Unacceptable moderation on the Palestine thread - Bubimir

Flumen-day already kicked this whole thing off by filing a formal complaint about how Bubimir handles the moderation around here. The thread was shut down before anyone could even get a decent debate going because Flumen-day—who, if you ask me, is easily one of the sharpest minds on this entire international politics board—announced he was walking away from the forum entirely and demanded we all just drop the subject.

I’m calling for a serious discussion regarding how Bubimirov handles moderation around here, because the man is playing by two different sets of rules—which, let's be honest, isn't exactly a novelty since other mods tend to pull the same stunts. It feels like Bubimirov is blatantly trampling on free speech by twisting his interpretation of the Law of the USA, and when you combine that legal gymnastics with his blatant double standards, you end up with someone like me picking up two warnings for absolutely nothing.

What’s the real story here?

Here’s my second banned post—in the first one, rowdytiger13 stepped in to play hall monitor, forbidding anyone from calling Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal or labeling any president as such.

Issuing a clear warning like that is completely nonsensical when you look at it through the lens of free speech—it’s nothing more than a blatant violation of our rights by a moderator who's clearly overstepping their bounds and abusing their position.
Every single president is a public figure, which basically means they’ve signed up to be a target for every conceivable bit of criticism imaginable, no matter how petty or personal it gets.
Actually, I see it the exact opposite way; once a president is out of office, they aren't exactly a protected public figure anymore, and they should have to deal with the same relentless scrutiny and criticism that any sitting president has to stomach under the umbrella of free speech.
Bubimir is clearly just trying to play bodyguard for Benjamin Netanyahu, but he can't quite find the right way to say that, so he settles for this half-baked phrasing instead. It makes you wonder what would happen if this same kind of "ban" were applied to every other leader on the global stage—we're talking Putin, Bashar al-Assad, even the old days with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—it’s almost impossible to wrap your head around the level of hypocrisy we’d be dealing with.
By the way, people always forget that Benjamin Netanyahu isn't even the President; he’s just the Prime Minister.
So, Bubimir is out here pushing for more censorship, all in a desperate attempt to shield the Prime Minister whose policies are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians. You really have to step back and ask yourself what his actual endgame is here—what is he trying to hide by silencing everyone?

So, here’s why I just got slapped with my second warning under this new set of rules:

My stance isn't changing because, under the Law of the USA, libel is a legitimate criminal offense, and anyone—even a politician—has the legal standing to sue if they're being slandered. Just because someone is hiding behind a screen name doesn't give them a free pass to smear public figures. Calling someone a war criminal is an incredibly heavy accusation, and if it's baseless, it’s pure defamation. As it stands, there isn't even a legal proceeding against Benjamin Netanyahu, let alone a conviction, so until something like that actually happens, those labels are nothing more than empty noise. If people have a problem with what's being said here, they can take it up with the FBI.

If this kind of attitude were actually spread across the entire forum, it would be the death knell for the site—though honestly, I don't see much point in even trying to prove that.

Let’s break this down step by step. Bubimir basically just said, "my decision stands," which is his way of doubling down on that red card he handed me. He followed it up by claiming that under the Law of the USA, defamation is a criminal offense—and honestly, I can't argue with him there; under American law, defamation is indeed a punishable crime.

I refuse to accept the idea that calling Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal is some kind of legal act of libel—though, fine, if we’re being pedantic about it, I'll stick to saying he "may be" a war criminal to align myself with the official stance held by the United Nations.
Why?
KZ RH:

Article 149.
Who actually comes first when you're looking out for someone else? It’s the classic definition of defamation—when someone goes out of their way to spit out a blatant lie, knowing damn well it isn't true, just to drag a person's reputation through the mud. fine, they’ll slap you with a fine up to three hundred and sixty daily rates.

The point is, there isn't even a crime of defamation happening here, because frankly, I don't personally know if the claim that the Israeli Prime Minister is a war criminal is untrue. In fact, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to suspect he is—or if we want to play by the United Nations' own playbook, he might be a war criminal simply because he potentially orders war crimes. Personally, I believe Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, and I can back that up with a mountain of evidence that doesn't just evaporate because people try to hide behind political excuses claiming civilians died only because Hamas used them as human shields. We are talking about nearly 1,000 civilians, including over 200 children.

Moving on, under the Law of the USA:

Article 150.
(1) Crimes against honor and reputation are prosecuted via private complaint.

Defamation, as one of those offenses against honor and reputation, is exclusively handled through a private lawsuit, not by some arbitrary decision or official duty from a moderator on this forum.
Since nobody has filed a private lawsuit against me, there is no legal proceeding that could ever establish my liability for defamation. And if there's no proceeding, there's no defamation.

Furthermore, looking at how Bubimir is handling things, it’s clear he’s completely out of his depth when it comes to the law. I’d honestly suggest this forum hire a moderator for the "World" subforum who actually understands American legal principles.

Bubimirov completely missed the mark on this article because there is no defamation taking place. It’s obvious that I believe what I’m saying is true, so I am not defaming the Israeli Prime Minister.

Just to see if I'm supposedly "shaming" him, let's look at the Law of the USA:

Article 148.
(1) Anyone who, in the presence of others, makes or delivers a factual statement regarding someone that could damage their honor or reputation shall be punished by a fine of up to one hundred and eighty daily rates.
(2) Anyone who commits the act described in paragraph 1 through the press, radio, television, computer systems, networks, public gatherings, or any other means that makes it accessible to a larger number of people, shall be punished by a fine of up to three hundred and sixty daily rates.

There is no crime of shaming either, since there is no private lawsuit and because of paragraph (3) of this same article:

(3) No crime exists under paragraphs 1 or 2 if the perpetrator proves the truthfulness of the factual statements made, or if they can show they had serious reason to believe they were true while acting in good faith.

It is glaringly obvious how much this forum is suffocating free speech through Bubimirov's actions in the World section.

Thanks to the double warning from moderator Bubimirov, I find myself facing a three-day ban—an entirely baseless move intended to silence my right to free expression.

These warnings didn't do a damn thing to convince me to watch my mouth when discussing the war crimes being mass-committed by the IDF under the orders of Benjamin Netanyahu, who may well be a war criminal himself. It would actually be useful if we started a real discussion here that could serve as a lesson for moderators who are clearly legally illiterate; they probably need a law degree and maybe a basic course in common sense, but I won't go into that now.

Look, as a user here, I have every right to call Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal whenever and however I damn well please, regardless of whether there’s an indictment or a court verdict out there, because:
1. Benjamin Netanyahu hasn't filed a private lawsuit against me under any provision of the Law of the USA.
2. Even if he did, a private suit is just noise without a verdict—and since there is no verdict, we stick to the presumption of innocence, which is the bedrock of the American legal system. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but a filing isn't a conviction.
3. There is no such thing as a criminal offense for libel or defamation in this context.
4. Nobody, not even a forum moderator, has the authority to stifle free speech by policing a public forum like this.
5. This site won't face any consequences for what I write about anything, because the platform can't be held liable for my opinions, especially since my identity is easily accessible to law enforcement or the courts should Benjamin Netanyahu ever decide to pursue me for libel. I’m posting from my personal account using an IP address registered to my actual name through AT&T, and I stand by everything I say.

What kind of circus would this forum become if these kinds of baseless, twisted interpretations of the Law of the USA were applied across the board? We'd be forced to accept that reality if the site decides that Bubimir is actually in the right.

Good luck with that...

Once this forum takes the right stance—and hopefully survives the actions of Bubimir, who is currently a serious threat to the community by trying to kick one side of the debate out of the game and stooping to such low tactics—I expect a personal apology from Bubimir, the removal of his two carrot data menu items, and the reversal of those 60 negative points.

Furthermore, I strongly suggest that this moderator be barred from weaponizing the Law of the USA to crush free speech, and that the site brings in a moderator who actually understands the law, or at least someone who isn't drowning in their own ignorance.

And how exactly does calling any individual—even a head of state—a war criminal improve the quality of a debate?

Can we please just stop using such formulations in our discussions? Is this really such a massive issue that we're on the verge of introducing verbal offenses or outright censorship to the forum?

I’m sticking to my guns on this one: I refuse to let anyone label someone a war criminal when there aren't even any formal charges.
At this point, it's entirely up to the administration.

I am not a moderator for the politics section, but I would like to offer a general observation regarding this ongoing debate over the boundaries of free speech...

Every online community maintains its own set of rules and social norms. While we are all obviously obligated to follow the Law of the USA, our responsibilities here go far beyond mere legal compliance. They must. Consequently, even though most subforums allow for much more leeway when discussing public figures than when addressing fellow members, that freedom isn't absolute. If one were to mistake free speech for a license to say absolutely anything without restraint, maintaining any semblance of peace or balance in our discussions—which is already a fragile thing—would become an impossible task. Therefore, certain things are prohibited not just because the law demands it, but as part of a fundamental civilizing imperative within this forum. In essence, the freedom of expression we enjoy here represents a departure from a "state of nature"; it is a conscious decision to waive certain individual liberties in order to establish common standards of conduct that benefit everyone. Otherwise, if every user were permitted to lash out at any public figure without filter, meaningful discussion would become a literal impossibility, as the sheer volume of conflict generated would far exceed the bickering we currently endure.

Charles Fox10 said:I mean, how exactly does calling anyone—even a head of state—a war criminal actually add anything to the quality of a discussion? It feels like it just shuts everything down, doesn't it?

I honestly don't know what it's going to take to get people to stop using those kinds of formulations in our discussions—no matter how many times we ask or plead. It feels like such a massive issue... is this actually heading toward some kind of "verbal crime" territory or just straight-up censorship on the forum? I'm genuinely wondering where we go from here.

Why shouldn't we be allowed to use those kinds of descriptions if they’re actually backed by logic? You don't necessarily need a formal verdict from a courtroom to label someone a war criminal—I mean, let's be honest, so many criminals throughout history have just walked free without ever facing a judge. We have the Law of the USA, international law, and the Geneva Convention to serve as our compasses here. When it comes to the claim that Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, there is an absolute mountain of arguments and evidence to draw from—it would actually be quite easy to back that up if you look at the facts.

Look, I don't think the actual arguments being thrown around can ever truly diminish the quality of a discussion—not really—but they do tend to strip away the mask and expose rowdytiger13's underlying ideological stance. And honestly? That’s where the real issue lies in this whole thing.😉

Even before he stepped up to become a moderator, rowdytiger13 was a total troll—and honestly, if I'm being real, he still kind of is.😁He’s someone who has never actually written a single coherent or well-reasoned post regarding the Israel-Palestine situation—not once. His occasional appearances on the topic usually just consist of him tossing out empty platitudes and hollow catchphrases... nothing substantial, really.
Bubimirov’s whole approach to being a moderator feels incredibly personal—like he has a very specific agenda in mind. It seems to me that he gets frustrated by posts from anyone who doesn't see things his way, and since he doesn't really have the capacity to actually counter those views with solid arguments—which, let's be honest, he never has—he's decided the next best thing is just using his authority to shut people down. He basically uses force to prevent anyone from voicing an opinion that doesn't fit his particular ideological mold. It's almost like he wakes up every single day looking for something new to be annoyed by. When you run out of actual points to make, I guess you just resort to the "argument of force." Whether you call it Bubimirov's rule or whatever, that seems to be his motto.😁

It’s honestly such a terrible move—really, a massive mistake—to appoint someone who holds such extreme Zionist views to a moderator position. It’s problematic because this person treats their role like it’s some kind of sacred calling, almost like a holy mission to defend a specific ideology, rather than just keeping an online community running. When you have someone that personally invested in defending one side, they inevitably start weaponizing the forum rules to suit their own agenda.

Let me give you a perfect example here...
After I issued my warning, user Mikoli wrote all that without being insulting, so naturally, his post wasn't flagged. Then, Joshua Diaz18 jumps back in to debate my moderation style, despite this thread existing specifically for that purpose. He’d already been sent a warning via the official PDF guidelines for doing the exact same thing.
I suppose we should all just throw our hands up and let "freedom of speech" turn this entire topic into a race to see who can hurl the most insults first—because clearly, expecting people to actually follow the rules is asking too much if they think they can get away with it.

rowdytiger13 said:I’m sticking to my guns on this one. I'm not about to let anyone label someone a war criminal when there aren't even any charges filed. It just doesn't fly with me.
The ball's in the admins' court now.

It’s just like that explanation from William Bennett53—or whatever other way someone tries to justify the moderation rules. It all boils down to this.

While this stuff on page 139 of the Israel-Palestine thread is going in a totally different direction:

I'm sticking to my guns on this one. Under the Law of the USA, libel is a real crime, and anyone—even a politician—can sue you for it if you're spreading lies.Just because you're posting under a username doesn't give you a free pass to smear public figures.Calling someone a war criminal is a massive accusation. If it’s fake, it’s straight-up libel. As it stands, there isn't even a legal proceeding against Benjamin Netanyahu, let alone a conviction. Until a trial actually happens, those labels don't mean a thing. If anyone has an issue with how people are talking, they should just take it to the FBI.

Slander is a crime under the Law of the USA.

Just like a war crime, it's still a felony—just a much heavier one.

By your logic, Joshua Diaz18 can't call Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal. Since there’s no actual court case or legal conviction against the Israeli PM, he hasn't been officially labeled one.

And that's why it's just cardboard.

By that same logic, you don't have any right to call out Joshua Diaz18. implicitCalling someone a slanderer with a bolded sentence is totally out of line. You can't just label someone a criminal when there hasn't been a trial or a legal conviction against Joshua Diaz18.

And you aren't a total bot either.

Based on what, exactly? And what kind of logic are we even using here?

Shouldn't you be facing some consequences too? Since you're out here doing exactly what Joshua Diaz18 did with Benjamin Netanyahu—basically acting like a judge and jury by claiming a crime was committed before anyone else.

Does anyone know if there's a rule somewhere in the forum guidelines about when you can or can't prejudicirati someone's guilt during a debate?

When we talk about the crisis in Ukraine, Putin gets slapped with even harsher labels and qualifications, yet nobody seems to dare say a word, for God's sake.
I don't recall Putin ever being "gracious" enough to address us with those colorful descriptions where he calls certain groups subhuman 🤷

(And honestly, looking at our domestic political scene, it’s always been full of absolute nonsense—if we're talking about the sheer "creativity" of my fellow forum members)

On the Israel-Palestine thread, the second you voice any criticism regarding Israeli policy or their leadership, some self-appointed watchdog jumps down your throat. And once you use a term that's considered even slightly controversial, they start lecturing you by quoting this charter or that one, throwing links everywhere and waving papers that supposedly prove you wrong—which, let's be real, is mostly just pure propaganda. And if you don't back down, damn, people actually start threatening you with lawsuits.

I mean, seriously, what's the point? Just put up a disclaimer stating that Israelis and their leadership are a protected species and call it a day. Stop pretending to be all insightful and polite when you aren't.

Sorry, but you're just not doing your jobs properly, if you'll excuse my observation.🤷

If we're playing by your logic, you don't actually have the right to implicitly label RIOBOSS a slanderer—which is essentially accusing someone of a crime—since there isn't an active court case or a final conviction against RIOBOSS for libel.

Go ahead, find me a single post where I RIOBOSS call a slanderer.
And no, that’s not what happened, because my warning—much like any other here—was phrased generally and didn't target any specific forum member.

Jerry Rogers6

Let me just copy-paste the moderator's response from that thread about Ukraine for you:

The President of Ukraine is, first and foremost, a politician. No politician on this forum enjoys "untouchable" status—that certainly doesn't apply to any American politicians, so it would be inappropriate to grant it to any foreign leader either. What isn't allowed, and cannot be tolerated, are heavy insults using extremely vulgar language, nor is it permitted to imply any criminal liability (such as genocide, war crimes, etc.) as if they were established facts before a legal verdict has been reached.

Of course, I called it!

RIOBOSS finally got canned—permanent ban, too—all because of rowdytiger13's pure incompetence and fanatic Zionism. I laid it out clearly before: the guy is way too deep in that extremist movement because of family ties, so he’s obviously got a massive conflict of interest. Honestly, his whole admiration for Zionism is basically built on his connection to his sister-in-law. He even admitted that himself! Now, that wouldn't be such a huge deal if the guy actually knew anything about the situation down there, but he honestly doesn't have a clue! Come on people, just look at the facts!

And get this—if we aren't allowed to call a certain Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (that's his actual last name), a war criminal just because there hasn't been a legal conviction yet, then I am going to go ahead and INSIST that we can't slander Hamas by calling them a terrorist organization either. Only a handful of countries label them that way, and they do it strictly because of Zionist ties and pressure from the USA. Not to mention, there isn't a single legitimate ruling from any international court against Hamas! By the way, places like Norway or the United Kingdom don't even have them on any terrorist watchlists!

The fact that America keeps them on that list? I don't take it seriously at all, because that label isn't coming from an independent international judicial body—it's just following the lead of those global powers I mentioned earlier. Pretty much every single country that actually values its own sovereignty refuses to call them terrorists.

So, are we going to standardize these criteria or what???

And one more thing—not only is Benjamin Netanyahu a participant in war crimes right now, but he’s actually kicked off a literal genocide in the name of supremacism, just like what was attributed to Adolf Hitler. Calling it a war crime is almost an understatement; that's for beginners. What's happening here is way more criminal than anything you could even dream up!

rowdytiger13 said:Let me give you an example here...
After I gave my warning, user Mikoli wrote all that without being insulting, and obviously didn't get banned. Then, user Rioboss starts back at it, talking about me and how I moderate even though this thread exists. He was pointed toward the PDF meant for this exact purpose, and he already caught a strike for it.
Now everyone should just throw their hands up and let this topic spiral into insults—because honestly, it’s naive to think the other side will play fair once they see they can get away with it—and let the rules get broken.

You basically picked a side right out of the gate. Like I said, I never saw your "warning" where our first president gets insulted and labeled way worse than what Rioboss wrote. I didn't see that in the threads about Milan Bandić either, and while I don't follow the ones about Josipović or Milanović closely, I bet I'd find a warning there too, just like they do for the Israeli "boss"!! If you're really that confident in your arguments, then go ahead and justify their unquestionable crimes. Or tell me you think killing children is "justified" since dead adult civilians don't bother you... because calling a military commander a war criminal when they actually commit one is perfectly fine.

Regarding the suggestion that we shouldn't be allowed to label Hamas a terrorist organization either... I'm open to discussing that proposal with the policy moderators.

rowdytiger13 said:I can't find any posts from you yet. Give me a specific one to work on! RIOBOSS I’m calling him a liar.
Look, that's just not how it works. My warning was kept totally general—just like any other heads-up I'd give—and I didn't name a single person on this forum in it.

😁

Mine. Decision made. It stays because under US law, defamation is a criminal offense. That goes for everyone—even politicians. te Anyone can sue for defamation if they want to.

What decision? Decision about what, and about whom? Was it a decision on what you're having for lunch today? And why use "that" if you're speaking in general terms? Also, who even posted right before you? implicitLike I said, you basically just called him a liar.

I gave you a perfect example of where this kind of moderation policy can go wrong, but I guess you missed the point, didn't you?

You just opened Pandora's box.

In my view, moderators who are emotionally invested—or just plain biased—in a specific topic should step aside and recuse themselves from judging such matters. They shouldn't be the ones handing out punishments when they're clearly playing for one side.

Take this whole Netanyahu situation. We’re talking about a man leading a military and state machine that UN institutions have already flagged in their reports, backed by rock-solid evidence of war crimes. We aren't guessing here; the evidence is everywhere, plastered all over the internet and every major news outlet.

What is the point of stopping people from calling a duck a duck—you know, when it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck—just because some moderator takes offense and wants to push a different narrative?

What is happening in Gaza is a textbook, undeniable example of war crimes under international legal definitions. These aren't concepts someone just made up; neither are the responsibilities of the individual heading the system that systematically and intentionally carries them out.

If the entire world is using the term "war crimes" for this case—including official statements from UN humanitarian bodies and their councils, which are the ultimate authorities on human rights and war crimes globally—then why is there an attempt to censor people on this forum for using the same terminology in such an obvious case?

It feels like Israel has essentially opted out of the international legal order, relying solely on protection from the USA to avoid answering to international legal institutions for its continuous violations of international humanitarian law. Are we really supposed to sit around waiting for the global landscape to shift or for the US to lose its influence before we can call things by their real names?

There are countless instances where public figures have called such individuals war criminals without needing a courtroom verdict to justify the label. Look at a genuine peace activist who was instrumental in resolving the conflict in Northern Ireland and went on to win a Nobel Prize. She openly labeled Netanyahu a war criminal during a public speech in the United Kingdom, yet here we are, with someone trying to ban that exact sentiment on a forum.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102818

Furthermore, just about ten days ago, 64 prominent global figures—including seven Nobel laureates and several Israeli academics—signed a public statement calling for an arms embargo on Israel due to "war crimes and possible crimes against humanity."

Making these kinds of accusations isn't racism, nor is it any form of discrimination or hate speech. It is simply applying a qualification to the most responsible person within a system that is systematically and organizedly committing war crimes, according to the standards set by institutions across the globe.

rowdytiger13 said:Regarding the suggestion that we shouldn't be allowed to call Hamas a terrorist organization either... I'm down to chat about that proposal with the politics mods.

😁😁😁

Dude, just stop. PLEASE.

You know exactly where this rabbit hole leads.

I honestly don't have the energy to wade through these endless dissertations; I just wanted to show something to ruggedwolf, RIOBOSS, and the rest of you. Just a heads-up: you all got banned for calling the Israeli Prime Minister a war criminal, which seems to be something you're all just dying to do.

You post a link like this:

WE demand that International Criminal Court charges Benjamin Netanyahu & Israel for War Crimes against Humanity

and then you go ahead and fucking comment on the article!

And all of you—you're all acting so incredibly smart, yet none of you thought of that? Really? You could have easily bypassed the rules if that was actually your goal. But no, that's not even the point here; this is about the personal attack directed at the moderator rowdytiger13. It’s just so transparently and aggressively provoked.

Linda King said:Look, I don’t have the energy to wade through these endless dissertations. I just wanted to show folks like ruggedwolf, RIOBOSS, and the rest of you what's actually happening. Get this: you all get banned the second you try calling the Israeli Prime Minister a war criminal—which, let's be honest, is exactly what you're itching to do.

You drop a link like this:

We demand that International Criminal Court charges Benjamin Netanyahu & Israel for War Crimes against Humanity

...and then you go ahead and comment on the article!

And all of you "brilliant" minds didn't think of that? Really? You could have bypassed the rules in a heartbeat if you actually cared. But no, this isn't about the rules; it's about a blatant personal attack on the moderator, rowdytiger13. It's transparent and honestly, it feels staged.

There's no need to invent conspiracy theories here. It’s obvious: the moderator is policing based on personal opinions and worldviews, leaning into heavy-handed censorship that sets a dangerous precedent for this whole forum. If we aren't allowed to discuss the actual cause of the situation in a thread opened specifically because of problematic moderation, what are we supposed to talk about? Some niche local trivia or killer whales?

I got flagged the other day too, simply for mentioning that the USA is the world's biggest terrorist state in a sentence regarding how they were the only UN nation standing against a resolution for an impartial international investigation into war crimes in Gaza. I could spend days presenting facts, research, and hard evidence to argue why the USA poses a greater global threat than any other nation, yet you see people making those exact claims in the public square every single day. So, what exactly is being violated here, and who is actually hesitating?

This is nothing but pure authoritarianism and censorship, much like this nonsense with Netanyahu.

Scott Jones4 said:😁😁😁

Man, just stop it, I am begging you.

You know exactly where this rabbit hole leads.

Where to?
I think most people don't feel the need to lean on labels like fascist, Nazi, genocidal, or terrorist just to make a point.
I have no issue writing Hamas or mentioning Hamas members without tacking on "terrorist" every single time, and I'm perfectly willing to debate that with the other moderators.
Whether that actually flies or not isn't entirely up to me anyway.

gentlebison72 said:There’s really no need to spin conspiracy theories when it’s obvious the moderator is just policing based on their own personal views and worldview. They’re going overboard with this kind of censorship, which sets a pretty dangerous precedent for the forum. I mean, what else are we supposed to talk about if not the actual cause of this mess in a thread specifically opened to discuss problematic moderation? Are we supposed to chat about Marsovac or killer whales instead?

I got flagged the other day too, just for mentioning that the USA is the world's biggest terrorist state in a sentence regarding how they were the only nation in the UN to oppose a resolution for an impartial, comprehensive international investigation into war crimes in Gaza. I could spend days arguing with facts, research, and real-world examples why the USA stands as the greatest global terrorist threat compared to any other country, and you see those kinds of statements all over the news. So, what exactly is being violated here, and who is acting so hesitant?

It’s nothing but pure tyranny and censorship, much like this situation with Netanyahu.

Statements like that?
I was taught on a different PDF that there is a massive distinction between:
"In my opinion, homosexuality is a disease!"
OR
"Homosexuality is a disease!"
The first one used to be allowed, while the second wasn't.
Now, try mapping that logic onto your own claim.

Personally, aside from the obvious stuff—like heavy off-topic rambling, spam, or those nasty personal insults (for instance, what Gipper said to RIOBOSSs yesterday, which rightfully got him carded and banned)—my main priority is ensuring that neither people involved in this conflict get insulted here. In my view, those two nations should be treated like "protected species," rather than letting our own little feelings or egos take center stage just over a few moderation cards. Honestly, I haven't noticed any bias in how either moderator handles things. (Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware of rowdytiger13's stance; I specifically said "in the moderation").

@rowdytiger13/">@@rowdytiger13:

"Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan"

I wouldn't let that point about Hamas sway you too much, if I were you.