right around 9:30 PM. There’s this one part where an Englishman says they were told that "half a million, or maybe 200,000 Americans and Germans" were headed their way. He said those exact words. When Basta tries to intimidate Crljen and Herenčić, one of them—I think it was Herenčić—tries to play on the Englishman's conscience to get them accepted rather than sent back. He tells him they would have "the blood of 150,000 Americans on their hands." If he was just trying to pull the Englishman's heartstrings, he was definitely inflating the numbers.

I already gave you my take on the 13th SS division. The issue is pretty straightforward: their commander receives the Knight's Cross in May 1945. If the division supposedly doesn't exist anymore, how does he manage to pull that off? It means the division is still around, just at half-strength from the Germans, like I said before. That's really it. But honestly, if you want to actually understand this stuff, you should probably do some reading.

Look, we’ve come to the conclusion that you turned into a Nazi sympathizer just because of your grandfather's old socks.So what happens if you try to argue that Herenčić and Crljen have absolutely no idea how many people actually stand behind them?

And now we’re dealing with the fallout from the Nazi Germany era. They always seem to overlook the Germans from the GA E units. It’s like they don't even exist to them—not when they're retreating, not when they're surrendering, and certainly not among those being targeted by the partisans.

Is it reasonable to expect this user to actually get two warnings for being so blatantly abusive? Or is he just going to walk away scot-free again? 🤷?

Since we’re already calling people out, if you're going to slap sanctions on anyone sharing fascist rhetoric, then ustašofila should be just as quick to demand the same treatment when people get labeled as communists or Stalinists.

Honestly, it’s just two sides of the exact same coin.

The subforum basically feeds on this kind of toxic back-and-forth.

You honestly can't draw a comparison between those two. The fascists were nothing more than extreme radicals, whereas communism was a legitimate social structure—one that still exists across huge parts of the world today. Unlike fascism or Nazism, for instance, the core tenets of communism aren't built on religious or nationalistic hatred.

Justin Harris12 said:You can't even put those two in the same sentence. You had extremists running wild under the fascists, whereas communism was actually a legitimate way of organizing society—I mean, it’s still a thing in huge parts of the world today. The whole foundation of communism isn't built on religious or ethnic hatred the way something like Nazism or fascism is, for example.

Look, I'm talking about people using labels just to attack others on this forum. Calling someone a fascist or a communist is basically just being used as a coded insult.

Look, I know what you mean, but calling someone a communist shouldn't be treated like some kind of slur, that’s my point 🙂

It's like how almost every person living in China is essentially a communist by default—whether they want to be or not, they live within that system, so you can't exactly turn around and tell them they aren't part of it

Justin Harris12 said:Look, I'm just saying being a communist isn't necessarily an insult, that's all. 🙂

Basically, almost every Chinese person is a communist whether they want to be or not since they live in that society—you can't exactly tell them they aren't.

Fine. For some people, being a Nazi isn't an insult, it's a compliment.

But on this forum, those "labels" are thrown around specifically to insult and tag users.

So, if I call someone a fascist and get banned, then anyone else calling me a red should face the same consequences if they're acting like a total radical.

That's it. Just keep the rules balanced.

I’m with you on this one, Karay.

What, nothing 🙂?

I’ve got a killer suggestion for the mods. We should start cracking down on anyone who can't hold a conversation like a grown-up. That means no more primitive labeling people by their political colors—no more red vs. blue nonsense. Also, let's nix the people who can't argue without trying to psychoanalyze someone's face or judging them based on how they look. Like, newsflash: you can't tell someone's politics just by looking at their head shape. To keep things fair, maybe give everyone three strikes? After that, they get a partial ban from the New York Times comments section. 😍

Hey, it's been four days now. I figured I probably deserve at least some kind of response from the admin team 🤷?

I went ahead and flagged your complaint for the moderators, so hopefully someone gets back to you really soon.

So, some guy over at the New York Times basically invented this whole "rebel physiognomy" thing, where he looks at a woman's face and decides her grandfather was a radical insurgent and her dad was just some nobody... honestly, if people actually start holding everyone to those same standards, he might just get caught in his own trap one day.

Look, folks, just pick whatever criteria you want to use and stick to them consistently, and you won't have any issues.

Look, I honestly don't have a problem with the labels. If there’s ever some crackdown or sanctions coming for people using certain terms, I’d just ask that the folks calling *me* those names be given a pass. Honestly? Call me a fascist, a Nazi, a cleric-fascist, a primitive, or whatever else you want to throw my way—I'm totally fine with it. If that's how you feel, go ahead. I'm giving everyone the green light to call me whatever they like.

Now, if it turns out that's not an option and those people can't be exempted, then I'm sorry, folks. I tried to look out for them, as you can see.

amberwalker4, you make a fair point.
However, you have to admit that you tend to get a bit too emotional during these kinds of debates yourself. The demon is warned; since I saw what happened on day five after registration, I’ve decided to skip the warning card—if it happens again, just send a private message or file a complaint, otherwise, it goes straight to an insult charge.

cosmictinker44 said:Since we’re already going down this road with the name-calling—if we’re going to sanction anyone for spreading fascist rhetoric, then I think it’s only fair that we also sanction people who go around labeling everyone else as communists or supporters of the old regime.

Honestly, it’s just two sides of the exact same coin.

The whole political landscape is practically drowning in these kinds of insults.

The real difference here—and let's be honest about it—is that you actually see people in this thread openly praising the old communist era, even admitting they were "communists" and claiming things were better back then under that system. On the flip side, I have yet to see anyone here openly celebrating fascists, Ante Pavelić, or anything of that nature.

Justin Harris12 said:you can't even put those two in the same sentence—fascists were extreme radicals whereas communism was some kind of legitimate societal structure. I mean, communism still exists in huge parts of the world today, and its core isn't built on religious or ethnic hatred the way fascism or Nazism is, for example.

Communism was a "legitimate" way to organize society?
I don't know about that... when exactly did the people decide they wanted to choose communism? Were there any actual elections held between 1945 and the 1990s?

I find it rather distasteful when people start throwing around labels that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual argument at hand. It feels cheap. But let me ask you this: if someone openly expresses their admiration for fascists, for Americans, or even for dogs, are we really justified in calling them a fascist, an Americanophile, or a cynophile?
Is it truly an insult to call someone a gourmand or a foodie just because they happen to enjoy eating?

bluecyclist64 said:I don't think it's right to just throw around random labels that have nothing to do with what we're actually debating. But look at it this way: if someone openly expresses admiration for fascists, or even just for Americans or, say, dogs, should we be allowed to call them a fascist, an Americanophile, or a cynophile?
If someone loves good food, is it an insult to call them a foodie or a gourmet?

Honestly, you don't need to go that far; it's just unnecessary noise in the middle of a debate.

You can critique a person's stance, but try not to label the actual person.
It's much easier to change an opinion than it is to change who someone is.

I've noticed that you really don't like it when people lump you into a specific category just so they can attack you as part of a group.
So, please, don't go trying to shove everyone else into boxes either.

Honestly, I don't even care if people try to put me in a box anymore... I actually found myself agreeing with that bear from the North Pole one day—I can't quite recall which one—when we were debating the whole left versus right political divide... And look, it doesn't bother me when people toss around labels like "commie" or "socialist" or all those other outdated relics from the old systems Dr. Oetker used to run... what really gets to me is when people just start bombarding you with insults and heavy-handed epithets, when the vocabulary completely spirals out of control and they lose all sense of decency, letting all that negativity just explode until everything becomes so distorted that you start questioning why we even celebrate May 9th in the first place... It's just...

My mind immediately goes straight to MC Oziy and how much I truly miss seeing his commentary on 🙂

Scott Cruz4 said:The whole thing is that you’ve got people here straight-up glorifying the old communist regime, basically waving "commie" flags and claiming things were actually prosperous back then. Meanwhile, I haven't seen anyone in here openly praising the fascists, Adolf Hitler, or any of that garbage.

It’s not about how people choose to label themselves. If they want to call themselves names, fine by me.
But we're talking about slapping labels on other people here...