Insulting American people!!!

Walter Brooks5 said:Just when I thought getting a card from Unknown might feel like a tiny bit of payback—especially given how you shut him down in that first post—it turns out otherwise. People on Forum.hr have been preaching about "reciprocity" for years, mostly because they clearly feel like they're being treated like second-class citizens (and honestly, they're probably right to feel that way). But instead of getting that sweet justice, you just team up with the moderator Unknown to flip the script and label it "heavy trolling!" instead. Real classy move.

So now you’re actually going to try and tell me that starting this thread was a waste of time?

As long as there’s no equality for us and no justice to be found, nothing changes!

I think I laid it all out pretty clearly in my first post on this thread.
Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario where if the roles were reversed in a similar conflict, the moderators would have reacted completely differently. I'm talking about a situation where nobody would even dream of reclassifying certain comments as "heavy trolling." Instead, that kind of rhetoric would be flagged immediately as hate speech—which is exactly what it is—and the sanctions would be heavy enough to actually satisfy the victim while staying strictly within the forum's rules.

Twisting the rules just to manufacture violations for one person while letting someone else off easy for serious insults—where there isn't even a shred of actual hate speech based on nationality or religion—is ridiculous. First, they slap you with a standard warning card, then, behind closed doors with the moderator, they decide to upgrade that same penalty to "heavy trolling" the very next day. That kind of moving the goalposts does absolutely nothing for fairness or maintaining any sense of balance between different ideologies on this forum.

Unfortunately, a wolf might change its coat, but its nature stays exactly the same.

Daniel Ward87, look, you aren't some wild animal driven by instinct; you’re a man. That whole "wolf and its nature" comparison shouldn't even apply to you. So, the real question is: are you actually going to find the backbone to help ensure this forum finally starts treating everyone by the same set of rules, or are you just going to sit on the sidelines?

Thanks for the partnership!

Daniel Ward87 said:The real key here is that Unknown realized he messed up. He's willing to take the hit even if the punishment is overkill or if the admin made a mistake. You could say he's ready to serve his time for an honest error. Half the battle is already won since he admitted he went too far, so we decided to soften the blow by changing the type of infraction, but the 7-day ban still stands.

At the same time, we've sent a clear message regarding the phrase "Catholic-Taliban." 🙂

Susan Price30 said:deleted by Susan Price30

slybison8 said:I really do apologize for stepping back into this discussion when it doesn't directly pertain to my PDF, but I suppose I found this quite intriguing.

Do you happen to have an explanation as to why Ivo Sanders wasn't automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

If I recall correctly, he even admitted recently on Stankicev's program that he was selling erotic material to the Messenger's House back in the late eighties, which I believe is a well-known part of his biography anyway?

And yet, he comes from a family where his brother is a priest and his sister is a nun... and he hasn't been excommunicated, nor is he today. He certainly promoted pornography—well, soft erotica, if you know what I mean?

Brenda Cook4 said:Hey, take it easy—that’s insulting the American people! 😬

Walter Brooks5 said:First off, I was sitting here wondering what on earth you were trying to get at.

Then I spotted the edit tag at the bottom of the post and realized you probably just typed something totally awkward, like this ???

Am I hitting the nail on the head here?

If whatever you wrote is still hanging around in some archive or your computer's memory, feel free to shoot me a PM. Honestly, my curiosity is piqued—I'm dying to know what actually prompted you to wipe out the entire content of your post.

Based on our debate in the Situation Room, we agreed that anyone and everything can be criticized—especially public figures, because that’s just how democracy functions. But trying to draw a line between someone actually criticizing you versus just straight-up insulting you is basically impossible, so we decided the only real benchmark is whether there's an actual argument behind it. If there is, we can write it down—even if it's saying the Virgin Mary is a slut without any consequences, whereas saying "your mom is a slut" gets you slapped. We also established that unprovokedly insulting public figures or sacred things earns you nothing more than the ultimate punishment: getting trolled (35).

Walter Brooks5 said:Great, so I’m sending you a public copy of this post just to show you what actual reciprocity looks like. This is how democracy works, and it’s how we distinguish legitimate criticism from being a total jerk—you know, those baseless, brute-force insults that pass for "critique" on this forum:


Let’s pull out this crucial snippet that will surely end up in an anthology of human "genius":

Based on our debate in the Situation Room, we agreed that anyone and everything can be criticized—especially public figures, because that’s just how democracy functions. But trying to draw a line between someone actually criticizing you versus just straight-up insulting you is basically impossible, so we decided the only real benchmark is whether there's an actual argument behind it. If there is, we can write it down—even if it's saying the Virgin Mary is a slut without any consequences, whereas saying "your mom is a slut" gets you slapped. We also established that unprovokedly insulting public figures or sacred things earns you nothing more than the ultimate punishment: getting trolled (35).

Given what was highlighted, I’m sure shadoworca3 definitely has some rock-solid arguments to back up the claim that Bozanic is truly the "greatest Catholic-Taliban of all time," right???

Well, let’s see those arguments, because if they're solid, maybe Daniel Ward87 won't have to hit the Unknown with a total ban!!!

Walter Brooks5 said:Great, so I’m sending you a public copy of this post just to show you what actual reciprocity looks like. This is how democracy works, and it’s how we distinguish legitimate criticism from being a total jerk—you know, those baseless, brute-force insults that pass for "critique" on this forum:


Let’s pull out this crucial snippet that will surely end up in an anthology of human "genius":

Based on our debate in the Situation Room, we agreed that anyone and everything can be criticized—especially public figures, because that’s just how democracy functions. But trying to draw a line between someone actually criticizing you versus just straight-up insulting you is basically impossible, so we decided the only real benchmark is whether there's an actual argument behind it. If there is, we can write it down—even if it's saying the Virgin Mary is a slut without any consequences, whereas saying "your mom is a slut" gets you slapped. We also established that unprovokedly insulting public figures or sacred things earns you nothing more than the ultimate punishment: getting trolled (35).

Given what was highlighted, I’m sure shadoworca3 definitely has some rock-solid arguments to back up the claim that Bozanic is truly the "greatest Catholic-Taliban of all time," right???

Well, let’s see those arguments, because if they're solid, maybe Daniel Ward87 won't have to hit the Unknown with a total ban!!!

Drew Jones6 said:I honestly cannot believe my eyes reading this garbage 😲😲😲

"Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban of all time!?!?"
And let me tell you, anyone bold enough to type something like that is a bigger fanatic than the person they’re attacking. Period.

And those people trying to play dumb, acting like there's no line between a joke and an insult? They aren't just trolls, they're basically digital extremists running a jihad on Forum.hr.

🤦 🤦 🤦

Drew Jones6 said:I honestly cannot believe my eyes reading this garbage 😲😲😲

"Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban of all time!?!?"
And let me tell you, anyone bold enough to type something like that is a bigger fanatic than the person they’re attacking. Period.

And those people trying to play dumb, acting like there's no line between a joke and an insult? They aren't just trolls, they're basically digital extremists running a jihad on Forum.hr.

🤦 🤦 🤦

You're missing the point.
I'm not claiming Bozanic is the greatest fanatic among Americans (because I'd have to prove that), but rather pointing out that a priest and a Member of Congress is the one saying and arguing this in the public media.
If he is allowed to say it—which, under the US Constitution, he is—then why shouldn't anyone else? America is a democratic and secular nation where everyone is fair game for reasoned criticism. From public figures to religious and other sacred things. Banning the criticism of individuals or beliefs feels very much like something from a bygone era.

Furthermore, it really is difficult to distinguish between constructive criticism and outright insults. The only metric we have is the depth and quality of the arguments used.
__________________

shadoworca3 said:You have missed the point entirely.
I am not asserting that Bozanic is the ultimate extremist among the American people (as I would certainly need to provide proof for that), but rather pointing out that these views are being expressed and argued by a priest and a member of Congress in the public media.
If he is permitted to say it—and under the US Constitution, he is—then why shouldn't anyone else? America is a democratic and secular nation where everyone is entitled to reasoned criticism. From public figures to religious institutions and other sacred matters. Prohibiting the critique of individuals or beliefs feels very much like a throwback to a bygone era.

Furthermore, it really is difficult to draw the line between legitimate criticism and pure insult. The only true metric we have is the quantity and quality of the arguments presented.

wanderingheron52 said:It’s all wrapped up pretty nicely in cellophane, I suppose, but the fact remains—and it’s been confirmed now—that they'll just say, "Just clean it up to satisfy the majority of citizens," and the maximum penalty will be 35 points.

What personally strikes me, though... if you can call it that... is the situation where most citizens in this country are basically just a flock of sheep. And I don't mean that from a religious angle, quite the opposite; they’re actually the ones breathing "life" into these viewpoints, and into this forum too, I guess.

shadoworca3 said:It is almost as if you all live in North Korea, where expressing an opinion against the Great Leader or his thoughts is enough to land you in a labor camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just now thaw you out, leaving you unable to navigate democracy and freedom of speech? It's always "Oh, someone touched my sacred ground, let's drag them to the gallows!" 😲 😠
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. 😕

shadoworca3 said:You have missed the point entirely.
I am not asserting that Bozanic is the ultimate extremist among the American people (as I would certainly need to provide proof for that), but rather pointing out that these views are being expressed and argued by a priest and a member of Congress in the public media.
If he is permitted to say it—and under the US Constitution, he is—then why shouldn't anyone else? America is a democratic and secular nation where everyone is entitled to reasoned criticism. From public figures to religious institutions and other sacred matters. Prohibiting the critique of individuals or beliefs feels very much like a throwback to a bygone era.

Furthermore, it really is difficult to draw the line between legitimate criticism and pure insult. The only true metric we have is the quantity and quality of the arguments presented.

shadoworca3 said:It is almost as if you all live in North Korea, where expressing an opinion against the Great Leader or his thoughts is enough to land you in a labor camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just now thaw you out, leaving you unable to navigate democracy and freedom of speech? It's always "Oh, someone touched my sacred ground, let's drag them to the gallows!" 😲 😠
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. 😕

Paul Anderson2 said:So, here we have Milanovic—the head of the administration—being called an "idiot," a "clown," and a "fraud":

And right here, the Prime Minister chosen by the US Congress is being labeled a "complete moron":

Then there's this one, where the elected President of the United States is called a "cretin":

Beyond that, the President gets called a "traitor," and there are plenty of insults thrown at past presidents (like Mason and Harmon) on this forum.

Not to mention how Sanders and Ms. Kosor are described.

I don't see any of these posts getting a warning, even though they're clearly insulting the elected representatives of the American people. I guess it makes me wonder why someone like Bozanic, Todoric, or Bandic wouldn't be treated the same way.

shadoworca3 said:It is almost as if you all live in North Korea, where expressing an opinion against the Great Leader or his thoughts is enough to land you in a labor camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just now thaw you out, leaving you unable to navigate democracy and freedom of speech? It's always "Oh, someone touched my sacred ground, let's drag them to the gallows!" 😲 😠
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. 😕

Drew Jones6 said:Look, criticism is one thing, and insulting someone is another. You were the one who brought up the difference between the two, and then immediately claimed you couldn't even tell them apart.

Yet, in the exact same breath, you added that arguments are the only thing that can make that distinction.
If there are actual arguments backing up a point, fine, call it criticism. If there aren't, then it's just an insult. Period.

The situation with this Unknown guy—or whatever his handle is—is a perfect example. He wrote that Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban out there. "The biggest?" Seriously? Who are the other Catholic-Talibans then? The rest of the American bishops? And what exactly makes Bozanic a Taliban at all? Let alone the *biggest* one? How is this empty rambling from some former priest supposed to be a benchmark for anything?

What kind of logic is that even? Just because Grubisic has immunity and thinks he can run his mouth about anyone, and the guy used to be a priest, does that make it okay? Give me a break! Where are the actual arguments for these massive claims? Bozanic is a Taliban? And what about him? What is he? Like I said, just someone talking nonsense.

Just because someone protected by Congressional immunity can recklessly lie without making a single valid point doesn't mean us forum users get a free pass to lie without arguments too. Your logic makes zero sense to me, and frankly, it’s hypocritical to throw the Constitution around like this, as if the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to just baselessly trash and mock innocent people!

Drew Jones6 said:Look, criticism is one thing, and insulting someone is another. You were the one who brought up the difference between the two, and then immediately claimed you couldn't even tell them apart.

Yet, in the exact same breath, you added that arguments are the only thing that can make that distinction.
If there are actual arguments backing up a point, fine, call it criticism. If there aren't, then it's just an insult. Period.

The situation with this Unknown guy—or whatever his handle is—is a perfect example. He wrote that Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban out there. "The biggest?" Seriously? Who are the other Catholic-Talibans then? The rest of the American bishops? And what exactly makes Bozanic a Taliban at all? Let alone the *biggest* one? How is this empty rambling from some former priest supposed to be a benchmark for anything?

What kind of logic is that even? Just because Grubisic has immunity and thinks he can run his mouth about anyone, and the guy used to be a priest, does that make it okay? Give me a break! Where are the actual arguments for these massive claims? Bozanic is a Taliban? And what about him? What is he? Like I said, just someone talking nonsense.

Just because someone protected by Congressional immunity can recklessly lie without making a single valid point doesn't mean us forum users get a free pass to lie without arguments too. Your logic makes zero sense to me, and frankly, it’s hypocritical to throw the Constitution around like this, as if the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to just baselessly trash and mock innocent people!

Drew Jones6 said:Look, criticism is one thing, and insulting someone is another. You were the one who brought up the difference between the two, and then immediately claimed you couldn't even tell them apart.

Yet, in the exact same breath, you added that arguments are the only thing that can make that distinction.
If there are actual arguments backing up a point, fine, call it criticism. If there aren't, then it's just an insult. Period.

The situation with this Unknown guy—or whatever his handle is—is a perfect example. He wrote that Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban out there. "The biggest?" Seriously? Who are the other Catholic-Talibans then? The rest of the American bishops? And what exactly makes Bozanic a Taliban at all? Let alone the *biggest* one? How is this empty rambling from some former priest supposed to be a benchmark for anything?

What kind of logic is that even? Just because Grubisic has immunity and thinks he can run his mouth about anyone, and the guy used to be a priest, does that make it okay? Give me a break! Where are the actual arguments for these massive claims? Bozanic is a Taliban? And what about him? What is he? Like I said, just someone talking nonsense.

Just because someone protected by Congressional immunity can recklessly lie without making a single valid point doesn't mean us forum users get a free pass to lie without arguments too. Your logic makes zero sense to me, and frankly, it’s hypocritical to throw the Constitution around like this, as if the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to just baselessly trash and mock innocent people!

Drew Jones6 As follows:
Just because someone shielded by congressional immunity can recklessly spout lies without offering a single shred of evidence doesn't mean that we, as regular citizens on this forum, have any license to lie without arguments. I honestly find your logic difficult to follow, and frankly, it feels incredibly hypocritical to throw around the term "US Constitution" in a context like this. It’s as if you believe the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to engage in baseless slander or to ruthlessly tear down innocent people without making a case for it.

It’s almost like we’re living in North Korea, where one word against the Great Leader or his ideas is enough to land you in a camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just thaw you out? Are you still struggling to wrap your heads around democracy and free speech? Seriously, someone touched a nerve with a sacred truth—let's drag them to the gallows. 😲😠
I can't believe what I'm reading. 😕

shadoworca3 said:I was under the impression that if you start from a position fueled by raw emotion, prejudice, and deeply held biases, you eventually find yourself with nothing left to lean on except for cold, verifiable facts.

If that isn't the case, then we are looking at a penalty of thirty-five criminal counts. 🤷

And that is truly the heart of the matter. He was merely tossing empty straw your way, which is quite evident to me, especially since I was recently having a conversation with a man who claims that, alongside Supek, he represents the single greatest intellectual asset in all of America.
Do we really need to hand you 500 infractions right now just because you’ve gone and insulted my friend, myself, and my sense of timing all at once?

Drew Jones6 As follows:
Just because someone shielded by congressional immunity can recklessly spout lies without offering a single shred of evidence doesn't mean that we, as regular citizens on this forum, have any license to lie without arguments. I honestly find your logic difficult to follow, and frankly, it feels incredibly hypocritical to throw around the term "US Constitution" in a context like this. It’s as if you believe the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to engage in baseless slander or to ruthlessly tear down innocent people without making a case for it.

Well, look, the Constitution absolutely guarantees your freedom of speech. However, if you make an unsubstantiated claim, you can face a fine proportional to the damage done to your reputation. On Forum.hr, for instance, that penalty goes up to 35 points. I'm really not sure what part of that remains unclear. 🤷