Comparisons and Taboos

This is my third time reaching out to the site admins about this, and I really hope it’s the last.

Basically, we're talking about a ruling coming down from the administration. If we set aside the owner—who, as far as I can tell, doesn't get too bogged down in content moderation—it seems like this decision is coming straight from the top. It’s official, and it’s the standard we’re all supposed to follow now, right? It goes like this:

Daniel Ward87 said:I asked the mods to warn users when they start making analogies, because these comparisons involving SA lawyers and fascists aren't okay.

I’m looking for some clarification on this stance. I’ll lay out why I think it’s wrong and actually harmful to this forum, and by extension, to the media, society, and free speech in general (sounds a bit dramatic, I know, but that’s how it feels).

Before I go off on a tangent about linguistic nuances, I should mention that this kind of editorial policy isn't how things used to be; we're seeing a real shift here. I can't provide direct links, but I distinctly remember discussions on this board years ago where both users and mods defended the exact same principle I’m fighting for today. We had the same debates, driven by the same motives (Nazis, communists, etc.—yeah, we've come a long way), and back then, there was pressure from certain users to ban comparisons to fascists or communists as *ad hominem* attacks. But whether it was due to a different era or just a different group of people in charge, the administration at the time defended the right to compare someone's logic or actions to anything—real or fictional. To me, that was the right call, a move worthy of civilized, democratic debate.

As for the specific topic that triggered this new direction, most of the posts that could serve as examples have already been wiped. However, on the "Enron scandal" thread (🙄), you can still find traces of those "problematic" posts. There are two main issues I see here, which are sensitive, but not enough to warrant a heavy-handed censorship crackdown that sets a precedent for the future.

The first issue involves a user being told they have a mindset similar to the leadership in North Korea. Sure, it’s unnecessary, but it’s nothing new on this board. In my experience, reactions to that have always varied depending on the sub-forum or which mod was online. Some let it slide, others give a light slap on the wrist, and honestly, I'm fine with that. This is about comparing someone's way of thinking to a specific model. A person's thought process and their actual opinion are two different things. Someone might think in a way that suggests restricting certain freedoms would be useful, yet they can still hold the opinion that human rights are essential. Most of us agree on the basic premises, even if our internal logic regarding how we reach them differs. That’s why I don't think it's an issue to point out that someone thinks in a manner similar to something that isn't necessarily a positive example. If a mod thinks there's a more polite way to say it, they should just jump into the thread or hand out a warning. Banning someone for this feels totally pointless.

The second issue involves the SA lawyers of Robert Rubin. While putting this together, I tried to scrape as much material as possible from the thread, but since most of it was deleted, there wasn't much left. However, the recurring theme is labeling taxpayers as "SA lawyers." Taken out of context, it sounds terrible, but that's exactly why context matters. The discussion is actually about...The way tax inspectors have been acting this summer has people on the forums drawing parallels to the Nazis in the 1930s. There are enough overlapping elements there to make the comparison stick. It goes even deeper when you look at how the media covers the whole mess—it's eerily similar to how news outlets operated back then. It’s no secret that certain outlets spin stories to help one side while screwing over the other, both now and back then. When you debate within those boundaries, the comparison moves up a notch—it becomes a metaphor. It isn't saying the inspectors are exactly like Nazi stormtroopers; instead, they become Rubin's stormtroopers. A metaphor isn't an accusation or a literal declaration; it's just a comparison elevated to a higher level (pro tip: check out Paul Ricoeur: The Living Metaphor).

Here is how that stylistic device is actually defined:
"Metaphor (from Greek meta = change, pherein = to carry; metaphorá = transfer) is a condensed comparison where meaning is transferred so that one shared characteristic from one area of life or the world is linked to another based on similarity. It is a stylistic tool that replaces a literal story with a more beautiful poetic image."

A cliché example of a metaphor would be calling someone a "lion of a man." Even without context, you get it. You're talking about a brave person whose actions mirror the qualities of a lion. So, the man is (brave as) a lion. Even without direct explanation, relying on symbolic motives we've picked up from stories and fables, people instinctively grasp the metaphor as a high-level comparison. In the case of Rubin's stormtroopers, we have plenty of context to ensure nobody thinks anyone is claiming tax inspectors are hardcore Nazi ideologues who will start systematically wiping out minorities in a year or two with Rubin as their Fuhrer. We aren't children.

One last thing. In America this year, I don't even know how many people were hauled in because they dared to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, whether it was because of some corrupt mogul or political figures in places like Chicago. I'm hitting on this on the forum because I personally feel like the space for free speech in my society is shrinking, and I feel like I have a duty to push back against that.

So, you're telling me the legal experts were somehow working against their own government and its laws? Give me a break.
By the way, since the thread I actually jumped into got shut down before anyone could get back to me, I never did get an answer regarding that whole provocateur clone situation involving Cyrus.
And honestly, these posts couldn't be any more blatant examples of a mess than they already are.
Then people act all shocked when forum users start drawing their own conclusions from the chaos, right?
All while the moderators are busy handing out apologies for being brain-dead, passing out warnings that make absolutely zero sense to the people receiving them or even to the people they're arguing with in the first place.

Can we please stop comparing every single bad thing to fascism and Nazis? Honestly, looking at the people in power right now—and even some of you guys on this board—it feels way more like Bolshevism to me. If you’re going to make comparisons next time, try sticking to the Bolsheviks instead.

Look, I’m not saying the "impartial" moderators here are actually going to show any empathy, but we really need to break this conditioned reflex where everything shitty gets labeled as fascism.

Daniel Ward87 said:
Thanks for the lecture on metaphors, but I get how they work. The people you’re talking about are United States Federal Government employees just following the law. I don't see any basis for comparing them to Nazi officers when they're doing exactly what they're told to do. Sure, there might be some crooks in the mix—like that situation in San Francisco—but that doesn't justify these comparisons. If you want to know how the Nazi regime actually operated, just look it up online.

If you're going to make comparisons, find a better example.

That's all well and good, but you haven't actually said anything new. You're just repeating your original point in a longer format, and you still haven't answered my actual question. I understand what you said; I don't need a sermon. I want to know the specific arguments for why using this comparison as a figure of speech in this particular instance is considered "unacceptable" in a debate.

Your last comment is basically just moving the goalposts. It feels like an administrative reflex, assuming I have some personal vendetta or a desperate urge to compare people to Nazis. Look, I wouldn't make that comparison myself because it's over the top and in bad taste, but banning it is just an attack on free speech. I think I've made it clear: my whole point was to highlight the difference between this specific case and the endless stream of random insults you see everywhere on sites like Politico.

Daniel Ward87 said:If I recall correctly—and I mentioned this in my first post—you wanted an explanation for my stance. You got it, at least regarding the second point you broke down. It’s not about killing free speech; I just think those comparisons are totally out of line. An unwritten rule on this forum is that if you say something enough times, it becomes the norm. I’m fine with metaphors, but I know where they can lead. Let's just find a different one and move on.

Regarding the first point, I agree it was misplaced, but it's up to the moderator's discretion how they handle it.

Fine, maybe I completely missed the mark here. What exactly were you trying to achieve with this thread?

Actually, that was exactly my goal (in bold). We have different takes on free speech, and I was using my arguments to explain why I believe those specific comparisons fall under protected expression.

Instead, I just got hit with your personal opinion and the "practicality" argument—basically saying it's easier for the forum to just shut things down to prevent taboos. I get it, but I don't support it.

@swiftstag66/">@@swiftstag66,

Have you ever heard the term "failed metaphor"?
(Or a comparison, whatever—just try to get a better handle on what actually makes a metaphor work)

There simply aren't enough common elements here to compare tax inspectors to the Schutzstaffel. You aren't even elevating the metaphor to a higher level.
The value of a tax inspector and the Schutzstaffel can never be brought into any kind of positive correlation.

Everything else is just trolling, clearly designed to bait people into reacting.
There are no taboos here, just poorly disguised provocations.
Repeated and repeated...

👋

Sarah Cooper58 said:@swiftstag66,

There isn't enough common ground to compare IRS agents to the Schutzstaffel. You can't even push the metaphor that far.
The value of an IRS auditor and the Schutzstaffel can never be equated.

👋

What actual value or similarity exists in some lazy comparison between a guy trying to tackle a problem and an ostrich burying its head in the sand? Honestly, if you tried explaining this to an alien, you'd have a hell of a time justifying why A looks like B or why that works in any language.

Besides, just because a comparison misses the mark doesn't mean it should be banned. Are we really going to hire specialized moderators just to debate semantics and decide if a metaphor has enough "linguistic merit" to stay on a forum?

I still stand by my original point. All I get from people who want to ban comparisons in one specific instance (and I could give you a theoretical example for that too) are your own feelings that people are being mean or trolling just because you don't like their tone. I get it when it comes to Uncle Sam, since you have to consider the real-world consequences certain posts trigger, but I have zero explanation for why regular users shouldn't be allowed to speak without facing censorship.

To wrap this up, I see everyone circling back to the fake argument that I have some weird motive to compare things to Nazis. I already said that’s not it, so let me make it clear one more time. My goal is just to find the line, because I feel like this decision just moved it. I remember how years ago, pretty much everyone here 🙂—admins, mods, and regulars alike—defended the right to use comparisons if they were describing someone's actions or behavior. I thought that was a good way to do things; I liked thinking we were all adults capable of handling freedom of speech. But with this ruling, it's suddenly wrong to compare how people act or behave if the comparison involves the Schutzstaffel or Nazis. The problem with this new way of thinking is that you can't have consistent rules if you start making exceptions like this. It opens a massive can of worms where every other comparison will be questioned, leaving us with a mountain of "why is this okay but that isn't?" questions.

Can we please just drop the Nazi talk now? That's not what this is about at all.

Sarah Cooper58 said:Have you ever actually heard the term "missed metaphor"? It’s one of those things that—if I’m being honest—really gets under my skin when people try to force a comparison that just... doesn't land. I guess you could say it’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, though even that might be reaching too far. It happens all the time, where someone attempts to be profound or clever, but the imagery they choose is so fundamentally disconnected from the point they're making that the whole thing just falls flat on its face. It's quite frustrating, really—the sheer wasted effort involved in a failed rhetorical device.

Any figure can be miscalculated—but, then again... I suppose we should probably get into a discussion about this—if one can even call it that. It feels like we’re just circling the drain at this point, doesn't it? I mean, I don't want to sound like I'm jumping to conclusions, but there's a certain pattern emerging here that's hard to ignore—not that anyone else seems to care, apparently. It’s all a bit much, honestly. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think we need to actually address the core issues instead of just shouting into the void. It's frustrating, I guess. Instead of jumping straight to bans and penalties, we really ought to be having a proper discussion about what constitutes a "missed mark." If things keep escalating to this level of absurdity—where metaphors are being flagged as violations just because someone thinks they missed the point—then we’re essentially punishing users simply because the moderator’s subjective opinion disagrees with them. It’s a slippery slope, I suppose.

Honestly, I’ve always felt that those who lean heavily on metaphors and various literary flourishes ought to be fully capable of defending them—because if they can’t actually justify their own imagery, then frankly, they deserve nothing more than the ridicule that comes with being exposed as shallow, rambling windbags who are meddling in concepts they clearly don't grasp. That, I suppose, is what you might call true intellectual accountability. Discussion.

Here’s another even better, more recent example regarding those appeals against yellow cards: one of the forum members actually drew an analogy between gender quotas and what he's calling "religious quotas"— If we are suddenly insisting that gender representation must strictly mirror the actual percentage of women in the population, then—and I really mean this—why aren't we applying that same logic to religious demographics? If the goal is mathematical proportionality across all identity markers, why wouldn't we demand that representation for religious groups be proportional to their share of the faithful? It seems like a massive logical inconsistency to me—perhaps even a bit hypocritical—to pull the lever on one specific demographic metric while completely ignoring others. I guess it just makes you wonder where the line is actually being drawn here..

The analogy is fundamentally flawed—and honestly, one could mount a pretty solid argument against it—but the moderator went ahead and handed out a yellow card as if... I suppose we should probably steer clear of the off-topic discussions for a moment—though, honestly, it’s getting harder to stay focused when everything feels so disorganized lately. I guess I’ll just leave this here.Because apparently, "faith isn't the subject of this thread" and—get this—comparing someone's religious beliefs to their gender is somehow just "not an acceptable comparison." I guess we're just playing by those rules now? 😲😲😲So, the man just sits there—completely stone-faced—declaring that he’s issued an appeal against a yellow card regarding an analogy that he claims "simply doesn't hold water." It's so "simple," apparently, that he couldn't even be bothered to actually write down the core of his argument. I guess it’s just that classic bit of rhetoric where they imply, "only an idiot wouldn't get this..."—just waiting to see who’s going to step up and admit, "well, actually, I don't get it." 😬).

It seems the moderator hasn't quite grasped the situation—it’s pretty clear he’s effectively banned the use of any and all analogies from here on out, regardless of whether they actually land or not. But I mean, isn't that literally the entire point of an analogy? It’s about drawing a parallel between the current topic and some completely different subject where, in his estimation, a similar phenomenon exists—which, if you ask me, is just the core of how we communicate. To our moderator, though... I suppose I should probably point out that this entire thread has devolved into nothing more than off-topic nonsense and blatant spam—though, to be fair, I can’t say I’m entirely surprised by how quickly things fell apart here. It’s becoming rather difficult to follow any actual conversation when every other post feels like it was written just to clutter up the feed. Honestly, if we don't get things back on track soon, the whole discussion might just become completely useless..

swiftstag66 said:One final thought. This year in America, I lost count of how many people were detained just for shouting "the ref is blind" because of Jerry Maguire, and things got just as heated in Denver over Joe Biden. The reason I’m hitting this topic so hard on the forum is that I personally feel like the boundaries of free speech are shrinking—and honestly, I feel like I have a responsibility to push back against it.

That isn't really a shrinking of free speech; it’s actually the expansion of political correctness. Eventually, it'll spread so far that you'll only be able to write with white letters on a white background—or maybe black letters on a black background (I added that part just so no one feels marginalized)... ☕

@ otompotom

Step down from your high horse—leave the lions, the Noah’s Arks, the cats, and the dogs behind—and actually explain yourself. Give me a concrete, logical comparison between using a machine gun and how an inspector carries out their duties.

It’s actually quite simple: you identify the points of contact, subtract the outliers (and their weight), and whatever remains is the objective truth of the comparison.

This decision doesn't shift the boundaries of free speech one bit.
By all means, feel free to make your comparisons.
So, what are you waiting for? Because so far, I haven't seen any actual comparison, just a bunch of people tossing around supposed "poetic imagery."

Regarding the forum rules, the reality is that they can't possibly cover every single hypothetical scenario.
Ultimately, it falls to the moderators to decide whether something stays or goes.
For instance, if they conclude that something isn't being used to express an author's genuine opinion, but is instead being used just to stir the pot, they’ll likely react exactly like they are doing now.

@ Lord Byron

I brought up the failure of the metaphor because otompotom clung to it as if it were some beautiful expressive tool in its own right.
Ignoring the fact that a metaphor can be completely wrong. Or intentionally wrong. Or intentionally shallow.

The inaccuracy of this metaphor wasn't something that could be debated in a discussion forum because the author didn't have the slightest desire to argue their point.

I looked at another example. It was total nonsense, just arbitrary banning...