What’s the issue? That post was banned, along with a similar one right before it, yet curiously, nobody mentioned this specific one here. Interesting. Just let things be; the deleted posts are gone now.
Did someone hold you at gunpoint and force you to install and watch this channel?
Watch it if you want, don't watch it... the remote is right there.
We used to crave those old-school commercials from bars and cars, but now the big issue is some TV channel where you can actually find movies that shaped American cinema.
I’ve closed the thread on Jasenovac and Bleiburg using the exact same reasoning as before. I expect we'll be back here next year, facing the same arguments on Reddit just like every other year.
Until then, feel free to dig through some history PDFs and debate the events surrounding World War II and its immediate aftermath.
The small town in rural USA event hasn't happened yet—it should be around May 24th or 25th—and I suspect it'll go down just like last year.
I’ve just finished scanning my email, DMs, texts, Messenger, and WhatsApp—even checked the sky over San Diego for smoke signals—but I haven't seen a single order for anything yet.☕
Politics isn't some sub-section of this forum; it’s a core pillar of our discussion.
The previous threads have been locked, so we’re starting this sixth installment. If you spot any inconsistencies in how this or future topics are moderated, feel free to speak up.
Jack Cook7 said:I’ve had enough, but my initial questions here were actually quite straightforward.
For instance, if a certain state, government, culture, or group of people is benevolent toward drug users or the production of drugs—whether they promote it officially or just through subtext—do I have the right to label that culture as drug-addicted? Or at least drug-friendly?
So, am I allowed to say on this forum that Western culture is addicted to drugs? Whatever that term might encompass.
And following that logic, can I claim that all representatives of that culture are representatives of addiction?
That is the core reason I started this thread. Just a simple attempt to objectively clarify the criteria for handing out bans.
Why is it that someone can be persistently labeled a terrorist based on completely baseless claims without pushback, yet if I call someone an addict, I get penalized?
I already laid out the basic outlines of our moderation policy, emphasizing that context is everything. That’s really all there is to it.
If you start throwing around accusations of pedophilia—whether you think it's true or just imply it—expect a three-day suspension. Just don't go making those kinds of allegations here.
Calling someone involved in this conflict in Ukraine a thug, a fascist, or a Nazi... that’s an immediate strike for breaking the rules.
Inciting war, violence, or killing, along with justifying any of that, will result in a ban, much like belittling victims.
Insulting any nationality is a violation. We don't allow insults here.
A lot depends on context, but these are the basic guidelines. Consider yourselves warned, especially since we laid this out in the opening post of what is now the sixth part of this thread.
Most importantly, just report the post and ignore it. One of us will step in. Replying to a rule-breaking post actually violates our policy and only feeds the trolls, which we've told you repeatedly not to do.
This topic is complicated. Posts are flying in almost every minute, and even with all of us moderators on duty, it's hard to catch everything. If something slips through, let us know via a report or a DM.
How many times do I have to say it? Politics.com covers Politics, the World, the Political Scene, Close Politics, and the European Union. During election cycles, we add Elections too. Every single section gets equal weight and equal moderation.
For now, this stays under Close Politics. We won't be locking the current thread unless things veer into one of those colloquially "feminine" topics.
The Family Law thread is staying right where it is—it’s important. It doesn't matter if it's a bit quiet lately; the Government only passed the final proposal seven days ago. Now we wait for the Congressional debate and the third reading once the representatives get back to their desks.
Admin, please lock this discussion. We've settled what needed settling; the rest is up to the users.
silentridge3 said:True. I still have plenty of questions.
Actually, you still haven't allowed a "men's topic"—which is exactly what you called it when you invited us to start one. Everything I've tried to post gets deleted or moved almost instantly.
So why is it considered strange that I have questions?
I’d prefer to settle everything upfront—title included—just to be certain there won't be any deleting, moving, or renaming later on. I know waiting on the moderators can be a real drag. Enough of that boring silentridge3. Setting an ambush—letting someone sweat through opening a thread and crafting a meticulous argument, only to delete, move, or rename it later. Honestly, I have no interest in putting in the effort just to end up looking like an idiot. I prefer knowing the rules upfront.
Do you honestly think I have nothing better to do than sit around waiting in ambush?
silentridge3 said:Is this title allowed?
The systemic bias against men in America. It’s becoming hard to ignore.
silentridge3, you’re exhausting me. I’ve lost all interest in reading your endless cycle of who, what, why, and how. Just start a thread, give it a title, and get on with it. I really couldn't care less.
I’ve spent two months entertaining this back-and-forth, yet you’re still stuck in a loop of questions and searching for answers.
The lack of a title... and this obsession with being subtle about it. It's frustrating. If you can't accept that, well, that’s your problem.
Honestly, do you even hear yourself when you write this? rule :
Then you can't demand that it stays "strictly about the laws."
and your previous post rule :
Posts should simply be penalized and removed, leaving the thread strictly for the political dimension—actions, legislation, enforcement, etc.
And then there's this from a few days ago: rule :
I don't deal in insults toward women, nor do I want historical or sociological debates. I want a focused thread, centered on the political side of things—the system and the facts. I ask that moderators penalize the offenders, not the victims.
As far as I'm concerned, this debate is over. The thread can be opened, but how it develops and how it gets moderated will depend entirely on those first few posts that set the tone.
silentridge3... you might actually be the aggressor here. Please, just dial back the Ad Hominem attacks.
Systematically financing discrimination and demonization of men in America
Title ???????
It won't work. The premise itself is malicious because of this "demonization" angle—personally, I don't feel that way at all. Try something more appropriate and start the thread over on the Politics subreddit.
I'm not going to manufacture posts just to fit a topic. Put in the effort yourself. If I understood correctly, this thread should focus strictly on the political dimension of legislative frameworks.
The basic guidelines are: no trolling, no insults, and no spamming. If someone posts something inappropriate, report it and ignore it. I'll emphasize: ignore it, and one of us will step in. If you don't ignore it and instead engage in a back-and-forth, don't complain when you get banned.
The rules for Politics are available here and based on experience, I’d draw attention to this specific part of the Rules:
Civilized discussion, respectful behavior, equality among participants, tolerance, fairness, community spirit, efficient debate, respect for individuals, and listening to all sides' arguments are the core values of the Politics subreddit.
As for me, here you go.
Edit: Suggested title... the status of men in a political and legislative sense?
Bradley Scott2 said:I’m sorry, but I honestly don't know how to write anything anymore—despite my best efforts to stay constructive—without getting banned. So, I'll just keep quiet. ☕
Are we actually going to discuss how to improve the quality of this debate, or just... what?
I’m waiting for an actual idea. I have no interest in arguing until the end of time.
Bradley Scott2, it isn't particularly pleasant when you claim I'm lying about my experience. No one has ever barred me from discussing topics via PDF. It's not like I suddenly became an expert on political discourse overnight.
What should we call this? A massive misunderstanding, a delayed reaction, or something else entirely?
Before I go any further, I hope nobody has ever—and I sincerely hope they won't—ban opening a thread here dedicated to the issues men face in society, ranging from political shifts to social dynamics. I trust that's been settled.
silentridge3, you're right, but that agreement is over a month old now. We discussed it during the meeting and then directly in the thread, which is pretty unusual.
So, what actually happened? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You and everyone else just kept posting in both threads—the one on family law policy and the one close to politics regarding "discrimination." I logically concluded that since there was no pushback, this approach was working fine.
The thread Proposal for the new family law - comments and feedback! will remain untouched. Even if traffic is light, family law affects all of us, so that thread stays exactly as it is.
As for the thread violence and discrimination , it has served as our primary space for discussing discrimination against both women and men. Logically, it still makes sense to keep it.
So, what’s the proposal to wrap this up?
Just a heads-up: if we move toward a thread exclusively for men, we won't tolerate blatant or subtle insults toward women, labeling every woman a feminist, or similar generalizations.
The PDF covering family law frameworks is available. There’s also a separate file regarding policy, domestic violence, and discrimination. These topics are politically sensitive, so there's really no need to start new threads; everything can be handled within the existing ones. Moving forward, similar discussions will be consolidated under those specific headings. Whether these attempts to bypass that will result in moderator intervention remains to be seen.
Michael Davis9 said:The real issue here is that instead of stepping in when you saw a post targeting a specific group of people, you actually chose to validate it by highlighting one part of their argument as if it were correct.
My colleague doesn't have that kind of authority on the Politics subforum.
I honestly can't help but wonder what everyone's thinking about this lately. It feels like there's so much going on that we could all benefit from just sitting down and having a real, deep conversation about where things are headed. I’m curious to hear your thoughts—does anyone else feel like we're hitting a turning point? kaže: It would be absolutely wild if Željka decided to show up at that party just to cause a complete scene and stir the pot! 🙏 I can only imagine the look on the organizer's face! 🤣
I honestly feel like people in that community—whether you call them gay, homosexual, or whatever else—just seem to lack any real intellectual depth. Moves like this only end up hurting themselves in the long run. If UIO had just played their cards right, they could have walked away from an event like this with some serious wins for the company. 😍 It really just comes down to being smart about it. 👍
The moderator's response to that post—where everyone was being collectively labeled as low intelligence just because they were gay—wasn't actually some kind of formal warning or disciplinary strike. It was really just a snippet taken directly from the original post itself, followed by a little sarcastic nudge: "Nice one, chief." 🙏''.
Michael Davis9 said:I don't think cyclists deserve to be lumped in with things like "identity politics," "men's rights," "is the American public insane?", "asparagus season," or "industrial hemp farming."
In the end, even that bridge in Boise wasn't just some minor detail for a political advisor; it ended up right on the front page of the policy briefing.
I suspect this unintentionally sends the message that cycling isn't actually a pressing issue for Washington, D.C.—or even for the rest of the country.
These are all just political topics. There are others you’ve either missed by mistake or left out on purpose—they're listed in the PDF, including the one we're discussing now.
In terms of political weight, the new bridge project is definitely more vital for national infrastructure than connecting bike paths between Santa Monica and Boise—no offense intended to the NYC cyclists.