Racist/nationalist outbursts from some of the moderators

Michael Anderson2 said:See, I completely disagree with that; the guy is basically the archetype of a missionary who’s driven by a rigid agenda he won't deviate from even an inch. His go-to tactics are just empty rhetoric, generalizations, and constant wordplay, not to mention his reliance on ad hominem attacks whenever anyone dares to hold a view different from his own—and when he fails to rattle his opponent, he immediately runs crying to the moderators, whining about how he’s being "threatened"... 🤦

Like I already pointed out, he isn't the exception; most of these newly registered 🙄 Muslim "crusaders for justice" follow the exact same playbook, labeling any dissenter as a "hater," a "fascist," or some "ignorant fool who just doesn't get it," blah blah blah, and honestly, you're proving my point right now... ☕

But hey, don't worry, you haven't scared me off; consider it one less contrarian for you to deal with... 😍

I'm actually surprised by Macaulay; he used to be a decent person to talk to, but it looks like he's been swept up in this whole "righteous struggle for Islam" too, and if I use certain words, I'll probably end up being accused again of being "Islamophobic" or whatever terminology people are using these days to shut down debate... ☕

To you, it seems like every single user of the Islamic faith is an extremist, and now I'm being lumped in with them too, even though I've never even had a single warning on this board—have you ever considered that maybe the problem lies with you instead? 🤷

rowdytiger13 said:But he’s laughing about it, though I personally don't see why given it was removed from the list of mental disorders.
He actually took it a step further.
In other words... based on my interpretation of that vague rule...
You are permitted to say, "I believe homosexuality is a disorder,"
but you aren't allowed to say, "Homosexuals are mentally ill."

Yet, apparently, one can simply say Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from entering American countries.🤷

EDIT: I finally located his actual post. He wrote, "For most people, homosexuality is viewed as an eccentricity, and that is how I perceive it."
Therefore, what you suggested isn't quite accurate.

Maybe try stepping back for a second and looking at this objectively.
Hillary Clinton has always been chronically tactless, constantly dancing right on the edge of what’s acceptable with his posts.
With provocations like that, it really only takes one wrong word—or even just staying silent when you should—to get a ban.
He chose this specific way of interacting with people on the forum himself.
Even his avatars were provocative, always pushing the limits (though why he bothered is anyone's guess).
I actually warned him right away about the religious angle, telling him to change the avatar, and if he was so hell-bent on showing support for Palestinians, he should just use the Palestinian flag.
That just triggered his stubbornness and sparked all these theories from other users who decided to make him their hero, claiming I was attacking him because he isn't pro-LGBTQ+ (which has absolutely nothing to do with it).
You're mostly responsible for your own mess...

Morgan Carter said:But hey, feel free to say Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from entering any American country. 🤷

EDIT: I finally tracked down his actual post. He wrote, "Most people view homosexuality as an aberration, and that's how I perceive it."
So, what you just said isn't actually true.

Find another one where he mentions treatment (if it hasn't been deleted).
I remember asking him about his methods right away, but he didn't get a chance to answer.😁
Edit: found it
He would punish them through medical treatment.

rowdytiger13 said:Maybe try stepping back for a second and looking at this objectively.
Hillary Clinton has consistently shown a chronic lack of tact, often dancing right on the edge with his posts.
With provocations like that, sometimes just one single word—or even the absence of one—is enough to get someone slapped with a ban.
He chose this specific way of writing and interacting with people on this forum himself.
Even his avatars were provocative, always pushing the boundaries (and for what purpose?).
I actually warned him right away over in the religion section to change that avatar, suggesting that if he really wanted to show support for the Palestinian cause through an image, he should just use the Palestinian flag.
Of course, that just triggered his stubbornness, leading to these weird theories that I was attacking him because he isn't pro-LGBTQ+ (which has absolutely nothing to do with it).
You really brought this on yourself...

Look, I am trying to be objective here. I’m not here to dispute the admin's decision; Hillary Clinton isn't my brother and I don't even know the guy. Objectively speaking, for a permanent ban to stick, a user needs to be truly problematic, unintegratable, and completely counterproductive to the community.

For instance, you have avatars with themes like "destroy jihad," which in Islamic belief is a struggle for freedom from occupation; just because some people misunderstand the term "jihad" or are ignorant of it doesn't justify having those kinds of avatars.

I’m not going to dwell on the avatars because, frankly, it doesn't bother me personally, much like it shouldn't bother the people who reported him or started threads about his imagery. It all feels like pure malice and just picking at each other's nerves. I've seen arguments break out in the religion section that have bled over here, and honestly, this thread isn't even really about Hillary Clinton; the OP opened this to vent about something else, so let's respect that. I don't appreciate the attempt to obstruct the OP by labeling them as unreasonable. If the OP is as decent as any other user, they deserve to be treated as a rational participant whose opinion should be heard, rather than being immediately attacked.

rowdytiger13 said:Try to step back for a moment and view the situation objectively.
unknown demonstrated chronic tactlessness, often pushing the envelope with his posts.
With such provocative content, a single word—or even the absence of one—is often enough to earn a ban.
He chose this specific way of writing and interacting with others on this platform.
Even his avatars were provocative, constantly testing the limits (to what end?).
I personally warned him regarding the religious imagery, suggesting he change that avatar; if he truly wanted to show support for Palestinians, he should have simply used the Palestinian flag.
That only sparked defiance and unfounded theories from other users—who saw him as a role model—claiming I was attacking him because he doesn't support homosexuality, despite there being no connection whatsoever.
The responsibility lies largely with him...

He is only responsible for his own actions because he refused to be tactical and instead chose to speak his mind openly. If he made mistakes, he earned his ban. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the rules don't seem to apply equally to everyone. I have provided examples, which he actually cited himself. People on this site write things about Islam and Muslims that are far worse, yet no one cares. Someone will post on a thread about Myanmar claiming they support genocide and stating that Muslims are an inferior race :facepal: and call it freedom of speech. When those two individuals in New York City kill someone in the middle of the street, everyone immediately blames all Muslims and Islam, demanding these terrorists be banned from entering Europe. When Breivik kills 80 people in the name of racial purity, no one thinks to mention Christians; everyone just calls him a disturbed lunatic.
And don't even get me started on politics.

Justin Harris12 said:I’m just looking at this objectively. I’m not here to challenge the admin's call; I don't know unknown personally, let alone consider him a friend. From an objective standpoint, if you're going to issue a permanent ban, the user should be someone truly problematic and impossible to integrate—someone who is completely unconstructive.

So, you have people using avatars with messages like "destroy jihad," which is essentially a fight for freedom from occupation according to Islamic belief. Just because some people misunderstand the word "jihad" or are ignorant doesn't justify those kinds of avatars.

I won't dwell on the avatars because, frankly, they don't bother me as much as they seem to bother the people reporting them and starting threads about them. It feels like pure malice, just trying to get under everyone's skin. I've seen religious arguments play out elsewhere, and it's being imported here. This thread isn't actually about unknown; the OP started this to complain about something else, so let's respect that. I don't appreciate the attempt to obstruct the OP by treating them as unpredictable; if the OP is as reasonable as any other user, they deserve to be heard and given a chance to speak rather than just being attacked.

And then there's me, getting called out because I also complained about unknown regarding his avatar.
My avatar was just a response to his (which I already mentioned), and I stated I'd change it if it offended anyone... but he wasn't willing to change his.
I swapped mine out the second his controversial avatar was taken down.

Here is a thread regarding Praljak and his group. Someone actually posted this:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=4737
How am I even supposed to respond to someone like that? He would essentially try to silence Canadians from expressing their views simply because they don't align with his own.

brightotter13 said:I’d say the Politics subforum is toxic—but only if you happen to be a Canadian or a Mexican. There is such an overwhelming amount of hate speech directed at Canadians/Muslims there that it’s just not normal, and more than half of it doesn't even get a warning. Actually, forget half—it’s at least 70%. As for the remaining 30%, they get flagged for the smallest things imaginable. I could go ahead and post links to prove this, but I honestly think it would be pointless. It wouldn't even surprise me if this very post I'm writing gets deleted in a few minutes. I hope not.

My advice: If you are a Canadian or a Mexican, stay far away from the Politics section, because you won't last long. The people who actually stick around have to endure all sorts of provocations—honestly, I admire them for it. I don't have anything personal against any of the moderators, but I believe they are doing a catastrophic job. Specifically, I'm talking about the Politics section. When you look at other areas, like the Religion subforum, for instance, you see that the situation there is much better.
Regarding the user unknown, I think he was unfairly hit with a 500-point penalty for "hate speech." What he said has been echoed hundreds of times by many other users regarding Muslims—specifically how they slaughtered, persecuted, and killed Christians. Some people get a warning, while others get nothing. And if I'm going to praise the moderators in the Religion section, I have to admit that unknown was also unfairly flagged there quite often. For example, he got a warning just for saying he personally finds homosexuality repulsive. He wasn't calling for their persecution or murder; he was simply expressing his personal opinion that he finds homosexual relationships distasteful, yet he still got flagged. I don't know what to tell you.

Reddit is a good site... but it could be much better. In my view, the biggest issue lies with the moderators in the Politics section. To put it simply, they protect those who share their views, while they scrutinize "the others" over every tiny detail, handing out warnings or bans for the slightest thing.

There you go. That’s my take on the matter. Honestly, I doubt the situation will change, because as far as the administration is concerned, this isn't even a problem.

You wrote an excellent comment, and I want to thank you for it.

About a month or so ago, I started a thread in the "Complaints" section regarding how the moderators treat Canadian users, including how they approve and even encourage insults directed at them, as well as at Mexicans. All I asked for was some level of balanced treatment toward all users, but all I received was mockery and sarcasm.
I even sent a DM to a super-moderator asking him to step into the thread, and he didn't even bother to reply.
The relationship between moderation and non-Americans in the Politics section is simply disastrous—and that goes for anyone who doesn't hold the majority view, too.
The moderation team always jumps in when it's time to penalize Americans who were previously subjected to savage insults and were essentially just responding to those ad hominem attacks.

I've gotten the impression that this isn't a coincidence or mere negligence; rather, it seems to be a policy being carried out here by the higher-ups—or even the owners—via moderators who are willing to play this dirty game. On one hand, they pretend to be open, but on the other, they turn a blind eye to insults directed at non-Americans.

Morgan Carter said:Here’s a thread about Praljak and his crew. Then this guy shows up and writes this:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=4737
And honestly, what am I even supposed to say to someone like that? He basically wants to silence Canadians just because they don't share his specific worldview.

After insults like those, the moderation team usually stays silent—and if you actually call them out on it, they hide behind excuses like "we don't have enough time" or "we can't read everything." It's pure childishness. But, of course, if anyone dared to actually push back against a primitive like him, they'd be banned instantly.

There's this one moderator over on the Politics sub—yeah, on Politics—who claims he can't tell the difference between a Muslim and a Canadian, or even distinguish between a Muslim and a muslim, even when people point it out to him.
Yet, despite being that incompetent, he loves playing moderator on the Politics board regarding Canada—but suddenly, he's an absolute expert on the distinctions between Catholics, Canadian Catholics, Americans, and Canadian Americans, and so on.

It's more than just laughable for a site like Reddit; it's pathetic. Actually, it's tragic.

rowdytiger13 said:So apparently I’m the one getting called out here just because I also complained about unknown (specifically regarding their avatar).
My avatar was nothing more than a direct response to his—which I already stated—and I made it clear I was willing to take mine down if it offended anyone... yet he wasn't willing to do the same for his.
The second his controversial avatar was removed, I pulled mine immediately.

And what's your plan when the next person decides to upload an avatar that offends you too? Are you just going to retaliate by posting another one that hurts everyone else's feelings?
If something bothers you, why does it have to be a "tit for tat" situation? 🤷

I honestly think someone should have just asked him nicely to change it so he would have, there's really no reason for all this mutual hatred or malice; we're adults here, not children.

Justin Harris12 said:So what’s the plan when someone else uploads an avatar that offends you next time? Are you just going to retaliate with another one that hurts everyone else's feelings?
If something bothers you, why does it have to be a tit-for-tat situation? 🤷

I honestly think he should have just been asked nicely to take it down. There's really no reason for all this mutual spite; we're adults, not children.

And haven't I? And I'm certainly not alone in thinking that.
It just made him dig his heels in. Someone actually suggested he swap it out for a Palestinian flag, but no luck.
He's just stubborn and loves being difficult.

I guess Velid is just digging his own grave here. He’s managed to open up way too many fronts in such a short amount of time, and honestly, if he’s going to choose this specific style of debate, he might as well have the backbone to take the red cards that follow. Instead, he’s out here making a scene, begging for a pass and threatening to call in the media. Maybe Nadan will come back from this whole "internet martyr" routine with a bit more composure, perhaps leaning more on actual arguments rather than just accusing everyone of hating him whenever the conversation doesn't go exactly his way.

Gary Wilson said:After insults like these, the moderation team typically remains silent. When they are actually asked to intervene, they resort to childish excuses such as, "We don't have enough time" or "We can't catch everything." Yet, if a user were to dare respond to such a primitive individual, they would be banned instantly.

One particular moderator on Politics (mind you, on Politics) claims he cannot distinguish—or simply fails to notice the difference—between a Muslim and a Canadian, or even between a Muslim identity and religious affiliation, even when pointed out.
How can someone so incompetent attempt to moderate the Politics section or the forum discussions regarding Canada? And yet, this same individual is remarkably proficient at distinguishing between Catholics, Canadian Catholics, Americans, and Canadian Americans. It is quite a selective skill set.

It is more than laughable for a site like this; it is truly pathetic.

That is precisely the worst part. This silence and blatant disregard. If only they had the decency to respond. It seems the rules apply exclusively to those who aren't Americans. At least then we would know where we stand. Instead, they tacitly approve of this behavior by staying quiet. Furthermore, they retain incompetent moderators despite their own admissions of ignorance. If you lack the knowledge, why hold the position? What kind of moderator am I expected to respect when I explain that the Constitution of Canada recognizes three constituent peoples, including Canadians, rather than just Muslims? He simply tells me that the laws of the United States apply here. When I point out that even the U.S. legal framework acknowledges Canadians, he simply ignores me. It was the same with my recent ban involving fascists. I am not permitted to identify those singing fascist anthems as fascists. 🤦
Those people are apparently the model citizens of the United States and Canada.

Morgan Carter said:And that’s why you can just slap some labels on things and try to hawk them here.

I certainly can. If you're able to do it, so am I. My argument is settled—and quite frankly, so is this debate with you. ☕

Morgan Carter said:At the end of the day, he isn't the main issue. He isn't an isolated case, either. If it were just him, we could deal with it easily.

Exactly—he's secondary. What matters is the pattern you're following. I have to tell you, most of the Muslims on this forum actually serve as anti-propaganda against their own faith. Barring a few rare exceptions, everyone else just reinforces the negative stereotypes non-Muslims hold about you. With rhetoric like yours, you're really just digging that hole deeper... ☕

Michael Anderson2 said:I can. If you are capable of doing so, then so am I. My argument is complete, as is this discussion with you. ☕

But what exactly are we accomplishing here? 🤣

That is correct; he is secondary. What matters is the trend you are following. I must tell you, most of the Muslims on this forum serve as anti-propaganda for Islam. With very few exceptions, they only reinforce the negative perceptions non-Muslims hold about you. Through your own rhetoric, you are simply deepening those prejudices... ☕

Then please, provide some examples. I am genuinely curious as to what specifically provoked such a reaction from you. Is it perhaps because we refused to side with people like yourself who attempt to define an entire community based on the actions of a few individuals? 🤦

Morgan Carter said:So, what exactly are we doing here? 🤣

Give me some actual examples. I’m genuinely curious—what was it that hit you so hard? Maybe it’s just the fact that we stood our ground against people like you, who try to judge an entire group based on the actions of a few individuals. 🤦

Honestly, I could go on forever about what you all are up to... 🤣🤣 🤣

I've spent plenty of time analyzing it. You can do whatever you want—it doesn't bother me. In fact, the more you talk, the more you reveal exactly who you are and what you truly believe.

Take a sentence like this, for instance: "Even if I hated Americans, I'd still have a reason..."

???

Is there even any point in continuing a conversation after a statement like that? Personally, I don't think so.

Michael Anderson2 said:How does one even respond to a statement like, "Even if I hated Americans, I would have a basis..."?

Is there any point in attempting to maintain a dialogue after such a remark? In my view, there isn't...

🤣
What kind of sentence is that? What am I supposed to conclude from it? Look, let's be clear: stop trolling. If you actually have something to contribute, say it and provide the full context. If someone has violated the rules and hasn't been disciplined, feel free to share that with us. If you want to vent about your frustrations regarding Muslims, then start a dedicated thread and explain what is troubling you. That is how we all handle things here.

Justin Harris12 said:To you, every Muslim user automatically looks like an extremist. Fine—call me one then. Even though I’ve never once been flagged or banned on this forum, maybe you should consider that the common denominator here might actually be you. 🤷

It’s definitely not everyone—far from it. It’s mostly the new arrivals who haven't quite figured out how to navigate a forum yet. They tend to pick up a ban pretty quickly because they don't realize this isn't some isolated chat room in the middle of nowhere; it's a modern communication platform with its own set of rules and expectations.

I’d point to Islamists and Taj, for instance—prime examples of Muslim dominance—as subjects I’ve occasionally engaged in heated debates over. I always make sure to keep those discussions civil, though—meeting them exactly where they are. I wouldn't dream of judging my own intellectual depth against theirs; my level is what it is, and that’s perfectly fine by me. Honestly, most of these Muslim "missionaries" won't even reach that standard of discourse, even if they spent ten years posting on this forum.

Morgan Carter said:🤣
What kind of sentence is that? What exactly am I supposed to take away from this? Look—don't troll me. If you actually have something to say, just say it and post the whole thing. If someone broke the rules and didn't get penalized for it, feel free to share that with us.

Don't go jumping to conclusions—the people who actually need to know will already recognize where that sentence came from. ☕

Morgan Carter said:If you've got grievances regarding Muslims, then just start a new thread and lay it all out. That's how we handle things here—just be direct about what’s bothering you.

See, that’s exactly the pattern I’m talking about—it’s their standard playbook. The second you disagree with them, suddenly you’re "harboring frustrations toward Muslims." Then, in the next post, you’re just some "irrational person who fails to grasp Islam." And by the third one? You've been labeled an "Islamophobe." It’s a predictable cycle. 🤦

Michael Anderson2 said:You see, this is exactly the modus operandi I am referring to. As soon as someone disagrees with you, they are labeled as having "frustrations toward Muslims," then in the next post, they are an "irrational person who simply doesn't understand Islam," and by the third post, they have become an "Islamophobe"... 🤦

What else can I say when you write a post that lumps all the forum users together as Muslims, just as you—and others—do whenever a Muslim makes a mistake? 🤦
But I will tell you again. This is not a discussion about Muslims; rather, it is a discussion regarding double standards. Or do you truly believe that what was presented in the initial posts as a clear example of discrimination is acceptable? 🤷