The Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which centered its campaign on anti-immigrant rhetoric, is projected to win 29 percent of the vote, up from 25.6 percent four years ago and higher than pre-election polls. It has been the country’s largest party since 2003.
How was the comment he replied to painting all Muslims as bent on destroying society any better? Is it better because it’s against an entire religion of people?
The comment that was removed was abusive to another user, not simply expressing an unpopular opinion.
So racist screeds are okay if you’re not referring to a specific user?
Or advocating violence or genocide. People are allowed to be wrong, downvote them, block them, call them out on their bullshit, all that is fine, just don’t be vicious about it.
In this case, as unpopular as the OG post was, nobody reported it either. The personal attack WAS reported and dealt with.
So, it’s civil as long as it’s hate speech against a group?
People are free to express opinions on the topic at hand, that’s what the up and down votes are for.
Heaping abuse on other users is not allowed. Attempting to abuse a mod results in a ban.
That’s weird, is the topic at hand “all Muslims are antisemites,” or did a user add that as a topic?
The OG comment, while offensive, doesn’t rise to the level of removable. The downvotes are doing their job.
The comments removed were personal attacks on another user which is 100% not allowed. Further, the banned user at the same time was making multiple attacks in other communities. Nothing of value was lost here.
You have a right here to not be attacked, you don’t have a right to not be offended. :)