ABC2019 wrote:... If I say "are you better, have you vomited?" , I'm taking a warning, so now I'm reporting ...
I have seen worse. I had a remark on one of my posts because I had written something trivial like: "Philosophy is not your thing. You your thing is smileys".
In addition I think that everyone will have guessed who it is, like what it is indeed an observation.
Moderators have their heads. The same with smileys can call you an idiot, but for him it will pass, because it takes people on a forum. So a gugus insulting the skeptics, if next he is in the party line and makes a lot of presence, he is spared because of his touting side, good for business and the simple talk that everyone understands and that can touch the large troops to evangelize.
More subtle ideas concern far fewer people. If in addition they criticize some of the ecological dogmas, you are in the crosshairs. The least of your words could earn you remarks, unlike the outrageous words of sycophants of the ecological doctrine. The idea of fair treatment based on intellectual honesty does not exist on activist sites. I even think that the unfair treatment of those who contradict their beliefs brings unhealthy enjoyment to their authors. Of course we are not firing you (yet), but the pressure is put to either self-censor yourself, or you respond with the same vehemence to the attack of which you were the victim, and this is where they are waiting to fire you. This is the whole flaw of the thing. It is about the arbitrary exploitation of the least power put at the service of its cause considered über alles, impartiality thus counts for butter.