So, we should just silence anyone who disagrees with one specific "side"? Interesting. No one is being banned from posting, nor is anyone being blacklisted for having a different opinion. There’s always the ignore button, after all. As for trolling, off-topic rambling, or insults—your own post actually checks a few of those boxes. To be fair, some of the reported posts aren't great, but then again, plenty of the unreported ones aren't exactly stellar either.
The post stays up because we aren't deleting it. As for your mushroom and backpack theory, you're way off—there’s at least 311 miles clear line of sight between us. Besides, I'm just following Mesić’s advice: "let the institutions do their jobs."
Whether he’ll regret it is anyone's guess. But I'm not sure how you stepped into the role of editor-in-chief; I'll leave that judgment to the moderators. If anyone asks my opinion, I know exactly which paragraph fails to meet my standards. I suspect my colleague and I are thinking along the same lines.
Paul Green31 said:My post was removed from the thread, so I'm moving here. If I don't get a strike for hate speech, I’ll certainly try my best to earn one.
I deleted it myself. The answer is no—you can't just demand a strike. We don't moderate based on personal whims. As for your complaint about the moderator's decision regarding our colleague, the administration will review it if he decides to formally appeal his strike.
So, deleting the post somehow absolves you of the rule violation. How convenient.
Carl Fox said:The thread isn't related to my topic at all. Sure, the setting is similar, but the actual issue is entirely different. I was just trying to approach things from a different angle. It’s rare to hear anyone actually discussing how to prevent or avoid a war. I wanted to see if people even consider that, since nobody in the other thread seemed to think of it. If you want to let threads filled with finger-pointing run wild while shutting down one that appeals to common sense, then your motives are pretty questionable .
If the location is the same, then we're talking about a potential conflict in Canada, and there's already a thread for that.
Peter Reyes63 said:The Left is an enigma I just can't quite wrap my head around. I'm not trying to attack them here. I’m just trying to corner them. Let's keep this civil, please. I honestly can't wrap my head around their logic. It's the complete opposite of how I see things.
I mostly wanted to start a thread about their... economic I don't care about their stances. I get their whole deal—pro-gay, anti-nationalist, anti-military. I don't have any questions about where they stand.
Why are leftists so obsessed with redistribution? Is it just pure envy, malice, or some twisted idea of equality? I come from a solid middle-class background. My parents are highly educated, I am too, and we’re all financially stable. We actually work for a living. So, definitely no Ivanka Trumps in my family.
Look, I don't have any beef with wealthy people.I'm talking about people who built their wealth the legitimate way. I don't give a damn about those crooks who got rich through shady privatization schemes.). I actually want more wealthy people in the States, especially if they’re coming from abroad. I see them as a net positive. Let them start companies, create jobs, and buy from local suppliers. But whenever I scroll through the comments on sites like CNN or the New York Times, all I see is pure contempt. The second someone successful comes up—like that woman who founded Zora—it’s just constant hate. People act like she only achieved what she did because she’s rich. It’s pathetic.
Hold on a second. I might actually be able to wrap my head around your argument if she had built her fortune by trafficking kids, but she made her money through legitimate means.
As Ludwig von Mises put it, In a capitalist system, you only get rich if you actually solve someone else's problems. You build wealth by making other people wealthier. It’s pretty simple: you offer products or services that people actually find valuable enough to pay for. At the end of the day, consumers call the shots. They’re the ones in control, deciding through their spending exactly which companies thrive and which ones go bust.
So, why do leftists have such a massive chip on their shoulder when it comes to wealthy, successful people? Why do they treat success like some kind of moral failing, and why are they so hell-bent on burying them under draconian taxes?
I’ve got three theories:
Equality. The obsession with equality is exhausting. The further left you go, the more they demand total parity. You’ve got the hardline communists wanting everyone in the same uniform with universal access to everything, while the moderate liberals push for progressive taxation. But what is this fixation on equality, really? People aren't equal. It’s simple. Some people work harder, some are more capable, some have more ambition or higher intelligence. I get equality before the law. I'm all for equal voting rights. And look, I don't mind "free" healthcare or public schools—I accept that. But you could fund those things with a low, flat income tax. Even if we could cover all our social services through a flat tax, the left would still demand progressive rates. They aren't looking for equal opportunity; they want total economic leveling. They don't seem to realize that the only way to force that kind of fantasy world into existence is through raw power. The only way they achieve it is by having the state forcibly seize the wealth people worked their lives away to build. Maybe equality isn't even their end goal. It might just be a cover for something else entirely.
2. Jealousy Is this whole obsession with equality just a smokescreen for some deeper leftist agenda? Take Sweden, for example. It’s a place where the government holds your hand from birth until death. But if you actually sit down and read a pamphlet by someone like Ludwig von Mises, you start to see the cracks. Occupy Wall StreetThey’re obsessed with fighting the wealth gap. Just a heads-up though: if you look at the Gini index, Sweden is basically the most equal country in Europe.
3. Bias and prejudice Maybe this is it. They probably think the only way to make a buck is by playing dirty. Exploiting people, cheating, stealing. That's just how they see it. 🤷
What do you guys think? I’m calling on all the forum keyboard warriors to step up and explain themselves.
Admin, please don't lock this thread. If you think it’s too political, just move it to another section. I'm not here to troll or start fights; I'm just breaking down how the left-wing mindset actually works.
Usually, I dismiss threads that make sweeping generalizations, but this one caught my eye. We’ve already established the tropes: the leftists are jealous, uneducated, thieves, war profiteers, and lazy—people who don't grasp the concept of work, yet somehow all manage to sit on various corporate boards doing essentially nothing.
Quite amusing... It's obvious how much this fits under politics, though how long it lasts depends entirely on how much "fun" we have.
Haven't the moderators of this forum asked more than once?
We’ve asked you to report the posts rather than quoting them; someone from the mod team will always drop by eventually. You know how it goes—you spot a troll or a duplicate account after a post or two, and instead of ignoring it, you engage. Then, a day later, we're stuck cleaning up dozens of comments.
And you aren't just active on this specific thread, but let's not get sidetracked. That's beside the point here.
Susan Price30 said:I'm sorry, but that doesn't really seem like much of an issue to me. Besides, everything involved is quite easy to see and verify...
Maybe the issue is that you simply don't. I see. What exactly is the issue here: your absolute lack of any right to censor, or just your sheer arrogance in trying to control the most trending topic on the busiest subforum?
The discussion proceeded without any major issues or excessive moderator intervention. There were hardly any bans issued over the last ten pages, which makes me wonder—given how abruptly everything was shut down—if the debate itself wasn't actually controversial, but rather something else entirely.
One has to question your ability to moderate, especially regarding something like the Politics PDF, given this isn't the first occurrence. Every time you've done this—locking up a heated topic for no reason—it ends up being reopened shortly after, if not the very same day. This suggests that your decisions in all these instances have been incorrect; at the very least, in this case, it feels like an exercise in pure ego rather than acting in the interest of the Forum or its users.
Do you really think the reason you gave for the shutdown still holds water?
And this was how it looked.
So much noise over a drunk arrest. Now even the President has to deal with some offended alcoholics. 1.33 BAC... The link.
My exhausted response to that— You're right, there's really no point in even bringing it up, Lock!
Unseen!😁
If you accept my explanation, fine; if not, that's your prerogative, and that's also fine.
The thing is, at the moment the thread was locked, there was no way to read or even hint that the arrest happened several hours after the rally once intoxication was confirmed, nor that exactly an hour and 45 minutes later, a fellow PL member obtained more precise data and opened the thread. That's all there is to it.
Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.
Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.
That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.
jadeseal4 said:Dear Charles Fox10, I thought the subject was quite high-quality—certainly relevant given how things are moving lately. I added some links and commentary, though you seem to have scrubbed them. Whatever. I’ll keep writing and just watch you delete everything. Go ahead and allow a thread about the FBI; let's see how "unbiased" you really are.
Not from 2005. Start a new one and include all five.
Just compile everything properly and start a legitimate thread for once. Put in some actual effort instead of reviving an old topic with a single half-baked sentence like this
Honestly, it's embarrassing.
Then there's this nonsense about the CIA... suggesting the CIA founded the Republican Party???
So, now we’re digging up threads from 2005 just to circle back to the same old arguments? You want to talk about Perković on one thread and then jump over to some archived mess about the FBI on another.
There’s actually a more recent discussion about those CIA Agents, but you clearly missed it while scavenging through the "dead" archives—especially since this one you found from 2005 barely had ten posts to begin with.
I can only imagine how much you'd complain if you actually got flagged for reviving such an ancient thread.
Besides, who’s stopping you from digging through the archives to start a decent conversation on the Politics board?
If you want to discuss Perković, stick to his dedicated thread. It's right here:
Since this also falls under Music, you’re free to write about the concert there. The last update in the Music section was 15 days ago . Or is it just not fun to write there???
Is Thompson's concert in San Francisco some sort of rebellion or protest against the celebrations for joining the European Union in Washington, D.C.? It's quite interesting, but not substantial enough for a thread in Politics.
Once Mark gets involved in Politics, any topic concerning him will certainly revolve around that. As for this matter regarding his potential tax debt, it remains inactive for quite some time, much like many other threads in Politics once they lose their novelty.
Therefore, the concert took place before a massive crowd—the media mentions 50,000 people—and it ended exactly how these concerts usually do. Everyone went home. The media covered it decently from the announcement until just before it started, and even today in most relevant outlets, but that's where the story ends.
Since it was held very close to my apartment, I can tell you personally that I didn't notice anything noteworthy in the behavior or fashion of the attendees before or after the show. Roughly 30% of them passed right under my balcony.
In short, there was no politics involved, and since we have nothing to read, even the Police didn't seem to have much to do. The whole musical event concluded in a perfectly decent and civilized manner, as did this discussion.
As an Atlanta Braves fan, the only thing I care about is the condition of the grass at Poljud, but I suppose we'll discuss that over in the Sports section.
Thompson isn't cut out for politics. Yet, he seems to be the most talked-about figure in the political scene, sparking more debate than anyone else. And now, suddenly... Thompson’s concert isn't about politics. If there had been 500 people there, then he would have been.
Transparent.
Exactly. Not for PDF. Politics, maybe. Music? Definitely possible.
Neither Mile Kekin nor Marko Perković Thompson belong in this Politics thread, and since the claims about media blackouts during yesterday’s concert—which was held just five blocks from my place—aren't even accurate, I'm locking this topic.