87 posts shown.
steelskipper5 said:Jehov's Witnesses are also considered Christians.
Maybe try reading more carefully; it might actually help you out.
Susan Brooks83 said:A yellow armband or, if you prefer, a yellow Star of David... it’s a mark used by
Nazis to identify European Jews... we all know that part of history.
So, I suppose there is something provocative about people labeling themselves as "Christians"
by their own choice, because it makes it seem as though the very concept of Religion... was marked by Nazis,
among other things... precisely speaking.
The logo appearing on those avatars—which is just a slight variation—essentially says: "Sorry, I am
Catholic." You could find stickers like that in any sacristy of a
Roman Catholic church, and they were mostly used to stick on the front doors of homes so that
Jehovah's Witnesses and various other sects would stop coming by,
ringing the doorbell and bothering believers who had those stickers displayed.
Therefore, changing an avatar to include slogans like "Forgive me, I am a
Christian"... doesn't really achieve anything besides provoking those who aren't, which in turn
just creates more division and unnecessary competition. That isn't really the hallmark of those who consider themselves
Christians. Besides... I guess Jesus didn't walk around wearing labels; instead,
his life itself spoke to who he was and who he stood for.
Forgive me, fellow Christians... but I am a Roman Catholic woman, a fact I confirm through my faith
in the cross, from which the very name you use originates—but how are you actually living out that faith?
mistycyclist5 said:Look, man, I’m not sitting here making excuses for anyone's crimes, BUT there is a massive difference between someone randomly slaughtering your entire family out of nowhere and you hitting them back in pure retaliation.
The whole world knows it, I know it, and trust me, you're going to find out too.
nimblewalker58 said:If you weren't so completely obsessed with whether everything is "fair" or constantly airing your grievances, you'd easily fit right in with the forum's elite—the very group we’re trying to protect so they can exchange ideas without being interrupted by every random troll looking for attention.
Ronald Allen said:Look, this isn't some public dive bar, okay?
Anyone can jump into discussions on Reddit as long as they follow the established rules. We don't need to go out and recruit anyone; whether someone decides to hang out here or not is entirely up to them.
You don't have to suck up to anybody. Just respect the rules, and you should never even have to deal with the moderators, or heaven forbid, the admins.
Enjoy your time on Reddit,
Ronald Allen
nimblewalker58 said:I mean, if we just had a discussion about journalists less than a month ago, why isn't this post about Jergović tucked away in that thread instead of starting a whole new one? 🤷
ambermason16 said:Without getting bogged down in definitions or the specific reasons behind the shift... why on earth does it matter so much to you what some PDF file is titled?!
What exactly did you lose by changing the name? Why does it provoke such anger in you?! 🤷
William Gonzalez said:If the mods are actually serious about this, I’ll happily put together an objective list of slurs used by every single group here. If they adopt it, they can start handing out sanctions immediately to anyone using them, regardless of the context or "intent."
Look, if we’re all going to be honest about policing insults, we should just sit down, make a master list, and settle this once and for all. Just because someone has sympathies toward Turkey doesn't mean they're a Convert. And just because Michael Adams2 supports Mexicans in most of our discussions about the old America doesn't make him a Mexican Catholic. That's his right to an opinion, even if I don't agree with it. But nobody has the right to hurl slurs at others just because of their personal views.
Terms like jihadists, Converts, Mexican Catholics, etc., are straight-up slurs. They are expressions of pure intolerance, chauvinism, and bigotry. So, instead of a measly 35-point penalty for users whose vocabulary includes these names, I’m proposing a minimum 3-day ban.
Aaron Lee97 said:I have no intention of poking the bear. You know as well as I do that touching any of this just fuels the fire. 😍
What do you think would happen if I actually started posting on their 😂 (let's call it "conditional") sub-forum and set my signature to "America to Mexico City"—which, let's be honest, is the plain truth?
Jonathan Morales79 said:First of all, this thread starter "rapidgull14" with his two months of spammer seniority on the forum, along with that pro-Yugo officer mouthpiece and the spammer "Jack Jones10"—and her off-topic sister who’s practically weeping while peeling American-nostalgic onions, "wiredsailor10"—they don't offer anything of value to the discussion on Politics... not morally, scientifically, factually, educationally, stylistically, or even interestingly. So, I wouldn't even bother opening this pathetic whining about spoiled preserves if Jerry Garcia hadn't joined the fray, whose forum contributions remain a massive enigma to me. :confused :
Well, aside from basic decency, her original nickname would be some pretty interesting information.
(There are also those newly hatched clones like Rob-Roj, the radio guy, Taxi... whom Albatrolčina attracted, but that's a different thread entirely). Nevertheless, I'll throw in a few disconnected observations to counter some of the premises laid out by the previous ramblers. Inquisitor, along with Obelix, was absolutely the best moderator for Politics.
Why?
They allowed sharp opposition, but they didn't allow mindless drivel or genital filth; and since they possessed a sense of humor and a broad view of total diversity, they understood metaphors, irony, and parables. They never crowned themselves with narcisoid epithets like: objective, deserving, omniscient, politically correct... because that isn't the purpose of Politics.
I remember how Obelix once locked a fiery thread, but upon receiving reasoned pleas, he unlocked it, allowing certain facts to be cleared up. In fact, he knew how to admit and even correct a mistake. That is where his greatness lies. 🙏
Objectivity? : thinks:
On Politics? : rolleyes:
Objectivity isn't even possible in the debates on Politics. Politics isn't like vacuuming a carpet so you can conclude the trash has been sufficiently cleared away. To some, it's dirty; to others, it's not clean enough; and to some, it's brilliant.
Politics is, by its very nature, multidisciplinary, but composed of mutually conflicting sub-disciplines. That is the most important thing to understand first, and the next thing is to accept that an infinitesimal fraction of the Earth's population—and certainly this chaotic political cesspool—possesses encyclopedic knowledge. It is vital that there be no taboo subjects or any kind of sanctimonious caution, which the neophyte chatterboxes call so-called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. 🙂 :mad : We aren't in the Wetlands, or some moldy, open-air swamp being dictated to us by someone like Jovo kuga, Gojko Ubiparip, or Obrad Kosovac. :rolleyes: Besides, intellectual curiosity cares about arguments and the psycho-socio-pathological genes from which both "Das Kapital" and "Mein Kampf" or the "Power of Marshall's word" emerge. Why should these topics be forbidden for discussion? Would banning them achieve some greater illusion of democracy??? Honestly... 🙂
More than a good moderator on Politics Informatics, Milky Way was a total CATASTROPHE for Politics. Which is natural, because the subject of the debate expects the participant—and especially the moderator—to possess great intellectual breadth, particularly regarding the tools of presentation and persuasion.
I noticed that someone is confusing characterless, impotent lukewarmness and empty dragging-on with STEADFASTNESS 😵
If, for example, an editor of some commercial newspaper were like Albatrolčina—someone whose columns would stall on boring, hackneyed phrases from the American era, just conveniently repainted with a different color, so that narcissism could be called forceful lecturing through blunt narcisoid preaching, dragging the discussion toward their own persona and (un)work for reasons known even to mediocre psychoanalysts. 😊 Would you read, let alone buy, such anemic, impotent material????
Alongside Mark Twain, driftingdriver is the textbook definition of a mediocre bore... but as a moderator? He’s nothing but pure, anti-intellectual, self-important garbage, obsessively focused on nothing but handing out punishments and recklessly slamming threads shut. There isn't an ounce of actual moderation from him, maybe just some mindless "policing"... (I even started a poll on the Politics of the Republic of America this summer "Is it actually healthy to have a moderator on the Politics sub who is a narcissistic but uneducated tyrant?" ).
But then, oh, he just went and did his typical self-congratulatory thing and DELETED IT. 😵 (hollowtrucker77 🙂 hey there, buddy 🙂 ) Intelligence and any semblance of broad-mindedness clearly haven't touched "his excellency"... a chronic lack of having read even a few decent books means he couldn't possibly conceive of anything beyond a pile of half-finished crossword puzzles that serve as his only source of insight (aside from his month-long plumbing projects, of course...). Here is a quick example of his "brilliant" 2 x 30 point rule violations:
Panic over CBS or Should Americans from Canada lose their right to vote?—where a rarely used yellow flag gets a post
. 😁
The worst part is how he writes these self-satisfied little posts and wipes out everything else, without even bothering to understand the context. Because of that, independent observers and unreported users can't even see the nonsense this brat—who probably shouldn't be allowed to touch a book with those hairy little hands—has been using to dilute the Reddit feed.
Experienced regulars tell me that, just like me, they found it pointless, or they simply didn't dare to post because they feared this guy would, in a fit of narcissistic compensation, delete their carefully crafted entries while simultaneously punishing them with some patronizing little explanation. It's automatic, thoughtless, yet driven by an innate, undeserved sense of superiority. Just like Mark Twain and granitefox16, or rather Rubni, as I affectionately call him. Granitefox16 is the prime example of an uneducated fanatic, a tavern-logic, party-line drone whom I don't even see the point in arguing with—not even about the color of the rag he might use to humbly kneel and clean someone's shoe, or perhaps two shoes at once. He constantly punishes debaters, only to later delete his own self-indulgent posts. :flop :
As for Refka—the old-timers call her that because it's short for Sarah Wilson95. I call her Refka because typing out that whole useless heap of letters is too much work... I just call her Refka 🙂 , mostly because of how she spends all day haunting this cluttered town square. I picture her as some sort of landlady wearing an apron and overalls, clutching a ladle that's dripping with, you guessed it, burnt gravy. 😍
The biggest issue with the moderation here is the atavism of TOTALITARIANISM, which bad moderators use as fuel to lash out with their limp virtual sticks, and it's as obvious as...The state of the mind. The absolute biggest issue is precisely that the bearer of this recessive moral beast remains completely unconscious of it. This narrow-minded, mindless, self-frightened, tabooed disability represents the stunted corpse of this fallen den of debauchery.
An unfree spirit cannot, nor should it ever, dictate freedom to others.
Boasting that it is forbidden in History to discuss the Partisans or our Nationalists isn't just some sad little anecdote; it’s a moronic reality that one could accidentally stumble into anywhere else under the current leadership of these pissed-off tailors with small, leaden hind legs.
Who for Moderator?
In my above explanation regarding what kind of moderator does NOT belong on PDF-politik, I should add—for the sake of any possible healing of this sunken chatterbox...
Exceptional and creative forum users, of which my humble self is one, are never placed in low bureaucratic positions because doing so traps their creative strength, time, and energy in depressing arbitrations. PERIOD. To appoint Phil Lynott (aka Chairman Mao), Gregory Howard, the Executioner, or the likes of Jalnuški Diletant or OrangeC as moderators would be a dramatic degradation of the interest and quality of this Reddit.
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?
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.
Richard Wilson4 said:What difference do his views make if he isn't actually insulting anyone?
slywolf65 said:...just by sucking up to the boss...
nhf😉
Gary Wilson said:Look, man, I really disagree. Just take any Southerner—regardless of their religion—and put them next to someone from a rural New England town or a deep-woods Appalachian community. Let them talk. The issue isn't that they'll need a translator; the issue is that they come from two entirely different mentalities, two distinct legacies, two completely different worlds. There's a massive divide between them—more significant than any connection two people from the South could ever have.
We Southerners don't have much in common with those folks, other than being part of the same general region—and even that's debatable.
Here is what an American scholar has to say about it:
http://www.history.com/news/regional-dialects-and-culture
As for the language itself, he notes this:
Quincy:
For years, we were told our regional dialects were essentially the same thing. Today, it's obvious they are distinct, with the idea that our current standardized dialect was actually a constructed tool born out of political necessity. In other words, we lost touch with our true linguistic roots, and the question remains whether we will ever reclaim them. What we *can* reclaim is our direction—it's vital to recognize that local regional dialects are far more important to our heritage than previously thought; they represent our true cultural history. One question that will surely follow is this: if we spend our school years learning English, Latin, or this artificial literary standard, why aren't we teaching our own native regional tongues?
Ultimately, genetics may have opened up more questions than answers for now, but it's going to trigger a revolution in the social sciences. Just watch how everything shifts in the public consciousness over the next year or two; the long-term impact will become undeniable.
PROF. DR. IVAN BIONDIĆ, The New York Times