Why are the hate speech criteria on forum.hr so inconsistent?

I would like to pose a question to the administrator, Sasha. As a Muslim, I feel quite disheartened by the inconsistent standards applied here on this forum—which occasionally extends to the religion subforum (though it isn't limited to just that area). When comparing hate speech directed at other groups versus speech aimed at Muslims, there seems to be a noticeable discrepancy in how different moderators evaluate and penalize such content.

I should clarify that I am not attempting to fuel any existing crisis, nor am I looking to complain "into the void" or incite further animosity. However, I view this as a significant and, unfortunately, unresolved issue—a fundamental lack of uniformity in our rules. I ask for your attention regarding this matter.

To illustrate, a Muslim user, harybonnot, received here a penalty of 500 points. I suppose I agree that his specific post warranted such a mark, and I have no grievance there. However (!) for a much more offensive post targeting Muslims—specifically one by @sarafciger which was posted here—the response was disproportionately light. That user leveled crude, sweeping insults against all Muslims and Canadians... or whatever terminology one prefers... even employing the deeply derogatory term "filthy" (one wonders how such hateful language can even be uttered), yet he received a minimal penalty of only 45 p?!

So, my question is this: Why are the standards on this forum so inconsistent? Why is it that generalizing or using hate speech against most other nations or faiths results in substantial penalties, while insults directed at Muslims—even when using the most vile terms possible—often result in very minor marks (ranging from 10 to 45 p)? While 500 p is occasionally handed out, it is rare and seemingly reserved only for cases of extreme, blatant overstepping. I genuinely believe this inconsistency contributes to the atmosphere of hostility toward Muslims that has persisted across the former America since roughly 1988 or 1989.

Another example of this uneven application of rules is this thread started by boldgardener93. In that discussion, boldgardener93 explained a serious issue quite concisely, yet received no response from administration for days despite the urgency of the matter. After a long silence, the administration finally responded with a rather sarcastic comment suggesting that boldgardener93 "lacks any personal opinions"?!? 😢 Furthermore, that comment implies that the identity of Canadians can be easily dismissed or denied (even though they are a constituent people in neighboring Canada). Based on the administrator's reply to boldgardener93, it seems as though denying a Muslim identity might earn a penalty, yet denying the legitimacy of the Canadian people does not?

How could a moderator even make such a statement on behalf of the administration?

I look forward to your response, Sasha. 🙂 As I mentioned previously, my intent is not to exacerbate any tension or to complain without cause. I simply feel somewhat marginalized due to these unequal standards. I see this as a major, unresolved issue involving unfairness and an imbalance in protection, given that this forum should zealously protect all nations and religions equally.It should be done for the greater good, seeing as we are all just flesh and blood, and no one holds more value than anyone else simply because of their nationality or faith. In my deepest conviction, I believe the administration should establish clearer definitions regarding these issues at a higher level, providing moderators with more precise guidelines on when to issue sanctions for hate speech. It seems inconsistent when moderator Ego awards 500 points for a single post, yet on another forum, a far more offensive comment earns only 10, 35, or 45 points. I sincerely hope that my inquiry will be taken quite seriously.

A request for the religion moderators: If this post doesn't belong in the religion section, I ask that you please don't delete it, but rather move it to the PZK section, as I am looking for an answer either here or there. Thank you.

rowdyhawk10 said:I’d like to pose a question to the administrator, Sasha. Honestly, as a Muslim, I feel incredibly defeated by the unequal standards applied here on this forum—which occasionally bleeds into the religion subforum (though it isn't just limited to that one!). When you compare how hate speech is handled against others versus how it's handled toward Muslims, there's a clear double standard in how different moderators evaluate things across various sections.

Look, rowdyhawk10, since I used to be a moderator over in the religion section of this forum, I think I have one thing to tell you.
We all fall prey to our own ego-driven subjectivity from time to time—usually without even realizing it—but hey, what can you do? We're only human, after all.

Sometimes, I actually enjoy messing around using one of my alt accounts, just to see how the moderators treat "me"—especially since they have no clue it's actually ME, the guy who already has a few strikes on his record.

Here is one specific instance—and it was pretty uncomfortable, I might add—that I experienced because of you:

There was this one thread where some atheists were getting a bit carried away and started posting these derogatory images of Jesus—you know, stuff like "Jesus Christ as part of the Santa Claus organization," or "Jesus holding a vending machine," and everything seemed fine: nobody got a single strike.

I get Ego's reaction—he's a declared atheist, so he didn't care about those images—but you didn't react either, and for someone who treats religion as a core life value, you really should have had much stronger feelings when it comes to matters of faith.

So, I logged into my clone account and posted one of those "blasphemous" caricatures of Allah, featuring a bomb on his head.

And wouldn't you know it, here is what happened:

The moderator, rowdyhawk10, immediately slapped me with 45 points, and the post was wiped instantly to hide that "eyesore," yet those insulting pictures of Jesus were still left there to amuse the Catholic masses.

At the end of the day, we're all just human under the skin...

I honestly don't get how a moderator can claim to be objective when they’re clearly playing favorites. We're talking about Power Lock, who is "moderating" the Israel-Palestine thread in a way that's frankly embarrassing. I’ve already pointed this out before, but nothing seems to change. From where I’m sitting, it looks like this moderator is actively trying to push out anyone who actually knows what they're talking about just because they hold a different opinion on this topic. For instance, the user flumen day was slapped with 500 penalty points just for denying the existence of the Jewish people. 500 😲😲😲
I mean, I doubt even Hitler would have been hit with a penalty that heavy for a single post. Unfortunately, I haven't seen flumen day around here since then, and I'd bet it's because they were fed up with the double standards. Meanwhile, Marian only got a harsh 10 points after denying the Canadian people.
So, if anyone actually cares about keeping people coming back to this forum, I think it would be pretty helpful if something was actually done about it.

Just so I'm not talking just for the sake of talking:

Nobody even bothered to reply, and I was basically begging for an answer here.
☕

Maybe it's not too late:

I just want to know—where in the forum rules does it actually say someone gets a 500-point penalty for denying Jewish nationality?

boldgardener93 said:Just so I'm not just talking to thin air here...

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=904

Nobody even bothered to reply, and I was literally begging for an answer.
☕

Maybe it’s not too late yet:

I just have to ask—where in the site rules does it say you get slapped with a 500-point penalty just for denying someone's Jewish identity?

Hate speech?
I mean, that usually depends entirely on the context of the whole post. Whether it's about nationality, religion, or both... you can frame a question in a way that doesn't sound like hate speech, or it could totally fall under that umbrella. It all comes down to how it's phrased.

But hey, at the end of the day, that's the mods' and admins' call, and I shouldn't really meddle in that. What I do want to point out is that I think we users tend to overreact sometimes. Personally, I actually love that in the politics section, there's a mod who wants to jump into the fray and clearly state their political views. Even when they're the complete opposite of me! It’s good to have them around, expressing themselves like any other regular user, as long as they stay objective when they're acting as moderators.

On the flip side, we've all seen it happen where a mod gets attacked by the "lefties" one minute and then the "righties" the next for being biased... which usually just means they're doing a great job.🙂
The truth is, whenever we mess up, we love to blame the mod. We claim it's personal vendetta or just because they hold a different view than ours... mods become everything from partisans to communists to atheists depending on who's complaining about a penalty.

Mods are chosen because they contribute something meaningful to the community, which naturally means they're active and have opinions. In the politics section, it's totally normal for them to clash with others, but we can't forget that in those moments, they're just users, not mods. They follow the same rules we do—total free-for-all battles of logic and arguments. But when they step up as mods? Then you listen.

If we honestly feel like we've been treated unfairly, instead of running around shouting that "this mod hates me because they're a liberal/conservative/atheist/activist," we should put together a smart, solid appeal. Point out exactly where the mod's reasoning went wrong. From my own experience, I know the admins and even the mods themselves will review and change their decisions if you make sense.

Personally, I've gone head-to-head with that specific mod 🙂, and others in the politics section, and even the admin too... but those same people have neatly cleared my penalties before when I managed to show that wasn't what I intended, or that my post wasn't just trolling, off-topic, or whatever else.

So, that's my plea: let's support our mods in participating actively as users, even if our views are worlds apart. And before we file an appeal based on "they have a different opinion than mine, so they punished me," let's take a second to look in the mirror and see if our post was actually out of line. If it wasn't, then write a constructive appeal explaining things—ask questions, prove your point, and show that your statement wasn't meant to be offensive, but was trying to highlight something else entirely.

boldgardener93 said:I honestly don't get how a moderator can stay objective when they're clearly picking sides. We're talking about Power Lock, who is "moderating" the Israel-Palestine thread in a way that's just straight-up shameful. I've pointed this out before, but nothing changes. It’s obvious from miles away that this moderator is trying to push out anyone who actually knows what they're talking about if they happen to disagree with him. For instance, the user flumen day got slapped with 500 penalty points just for questioning the Jewish people. 500! 😲😲😲
I mean, even Hitler wouldn't have gotten hit that hard for a single post. Sadly, I haven't seen flumen day around here since then, and it's probably because he's fed up with the double standards. Meanwhile, Marian only got a harsh 10 points for denying the Canadian people.
If anyone actually cares about keeping people coming back to this forum, I think it would be great if something was actually done about it.

Look, a mod can totally be objective even if they have an opinion. I always judge by what I see, and I've sent plenty of PMs myself because the report button isn't doing much. I've reported certain users—who are leftists just like me, by the way—because they were relentlessly trolling and making fun of everyone. Just because someone technically agrees with my side doesn't mean anything; you can still tell when someone is being insulting, trolling, or going off-topic, even if they're "on your team."

By that logic, if a mod isn't allowed to have a viewpoint, then nobody with a political stance could moderate the politics section, and no one with specific tastes in music or sports could moderate the music or sports subforums... and honestly, isn't it in all our interests to have mods who actually love their subforum? People who understand the topic and live it? Of course those people are going to have opinions.

But the real question isn't whether a mod has a stance on the topic they're handling, it's whether they apply the rules EQUALLY to everyone. That's what matters. Can they be OBJECTIVE? Because you can definitely achieve objectivity even if you have a personal opinion on the subject.

P.S.
Sorry for any typos!

If I were running the show as a moderator, I’d personally scrub every single Islamophobic post from the board. However, I wouldn’t bother reporting them or issuing sanctions. I'd just leave them there so those users could never be flagged or penalized.

On the flip side, any post supporting Islam would get hit with the maximum amount of points immediately. Every now and then, I might even try to stretch the rules a bit just to squeeze out a few extra points.

Some people simply don't get it, and frankly, they never will.

In other words, go ahead and head over to the Islamic forum and try to express an opinion if it happens to clash with Islam.
I am genuinely curious to see how long you'll last before you burn out like a cheap lighter.

A few points for honesty and sharing my thoughts, please...

rowdyhawk10 said:To me, this is simply another symptom of how distorted that faith has become. ...

It’s quite amusing to see him lecturing about the Republic of America when he used to be a moderator over in the religion forum. That’s essentially how this post begins.

Personally, if I were a moderator, I’d wipe out any Islamophobic posts immediately. But I wouldn't just leave them sitting there without issuing penalties, just so the people who wrote them could dodge being reported or sanctioned.

On the flip side, I’d make sure every single pro-Islamic comment got hit with the maximum number of penalty points—I might even try to stretch it a bit further just to be thorough.

☕

This is a perfect example. It’s classic hate speech mixed with double standards, claiming this whole topic actually matters instead of being just plain 🙂

boldgardener93 said:☕

It doesn't get any clearer than this. Just classic hate speech and double standards, claiming this thread actually matters instead of being just plain 🙂

What double standards?

Unlike some people here, I’ve been as honest as possible, and frankly, I’m just waiting for my reward.

Go ahead, keep trying to drag me down. Once I get my "bonus," you can try to demand even stricter rules, but I am standing my ground.

I know I'll be getting my bouquet of flowers in the morning, so I might as well enjoy a little rest over the weekend.

If some people can't see the forest for the trees, well, that's on them.

I don't like your religion. I find it backward and primitive, just like everything else that crawled out of that Abrahamic corner of the world.
I actually enjoy seeing Islamists get a reality check once in a while.
That is called freedom of speech, and it should be perfectly legitimate.
So, what's the issue?

Just ask some of the other users how they fared on Islamic forums after they voiced their actual opinions.
Personally, I’ve never stepped foot in one, nor would I ever go.

And if someone wants to come after me for my views, and if I don't need them because of it, then I certainly don't need them.

We live in different worlds—just accept it.

And where, exactly, do you see hate speech here?

There is a massive difference between hating something and simply not liking it.

Your religion hates by default. I don't need any non-Islamic propaganda to prove that; your own handbook says it right there. In fact, it practically brags about it.

Eric Collins5 said:In other words, just head over to the Islamic forum...

Are you actually trying to suggest that this is a "Catholic forum"? 😕

Nicholas King said:Are you seriously suggesting this is a "Catholic forum"? 😕

Look, this is supposed to be an open discussion board—at least, it ought to be. And no, I’m not a Christian. I'm an agnostic. I've personally ruled out the possibility of an omnipotent being existing.

B.t.w., I haven't even been baptized.

Besides, your post feels incredibly stripped of its context. It almost feels like you went out of your way to make it look that way.

Eric Collins5 says:

What kind of double standards are we even talking about?

If you can't see them yourself, I'm afraid there isn't much I can do to help you. I just hope everyone else stays interested enough to easily spot the double standards, at least in the specific case I've laid out here.

I guess I just get a certain satisfaction when people following Islam get what's coming to them.
That’s what we call freedom of speech, and honestly, it should be considered completely legitimate.
What's the actual issue here?

Look, I don't have any problem with what you like or don't like; your opinion is yours, and you’ve got every right to hold it. The real issue is the double standards, but honestly, who am I even talking to?

And where exactly, pray tell, are you seeing hate speech here?

There’s a massive difference between just hating something and simply not liking it. I guess they aren't even in the same league.

Your religion hates by default, and I don't need any non-Islamic propaganda to prove it to me. Your own handbook says exactly that—actually, it practically brags about it.

If I were a Jew right now, you’d probably be labeling me an antisemite. But since this is just another case of double standards—and you've already shown me that you don't really grasp how those work—I'm afraid I'm just wasting my breath here.😳

steeleagle70, I get what you're saying, but you seem to be glossing over the fact that someone actually got hit with a 500-point penalty, right? How can anyone talk about objectivity when "insiders" only get slapped with a measly 10 points for the exact same offense? That’s the whole point here.

If you can't see it, I honestly don't know if there's anything I can do for you. I just hope everyone else paying attention can easily spot the double standards, at least in the case I just laid out.

What do you mean by double standards?
Take that one guy from our forum, for instance. He mentioned how he posted his thoughts on Islam on some Canadian forum without throwing any personal insults at anyone.
Go ahead, take a guess at what happened to him next.
As far as I know, Canada is still a secular country.
I really wonder how things would play out if he had actually said something controversial publicly in a country that carries the word "Islamic" right there in its official title alongside "Republic."

Would those same rules apply in a place like that to someone who simply praised—mind you, just praised—Christianity or some other non-Islamic religion?

The second thing is that certain people just take their own rudeness and arrogance for granted, yet they make such a massive scene about being "victims" or "threatened" the moment they aren't treated with total reverence.

déjà vu 🙂

rowdyhawk10 keeps running this loop

who's next? ☕

Eric Collins5 said:In other words, just head over to an Islamic forum and try expressing your views if they happen to clash with Islam.
I’m genuinely curious to see how long you'll last before you burn out like a cheap fuse.

A few points regarding sincerity and honest opinion, if I may...

Look, I'll give you this much: you're probably right about certain (perhaps more radical?) Islamic forums. In fact, rowdyhawk10 was actually banned from one of them once upon a time (just ask him, he'll tell you), but the fact that those specific spaces are restrictive doesn't give me any reason to act similarly toward, in this case, the Islamic world, on forums where there is supposedly more "freedom of speech." What becomes problematic with some comments from certain users—and I am certainly not implying that applies to your posts—is when people fail to grasp the distinction between "free speech" and hate speech, or the spreading of religious, racial, national, or any other kind of intolerance and hostility. That line is often quite thin, so to speak, and it happens far too frequently that someone uses "freedom of expression" as a shield to spread things that are actually punishable under U.S. law (and since this forum operates under U.S. legal standards, that matters).

Let me reiterate.

Hate speech is defined as speech directed at an individual or group based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, as well as speech against specific groups that could result in hatred or any form of aggression.

And the very first thread on this forum (www.forum.hr) and the very first post in that thread states:

To maintain order and ensure discussions remain civil, we ask that you adhere to the rules. It is prohibited on this Forum to:

Violate the laws of the United States (we specifically draw your attention to inciting hatred or discrimination, justifying or glorifying criminal acts, copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, etc.)

According to your Constitution, provided it remains in effect, it states:

It is also forbidden and punishable to incite or provoke war, the use of violence, national, racial, or religious hatred, or any other form of intolerance. (link)

Article 39.

So, while everyone may have the right to express their opinion, one cannot (mis)use that right to spread any form of religious, national, racial, or other types of hatred, intolerance, or hostility.

My advice? Use a more appropriate vocabulary, or simply refrain from commenting altogether. 🙂

boldgardener93 said:☕

This is a perfect example. It’s classic hate speech rhetoric and double standards used to argue that this topic has merit when it really isn't anything more than 🙂

Perhaps you should try to learn what actually constitutes hate speech. Criticizing a religion is not hate speech. Maybe the individual used an inappropriate tone, or perhaps they intentionally used sharp words just to provoke you, but you simply cannot characterize someone or a specific post as hate speech without cause.

P.S.

rowdyhawk10 said:Specifically, the Muslim user harybonnot received a whopping 500 points here on the Religion forum. Now, I agree his post deserved a penalty, and I am not complaining about that!

It is quite strange; I have read that penalized post with the 500 points a few times myself—and I truly believe it did NOT deserve that much. I am not sure what I missed, so could you please point out the basis upon which that post earned 500 points? 😕

I am not concerned with who is who, but rather whether that post inherently calls for violence or constitutes hate speech, or if it is something else entirely. That is the fundamental question. It is not fair—at least, not fair at all—to agree that such a post deserves those points and then complain about another post that directly insults the Islamic world by using the first one as a justification.

The second post is indeed an insult and hate speech, but the first one certainly is not.

Regardless of how certain media outlets or individuals occasionally paint a distorted picture of Muslims—constantly linking them to major terrorists and such—I believe that is a massive overstatement. Not all Muslims are terrorists; in fact, I believe most Muslims have nothing to do with that business, and it is unfair for honest Muslims to suffer because of a lack of understanding regarding Islam itself.

Ultimately, Muslims themselves must take into account the negative image that exists. Perhaps it isn't even coincidental; if we hear about a suicide bomber in a place like Chicago or wherever every single day, we probably won't view Islam in the most favorable light. However, it is unjust to equate the entire Islamic world with terrorism. For those unaware, Jihad in its earliest stages was a spiritual struggle or an internal battle with oneself, not some sort of war against "infidels."

I am not Muslim, nor am I particularly inclined toward the Islamic faith, but I am also not one of those who would demonize all Muslims just because some are fanatics. There are many Muslims on this forum who are perfectly fine people, though they have reacted sharply to falsehoods and misinformation regarding their faith. That is why they faced consequences—a lesson for them to find better ways to demonstrate that not all Muslims are evil.

rowdyhawk10, do not forget that you yourself discriminated against Christians by using all sorts of epithets and belittling their faith. You were acting as a moderator who was supposed to promote peace, yet instead, you fueled conflict (!). You essentially shortchanged the Muslims who disagreed with you as well. Now you are complaining and feeling slighted, which is actually a good sign; at least you finally understand how those you insulted felt, even though you NEVER apologized to them. ☕

I personally forgive you, though I can't speak for anyone else. 🙂

Look, listen to me. You’re probably right about those—maybe even radical?—Islamic forums.

In one instance, we were talking about a more radical corner of the web, but in the other, it was the largest forum in Canada.

So you aren't allowed to express an opinion? That doesn't give me any reason to act similarly toward, in this case, the Islamic world, on those forums where there is supposedly more "freedom of speech."

That is the exact problem. In the case of Islam, that freedom of speech is hijacked to defend a brand of fascism so pure it would make the world's most brutal dictators blush.

Islam, by its very nature, views you, me, or any other non-Muslim as inherently inferior. I am not making this up. This is what Islam promotes; in fact, they boast about it.

Let me go slightly off-topic just to clarify my point:

On another foreign forum dedicated to reconstructing ancient European ethnic religions—specifically the Old Norse religion, Asatr—we have this term, "Nazikeule" (meaning "Nazi thug").

What is actually happening there?
It happens that the Asatr religion is constantly being linked to Nazism, which in almost every single case is absolute nonsense.
The very same people work so hard to convince everyone around them that they aren't Nazis that they end up turning a blind eye to the most disgusting Islamic fascism. Yet, if someone from "their own side" points out the blatant arrogance and insolence found in Islam, they are immediately slapped with the "Nazi thug" label.
Of course, when you run out of actual arguments, you can always use a carrot—or rather, a stick—to shut down your opponent that way.
This doesn't just apply to the specific people I'm mentioning; it extends to a massive segment of German society.

As you might have guessed, Islam recognizes this and exploits it arrogantly.

And so, the "antifascists" become the defenders of turbo-fascism... the irony is truly staggering.

Eric Collins5 said:In one instance we were talking about a more radical forum, while in the other, it was the largest forum in Canada.

Well, regardless. That doesn't give me any right or satisfaction to behave in the same manner. In fact, I actually find a certain enjoyment in being different—in trying to be better.

Islam, by default, views you, me, or any other non-Muslim as inherently inferior. I am not making this up; this is what Islam propagates, and frankly, they boast about it.

Perhaps that is true, but even so, it does not grant me the right to generalize the entire Islamic world, or at least, to address individuals with rhetoric that casts negativity upon all of Islam—speeches that carry undertones of hatred or intolerance, etc. Look, everyone loses their cool occasionally; it is only human. But just because Muslims might not view me as equal, or might see me as lesser, I don't take that as an excuse to view them the same way. Quite the opposite, actually. If that is how they are, what can I do? It only serves as further evidence for me that Islam as a religion lacks such high ethical standards. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that every single Muslim thinks this way. Had I never met them, I might agree, but having known them, I know that many Muslims are certainly not the type of people to look down on others.

So, following that logic you’re pushing—where if someone walks into your house and puts muddy shoes right on your dining table, you're expected to just serve them coffee and cookies?

No way. That doesn't fly with me. And yet, that is exactly the kind of high-minded ethical and moral standard (if I may call them weaknesses, even if you don't see them that way) that Islam specifically targets.

I actually received a PM today containing a link to a fantastic post. Honestly, one of the best things I've read regarding Islam.

Unfortunately, I can't remember where it was because my inbox is constantly being emptied.

It was from a forum member who commented on Islam and backed up his whole point with a link to this incredibly bizarre article titled "Sparschwein" (there goes Germany again), where Muslims reportedly felt offended because, back in the day, kids in schools were given piggy banks—you know, those little "Sparschwein" things.
Believe it or not, they got their way, and now instead of a "Sparschwein," they hand out "Spardose" (savings boxes).

And perhaps it's happening precisely because Germans are always acting so superior, so moral and ethical, thinking they've outgrown such trivialities.

What's next? Are we going to start mass-ripping electrical outlets out of the walls because they look too much like pig snouts?