Freedom of speech on this forum is clearly non-existent

Yesterday, Paul Kern12 posted a link to an article by a journalist who embedded himself in 35 different migrant processing centers across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. His takeaway? Security standards are non-existent or dangerously low. Moving in and out of these camps is a joke, but the real issue is that these facilities have become breeding grounds for radicalization.

https://www.thelocal.de/20170113/und...efugee-centres

Naturally, the post was nuked, along with my response.
I got docked 30 points; I assume Paul Kern12 did too.

Less than a month ago, during a thread about terrorism following arrests in Austria where suspects were being held in one of these very centers, I made a nearly identical point about how immigration camps serve as hubs for recruitment and radicalization. My reward? 100 points stripped from me for "hate speech."

It’s clear this site has become a place where free speech goes to die. Only one narrative is permitted; any other perspective is smothered, deleted, and branded as trolling or hate speech. Users are banned just to "discipline" them into self-censorship. A lot of regulars stopped commenting on these topics long ago because of this moderator tyranny. Posts on these subjects are rare now, even though they've been the most pressing issues in Europe over the last two years.

The supermoderators and admins aren't any better. They offer unconditional support to moderators who trample on free speech and the right to information. When users appeal on this forum, their complaints are met with more bans and more deletions.

Keep up the "great" work. Just thought you should know. 👍

I haven't been banned, but the post was deleted.
I believe I know why—it’s because the story didn't make it into the mainstream media.
And it didn't appear there because news like this doesn't align with UN policy—or, to put it more plainly, the news isn't "convenient."
For instance, right now there is a massive, chaotic assault occurring on the city of Baghdad by roughly 10,000 Al-Qaeda fanatics. There are about 150,000 civilians in that city facing the threat of massacre or being taken into slavery. You won't hear a single word about it in the major outlets. Nor will you hear about the countless civilian casualties from the surges and bombings in Fallujah. Yet, Homs was front-page news everywhere when the regular state forces were liberating the city from extremists.

This policy of suppressing certain events (much like the article that was removed here) actually serves to fuel broader extremism and radicalization. Because this doesn't actually protect immigrants (which might be the intended goal, though I find that hard to believe) but instead protects the very people who are targeting those immigrants—and us, too.

This forum seems to fall victim to that same mainstream shortsightedness—which is understandable, I suppose, since a forum like this relies on advertising and "cannot swim against the tide," so I can see why topics regarding immigration are moderated so strictly.
If the goal is to keep the wolves fed while leaving the sheep plentiful, then it might be better to just lock the topic entirely—then we can all have peace in Canada. Or perhaps we should only be allowed to link or comment on things that appear in USA Today or Forbes.🙂

Let’s not forget the moderators' blatant double standards regarding those famous "isolated incidents." That excuse didn't seem to hold water when links were posted to Grammy articles about immigrant protests following two people being beaten by "locals."

When immigrants are cast as the victims or the "good guys," everything goes. Anything is permitted. But the moment they find themselves on the wrong side of the law, total censorship kicks in, and we get hit with that ban on discussing "isolated cases."

Yet, whenever someone tried to post an article presenting the other side's perspective on an event, it was scrubbed immediately.
Objectivity clearly isn't the priority here. A moderator should allow all sides and participants to be heard so facts can actually surface and provide a balanced picture.

Furthermore, watching the moderators and supermoderators troll, belittle, and distort official German police statistics regarding the rise in crime rates among immigrants was absolutely nauseating during that thread on Germany.

There is more to it. I hope other members will weigh in so we can hear their thoughts as well.

And just like always, especially when dealing with the DNC—whose bans have been thoroughly explained and upheld by the supermoderators and admins multiple times before—there isn't even a hint of doubt or controversy this time... the ban was issued simply for commenting on the moderation itself.

Nicholas Nguyen said:Well, whenever someone actually tries to post an article showing the other side's perspective on things, it gets scrubbed immediately...

There isn't even any point in addressing the rest, since we're just dealing with the typical ad hominem trolling from those highly problematic users prone to racist outbursts, which is clearly evidenced by their superficial take on his records—records that have already been thoroughly explained and verified by the proper authorities... and I've only pulled this out as just one very common occurrence when these "complaints" pop up, essentially just a blatant lie.

The post is right there on the last (meaning current) page of the thread, so any attempt to claim they didn't see it is just nonsense...

But really, it’s just more proof that the small group of users constantly whining here don't actually care about the immigration crisis or the nuances of the issue, they just exist to spread fear and hate...

@Paul Kern12/">@@Paul Kern12 - honestly, your post didn't even warrant being tossed in the trash, and I actually had some serious doubts about deleting it in the first place... the main issue was really just avoiding that predictable flame war from users who jump on stuff for entirely different motives, rather than because it was some "obscure media outlet," plus you overplayed your hand by calling the coverage "massive" when there isn't much data to back that up—I mean, the only number mentioned is 520 compared to millions of immigrants, so it felt a bit much... anyway, it seems like deleting it was the wrong call, so I'm restoring the post. Just try to steer clear of those "inflated" words 😉
...

lonebadger6 said:@Paul Kern12/">@@Paul Kern12 — honestly, your post didn't even warrant being banned—and regarding the deletion, I had my doubts about that too. The main reason was likely just the anticipated "clash" from users who frequent the forum for other reasons, rather than because it was some "obscure media outlet," and perhaps your use of the word "massive" was a bit hyperbolic given there wasn't much concrete backing in the text (the only figure mentioned is 520 compared to millions of immigrants), though I suppose it might have been the wrong call after all. I will restore the post. Just try to avoid using "inflated" language, I guess. 😉

First off, thank you for restoring the post.
Secondly, by linking that report, I was simply trying to draw attention to what the journalist was actually pointing out: the systemic dysfunction—essentially a massive lack of accountability toward both the immigrants and the local citizens.
Weak, or even nonexistent, oversight primarily benefits Islamist extremists, who seem to move around quite easily while attempting to recruit new followers for their—well, darker—objectives. And one form of extremism tends to breed another, I suppose.

Of course, the media tends to sweep these issues under the rug, following certain political directives.
That is fundamentally wrong, because in this internet age, information eventually surfaces—often in an uncontrolled way—and in the end, things usually turn out much worse...

I believe this topic is difficult to moderate; we forum members know we can sometimes exaggerate or panic, but I think moderators can also be a bit too strict at times.

Look, like we discussed on that one Federal Reserve thread, posts like this aren't really the issue, and honestly, I’m on the same page as you regarding the first half of what you wrote...

I can see how things might get a little too heavy-handed when it comes to deleting stuff—I agree, it was definitely overdone here. On some other thread, one wrong word wouldn't even be worth a second thought, but using a term like "massively" carries its own weight because of the implications... since most people don't actually bother clicking links to read the full story, they just build an entire scenario in their heads based on a headline or a quick comment, imagining, say, that 90% of people in refugee camps have been radicalized and snatched up by Al-Qaeda or various other extremists.

lonebadger6 said:The rest isn't worth a response, given it's just the usual ad hominem trolling from a highly problematic user prone to racial outbursts—which is clearly evidenced by his superficial reading of the bans, despite those infractions being thoroughly explained and verified by the relevant authorities.

Wow, you’re throwing accusations around quite easily now—first hate speech, and now racism. 👍
What's next?

You handed me a ban for hate speech when I posted a comment that was practically identical to the content of this article by a German journalist.
It’s a fallacy to dismiss the figure of "only" 520 radicalized individuals against "a few million immigrants," because those 520 can cause enough chaos in Europe over the coming years that the casualties will be counted in the hundreds and thousands. And we are talking about "only" 520 such people in Germany. Where are the others? The point is that there is zero security and zero control at the processing centers, which function like a revolving door.

If you take a superficial look at the bans I've received, you'll conclude that the vast majority came from you personally.
You hand out "hate speech" bans to users left and right, yet on the political debate threads, your standard line is, "You got off easy; that's a classic 500."

So far, you've handed me 12—effectively 13—bans, because this Cukin nonsense involving 100 points and a 7-day suspension is essentially your doing. My post vanished around 2 or 3 in the afternoon, yet I didn't get the ban until midnight? Seems legit.
Instead of serving as a check on the moderators, the super-mods on this forum exist solely to unreservedly back the moderators, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
The political subforum has lost its purpose because user appeals are often met with more bans and penalties, eventually resulting in the thread being closed with the verdict: "We are right, you are wrong, now lock."
The goal is to purge everyone who dares to hold a different opinion, leaving behind nothing but a handful of followers and yes-men. One-dimensional.

It’s actually quite the opposite; it’s just a handful of aggressive haters complaining... On that last thread about immigration, some user actually pointed out that discussing the topic is pointless because 99% of the people here are so aggressively anti-immigrant that there's zero room for actual debate. And she's right. So, all this whining about censorship... the idea that hate speech shouldn't be disguised as an "opinion" is really only an issue for a tiny group of users, which you've clearly managed to join with your latest rant...

You gave me a ban for hate speech when I posted basically the exact same thing...

Not even close. Look, I already gave you the breakdown on why you were flagged, and the head moderator backed me up on it... so that’s the end of the discussion regarding your suspension. If you're unhappy with how this forum operates, there isn't much we can do about it. You got sanctioned, you complained, and the decision was upheld by the higher-ups. It's over. Not to be blunt, but quite literally—it's done. We aren't going to spend months debating a disciplinary action that's already been explained and finalized... we actually have other things to do.

So, this whole thing with Cukin and that 100-point, seven-day stretch... it’s basically just your way of getting canned, isn't it...

Of course. Cuka is my little errand boy... I recruited him at a refugee center and instead of training him for terrorism, I taught him how to punish you... 👍

Just glancing at the boxes I've received so far, you’d probably think that... The vast majority... I came straight from you. You only ever handed me twelve...

To be more precise, it’s an 11. And I bolded that for a reason—it pretty much sums up your stance on immigrants. Or maybe it's just math. I'm not sure which one gets under your skin more... I've handed you 11 strikes out of the 55 you have available. That’s exactly the kind of overwhelming majority you seem to conjure up whenever you talk about "massive waves" of immigrants in your posts. If you look at their actual numbers, the ratios are even more lopsided, but let's be real...
Lately, most of my posts haven't exactly been groundbreaking revelations, since I spend most of my time dealing with immigration issues—topics I usually moderate anyway. But regarding your behavior on the forum, you’ve managed to "delight" everyone from Nica and Pringles to Cuk, TheEdge... if we're really going to go there...

Instead of actually keeping the moderators in check, the supermoderators around here just exist to blindly back them up, regardless of who’s actually right or wrong...

On the contrary. The issue—for a certain handful of users here—is that moderators are usually right, which is exactly why they hold the position in the first place; they aren't just picked at random... That doesn't mean they're infallible, nor does it mean we don't rescind bans. We pull them ourselves (believe it or not, despite the total hysterical meltdown you've had toward me since you caught your first ban for aggressive trolling—I actually pulled one on you myself without being asked because I realized it was a mistake), though occasionally the super-mods will step in to reduce or remove them...

The PŽK subforum has basically lost its purpose since user appeals get banned and penalized all the time...

An appeal from a user hasn't ever been punished, nor will it be, if you ask me. We penalize trolling, insults, lying... if someone can't manage to write a civilized appeal, they shouldn't really be surprised when they get banned.

To wrap this up, yes, threads about immigrants are incredibly sensitive and tricky to moderate—they are. And yes, for various reasons, we’re more cautious and strict on them—we are. But you’ll just have to live with that. People say all sorts of things on those threads without being penalized, provided they stay within the bounds of decency. The issue of mass immigration is being discussed and will continue to be discussed, and the vast majority of posts on those topics are anti-immigrant. That isn't the problem. The problem is behavior like yours (constant trolling, sometimes through mockery and making fun of millions of people, other times by grouping everyone together in much more serious ways), which isn't welcome and won't be, regardless of how many times you complain. If you want to talk about the problems caused by mass immigration, you're free to do so, just like everyone else. But if you plan on posting things implying that most immigrants are criminals, you'll get banned. If you post things suggesting most immigrants are terrorists, you'll get banned for hate speech. It's actually quite simple...

I have personally walked away from the discussion regarding immigration due to the aggressively ideological nature of the moderation on that thread. It has become an environment where any dissenting opinion—or even the simple presentation of facts that don't align with the rose-colored glasses worn by the establishment—is instantly suppressed. The moment a viewpoint deviates from the official UN propaganda dogma, it is expeditiously labeled as "trolling" or "hate speech."

It simply isn't worth the effort anymore, and that is precisely why this topic has transitioned from being one of our most vibrant discussions to being clinically dead.

It is abundantly clear that this subject matter is weighing heavily on people's minds; there is a genuine sense of anxiety here. This isn't just some niche grievance—it is a pressing issue facing the entire UN, yet the conversation is being stifled by the very framework in which we are forced to discuss it. Let me be perfectly clear: the issue isn't about the necessity of penalizing actual hate speech—you know, the vile stuff like racial slurs, incitement to violence, or just being an outright jerk to your fellow citizens. No, the real problem lies in the suppression of legitimate, reasoned dissent. We are seeing a crackdown on anyone attempting to voice valid doubts, fears, or disagreements regarding the immigration policies currently being pushed by the UN. There is a profound tension regarding the coexistence of cultures that, despite all our lofty idealism and best intentions, find themselves fundamentally incompatible within the same borders—a friction that, historically speaking, has frequently resulted in total societal breakdown.
I find it equally problematic that moderators possess such an unchecked level of discretion—often little more than a subjective personal judgment shaped by their own biases—when deciding which news outlets, scientific institutions, or academic studies are deemed "obscure" and which are considered reputable, especially since this arbitrary distinction frequently dictates whether someone gets their content removed.

I find myself in complete agreement: if the moderation team insists on stifling any critical discourse regarding immigration—specifically concerning the feasibility of assimilation, the apparent lack of interest in integrating into host societies, or even the mere expression of legitimate anxieties and skepticism surrounding these shifts—then this entire thread ought to be permanently shuttered.

I would strongly suggest that we refrain from resorting to bans until the discourse truly crosses the line from heated debate into genuine indecency. Even if certain comments technically skirt the edges of the PCa guidelines, I believe we should exercise some restraint. It shouldn't be an insurmountable task to distinguish between those who are intentionally sowing hatred and those who are simply expressing grievances or sharing news.

We’ve all heard this a thousand times before.
The issue regarding the thread starter's opening remarks belongs strictly to the moderation team; there is really no need to overcomplicate the matter.

One final thought to leave you with: invoking "freedom of speech" to justify hate speech and racism strikes me as being just as absurd as invoking "sexual freedom" to justify assault.
If that constitutes censorship, then I suppose we are censors. 👍