The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking

I was actually pretty shocked on another thread when a user who rightfully got banned for making an incredibly nasty comment about American society wrote this right here on the same topic.
What really caught me off guard, though, was the follow-up comment from @Daniel Ward87, whom I’ve always remembered from the old days as a fair and unbiased admin.

No amount of linguistic gymnastics or twisted logic can justify calling Americans retarded. I won't give them a pass just because they're a top-tier moderator.

If Forum.hr is supposed to be a reflection of American society, then by that logic, you must think most of us posting here are retarded too.

Offensive and honestly just sad!

Daniel Ward87 said:I am not backing down one inch; I stand firmly by my previous statement. By the way, lonebadger6 pointed out several posts archived in the Politics PDF that make the exact same arguments I did—posts that also haven't been banned. It is quite fascinating how everyone here is so eager to see me get banned, yet no one mentions that you fellow users should be facing identical sanctions. And then, of course, I am accused of being selective. 👏

I certainly understand the sentiment behind your words, and it isn't as if I disagree with the idea that a populace which repeatedly chooses the very political parties that corrupt them is essentially complicit. However, the manner in which you have voiced this on this platform sounds incredibly distasteful; it is improper, not to mention how you are indirectly implying that voters for certain factions are intellectually deficient, and by extension, that the entire nation is equally dim-witted. Labeling everyone—including those who don't even vote for those options—as "retarded" is hardly the hallmark of a healthy debate, nor is it the kind of communication we should strive for. There must be a baseline of quality in our discussions, and moderators are obligated to uphold that standard by setting an example.

In my view, most of the things you people ban (personal opinions, political stances, doubts, fears) shouldn't result in a ban unless they cross the line into direct insults (what we are discussing here, this "intellectual inferiority of the people," is insulting to me personally), calls for violence, or similar offenses. I would much rather see the focus placed on penalizing crude, gutter language. But since the rules are what they are, such rhetoric shouldn't be permitted in discussions either. This is blatant labeling and an insult to an entire nation based solely on the political choices of a specific subset of its citizens. Naturally, insulting that subset wouldn't be allowed either, because they possess the right to their political choices, whether those choices seem logical, absurd, masochistic, or simply disagreeable to the rest of us.

Furthermore, a moderator who employs such language fails to set a constructive example for the rest of the community (and we can clearly see the storm this has stirred up).
I am under no illusions about being a moral authority, nor am I perfect; this is merely my perspective on the issue from the standpoint of an "ordinary" user.

P.S. For some reason, I cannot access the attached links (it says I don't have the necessary permissions).

My bad, I just copy-pasted and it wouldn't take the whole thing—here they are in this post:

David Richardson67 said:This is just crude labeling and an insult to an entire nation, all because of the political choices made by a specific group. Of course, insulting those people shouldn't be allowed either, since they have the right to their political choices, whether those choices are logical, insane, masochistic, or just plain distasteful to the rest of us.

But the fundamental misunderstanding here is our stance, which the links above confirm: we're talking about what's basically figurative speech that probably half of all Americans have used at least once in their lives...

Personally, I’d find it much worse if someone were targeting voters of just one single party or option, rather than this. It’s more like, we’re talking about ourselves, we're frustrated about something, so we just lash out... As you can see, everyone from the left to the right to the centrists and everyone in between has used it on the forum.

Of course it's offensive, especially when someone gets banned just for mentioning machinery. If that's the case, I guess I could conclude it wasn't fair to the people being targeted, which makes it even harder to see why the moderator shouldn't be banned for such an ugly slur against a nation.
Mods have to set the example.
Just because lonebadger6 is working hard by linking every single post he can find doesn't mean someone who's supposed to be a role model can act like this. People have noticed this kind of offensive behavior from certain moderators before, so there you go... I'm not just shouting into the void here, even if it felt that way in my own thread.

If someone else called a user retarded (or used some other insult) before this happened—and honestly, who they are doesn't matter—it isn't an excuse for moderators to act the exact same way. It’s actually quite the opposite...
This reminds me of that infamous penalty handed to the LA Galaxy, where they tried to justify it by pointing at other unfair penalties given to their opponents years ago...
Damage has been done. You just need to be Jack, man, and own up to it... Like lonebadger6 says, it's not like you're going to end up in prison over this...

lonebadger6 said:My apologies; I was merely attempting to copy and paste, but the system refused to accept the full text—you can find them right here:

However, the fundamental point of disagreement lies in our position, which the links above clearly substantiate: we are dealing with a form of figurative speech that, quite frankly, at least half of all Americans have likely employed at some point in their lives.

Personally, I would find it far more objectionable if someone were targeting the voters of a single party or faction, rather than this. This is essentially us speaking about ourselves; we are frustrated by something, so we lash out. As you can see, this rhetoric has been used on this forum by liberals, conservatives, centrists, and just about everyone else under the sun.

Thank you!

But there is a world of difference between labeling a nation, its politicians (😁), or its political system as retarded and declaring an entire people to be so. A state is a mechanism, politicians are... well, the "best" examples of us, but a nation is the collective sum of every individual residing within that state.
Not to mention how, in the examples provided, there seems to be a selective tolerance for labeling the American people as retarded (and yes, I am American, and this bothers me; it offends me to have my family, my friends, and my colleagues collectively branded as such) — and I wonder if the same standards apply to other nations (for instance, is it permissible to label Bulgarians, Romanians, or any other group with an even more corrupt political establishment in such a way)?

Does this imply that from now on, being frustrated with a situation will serve as a legitimate excuse to bypass a ban? We all have days when we are angry, exasperated, exhausted, or simply lacking patience. How is one meant to prove this? Who gets to draw the line defining what constitutes "figurative speech"? Do you truly grasp where this logic leads?

There are further instances demonstrating how differently we perceive insults directed at entire nations or ethnic/racial groups, yet it all boils down to the same thing: on an American forum, insulting the American people is somehow permitted (I realize I sound like some radical extremist right now).
But, in all honesty, what is the actual distinction between these two scenarios:

1. An average user: "Studies have shown that Black people have lower IQs," accompanied by a link to some obscure study from some obscure university.

2. A moderator: "Americans are a retarded nation."

In the first instance, the user is making an implication, whereas in the second, the moderator is overtly declaring a nation to be retarded. The first cases result in bans, while the second is dismissed as "figurative speech"???!! 🤔 Both express a viewpoint. Both deserve a ban because they both imply the exact same thing: that a specific nation or race is being labeled as retarded. In both cases, it isn't just the politicians, the government, or the political system being targeted, but every single member of that nation or race.

First off, the initial comment is nothing more than a scientifically baseless remark designed to incite racism. Second, we are witnessing a certain level of self-deprecating irony from a member toward their own organization.

However, that isn't my primary reason for being here. I came because this thread has gathered a sufficient range of perspectives, providing both the moderator and the site owner with ample material should they decide to adjust their moderation policies. In short, the appeal has been formally lodged, and there is no longer any practical need for further debate in this corner of the forum.