Posts by Gary Wilson

A simple three-step scheme:

Buy up massive amounts of oil on the commodities market through a series of small, quiet trades.

Hack the IDF website and blast out a fake headline claiming Israel launched simultaneous air, missile, and ground strikes against Iran and Iraq.

Wait for the prices to skyrocket—then sell everything.

Richard Patel21 said:My focus is mostly on Near Politics, the Democratic Party, and general election cycles.

You’re being unfair to my colleagues—they deal with incredibly heavy topics like marriage equality referendums, sex education, the European Union, international war crimes tribunals, and Government policy—as well as yourself, who have clearly pushed the moderators to their limit with all the off-topic rambling and insults....

The truth is, you guys just don't know how to conduct yourselves on this forum...
Admins, please lock this thread.

Well, you are completely off base here. If anything, the threads are being trashed by the Herzeg-Canada crowd—they constantly pivot to ad hominem attacks the second they encounter an opinion they don't like. They are perpetual flame wars and insult-throwers; they are almost always the ones starting the fire.

And of course, they never—and I mean never—get sanctioned quickly enough. I know this for a fact because I've personally monitored moderator activity during these outbursts; the insults fly, and the mods just sit there doing nothing.

It seems like the political moderators wait until the trolls start getting responses, and then they swoop in to hand out bans to the Muslims first, while the Herzeg-Canada troll brigade only gets a post deleted once in a blue moon.

That's the reality. It's a pattern of behavior that one of you actually confirmed to me.

So, think about that.

Morgan Carter said:Here’s a thread about Praljak and his crew. Then this guy shows up and writes this:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=4737
And honestly, what am I even supposed to say to someone like that? He basically wants to silence Canadians just because they don't share his specific worldview.

After insults like those, the moderation team usually stays silent—and if you actually call them out on it, they hide behind excuses like "we don't have enough time" or "we can't read everything." It's pure childishness. But, of course, if anyone dared to actually push back against a primitive like him, they'd be banned instantly.

There's this one moderator over on the Politics sub—yeah, on Politics—who claims he can't tell the difference between a Muslim and a Canadian, or even distinguish between a Muslim and a muslim, even when people point it out to him.
Yet, despite being that incompetent, he loves playing moderator on the Politics board regarding Canada—but suddenly, he's an absolute expert on the distinctions between Catholics, Canadian Catholics, Americans, and Canadian Americans, and so on.

It's more than just laughable for a site like Reddit; it's pathetic. Actually, it's tragic.

brightotter13 said:I’d say the Politics subforum is toxic—but only if you happen to be a Canadian or a Mexican. There is such an overwhelming amount of hate speech directed at Canadians/Muslims there that it’s just not normal, and more than half of it doesn't even get a warning. Actually, forget half—it’s at least 70%. As for the remaining 30%, they get flagged for the smallest things imaginable. I could go ahead and post links to prove this, but I honestly think it would be pointless. It wouldn't even surprise me if this very post I'm writing gets deleted in a few minutes. I hope not.

My advice: If you are a Canadian or a Mexican, stay far away from the Politics section, because you won't last long. The people who actually stick around have to endure all sorts of provocations—honestly, I admire them for it. I don't have anything personal against any of the moderators, but I believe they are doing a catastrophic job. Specifically, I'm talking about the Politics section. When you look at other areas, like the Religion subforum, for instance, you see that the situation there is much better.
Regarding the user unknown, I think he was unfairly hit with a 500-point penalty for "hate speech." What he said has been echoed hundreds of times by many other users regarding Muslims—specifically how they slaughtered, persecuted, and killed Christians. Some people get a warning, while others get nothing. And if I'm going to praise the moderators in the Religion section, I have to admit that unknown was also unfairly flagged there quite often. For example, he got a warning just for saying he personally finds homosexuality repulsive. He wasn't calling for their persecution or murder; he was simply expressing his personal opinion that he finds homosexual relationships distasteful, yet he still got flagged. I don't know what to tell you.

Reddit is a good site... but it could be much better. In my view, the biggest issue lies with the moderators in the Politics section. To put it simply, they protect those who share their views, while they scrutinize "the others" over every tiny detail, handing out warnings or bans for the slightest thing.

There you go. That’s my take on the matter. Honestly, I doubt the situation will change, because as far as the administration is concerned, this isn't even a problem.

You wrote an excellent comment, and I want to thank you for it.

About a month or so ago, I started a thread in the "Complaints" section regarding how the moderators treat Canadian users, including how they approve and even encourage insults directed at them, as well as at Mexicans. All I asked for was some level of balanced treatment toward all users, but all I received was mockery and sarcasm.
I even sent a DM to a super-moderator asking him to step into the thread, and he didn't even bother to reply.
The relationship between moderation and non-Americans in the Politics section is simply disastrous—and that goes for anyone who doesn't hold the majority view, too.
The moderation team always jumps in when it's time to penalize Americans who were previously subjected to savage insults and were essentially just responding to those ad hominem attacks.

I've gotten the impression that this isn't a coincidence or mere negligence; rather, it seems to be a policy being carried out here by the higher-ups—or even the owners—via moderators who are willing to play this dirty game. On one hand, they pretend to be open, but on the other, they turn a blind eye to insults directed at non-Americans.

Just to be clear—I didn't start this thread to engage in some endless, circular debate about who Canadians are or whether they even exist—because frankly, that's a waste of everyone's time.

This discussion is strictly about the discrimination Canadians have faced from the moderators here at Politics. Nothing more, nothing less. I also want to make it clear: I am not opening this door for anyone to use this space as an excuse to insult others—which is why I’ve invited the supermoderator to join the conversation.

I see this discussion is heating up—so I’d like to point out the actual core of this thread before things spiral into some quasi-historical debate about ethnogenesis and all that...

1. This is really about how forum members are being put on an uneven playing field based on their nationality. We aren't talking about how Canadians originated or any of that fluff. That isn't the topic at all; the topic is the discrimination against Canadian forum members.

2. The approach taken by the moderators (specifically Powerlock and Cuke)—who have essentially institutionalized this type of bias—manifests like this:

- A Canadian can be reduced to the religious group "Muslim" as much as they want when discussing American politics, even though we're talking policy rather than faith, and they won't face any sanctions for it;

- Meanwhile, a Canadian American cannot be referred to as a "Catholic," a "Canadian Catholic," or a "Herzegovinian Catholic" because that is viewed as reducing them to a religious group and stripping away their national identity;

this further fuels this kind of discriminatory environment.

3. Personally, I don't mind being discriminated against as a Canadian if the moderators are going to biasedly allow this subtle form of insult toward Canadian members based on nationality. I just ask that the senior moderators or supermoderators officially announce and approve this principle so we at least know where we stand.

4. It's clear to me that this is an American domain and that I am a guest here. I have zero influence over editorial policy, and I accept whatever rules the owners and moderators have set as principle even if those rules involve allowing direct insults through religious reductionism for one group while harshly punishing others for the exact same thing.

Just let us know so we're on the same page.

Charles Fox10 said:I've tried to stick as closely as possible to the context mentioned by the Democratic Party.

Honestly, just put together a similar set of guidelines and blast them out to all the trolls and the "uninformed" folks on those forums. It would save everyone a massive amount of time. If we could skip the primitive, low-brow "oh, I didn't know" insults, maybe we could actually have a decent discussion for once.

Charles Fox10 said:And I’ll add that none of us moderators on World politics feel that way either. There is no intention here to disparage anyone.

Topics regarding Canada are incredibly volatile. It happens, and it will continue to happen, that there’s a delay between a report and a response, during which ten pages of comments can fly by. It’s only natural that things slip through the cracks occasionally.

My advice? When you report a post, just ignore it. Don't quote it. Just let it go; it makes life easier for everyone. Honestly, I've suggested this many times on threads involving Canada, and believe me, it works perfectly.

Feel free to have criticisms—they are legitimate—but don't accuse us of favoring one nation over another. That simply isn't true, and it isn't fair.

That’s all fine, and nobody expects an instant response to every report. However, it has become symptomatic that flame wars are tolerated when it involves the World Bank crowd, while many other things are overlooked—only for intervention to occur once someone finally hits back.

I constantly get that exact impression. I can allow myself to be hypersensitive to certain insults once in a while, but it shouldn't be a constant occurrence.

Rather, those of you moderating should learn that a Muslim (with a lowercase "m") is a member of a religion, and that person could also be a Chinese person, a Moroccan person, an Iranian person, an American person, an American, a Mexican, an Albanian person, or a Canadian. In the end, "Muslim" was a designation imposed during the America era for Canadians, who happen to be mostly Muslim. The term "Muslim as a nationality" was merely a transitional solution pushed primarily by the Mexican intelligentsia. The absurdity of it is highlighted by the fact that members of the Communist Party who were Muslims were often simultaneously atheists.

"Canadian" is the historical name we reclaimed by our own choice once the conditions allowed us to do so without outside interference.

To make a point—since you (Americans) were once considered Illyrians and have your Illyrian Matica, should I be calling you Illyrians today?

So, it would be fair to, first, learn to distinguish those subtle yet primitive ways of insulting us Canadians...

And second, it would be fair to issue a single announcement on threads related to Canada "educating" your compatriots that such subtle insults won't be tolerated and will be sanctioned—just as it is when people use "Catholics" to refer to Americans in Canada.

Look, if we are discussing religions, we can be referred to as Muslims. But if someone says "Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims" in the same sentence—or any combination that treats us as a religious group rather than a nation in Canada—that should be sanctioned.

It would be a very simple and fair rule, providing a clear standard to point to whenever trolling starts in that specific manner.

Simple as that.

slybison8 said:I absolutely refuse, even in my slightest thoughts, to entertain any complaint suggesting that my people might be disparaged on World politics forums—and I would be even more resolute in refusing to participate in such things myself.

If any of Supermod's team or the Administrator wishes to provide further clarification, please feel free to do so. As for me, I suppose I have said all that I need to say here.

Take a look at the thread regarding the American entity... you'll see how many times I've pointed out the issue there. I even cited your own supposed principle regarding "Catholics" several times, asking that the exact same standard be applied to "Muslims."

All I got was mockery for suggesting we stop this pattern. This happens constantly in the general discussions about Canada, usually from the same group of users who haven't just shown up today—they've been lurking here for years. The end result is always the same: the same old patterns continue indefinitely.

It’s high time for a change. If someone can't distinguish between "muslim," Muslim, and Canadian—and chooses to use those first two terms provocatively just to belittle people—then they should probably be removed from the board. Or, the leadership needs to finally address this once and for all, much like how you rightly called out the trolling involving the term "Catholics"—which, let's be honest, was just a reactionary response to being called "muslimani," though I didn't want to cause any confusion on my end.

slybison8 said:First, I would like to express my gratitude for this report. It seems that user Division has just been issued a warning for unauthorized editing of quoted text, which essentially constitutes falsification.

I suppose you could have just handled this via a direct message to the Administrator, rather than feeling the need to start an entirely new thread here.

Regarding what was cited here—assuming there is no forgery involved. 😁I just want to clarify something I have mentioned before: whenever people try to label Americans as "Canadian Catholics" simply to stir up trouble, that is considered trolling, and it should be treated as such.

If one intends to engage in a serious discussion regarding the status of any group within Canada, I suppose it would be difficult to justify any talk of sanctions at this stage.

Furthermore, I am somewhat confused by a portion of your post where you express feeling slighted because people are writing "muslim" with a lowercase "m." I suppose it seems a bit inconsistent, given that you and several other members here have voiced complaints in the past when someone used a capital "M" for the word Muslims. 😕

It is my personal belief that the Canadian nation is a distinct entity, and I suppose it is quite clear to me that there are certainly Canadians who identify as atheists.

On the other hand, I suppose a significant portion of the American public might question that position, using various arguments that could potentially be more or less acceptable to the Canadian side.

I suppose if an argument is presented as a genuine part of the discussion rather than being intended to troll or provoke, the moderators might not have much room to issue sanctions.

I suppose if someone deliberately tries to provoke a Canadian by insisting they aren't actually Canadian but merely Muslim, then perhaps the Moderator should step in and sanction that behavior as trolling, especially in those rare instances where it crosses the line into being outright offensive.

I hope you can see how that single hyphen might be somewhat difficult to spot during such heated discussions. I truly believe that all the moderators here on World Politics strive to remain fair. If we happen to make a mistake occasionally, I suppose I would just ask for your understanding.

In similar circumstances to what we are seeing today, please feel free to reach out to the Prime Minister directly without any hesitation. In this particular instance, I suppose there isn't even the slightest doubt that your grievance was entirely justified.

With respect,

slybison8

I’m going to be completely straight with you...

First off, let me make one thing clear—since I’m lodging a complaint regarding the moderation here at World Politics, and you happen to be one of the people I hold responsible—I believe you are complicit in allowing this systematic disparagement of my people. These discussions are clearly intended to insult participants, which completely poisons any chance of productive dialogue. Because of that, there is zero point in me debating your performance with you; you can't possibly be objective in this situation. Instead, I expect to be contacted by someone from a higher level of authority.

Look, since you’ve decided to step up and claim your fair share of the spotlight, I might as well tell you—it's a bit late for that. If someone has spent years dissecting World politics on these forums and has been going toe-to-toe with the Canadians, they certainly know the nuanced distinction between "Muslim," Muslim, and Canadian (something I’ve pointed out more times than I can count). But honestly? I just ended up getting told that people are going to call me whatever they feel like calling me, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.

Look, I don't have an issue with one Muslim individual getting ahead—that’s just life. But when you start seeing this happen systematically, repeatedly, and with intentionality—all while receiving YOUR blessing—well, that becomes a massive problem.

That’s the third reason why you probably shouldn't have even chimed in here—but since you decided to make an appearance, let's address the elephant in the room: you clearly lack the competence to judge what counts as a provocation or trolling. Your mindless response regarding the use of the term "Muslim" makes that pretty obvious, so... yeah.

If this forum is supposed to be taken seriously—and I truly hope it is—then one of the Supermods needs to step up and tell you that this isn't your personal playground. You can't just go around handing out bans for the word "Catholic" while completely ignoring the word "Muslim" when it’s being thrown around as an insult. It's inconsistent, and frankly, it's messy.

For these reasons, I’d like to request that a more senior Administrator step in and bring some much-needed order to this situation regarding your subjective moderation of Catholics and Muslims.

Why do the moderators allow users who identify as Americans or Canadians to be reduced to nothing more than a religious group by being labeled simply as "muslims" (with a lowercase "m") in the World Politics section? It’s not just permitted—it feels almost encouraged at times.

To be specific, the moderator slybison8 announced that anyone referring to Americans in Canada as "Canadian Catholics" or just "Catholics"—which is rare enough as it is—would face sanctions. Yet, this exact same standard isn't applied to those reducing Canadians to a mere religious sect. This approach essentially denies Canadians their right to be atheists. Ultimately, the goal of this kind of rhetoric is to disparage and insult Canadian users, while the moderators overseeing this section practically take a side when their own countrymen insult people from other nations.

And there's more...

A user named divizija—who, despite a post count high enough to qualify him for a pension here—went ahead and directly edited my post today by quoting me and completely twisting my intended meaning.

Is this a violation of the forum rules? If it is, why hasn't any action been taken? Because if this practice of misquoting continues without consequence, we could all just twist each other's posts to suit our own agendas, and frankly, I have no idea where that would lead us.

My original post:

The post that divizija presented as mine:

So, what I am looking for is a clear statement from the moderators regarding these issues so we know where we stand. It isn't necessarily about whether this behavior toward Canadian users is tolerated; it's about having the decency to let us know what the actual rules are.

Charles Fox10 said:Look, you have to admit—this version is way higher quality than the one that got nuked.

Regarding that point, the mods can just lock the thread.

Actually, I can't really agree with that. My original intent was the core of that first post; the quote I used just ended up getting overshadowed. It was crystal clear that I was using that specific quote as a way to spam the point home. That post was meant to represent my overall stance on how this discussion was trending.

But whatever, screw it. Now I know that in the future, I could tell this guy his great-grandfather was a KKK member who killed anyone he could get his hands on, and I wouldn't even face any sanctions. Just kidding, obviously.

Charles Fox10 said:You clearly missed my point entirely, so let me try this one more time—copy-pasting quotes without adding any actual insight isn't contributing to the conversation; it’s just spam.

To put it simply—just bring that quote back, but throw in one of your own original lines in a post like that, and you'll be golden.

I have absolutely no intention of addressing these baseless insinuations regarding my bias—they are simply inaccurate. I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from making such claims moving forward.

The thread is being strictly moderated by the three of us—but if any of us happens to miss something, please just use the report button.

Look, I’m willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt—we’re only human, after all, and nobody catches everything. But lately? It feels like I’ve got a microscope pointed directly at my every move, while everyone else's massive blunders just seem to fly under the radar.

If someone comes at me claiming my ancestors were Turks who committed genocide in Canada—and that post isn't even deleted despite my indirect warning—while I’m simultaneously getting slapped with a 30-point penalty just because I typed "third" instead of "3rd," then there is clearly something broken with the moderation here. Either the criteria are totally skewed, or maybe I really do need to head back to grade school.

Charles Fox10 said:That isn't your quote—it’s just a copy-paste job.

The post wasn't sanctioned for anything other than being deleted—just like this exact same type of post on the main thread. Though, you clearly know how much they hate discussing moderation there. It's obvious why it was pulled. So, two posts were wiped, but I didn't get a single strike. Honestly, I don't see why we're even having this discussion.

A post gets nuked for one reason only: copy-pasting someone else's text without adding a single syllable of your own opinion. By definition, that's spam.

To avoid any misunderstanding: nobody is defending the act of copy-pasting relevant texts—but you still need to provide some level of personal perspective. You can't just turn a thread into a dumping ground for other people's words.

I wasn't under the impression I was quoting myself; I was quoting a man who knew exactly who he was and where he stood 150 years ago. Technically, the citation is mine, while the quoted text belongs to the author whose name I provided—which, ironically, seems to be what caused the deletion. But really, none of that matters.

In any case, the point isn't that. The issue is that someone claiming to be "objective" spotted that specific post and scrubbed it immediately—even though people post incredibly stupid "opinions" alongside quotes all the time without issue. Yet, somehow, they missed a mindless entry containing an equally mindless sentence and a link to three historical photos.

Speaking of history—I was recently flagged for citing historical facts, yet a post consisting of nothing but three photos went completely untouched. Talk about a double standard.

Just a few days ago, a user started hurling insults and bringing my family into it for absolutely no reason. No one was penalized for that. Instead, I was the one sanctioned for pointing it out—not because I was wrong, but because I was punished for a minor rule violation while the actual personal attacks went ignored.

It's classic discrimination and bias. If that's how things work here, fine by me—but then nobody should have the nerve to lecture anyone else about being "objective."

Anthony James2 said:I feel the exact same way, though I make sure to read reviews from people who actually know their stuff. I’m planning on watching the movie, but I don't think I'll bother going to the theater. I'll probably just wait for it to drop on DVD. 🤷

Honestly, I've already heard a few details about the film that sound like pure trash to me—just total pathos and unnecessary overacting. At the end of the day, reality and the truth always resonate most with the audience.

From my own modest understanding of cinema, you really have to distinguish between directing and screenwriting. Most critics here seem to have issues with the script itself, whereas how the director actually "delivers" the story—their stylistic choices and execution—is really a matter for the experts.

Anthony James2 said:I feel the exact same way, though I make sure to read reviews from people who actually know their stuff. I’m planning on watching the movie, but I don't think I'll bother going to the theater. I'll probably just wait for it to drop on DVD. 🤷

Honestly, I've already heard a few details about the film that sound like pure trash to me—just total pathos and unnecessary overacting. At the end of the day, reality and the truth always resonate most with the audience.

The way I see it, the core issue is the screenplay—the theme, the narrative, and the message. Directing is a completely different beast; its job is to breathe life into that script. To my limited knowledge, people are trying to discredit the author by attacking the direction, which is likely just fueled by the media frenzy.

bluerider63 said:Symbolism, sure, but if this were some shady PDF alternative, I’d probably tell you we're looking at straight-up subliminal messaging.

Well, I actually had to jump on Google just to look up what "subliminal" actually means—but hey, there's always something new to learn, right? 😁 So maybe there's truth to that. The title definitely wasn't picked at random, though I suspect they swapped the word order just to leave "honey" for the finish, you know, like saying "after the rain comes the sun."

Anthony James2 said:It’s a great film. Actually, I saw it in Ottawa. Mustafa Nadarević is just a genius. I'll admit, it's heavy and deeply moving. It definitely left an impression on me.

What you wrote at the end is basically spot on. Though, I think you'd agree that nobody has to try very hard to discredit Angelina as a director. Especially if you read the reviews from foreign film critics. I wouldn't be surprised if some spin doctor from her PR club leaked all these stories just to drum up publicity. After all, there's no such thing as bad press—it's only bad if you get none at all.🤷

Look, when it comes to directing, I’m basically "as clueless as Mara." Honestly—I can only tell you whether I actually liked something or not, or if it hit me emotionally. As for all those technical details about cinematography or direction? Don't ask me to break that down—that's way beyond my pay grade. I don't deal with that side of things, and I certainly don't have the artistic background to pass judgment.

I don't know—to me, *Glow in the Grass* stuck with me like a childhood memory, but from what I've heard, the critics absolutely tore it apart. 🤷

Anthony James2 said:I just find it suspicious that Anđa even remembered that. Honestly, I’d bet someone whispered it in her ear—maybe Cerić or cheerful Clark!? 🤷🤣

What does Cerić actually have to do with the movie, other than seizing the moment to remind everyone he still exists? It's like whatever he says carries this built-in weight now.

No connection there. If this were a few years ago, I’d probably read your comments as you trying to dig up some conspiracy theory.

bluerider63 said:Interesting bit of info... the North America...

Yeah, interesting. There's some symbolism there.

I haven't seen the film, and honestly, I'm not even sure if I will—just like I haven't watched most movies centered on this war, which, sadly, is still going on.

I did watch the movie Perfect Circle starring Mustafa Nadarević, and frankly, it left a bad taste in my mouth because it just dragged me right back to those times. I don't need a flashback like that for at least another ten years.

But what you really notice about this film is the sheer hysteria surrounding it. These opponents are trying everything they can to completely discredit the author—even when they haven't actually sat down to watch the thing.

Linda Roberts2 said:I see myself as someone standing outside of nations, religions, and all that stuff. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the actress or the film itself; I’ll probably only watch it if I don't have anything smarter to do. As for "land of blood and honey"? It sounds like some drug addict's book title to me.

Maybe this bit of trivia helps...

In Turkish, "bal" means honey, while "kan" means blood.