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

Eric Collins5 said:Based on that logic you're championing—where you defend someone's right to act however they please—should we also be expected to serve coffee and cookies to a person who walks into our home and puts their muddy shoes right on the dining table?

If someone breaks into your home, feel free to turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek isn't just pure pacifism, as it is so often (and incorrectly) portrayed. Rather, it is a way of making it crystal clear to the person striking you that you are on their level—that you share the same rank and they are in no way superior to you. In fact, it serves as a direct challenge for them to strike you with their other hand. Forget about staying silent or practicing pacifism when your very life is at stake. You will undoubtedly defend your family, your children, and your wife; even if they aren't your own, they certainly are to you.

Honestly, I just can't get on board with that. It seems to me that Islam specifically targets those exact high ethical and moral standards—though, if I may be so bold, I would go as far as to call them weaknesses, even if you don't see them that way.

I didn't say that I couldn't see.

I received a PM today containing a link to a truly fantastic post—honestly, one of the best pieces I have ever read regarding Islam.

Unfortunately, I can't quite say for certain why that's happening, mostly because I am constantly clearing out my inbox.

This user was discussing Islam on the forum and decided to back up his claims by linking to an absolutely bizarre article titled "Piggy Bank" (yet again, this story comes out of Germany). In this piece, Muslims are reportedly feeling deeply offended because schools used to distribute piggy banks to children before anything else.
Believe it or not, they’ve kicked out their own people, and now instead of using a simple piggy bank, they’re distributing entire savings accounts.

Perhaps that is exactly because Germans constantly hold themselves up so high; they view themselves as the pinnacle of morality and ethics, acting as if they have simply outgrown such trivialities.

Are we seriously planning on mass-ripping electrical outlets out of our walls just because they look like pig snouts?

Look, the Germans used a very similar tactic to belittle and mock Jews—at least, that was how they started. The entire nation of Germany became obsessed with the eradication and expulsion of the Jewish people. How that concluded... well, no comment. If you spend your time today mocking an entire nation or a whole religion, fine, maybe you personally will never take it any further. But eventually, someone else will take those ideas to the next level, and when that happens, conflict becomes inevitable.

No matter how much people claim that Islam is "backward" or "primitive," I fail to see why I should be forced to view every single Muslim through that specific lens of regressive thinking. If I did that, I’d essentially be a true fascist, because I would be refusing to distinguish between an individual human being and the faith they follow. The way I approach this is different. I don't spend my energy debating exactly how backward Islam might be—though, in my opinion, it isn't quite as regressive as others portray it to be, but let's not get sidetracked from the main point here. Instead, I focus on not magnifying our differences. Or rather, I simply have no desire to highlight them to the extent that they spark conflict or cause unnecessary offense. So, tell me, what does that make me? How am I any better than those who do indulge in such generalizations? What truly sets me apart?

Not in the slightest.

No, that is simply my own perspective. If you happen to disagree—well, that is perfectly fine by me. You cannot look at the entirety of Islam, or perhaps a few forum members who felt insulted and reacted more sharply to certain posts, and conclude that all Muslims are like that. They are not. There are plenty of Muslims you can actually sit down and talk to, people who are just like everyone else.

The concept of hate speech, as I understand it, applies universally to everyone. Muslims are by no means exempt from these standards under the law. In other words, it isn't acceptable to insult Muslims just because one might view their religion as "backward" or "primitive." If we allow that, what are we actually doing? Are we building a society that intentionally marginalizes specific groups of people? After all, isn't that exactly what dictators throughout history have sought to achieve? It seems fundamentally contradictory to invoke "freedom of speech" or similar demagoguery while simultaneously using that very speech to demean a particular group.

In truth, this entire issue is much deeper than it appears on the surface, though I honestly wonder if there is any point in elaborating further.

From my perspective, this forum does not exist to foster anti-Islamic sentiments or any other "anti-" ideologies; such things are typically driven by individuals. The motivations can be endless. However, if we nurture anti-Islamic ideas today, then anti-Christian ones tomorrow, or anti-LGBT views yesterday—what lies ahead for us? One can only imagine where such attitudes will eventually lead us.

No Nick, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by being a Muslim.

In my view, if someone believes in what Islam teaches and follows its tenets, then they belong in that category. It's as simple as that.

Whether their name is Agner, Ahmed, or Anthony—or whether they have blue or purple skin for all I care—doesn't change a thing to me.

Eric Collins5 said:No Nick, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by "Muslim."

In my view, someone is considered Muslim if they believe in the tenets preached by Islam; if they follow those teachings, I group them into that category. It really is that straightforward.

Whether their name is Agner, Ahmed, or Anthony—or whether they happen to have blue or purple skin—is completely irrelevant to me.

Well, you've provided an extremely simplistic "definition" of a Muslim. I'm not quite sure what else there is to comment on. Islam is a complex religion with various internal divisions, and it doesn't mean that Islam itself promotes terrorism anywhere. That is simply the work of specific individuals within Islam who use the faith as a shield. Even if they aren't using it as a cover, it's certainly not true that every single Muslim would commit a terrorist attack or anything of that nature. I wouldn't dare lump all Muslims into one basket, because if I did, I'd be following the same logic where it doesn't matter if someone's last name is Spielberg, Goldstein, or Einstein, or if their name is Aaron, David, Judah, or Sharon... you'll notice those are all Jewish names. 🙂

What is the difference, for instance, between your perspective and the Nazi stance during WWII regarding Jews? Without intending to compare you to Nazis—I truly have no intention of doing so—I am simply asking for your opinion. You made some very categorical statements, and the implications could be significant (I'm not diving into those implications myself, nor do I care much for them; I'm just talking here, without any ill intent, or at least I am confident in my own sincerity)?

I’ve laid out my own definition of Islam, exactly as I see it.
Is this person a follower of the Quran and its teachings?
He is Muslim.
I have absolutely nothing left to say to him. Period.
It’s my opinion, and it's my right to dislike someone. Period.

I apologize if I seem fixated on Germany. It’s just that over on the German forums, we have these absolutely incredible discussions without any of the constant trolling. And honestly? Even I manage to stay on my best behavior there. 😳So, I’m going to drop a link to two news articles here—they're a bit dated, mind you—along with my own explanation of what went down.
I'm only going to translate the core essence of these two texts. They're way too long, honestly. If anyone actually knows German, they should probably just go ahead and read them themselves.
So, what we're looking at here is an initiative to have Muslim clergy trained using taxpayer dollars.

The "International Community of Non-Religious People and Atheists" stands firm: We are officially protesting the training of Imams at universities in Germany.

Generally speaking, we stand firmly against using taxpayer money to fund religious officials.
Studying religion is absolutely vital. Of course, we shouldn't overlook non-Christian faiths like Islam either. But let’s be clear about what we are doing here. I am not talking about the secular, objective science of religious studies. No, that's different. What we are discussing here is theology—pure theology intertwined with actual faith.

Theology, according to the international community of non-religious and atheists, isn't actually a science. It’s just not. The reason is simple: it's tied too tightly to rigid religious beliefs. And honestly, that creates a massive conflict with the fundamental right to freedom of inquiry and learning. You can't truly investigate something when you've already decided what the answer has to be.
That’s exactly why theology has absolutely no business being taught at state universities. It just doesn't belong there.

The atheists and non-believers—let’s just call them the extreme secularists—are actually showing some unexpected deference to Islam in this particular instance.

Muslims respond:

Ali Kizilkay, the spokesperson for the Muslim council, says:

We simply cannot call a prophet into question.
We simply cannot accept your critical historical approach.
From our perspective, the Quran is absolutely perfect.
We truly believe that this is the word of God.

Enough is enough for anyone with a brain.

They aren't just refusing to confirm what those people up top are claiming—they’re actually flaunting it. It's practically a badge of honor for them at this point.

I’m stepping away for now because we have veered way too far off-topic.

If I feel the urge to debate again, I’ll just head over to the religion section and post there.

Once again, I want to say thanks that my posts so far haven't been flagged (or perhaps they just haven't been spotted by the moderation and admin team 😁) and that they were recognized as my own personal views and freedom of speech.

I honestly thought I was going to burn out like a cheap sprinkler, but here I am, still standing.

Best regards.

Eric Collins5, there is absolutely no doubt that your perspective stems from some level of animosity. In fact, you have every right to feel personal resentment toward anyone you choose. 🙂 Who is in a position to stop you? No one. As long as you aren't threatening someone or inciting violence publicly, what you hold in your own mind is nobody else's business. Don't you agree?

On the other hand, your view of Muslims—defining them strictly as followers of the Quran and its teachings—is quite reductive. I cannot agree with the notion that, by that definition, all Muslims kill dissenters and so on. It simply isn't fair to paint everyone with such a broad brush.

Ultimately, I don't see why the rules shouldn't apply to everyone equally. Why should Muslims be treated as if they are "above the law," or rather, why should they be judged by different standards? If they break the rules or post insults, they should face the exact same consequences as any other member of this forum. Why should they be singled out for extra scrutiny? Are they a threat to the forum? Fine—if you personally dislike a certain pair of shoes, that's your prerogative; I have nothing against that, and I'm sure you have your reasons. That's perfectly fine. However, it is pretentious to claim that all Muslims are identical, backward, and primitive. You didn't explicitly say that, but I am merely holding you to your own words (and even if you do believe it, you still have the right to your opinion—the only difference is that you'd be objectively wrong).

Regarding the supposed imperfections of the Quran—that is a complex issue, but even if it were true, what then? You would need to find explicit statements within the Quran calling for the killing of dissenters, and then determine if those things are actually practiced. If that isn't the case, then claiming all Muslims are the same is misplaced.

Oh, so all Muslims are the same? That's like saying all Germans are the same. They certainly weren't. There are historical examples from WWII where Germans actually worked to save Jews. Surely we aren't going to hate every single German today just because some killed Jewish people, Poles, Russians, and others? 😕

You haven't answered me yet—how does the Nazi stance toward Jews differ from someone's stance toward Muslims?

You have a PM.

Greetings, over & out.

Eric Collins5, I don't believe what we're discussing is off-topic; rather, I feel we should delve deeper into the root causes of the animosity toward Muslims, though I leave that up to you. My only hope is that the administrators gain a more comprehensive perspective on this particular issue. I am not attempting to take sides, nor do I wish to exaggerate anyone's culpability.

hollowtrucker77 said:Hey there, rowdyhawk10.
The user @sarafciger has been banned from the forum regarding their post. As for why there was such a significant delay between the initial report and our response, I suppose I will have to look into that further with the moderators.

Thanks for the response, and please accept my apologies for the slight delay. Here is how I see it. Honestly, I feel quite bad that @sarafciger got banned specifically because of the post I reported. I took a quick look at his profile, and the guy doesn't even participate in the religion section; he just happened to wander into the religion forum by accident with that one post. In my opinion, simply deleting the post would have been enough, especially since he isn't one of those users who constantly spreads hate on the religion forum (unlike some of the more recent accounts). Viseslav3 And there's more. I made my position extremely clear, yet the moderators decided to let the post stay up instead of deleting it. That’s why I filed a complaint there.

hollowtrucker77 said:Regarding the second part, I have to admit that I don't really find the response from the moderator, Power Lock, to be particularly convincing.
Maybe the response wasn't written in the most skillful way—God knows how often that happens to all of us—but I'm fairly certain the moderator didn't mean anything by it. It seems more like they were just clarifying the situation without actually taking a side personally.

Maybe I used the term "sarcasm" a bit clumsily, so I apologize for that. I don't personally think he meant anything malicious, but his comment felt like it came from someone still living in the past—specifically in the '90s, which, fortunately, are long behind us. I would have liked to hear directly from Power Lock regarding this matter, but here is why I am saying this. He wrote the following:

Marian questioned the specific terminology regarding "Bosniakism," though he didn't deny the existence of the people we knew as "Muslims" back during the America era.

It’s a fact that back in 1974, under the constitution of the former America, Muslims were officially classified as a nation, even though the term "Muslim" itself typically refers to a religious group—much like how we use the word "Christian." I suppose Power Lock is just reminiscing about those old regulations, fine. But in the intervening years, Canadians have established themselves globally, and within the United States, they are recognized as a distinct people. In neighboring Canada, alongside the American people, they serve as one of the two constituent nations of the federation. Essentially, denying Canadians their status as a nation is no different from denying any other group—whether Jewish, American, or otherwise. It seems like Power Lock is suggesting that such denial is acceptable, arguing that the sanctioned post boldgardener93 responded to wasn't actually denying a "Muslim nation," but rather the Canadians themselves. That feels a bit outdated, doesn't it? 🙂

That’s all from me. And just to add one final thought since it really matters—when you actually take the time to compare them... harybonnotov post earned him 500 points from Ego, yet @sarafciger's post only pulled in 45—the inconsistency here is frankly glaring. I mean, @sarafciger's contribution was significantly more primitive, hateful, and offensive, yet it somehow only managed 45 points. That’s exactly why I decided to start this thread; I’m hoping to encourage the administration to consider making some changes. With the way things are being ranked right now, I suppose any Canadian or Muslim could feel targeted by such uneven treatment. I truly hope my concerns aren't misplaced, and I have a fair amount of confidence that changes will come—for the greater good, of course, since at the end of the day, we're all just people and we're all equal. Best, 🙂

crimsonhound80 said:rowdyhawk10, since I used to moderate the religion forum, I feel like I should mention one thing. We all fall prey to our own egocentric subjectivity from time to time—usually without even realizing it—but that's just human nature. At the end of the day, we're all just flesh and blood.

Alright, I've read through your entire post carefully. I have a great deal of respect for you as a person, especially since I value our connection so much... so I'm inclined to believe everything happened exactly as you described. That said, I don't recall this myself, and since you haven't provided a link or anything similar (not even via DM), I'm not quite sure how to respond. My motives weren't what you've suggested, and honestly, I don't remember ever moderating from those positions. I can't really speak on the matter until I know which specific topic or post you're referring to. Besides, I'm no longer a moderator. 🙂 Best regards,

Eric Collins5 said:Personally, if I were a moderator, I would delete any posts that come off as Islamophobic, but I wouldn't bother reporting them either—just so the people who wrote them couldn't be flagged or penalized.

On the flip side, I’d probably hit every pro-Islamic comment with the maximum number of penalty points, maybe even stretching it a bit just to be thorough.

Well... you certainly handled that with grace. 😁

It’s actually good that you said this. It makes it perfectly clear why not everyone should be a moderator, especially when they hold views and act in ways like yours.

Eric Collins5 said:In other words, just head over to an Islamic forum and try expressing an opinion if it happens to conflict with Islam. I'm curious to see how long it takes before you all burn out like a cheap lighter.

And really, why should I care what fanatics do on specialized Islamic forums? I post here because I actually enjoy being on this forum. I would never have stayed or contributed if this place had the kind of one-sided atmosphere found on those forums you mentioned. In fact, I’ve tried to speak up in places like that only to be shut down, which is why I left. So, am I supposed to feel guilty just because they behave that way? Regards.

rowdyhawk10 said:And that is all. I should add one final point because it is quite significant—when you actually compare harybonnot's post (which earned him 500 points from Ego) to the post by @sarafciger (which only earned 45 points), the inconsistency is frankly glaring!

rowdyhawk10, I don't think you've quite hit the mark here. Allow me to offer my own perspective (and I mean this to everyone reading, not just you).

1) We aren't looking at the same moderator here; harybonnot was awarded 500 points by Ego, whereas @sarafciger received 45 from Cuka.

2) These weren't even in the same section. harybonnot was posting in the Religion section, while @sarafciger was in Politics (specifically, the Politics section).

3) They weren't even addressing one another, nor were they part of the same discussion thread.

Please keep in mind that harybonnot's contribution certainly doesn't warrant 500 points, just as @sarafciger went too far. You said:

In truth, I feel quite bad that @sarafciger was banned specifically because of the post I reported. I took a quick look at his profile, and the guy doesn't really participate in the Religion section at all; he simply stumbled into the Religion section by accident with that specific post.

Well, as I mentioned, the individual didn't write that 45-point post in Religion, but rather in the Politics section. He didn't "stumble" into Religion. Out of harybonnot's last 100 posts, 58 were in Religion, whereas out of @sarafciger's last 192 posts, there isn't a single one in the Religion section. His 193rd post was merely a Merry Christmas message (link) to the users in the Religion section (actually, looking at his last 300 posts out of a total of 681, he has only written six in Religion).

There may not be a unified consensus among the moderators on this matter, but regardless, we aren't talking about a single thread debating animosity toward the Islamic world. The moderators simply need to reach an agreement on two things: 1) what content is permissible, and 2) how that content should be handled. Beyond that, there is a need for tolerance, understanding, and so on. 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:Thanks for getting back to me, and sorry if I'm a little late to the party here. Look, honestly? It breaks my heart that @sarafciger got banned just because of the post I flagged. I took a quick peek at his profile, and the guy doesn't even participate in the religion section—he just sort of stumbled into it by accident with that one post. In my opinion, deleting the post should have been plenty. He isn't one of those users who spends all day spreading hate on the religion forum (unlike some of the newer folks like Viseslav3 and a few others). I made my reasoning very clear, yet the moderators left the post up instead of just scrubbing it. That’s exactly why I filed an appeal.

Just to set the record straight—@sarafciger didn't actually get banned from the religion section because of your report. His post on the top thread was simply deleted after the appeal process (which seems to align with what you're saying about just deleting it being enough).

The only thing I really take issue with is that you brought up the religion section at all, though now it looks like you only did it to mention @Viseslav3 and turn this whole thing into a platform to call out a user you personally don't care for. If I can say one thing, it's that Viseslav—or rather, Master John—isn't acting out of any kind of hatred. He speaks strictly from a spiritual perspective regarding various doctrines, and I have to emphasize that he does so with an incredible command of the subject matter he's critiquing. I have never seen even a hint of "hate" from him; it's nothing more than a pure assessment of a certain spiritual path—in this case, religion—which is worlds apart from those two nasty posts you mentioned in your opening. You won't find anything like that coming from Master John. It’s truly a shame you haven't been able to see that this whole time.

Brenda Cook4 said:I have never seen even a hint of anything resembling "hate" in his words—nothing more than a straightforward assessment of a specific spiritual path, specifically religion in this case, unlike those two nasty posts you mentioned in your opening message. There is absolutely none of that from Master John. I am truly sorry you haven't been able to see that during all this time.

I am actually addressing the point hollowtrucker77 made just a moment ago. Perhaps YOU don't perceive any hate speech in Master John's entries—and I am not claiming such speech exists there—but I am saying that your assessment shouldn't necessarily be the only valid one. Someone else might look at certain posts and interpret them as hate speech or similar "ranting." I still maintain that we need established criteria; they shouldn't be invented on a whim or based on someone's personal defaults, regarding what constitutes hate speech or rhetoric that spreads racial, religious, national, or any other form of intolerance, hatred, or hostility.

I believe that should be our starting framework. It shouldn't be the case that you, acting as a moderator, can mock religion in the Religion sub-forum where you yourself serve as a mod, finding it "interesting" or amusing without receiving a warning, while I (or anyone else) cannot justify similar posts to any single moderator. It is fundamentally different when a moderator mocks a religion versus when a regular user does it (who often gets penalized just for stepping on a moderator's toes). Uneven criteria certainly exist, but we are here to resolve them, at least as much as we are able. 🙂 If there were clear criteria for hate speech, or speech spreading any form of intolerance or prejudice—whether on racial, religious, national, political, or even sexual grounds—then moderation would surely be much easier. For now, all we have is "I think this post is trolling/hate speech," and practice has shown that moderators sometimes overreach in their assessments (especially concerning hate speech). No one is perfect, I get that, but as I have said before, in this post, I have tried my best to explain what hate speech is; the definition is simple, but it is certainly better than having no definition at all.

hollowtrucker77 said:rowdyhawk10 and the rest of you, we can discuss criteria here,
but we aren't going to talk about other people's accounts or bans.

Yes, naturally... I even started a thread regarding that. As for other people's accounts, that is really a matter for those who hold them. Regards.

Steven Clark2 said:rowdyhawk10, I don't think you're entirely correct here. Let me offer my perspective (and not just to you).

1) It wasn't the same moderator who handed out those 500 points to harybonnot and the 45 points to @sarafciger.

2) We aren't even talking about the same PDF thread. One user was posting in the Religion section, while @sarafciger was in Politics (specifically, the Politics section).

3) They weren't addressing one another, nor is this even the same topic.

Just keep in mind that harybonnot's post doesn't actually warrant 500 points, whereas @sarafciger seems to have gone a bit overboard.

Keep in mind🤣

No Nick, I never suggested it was the same moderator issuing both penalties. I didn't claim it was the same PDF thread, nor did I say they were addressing each other or that this involves the same topic. The rest of your post is also off-topic, so it might be best to refrain from commenting if you don't have anything pertinent to add to the discussion. Thanks.

Brenda Cook4 said:Just to clarify—@sarafciger didn't actually get banned from the religion section because of your report. Instead, his comment on the top thread was just deleted after a report was filed in the appeals book (which seems to be what you were thinking was enough).

Fine, it’s probably better that he wasn't banned for that specific post. But as I recall, when he called Muslims "lazy"—he didn't get banned then either, just a 45-point deduction for a personal attack rather than hate speech. Meanwhile, harrybonnot lost 500 points for a much more harmless post under the label of "hate speech."

So, I'd just ask hollowtrucker77 to put those two posts side-by-side. It would be interesting to see why one gets 500 points for "hate speech" while the other only gets 45 for a "personal attack." That inconsistency is exactly why I started this thread. In my opinion, the criteria seem pretty uneven.

Brenda Cook4 said:What I can say is that there isn't any hatred involved in what Viseslav—or rather, Master John—is doing; he is simply speaking exclusively from a spiritual perspective regarding various doctrines. I should emphasize that he does this with an exceptional understanding of the subject matter he critiques. I have never seen any trace of anything resembling 'hate' in him, just pure assessments of certain spiritual paths, specifically religion, unlike those two nasty posts you mentioned in your opening message. There is nothing of the sort with Master John. It’s quite a shame you haven't noticed that over all this time.

Brenda Cook4, I am truly sorry to see you write like this... unless, perhaps, you haven't actually read all of his posts? Most of the posts by Ivanov's clone, Viseslav3, are hateful in nature and aim at generalizing all Muslims... portraying them as some "backward group that will eventually vanish"... and so on. Those posts carry a purely political tension and have nothing to do with spiritual aspects or spiritual development.

Here is just one example: Viseslav3 here states: "Ignorance is synonymous with being Muslim"—which is a blatant generalization and a disparagement of a group. Because among Muslims, there are professors, scientists, artists, cultural and humanitarian workers, and highly learned individuals—people whose values you yourself used to highlight... yet now, according to him, IGNORANCE IS SYNONYMOUS WITH EVERY MUSLIM?!?! Don't you think that's generalizing? 🙄 And further down in that very same post, he even adds something much worse—writing that Muslims would burn his house down if they were his neighbors?!?

Viseslav3 said:Since we both live in a predominantly Muslim community, is it any wonder that if I didn't wait for the fires of hell—you would burn down both my house and my property.

How untrue this is, and how little it has to do with any "spiritual aspects or spirituality"—does it even need explaining? There are Muslims in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Berlin... and nobody is burning anyone's houses or yards down. If someone burns people's houses, they are a criminal who belongs in prison or a mental institution... but this clone didn't even say that just some Muslims (for instance, Islamic fanatics, Talibans, Wahhabis... meaning he didn't qualify his statement!) would burn his house; instead, he GENERALIZED that Muslims would burn his house and yard. Isn't that generalization and the incitement of hatred? I reported that post too, but it hasn't been censored.

That is just one single post by John (Viseslav), and if you want, I can list out his entire history of hate speech and personal attacks against other forum members that have never been censored (or at least, I haven't seen them handled that way so far). For example: hereAccording to him, a Muslim isn't even human. Then, here he tells another user (who is also Muslim) that they are like the "last resort." You can find dozens of similar instances where he demeans users on a personal level, such as here (the loner), here or here... I won't link them all. Honestly, has he ever written a single post on any other topic without bringing up Muslims and spitting on them?!

I should also remind you that you gave Sabur a full 100 points because he wrote "what is there that's human about atheists" (link) and the reason given was: "demeaning a group". Let’s be clear, I would also give Sabur 100 points for that post; what he said was truly ugly. However, what that clone (Viseslav3) writes about Muslims is just as generalized and far worse than what Sabur said, yet you never sanction him. It would be like if I, during my time as a moderator, protected Muslims by avoiding issuing warnings while simultaneously terrorizing Christians and other non-Muslims.

And the idea that John (Viseslav3) "knows the subject matter he criticizes"—that is honestly laughable. In the Convert thread, a man spent several pages explaining parental status to him—whether the parent is Muslim or not, it must seem like an act of charity to him... and yet John here continues to trumpet the exact same thing. For the record, it isn't that I dislike him; I just don't think it quite reaches the level of libel. 🤷

Besides, why do you allow this person (John) to post under a clone (Viseslav3) when the rules explicitly forbid it? I have reported that this is a clone several times, and everyone on the forum knows it's a clone. I even asked in the "Complaint Book" thread why he is permitted to post under a clone, and you deleted my post. Now, you are admitting yourself that it is a clone. How is that possible? Am I allowed to write under two or three different handles while letting everyone know they belong to me? Best, 🙂