Im wondering if you can take a look at this and tell me if it was justified.
So... I made a really long post with feedback&suggestions for a videogame. I considered the dialogue to be too simple/mundane. Note that this post was 99% (I thought 100% but apparantly not) constructive. The thing I said at one point though - was (paraphrasing myself): "The dialogue in this game was so simple at times that I was wondering if the target group was mentally disabled children".
Now. The moderator that banned me gave the reasoning "insulting mentally disabled children" and I was like "WHAT?". I was going to use "retards" but that word only implies hostility, so I used mentally disabled children to lessen the strong negative effect and opted for mentally disabled children instead - I thought such an euphemism would get my point better across.
The thing Im insulting here if anything (I thought criticism was allowed, I also provided valid arguments beforehand) was the simplicity of the dialogue.
For example.
If I say "That old dinner smelled like an old hag" - then Im not insulting anyone (you cant insult an object (old dinner)). Im implying a generalization that old people smell, sure. But it is used as a metaphor to get another point across entirely.
If I say "That guy was stubborn as a rock" - then this implies that someone is unwilling/resistant to change his mind. It certainly isnt an insult towards a rock, also not really an insult towards the guy in question. It is an observation, again by using an analogy/metaphor.
When I use "Dialogue is so bad it is as if its aimed at mentally challenged children" as an argument, then Im using a metaphor to criticise the dialogue! Im not attacking or insulting mentally challenged kids in any way at all.
Fact: Mentally challenged children has problems with more complex/higher thinking. Everyone knows this.
If I call a red apple for a red apple, then Im not insulting the red apple!
If I call a greedy person for greedy, then Im yet again making a factual statement.
If I call a bully for a bully - then Im not insulting a bully - he IS a bully!
If I call a person without legs for physically disabled. Then Im not INSULTING THEM - Im stating a fact/observation.
So lets say that I use this as a metaphor: "Jeff ran so slow to the finnish line that I thought he didnt have legs" or "Jeff ran so slow to the finnish line that I thought he was physically disabled" then the target of this observation is Jeff, not people without legs. Im taking the attributes of the factual state of someone or something - and applying it to someone as a metaphor or analogy.
So. What exactly is the fault with my reasoning here if any? Im still puzzled why I got a one day ban. I wasnt insulting mentally challenged children in any way. Note that I had no malevolent intentions here at all, I simply used a fitting metaphor to best describe a situation (atleast in my eyes).
Not sure if I hit something taboo or burnt myself on some language error (since english isnt my mother tongue) but logically this ban made no sense to me.
Can someone please tell me what Im missing? I really need an outside opinion on this. I really have zero idea if I deserved that ban or not.
Edit: Cant say this enough but I dont see how comparing someone or something to another in a metaphor - can be considered an insult based on the FACTUAL state of what it is compared too. Again, if I call blue water for blue water for example, then the fact that water is blue is a 100% correct attribute to blue water.