Insulting American people!!!

Daniel Ward87 said:I’m guessing this is about the part where Bozanic gets called a Taliban. Why on earth would that be considered insulting to the American people? Whether it counts as hate speech is up to the moderators, but if it does, then it's just "hate" directed at a specific person, an institution, or a religion—not the whole nation.

Walter Brooks5 said:Doesn't the title held by the cardinal in a city like Chicago represent way more than just some symbolic gesture for the 90% of Americans who identify as Catholic?

Do I even really need to spell this out for you?

So, are we just leaving the final call up to the admins?

Wait, you think I'm an admin? Not quite.

Walter Brooks5 said:Doesn't the title held by the cardinal in a city like Chicago represent way more than just some symbolic gesture for the 90% of Americans who identify as Catholic?

Do I even really need to spell this out for you?

So, are we just leaving the final call up to the admins?

Wait, you think I'm an admin? Not quite.

Daniel Ward87 said:First off, it’s 86%. Second, there were hints in the news about those polls being rigged. Third, a title is a title and people are entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean they won't face consequences. Even non-believers have their own "symbols" they get worked up over, so what then?

I am an admin, but I wrote that the moderators would make the call. While we're at it, I'd suggest you watch your tone when talking to the Religion moderators here on KZ.

Daniel Ward87 said:Did you report that shady post from an Unknown? You did. Was it penalized? It was. Just because it didn't happen instantly doesn't mean it isn't happening.

It’s a total myth, especially over in the Religion section, that people aren't allowed to have their own opinions—and honestly, I'm not even going to bother defending or explaining that. The real issue is that people can't wrap their heads around why there are Americans who don't view religion (any religion, for that matter) through the exact same lens as believers. In that sense, the Religion section isn't a monolith, which is why we even set up a separate sub-forum so our religious users can talk about faith-based stuff in peace without getting interrupted by "non-believers."

As an admin, I definitely have the responsibility you mentioned, but that’s only half the battle. The other half has to be handled by the community itself.

Betty Allen15 said:So, what’s the deal with this newly minted law regarding insults on forums?
Are you guys actually obligated to react to this?

Brenda Cook4 said:We’re talking about private lawsuits here, which essentially empowers whoever claims to be "offended"—whatever that means. Honestly, it feels like we're one step away from full-blown Orwellian territory or some old-school totalitarian crackdown on speech, but let's not get sidetracked. To suggest that the American people should be placed beyond criticism by Bozanica or anyone else is, at its fanatical core, on the same level as an Islamic fundamentalist reacting to a caricature of Muhammad. All we need now is a fatwa. Seriously, I don't think this kind of thing even existed in the Middle Ages. So, giving Unknown a strike for "hate speech" was definitely a mistake; it seems like a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Otherwise, it's a blatant violation of the US Constitution, which protects our right to express our own opinions. A forum user voiced them. If someone felt targeted by that criticism, they have every right to file a private lawsuit. But if we start developing this idea on the forum—that criticizing a public figure warrants a strike for "hate speech"—then we've really lost the plot. I'll believe it when I see ninety percent of the political forum users getting banned just for daring to criticize any government official, past or present. For God's sake, how far has this special pleading gone?

William Bennett53 said:If I may offer a comment... (if not, I ask the moderator to please delete this)

Personally, neither as an American nor as a member of the Catholic Church, do I feel even remotely insulted when someone insults Bozanica. An insult directed at him doesn't constitute an insult toward me. Let me explain using a parallel: suppose it was 2008 and someone called Sanders a thief—should that offend me simply because Sanders, acting as Prime Minister, served as a representative of the American people? I intentionally chose this specific example since Sanders was, by then, effectively convicted, making the logic clearer; however, even if he hadn't been, the principle remains the same: an insult to Sanders is an insult to Sanders alone. In the same vein, an insult leveled at Bozanica, Josipovic, Leki, or Milanovic is an insult to them, not to all of us. Furthermore, regarding the labeling of Bozanica as a Taliban, I perceive that perhaps as a somewhat offensive comparison—highlighting his intervention in the secular nature of the education system by equating it to the violent methods used by the Taliban. But in my personal opinion, it falls far short of being classified as hate speech, even toward the man himself.

So, they definitely shouldn't have handed Unknown a "hate speech" card. It feels like a total blunder, because otherwise, we're looking at a blatant violation of the US Constitution and our right to free speech. The user was just expressing an opinion on this forum. If someone felt targeted by his critique, they have every right to file a private lawsuit. But if we start entertaining the idea that criticizing a public figure warrants a penalty for "hate speech," then we’ve truly lost the plot. Honestly, I'd expect ninety percent of the users on the politics board to be banned if they dared to criticize any government official, past or present. For God's sake, how far has this special pleading gone?

Walter Brooks5 said:God help us with this kind of logic! What are you, a Catholic? 😂
Look, it would be a lot more decent if you just came out and said what you actually believe; I have respect for people who do that. If you’re a Hindu, just say: "Yeah, I'm a Hindu!"... if you're a Communist, go ahead: "I'm a Communist!"... and so on. But trying to sell people this absolute garbage is pointless. People aren't quite as gullible or naive as you seem to think they are, you know?

Even if you were a Hindu or a Communist, it still wouldn't have anything to do with these incredibly blasphemous lies and accusations being thrown at Bozanic. That's just pure fabrication, lying, and plain old disrespect.

My issue with Bozanic is that he rarely speaks up—and certainly not enough—about the massive injustices happening in this society. If I were Bozanic, every Sunday in the Cathedral, lightning and thunder would be practically shooting from the pulpit, and politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, would be getting exactly what they deserve, just like they did back during the era of Cardinal Kuharic and Saint Stepinac.

Christ said: "Better to be cold than lukewarm!" Basically, being lukewarm is useless and unworthy of a cardinal's robes. When Christ entered the Temple, he tossed out all the trinkets, souvenirs, and junk that were dishonoring the holy place—I bet he even lashed those souvenir peddlers with a whip. So, when someone criticizes Bozanic for speaking out in a situation where the Cathedral itself should be crying out for him to keep going, it doesn't mean they aren't Catholic; it means they're something I can't even mention here without hitting my second strike.[/color]

Walter Brooks5 said:God help us with this kind of logic! What are you, a Catholic? 😂
Look, it would be a lot more decent if you just came out and said what you actually believe; I have respect for people who do that. If you’re a Hindu, just say: "Yeah, I'm a Hindu!"... if you're a Communist, go ahead: "I'm a Communist!"... and so on. But trying to sell people this absolute garbage is pointless. People aren't quite as gullible or naive as you seem to think they are, you know?

Even if you were a Hindu or a Communist, it still wouldn't have anything to do with these incredibly blasphemous lies and accusations being thrown at Bozanic. That's just pure fabrication, lying, and plain old disrespect.

My issue with Bozanic is that he rarely speaks up—and certainly not enough—about the massive injustices happening in this society. If I were Bozanic, every Sunday in the Cathedral, lightning and thunder would be practically shooting from the pulpit, and politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, would be getting exactly what they deserve, just like they did back during the era of Cardinal Kuharic and Saint Stepinac.

Christ said: "Better to be cold than lukewarm!" Basically, being lukewarm is useless and unworthy of a cardinal's robes. When Christ entered the Temple, he tossed out all the trinkets, souvenirs, and junk that were dishonoring the holy place—I bet he even lashed those souvenir peddlers with a whip. So, when someone criticizes Bozanic for speaking out in a situation where the Cathedral itself should be crying out for him to keep going, it doesn't mean they aren't Catholic; it means they're something I can't even mention here without hitting my second strike.[/color]