Lockheed Martin

Paul Green31 said:Oh, thanks for the link.
That perfectly illustrates the difference between having actual perspective and just shouting an opinion (one that leaves room for others to weigh in, whether you agree or not). Being able to tolerate views that clash with your own is the main thing a moderator needs to be fair, decent, and objective. You don't see much of that with the other political posters here (except for the latest guy).

Let's grab that quote and tear it apart.

That’s a stated fact. It stands.

That’s exactly what we’re debating here.

Should it be that way here, too? I think that's a perfectly valid point to raise regarding this topic.

What's got Paravinja so worked up? Is a kid holding a provocative sign really comparable to a serial rapist? 😵

And *this* is the comparison he's calling crazy, rather than acknowledging his own ridiculous move of comparing a potential murderer to a kid with a sign.

Look, not only is calling out those kinds of comparisons a good thing, but he should have used blue text and issued a warning. Why? Because those exact types of generalizations and twisted contexts are the primary fuel for flame wars and trolling on this site.

I don't get it. What's the problem? 🤷

When a moderator claims that Mexicans shouldn't be buying property in America, suddenly everyone's outraged because it’s "about the Mexicans." But the second you mention that property restrictions are standard practice across the entire European Union, suddenly we're all rushing headlong into this "modern community" we're supposedly voting for at the ballot box.

If a guy opens up a debate, keeps it broad, and actually leaves room for people to question whether certain rhetoric qualifies as hate speech or just individual liberty, then he's the bad guy. Please. If you were offered a green card tomorrow, half of you would pack your bags and move to the States, where protecting individual rights—even the right to be a jerk—is baked into the Constitution.

You hypocrites are attacking PowerLock's stance instead of how this place is being moderated. That’s exactly what you are. 🙂

To actually be fair, decent, and objective, one would first need to possess some level of expertise in the specific field they are attempting to moderate. For instance—and this is merely a reflection of the education I have invested in—I am well aware of what the social sciences dictate regarding whether homosexuality constitutes a disorder. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin believes—right here on Politics!—that the stance claiming homosexuality is a disorder should be protected as a subjective belief, falling under the umbrella of free speech. My point is this: we are discussing subjective beliefs in America, which are often not even clearly articulated (let alone backed by facts) and are potentially discriminatory—serving little more than the function of spreading prejudice. Therefore, what is the actual purpose of protecting such speech? Not unless we are capable of analyzing subtext, context, and broader implications.

Should it be that way for us too? I think it's legitimate material for discussion on a topic like this.

But tolerance isn't the sole criterion, nor is it the only subject matter at play. Beyond that, we are dealing with statements far more excessive than yours—this example is, in my view, redundant if we already understand the dynamics when discussing Mexicans in America. Why does insensitivity always seem to trend in such a predictable direction?

Hypocrites attacking Lockheed Martin's stance rather than the moderation itself. That’s exactly what you are. 🙂

My comment was concerned exclusively with the influence exerted through moderation. I wasn't interested in the Paravinja matter; I simply used the free speech argument as a paradigm. I merely want to point out that there must be a greater concern for the quality of discourse—the unarticulated reproduction of prejudices doesn't require protection, especially not officially. Besides, such things are already heavily protected by default.

Zachary Gomez2 said:To actually be fair, decent, and objective, one would first need to possess some level of expertise in the specific field they are attempting to moderate. For instance—and this is merely a reflection of the education I have invested in—I am well aware of what the social sciences dictate regarding whether homosexuality constitutes a disorder. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin believes—right here on Politics!—that the stance claiming homosexuality is a disorder should be protected as a subjective belief, falling under the umbrella of free speech. My point is this: we are discussing subjective beliefs in America, which are often not even clearly articulated (let alone backed by facts) and are potentially discriminatory—serving little more than the function of spreading prejudice. Therefore, what is the actual purpose of protecting such speech? Not unless we are capable of analyzing subtext, context, and broader implications.

Should it be that way for us too? I think it's legitimate material for discussion on a topic like this.

But tolerance isn't the sole criterion, nor is it the only subject matter at play. Beyond that, we are dealing with statements far more excessive than yours—this example is, in my view, redundant if we already understand the dynamics when discussing Mexicans in America. Why does insensitivity always seem to trend in such a predictable direction?

Hypocrites attacking Lockheed Martin's stance rather than the moderation itself. That’s exactly what you are. 🙂

My comment was concerned exclusively with the influence exerted through moderation. I wasn't interested in the Paravinja matter; I simply used the free speech argument as a paradigm. I merely want to point out that there must be a greater concern for the quality of discourse—the unarticulated reproduction of prejudices doesn't require protection, especially not officially. Besides, such things are already heavily protected by default.

Stop puffing out your chest about "social sciences" without a diploma or a list of published papers to back it up. People love using titles and credentials to try and force authority onto their opinions during an argument.

Here, we’re all just random handles. No fancy titles, no fake personas, no names or faces. Knowledge or ignorance comes through in our posts, and it’s up to everyone else to judge.

So, since we’re all just small-time users here, let's get down to business.

When I broke your first argument down into its simplest parts, you immediately jumped to a second argument.

Fine, let's put that one on the table too. (Though just introducing a second argument tells me everything I need to know about the quality of your debating style.)

Ban the idea that homosexuality is a disease?

Hmm, I think that's highly debatable. History shows that bans usually backfire; whenever something gets banned, it just pops up somewhere else immediately.

So, now Lockheed Martin isn't some primitive right-winger shouting conservative views through clenched teeth and a clunky keyboard; no, now he's "overly tolerant." He’d apparently want to give people the freedom to hate whoever they want, defend whatever view they please, and decide certain things are inherently bad.

Seriously? Maybe Lockheed Martin actually has a backbone. Maybe he even has all his buttons working. And maybe he lives somewhere in the West where people realized long ago that bans produce the exact opposite effect—they bring nothing but side effects that end up worrying society way more.
Maybe he has experience showing that a society can be educated, slowly "normalized" to certain things until they are accepted, simply because humans are complex creatures and that "normalization" method almost always works.

But no, Lockheed Martin has to act like a stereotypical local, ready to throw a red card at anyone who mentions Mexicans in a negative light.

He should probably just print one out, keep it in his pocket, and pull it out at a pub in London to card any Brit who dares to insult a Mexican.

Lockheed Martin is 700 times more tolerant than those of you criticizing him. He doesn't hate Mexicans, nor does he wish them ill, but he won't sit by while Mexicans or their fanatical supporters hate Americans or cause them harm. Treating Mexicans as sacred cows everywhere and all the time—as if they aren't just regular people—is doing a disservice to Americans.

That's it. Nothing more.

It isn't the only criterion or the only material. Besides, we're talking about statements far more extreme than that—this example is, in my opinion, redundant if we actually know what we're talking about when discussing Mexicans in America. Why does insensitivity always seem to head in such a predictable direction?

Mexicans in America are a national minority that somehow holds a Vice President position, while their guy in Congress is someone this very same country once sentenced to twenty years in prison before granting him a pardon.

They get renovated houses, they get legal harassment whenever anyone looks at them sideways, they have double voting power, and they benefit from affirmative action. They even have monuments in places like El Paso where it says "the Mexican flag flies proudly on Mexican land." They get special textbooks to learn a different version of history and language. Honestly, they have way, way more than Americans living in those same towns.

And frankly, any normal citizen in this country has had enough of them.

Because these are the people who killed about 13,000 Americans, caused over $100 billion in direct and indirect damage to the US, and wiped out two or three generations. Instead of going to concerts, traveling, or chasing girls around town, those kids spent their lives sitting in bunkers fighting those same Mexicans just to stop them from slaughtering us all, like what happened at Ovčara.

Seriously, I don't know who wouldn't absolutely adore those Mexicans. 😲

My comment was strictly about influence through moderation. I wasn't interested in the stuff regarding Lockheed Martin; I was just using free speech as an example of the paradigm. I just want to point out that we need to care more about the quality level—there's no need to protect the mindless repetition of prejudices, especially not officially. That stuff is heavily protected enough as it is.

Well, when you actually find an instance where Lockheed Martin used moderation to go against modern standards or the general flow of discussion on this forum, show up and call him out then.

As long as you're attacking his opinion—where he's just saying what he thinks about a topic—you're doing it wrong. Lockheed Martin is just some small-time forum user, a tiny handle who has every right to chat, talk nonsense, and laugh at dark jokes. When he moderates, he stops being a handle and becomes a forum institution, and *that* is when his work is subject to criticism.

So, if you're attacking the institution, provide a link that clearly shows an official mistake, rather than just blowing smoke about his personal views.

(And you conveniently missed those posts where Lockheed Martin said he’d lead a pride parade in Miami himself if it weren't for the slogans and the people there who are only participating for provocative political goals. Because that Miami only exists because the 4th Infantry Brigade gave up 199 lives for our freedom—including the right to decide who gets to march in our streets with which signs.)

Just to be fair here, Moderatura agreed to penalize any claims that homosexuality is a disease, and if I'm remembering right, Lockheed Martin actually brought that up himself in this thread. Just wanted to set the record straight on a few things 😍

Paul Green31, I honestly think anyone who actually wanted to grasp my point already did. I’m not shifting my stance, adding things after the fact, or conveniently leaving stuff out—just read what’s on the page and follow the logic. Here is one more attempt at clarity: we don't have to settle for any particular level of discourse if we simply choose not to.

steeleagle70, the crux of the matter lies in the specific moderation style linked in my initial post. If that isn't actually what is written there, then I’ll withdraw my objection. I am perfectly willing to concede that someone else might interpret the same text differently. However, my argument remains that those blue-highlighted explanations carry actual moderator weight, and I know precisely why such things can become problematic in a day-to-day context—in fact, I was quite explicit about that in my previous remarks.

steeleagle70 said:Just to be fair here, Moderatura agreed to penalize any claims that homosexuality is a disease, and if I'm remembering right, Lockheed Martin actually brought that up himself in this thread. Just wanted to set the record straight on a few things 😍

But that’s exactly the point!

The Lockheed Martin moderator basically held a mini-trial, weighing everything against the forum's vibe, its culture, and the current situation. He reached a verdict that actually favors those attacking him—which might just be his own personal take, too.

Now, this Lockheed Martin user is arguing that maybe it isn't wise to ban people from voicing their opinions, even if those views are homophobic or target a specific nation. He’s basing his argument on examples from what some call the most advanced democracy in the world, where such speech isn't just allowed, it's a constitutionally protected right.

So, look at the pattern: when he's acting as a moderator, he bends his rules to fit the forum's consensus. But the second he speaks as a regular user? Suddenly he has his own "opinion."

Honestly, I find that much more refreshing than those other mods. You know the ones—they post two dry, boring sentences when they're acting like users, mostly just correcting people, but the moment they hand out a ban, they turn into absolute tyrants trying to defend their political buddies.

Basically, he split

And hey, the admins are supposed to handle this stuff. But since one of them scrolled right past the thread without saying a word, I’m guessing they think everything is totally fine. So, honestly? I wouldn't hold my breath that your complaint is actually gonna go anywhere.

Angela Newman33 said:How on earth is someone this insanely biased and totally subjective allowed to be a moderator? Especially when they’re sitting right there in the Politics section—calling out anyone who doesn't see things their way for "hate speech" against Americans, then handing out bans to anyone who dares to disagree. And then, to top it all off, they just cook up some nonsense excuses from Angela Newman33 to justify those mindless bans.

Get people like that off the mod team immediately—they're straight-up abusing their power.

I've noticed it too. Lockheed Martin mostly hands out bans to anyone they disagree with. Even if they don't ban you, they get incredibly twitchy when they see an opposing view and start threatening people with bans. I don't get how a user like that can be a moderator.

I still get a little kick out of watching Lockheed Martin get absolutely wrecked by Moderatura, especially considering how much damage they usually cause 😁

Lockheed Martin is hands down the most high-quality moderator on this Politics board, yet I see some people actually going out of their way to call him out. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you want to complain about biased or unfair moderators, try targeting someone like The edge.

This whole thread exists because some people just can't wrap their heads around the fact that different opinions exist. People aren't afraid to speak their minds, even when they go against the mainstream. In this specific situation, it’s not about whether Lockheed Martin personally supports targeting Mexicans in rural areas; it’s about the fact that he, much like myself, believes hate speech shouldn't be so strictly penalized if no one is actually being seriously threatened. It’s similar to how things work in the US—I think, and clearly Lockheed Martin does too, that we should aim for that kind of standard here.

We could debate the weight of such a message when it's aired publicly, or discuss whether it's appropriate for public consumption and if society should try to scrub away those kinds of primitive outbursts. But the core of the argument was this: one side (mostly left-leaning, which is a paradox in itself) is calling for strict punishments and narrowing freedom of speech, while the other side (the right-wingers, another paradox) is pushing for broader individual liberty. Everyone is just standing up for what they believe in and voicing their views. Personally, I don't see why it's so shocking that a moderator thinks people in this country should be able to say whatever they want, provided they aren't endangering others... Honestly, it's mind-blowing. Imagine that—freedom of speech. 🤣

Andrew Chase31 said:This whole thread exists because some people just can't wrap their heads around the fact that different opinions exist. People aren't afraid to speak their minds, even when they go against the mainstream. In this specific situation, it’s not about whether Lockheed Martin personally supports targeting Mexicans in rural areas; it’s about the fact that he, much like myself, believes hate speech shouldn't be so strictly penalized if no one is actually being seriously threatened. It’s similar to how things work in the US—I think, and clearly Lockheed Martin does too, that we should aim for that kind of standard here.

We could debate the weight of such a message when it's aired publicly, or discuss whether it's appropriate for public consumption and if society should try to scrub away those kinds of primitive outbursts. But the core of the argument was this: one side (mostly left-leaning, which is a paradox in itself) is calling for strict punishments and narrowing freedom of speech, while the other side (the right-wingers, another paradox) is pushing for broader individual liberty. Everyone is just standing up for what they believe in and voicing their views. Personally, I don't see why it's so shocking that a moderator thinks people in this country should be able to say whatever they want, provided they aren't endangering others... Honestly, it's mind-blowing. Imagine that—freedom of speech. 🤣

I think the issue is that the definitions are getting blurred. Promoting fascism and racism isn't democracy; it's actually using democratic tools to try and shrink or dismantle it.
If this were just some isolated incident, then talking about punishment or making it a headline would be pointless. But this is a trend. If we keep staying silent or failing to punish it, we end up with kids today thinking that hating on other nations, religions, or whatever... well, maybe it's even okay, or even desirable. Take Miami, for example. From its streets, there’s basically a call for violence against any kind of difference, whether it's hockey players 😬, Mexicans, Jews, or the LGBTQ+ community. Every single day, walking to school or the beach, a kid in Miami sees at least one message like that. I won't speculate on what they hear at home, but the fact remains that by the time they hit adulthood, most are pretty much clueless when it comes to terms like "free speech," "democracy," "tolerance," or "the state."
So, look, if the school system failed, if parents failed, or if the damn local sanitation crews failed to scrub these messages away—then punishment is what's left. It’s a penalty-message for all those other confused kids. Sure, punishing things can backfire; that's a real possibility early on. But I guess people, especially young people, if they want to survive in modern society, will eventually have to adopt values that go beyond nationalism. And honestly, it shouldn't even be that hard, since most haven't actually internalized these negative views; they’re mostly just parroting stuff they heard somewhere without context, which just makes them incredibly insecure and aggressive.

Look, Tyler Grant76, we're in the PZK section now. This thread is about something else entirely, not whatever you're rambling about.
Since you’ve already turned this thread into a chat room, I guess I'll take advantage of that too. My post might look off-topic and similar to yours at first glance, but as you keep reading, it’ll become clear that this is actually a direct hit on the moderator.

But Andrew Chase31 really nailed the moment when he pointed out how the left-liberals are all about strict punishment for certain things, while the right-wing crowd fights for free speech—calling it a total paradox.

That’s a fascinating little detail. But maybe the paradox makes more sense if you realize that most of the left-liberal ideology in America stems from followers of the old regime. They were raised to think that any American showing even a hint of nationalism should be executed, thrown into pits, sent to Alcatraz to break rocks, or locked up in Leavenworth to write memoirs on toilet paper because they wouldn't even give them actual paper. So, "left-liberal" doesn't mean the same thing here as it does in a place like Portugal.

In America, being left-liberal is focused on freedom of speech—but only the kind of speech that was allowed back in the day by the old establishment. It targets religious, social, and economic freedoms, but only for those who are "compliant." Basically, the left-liberal movement exists to serve and defend every force that opposes American nationalism. While Mexicans, Canadians, or Mexicans can be nationalists all they want, the second Americans try to express their own nationalism, the left-liberal forces jump up to defend everyone else's rights instead.
They go after the Catholic Church because they view it as primitive and backward. To them, believers are just conservatives holding back progress. But they only have a problem with Catholicism; every other religion or cult gets their full protection and support as long as they are anti-Catholic.

They claim to defend minorities—national, social, sexual. But they only care because those minorities undermine the cohesion of American society. They don't give a damn about the minorities who are actually struggling—the ones facing massive legal debts or people who lack the basic means to live with dignity. Those groups aren't important to them because they can't be used as a weapon to attack the three pillars that have held this nation together through centuries of struggle: Family, God, and America.

The truth is, the left-liberal option in the US grew out of unpunished crimes. It emerged from the murder of 200,000 people who were liquidated and dumped into pits; it rose from 45 years of persecuting free thought, where you could end up in prison for twenty days just for singing a patriotic song.

Meanwhile, the so-called right-wing option was born from fighting against that very system. It came from the struggle for a freedom where you can say you're an American, where you can be a person of faith and still attend Mass without getting fired, and where you can work and live however you please as long as you aren't crossing the line against those three core pillars.

And that’s why the right-wing option stands for freedom of speech, thought, and action within a strong, stable American state—one that uses its laws to punish anyone who lets that freedom spiral out of control.

You see it right here. People are dogpiling Lockheed Martin because they want to introduce bans and strictly punish kids for writing ugly slogans. Sure, a slogan like "Mexicans to the orchards" is disgusting, and I would never allow that to be spray-painted on American walls.

But the problem is that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to wear symbols of regimes that destroyed our people—symbols under which cities were razed, where hundreds of thousands of Americans were lost in pits and quarries, and symbols that systematically persecuted "pro-American thought" for fifty years.

The issue is that it's allowed to spray hate symbols on walls and wave flags that belonged to the hordes of fascists who once rampaged through this country, raping, killing, and burning everything in their path. And according to these "left-liberal" forces, *that* is what freedom of speech looks like.

Essentially, to them, freedom of speech means anything that doesn't include America.

Lockheed Martin is a classic example, just like Andrew Chase31. They want free speech for everyone. They want the kid who writes a hateful slur to be punished, but not excessively. Four months in prison? That's a heavy sentence.

Look, they just want everyone using the exact same yardstick, drawing those hateful symbols and calling it whatever they want. It’s all just an excuse to stir up hate against Americans. And yet, here we are in the US, where Americans are the majority.

So, whether it's in real life or right here on this forum, we protect minorities and diverse opinions. We protect free speech. But even when we value it, we protect it in a way where the majority of a community sets the rules of the game. We shouldn't let a tiny minority dictate how we play just because they hide behind "free speech" and the dictatorship of democracy.

Lockheed Martin already gets it. He doesn't need a lesson in tolerance; he knows exactly what persecution and intolerance look like when people start targeting anyone who thinks differently.

These "left-liberals" will never escape the urge to persecute anyone who disagrees with them. The system has hardwired it into their brains so deeply that it’s become a reflex.

Sure, they have a right to an opinion. Let them express it. But they better realize that hate speech directed at Americans will be treated with the same weight as that kid facing 120 days in jail over a single piece of graffiti. If that keeps happening, we’ll have to expand our prisons and increase the disk space for the banned users section, because there’s going to be a lot of them.

P.S. There you have it—this is what "left" and "right" looks like for Americans. Completely backwards.

Paul Green31 said:Because those Mexicans owe us something like 40 billion euros in war reparations, and they still have territorial claims against America.

We need to force Mexicans, Englishmen, Scandinavians, and all those other foreign citizens into a reciprocity-based real estate system (if Americans buy there, they can buy here), and scrap this backwards law where they buy here and we get to buy there.

Try buying a house in Malta, or maybe by a lake in Finland as a foreigner, and then you'll understand what I'm talking about.

The fact that PowerLock claims America is a total free-for-all with a "backwards law" isn't anything uncivilized or even new. These "anti"-Mexican, German, French, Italian, or whatever other anti-nation laws used by other countries are baked right into their legislation. Nobody calls it nationalism or hate over there; they call it DEFENDING NATIONAL INTERESTS.

Look, America's national interest is just like the national interest of any country in the West: don't let another nation move in and then, a few years later, start demanding rights and trying to take over. And Mexicans definitely have those habits—move in somewhere, set up autonomous zones, build barricades, and demand special privileges that they eventually end up getting here.

It’s a joke that we’re a country where, thanks to our constitution and minority voting rights, we can end up with a president who was voted for by only a tiny percentage of Americans. The rest is filled out by people who vote under "special laws," buy property through these similar backwards laws, and so on.

Personally, I've always been repelled by the idea of "selling off the country," regardless of the fact that once we fully integrate into the EU, it's likely going to happen anyway. But if it is going to happen, I don't see any reason to count every single cent or grain of sand. Yes, Mexicans reached for American territory—that's true—but others have reached for things too. Would we deny those same rights to an Italian or a Canadian? ☕

The fact that Lockheed Martin claims America is a "banana republic" with "backwards laws" isn't anything uncivilized or new. Those "anti"-Mexican, German, French, Italian, or any other anti-nation laws held by other countries are baked into their legislation. In those places, it isn't viewed as nationalism or hatred; it's seen as PROTECTING NATIONAL INTERESTS.

But what kind of "national interest" is it for a Mexican who has lived in America for years to be told to "know their place"? And where exactly is their place? 🤷 Isn't that basically implying ethnic cleansing? I'm sorry, but those statements aren't about national interest. True national interest and global reputation come from a state and its citizens showing tolerance, rather than encouraging nationalist tendencies (and let me be clear, those are very mild words compared to what I actually think about it).

Look, America's national interest is similar to the national interest of any country in Europe: not allowing another nation to settle in and then, a few years later, demanding their own rights and trying to take over. And Mexicans certainly have those habits—settling somewhere only to create autonomous regions, putting up roadblocks, and demanding special privileges that we eventually end up granting.

Someone buying property in America for a summer home or a vacation doesn't instantly become an American citizen, nor does it mean that entire nation is moving here. Try, for example, moving to New Zealand without owning any property there. 😉

It's a parody that we are a country where, thanks to our constitution and minority voting rights, we can elect a president whom only a tiny percentage of Americans actually voted for. The rest of the support comes from those who vote under "special laws," or those who can buy property under similarly backwards regulations.

Then we need to focus on making the laws governing these issues much clearer. Honestly, it isn't the Mexicans' fault that our legal system is a total mess, so there's really no reason to call for them to be lynched. They did something wrong, and nobody is disputing that, but we should still use a little more common sense here. I just can't get behind those kinds of views, seriously.

I think it’s time to just lock this thread. It’s veering into political bickering that has absolutely nothing to do with what the OP actually brought to the table.

Especially when people start pushing that narrative about how some liberal option won, or trying to lie about those 200,000 casualties.

Better to just shut it down now before this whole thing turns into an ugly mess if we keep going down this road.

Who’s even talking about Mexicans living here as citizens? 😕 They can buy whatever they want, wherever they want, however they want.

We’re talking about foreigners.

And by the way, if you live in a certain area long enough, you earn the right to citizenship.

But look at the trends across Europe—they tell a completely different story. In the modern, advanced, democratic nations of Europe, people have finally realized what the real issue is. Take Denmark, for example, closing its borders. Or the Netherlands, where a right-wing party that isn't even considered "intolerant" is pulling 15% in the polls and growing (and their main platform point is basically kicking out all foreigners). By some estimates, right-wing parties pushing those exact values will be running every European state by 2020.

The rules of the game need to be identical for Canadians, Mexicans, Italians, Germans, Englishmen, or any other FOREIGNERS. If Americans buy real estate over there, they should be allowed to do the same here. Period.

I’m not singling out Mexicans here; I don't want them treated like some sacred cows. Actually, I’d personally slap a 100% purchase tax on Mexicans as part of paying off war reparations.

So yeah, call it discrimination against Mexicans, but it's definitely not positive discrimination because they haven't earned it.

And look, I agree. You shouldn't hang Mexicans from trees, nor should you persecute them. You just treat them according to the same standards and laws applied to every citizen from every country in the world.

Except, when it comes to those laws, they seem to get an exemption since they’ve been forgiven for arson, murder, rape, and armed rebellion against the country they live in.

Paul Green31 said:Look, Tyler Grant76, we're in the PZK section now. This thread is about something else entirely, not whatever you're rambling about.
Since you’ve already turned this thread into a chat room, I guess I'll take advantage of that too. My post might look off-topic and similar to yours at first glance, but as you keep reading, it’ll become clear that this is actually a direct hit on the moderator.

But Andrew Chase31 really nailed the moment when he pointed out how the left-liberals are all about strict punishment for certain things, while the right-wing crowd fights for free speech—calling it a total paradox.

That’s a fascinating little detail. But maybe the paradox makes more sense if you realize that most of the left-liberal ideology in America stems from followers of the old regime. They were raised to think that any American showing even a hint of nationalism should be executed, thrown into pits, sent to Alcatraz to break rocks, or locked up in Leavenworth to write memoirs on toilet paper because they wouldn't even give them actual paper. So, "left-liberal" doesn't mean the same thing here as it does in a place like Portugal.

In America, being left-liberal is focused on freedom of speech—but only the kind of speech that was allowed back in the day by the old establishment. It targets religious, social, and economic freedoms, but only for those who are "compliant." Basically, the left-liberal movement exists to serve and defend every force that opposes American nationalism. While Mexicans, Canadians, or Mexicans can be nationalists all they want, the second Americans try to express their own nationalism, the left-liberal forces jump up to defend everyone else's rights instead.
They go after the Catholic Church because they view it as primitive and backward. To them, believers are just conservatives holding back progress. But they only have a problem with Catholicism; every other religion or cult gets their full protection and support as long as they are anti-Catholic.

They claim to defend minorities—national, social, sexual. But they only care because those minorities undermine the cohesion of American society. They don't give a damn about the minorities who are actually struggling—the ones facing massive legal debts or people who lack the basic means to live with dignity. Those groups aren't important to them because they can't be used as a weapon to attack the three pillars that have held this nation together through centuries of struggle: Family, God, and America.

The truth is, the left-liberal option in the US grew out of unpunished crimes. It emerged from the murder of 200,000 people who were liquidated and dumped into pits; it rose from 45 years of persecuting free thought, where you could end up in prison for twenty days just for singing a patriotic song.

Meanwhile, the so-called right-wing option was born from fighting against that very system. It came from the struggle for a freedom where you can say you're an American, where you can be a person of faith and still attend Mass without getting fired, and where you can work and live however you please as long as you aren't crossing the line against those three core pillars.

And that’s why the right-wing option stands for freedom of speech, thought, and action within a strong, stable American state—one that uses its laws to punish anyone who lets that freedom spiral out of control.

You see it right here. People are dogpiling Lockheed Martin because they want to introduce bans and strictly punish kids for writing ugly slogans. Sure, a slogan like "Mexicans to the orchards" is disgusting, and I would never allow that to be spray-painted on American walls.

But the problem is that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to wear symbols of regimes that destroyed our people—symbols under which cities were razed, where hundreds of thousands of Americans were lost in pits and quarries, and symbols that systematically persecuted "pro-American thought" for fifty years.

The issue is that it's allowed to spray hate symbols on walls and wave flags that belonged to the hordes of fascists who once rampaged through this country, raping, killing, and burning everything in their path. And according to these "left-liberal" forces, *that* is what freedom of speech looks like.

Essentially, to them, freedom of speech means anything that doesn't include America.

Lockheed Martin is a classic example, just like Andrew Chase31. They want free speech for everyone. They want the kid who writes a hateful slur to be punished, but not excessively. Four months in prison? That's a heavy sentence.

Look, they just want everyone using the exact same yardstick, drawing those hateful symbols and calling it whatever they want. It’s all just an excuse to stir up hate against Americans. And yet, here we are in the US, where Americans are the majority.

So, whether it's in real life or right here on this forum, we protect minorities and diverse opinions. We protect free speech. But even when we value it, we protect it in a way where the majority of a community sets the rules of the game. We shouldn't let a tiny minority dictate how we play just because they hide behind "free speech" and the dictatorship of democracy.

Lockheed Martin already gets it. He doesn't need a lesson in tolerance; he knows exactly what persecution and intolerance look like when people start targeting anyone who thinks differently.

These "left-liberals" will never escape the urge to persecute anyone who disagrees with them. The system has hardwired it into their brains so deeply that it’s become a reflex.

Sure, they have a right to an opinion. Let them express it. But they better realize that hate speech directed at Americans will be treated with the same weight as that kid facing 120 days in jail over a single piece of graffiti. If that keeps happening, we’ll have to expand our prisons and increase the disk space for the banned users section, because there’s going to be a lot of them.

P.S. There you have it—this is what "left" and "right" looks like for Americans. Completely backwards.

Sad, but most of what you wrote is the tragic truth.

I honestly believe it’s much more sensible if certain—and I want to emphasize, *certain*—subforums are moderated by individuals who aren't deeply emotionally invested or personally biased regarding the topics being discussed there. Otherwise, objectivity? It's essentially gone, goodbye. No matter how hard they try to remain neutral, it’s an uphill battle. It’s ultimately futile.

Quote:

hollowtrucker77 says: Look, Lockheed Martin is entitled to their own perspectives during a discussion, just like any other user on this site if those views fall outside the bounds of civilized dialogue or basic social standards, they are subject to the same sanctions as anyone else here. so,

unless we are talking about Ozy, whom you personally silenced under the guise of preventing him from "spreading propaganda,"🤣 which is such a heavy-handed explanation that I actually had to read your sentence twice; I still find it hard to believe someone would write that and then try to use it as a display of authority.

I realize this isn't really a debate about you and how you manage this American forum, but since you're the one in charge, please tell me: is that actually an admin's job? Is it meant to be protecting certain posts simply because you disagree with them and have decided, unilaterally, that they constitute "propaganda"—even though you haven't provided a single shred of evidence beyond your own opinion?

Why am I even bringing up Ozy? It is because The New York Times—which, thanks to your management, has devolved into a total propaganda mouthpiece and a hysterical caricature—is now being used to target anyone who doesn't fit the mold with those exact labels. Hello?

Of course, suddenly, when a fellow moderator is involved (someone who, by the way, can defend themselves), all this talk about equal rights and freedom of speech comes flooding back.

Honestly, pick a side. The New York Times has always been filled with installed figures who act like they stepped straight out of a movie, totally detached from reality. Now, people are discussing things there with a tone that suggests hating Mexicans is some kind of patriotic duty, yet you wouldn't hear that kind of talk in any normal neighborhood bar.🤷

One thing I haven't been able to wrap my head around all these years is why it never seems to sink in that this forum is read by people all over the world. Everything that users like hollowtrucker77, Janko, or Marko write—regardless of whether they mean well or think they are being patriotic🤷—creates a lasting image of everyone associated with this American domain. And I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to dictate that perception.