complain?
she attacks you like a rabid dog.
good god man
grow some frikkin balls
apart from the occasional hiccup, we are doing fine and it is in no small part due to your efforts and the rest of your goon squad
The most absurd moderation in Sci history
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
complain?
she attacks you like a rabid dog.
good god man
grow some frikkin balls
apart from the occasional hiccup, we are doing fine and it is in no small part due to your efforts and the rest of your goon squad
My favourite bit is where I welcomed Norsefire back, not realising he had already been rebanned.
WillNever:
Norsefire has been here long enough to know what does and does not constitute hate speech and antisemitism.
He has received both warnings and temporary bans on previous occasions. I make no apology for banning him without warning follow yet another offence.
This is standard procedure, by the way. How it works, WillNever, is that for a first offence, a member is given a warning and explanation in case their violation of the rules was accidental or they didn't know what the rules are. Further offences attract temporary bans which are explained but are not necessarily preceded by further warnings.
Norsefire has been here long enough to know what does and does not constitute hate speech and antisemitism.
He has received both warnings and temporary bans on previous occasions. I make no apology for banning him without warning follow yet another offence.
This is standard procedure, by the way. How it works, WillNever, is that for a first offence, a member is given a warning and explanation in case their violation of the rules was accidental or they didn't know what the rules are. Further offences attract temporary bans which are explained but are not necessarily preceded by further warnings.
Which one qualifies for hate speech? The religion or the political movement?
Is there a reason that Judaism should not be subject to the same abuse that Christianity or Islam or even atheism is on this board?
Is there a reason that Zionism should not be subject to the same abuse as any other ethnocentric/racist nationalist movement?
Norsefire said:
And Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks, and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars.
If this was said about WASPs for example, would it still be hate speech? If a member said, theists are delusional and evil, is that hate speech?
Is it still on to hold Christians responsible for the Dark Ages?
Can Muslims still be held responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
Is this all hate speech? Will you ask for evidence or just ban outright?
Lucysnow said:
Of course it could. But some people will not provide the evidence when their assertions are challenged and will back off without responding and since they are in a position of power they are exempt from the rules of "evidence" which get other people banned.
Others are not given the opportunity to provide evidence, they are simply banned without any refutation being given why their assertions are wrong/bigoted/"anti-semitic".
This is not a science site.
Gustav said:
Uh Gustav, you realise this includes opinions like the ones Lucy is expressing?
Last edited:
If you say "Judaism is nonsense" that is not hate speech. If you say "Jews are pigs" then that is hate speech. If you say "Zionists are pigs" that is also hate speech. If you say "Zionism is a harmful political movement" that is probably not hate speech, in most instances. If you say "Judaism is a harmful religion", that is probably not hate speech either. In either case, though, it would be good for you to back up your claims with appropriate evidence, because it may amount to trolling even if it's not hate speech.
You're making an incorrect assumption there. Try again.
Abuse and criticism are different. You might want to think about that.
SAM said:
Let's try it: "White Anglo-Saxon protestants sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars."
Well, SAM, it sounds like it might very well qualify as hate speech or, failing that, trolling.
I'd be more likely to chalk that one up either as trolling by stereotyping, or as a personal insult, depending on context.
That would be silly, because as you know the Dark Ages are mostly "dark" because of our lack of knowledge of them, not because everybody was miserable or backwards or whatever.
Muslims in general? That too would be stupid.
What did you not understand about my explanation to WillNever, above?
Er... yes it is. Check it out!
Why are the jews so special that they have their own word for "racism"? I never got that...
So what is it? Is it hate speech or trolling? Would the person be banned immediately or not, if the post was reported? Note that I have merely substituted Jews with WASPs.
Is this antisemitism?
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
So if I report a post where a member has said Christians are responsible for the Dark Ages, would that member be banned for hate speech?
So I reported a post where a member has said Muslims are responsible for 9/11 would that member be banned for hate speech?
Sorry, when the moderators do not back up a claim with evidence or ban an opinion without refuting it with evidence which clearly disproves it, that is is not science. Not in any place on earth. At sciforums there is zero regard for the scientific method.
Last edited:
sorry dearie
i will not tolerate anyone yelling fire inside sci when it is clearly not burning
oh
pardon
getting back on topic..
screw that pretentious little punk, norsefire
they aren't. the other specific words are just never used.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
do moderator conversations constitute the whole of sci? do you have a regard for the sci method? do i? who does? no one?
quantify your heinous accusation
must i remind you that this is a place of logic and reason?
what is that, sam? does it pass muster?
Notes for the hell of it
Brief Notes:
Examining the link provided in the topic post, one note I would make is that reiterating tired conspiracy theories (e.g., "And Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks, and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars") is the sort of behavior that is going to attract moderator attention. With nothing factual to back up the assertion, it seems like just another anti-Semitic slam.
To the other, the (presumably) feigned ignorance of the consideration about taxes ("I thought taxes were a 'part of civilized society'? Those Jews better pay up or not use the roads right?") mixes issues disingenuously. The issue of taxation is its own. The issue of taxes levied against a people for their religious faith is another issue entirely. Pretending otherwise is the sort of thing that will, indeed, attract moderator attention.
Thus, what the topic post suggests "was simply a criticism of history" will often be viewed as an unsupported accusation against an entire people, and in this case one that has been flogged to death over the years.
And yet, the extended discussion is no more satisfying. James suggests that S.A.M.'s question, "Is there a reason that Judaism should not be subject to the same abuse that Christianity or Islam or even atheism is on this board?" is based on an incorrect assumption is not so definitively established as the dismissal requires. The history of discussion about Islam at Sciforums, especially since 9/11, is a hostile one. Atheistic abuse of Christianity is subject to some official restraint, but theistic complaints about atheism are much more widely regarded as trolling. This is, perhaps, an unconscious result of inherent sympathies, but in the end, we are much more sensitive about criticism against Judaism.
It is not that I protest the standard by which Norsefire was suspended; rather, I question whether we are consistent with that standard across the board. My outlook at present is that we are not.
This is hardly an irreconcilable conundrum. But I do think simple dismissals of the question as incorrect assumptions don't make a whole lot of sense.
Lastly, I would note the dispute between a couple members and Bells. To the one, members who are so frequently hostile, who justify themselves with distortions of fact, should not be surprised if moderators show less patience with them. No incident here occurs in a complete vacuum. Moderators frequently face a choice about which they might as well throw a die. Do we respond to ill-expressed complaints? Do we do the thinking for the complaining member, filling in the blanks about their argument accordingly? Do we cajole, plead with, or otherwise encourage them toward more complete expression of the problem they perceive? At what point, and after how many rounds, do we simply withdraw from pointless banter and exercise our authority?
Indeed, as Bells noted, all moderators have their detractors. Do we criticize our scientific subfora moderators for not entertaining the latest iteration of tired pseudoscience? Do a number of complaints from pseudoscientific trolls bode poorly for those moderators? Does the fact that I was once the object of a deliberately misleading rebellion by one of our former colleagues, or an entire complaint thread by known political opponents who fail to document any evidence supporting their complaint, bode poorly for me? Does the fact that I think one of my colleagues contributes to the decline of discussion quality around here really hold any significance toward his status? No. That someone doesn't like Trippy or DH's removal of a thread to the Cesspool, or the Pseudoscience subforum doesn't slip by unattended, but after a while, the same dog-eared whining without much in the way of substantial support just doesn't move us. That someone doesn't like my refusal of a member's hate speech, to the one, and lies about their record, to the other, isn't going to have any real impact unless that refusal is shown to be somehow unreasonable. That some disdain Bells for an action she has taken? Well, what's funny is that I was once accused of goading members after issuing an ultimatum to a known racist to support his accusation against an entire nationality or else face moderator action. And at some point, we tried giving over to these complaints, which had the result of further denigrating the so-called Intelligent Community, and lowering the quality of discussion. Hell, among our concessions to those complaints ("How dare you give a member a chance to support his argument instead of simply suspending him for blatant racism!") are a number of maneuvers that lead to the present state of things.
The point being, after a while, we weary of entertaining the petty and unsupported. Those who accuse bias might have a point, albeit not the one they were hoping for: Yes, we are hostile to belligerent nonsense.
And that's simply the way it goes.
If you don't like it, make it clear to us why we should care.
I mean, really, maybe people do want some sort of idiotic community in which every discussion is a race to the bottom, that we might wallow in superstition, hatred, and hyperbole in order to avoid the annoyingly laborious process of having anything intelligent to say.
Is that what people want? A place to go and make a moron of yourself for the simple satisfaction of behaving like an ignorant brute? Because that's what many of these complaints would lead to.
In other words—
—some folks need to stop wasting our time. One might choose to argue against Bells' assessment, that sarcasm was called for, but who among the complainants will lay out the standard of how many hands we should tie behind our backs in order to make it a fair argument for who, and according to what needs? Does Will need Bells to deal with him one-handed? Or maybe with both hands tied behind her back, and duct tape over her mouth?
Come now, if it's that important, we ought to devise some handicap tables. You know, like golf.
Maybe Bells should limit herself to saying nothing when people complain. Maybe I should switch from smoking pot to overdosing on cocaine. Maybe our science subfora staff should lobotomize themselves through the eye. Maybe String should bury his face between a woman's thighs while responding to complaints?
Smell the glove, String. Smell the fucking glove!
Or maybe we should all be replaced by robots who can be programmed to accept each person's idea of fairness. That way, Norse can make unsubstantiated accusations about Jews without worry. Will can abuse whoever he feels deserves it at any given hour without concern. Lucy can receive praise for her rants. And anytime someone complains about a robot-moderator, it can respond, "I am so, so sorry for my egregious violation of your brilliant intelligence, right to basic dignity, and failure to understand that you are correct in all things."
And then everyone could go about their virtual lives in the comfortable belief that they are never, ever wrong.
Brief Notes:
Examining the link provided in the topic post, one note I would make is that reiterating tired conspiracy theories (e.g., "And Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks, and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars") is the sort of behavior that is going to attract moderator attention. With nothing factual to back up the assertion, it seems like just another anti-Semitic slam.
To the other, the (presumably) feigned ignorance of the consideration about taxes ("I thought taxes were a 'part of civilized society'? Those Jews better pay up or not use the roads right?") mixes issues disingenuously. The issue of taxation is its own. The issue of taxes levied against a people for their religious faith is another issue entirely. Pretending otherwise is the sort of thing that will, indeed, attract moderator attention.
Thus, what the topic post suggests "was simply a criticism of history" will often be viewed as an unsupported accusation against an entire people, and in this case one that has been flogged to death over the years.
And yet, the extended discussion is no more satisfying. James suggests that S.A.M.'s question, "Is there a reason that Judaism should not be subject to the same abuse that Christianity or Islam or even atheism is on this board?" is based on an incorrect assumption is not so definitively established as the dismissal requires. The history of discussion about Islam at Sciforums, especially since 9/11, is a hostile one. Atheistic abuse of Christianity is subject to some official restraint, but theistic complaints about atheism are much more widely regarded as trolling. This is, perhaps, an unconscious result of inherent sympathies, but in the end, we are much more sensitive about criticism against Judaism.
It is not that I protest the standard by which Norsefire was suspended; rather, I question whether we are consistent with that standard across the board. My outlook at present is that we are not.
This is hardly an irreconcilable conundrum. But I do think simple dismissals of the question as incorrect assumptions don't make a whole lot of sense.
Lastly, I would note the dispute between a couple members and Bells. To the one, members who are so frequently hostile, who justify themselves with distortions of fact, should not be surprised if moderators show less patience with them. No incident here occurs in a complete vacuum. Moderators frequently face a choice about which they might as well throw a die. Do we respond to ill-expressed complaints? Do we do the thinking for the complaining member, filling in the blanks about their argument accordingly? Do we cajole, plead with, or otherwise encourage them toward more complete expression of the problem they perceive? At what point, and after how many rounds, do we simply withdraw from pointless banter and exercise our authority?
Indeed, as Bells noted, all moderators have their detractors. Do we criticize our scientific subfora moderators for not entertaining the latest iteration of tired pseudoscience? Do a number of complaints from pseudoscientific trolls bode poorly for those moderators? Does the fact that I was once the object of a deliberately misleading rebellion by one of our former colleagues, or an entire complaint thread by known political opponents who fail to document any evidence supporting their complaint, bode poorly for me? Does the fact that I think one of my colleagues contributes to the decline of discussion quality around here really hold any significance toward his status? No. That someone doesn't like Trippy or DH's removal of a thread to the Cesspool, or the Pseudoscience subforum doesn't slip by unattended, but after a while, the same dog-eared whining without much in the way of substantial support just doesn't move us. That someone doesn't like my refusal of a member's hate speech, to the one, and lies about their record, to the other, isn't going to have any real impact unless that refusal is shown to be somehow unreasonable. That some disdain Bells for an action she has taken? Well, what's funny is that I was once accused of goading members after issuing an ultimatum to a known racist to support his accusation against an entire nationality or else face moderator action. And at some point, we tried giving over to these complaints, which had the result of further denigrating the so-called Intelligent Community, and lowering the quality of discussion. Hell, among our concessions to those complaints ("How dare you give a member a chance to support his argument instead of simply suspending him for blatant racism!") are a number of maneuvers that lead to the present state of things.
The point being, after a while, we weary of entertaining the petty and unsupported. Those who accuse bias might have a point, albeit not the one they were hoping for: Yes, we are hostile to belligerent nonsense.
And that's simply the way it goes.
If you don't like it, make it clear to us why we should care.
I mean, really, maybe people do want some sort of idiotic community in which every discussion is a race to the bottom, that we might wallow in superstition, hatred, and hyperbole in order to avoid the annoyingly laborious process of having anything intelligent to say.
Is that what people want? A place to go and make a moron of yourself for the simple satisfaction of behaving like an ignorant brute? Because that's what many of these complaints would lead to.
In other words—
WillNever said:
You use sarcasm excessively more than most people here. It's a very obvious coping mechanism.
—some folks need to stop wasting our time. One might choose to argue against Bells' assessment, that sarcasm was called for, but who among the complainants will lay out the standard of how many hands we should tie behind our backs in order to make it a fair argument for who, and according to what needs? Does Will need Bells to deal with him one-handed? Or maybe with both hands tied behind her back, and duct tape over her mouth?
Come now, if it's that important, we ought to devise some handicap tables. You know, like golf.
Maybe Bells should limit herself to saying nothing when people complain. Maybe I should switch from smoking pot to overdosing on cocaine. Maybe our science subfora staff should lobotomize themselves through the eye. Maybe String should bury his face between a woman's thighs while responding to complaints?
Smell the glove, String. Smell the fucking glove!
Or maybe we should all be replaced by robots who can be programmed to accept each person's idea of fairness. That way, Norse can make unsubstantiated accusations about Jews without worry. Will can abuse whoever he feels deserves it at any given hour without concern. Lucy can receive praise for her rants. And anytime someone complains about a robot-moderator, it can respond, "I am so, so sorry for my egregious violation of your brilliant intelligence, right to basic dignity, and failure to understand that you are correct in all things."
And then everyone could go about their virtual lives in the comfortable belief that they are never, ever wrong.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Are you ever wrong? You are just as sanctimonious in your rants as 'lucy' and 'will' or whomever. So I ask you. Are you ever wrong? Not to mention long winded.
I do agree with this assessment:
"It is not that I protest the standard by which Norsefire was suspended; rather, I question whether we are consistent with that standard across the board. My outlook at present is that we are not."
Last edited:
S.A.M.:
Context would be important, SAM. As for whether a person would be warned or banned for such a statement, I already covered that in my previous post. It would depend on whether they had been warned previously, for example.
Warnings/bans for trolling are rarely, if ever, based on isolated statements or single posts. When a person is banned for trolling, it often follows a series of posts by them seeking to elicit an angry reaction from other members.
In the first instance, there is generally some moderator goodwill towards members. Repeat offenders can be treated in a more perfunctory manner because it is assumed they have enough experience on the forum and direct moderator instruction to know what is expected.
I can't see anything antisemitic in that. Do you think it's antisemitic?
If I was going to act on that statement at all it would most likely be for trolling rather than hate speech.
However, even trolling probably wouldn't cut it if it was an isolated statement. But context is important. A series of posts making the claim repeatedly without support may well amount to trolling.
I might also be more likely to act if the post or series of posts was reported by offended members.
Possibly. Context would be important. Trolling seems a more likely reason for such a ban.
This one is certainly further along the scale than the statement about Christians and the Dark Ages.
Well, thanks for your feedback, SAM.
SAM said:
Context would be important, SAM. As for whether a person would be warned or banned for such a statement, I already covered that in my previous post. It would depend on whether they had been warned previously, for example.
Warnings/bans for trolling are rarely, if ever, based on isolated statements or single posts. When a person is banned for trolling, it often follows a series of posts by them seeking to elicit an angry reaction from other members.
In the first instance, there is generally some moderator goodwill towards members. Repeat offenders can be treated in a more perfunctory manner because it is assumed they have enough experience on the forum and direct moderator instruction to know what is expected.
SAM said:
I can't see anything antisemitic in that. Do you think it's antisemitic?
If I was going to act on that statement at all it would most likely be for trolling rather than hate speech.
However, even trolling probably wouldn't cut it if it was an isolated statement. But context is important. A series of posts making the claim repeatedly without support may well amount to trolling.
I might also be more likely to act if the post or series of posts was reported by offended members.
Possibly. Context would be important. Trolling seems a more likely reason for such a ban.
This one is certainly further along the scale than the statement about Christians and the Dark Ages.
Well, thanks for your feedback, SAM.
Last edited:
Frequently
Oh, frequently, m'lady. For instance, I once spent a couple years harping on a federal judge before I realized that I was reading the word "issue" wrongly. The frustrating thing is that the brief I complained about was still dishonest shit, even without the implications I had built up according to that error. To the one, that was embarrassing; to the other, nobody really noticed. Funny how that works, eh?
Lucysnow said:
Oh, frequently, m'lady. For instance, I once spent a couple years harping on a federal judge before I realized that I was reading the word "issue" wrongly. The frustrating thing is that the brief I complained about was still dishonest shit, even without the implications I had built up according to that error. To the one, that was embarrassing; to the other, nobody really noticed. Funny how that works, eh?
What if they were never reported and hence never warned or banned?
Is it still hate speech?
Also how does hate speech depend on previous warnings or bans?
How do you decide it is hate speech? Does a person have to say several times
"Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil.
Theists are delusional and evil."
before you decide its hate speech?
Do you warn and ban those who make such comments if they are reported?
What if you simply come across them while reading the thread? Is it something you would act on?
Or does it have to be
"Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil.
Jews are delusional and evil. "
before you feel its hate speech?
"White Anglo-Saxon protestants sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars."
"Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars."
What makes one more hateful than the other? Are they equally hate speech?
No, but I would bet even money if you read Churchills diatribe on the International Jew and how he sabotages Europe and Russia, you would probably think so.
lets see, is this antisemitic?
Churchill said:
So repeated occurences in and of themselves do not make bigoted statements against a religious group "hate speech"
Then what does?
e.g. is this hate speech?
Form the link:
"A person convicted of homosexuality in Iran can be lashed, hanged or stoned to death. The law includes a variety of penalties for different acts: 99 lashes if two unrelated males sleep "unnecessarily" under the same blanket – even without any sexual contact. A boy raped by an adult man would also be lashed if the court decided that he had "enjoyed" the experience."
It really is amazing that religious psychoses runs so deep within the indoctrinated believer as to make them this insecure about the world around them.
Religion is good, folks. Don't take my word for it, ask any believer.
His religion? Perish the thought. Too many have already been executed for his religion.
Think of it this way, Sam, this is a perfect opportunity for the Muslims and Christians to show the world they have some common ground, that they can agree and walk hand in hand promoting their hatred towards homosexuality.
The only problem is that they might still not agree on whether they should bury him up to his neck and throw stones or burn him at the stake.
Either way, it's a win-win scenario for both religions to show that they can get together on social issues. LOL!
Playing "Taps" might get you in trouble though or anything for that matter. <deleted smiley>
What is the purpose of this thread if not to spew hatred against Iranians?
Note that in that thread the post which received a warning from the moderator is this one:
Sam said:
Apparently addressing the topic itself rather than dissing people for their culture and religion, is off topic posting in sciforums.
Still claim this is a science site? :roflmao:
Last edited:
SAM:
It doesn't. I said it can depend on context - of the post and the thread. The length of a temporary ban, and whether a warning or a ban is given, are the things that depend on previous warnings and bans.
I'd probably be more likely in the first instance to give that one a warning for inappropriate language, which I think is the closest infraction category we have for unsupported stereotyping that is not racist.
Yes.
Possibly. I would look at the surrounding comments. If there was an "opposing side" in the debate that was making similar comments, I might let the discussion take its course without intervention. I generally try to tread reasonably lightly and to be fair.
I'd treat that one the same way. It's unsupported stereotyping.
Ok, here's the difference for me, SAM. You'll probably disagree.
I note that the Jews were a minority particularly singled out and persecuted in World War II. They were subjected to the Nazi genocide that deliberately and systematically set out to kill them, and in fact wiped out several million of them. The above comment (Norsefire's comment) is thus a case of blaming the victims of the Holocaust for their own suffering and persecution. And importantly, the accusation is both unsupported and incorrect as a matter of historical fact.
That's what makes one comment more hateful than the other.
If Churchill had written that on this forum today, he might very well have been warned or banned for hate speech. But things have happened since Churchill wrote that way back when. Churchill was in his era with his history and his society and his knowledge; we are here in the 21st century. We've had the Holocaust. We've had civil rights battles. We have a notion of human rights that did not exist when Churchill wrote those words.
I'm not sure why you think it matters who makes hateful and prejudiced statements. It doesn't change things that it was Churchill that wrote that rather than Norsefire.
Not if they weren't hate speech in the first place. Of course not. Repeated occurrences may amount to trolling, though.
For the first comment, I probably would have given a warning for unfair stereotyping or racism.
The second comment is not hate speech. Moreover, it is easily dismantled because it suggests that religious people are psychotic - a patent absurdity.
From memory, I actually handed out a warning or ban for the third comment, most likely for posting violent material - in particular inciting violence against a nation and its people.
I don't know. You didn't link the thread.
You only see your own warnings, not those given to other people.
Sure do. It's not just that, of course. Please compare to other forums on the net.
It doesn't. I said it can depend on context - of the post and the thread. The length of a temporary ban, and whether a warning or a ban is given, are the things that depend on previous warnings and bans.
I'd probably be more likely in the first instance to give that one a warning for inappropriate language, which I think is the closest infraction category we have for unsupported stereotyping that is not racist.
Yes.
Possibly. I would look at the surrounding comments. If there was an "opposing side" in the debate that was making similar comments, I might let the discussion take its course without intervention. I generally try to tread reasonably lightly and to be fair.
I'd treat that one the same way. It's unsupported stereotyping.
Ok, here's the difference for me, SAM. You'll probably disagree.
I note that the Jews were a minority particularly singled out and persecuted in World War II. They were subjected to the Nazi genocide that deliberately and systematically set out to kill them, and in fact wiped out several million of them. The above comment (Norsefire's comment) is thus a case of blaming the victims of the Holocaust for their own suffering and persecution. And importantly, the accusation is both unsupported and incorrect as a matter of historical fact.
That's what makes one comment more hateful than the other.
If Churchill had written that on this forum today, he might very well have been warned or banned for hate speech. But things have happened since Churchill wrote that way back when. Churchill was in his era with his history and his society and his knowledge; we are here in the 21st century. We've had the Holocaust. We've had civil rights battles. We have a notion of human rights that did not exist when Churchill wrote those words.
I'm not sure why you think it matters who makes hateful and prejudiced statements. It doesn't change things that it was Churchill that wrote that rather than Norsefire.
Not if they weren't hate speech in the first place. Of course not. Repeated occurrences may amount to trolling, though.
For the first comment, I probably would have given a warning for unfair stereotyping or racism.
The second comment is not hate speech. Moreover, it is easily dismantled because it suggests that religious people are psychotic - a patent absurdity.
From memory, I actually handed out a warning or ban for the third comment, most likely for posting violent material - in particular inciting violence against a nation and its people.
I don't know. You didn't link the thread.
You only see your own warnings, not those given to other people.
Sure do. It's not just that, of course. Please compare to other forums on the net.