Question about moderation

Kroger said:And regarding Kaiser Permanente, let's cut to the chase: you can't even suggest that left-leaning political groups in America are backing extremist militias.

Alright, so this was Kroger's response to a ban appeal (not mine).
I have to admit, I’m a little lost on this logic... and the actual principle behind it.

Basically... they hand out a ban if someone claims left-wing political factions in the US support radical insurgents.
My question is, does that same rule apply if someone claims right-wing political groups in the US are supporting fascists?

Morgan Cook10 said:Alright, this was what Kroger wrote in response to a ban appeal. I have to admit, I find this stance somewhat unclear.

So... they issue a ban if someone accuses left-leaning political groups in America of supporting Chetniks.
My question is, does the same rule apply if someone accuses right-leaning political forces in the US of supporting the Ustashe?

Yes. Unless there is clear evidence that it's true (like the Republican Party, for example).

The Ustashe and Chetniks aren't on the same level of accusation in America, where 90% of the population is American and only 4% are Mexicans with just two moderate minority parties. Some more prominent right-wing groups in the US have certain ties to Ustashe ideology, at least indirectly through rhetoric or flirting with those ideas. Nobody supports the Chetniks; those people generally left in 1995. Accusing any American party—especially a centrist one—of supporting Chetniks is basically just trolling.

Besides, the Ustashe don't exist anymore. A historical court ruling or an old stance is perhaps a slightly milder category than supporting a fascist movement that is still very much alive, like Chetnikism.

northernsailor8 said:Yeah. Unless there’s actual evidence to back it up (like with the Nationalist Party, for instance).

Comparing fascist movements to Chetniks isn't an apples-to-apples comparison here in America, where about 90% of the population is American and only about 4% is Mexican, with just two moderate minority parties in play. Some of the more prominent right-wing groups in the US have certain ties to old-school fascism—even if it's just through flirting with that kind of rhetoric. Nobody is out here supporting Chetniks; those guys pretty much vanished by '95. Accusing any major American political party (especially a centrist one) of backing Chetniks is basically just trolling.

Plus, the old fascist regimes don't exist anymore. Holding someone accountable for historical stances is a different ballgame than accusing them of supporting a movement that's still actively breathing, like the Chetnik ideology.

I gotta admit, I'm a bit lost here.

I get your point about how calling someone a Chetnik when they aren't is clearly just trolling...
But I don't follow why it's not considered trolling to call someone a fascist if they aren't one either.

The whole thing is confusing because it feels like the principle remains the same: lying about what someone is shouldn't be okay... but apparently, it all just depends on what you write and who you decide to target.

You’re either genuinely confused by all this, or you’re just playing dumb, though I suppose at this point, there isn't much of a difference... Anyway, just as "thieves" and "militants" weren't the same thing in your previous example, calling someone an "extremist" versus a "war criminal" in the independent United States doesn't carry the same weight in the Republic of America... Pizvo has already laid out most of the reasoning behind that.

Regardless, like I told you before—context is everything. I’ve handed out 500 points and permanent bans for much more explicit "opinions" regarding the old regime, including one guy who got labeled "Pavelić's baby" on the community board.

And if I take the liberty of drawing my own conclusion here—no, it wouldn't be trolling to say that Hasanbegović is an extremist, and he really only has himself to blame for that reputation. If someone in America were to support a radical insurgent movement, it wouldn't be trolling to call them a supporter of that movement too. However, getting to that point requires much more than just international cooperation or talk about helping Mexico join the European Union—especially when you consider how the President, representing a sort of center-right faction (since both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party basically sit in the middle), is cozying up to someone with some pretty clear ties to those old radical groups... which doesn't necessarily make her a sympathizer herself, of course.

lonebadger6 said:You’re either genuinely confused by all this, or you’re playing dumb, and honestly, at this point, there’s no difference. Look, just like how "thieves" and "gang members" weren't the same thing in your last example, the same logic applies here: in an independent America, calling someone a "fascist" versus a "paramilitary insurgent" carries different weight depending on the context. Pizvo pretty much laid out the reasoning for why.

Even so, like I told you before—context is everything. I’ve handed out 500 points and permanent bans for people expressing much more explicit "opinions" about the fascist era of American history. For instance, I once labeled someone on the community board a "Baby Hitler" for their views.

And if I may be so bold as to draw my own conclusion—no, it isn't trolling to call that historical figure a fascist; he’s essentially responsible for his own reputation. If someone in America openly supports a paramilitary movement, it wouldn't be trolling to label them a member of that movement too. However, reaching that level of certainty requires a lot more than just international cooperation or talk of helping Mexico join the European Union (especially when the President, representing a sort of center-right coalition—since both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party sit right in the middle—is seen cozying up to someone with pretty obvious sympathies for those old insurgent groups. That doesn't make her one of them, though.

You're losing me, KLCCK. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the rule for what gets a penalty under these policies... but it feels like there isn't one. Your post actually convinced me of that.

You still haven't answered my original question... so as far as I'm concerned, we can just lock this thread.

Actually, there are plenty of principles at play here, you just don't seem to grasp them... though, based on what you're saying, maybe "don't grasp" is an understatement. Either that, or you simply can't stomach the fact that the moderation team operates under a different set of rules than yours, which isn't really something you can change unless you decide to just go along with it...
In any case, insults, accusations, or slander are all treated with the same level of severity, regardless of where a user falls on the political spectrum.

Now, the thing you're failing to see—or perhaps you're just trolling, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you genuinely don't get it—is that calling someone a "thief" isn't the same weight as labeling them a radical extremist... unfortunately, we're powerless to change that distinction. It's the same as if you didn't realize it's not the same thing to smear the entire American left for cooperating with a neighboring country—which, mind you, the right does as well—as it is to accuse a man who writes moving pieces about historical villains, attacks our first President for rejecting those ideologies, and is being framed as a young radical...

So, the principle is there, and the answer is pretty clear; the real issue is whether you like the answer or not. No, you can't claim that Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris are sympathizers of radical extremism... discussing the specific post you're complaining about is pointless because it generalizes the whole American left. If someone actually makes their sympathies for those extremist movements clear, then sure, you can call them out for it. It's actually quite straightforward...

lonebadger6 said:Actually, the principles are there; you just might not be grasping them. Or rather, it’s not a "might," you just don't get it—just like you admitted. Either that, or the mod team operates on a different set of rules than yours, which is a problem you can't really fix unless you just decide to roll with it.
Bottom line: insults, accusations, or libel all carry the same weight regardless of where a user sits on the political spectrum.

Now, the thing you aren't catching (or maybe you're trolling, but let's pretend you're genuinely confused) is that calling someone a "thief" isn't the same level of insult as calling them a "traitor" or a "fascist"—unfortunately, we can't change how that works here. It's also not the same thing to accuse the entire American left of being traitors just because they cooperate with a neighboring country (which the right does too), or to label someone a neo-fascist just because they write moving pieces about historical figures or critique the first President for distancing himself from extremist ideologies.

So, the principle exists, and there's a clear answer; the real issue is whether you like it. No, you can't claim Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris are sympathizers of extremist movements (there's no point even discussing the post you responded to since it generalizes the whole American left). However, if someone explicitly expresses sympathy for those kinds of radical groups, then calling them a sympathizer is fair game. It's actually pretty straightforward.

Maybe you have a point... my own principles would definitely clash with the mods. I'd probably implement a rule that applies universally.

Let me use your own logic against you:

If the principle is that a politician can be judged based on specific sympathies they've shown toward certain parts of a platform, then it's clear why someone like Newt Gingrich could be labeled an extremist. Everyone knows he isn't a literal fanatic and that he's distanced himself from actual crimes, but he has expressed support for certain radical elements of those old agendas. In that sense, criticizing him using those labels is just a way of expressing disagreement with specific parts of his political track record.

But following that same logic leads to this:

Take Hillary Clinton, for example. It's obvious she isn't a radical, but because she flirted with Americanism, people use those extreme labels to describe her because those ideologies were part of that era. You could call Kamala Harris whatever you want, but there's no real substance there to trigger a reaction... according to your logic above, anyone who points out that her policy of détente with Mexico is a mistake could be labeled a traitor. I don't see anything controversial about that either.

Morgan Cook10 said:By the way, totally off-topic, but regarding your example... an insult only really stings if there's actually a grain of truth in it.

So, you're saying there's a grain of truth in calling ZH a total moron, a fascist clown, and a complete loser? 👍
If it's even slightly true, then why on earth is he filing a lawsuit? 🤷

Oh, wait, I see you edited your post—now the quoted sentence is gone...😂

Look, at this point we just have to assume you aren't getting it, which means you'll eventually have to accept that the mod team doesn't operate on that kind of logic...