Started by steelskipper5 · · 👁 7 views · 40 replies
Scott Cruz4 said:It’s just like how some Islamic fundamentalists twist the words of the Quran to justify killing people, right? It's all about how they take something sacred and turn it into an excuse for violence. Isn't that wild? It doesn't even matter what those symbols actually mean. Honestly, who cares?
.
Scott Cruz4 said:The fact that certain people misuse symbols—much like how some Islamic fundamentalists twist the meaning of the Quran to justify violence—has absolutely nothing to do with what those symbols actually signify.
If you feel personally insulted when someone brings up the swastika in a negative context, then that’s when the moderator should step in and issue a penalty.
Personally, I don't have an issue with it.
However, it still bothers me when people refer to our national symbols or our Catholic identity (such as the Kris) using nothing but derogatory slang. Most Americans wouldn't appreciate being spoken to like that.
steeleagle70 said:Look, if you just read the Bible, it’s clearly stated right there—exactly what was said. The cross was originally used as a tool for execution, a way to crucify someone. And that’s exactly the punishment Jesus received. It wasn't until after that happened that the cross became a religious symbol for Christians. But hey, let's not go down a rabbit hole here...
bluecyclist64 said:Kris is just some tiny municipality in Los Angeles County. It’s a stretch to call it a national symbol, let alone a representation of Catholic identity.
Scott Cruz4 said:Well, nobody’s claiming he’s a symbol for the entire nation, right?
But he does represent the Catholic identity held by about 90% of Americans—or if you look at the broader Christian identity, we're talking closer to 95% of the population here.
crimsonhound80 said:legally speaking, I can claim they are sick—because if you spend every other post in the Religion sub constantly writing about how much believers and the church disgust you, then I am perfectly entitled to write that homosexuals disgust me and are sick.
placidjackal36 said:I have watched the video, and frankly, I find the decision to award 500 points for such content absolutely disgraceful. It is truly disheartening to see 500 points handed out for something that essentially glorifies lynchings, murders, and the spread of such profound depravity. Hate speech. It’s a similar situation—though, to be fair, that usually flies under the radar over at The New York Times, but that’s a whole different conversation. If we were grading that controversial post, I’d give it a solid 35 points just for the sheer dedication to trolling. It was truly top-tier work.
It is truly shameful.
steelskipper5 said:That kind of behavior is even more repulsive than seeing crosses displayed in public institutions. And when you consider certain instances of religious influence... Hate speech. I have repeatedly filed multiple reports over a significant period regarding this issue, yet the authorities have failed to take any action whatsoever. For instance, Yivanmukt continues to post without any interference to this day. It truly appears that believers are granted a special dispensation to disregard both the Constitution and our laws. Meanwhile, any single word spoken against them—even something as harmless as minor mockery—is met with much harsher penalties than your typical heated debate on a political forum.
Pathetic.
steelskipper5 said: I find myself quite perplexed by the recent decision to issue a 500-point penalty for a single word that, in my estimation, wasn't even particularly offensive. It feels like a massive overreach—certainly far beyond the standard disciplinary measures for an insult, and honestly, even more severe than what is typically handed out for much more egregious violations. Hate speech.So, we have encountered yet another instance where religious stances are being granted special protection above and beyond all other considerations.
And to make matters worse, religious people just go around insulting everyone else without a second thought.
steelskipper5 As I have previously noted:
In this specific instance, I believe the moderators need to provide a clear justification as to why a relatively mild, generalized insult toward religion is being penalized with the exact same severity as a direct attack. Hate speech.It seems we have reached a point where you can pick almost any topic—say, discussions regarding homosexuality—and immediately stumble upon unsanctioned comments claiming "they are sick." It is quite frankly an insult, given that... De facto. It’s either a complete dismissal of the issue, or someone will inevitably suggest, "They should all just be sent to Alcatraz and left to breed there."
Gregory Turner71 said:It depends. Obviously, different standards of correctness apply to the Politics section...
bluecyclist64 said:Well, I have just finished reading the controversial post and I find myself in complete agreement. Awarding 500 points for such content truly feels like introducing verbal offenses to this forum.
It is shameful.
placidjackal36 said:I have looked into the matter and I believe awarding 500 points for this is simply disgraceful. In my view, 500 points should be reserved for spreading vile things like glorifying lynchings, murders, or extreme hate speech (which, incidentally, passes without issue on the Politics board, but that is a different discussion entirely). For a post like this, 35 points for trolling would be the absolute upper limit.
It is shameful.
hollowtrucker77 said:Yeah, he got banned and his account was nuked
The ban for trolling was totally earned—honestly, it was long overdue
hollowtrucker77 said:Yeah, the moderator's gone and the ban is lifted
A ban for trolling is actually deserved here, so—consider it done.
Snack said:I think you missed the point... if you're so confident, go out and gather 400,000 signatures yourself to change the Constitution. Until then, quit whining about crosses, crescents, or whatever Islamic religious nonsense you think shouldn't be in schools. Either do a revolution like they did in Iran and enjoy living in a theocracy... since secularism clearly bothers you so much.
Scott Cruz4 said:we aren't talking about some Eastern symbol or their culture here.
The cross has one specific meaning for Christians, and there is absolutely no way to link it to violence or evil.
Adam Collins4 said:In the very beginning, Christians were being crucified—so you're still missing the mark a bit here...
And let's be honest, when it comes to other types of cross symbolism that don't fit their narrative, Christians tend to look the other way through history...
Scott Cruz4 said:I think you're totally missing the point here. We’re talking about the cross as a symbol of Christianity—not what it stood for before Jesus Christ came along.
steelskipper5 said:Fortunately for Christianity, the cross hasn't stood for death or destruction for quite some time now.
*In hoc signo vinces.* And so on.
Daniel Ward87 said:Secondly, calling the cross, the Bible, the Quran, and everything else tied to religious traditions "other bullshit" isn't just harmless mockery—it's actual disrespect, which the admins already confirmed since they didn't end up pulling the ban card.
steelskipper5 said:It shouldn't be all that difficult—honestly—if you're actually telling the truth. And if things aren't working out, just have the decency to admit you were lying.