The thread isn't closed permanently, just until tomorrow to let things cool down. Nothing much will change regarding the arguments being thrown around here.
This is just an excerpt from the deleted posts; they don't belong here, especially since any replies quoting them were also removed. Add in a few off-topic comments and your own post containing too much private info, and you have about 15 deletions from today. None of it adds anything useful to the discussion.
one doesn't argue with idiots... .
People raised on primitive radicalism, Bolshevism, or just plain hatred for American traditions.
Your mindset and intellect clearly prevent you from mentioning anyone.
That's way over his head.
Insulting people just because they disagree shows how frustrated and unrefined you really are.
turning ourselves into fools
@Henry Hernandez7 this exchange has nothing to do with you, so please refrain.
Morgan Ruiz3 said:I wasn't quoting that specific part of the thread; the post was strictly about the regulations. I’m just trying to understand why things were deleted. I didn't see anything controversial in those posts, and it feels a bit pointless for them to become collateral damage for whatever nonsense started unfolding tonight.
Let's not make this complicated. Just DM me what you wrote and which thread it was in. I'll take a look, and we can talk about getting it restored.
Morgan Ruiz3 said:I realize there’s been plenty of trolling going on, but my comments about those organizations weren't part of that (if we're talking about the trolling regarding the death of priests in Canada).
Once you realize someone's trolling, you see how they just wipe everything out by quoting the initial post over and over. A chain of quotes, maybe ten deep.
Morgan Ruiz3 said:Why were my posts deleted where I mentioned certain advocacy groups? Those organizations have become incredibly vocal in the media regarding the conflict over implementing the CIA. I was just commenting on those groups and their gathering specifically centered on that dispute.
They were removed because things got a little messy for a moment and needed some tidying up. Feel free to repost them.
Just wait for the moderator. Who knows, maybe they turned in early since they have an early start tomorrow; they might show up this afternoon, at work, or... whatever. I just happened to be online to reply, though I could have easily missed it until tomorrow myself.
And let me tell you one more time: I didn't issue any ban after your question on Amtrak. That's all I have to say about it.
Matthew Young35 said:They interest me because they put me in a corner. They force my hand until I feel compelled to respond in kind, and then suddenly, I’m the one who gets flagged and banned. So, tell me—did anyone trigger the moderation after I posted that above?
We allow certain users to troll without restraint, hurling insults and spinning blatant lies over and over again. Then, when I finally snap and give them a taste of their own medicine, I’m the one facing the ban hammer. And now you're asking why I track who has been targeted by the policy of being cardboard and who hasn't. 😢
That second thread isn't even relevant to what you asked. It’s more about how the mods handle reading and managing topics.
I can't really address your second point regarding the ban, since you didn't receive that notice from the New York Times.
Why are you so obsessed with whether someone else's policy of being cardboard is intact or not? Besides, that post on Policy is already part of the policy of being cardboard—and it isn't the only one.
Why does everyone think we're stifling the conversation? The prompt itself clearly asks about the sex offender registry and its public disclosure, specifically looking at cases that have been ruled on or are currently pending in court.
If we want to dive into the legalities, let's stick to the legal subreddits. If we're talking legislation, maybe move it over to r/politics. But if the goal is to tackle the broader societal issue as a whole, then this thread is the place to be.
quieteagle5 said:Regarding the decision to lock the "Cat under the helmet" thread. I’ve opened this thread on Reddit to clear things up regarding how this series was actually produced. It was filmed in the late 70s, and honestly, there wasn't nearly as much censorship as people claim. Most of the outrage we hear now—especially from those former hardliners who rebranded themselves as democrats after the 90s—is just historical revisionism.
I tried to explain how both the book and the series were surprisingly uncensored, especially given what today's fake conservatives claim was that era of "unbearable communism." That’s really more about politics than anything to do with television. I'm not talking about stage props, the script itself, acting talent, or the general vibe of the production. I was referring to that specific era when the filming took place—touching on censorship, the way politics used to communicate back then, and how those exact same players are operating in today's climate. Cat under the helmet deserves more credit than Silent Spring. There’s more life in Cat under the helmet than in either of them. Which makes their take much more accurate.
That’s exactly what I was getting at. Moderator Charles Fox10 was quick to pull the trigger on that one, deciding it had something to do with the TV itself. It's really just about how you're watching it through the box. Please unlock this thread. I believe I’ve already laid out my reasoning above. Baseless accusations. Charles Fox10..
An accusation? What kind of accusation is that? Discussing a TV series, a movie, or a book isn't exactly breaking any rules here. Sure, if the show covers a certain era, you could argue it touches on history. But not everything is politics. Even on Reddit, the Politics section isn't just one single topic.
As if Sex Ed wasn't enough, now we need yet another topic.
Just a heads-up: threads like "why are conservatives X and liberals Y" aren't welcome here. If we let that kind of stuff take over, this forum would just turn into some endless political poll.
Morgan Carter said:No offense, but that’s just not true. People have been complaining long before this ................
Well, I think I have a better handle on who complained about what, considering you've only got maybe 300 posts and two months of seniority here. What are you, some kind of reincarnation?
I don't want to dwell on it. A word or a name isn't offensive on its own, but using it as an insult certainly is.
Admin, please lock this thread. Everything that needed to be said has been said.
First off, everything was wiped from the thread and moderated. It wasn't just slybison8 acting alone. And secondly, if you actually paid attention to what he wrote, he said the exact same thing I did yesterday on the main forum when you and that other guy were busy debating Canadians and Catholics.
Let me clarify once more: a word isn't inherently an insult. It’s the context that makes it one. You used the term "Catholic" repeatedly across about ten deleted posts yesterday, and yet, you weren't banned.
Finally, in this thread—which has over 40,000 posts—I’ve personally asked several times how we should address people and whether using terms like "Muslim" or "Canadian" would be considered offensive. The consensus among everyone here was always the same: just watch the context. It worked perfectly fine before, too. Everyone understood where the lines were drawn, and we haven't had issues until now.
It’s like a convention of a unified council of atheists who have banned jokes about atheists. Here we go again...
These jokes are meant for a very specific corner of the forum. You have to know the unwritten rules to understand the game...
But here's the deal: you can make jokes about the stuff you mentioned—cops and blondes—even if they take offense. You can poke fun at believers, too. You can even be a bit crude regarding the Virgin Mary's purity...
But you aren't allowed to tell jokes about atheists. That’s the ultimate sacred rule here: the idea that you mustn't mock the fact that atheists believe life is meaningless and everything will eventually be swallowed by nothingness. For instance, I almost got called out on religion again because of that. It’s all fine to mock someone else's faith, but when someone finds a way to mock them and their beliefs—to actually sting them—then they gather together... and before long, you aren't even allowed to tell jokes anymore...
And now this list shows there are quite a few Americans among them. That was supposed to be my new material—I admit, I intended to write some biting jokes. I just don't see why that would be an issue? If the Virgin Mary's hymen isn't immune to jokes, why should atheist beliefs or the presence of Americans among the atheists be a problem? It's not as if being an American or an atheist matters more to me, a Catholic, than the Virgin Mary herself. Is it because the moderators are mostly atheists? It's an open secret on this forum that they mock Catholic faith in the moderator lounge, calling believers "fanatics," which one of the mods actually let slip...
But the real joke and the best entertainment is having to submit a request just to post jokes about atheists. There’s a mob of angry atheists patrolling the forum, stopping me from telling jokes about themselves. That’s the biggest punchline; you just have to keep watching...
Take this comment, for example...
(and sorry if you happen to be an atheist, since most of the mods here are...)
😂
And the funniest part is when you write something completely mindless, yet you see this person foaming at the mouth regardless, because they realize what I'm aiming at. They try to claim it's just "unfunny," but really, they just can't handle the core of the matter...😂
.
.
Are you thinking of something like this??
What's the difference between a tow truck and a fence??
You can paint a tow truck green, but you can't lean on a fence.
Terry Ramos said:How much longer are we going to tolerate blatant fascism on this forum? I find myself wondering why there are no sanctions against certain individuals who openly justify atrocities committed across the globe, particularly those targeting Muslims. Take, for instance, the discussions regarding the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar, where some people actually defend these crimes and label innocent civilians as "jihadists"... or even look at the discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine, where a significant number of users seem to cheer for the killing of civilians and call for renewed attacks on Gaza. This isn't about the "freedom of speech" or having an opinion; it is quite clearly fascism, and it often pushes me to react harshly, which inevitably leads to my own ban, while the fascists just continue their provocations unabated...
So, I have to ask: is it actually permitted here to support the slaughter of an entire people?
No. Report the posts. We'll take a look if we missed anything.
Two points in two days for breaking rules that usually carry thirty points over a month—even after an explanation was provided on the thread following my inquiry—and then having a strike wiped because I commented on moderation? To you, that's just driving users away.
Providing a clear explanation of what isn't allowed is also considered "driving users away."
I’d probably wrap this up a bit later than my colleague here; there isn't some official ban on discussing it.
In one of your own posts, you admitted you were just trolling:
I'm trolling. And I'm enjoying it.
I get where you're coming from, and the idea wasn't half bad, but it's far too snarky for the New York Times.
They were caught completely off guard by the snow, much like we were after fifty years of not seeing it. It's what happens when Mother Nature decides to show her teeth—now they likely realize some of them weren't being entirely fair about our situation.