You have the chance to start a brand-new thread regarding abortion within the philosophy section, after which I’ll be shutting down the current one.
And please—let's not go after hiddenpuma75 here. Honestly, he provides a much-needed counterpoint to that overly bleak, dark philosophical vibe that tends to drift into this forum... excuse me, I meant this digital space... from time to time. 🧐 So, here we go: diversity...
When I brought up the history of this forum, I was thinking back to, well, maybe 2013 or 2014—back when a few certain characters from the Midwest managed to push this place way beyond its usual borders. Perhaps I’ve mixed up some of the handles; it’s been years, and those old memories tend to bite. Since that specific situation was viewed as an overreach—an actual stifling of free speech, if you will—I’d rather avoid linking myself to the main protagonists of that mess, purely for practical reasons.
I think I’ll take the advice of my esteemed colleague Letec—it’s probably for the best—and I’m asking the forum administration to please remove me from the moderation team for both forums I currently oversee. Thanks...
placidorca16 said:I agree that discussing abortion through the lens of philosophy is legitimate. However, the author didn't just open the topic "nonsensically"—he dropped explicit sexism by claiming that for women, "abortion must be an option and a privilege so they can sexually evolve into a higher being." What's with this whole "evolving into a higher being" remark if women are already sufficiently evolved beings, huh?😒 It implies there's something missing... and I'm dying to know what.🙄👎
My apologies for the barking earlier; it was merely a rhetorical device—a parable, if you will—and I certainly didn't expect you to take it so literally.
In this specific post, you seem to be operating under the assumption that a woman's evolution—psychological, cultural, sociological, and so on—is already complete. That's a rather peculiar claim to make. Perhaps you're right, but the mere fact that something still possesses the capacity for progress isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, you're suggesting that the human race as a whole has reached Nirvana, hit the finish line, and that progress is a dead end. Any textbook on philosophy or spirituality will give you endless examples of how humanity continues to strive for advancement.
Simone de Beauvoir posited that the institution of motherhood serves as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression against women. In the opening thesis of this thread, I see a repetition of that very sentiment. I'll quote the great S. de Beauvoir:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to bring up her children… because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”
In my own loose translation: "Women shouldn't be allowed to just stay home and raise kids... because if that choice exists, far too many women will take it. It becomes a way of steering women in a specific direction."
The thread starter himself pits biological maternal instinct against the possibility of female evolution. He clarifies this in one post, responding to a question from a colleague:
Illana said:How does one sexually evolve into a higher being?
ModusQuo said:Through major shifts in female behavior—specifically in the lifestyle of a woman who develops through various pursuits outside of motherhood and parenting—a micro-evolution occurs, the effects of which only truly manifest after a hundred generations.
😁
It’s also worth noting that the aforementioned Simone de Beauvoir was quite active regarding abortion rights—a dimension that ties her directly to this thesis.
And our dear colleague here, Letec, had this to say:
The flying one said:We evolved sexually—both men and women—the moment we started using contraception and utilizing sex for purposes beyond mere reproduction. And before we had all these options at our disposal—condoms, pills, IUDs, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and so on... abortion was (despite all the inherent risks of the procedure) the only reliable way to control how many children we would have. And people had them as often as they wanted. Rural herbalists couldn't brew enough "special teas," so for home abortions, things like knitting needles and other implements were used. Truly, that isn't a phase anyone sane wants to revisit.
Abortion needs to remain accessible to prevent those horrors (much like infanticide, which also occurred, even among nuns), but society should primarily focus on educating young people and preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
So, she isn't just confirming the possibility of sexual evolution; she’s actually allowing for it in men too (though in another post, she bluntly claims men are just stupid). I should mention, she is an experienced and highly respected member of this forum, and she clearly understands exactly what is being discussed here.
As for our colleague bluecyclist64, I'm still waiting for his quote. However, I don't know how much you've kept up with past drama on this forum, but he might not be your best ally on this specific issue.
edit: I see now that bluecyclist64 has been banned, which explains the silence. I don't doubt he'll resurface eventually.
I’d love for my esteemed colleague bluecyclist64 to actually elaborate on his position here. Is he suggesting that women are incapable of evolving into higher beings while men can? Or is he arguing that neither gender has that capacity? Honestly, whatever his answer turns out to be, I suspect he'll have quite a lot of explaining to do at the next Communist Party USA meeting. He’s either being a total sexist or a complete reactionary.
Nowhere in this post does it say that women are lesser beings. This PDF is about philosophy—specifically, it’s about the human being reaching a higher state of consciousness, where one transcends the biological, the material, or the purely instinctive. That’s clearly evident in the dilemma presented by the thread starter. On one hand, you have the biological role; on the other, you have external freedom. Given how powerful maternal instinct can be—an instinct that is notoriously difficult to suppress—abortion serves as a way for a woman to escape the patriarchal trap and her assigned gender role. In fact, Simone de Beauvoir proposed a very similar thesis. So, really, you're just barking up the wrong tree regarding this dilemma.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the topic sexist—though, granted, it was framed pretty poorly—but since it racked up 500 posts in just a few days, it stayed put. It basically morphed into a broader discussion about abortion in general.
Besides, I don't see why everyone is getting so worked up over the opinion of one single forum member (honestly, we’re all still struggling to figure out what he was even trying to say). His main point seemed to be that people tell women how they should act, and then women end up acting that way because of it. That’s just basic social constructivism—the kind of thing a lot of feminists talk about regarding how gender stereotypes and cultural pressures shape women's lives. Or... maybe those social and cultural pressures don't actually exist? Who knows.
I've been hanging around forums for 15 years now—probably clocked in about 20,000 posts in that time—and managed to rack up three warnings, though if I'm being honest, at least one of them was totally undeserved 🙂. If someone decides to slap me with a warning just because of an "IMHO," I wouldn't even bother reacting. I’d just adapt. Every forum has its own set of rules, and as long as they aren't significantly stifling what someone actually wants to say, it doesn't bother me. However, your analogy is flawed (and you wasted quite a bit of vertical screen real estate there, technically speaking) for one simple reason: in your case, we're talking about trolling—using a specific phrase just to trigger an emotional reaction in others. Also, banning certain terms for those exact reasons isn't exactly unprecedented on this site. On the politics board, for instance, certain terms were banned (specifically pejoratives aimed at public figures). So, the real question is: how difficult would it be for you to simply rephrase what you intended to say without using that particular expression?
Regarding the idea of collegiality, that's a universal moral principle that applies far beyond the digital space—it's always better to try resolving conflicts within the community first. And frankly, I don't quite grasp why you view the users and the moderators as opposing factions? There are forums out there that aren't moderated at all; go check one out and see just how pleasant (or unpleasant) it is to write there. Technically speaking, moderators of other sub-forums don't see deleted posts and often lack the full context of a situation (since most people don't get flagged on their very first offense), and the rule is generally that they don't meddle in the moderation of other sub-forums.
On the flip side, you have a few posts of yours that sit right on the edge of hate speech, or are at the very least deeply offensive to a broad segment of the population, yet they passed with minimal sanctions or were merely deleted. My advice? Take the challenge. Try to engage in debate without injecting that emotional baggage—it’s harder, sure, but it’s more of a challenge. Plus, over time, you'll build up a certain reputation with the mods, and they might actually give you a pass once in a while. That has essentially been my tactic all these years.
Rachel Brooks63 said:Hold on—so it's actually banned to call America a "crony state" on an entire subforum? Seriously? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
First off, it’s just not professional for a moderator to write like this on the FBI forum—and second, you can't just rip things out of context. Someone already explained the context earlier, so I won't repeat myself (just check the post by guud).
Thirdly, a moderator has quite a bit of leeway when it comes to editing a thread. Not too long ago, we agreed to tighten up the moderation (since there are two moderators now, after all). So, I assume this is just a reaction to that.
It should also be noted that the flagged post was from the thread "Salaries—how much do you make in the US?" I can't even begin to describe how "on-topic" and constructive that specific post was. In my opinion, the warning was 100% justified, regardless of whether it came a day before or after a warning—which the OP clearly understands, given they didn't even mention it in their appeal.
You can't just go around spinning up new threads whenever you feel like it... Honestly, once you migrate to a new topic, the momentum usually dies anyway—and then the person who ends up at the top of the pile starts complaining. 😬
I guess we all just get used to Richie by now... Much like how people eventually just accept Black Peter.
The primary goal for a moderator isn't actually to foster some high-minded, intellectual debate—though, let’s be honest, we all crave that—it’s basically just to maximize page views. If I recall correctly (and please, set me straight if my memory is failing me), the owner's whole philosophy was to avoid any kind of "elitism" and instead let everyone voice their opinion, provided they stay civil and follow the rules. It’s a delicate balancing act—not easy at all—and honestly, the simplest way to moderate would be to just stick to strict formality. For me, the easiest path would be if Anderlon simply mandated that any post lacking empirical evidence or peer-reviewed studies gets nuked immediately. 😬 Another issue here—which is really a separate matter entirely—is the sheer workload. To properly moderate the economy, you’d need to sink maybe two or three hours a day into it, yet look at how many active moderators you've actually seen over the last month.
Moving posts to different sections isn't trivial either; it completely guts the thread you're moving from. Since posts are strictly chronological, things get jumbled up with older content. And because not every single post gets quoted, you end up with this fragmented mess where the logical flow of the discussion just falls apart.
The fundamental issue facing our economy right now is... a lack of moderators. As it stands, I think there are only two of us handling moderation duties—myself included—and we mostly don't even roll onto the thread until the late hours. In my specific case, that’s around 10:00 PM, once the kids have finally gone to bed and I'm struggling to keep my eyes open. So, instead of asking what this forum can do for you, why don't you start thinking about what you can do for the forum? 🧐
Take this particular thread, for example; I see plenty of potential new moderators right here... 😬
It’s really about the economy, not politics. Anyway, I finally got that sorted out—and lately, I’ve even started handing out flyers, which is pretty uncharacteristic for me... Just need some patience.
I think I might have accidentally broken some rules (maybe). If there’s anything left over that shouldn't be here, just let me know and I'll scrub it clean.
Take a look at a massive operation like Belj—they pull in roughly $1.6 billion in revenue, yet they only grab about $90 million in subsidies. That means those government payouts only account for maybe 6% of their total income. Compare that to your average small family farm here in the States, where subsidies can make up a staggering 30% of their entire revenue: Meanwhile, the grain yields over at Belj are sitting at 50% above the national average.
If you head over to , you can actually find the full list of subsidy recipients. Now, if Belj controls somewhere around 10% of the agricultural production in the country, they’re only pulling in about 1.5% of the total subsidy pool. You can always cross-reference this through the IRS to track down specific companies and their actual revenues.
There are a few other major players following a similar pattern, but the rest of them...
James Phillips92 said:Like I said before—the lion's share of those subsidies went to Todorica and his crowd. That's why everyone else sees their output tanking; a lot of folks are just giving up on production entirely, especially in livestock.
That just isn't true. If you actually bother to look at the data on the USDA website—which they used to publish more transparently, anyway—you'd see something different. Generally speaking, small-scale farms pick up most of the subsidy checks, yet it's the massive industrial corporations that drive the bulk of actual agricultural output.