Posts by Michelle Wells3

slycrane94 said:Give me a break. Of course he’s allowed to believe women belong in the kitchen or that Saudi Arabia is right to ban them from driving.

The law exists to protect women from things like being denied a job just because they're female, not to force everyone to hold polite opinions or kiss their asses.

If he were calling for violence against women or telling employers to fire them, then we'd have a case. But he wasn't saying that, so the law has no business stepping in here. A person has a right to their opinion and to express it, no matter how much it gets under your skin. I'm sure there are plenty of people whose opinions get under yours, yet here you are, still posting on Reddit.

Well, he wasn't actually banned for that, but the post itself technically qualifies for a warning based on the subforum rules. Any kind of negative generalization in Politics has always been against the rules and has always been penalized. The moderators can stomach it, but most people can't, so they need to be protected from it. Otherwise, things just spiral—threads turn into endless nonsense and insults until they become unreadable. On the other hand, this user wasn't banned for this specific thing, but rather for his track record, which included trying to "clarify" misconceptions about National Socialism, denying the Holocaust, praising apartheid, and straight-up insulting anyone who tried to engage him in conversation.

Sure, it would be great if there was a dedicated space for topics where people want to argue that women are stupider, gay people are "sick," or Black people aren't white enough—whatever crazy thought pops into their heads.

And there is. Those are the science subforums. If he wants to prove those points to the world, he should go do it there and then come back to Politics to use those arguments.

Sean Cook2 was just asking for a warning, and technically she's right, so she isn't some grand inquisitor like you guys are making her out to be now, even if her reasoning was a bit over the top. The real issue is that the guy is already on a timeout, and I agree with Daniel Ward87 that this is an exaggeration since the site made its stance clear by banning him. And honestly, we shouldn't fall into this trend of using laws to harass forum users. Look, here's another one who thinks the site is violating the Constitution.

It's like reading some trashy tabloid.

Sean Cook2 said:A public official has been called out, yet his post—one among many that deserved it—remains untouched. The post directly beneath his, however, was swiftly slapped with a red card long ago. I can't quite wrap my head around the criteria being used here—some sort of fan club mentality, perhaps...🤷

Look, speaking as a former moderator, I can tell you firsthand that this "public official" type pops up in a different guise on Reddit every single time. It takes a little while to spot them, but once you do, you have to give credit where it’s due—it’s a lot of work to track them down. In the meantime, they manage to clutter up the feed with posts that are way too long to actually read. Every now and then, they’ll drop a genuinely sharp observation, like something about domestic politics, but they always try to sneak in these absolutely pathetic theories regarding gender, race, and nationality. Someone reports them, a mod steps in to issue a ban and scrubs the worst of it, but there’s always some leftover trash left behind.

I mean, look, I think my former colleagues have good intentions, really. But if you ask me, they’re basically playing a game of Sisyphus here—just pushing that same heavy boulder up the hill over and over again. Honestly, any attempt at more aggressive moderation than what we're doing now would probably just start looking like a simulated police investigation. It would definitely cause way more damage to the community than it would actually solve. Maybe it's overkill, but I guess that's just how it goes.

My honest recommendation? Just ignore the lists. 😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, I never actually said it was made up.
The existence of camps for Germans is just a historical fact. As for the actual numbers, well, we could go on forever. 🤷

You’re wrong about that. I mean, you said it, sure, but I don't think you actually meant it.

So, how are we even supposed to handle this? You’re throwing out numbers like 5,000 kids. Honestly, I don't think this is something worth getting into a massive back-and-forth about on Reddit.

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, just to be clear, I didn't pull that number out of thin air. It was actually in that recent TV series about the FBI.

🤣

It doesn't really matter who came up with the number, what matters is whether it's made up or not.

Oh, so you're talking about that show by Kosovac and Manjkas. You should have just said so.

Brian Edwards78 said:Look, I get it. You’re going to stick up for your buddy (I won't go into details) whenever you get the chance, especially since you clearly love how things were set up. You were his right-hand man back when he was an admin, and you're still playing that role now. But what really isn't working is trying to pass off your personal connections and family ties as if they’re the only way to do things. Experience shows that hiring based on who you know or family ties usually ends up wrecking the quality of the Reddit community and poisoning the whole vibe.

ZgSash hasn't been a mod for ages, and in the meantime, ambermason16 has done a stellar job moderating alongside this administration for a long time. I have no idea why you're digging up her private business—is that old ban from a few years ago still eating at you that much?

I've seen better posts from you, honestly.

What ambermason16 is actually pointing out is that this sub feels like a collection of threads where a fixed group—plus some variable players who are basically just clones of the regulars (usually because they're either banned or just can't handle anything)
dump hundreds of posts into, dragging some moderator through the mud under the guise of being "tolerant," only for the admin to step in and lock the thread.

That alone might not seem like a huge deal, but it messes with the purpose of this sub. This shouldn't be some exclusive club for the elite; it should be a service where anyone can ask a question and get an answer.
If you just keep walking in circles without moving forward, you eventually just turn everything into a muddy mess.

It doesn't belong on Politics because it really has nothing to do with politics.

I actually thought this would be the perfect spot for your piece, but I guess we'll have to see what the admins think—maybe they have some better ideas.

It really just depends on the specific joke you're telling; I don't think there’s any kind of universal rule for it.

A lot of people have been penalized here, and we actually had to scrub some content. If you could see what was previously on the board, you might think this level of discourse is perfectly fine 😁

I feel like you and I end up circling the same drain on this sub. You seem to expect everyone participating in discussions involving actual science to meet an impossically high standard—I think we had a similar back-and-forth last time regarding a thread on power grid production. You’ve got to realize that the Sexuality Information and education Council of The United States thread racked up several thousand posts and tens of thousands of views in just ten days. I’d say that sheer breadth is a strength, not a flaw; after all, this is the Politics section, not Social Science.

To be fair, most of the users you mentioned already have a few strikes against them. You're right that their quality of posting could be better, but if we handed out bans for every single slip-up, there wouldn't be anyone left on the forum. That defeats the whole purpose of a Politics board. Even someone like peropopero wouldn't have been automatically banned for one single post if they hadn't already accumulated those points.

What exactly was that guy trying to point out regarding the history curriculum and how it's being interpreted? You've got a snippet of his post over on the main board, so be a pal and break it down for me?

Nice move, not pushing back against your own record.

Is this really the vibe you're going for with the forum users? Is this second type of argument actually what you want happening in your subforum?

I’m honestly getting major déjà vu from seeing this kind of syntax over on the General Discussion boards. So, let's just cut to the chase:

Yeah, sure, I want you all to hate each other, trade insults, and let the debate get as mindless as possible. Ideally, we'll just have one single thread for the whole subforum called "Politics," where the very first post is just a side-by-side photo of a Nazi and a Soviet soldier. We'll probably run a poll to decide which one wins—personally, I'm rooting for the underdog.

So, you want to play the victim now, huh?

Maybe try actually posting something useful for once.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Look, buddy, what can I say? You’re the moderator here, so go ahead, knock yourself out... 😉

If that’s how you handle moderation, I wouldn't trust you to supervise a coloring book.

What are you even talking about?

Anyway, catch ya later.

Thousands of your unarchived posts just go to show that this forum isn't actually going anywhere; instead, it’s more about giving everyone a chance to speak their mind.

Look, being a moderator isn't about acting as your personal grammar coach or settling your linguistic debates. As far as my colleague and I are concerned, as long as you aren't breaking the subforum rules, you're fine. Besides, if you actually want to get anything useful out of this platform—which is supposed to be about meaningful discussion—it’s probably better to actually explain your ideas in detail rather than just cramming your entire grievance into a single word.

The issue you're tackling is pretty niche and relatively new. Instead of just stirring up drama, maybe try using this space to actually define the concept. If you can build a term that people actually recognize, you might actually leave a mark. I mean, even a massive concept like racism didn't just pop into existence overnight.

If you're asking me? I'd call it:

Đ

silentridge3 said:What’s the right term to use when you're talking about those anti-male regulations, policies, and systemic moves within government agencies that push for gender inequality? I'm also looking for a way to describe that chauvinistic behavior coming from certain women, female-led advocacy groups, and even those "progressive" organizations that seem specifically targeted at men.

Thanks so much for that. I really appreciate it.

I guess it’s officially fair game now. People can basically weaponize anti-counterfeit regulations, government mandates, and the entire weight of the state bureaucracy to push against gender equality for men. On top of that, you've got this wave of chauvinistic behavior coming from certain women, specific women's advocacy groups, and even those "progressive" organizations that seem hell-bent on targeting men. It's all becoming part of the system, I suppose.

I guess I’m also all for actually naming names instead of falling back on that old, tired cliché: "Look, let's be realistic, people in power make mistakes sometimes." It’s just lazy.

silentridge3 said:I can't help but wonder why such an important and genuinely engaging topic was just shut down instead of the moderators actually doing their jobs—you know, by penalizing the people breaking the rules and scrubbing the offensive posts from the board. It feels like the thread wasn't closed because of the trolls, but rather because of all of us who were actually invested in the discussion.

I really hope I haven't offended anyone by bringing this up.

The truth is, the thread got nuked because the personal attacks went totally off the rails. It turned into a complete circus and lost any connection to the original point a long time ago.

If you have something else you want to dive into regarding feminism, go ahead and start a new thread, but please—just be clear in your first post about what you're actually trying to discuss.

And let's keep the feminist state strategy out of the Politics section, folks. Same goes for the other side, obviously. Whether it's blatant or just masked behind those massive essays filled with sweeping theories about why the opposite sex is supposedly lacking.

In this specific scenario, you’ve got a situation where one participant likely crossed the line from self-defense into something else by hitting that woman multiple times. I still maintain that we're looking at a criminal act here, regardless of whether it's become a political talking point yet.

Regarding the Rom community, sure, I agree—you can debate anything regarding them or anyone else. There was a fair amount of problematic stuff going on in that thread. I'll have a quick chat with my colleagues about it and then get back to you with our proposal.

There’s no room for Politics in a criminal matter like this. If the system fails, or if it turns out this whole conflict was actually fueled by ethnic tension, then we’ll definitely open up a discussion. Just reach out to the moderators over at the Association or Justice, and if they give you the green light, feel free to start a thread.

A fight between a Roman and an American in a police station isn't a topic for Politics.

Look, I’m just your average moderator here.

Of course you can. Intentionally twisting well-known facts is a violation, but if you want to go that route, just send me a DM. There’s a chance I might actually follow up with you to ask for some clarification on certain points.

Since we're laying out the ground rules here, two things: First, I don't have any tendency to label everything a lie. That word gets thrown around way too much on this forum for stuff that's really just nonsense, bad logic, or someone simply being uninformed. Second, unless it's a major violation, I'm not going to issue a formal warning for posts that have been sitting there for a long time.

Anyway, I hope you'll put in the effort. Helping out the moderators—when it's articulated and well-intentioned—is never a bad thing.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Yeah, it’s a little dry. I wish there were at least some images, emojis, or something to break it up...

It took me a minute to wrap my head around what’s actually going on here, but once you dive into the details, you realize there's a certain intrigue to it. Kind of like math, I guess.

Look, some would argue that the civic duty of administrators should be to step in early and prevent another Brevik situation. We all know what his agenda was, and his like-minded followers over on sites like Fox News don't exactly get sanctioned—let alone sent for help—as long as they keep their rhetoric just subtle enough.

Anyway, we really need some standardized criteria. Maybe include a little "report to police" or "contact a psychiatrist" button that links directly to the right authorities?

Or, perhaps the solution lies in this whole politically correct movement toward respecting mental diversity? In that case, terms like "lunatic," "psychopath," or "schizophrenic" wouldn't be considered insults, and therefore wouldn't be sanctioned at all.

Personally, I usually go by the rule that "barking dogs don't bite." In other words, just because someone is talking absolute trash on a forum doesn't mean I'd be afraid to run into them in real life (stating the obvious 😬).

* then again, some people really are just talking trash 🙂

Do you have a specific example that’s bothering you?

Moderation exists so people don't just say whatever wild stuff they want under the guise of online anonymity (not everyone does it constantly, but some do, and most do it occasionally). If "wrapped in enough layers" just means avoiding insults, hate speech, or calls for violence, then it's fine. Because, like you pointed out, we haven't introduced electric shock collars yet; people are still free to think whatever they want.

If we missed something, please just report it. I'd rather deal with a report than have everyone just taking one more shot at the moderators.

You really hit the nail on the head with how you framed this. I’m right there with you.

It’s honestly expected. Since he hasn't been gone that long and his whole legacy is still such a massive topic today, discussions about Franjo Harmon inevitably get sucked into tangents about recent—or even current—day-to-day politics.

Basically, this thread is missing something, which is probably why people are thinking about moving it. There isn't enough connection to everyday issues; most of the talk just circles back to what he did while he was alive. If he were more relevant to current events, we wouldn't be stuck in the Politics section, which—let's face it—isn't exactly the best place for a topic like this. It’s a shame the discussion gets so diluted, especially since there are some really high-quality posts in here.

But alright, let's do this. This thread is already at 6,100 posts, so let's just let it run until it hits 10,000 or until threads get closed due to size. Until then, everyone can think about whether they want to move the Franjo Harmon discussion over to History, and if so, how. We can split the responsibility and maybe eventually open two separate threads—one for Politics and one for History.