The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking

Let the owner of this forum step up so we can see where we actually stand.
I am also in favor of absolute freedom of speech, without any bending to political correctness or self-censorship.

rowdylynx98 said:Exactly. I’d actually vote for banning anyone who directs insults at any group—whether it's based on nationality, race, gender, class, or ideology—simply because one moderator, Daniel Ward87, set an unpunished precedent.

So, the "precedent" here is just me stating my opinion? Beautiful. First off, I have the right to think what I want. Second, I have the right to express those thoughts on this Forum. Whether that opinion gets flagged or not depends entirely on where I say it, when, to whom, and how I phrase it.

To take another example, people on this Forum often debate whether abortion should be considered murder. Legally speaking, it isn't. But there are plenty of people who believe it is. They are allowed to share that view on the Forum, provided they follow the rules. We even have specific threads dedicated to religious debates on the subject. People aren't banned from thinking that way or saying it out loud; the Forum rules just dictate the manner in which they can express it.

The reason you guys are spinning in circles is that you're only focusing on *what* I said. The moderators look at *who* said it, *where*, *when*, *how*, and within what context. That applies to every single thread, let's be clear. Only after looking at all those factors do they decide if a post warrants a penalty.

rowdylynx98 said:For instance, it would be wrong to penalize me just for saying that, in my view, all nationalists or socialists are morally bankrupt or detestable. Or supporters of specific political leaders, leftists, collectivists, or extremists—basically anyone who doesn't label themselves a liberal. Since those are all political categories I struggle to relate to, we can't just hand out bans for every insult based on the current paradigm.

It would only be wrong if you expressed your opinion without breaking the Forum's rules. If you do break them, a penalty generally follows. I say "generally," because different threads have different rules; something perfectly fine in one section might not fly in another.

I think this is the last word I have on this. I've stated what I said, how I said it, where, when, and why. There are moderators for this thread who will decide if the rules were broken. But we can agree on one thing: we can't stop people from having opinions, nor can we stop them from voicing them publicly. What we *can* do is regulate how they express those views so they stay within the rules.

slycobra5 said:One of the moderators, while addressing a ban over a specific word choice, basically admitted this is a private club, and if the boss decides the word PASTETAS (his words) is off-limits, then it’s officially banned....

The rest of your post implies you get the gist, though I suppose for the sake of any casual lurkers, it doesn't hurt to point out that this is just caricature. Saying "Well, how could Peter have said this or that in Congress" isn't actually an argument against getting banned.

rowdylynx98 said:Exactly. I’m all for banning anyone who directs insults at any group—whether it's based on nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, class, or ideology—simply because at least one moderator, Daniel Ward87, has set a totally unchecked precedent.

First off, whether you're playing dumb or genuinely struggling to wrap your head around it, the first part of that sentence has absolutely nothing to do with what we were trying to explain here. If you really don't get it and actually want to, maybe try re-reading the explanations from the moderators and super-mods...

No, you can't go around saying things like "Mexicans are Chetniks," "Americans are fascists," or "Immigrants are terrorists."

Sure, depending on the context (assuming you're talking about the same stuff Ward87 was, regarding who people vote for or how they behave within a debate), you might say "Mexicans/Americans/Germans are a backwards people"...

Secondly, Ward87 hasn't set any kind of precedent whatsoever:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

There’s everyone in there—conservatives, liberals, even the radicals. Comments about Americans, about Europe, and various other small American subgroups....

There are plenty more, but this is a decent cross-section for you...

So, is the issue that by pure coincidence nobody in this specific thread happened to see these posts, or is the issue that they were written by regular users, so it didn't bother you nearly as much as when you heard it from a super-mod?

lonebadger6 said:The rest of your post makes it seem like you get what I mean, but it wouldn't hurt to remind any casual passersby that this is all just caricature.

Well, obviously it’s a caricature... but let's be honest, there's always a grain of truth buried in every joke (even the caricatures).

Sure, it exists, but only in that specific context I was talking about—the totally nonsensical "but why can't Peter say this in Congress" argument. This political forum has its own set of rules. We aren't handing out fines or prison sentences here; we're just giving anonymous internet handles a virtual yellow card. It's hardly a massive violation of "freedom of speech"...
Is that fellow forum user you mentioned being targeted in real life now? Is he being treated differently? Is his job getting weird? Does he need to take out a loan to pay off a fine? No. His anonymous online handle just got a virtual warning on the internet. Talk about suppressing human rights... you could literally open a blog right this second and post 160 times about how "abortion is murder"...

Daniel Ward87 Asks:
So, you think there's a precedent just because I voiced my opinion? How lovely. First off, Look, I have every right to think this way. Beyond that, I have every right to express my own damn opinion here on this Forum.

I think you realize that by going this bold, you’re basically opening Pandora's box here on this Forum. Down the road, plenty of "offenders" are going to point back to this exact statement of yours. They'll quote you, use it as their own personal evidence, and wave it around to defend themselves... whether they were actually right or not.

lonebadger6 said:Sure, there is, but within the specific context I laid out—addressing the utterly pointless argument of "well, why can't Peter say that in Congress?" Look, Politics PDF has its own set of rules. We aren't handing out fines or jail time here; we’re just giving anonymous internet handles a virtual yellow card. It isn't exactly a heavy-handed assault on "freedom of speech."
Is that fellow forum user you mentioned now being targeted in real life? Is he being treated differently by his neighbors? Is his job on the line? Does he have to take out a loan just to pay off a fine? No. His anonymous internet handle simply received a virtual warning online. Talk about a crushing blow to human liberties... you could literally open a blog right now and churn out 160 posts claiming "abortion is murder."

I wasn't even talking specifically about abortion; I was speaking in broad, general terms...
Obviously, it's neither a monetary fine nor a prison sentence, and it certainly isn't community service... it's just that this is where egos get bruised most, and sometimes an ego hit feels worse than anything else (subjectively speaking)....
As for the definition of abortion itself, plenty of people far smarter than us all over the world can't even reach a consensus on it...

lonebadger6 said:First off—whether you’re just playing dumb or you genuinely don't get it—that first part of your sentence has absolutely nothing to do with what we've been trying to explain here. If you actually don't understand and you *want* to understand, go back and read the moderator and super-moderator guidelines.

Look, you can't just go around saying things like "Mexicans are Chetniks," "Americans are fascists," or "Immigrants are terrorists."

Sure, depending on the context (meaning, if you're talking about the exact same stuff Daniel Ward87 was bringing up—you know, who people choose, how they live, and whether it actually fits the discussion)—you might be able to say "Mexicans/Americans/Germans are a retarded nation."

Can I say the moderators on this forum are a retarded nation?

I’d argue that I can. Now, obviously, I’d never actually say it because, from what I know, at least a handful of these mods aren't exactly lacking brain cells, but I still think I have the right to say it. Besides, any mod could probably name plenty of non-retarded people from whatever group is being insulted, so that shouldn't stop them from making a judgment call, right?

So, yeah, I can state my opinion that the mods are retarded. Or, at the very least, the users here are retarded—since I'm a user myself, I guess I'm including me in that assessment (just following Daniel Ward87's logic here).

The users and the Mexicans are both retarded.

slycobra5 said:One of the moderators, while responding to a warning about a ban, honestly pointed out that we are on a private forum—and if the owner says using the word RUBBISH (his words) is forbidden, then that word simply cannot be used...
Personally, I get it—you're never going to reach some absolute, universal truth on a site like this because the people moderating are just like us: flesh and blood humans. They’re subject to their own biases and beliefs that sometimes bubble up subconsciously, revealing their true colors and their political leanings or whatever...
The only thing left to do is be honest and admit when you're wrong... both the users and the mods should do that...

I couldn't disagree more. I think that moderator is spot on, and personally, I would never try to override private property rights. At the same time, though, being as transparent as possible is always the best move—which is exactly why we're having this debate in the first place.

@slycobra5/">@@slycobra5 Look, I’m just saying, I’m speaking in generalities here too...
Censorship, North Korea, this idea of "freedom of speech" that doesn't actually exist in the way some people imagine it does...
I mean, you're using an anonymous handle on some private forum where you aren't even paying to post -.-
It doesn't mean a person can't feel insulted or think they've been treated unfairly, but people really do take things to the extreme...

rowdylynx98 said:We aren't even on the same page here. I honestly think the moderator is right, and there's no way I'd ever try to bypass private property rules...

Can I just say that the moderators on this forum are a bunch of idiots?

So, I guess I can share my opinion that the moderators are idiots. Or maybe the users are the idiots, since I'm a user myself, which makes it a valid point (that's the logic of a user, according to Daniel Ward87)...

The users and the Mexicans are all idiots.

Actually, you can't, because the owner—or rather, those authorized by him, the admins—decided that on his private forum, you aren't allowed to insult the users...🙂

(And please, don't start trolling by claiming there are definitely Americans among the users...)😁

rowdylynx98 said:Can I just say the mods on this site are a bunch of total idiots?

Not unless you want to get banned, since insulting other users isn't allowed here. 👍

lonebadger6 said:You can't—it’s because the private owner, or rather the people he's put in charge (the admin team), decided that on his private forum, you aren't allowed to insult the users.🙂

(And please, don't start trolling with that whole "there are definitely Americans in the mix here" angle)😁 )

Okay, I totally buy that argument. But if that's the case, then it needs to be laid out clearly right at the start of the discussion. Basically, you aren't allowed to insult anyone the authority figure designates as "protected"—and I don't mean that sarcastically. That’s perfectly fine; I'm just trying to figure out who exactly falls into this protected category and who doesn't.

I have another question: Is it actually possible for a moderator on this forum to be someone who says three separate times that Mexicans are a retarded nation?

Personally, I don't care about people's nationality or their political leanings unless it actually pertains to the debate—which, in this case, it doesn't. In principle, I don't even care about the target of these generalizations; I just want to know how it's even possible for a person—who has gone out of their way three times to call a vulnerable national minority in Vojvodina "retarded"—to be a moderator, and to have that "super" prefix attached to their name, which, for the record, I don't even know what that's supposed to signify.

lonebadger6 said:@slycobra5/">@@slycobra5 Look, I get it. I’m speaking in generalities here too.
Censorship, North Korea, this concept of "freedom of speech" (which doesn't actually exist in the way some people imagine it anyway...).
I mean, your anonymous handle just got a virtual slap on the wrist on some private message board where you aren't even paying to post -.-
That doesn't mean a person can't feel insulted or think they were treated unfairly, but people are taking this to an absolute extreme.

👍We are in complete agreement on this one....

Daniel Ward87 said:You can't, because insulting other users on this forum isn't allowed. 👍

.... but when you say that about Americans, suddenly it's okay? Even though those very same Americans make up a huge chunk of the user base right here on this Forum?????
It seems a little strange to me.....🤔
... and I'm not trolling. If I don't lay things out plainly like this, the core of the debate gets suffocated until it loses all meaning.... and then the moderator wins..... hands down.....

@rowdylynx98/">@@rowdylynx98 - Look, if you’re actually looking for an open discussion, maybe stop twisting my words... He didn't say anything about a "vulnerable national minority in Vojvodina," he was talking about the people living in America. We've made it clear multiple times that context is everything. I’ve even dropped a few links to similar or nearly identical posts by other users who haven't been banned, which suggests the moderators aren't enforcing rules that they let everyone else slide on. Among those users, you'll find plenty of conservatives too (if anyone wants to imply this is some sort of attack on "American values"). It’s clearly just a figure of speech, the kind of thing you hear in everyday American life all the time...

It's the same logic: if you randomly post "Mexicans are idiots" just to stir the pot, you'll probably get a strike. But if you're actually engaging in a debate about the political climate in Mexico—who people vote for, who they pick, and how they generally deal with their leaders—you likely won't be touched...

I'm heading over to Walmart to help out Todorić get back on his feet, take care 🙂

lonebadger6 said:@WEB — Look, if you actually want a transparent discussion, then stop trying to twist things. He didn't say "the vulnerable national minority in Vojvodina," he was talking about the people living in America. We’ve pointed this out multiple times—context is everything here. And look, I’ve dropped a few links to similar or basically identical posts from other users who didn't get penalized either. It means the moderator—or supermod, for that matter—isn't allowed to enforce rules on some people while letting others slide. Among those users are conservatives (in case anyone wants to imply this is some kind of attack on "American values"). It’s clearly just a figure of speech, something used all the time in everyday life in America.

It's the same deal: if you randomly write "Mexicans are retarded" just to stir the pot, you’ll probably get a red card. But if you're engaging in a debate about the political situation in Mexico—who they vote for, who they pick, and how they generally deal with their leaders—you probably won't be touched.

The user wasn't describing everyone in America; he said—and I quote—that the "American people are more severely retarded," that "we as a nation are more severely retarded," and "an example of retarding as a nation..." If we start obsessing over the technical difference between a "nation" and a "people," we're going to get bored real fast, but that first quote definitely encompasses the Americans in Vojvodina too. So, you're wrong. Furthermore, he provided arguments that make it clear he isn't talking about the folks in Vojvodina, but a very specific group of Americans. But hey, that's just one of those two problems I mentioned before.

Personally, I support the fact that nobody is being punished for exercising free speech—even if that speech includes making diagnoses about an entire population. Take Vuk Drašković, for instance; back in 1990, he argued that Americans needed collective psychotherapy because of their hatred toward Mexicans. In my book, both Vuk Drašković and any users who think like him have every right to say that.

Just so we're clear, from here on out, I'm going to try to get bans lifted for anyone who judges entire groups, specifically because of this whole mess. I'll try to push you two to nix the bans on anyone I see being unfairly punished (unless, obviously, the owner decides otherwise directly or via the rules). Honestly, there shouldn't be many cases since I don't usually dive into political debates. I think it's pretty obvious why I stay away from them.

Good heavens, what a desperate display of moderation gymnastics just to justify something that would get an ordinary user banned without a second thought. Wouldn't it be far simpler to just endure the ban rather than continue this charade, which ultimately calls into question the future integrity of the moderation team and their very authority? (Every single regular user here will be pointing fingers at this specific incident).

Daniel Ward87 said what he said, and in my estimation, he overstepped because this is a textbook case of labeling and sweeping generalizations. If any other nationality had been substituted for "Americans" in that sentence, the user would have been banned instantly. That much is as clear as day, just as it is obvious that claiming a user is also a member of that "retarded" nation wouldn't offer them any absolution in this context. This is a blatant example of selective enforcement, seasoned with that classic malady where moderators jump into debates with regular users, fully aware that their tools and the backing of their colleagues make them "equals" in a discussion—if not superiors—allowing them to indulge in a bit too much liberty.

Daniel Ward87 got a little carried away, he made a mistake, and now he should face the consequences just like any other user on this forum. Yes, we talk about freedom of speech, but you constantly lecture us regular users that such freedom comes with its own set of boundaries here—so perhaps you should hold yourselves to those same standards. Failing to issue a ban will truly open Pandora's box for the moderation team and make their job infinitely harder moving forward (not to mention the utter erosion of trust among users who see people being banned for similar or even identical offenses).

lonebadger6 said:I know that lying and trolling have basically become the default setting for everyone on this forum, but you really should try to be a little more subtle about it if you want to pull it off. 🙂

Is this just some attempt to bait me into writing a similar description of you so you can pull the trigger on a ban for insults, or are you just desperately trying to steer this debate toward a personal shouting match because you've run out of actual arguments? 🙂

lonebadger6 said:Look, regardless of what your personal take is on who ought to be seeing what, the mere assertion that someone actually witnessed something is, in and of itself, just plain vague and fuzzy.

Are you actually being vague? You clearly missed the post that was supposed to be flagged—it was sitting right there, quoted about two inches above yours. Like I told Daniel Ward87 before, it looks like some serious vision issues are at play here. Honestly, these are the kind of problems that really interfere with how you handle your responsibilities. It might be time to step down with some dignity. 😁

lonebadger6 As if I haven't heard this all before...
Even if you wanted to cast doubt on that, you really ought to consider the fact that both you and your buddy—who seems to enjoy picking fights with the moderators just as much as you do, often in a pretty trollish way—didn't get hit with any warnings either. I mean, just look at the comments you both left right before my previous post, let alone the one you’re complaining about now.

I’m honestly just sitting here in complete shock, struggling to wrap my head around this. I can't quite believe what I'm seeing.

So, really, you've got two different ways you could play this— To be honest, there are two reasons why I didn't step in: first, I simply missed those posts entirely, and second, I felt like I was being a bit too lenient by not handing out the deservedly harsh penalties to that one liberal and those two conservatives..

Whichever way you choose to spin it, your "logic" still sounds like nothing more than empty rambling to me.

Hey, what's up? 🙂
Which of my posts on this topic actually earned me a ban? Feel free to quote them right here. Are you talking about when I quoted that controversial post and asked, "Are you sleeping soundly, moderator lonebadger6?" It’s a pretty straightforward situation, really—you decided to play dumb, choosing to let an insult toward all believers stand rather than just deleting both myself and him. Not that it matters much, since I ended up getting banned a few hours later anyway for supposedly "rushing" the moderator's reaction.

David Richardson67 said:Daniel Ward87 got a little carried away and messed up, so he should face the consequences just like any other regular here. Look, I get freedom of speech, but you guys are constantly preaching that there are limits to it on this forum—so maybe start practicing what you preach.

I didn't get carried away at all; I’m sticking to my guns on what I said. By the way, lonebadger6 pointed out a few posts from the Politics PDF that say the exact same thing I did, and they didn't get banned either. It's funny how everyone is so eager to see me get a strike, yet nobody mentions that you guys should be getting treated the exact same way. Then I'm the one accused of being selective. 👏

Harold Long21 said:It’s a pretty simple breakdown, really... you just chose to play dumb, figuring it was better to leave an insult aimed at all the believers rather than actually deleting both me and him.

🤣 Ah, okay, my bad, truly... I honestly thought you were just trolling, but apparently...

I won't waste any more energy trying to explain things to you 👍

I’d highly suggest you spend more time over on that Science Fringe forum, the crowd there is much more your speed 🙂