Sarah Doyle54 said:Regarding the lock, you weren't wrong—I actually did lock it for a few minutes because people kept ignoring the moderator warnings. But since gender quotas are a totally legitimate political debate, and it isn't fair to punish everyone just because a few folks wanted to go off on tangents about "man-hating" or "radical feminists" (post deleted, not Guggenheim's), I realized I overreacted and unlocked the thread.
I noticed you edited your post afterward. Just want to be clear and transparent here: the thread was locked and unlocked before Satnik's post even showed up. Locking it had nothing to do with that specific post.
Sarah Doyle54 said:Ashley Smith24, the warning given to Guggenheim happened after the supermod asked twice (1, 2) not to let this thread spiral into the kind of arguments that got the last two threads locked. You weren't wrong—the topic actually was locked for a few minutes because the mod warnings were being ignored again. But since gender quota discussions are worth having, I figured I overreacted and unlocked it.
I'd love to hear your take on how Guggenheim actually broke those supermod warnings.
The controversial post that earned him the strike was just a logical follow-up to his previous one—it made things easier for anyone joining the thread to see what we were actually talking about. His first post touched on the Equal Rights Amendment and its specific provisions, while his second one (the one you responded to) just summarized some of those measures.
Honestly, even if I try to be picky, I don't see anything improper about that post or any violation of the supermod's warning.
After seeing Sarah Doyle54's reaction to the topic, I took a quick look at the other posts on the forum too. Satnik's He agreed with that controversial post by Guggenheim, but he got flagged almost immediately. A few moments later, Satnik's entire post was wiped from the board.
To be fair, that deleted post probably deserved a warning since it was pretty disrespectful to the mods. But honestly, why did it have to be wiped entirely? Is it just to make it look like nobody actually agrees with Guggenheim’s perfectly reasonable takes? Pretty soon, there won't be anyone left brave enough to think like him. I really wonder if that's what we're actually aiming for.
The Guggenheim isn't some outlier in the news. If there’s actual objectivity within the administration, we have to give them credit. You should challenge ideas with solid arguments, not by just deleting posts because someone happens to agree with something you don't like.
Just to be clear, I’m not asking to redact anything—I'm just requesting that we delete Satnik's post entirely.
I’m reaching out to ask if you could please take a second look at the decision made by moderator Sarah Doyle54 to lock the thread regarding "Gender quotas on election ballots—'positive' discrimination."
I’ve been following the discussion closely, and honestly, I can't see any reason why it had to be shut down. If the moderator felt the conversation was drifting away from the core issue of quotas, it would have been much fairer to just move the chat to a different topic or start a new one. Shutting down a serious, well-argued debate about equal protection under the law and the Constitution isn't just unfair to everyone who put time and effort into these posts—it feels like it stifles critical thinking in this country.
I really hope you see this appeal as coming from a good place. I'd also ask Sarah Doyle54 to reconsider her call—there's no harm in admitting a mistake. We all mess up sometimes!
Best regards,
Ashley Smith24
EDIT: I just went back and checked, and it looks like the thread isn't actually locked. 😕 There was just a warning issued to Guggenheim, which I don't think was necessary either, since that specific comment was just clarifying a previous point.
If I totally missed something or misread the situation, my apologies to Sarah Doyle54. But I really don't think Guggenheim should be called out or warned for making perfectly valid and well-reasoned points.
Are you saying all communication is off-limits now? Even one-sided messages like the ones I sent, where the banned user can't actually reply or participate anymore?
I’m not quite sure what you mean by "interfering" with someone else's moderation calls... 😕 If a regular user sends a message to someone who's been banned, and that message isn't attacking the admins or questioning their decision, I don't see how that undermines anyone's authority.
I really hope you'll take a moment to consider why I'm reaching out and the suggestions I've made in my previous posts. Look, I’m no genius, and I’m definitely not claiming to be right about everything. I’m not trying to force my views on anyone or push this agenda, but I truly believe these points are worth considering for those who handle the site rules.
We're human beings. We have this capacity for connection that sets us apart from anything else, and we shouldn't be suppressing that part of ourselves.
PS. If my post over at Congratulations, which was meant for the banned user, was misinterpreted and that's why it got pulled, I'm happy to fix it. Personally, I think it was pretty straightforward, but I'm willing to adjust.
Matthew Anderson said:You can actually send a shout-out to someone who's been banned right here on this PDF, it's just that they won't be able to reply to you.
I didn't realize that. I actually asked about this back when I made my third post here. I thought it was against the rules.
Alright then, I'll give it a shot. Hopefully, I don't get a warning!
Matthew Anderson said:I don't see any reason to debate this. It's pretty straightforward. If you let banned users jump back in to reply to even a single PDF or one random post, you've completely defeated the whole purpose of the ban.
That wasn't actually what I suggested. Go ahead and re-read my earlier comments so I don't have to repeat myself. 🙂 No one—not even people who are banned—should have the right to comment on those posts.
Check out my previous post. Including the part you missed. 😉
Also, try looking at this from another angle. Think about how it benefits people who want to pay their respects but haven't been banned. Remember, nobody is a total villain. Everyone’s done some good things in their life (and on this forum too!), and I think we can be a little generous for those good moments. 🙂
Michelle Evans said:I'm not totally sure if that actually violates any rules, it feels more like a technical glitch to me. Not really certain. But hey, that's just how it is.
The tech side just follows the rules; if the rules change, the settings follow suit. 😉
If private messages are off the table, is there any other way to reach out to someone who's been permanently banned? If not, I have an idea. Along with the current banned list and the section for folks who want to send a final goodbye, thanks, or just whatever is on their heart... maybe we could allow a message on the specific thread they were part of? It wouldn't give moderators the job of deleting it as off-topic, and other users wouldn't be able to reply.
I don't see this as undermining the admin's authority or questioning their decision to ban someone. To me, it’s just a warm, human gesture. In my humble opinion, everyone deserves that, even the biggest troublemaker.
Since you're closer to the decision-makers, any chance you could push for these changes? Please...! 🙂
😕 That’s a permanent ban, though. Even folks serving life sentences in US prisons get to have contact with people outside their immediate circle—it’s not just family or best friends; they can receive letters from pretty much anyone.
Michelle Evans, thanks for getting back to me. Rules are rules, I get it, but if I can be honest, this one feels a bit heartless. If we’re actually trying to build a better world, maybe we should keep that in mind... 😢
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find any mention of this anywhere. I tried sending a DM to a user who's been permanently banned from the forum, but no luck there. Is there any other way to get in touch? I really care about this... 😢
And even that is up for debate. See, the folks pushing the "traditional family" angle act like biological parents are the only ones capable of truly loving a child they're raising. Every single day, adoption stories and kids in the foster care system prove them wrong, but hey, who cares? It's all about the biology 🙂
I'm with you on animals, but why drag humans down to their level instead of the other way around? Why project one bad relationship onto the whole species?
You totally misread me there. I'm no anarchist, and I'm certainly not suggesting we live like beasts in the wild. My point—for the millionth time—is simply that the nuclear family isn't set in stone. It hasn't always been the universal building block of society, it isn't inherently sacred, and it definitely isn't the only environment where a healthy human being can thrive.
So, I really have to wonder: why is there such massive fear surrounding the evolution of the family unit? Why the resistance to upgrading our communities and letting things change as people evolve and times move forward? It should be natural, just like everything else.
What am I thinking? Trying to build some kind of utopia with my own two hands? Good luck with that.
Quincy:
That’s debatable. People pushing the whole "traditional family" thing seem to act like biological parents are the only ones capable of truly loving the kids they raise.
You mentioned robots earlier. But look, let's set those aside for a second. My take? It all comes down to love. At this level of consciousness, we just can't find that kind of connection without having family to lean on.
Quincy:
You got me wrong. I'm not an anarchist, and I definitely don't think we should all be living like animals. I just want to say—for the hundredth time—that the family unit isn't set in stone. It’s not some universal constant that serves as the bedrock for everyone, nor is it necessarily the only way for a person to grow up healthy and well-adjusted.
It makes me wonder, though. Why is everyone so terrified of change? Whether it's evolving our family structures, upgrading how we build communities, or just adapting as life moves forward... people should embrace it. We change, the world changes, and that's just how it works.
Since you’ve got more guts than I do, tell me this: how would you go about making sure a kid—or even an adult—gets enough love in today's world? And I mean outside the family circle, of course. 🤷
I hope you don't honestly think we can make it on our own without that!
Gregory Peterson2 said:I’m with you on that, but let’s be real: shifting to a higher state of consciousness doesn't just happen by magic. It’s built through how we think. If we convince ourselves that the status quo is the only "right" way and label anything else as crazy or unnatural, then progress moves at a snail's pace. It’s the same old story. We saw it with civil rights movements, we saw it with racial equality, even back when slavery was the norm. People always cry foul whenever something changes—calling it "unnatural," saying it goes against God, or saying it's against human nature. But based on what? Look, we *are* part of nature. Everything we create is an extension of nature. Our technology? Natural. Our breakthroughs? Totally natural.
Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit here, but just imagine a world a century from now where robots raise children. Imagine kids being grown in labs and nurtured by two robots or even just one. Even today, technology plays a huge role in how we're shaped. We use tech to sharpen reflexes, learn languages through gaming or AI, and connect via the internet... And let's just assume for a second that this works perfectly for their mental development—that they grow up healthy and brilliant.
What would even be missing?
Humans are living organisms, just like cabbage, mushrooms, cats, dogs, or monkeys. We breed them, we cultivate them, we manage them. Yet, because we fancy ourselves "superior beings," we insist that the only valid way to exist is within a traditional family, and that a child can only be conceived through biological means because anything else is "unnatural."
With that kind of mindset, you're putting way too much pressure on thought alone! 😉
Quincy:
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but imagine a world 100 years from now where robots raise children. Kids created in a lab, raised by one or two robots. Honestly, technology is already shaping how we grow up. We use tech to train reflexes, learn languages (think gaming or AI), and navigate the web... And let's assume for a second that their mental development turns out perfectly fine—that they end up healthy and smart.
What would be missing?
Love! 🙂
Quincy:
Humans are living beings just like cabbage, mushrooms, cats, dogs, or monkeys... We breed and raise all of them. But because we view ourselves as these "superior" beings, we insist that family is the only way, and that a child can only be conceived through traditional intimacy because anything else is "unnatural."
I'm with you on the animals, but why drag humans down to their level instead of raising the bar for us? Why project one bad relationship onto the whole human experience?
Gregory Peterson2 said:I honestly don't get why there's this massive push to frame the nuclear family as this ultimate, sacred foundation—this primal human right that supposedly sits above every other type of community. Why is it that the Church is always preaching about the family? Why are all these non-profits and social groups constantly hammering away at the same theme? What even defines a "family" in today's world? We’re being conditioned to believe this specific blueprint—mom, dad, and kids living under one roof—is the absolute gold standard for human development. It’s presented as this lofty, divinely ordained ideal that we should all strive for.
Here’s the thing: if we look at history, the traditional nuclear family is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in human evolution. We used to live in tribes; we lived in extended kinship networks (and some people still do!), and now we’ve shifted into these small household units. Personally, I think even this model is starting to fray at the edges as people gravitate toward new ways of connecting, whether that's through same-sex partners, roommates, or chosen families. And what's the harm in that? Why does the nuclear family have to be the "best"? For all we know, a tribal structure might actually work better! Are we all just going to regress back to prehistoric clans?
Do you see where I'm coming from? I just can't wrap my head around elevating one specific economic and emotional arrangement to such a celestial status. It's just one way humans have figured out how to survive together, not the only way. Plus, let's be real: dysfunctional families are everywhere. It’s much more common than people care to admit. Yet, people stay trapped in those toxic environments—especially in deeply religious parts of the US—simply because we're taught that the family unit is sacred. There's this intense social pressure to stay put. If you leave, people judge you. They say things like, "They tore the family apart." 😲
I'd love to hear what you all think about this...
Maybe not, but it’s the only way right now. Real change takes a higher level of awareness—less selfishness and more actual connection and empathy. If we could love our neighbor's kid like our own, or treat a neighbor like a brother, things would be different. If we didn't constantly feel the need to outdo everyone else and actually became selfless, the traditional family unit might lose its current importance. Love would just be everywhere. No one would be attacking anyone, and no one would feel the need to protect their own from the rest.
So (assuming we're all thinking good thoughts here! 🙂), we shouldn't be talking about getting rid of families. Instead, we should focus on tightening the bonds within our own communities—like our neighborhoods or the US as a whole—to pave the way for a better society. Otherwise, we're just leaving the door open for abuse.
granitefalcon26 said:Imagine if I started ten different threads about the Republican Party. What would that even look like?? It’s starting to feel less like a debate and more like straight-up misogyny from this user. 🙂
Even if there were ten threads about the Republican Party, they'd all be different. Some might target specific politicians, others might focus on certain scandals or events. They wouldn't all pop up at once, but if you dug through the archives, you'd definitely find plenty of content over a year. 🤷
I'm not sure why you see it that way. As a woman, I don't get that vibe at all. All I see is a real push for fair laws and actual gender equality—plus maybe some frustration when things aren't moving fast enough.
I don't know, Charles Fox10, I'm not sure that's the best move—shoving all these different topics into one single thread. It usually just turns into a chaotic mess where the actual point gets lost. Just imagine if we did that with other political issues... we'd have one massive thread for the economy and everything would be dumped under it. 🤷
Of course, I'm not saying we need five or ten identical threads. I just think specific events in our public and political life involving gender issues deserve their own dedicated space for discussion.
I don't follow all of his threads religiously, so I won't pretend to have a deep critique of recent events—especially when it comes to how specific people act. But honestly, this subject deserves its own serious discussion. Right now, it’s stuck in the "close to politics" section of Reddit, where things have become too vague and lost touch with what the original poster actually intended.
At first glance, I think the current thread can stay put since it’s already getting a bit stale. However, any new topics need to be much more specific and focused on actual political developments. Plus, the moderators really need to step up and clear out the inappropriate posts so we don't end up with the same mess we saw in past threads.
It honestly surprises me sometimes how many otherwise smart and well-rounded Redditors just don't get the issues facing fathers and men today. It seems like society is so hyper-focused on women's issues that they forget men have struggles too. It’s not an "either/or" situation. Hurting a woman doesn't justify hurting a man! We can only fix this flawed logic by constantly pointing out how nonsensical it is, which is exactly what silentridge3 and a few others are trying to do.
Let's not kid ourselves and pretend this isn't a big deal. We shouldn't wait until it hits home personally before realizing how serious this is. Online forums are one of the few places where we can actually make a difference when government institutions and other societal structures fail us. This is one of those cases.