Posts by Sarah Wilson95

wiredsailor10 said:Oh, really? I hadn't noticed that's how Politics works around here. Honestly, I’d say more of a Thompson vibe is running the show over there.

Of course you didn't notice when he was lying to you; that’s pretty much his trademark at this point. You really shouldn't, and frankly, you can't afford to, put any faith in a word from Michael Adams2. Hey!🙄🙄

By the way, have you noticed how he can identify Muslims just by looking at them on the street? He’ll spot someone passing by and instantly know they belong to that group, and honestly, he claims he can tell simply by their "losses" and "outbursts." It isn't necessarily about catching a literal scent of smoke or anything like that; it’s more of his poetic way of describing things, a little bit of dark humor he used to lighten the mood back on the Forum.

But then again, they gave him a pass on that too, much like they did with... I honestly can't even begin to wrap my head around the sheer level of frustration being expressed here right now. It’s one of those moments where everything just feels completely overwhelming, and you find yourself reaching for the most visceral, unfiltered way to vent that pent-up energy. Sometimes, there just aren't any polite or sophisticated words in the English language that quite capture that specific sense of absolute, unadulterated exasperation. And even their own simple ways. Science. I wonder what exactly they managed to drag along with them when they joined the Forum. He actually held the position of moderator! 😬
(I seem to recall that back then, Phoenix was really the only one anyone could actually see; otherwise, he’d spent years just sitting there on everyone's ignore list.🤷😁 Even though I suspect he managed to snag that quintessential statement of his—it’s quite a bold move for the Leader to be offering any kind of criticism. That’s really all there is to it. He left his entire army behind, and honestly, he’s just sitting there weeping bitterly over it.

So, after his 756th nervous breakdown and that absolute meltdown where he just started lashing out at everyone in sight, Torquemada either finally got cornered or decided to slink away with his tail between his legs—honestly, it doesn't much matter which. He made quite the exit, too; it was all very performative, full of empty threats, cursing, shouting, and insults thrown left and right. But then, as if nothing had ever happened, he just drifted right back into the picture like it was all part of the plan.
It seems like you might have cut off your message mid-sentence. If there was a specific thought or topic you wanted me to expand upon, please feel free to share it, and I will be happy to provide a thoughtful, detailed response in my usual style.
Let him have his way with us. It’s better this way, really—it gives our children a chance to see exactly what kind of challenges they might face in the world, and learn how to navigate them.

And now we get to the actual facts regarding my buddy, who apparently considers himself one of those "Anderlon left-wingers."😂 They won't let him write. They just stand there staring him down and handing out penalties like they're going out of style. It’s blatant harassment, honestly—just picking on the guy through verbal jabs and constant scrutiny.

Just imagine the sheer injustice of it all—instead of actually taking a moment to listen to the wisdom of Michael Adams2 and his thoughtful discourse, they just turn a deaf ear.

If you could just let go for a second and allow yourself to truly indulge in a sense of humor—to the point where you’re practically doubling over—you might actually find some relief.

Because on the Forum, this user is sending off the Muslims like this (quite the grand procession, wouldn't you agree?):

Hrobato said:You might want to work on your manners a little bit; you aren't in Anatolia anymore.
.

Man, I am seriously craving some time over on Politics.

The final resolution is finally here! 👍

P.S. But seriously... where on earth did that resonator disappear to?😕😕I was just wondering, did I somehow miss the fact that 🤣
has completely vanished?

Rachel Sanchez11 said:I wasn't talking about you. An admin shouldn't be responsible for this, because at the end of the day, Politics is just one tiny section out of maybe 30 or 50 total. Having the head admin deal with these issues would be like asking the CEO of General Motors to personally fix a brake fluid issue on an Opel.

Having an Admin/supermod specifically for Politics would give the mods some real weight. You’d still be getting hit with the same appeals you get now, but the endless, toxic arguments would actually stop there.
And I clearly remember the details of when one guy in the Politics section got a permanent ban.
Get this: his name was Anderlon, and he was reinstated. Later on, he even got promoted.
Now, give me Mark Twain or Jeremy Diaz or driftingdriver who actually has authority over that guy. He's deserved a permanent ban a hundred times over by now

One Admin with direct backing from the head admin—someone who holds the line for the mods and can step in to permanently remove someone—would bring actual order to this place.
The mods could still do their jobs, bicker with users, explain their decisions, and defend their moderation, but those marathon debates would end instantly the moment someone hits the "stop" button. No more endless chatter, no more chasing ghosts.
Every subsequent post would just be a ban with a reason: "Clone of a permanently banned user..."

And now some guy is going to tell me that all the high-quality debaters will die off.
Well, I'll say this: plenty of people from that generation want a normal internet experience, but when they see the state of the Politics section, they just don't feel like writing, and that's how both Politics and the forum lose.
Who are we losing them to?
We're losing them to the people who have been polluting Politics for years and make every single discussion look exactly the same.
Go read some threads over there; they're all identical...

Edit:
By the way, Phoenix was banned 500 times until one night a certain lady finally had enough and snapped.
It wasn't until she made the call that the arguing actually stopped.

Also, it's easy to make a decision that makes everyone happy. But the decisions that nobody likes—not even you—are the ones made by the brave or those who have actually outgrown the nonsense.
And the worst decision of all is no decision at all!
Politics stays messy and is allowed to rot. Just read the sentence right above this one.

Which discussion died down? You honestly seem to have no idea what’s actually happening over on Politics. When were you even posting there? Or are you just lurking under an alt account? Maybe you used to post under an alt, or perhaps you're just one of those people in the "silent majority" who claims they're just watching because they're "too stupid" to join the fray? Or maybe you're just here for the eye candy? Ha?😁

But clearly, you're an absolute expert on everything.

You just know it all, don't you?

The situation with Phoenix is much more complicated than the simplified version you're presenting here. To put it bluntly, he was removed because of his views, but nobody has the guts to admit that out loud.

Besides, I'd suggest that if Bell or New York City, or whoever else has any real insight, took a look at his disciplinary record,

they'd see the truth. Are there many strikes? From which moderators? And what exactly were those missteps he supposedly made?
Then we can really get this conversation going.☕

What happens if it turns out Phoenix doesn't actually have many strikes? Or that they all came from a single moderator?

Do you really want me to sit here and detail exactly what kind of things are being written on Politics right now, or describe the types of characters that still inhabit that space today?

And considering some of them have even been mentioned here?

Is that really how we want to play this game?

Jerry Garcia said:I haven't the slightest clue... 🤷

Look, we’ve always operated on the assumption that a high-quality forum user makes a great moderator, but that is COMPLETELY wrong. Still, damn it, what else do we have? There isn't any other standard for picking moderators—not just regarding Politics, but anywhere. If there’s some other paradigm out there that actually yields better results, let's lay it out and try applying it...

Thanks, I knew someone would eventually show up with a solid suggestion. I'll take a look... we'll discuss it... 🙂

@Sarah Wilson95: Just because you post in the Politics section doesn't mean the rest of this Reddit isn't just as high quality. Sports journalists are basically just tabloid hacks stealing content from the sports subreddits... Living... On the "let's gossip a bit" segment, Ana Ugarković brings up the exact same stuff people complain about here in her shows (just a few examples that come to mind). And one more thing: my coworker at work mentioned on Tuesday that she read something on Reddit... 😉 I have absolutely no doubts about just how much power this Reddit holds... 😉

Fair enough, I can certainly go along with that. The only reason I brought up Politics is because it’s easily one of the most visited sections on the site, second only to Ljes.😁Those two things seem to be in a constant state of motion, almost like they're perpetually chasing one another, and since I've seen plenty of examples laid out in the news over at the New York Times, I figured it was worth bringing them up here.

Tim, if everything is actually unfolding exactly the way you’re describing—and I truly believe it is—then isn't the current state of Politics nothing short of shameful, if not outright repulsive?
Is Anderlon truly bringing shame upon himself? I can't help but wonder if he actually realizes the kind of "sacrifice" he’s making to the American digital landscape with this behavior.😁

Look, this has been dragging on for years now, and honestly, things are only getting more intense. It’s not that we haven't seen any movement or that we're stuck in some kind of stagnant status quo; if anything, the situation feels much more volatile today than it did just a few years back. And you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the sheer number of people involved—it's growing, and that changes everything.

Richard Perez3 said:So, you aren't even ready to moderate that sub-forum, and honestly, you can't even come up with a suggestion for someone who actually fits your criteria—mostly because, from what I can see, you can't find anyone worthy of the job anyway.

But we can't even go with the only way that actually works—which is just trial and error—while none of the people on Reddit who actually want a better mod are willing to point us toward their own picks.

Are you freaking kidding me? Seriously. 😁 Nothing to it, we don't have any other way. 🤷

I get it, I really do. I just find myself wondering sometimes if everyone else on Reddit actually sees it too. 😉 Look, after seeing some of the stuff going on lately, I don't think that's how it works. It honestly feels kind of ridiculous to tell moderators they have to carry the weight of social responsibility just because a whole pack of people decided to act completely antisocial and irresponsible.

Look, even though you said you don't think you'd make a good moderator for Politics, if they shoved you into that role anyway, would you actually be willing to change your mind and put some real work into that subforum?

I’d like to offer a gentle word of caution to the administration—the folks at the very top of the pyramid—as well as to the moderators, who serve as their direct representatives. It feels like a necessary observation, though I wonder if my perspective might be slightly off. Am I mistaken in seeing things this way?😁 It’s entirely possible that the moderators over there are actually serving a completely different purpose than what they claim, though that’s certainly how it has come across to me.🤣

If I wasn't clear enough in my previous response, let me be much more direct with you: it is going to be incredibly difficult—honestly, nearly impossible—for you to find anyone from Politics or any regular on the Forum who actually understands the situation. I'm talking about someone who doesn't just pick up their political insights from newspapers or news cycles. It’s going to be a massive uphill battle to find anyone willing to step up as a moderator after Michael Adams2 was appointed to the role.

It really just comes down to a matter of core principles, a solid upbringing, and having a genuine sense of taste.

Anyone who fails to adhere strictly to those specific parameters will inevitably find themselves forced to compromise.🙂 They’re giving in.

I’m certainly not saying this to be offensive, but it really is just a simple, undeniable fact: there are some people out there who truly couldn't care less about any of this, and honestly, this topic has been covered more than enough times already.

No, just so we don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

Richard Perez3 said:What kind of users are we even talking about for a sub-forum like this? I don't even know what to choose from. Is it between choosing cattle or butchers? 😕

Any comparison to a butcher shop was just used to make your point and was totally intentional. 😁 Edit, I sounded pretty retarded there. 😁

Anyway, tell me, do you honestly think you'd be a good moderator for Politics? Be real. 🙂

To be perfectly honest—no.

The reason is simple: I have no desire for power, even the slightest bit 😁, I tend to be lazy, and when I’m not feeling lazy, I can get rather aggressive.😍

On the other hand, I have fully embraced capitalism at its core, and I absolutely do not perform any tasks for others without compensation.☕🤣

----------------
What people seem to struggle to grasp here is that a Reddit community, despite everything else, carries a certain level of social responsibility.
Believe me or not, but that is simply how it works.
Especially a platform with this much traffic—one that gets read extensively, as evidenced by the various "talking points" or topics I see popping up in the mainstream media that I know for a fact originated right here (I am specifically referring to Politics; the rest of the forum is in a different league entirely).

All of this moved past being mere trolling or a way for someone to profit from banner ads a long time ago. Jerry Garcia claims this is just a generation that "demands the internet," but my take is different: this is quite simply the future and an inevitability.

Whether we choose to use the blessings of the internet—its speed, the accessibility of information, and the depth of forum debates—as a positive force depends entirely on us, or whether we will continue to extract the absolute worst from it, much like we do from ourselves through the anonymity of the web.

Jerry Garcia said:Sarah Wilson95, I’m telling you for the fifth time... instead of just tearing down the current moderators, constructively suggest someone new. Why is that so hard?...

It’s because it is difficult, and honestly, I have no intention of throwing out specific names; that simply isn't my job nor my responsibility.

Everything I have been pointing out for years, as you call it, is purely a matter of my own goodwill🤣 and, occasionally, having too much time on my hands and being a bit too outspoken.

Alright?

And I am not being destructive; I am merely stating things as they are, providing what might be an uncomfortable reminder to the administration, but let's not lie to ourselves, shall we?☕

Furthermore, please, make sure that Politics IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE FURTHER diluted.

That section needs to remain a bit of a fiery arena—there needs to be some actual passion in the exchange of ideas—but there also needs to be a certain level of decorum, rather than just some mindless, bottom-tier sludge.

hollowtrucker77 said:granitefox16, that wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation
Look, we’re just human beings; we’re subjective, we have this desperate need to be right, and we harbor a deep-seated resentment toward authority—or what some people claim to be "authority"...
We also love to preach about setting boundaries, yet those very boundaries never seem to apply to ourselves because, in our own minds, we’re always technically correct, aren't we?
🙂
And so we wind up in this cycle where, no matter what a moderator decides to do or not do, there’s always someone standing in the corner ready to take issue with it.
It’s quite simple, really; it’s just a matter of large numbers, especially when you consider how heavily Politics influences things here.
Until we learn that having a debate doesn't mean we've become enemies or entered a state of total warfare, we’ll just keep seeing endless threads of nonsense and bans flying everywhere, leaving moderators with neither the time nor the actual capacity to step in and steer the conversation back on track.
I’ll admit, it isn't pleasant to witness, but unfortunately, this is our reality and it represents our true level of pluralism, democracy, and willingness to actually engage in dialogue.

We all know that moderators aren't just appointed by decree; they’re supposed to be chosen from among the users, specifically from the better ones.
So how is it that all these users suddenly turn sour the moment they get a moderator badge, becoming overnight legends of being bad and dishonest?
It’s a bit hard to swallow the idea that some vague, virtual power somehow corrupts them all, without exception.
🙂

Oh, please... isn't this just another one of those classic forum myths?😁

If we’re being completely honest here, I don't think I ever even noticed driftingdriver before—though, honestly, maybe that's just his quality; he's so calm and steady that you barely even register him presence.

Then there's Simba, now him I remember; he loves to stubbornly stick to his own pace, popping into a thread after six days just to give a measured response, only to find the conversation has already moved miles away😁 while he stays tucked away in his own little universe, rehashing old posts and trying to drag the discussion back to where it started.

ARE THESE REALLY THE "GOOD" USERS? I mean, does that actually imply they'll make good mods?

And that's assuming we're talking about the sub-forum where sparks are constantly flying, where virtual blood is practically flowing in rivers, and toxic arrows are whistling through the air constantly. Hello? The Politics section is basically a VIRTUAL SLAUGHTERHOUSE, yet you guys are out here sending in:

a) some bloodthirsty Inquisitor who would rather gouge eyes out and throw insults than have a civil chat

b) a manic Mark Twain-style robot, though it's a miracle he didn't end up beating himself senseless in a digital trance

c) the invisible, shadow-like driftingdriver, who was apparently cruising way above the atmosphere until he became a mod and cruelly realized it's much better to fly high up there.

d) the bookworm Simba.

😕

😂

Jerry Garcia said:Sorry, Sarah Wilson95. I didn't realize that was offensive or that you minded being called by that nickname . I won't do it again, sorry 🙂.

I agree with you that Athena was an amazing moderator, but they're gone now. Neither you nor I can force them to come back. At least I can't, and I don't know about you. What I do know is that this Reddit is significantly different today than it was when Athena was a mod: there are ten times more users, and people jump into discussions much easier. Many of the old forum regulars mention that back in the day, when they first arrived, they wouldn't reply right away because they were intimidated. It took them some time to find the courage to write. Today, those boundaries don't exist; everyone just posts. We've been overtaken by this instant-access generation. Look, I moderated a thread over on Politics once because things were getting messy—you wouldn't believe the garbage I had to delete there, all the mindless insults and attempts to start totally off-topic fights. Believe me, the level of discourse you actually see is about 30 steps above what stays hidden.

And that’s why I’m telling you again, as one of the pillars of the Politics subforum, suggest someone. You think the current moderators are politically illiterate—then suggest someone who is literate enough. You say they're biased—then suggest someone you think will be impartial.

Why is there always talk about a lack of transparency, yet when given the chance to make suggestions, everyone just talks about general positions? Why haven't I seen three quality suggestions from you yet?

I assume there’s a certain level of disrespect involved, especially since that’s how a specific group of users here has been addressing me lately, but regardless of the tone, there is an unwritten rule on these types of boards about distorting someone else's handle. So, I thought I would mention it, just so you don't end up breaking your own rules.

As one of the institutions within the Politics sub-forum on Reddit.

😁 Is this some kind of joke about my post count? Well, I suppose after all these years, things just have a way of piling up. 🤣

I honestly find myself wondering if the current moderators possess any real understanding of politics at all. It seems to me that they are quite politically illiterate when it comes to navigating the complexities of the subject matter.

No, I don't quite see it that way. Take, for instance, those two individuals whom I simply cannot place within the same political spectrum—granitefox16 and the observer—though that alone isn't enough to make the point. From what I can gather, the observer spends most of his time fighting against windbags in the former American circles, and as for granitefox16? Well, I haven't run into him in a hundred years, but he certainly isn't politically illiterate either.

You’re suggesting that they're biased.

It really is just part of being human, isn't it? It’s simply "human nature," and honestly, I don't think it's worth trying to fight against that kind of fundamental reality.

The only way this works is if the moderator is someone completely detached from the fray—someone who doesn't belong to any of those established political factions. You need someone who is deeply politically literate, someone who truly understands the fine line between the democratic right to free speech and the blatant abuse of that very right. There has to be a distinction made when people hide behind the guise of freedom of expression just to spout various forms of idiocy that violate both legal standards and basic moral frameworks. That, quite frankly, is the core of the Politics of the Republic of America.

And that really just sums her up.

I honestly think this proposal isn't a bad idea—specifically regarding how the moderators on Politics shouldn't be getting directly involved in the debates. You might want to try approaching it that way, because the chaos is just getting too intense to not take a little bit of a risk. Then again, given how many people are visiting, it probably won't even be noticeable.

Oh, right, one more thing:

I honestly feel that we need to draw a clear line between two fundamental approaches to moderation—to put it in layman's terms:

The individual responsible for monitoring profanity, personal insults, flame wars, ad hominem attacks, and similar behaviors. It seems like you're referring to those little nuisances or those pesky troublemakers that always seem to pop up when you least expect them. How suffocating and exhausting certain things can be, both for the regular folks hanging out on Reddit and for the mods trying to keep everything running smoothly.

Taking a reasonable, politically informed, and legally sound approach to addressing violations of plurality means recognizing when the fundamental principles of democratic political culture are being undermined.

You’ve got a complete mess on your hands here. They go after people with cartoonish insults because they approach moderation like straight-A students following a rigid rulebook, yet those incredibly toxic, thinly veiled labels that are totally unacceptable get wrapped up in this convenient little package called "freedom of speech." When it comes to the PDF-politik, that’s usually just a fancy way of doing what I call crnalegija.com.

Since this Reddit community is so incredibly active, allowing things like this to slide isn't just an eyesore or a sign of a pathological environment; it’s a glaring demonstration of incompetence and a fundamental lack of understanding regarding legal boundaries, especially considering we are dealing with private property that is by no means Excluded Corp from following the law.

And naturally, within all of this, there should be absolutely no room for taboos or censorship. However, what truly matters is the standard of discourse being established. Based on what we have seen so far, the current level of conversation happening over there is such a mess that one could write entire treatises on it.

wow, Jerry Garcia

And I, by the way, fully expect the administrator (or whoever you happen to be) to address me by my handle, just as it says here: Sarah Wilson95

well, naturally, I don't even expect you to admit that.

why?😕

For me, Athena always stood as the very "concept" of a moderator. And it wasn't that I agreed with her—say, regarding political views—but she possessed authority without being an unfair tyrant. To put it mildly.

and, no, I absolutely do not expect any kind of Submissiveness Inc. nor from you or from anyone else, for heaven's sake.😁

oh, please...

Look... a forum (in general) inherently—meaning the act of entering, registering, and creating the situation where you might receive reprimands, warnings, infractions, or bans—implies SUBMISSIVENESS.

And that’s perfectly fine; we all accepted that the moment we registered. I am fully aware of that, and it’s all for the sake of some semblance of order that actually functions.

But the real issue arises when that submissiveness means I MUST CONSCIOUSLY ACCEPT a penalty, in the forum sense, from someone who is politically illiterate, biased, incompetent, and so on.

For instance, back when the moderator was someone who became famous on this forum (and continues to be) for comments regarding specific Muslim casualties and the stench of woodsmoke, and I, such a person, get slapped with a 10-day ban.

Or this past summer, I start a thread (while watching a show on CBS), and the thread is promptly moved to L.K., and I receive a two-month warning for its opening post—"insulting forum members." It was a sensitive topic; in the discussion, Hrvoje Šarinić stated on camera how, during the talks and negotiations—amidst heavy wartime themes—they were, well, eating, drinking, and sometimes even singing along with the representatives from the Mexican side.

There are heaps of examples; I'm just having my first coffee right now, but if I think of more throughout the day, I'll write them down.☕😁

But you see my point, don't you?

Jerry Garcia said:Come on, Jeremy Wilson3, here's your chance: who would you actually want seeing as a moderator?

Look, we have a few ground rules: they can't be someone with a mountain of warnings, they shouldn't be getting banned constantly, they need a solid post count, and they should be long-time members of the community.

Even though I previously said I wouldn't do this, I'm giving the users of Politics a shot to suggest someone for the role themselves. Just remember, there’s no democracy here—it doesn't mean I'll just listen and install whoever you think I should pick. I'm simply curious about what kind of moderator profile would actually be welcomed with open arms by the community... especially since the current ones aren't cutting it.

😁 and why shouldn't you install them—just like you have up until now? I'll only mention a few acquisitions: the Inquisitor (does that really need a comment?), then Mark Twain (wasn't that someone's clone?), and honestly, you haven't exactly made a name for yourselves with the others either. On top of that, the PDF-politik sank notoriously into a living swamp

besides, isn't that exactly what the forum administration should care about? Making sure its most visited, yet simultaneously most turbulent sub-forum, doesn't end up looking like a neurotic mashup of some conspiracy site and www.crazy-outrage-sites.com

of course it does

I'm just curious about what kind of moderator profile the forum members would actually welcome with open arms (since the current ones aren't doing a great job).

Jerry Garcia☕ just so we can gauge exactly how much political literacy you actually possess

it's a bit awkward like this, where the users are expected to show Submissiveness Inc., yet we have absolutely no clue—toward what kind of profile we are supposed to be submissive.

gnki2000 said:why on earth do you assume that 2+2 equals 5?

I don't personally view making an assumption as some kind of psychiatric disorder, though I suppose my perspective might diverge slightly from what modern American medical standards currently dictate regarding that matter.🙂

Imagination is actually more important than knowledge.
☕

imagination can be quite a double-edged sword; it can certainly be a total headache if things go sideways.

coastalskipper92 said:I don't quite get the whole thing about the electric shock therapy... people seem genuinely stunned when I mention hearing that it's still actually being used today.

I've heard rumors that they have padded walls in mental hospitals—is that really how things work here in America too?

Good grief, what a form of torture... you want to end it all but you can't even smash your head against the wall. It’s enough to drive anyone truly insane.😬

Well, have you ever heard of an even "lesser" form of humiliation? I’m talking about being stripped down by a whole group in the dining room, followed by a little "queueing up" in the bathroom, where they just give you a collective shower 🤔 and soap you all up
too.

driftingdriver said:Since you clearly grasp the things that elude me, why don't you go ahead and explain them? After all, surely a superior mind would have its own unique way of making things clear to those of us left in the dust, wouldn't it?
What does it actually mean to overstep? To abuse one's authority? I’m asking you to take a look at the Reddit discussion policy, and once you've finished reading through it, perhaps you could point out exactly where I supposedly crossed the line.

So, this exemplary regular on Reddit says: "We’ll be lucky if we don't end up behind bars just for attending Mass." 😬 "You live in a fanatic state," and other nonsense like that. Just your typical troll. Honestly, I don't see anything controversial about enforcing penalties for trolling.
Regarding that link you mentioned—it’s just an opinion. If you all truly claim to be champions of democracy, shouldn't you be willing to respect the views of those who see things differently? Or is that part of the democratic spirit we're supposed to uphold?
Did it ever occur to you that her post actually made it pretty clear? She was saying that if someone can't stand the sound of church bells, they should just move further away from the CHURCH, not demand changes from the STATE. If you choose to read into that and interpret it however you want to suit your own narrative, well, that's entirely on you.
And yes, I suppose I have a broad soul—the kind of soul that can only truly be understood by others who possess that same breadth. Most people simply lack the capacity to grasp it; they can't comprehend someone who chooses to respect every perspective and refuses to follow a script. I don't subscribe to any pre-packaged ideology or party line; instead, I prefer to weigh every problem against my own conscience, acting as my own sole judge.

🤣

You clearly didn't catch my drift again, but honestly, never mind.

So, here’s how things stand—she actually wrote this:

If people have such a hard time with church bells, they should honestly just pack up and move somewhere else where they won't hear them. In a country built on Catholic principles like the US, that’s just how things work.

And that still doesn't serve as proof for your argument. He's got a heart of gold.Honestly, this isn't just a minor slip-up; it’s a direct indicator—just another one in a growing line of them—that you simply lack the competence required for this role. It seems you don't actually know how to perform the duties of a moderator, even if the title itself clearly appeals to you and provides a convenient platform for that loud dose of self-importance you seem to carry around.

On the other hand, You removed it. Anyone who dares to express an opinion that doesn't perfectly align with your broad sensibilities finds themselves being suffocated in debate; you just censor them and look down on everyone from your high horse, completely oblivious to the fact that this kind of behavior only creates chaos and pushes people away in every direction.

I suppose I've finally reached that stage where I'm being granted five minutes of relevance, acting as the self-appointed censor, though I suspect people will be able to grasp my meaning perfectly well without me needing to rely on quotation marks.
You’re being incredibly intolerant, especially since you clearly haven't wrapped your head around the sheer breadth of the topics you keep jumping into. It isn't just about how you carry yourself as a Redditor—though that's part of it—but the real issue here is that you're turning your supposed "right to free discussion" into a total farce. You seem to be treating your own private religious beliefs as if they were some kind of universal doctrine that everyone else should follow. Honestly, it feels like you're being intellectually rigid, trying to force your personal convictions onto everyone else by masquerading them as general principles.

To wrap things up: you just don't seem to grasp that the whole point of a forum debate is— Exchange. It seems like you’re dealing with a massive spectrum of different opinions, perspectives, and pieces of information out there. From what I can see, your goal is to force everyone into thinking exactly the same way. If people don't fall in line, you move to remove them, forbid them from participating, or just delete their posts entirely. Honestly, it feels like you're systematically crushing whatever little bit of pluralism and open debate is left in this space.

driftingdriver The user said:Oh God, I am honestly open to discussing absolutely anything, provided there is some actual substance or sense to be found in the conversation.
That particular topic was all about whether we should let's ban the cross.
Discussing whether we should ban the cross here in the States is honestly just a waste of breath. Why even bother debating something that is fundamentally impossible? That’s exactly why I brought up the fact that 90% of the population identifies as Christian; it really underscores how nonsensical it would be to even open this topic for discussion.

Look, even though you were waving around that "argument" about ninety percent of believers—essentially just some massive, unvetted crowd—it doesn't really hold much weight. So, I have to ask—just out of pure curiosity—what exactly were you hiding behind all of that? In the way you exercise your own whims, every single post you make seems to radiate this underlying sense of fear, as if you’re constantly being threatened by these completely senseless topics that you insist on obsessing over. You aren't allowing any discussion.Look, you're clearly making the point that we're talking about impossible missions here—basically, moves that just aren't feasible in the real world.

But you're essentially just FORBIDDING discussion anyway... is any part of your brain actually processing this? You're the one sitting there deciding what qualifies as senseless and then you go ahead and BAN it.

I am firmly convinced that this particular user was actually CALLING FOR A BAN on the symbol of the cross, even though someone else has already tried to kindly explain to you that his true intention was simply to point out the sheer absurdity of the argument for banning it—specifically how that logic is being applied.

I think you missed my point, but I get it.

On the other hand, it’s honestly quite arrogant, malicious, and frankly just plain dim-witted—how do you even have the nerve to write this:

And regarding that link you mentioned, that’s just an opinion; if you all claim to be champions of democracy, shouldn't you respect the views of those who disagree? Or are you not actually fighting for democracy at all?
- Didn't it occur to you that her post clearly stated that anyone who can't stand the church bells should simply move away from the CHURCH, not the STATE. The fact that you're reading into it and interpreting it however you please to suit your own narrative is entirely on you.

I'm trying to find a polite way to explain to you that a moderator simply shouldn't act this way, not just because it ruins their own credibility, but more importantly, because they need to keep this damn argument at some semblance of a civil level.

Unless, of course, that's simply beyond his capabilities,
unless he's choosing to act this way on purpose,
unless this whole Reddit community has been turned into a platform for preaching eternal truths,
or unless some digital parasite has sunk into a deep-seated "sense of belonging" complex,

so please, don't hide behind a catechism and bother me, yourself, or anyone else.

coastalskipper92 said:Oh, so you're the author?
I honestly thought you were just some blurred-out figure in the background 🤣

p.s. Could someone give me a proper, textbook explanation of what psychosis actually entails? And why has the term neurosis basically fallen out of fashion?
Does psychosis inherently require hallucinations to be present?

You know that one cheesy, old-school joke:

There is a certain kind of person who lives in a complete delusion, someone utterly convinced that two plus two equals five, living entirely within their own distorted reality. Then you have the neurotic, who understands perfectly well that two plus two equals four, yet they remain perpetually miserable because they simply cannot find peace with that fundamental truth.🤣

In other words, I don't think neuroticism is a direct pipeline to psychosis. For instance, I find myself feeling quite neurotic about sixteen times a day, yet I haven't experienced a single psychotic episode in my life.😁

Neurosis, if you think about it, is really more about those internal psychological instabilities—that sense of being emotionally unsettled—but you don't actually lose your grip on reality or struggle to process the world around you logically, which is the key distinction when you look at how psychosis functions.

Brian Moore2 said:I honestly don't know what people are talking about; even mental health professionals don't seem to grasp the point. I have this black cap with "F-43.1" printed across it in large purple letters. Back in January, I showed up at the emergency psychiatric ward wearing that exact hat, and there I was, sitting right in front of the psychiatrist with it still on my head... She just kept staring at my hat and asking me what was wrong. I'm telling you, everything is perfectly fine on my end. 😁

It’s probably for the best that she didn't just assume that figure was some kind of throwaway number.🙄🤣

driftingdriver said:- Honestly, I’m down to discuss just about anything, provided there’s actually some point to the conversation.
- The whole issue here was centered on the idea of BANNING THE CROSS.
- In the US, debating whether we should ban the cross is just pure futility; why even waste breath on something that isn't even a possibility? (That’s why I pointed out that 90% of the population being Christian makes this specific topic completely pointless.)
- The thread starter only brought up banning the cross because they were triggered by a debate over banning the red star symbol; after being provoked by people with opposing views, they lashed out by opening a thread titled "Let's ban the cross."
- Politics isn't philosophy, so it shouldn't be used as a playground for debating abstract meanings and nonsense. If they wanted that kind of deep dive, they could have started a thread under religion or philosophy instead.
- What is the utility of discussing a ban on the cross when it is quite literally impossible to ban the cross in the US?
- So, the topic is closed because it was nothing more than a vengeful, trolling thread built on total nonsense. Those are my two reasons.

🤣
So, I correctly concluded a few days ago—right at the start of this whole mess—that you simply don't grasp certain things, yet you remain stubborn and continue throwing around terms like "discretionary right" and "I have my reasons."

Man, what is wrong with you?😕

Meanwhile, "another victim" of your big-heartedness has fallen, over in that thread about who hears the church bells.

You somehow "glossed over" the posts from a cloned provocateur who was (to me, if I may say so?) telling me to move away if I didn't like the sound of the bells, yet you went ahead and decided to ban someone else just because she wrote this:

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=1...6&postcount=14

Why such a nervous reaction from you? Is it really THAT hard to comprehend that someone can (and is allowed to?) ask a question sincerely? That they live somewhere else and they ASK—you know, they type letters and they ASK...

What danger is there in one thing versus the other? No, seriously.

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=16371455&postcount=7

Was I being rude on that thread, or did I direct an insult at anyone? Or is it truly necessary to leave this forum forever while you force your views on anyone who might actually allow them?

Ashley Morgan said:So, I’ve been sitting with this diagnosis of unspecified psychosis and schizotypal personality disorder—basically a "borderline case" on my EEG. Honestly, I have this nagging feeling my doctors are sugarcoating things to avoid labeling me with a full-blown schizophrenia diagnosis. If they went that route, my life would basically be over. It would be a total disaster for my career prospects; right now, I’m working as a forklift operator, and if word ever got out that my head isn't quite right, I wouldn't be able to hold down a job anywhere. I struggle a lot with mood swings, and I suspect the docs are just trying to protect me from the stigma, but deep down, I can't help but feel like it's actually schizophrenia. Currently, I'm on 10mg of Zyprexa and Depakote Chrono.
I tend to keep to myself, and yeah, I get pretty lonely. Socializing isn't really my strong suit, so I probably come off as a bit of a weirdo or just some guy who doesn't fit in. More than anything, I just want to find a sweet girl who actually gets me, but I honestly have no clue how to find a soulmate when I'm living like this. Any advice out there from my fellow schizophrenia warriors? 😢

😕 Are you actually suggesting that employers ask about your medical history and specific diagnoses during the hiring process?
Isn't that basically illegal under labor laws?

Besides, let's be real here...😁🤣 most people don't have the slightest clue what these classifications mean, nor can they tell the difference between an unknown or an unknown or some other code.

You're either kidding or just completely out of touch.

right now I'm working as a forklift operator

Well, when you eventually apply for a pilot position, there's a real chance they might bring it up. Until then, I can at least offer some comfort by noting that for most drivers—and I'm talking about the actual employees of our local MTA—I highly doubt they are all carrying around a massive list of mental health diagnoses.

☕

Did you write post 51 too?🤣 😁
And all of this follows that little copy-paste manifesto about culture and toddlers, doesn't it?

I honestly have no clue what the topic was; I really can't remember if it was sometime this summer, but it was genuinely hilarious when you tried to appeal 😍 to unity...

As for me apologizing to you—was that you? 😲—it was only because I truly mistook you for someone else or was just glancing at usernames too quickly. Honestly, what does that even have to do with anything right now? 😕

It’s interesting how the ones who act the "toughest" were actually the most opposed to threads about introductions; I wonder why that is. ☕

The reason is simple: we deal with viewpoints here, not people's titles, hobbies, or personal habits. That’s why I told you that this isn't some dating site. This forum is NOT a place to meet people; it’s a place to exchange ideas, perspectives, and information. It seems like you’re having a bit of trouble grasping that, though you can actually learn a massive amount about a person just through the exchange of those very views and opinions.

Besides, my identity was outed here a few years ago. There wasn't just one instance of subtle hints or blatant leaking of my personal data—about ME as a real human being, you know? 🤣

So, let me follow up on your point from post 51: you can clearly tell whether my actual life and the chatter here 😂 are different. 👍

What makes you think I belong to that group of politics mods who want everything to be a sterile discussion?

The truth is, you don't want a sterile discussion; you simply don't want any discussion at all.

driftingdriver said:- So, I’m the idiot. Thanks for the compliment and the respect shown to your interlocutor. Since you clearly possess such immense wisdom, shouldn't you be able to grasp the point and respond with a few punchy sentences without preaching? Especially when you hold yourself in such self-proclaimed superiority over us "inferior" amateurs who apparently have absolutely no clue about politics, neither in our writings nor our thoughts.

- It seems to you that anyone not perfectly aligned with your grand intellect is a lower life form—some kind of exotic animal with four left legs instead of right ones. You lump those who lurk in the shadows and cause trouble in with yourself, and honestly, I don't see much difference between you and them; you just deliver your critiques through a soap opera rather than a single sentence.



Oh, thanks for clearing that up; I guess there’s always something new to learn here when dealing with the Attorney General.
....



It feels like an unnecessary article; you could have just delivered the verdict without all these arguments by simply attaching the next piece right under that sentence.


- The topic wasn't titled that way, nor was it framed that way in the introduction. And since every Yin has its Yang, you wouldn't have anything to do here on Reddit without an opponent like Revka or others like her on the opposite side.

- Are people just experiments to you? 😁 Facts, pure and simple. It's typical of professional politicians who have never even flipped a burger in their lives; a rant without facts is just a glaring example of demagoguery. Where exactly am I declaring myself "sancta sanctorum," and through what actions or words?

- It’s a certainty that the average person here is significantly deprived by not reading your esteemed columns. I can't help but get the impression that you should probably just start your own blog instead of attempting what passes for conversation.

True conversation requires both speaking and listening. Unfortunately, in our current reality, people spend 90% of their time talking and only 10% listening. For a real dialogue to happen, you need a fifty-fifty split, but even that isn't enough if rational listening and an empathetic understanding of the words being spoken fail to actually reach the listener. In such cases, even a "conversation" remains nothing more than two people talking at each other. But what can we truly expect when we live in a culture where there is such a deep-seated, historical obsession with dictating, dictating, and dictating...

🤣🤣 so what is actually the point of a forum, or rather, forum debates?
Is it maybe that nonsense you were rambling about this past summer over in Politics: "let's all introduce ourselves—I collect postage stamps and keep cat litter on my balcony. there you go, my dear friends"

🙂I told you back in the summer, this IS NOT A DATING PAGE AND THIS IS NOT A VIRTUAL CAMPFIRE CHAT WHERE PEOPLE JUST BABBLE WHILE OTHERS GATHER AROUND TO ABSORB AND MEMORIZE!

THIS IS A FORUM. For crying out loud. And you knew that too, because at the start of your "moderation," you used to CALL FOR UNIFIED OPINION in certain threads.😂

If I weren't feeling so lazy, I could find those posts for you right now. Just tone it down a bit; lately, you've been posting some truly incredible nonsense.
Raise your hand if you agree.👋

Jerry Garcia said:Two separate threads merged here because they share the exact same premise: complaining about how the politics mods do their jobs.

Regarding the Napoleon situation, the ban was lifted, but the thread stayed closed BECAUSE IT WAS PROVOCATIVE. It was designed specifically to trigger a fight, not because discussing the cross is forbidden.

As for the second question, politics moderators aren't perfect. No moderator is. To become a mod, you have to be someone recognized for being able to articulate a clear perspective. You can't expect politics mods to be people who don't have defined opinions on a given topic or situation.
The former America subforum was created because most users posting from the US—who honestly couldn't care less about what's happening in Mexico or Canada—were getting annoyed seeing those topics cluttering the main politics front page. Now, those discussions have their own dedicated space, and anyone uninterested doesn't even have to notice they exist. As a regular visitor to the politics section, I think the former America subforum has served its purpose perfectly.

Provocateurs of all stripes get penalized and deleted every single day. If you're looking for it, you'll see it. But the fact remains that some things slip through unnoticed too. That's actually a good thing...😉

They’ve been merged because you can basically do whatever you want here—editing, deleting, merging, or just imposing your own interpretation on things,
so why on earth would anyone bother respecting someone else's time or the massive effort it takes to write something out? Honestly, come on... the only real point of all this seems to be punishment..

Moving on,
I didn't start this particular thread, and I really don't want my username attached to it as the initiator, nor do I want my posts linked to it. Is that understood?

My original topic was actually about the completely nonsensical reaction from mod Alb last night—specifically regarding the explanation he gave for closing a certain thread, which, frankly, wasn't any more reasonable than many other discussions found under Politics.

Mentioning those criteria in the opening sentence was meant to be a simple, blunt question: "How on earth did this guy become a mod?" I can't recall his legendary contributions to the Politics section; I've been around for years, so how did His Excellency suddenly ascend to such a position? And then the guy completely loses it, offering explanations so absurd you can hardly believe what you're reading... and he just keeps going... I'd bet anything he actually thinks that person was somehow trying to let's ban the cross😁

Reddit handled it magnificently, though—the wolf is fed and the sheep are still plenty; they stripped that guy of his ban, yet there was no clear message from that clumsy moderator that he had perhaps overstepped a bit too far.
🙂

driftingdriver said:- Closing down troll threads or discussions that lack any real substance isn't censorship.
- As the moderator for the politics section, I have the authority to decide which topics are just trolling or entirely pointless, and subsequently delete or lock them. If anyone feels this is unfair, feel free to go read the Reddit rules.

You shut it down under the pretext that it offends 90% of Americans

because the thread mentioned how people have been killed "in the name of the cross" throughout history.

Does that really offend 90% of Americans? 😕

You also cited the Forum Rules regarding religious intolerance, specifically pointing to those sections highlighted in purple.

If you hadn't been acting like such a troll from the very beginning...😉 maybe you would have realized sooner that the "call" to let's ban the cross was actually just pointing out how nonsensical many of the arguments in the previous thread had become.

because, you know, people really have been killed under the cross throughout history...