Permanent link, please

Thanks.

Upon request, it can take up to two years at most...

I’ve never once complained about getting warnings because, honestly, I earned them by playing by the rules.

The real reason I’ve grown to loathe this forum, though, is the blatant double standard.
If I drop a slur against Middle Eastern immigrants, suddenly I get slapped with 500 points—supposedly for "hate speech," which feels like a massive stretch for what was said. My mistake.
Yet, at the exact same time, people have been using those same insults toward Canadians and Herzegovinians for months without anyone batting an eye. No points, no hate speech claims, nothing. That’s just wrong.
When someone calls the President a flatfish, a slut, or a fat pig... fine. But if someone leaves one comment about Taritaš, they get a warning.
Sure, if it happened once or twice, I could swallow it. Whatever.
But we’ve got the same group of people spewing the same garbage year after year with zero consequences, while I somehow managed to rack up five warnings in just ten posts for much milder stuff.

Look, it’s your forum, your rules.
I respect that.

It doesn't matter if you perma-ban me or whatever; I'm deleting this site from my bookmarks anyway. Consider this my own little way of giving you a warning.

Take care.

Michael Morgan5

Your sanctioned ban was actually two years ago, but I went back and dug through the refugee discussion thread to find this:

How much noise can a few flea-ridden thugs really make? ☕

In short, it was about indiscriminately labeling refugees as nothing more than flea-ridden thugs. Looking at the record today, there isn't much to dispute, and I am glad you aren't trying to argue against it either.

That said, it genuinely concerns me that some group might be allowed to use similarly indiscriminate labels against others without facing any consequences. I ask that you please point such instances out to me.

As for everything else, Michelle Evans already clarified the situation; we haven't had permission requests for quite some time, but if you'd like, you can request them for up to two years.

William Bennett53 said:But honestly, it really worries me that some group of people might get called those hateful slurs and just get away with it without any consequences. Please, point out if that happens.

And does it maybe bother you that you can call a SPECIFIC PERSON a cow, a pig, a moron, an idiot, a jerk—you know, all the usual variations? I mean, obviously, we're talking about the kind of adjectives "civilized" forum users use to describe our politicians, especially since the descriptions of the President are being totally tolerated here (probably with a lukewarm shrug, because let's face it, we all know how the moderators run this show). So, my colleague is basically just exposing your hypocrisy and double standards. Look, if you're going to hand out sanctions because someone calls a specific group of people names, then fine—sanction the guy who calls a specific individual a pig. Is there even a difference? You can't call Muslim refugees certain slurs, but calling the President a pig is perfectly fine? I’d love for someone to explain the logic behind this fascinating little set of criteria you guys are using here.

So, just for once—just one single time—could you actually be consistent with your moderation? It would be nice, for a change, if you applied the same rules to the same kinds of offenses.

You’ve completely missed the point here; let’s not drag this into off-topic territory. We have already discussed, more times than I can count, the blatant disparities in how different interlocutors, social groups, and politicians are treated.

William Bennett53 said:You completely missed the point here—don't try to drag this into off-topic territory. We have already gone over and over a hundred times how differently people are treated, whether it's specific social groups or politicians.

Alright, let's just lay all the cards on the table then.

Apparently, you can't call an unidentified group of people certain slurs, but it's perfectly fine to call one specific individual a slut, a pig, an idiot, a moron, or whatever other nasty adjectives are being thrown around in this thread.

Yeah, makes perfect sense. Makes total sense. 👍

Sorry for crashing the party here, but since I’ve got a question about a similar situation, I figured I’d just drop it in here instead of starting some whole new thread

Is it actually okay to call bridge supporters and voters "Sljedbounar"? And let's be real, that label isn't just for some imaginary voter base—it's being tossed around at the people right here on this forum too.
If we're playing by the rules, does that mean I can start calling left-wing voters communists or labeling the right-wing crowd as fascists? I mean, if we’re going to get all insulting and disrespectful, let's at least go all the way, right?

Sljedbounar certainly isn't in the same league as a fascist. You might want to find a slightly more tempered way to put that.

So, basically, the bottom-feeders and the extremists can 😬
Edit: is anyone actually buying this nonsense?

Honestly, to me, the term follower carries a pretty nasty connotation. It feels a step softer than calling someone a cultist, but we all know what people really mean when they claim to be part of a "following."
But hey, if it doesn't break any rules, then whatever, fine by me.

Why isn't it permissible to label Tit as a criminal?

Nicholas Watson said:If we're playing by the rules here, can I just start calling left-wing voters communists and right-wingers fascists? I mean, if we’re going to throw labels around, let's really go for it!

Sljedbounar followers and all you crazies

William Bennett53 said:You're missing the forest for the trees here. Don't try to drag this off-topic. We have already gone over and over again how differently people treat their conversation partners, specific social groups, and politicians.

Hey... it's me again.
I wasn't really paying attention when you were defining the distinctions between those three groups you mentioned, but looking at your reply to J. Wayne, I got the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that making fun of politicians is totally fine, whereas mocking other users or certain social groups isn't.
If that’s actually the case, why did I get a warning just for suggesting that Taritaš needs to be gagged, while a whole crowd of commenters on the Kolinda thread get away with being way more disrespectful without any consequences?
If I missed the point, can someone please explain?

Michael Morgan5 said:Hey... yeah, it's me again.
I wasn't really paying attention when you were laying out the distinctions between those three groups you mentioned, but based on how you replied to J. Wayne—correct me if I'm totally off base here—it seems like making fun of politicians is fair game, whereas mocking other users or specific social groups is where the line is drawn.
If that’s actually the case, why did I get slapped with a warning just for suggesting Taritaš should be hooded, while this massive crowd of trolls on the Kolinda thread gets away with being way more obnoxious without any consequences at all?
Did I miss the point entirely? Can someone explain?

Honestly, you already know the answer...

Look, this is a leftist forum, plain and simple, which means it operates under leftist rules. That's just how it works. Because of that, you can insult the President with the most foul language imaginable—and believe me, there are dozens upon dozens of explicit examples still sitting right there on her thread without anyone saying a word; if the search function actually worked, I could dump a mountain of proof right here, but since it doesn't, anyone can just skim the thread and see I'm telling the truth—yet, any insult directed at a left-leaning politician usually triggers a sanction.

So, you either adapt to the fact that this is the kind of forum it is, or you just deal with it as reality. The owner sets the rules, and the mods just follow orders from the top. We're just here to enforce what's been laid down or stay out of the fray. There isn't a third option.

Forgive me, did someone actually ask you for an explanation? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Michael Morgan5, we'll take a look at that card for you later today...

Michael Morgan5 said:Hey... back again.
I wasn't really paying attention when you were outlining the distinctions between those three groups you mentioned, but based on how you replied to J. Wayne's post, I got the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that mocking politicians is perfectly fine, whereas mocking other users or specific social groups is off-limits.
If that’s the case, why was I handed a warning for suggesting that Taritaš needs a paper bag over her head, while a whole crowd of people debating Kolinda get away with far more offensive comments without any penalty?
If I've missed the point here, could someone please clarify?

I agree; if the rules apply to Kolinda, they should just as easily apply to Anka mrak. Consider your warning rescinded. Moving forward, please use the designated thread for appealing warnings. I am closing this discussion because it has drifted significantly from the original topic and is simply inviting unnecessary friction from all sides.