Why aren't offensive posts being deleted?

I’m honestly wondering why this comment hasn't been nuked yet. What is going on here?

"Calling the Divine by human names, is just a reflection of human ignorance and arrogance.
It’s as deadly to people as typhus or the plague, maybe even more dangerous and tragic."

I found this exact comment at this link, posted about two weeks ago back on May 4th, 2018:

How is this even allowed to stay up? I reported it a few days after it went live, but apparently, nobody cares enough to hit delete. If you actually look at this compared to all the other posts that get scrubbed immediately, this one is a direct insult to people. It calls anyone who believes in the incarnation arrogant and ignorant just because of their faith—which, frankly, offends me and plenty of others who feel the same way. Then it goes and compares our worldview to typhus and the plague. Those are straight-up insults directed at people based on their freedom of thought and belief. Honestly, it borders on hate speech.

So, what are we waiting for? Just delete it already.

0 points. God, I just hate the administration.

This isn't hate speech by any stretch. It wasn't even directed at anyone specifically, whether as an individual or a group. My point is simply that attributing divine qualities to humans is a mistake. He didn't target anyone; he was making a general observation. If he had claimed that Catholicism was as destructive as typhus or the plague, that would be a different story. But he didn't.

If someone feels personally attacked when nothing was actually aimed at them, I suppose there isn't much I can say about that. After all, Jesus Christ isn't the only figure to whom divine attributes are ascribed... we still see examples today where various divine qualities or characteristics—call them whatever you like—are attributed to people, such as Sai Baba, certain healers, or spiritual gurus, and so on.

We are adults here, and the post remains.
That is my take on the matter.

Grace Kim80 said:This isn't hate speech. It's really not. I mean, it isn't even directed at anyone, whether you look at it on an individual level or as a group. It just isn't.

You can try to pretend this isn't happening as a group effort. I mean, you really can. But let’s be honest—nobody ever addresses an individual by saying, "Hey, group," or "Hey, religious sect," or anything like that. You just see it for what it is. It's obvious. But I guess that's just how you all choose to frame it.
We'll just have to see what everyone else thinks about this. I wonder if they'll flag it as hate speech on the forum.

Grace Kim80 said:So, he actually went ahead and said that Catholicism is ruinous. I mean, wow. Just straight up said it. He claims it’s destructive. I guess he really thinks he's making a point there, maybe. It’s such a blunt, heavy accusation to throw out like that without any real nuance. Honestly, it’s just aggressive. It would be something else entirely if we were talking about typhus or the plague. But we aren't. No, we really aren't.

He was posting on that thread titled "Is Jesus God?"Is math actually such a demanding science? It’s an interesting thought. I mean, you really have to read the actual title of the topic first. But obviously, people around here just make stuff up as they go.

Grace Kim80 said:Even today, we see these instances where people start attributing various divine attributes—call them characteristics, adjectives, or whatever you want to call them—to mere mortals. You look at figures like Sai Baba, those self-proclaimed healers, or all those spiritual gurus out there, and it's the same thing. It happens constantly, I guess. People just assign these godly traits to anyone with a following.

Oh, so that’s the excuse now? That apparently gives anyone a free pass to be insulting. I guess that’s one way to justify it. A real nice little explanation, really. Just lovely.

Grace Kim80 said:We argued about it, fine. The post stays right where it is.
That’s my two cents, anyway. I guess.

Great. At least now I know exactly what kind of discourse we’re supposed to be cultivating if we want to have some "constructive" dialogue.

What exactly are you talking about?

Who insulted whom?
The man simply stated that introducing the IDEA of attributing divine qualities to any human being is as ruinous as a plague. That the mere IDEA/THOUGHT itself is catastrophic.

Who, precisely, is being insulted here? And where exactly is the hate speech? Do you even have a grasp on what constitutes hate speech?

So, I suppose it isn't hate speech when you start threads attacking Islam? That is perfectly acceptable to you, I guess.
And interestingly enough, one can't even suggest that giving divine attributes to humans might be wrong. Yet, you feel entitled to open a thread claiming the Quran is not divine revelation, and then you have the nerve to argue with me just because—heaven forbid—I changed two words in the title. It seems you find it problematic if the title asks, "Is the Quran divine revelation?" instead of insisting on "The Quran is not divine revelation." Essentially, you feel authorized to speak on behalf of someone else's faith and declare their holy book is NOT divine, while someone else isn't allowed to say that attributing divine traits to a person is ruinous. You didn't even start a thread about that. What if someone had started a thread titled "30 reasons why Catholicism is not divine revelation"? You seem to be intentionally nitpicking posts just to find something to complain about, all while completely ignoring your own behavior.

Look, you take offense if someone says it's ruinous to give divine attributes to a human, but it DOESN'T OFFEND YOU TO OPEN A THREAD CLAIMING SOMEONE ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BOOK IS NOT DIVINE REVELATION. If your post was truly so offensive that it was impossible to look at—which is how you treated your own thread—what should we have done, set it on fire with napalm?!

Give me a break.
Please, don't push me. Because what I am about to say is something you won't like, and you'll likely just end up playing the victim again.

I can’t say I agree with this approach either. Starting a thread titled "Is the Quran a divine revelation?"—while suggesting we should stop disparaging the religious sentiments of others—seems somewhat contradictory. One really has to look at the track record of @Kudum (alias Shady), who seems to jump from one Christian topic to another acting like a missionary; he provokes, mocks—for instance, refusing to write "Bible" instead of "Bibles," or twisting names like Paul - Saul—and he tends to generalize and belittle all Christians by saying things like "Typical Christian behavior." He even goes as far as subtly expressing intolerance toward Jews, saying things like, "He lost his head because of his faith, and you're calling him a Jew?!"

To make a long story short... since @Kudum is a former moderator, he is quite skilled at knowing exactly how far he can push the boundaries, and he uses that skill quite extensively to act like a missionary, to instigate, to provoke, and to position himself as if he is above the rest of us...
I suppose such behavior isn't right coming from anyone, really. I think everyone should adhere to the idea that if there is something to be asked—say, within a discussion regarding Islam, Christianity, or the Jehovite—once an answer is provided, one should refrain from engaging in further arguments or trying to prove others wrong.

To be perfectly honest, I am not the type of person who enjoys publicly dissecting someone else's work or dragging them through the mud with third parties; if I have an issue with someone, I prefer to address it privately and settle it directly between us. That being said, I suppose there are very few people in this country whose communication is truly beyond reproach, and I could probably list a series of flaws for almost anyone if I tried. We all make mistakes, and nobody is perfect.

It seems quite evident that there are deep-seated grievances and unresolved tensions lingering here. I suspect it would be most beneficial if everyone who was active on these forums about ten years ago were to convene in a private group chat, lay all their cards on the table once and for all, and finally clear the air so we can move forward. Old grudges are constantly being resurrected, which suggests they were never actually resolved to begin with.

A great deal of progress is still required, though things are certainly better than they used to be. Perhaps one day they will reach a higher standard. I believe people need to learn how to think beyond the confines of their own personal biases, but I realize that is a difficult process.