Posts by redhawk76

I see people are reading this... yet there isn't a single response to be found. So, I am resubmitting this report:

I intend to persistently report this blatant and offensive ad hominem trolling until it finally meets with a sanction, or until someone can provide me with a clear explanation as to why this is considered an acceptable exception to the very rules established by this forum, under which such communication is strictly penalized.

I would appreciate it if someone from administration (referring to the television network PDF, though any relevant guideline will do since the issue is universal) could clarify whether this specific style of posting and commenting is permitted under our rules, or if it constitutes a violation subject to sanctions:

From my perspective, the entire post is nothing more than a blatant ad hominem attack—derisive, insulting, and entirely devoid of substance. There isn't a single constructive thought to be found, not even a well-reasoned critique; it is purely mockery.

I have already filed a report, though I haven't seen a response yet. If my assessment was off base, I apologize; however, I would ask for an explanation as to how such a post meets the communication standards of this forum, especially when it seems to fly in the face of the very engagement guidelines this site promotes and requires. Thank you.

I tried uploading an image to Imgur, but I’ve hit a wall. The four fields on the left—the ones meant for the HTML, IMG Code, URL, and Direct link—are just completely blacked out. Since I can't actually grab any of those links, the entire upload ends up being pretty much useless.

Has the process changed recently without my noticing, or am I just dealing with a temporary glitch?

Larry Walker24 said:this PDF is actually more relevant to this discussion

Reddit

Thanks, I'll check there as well. Even though we aren't strictly discussing medical matters here, it seems like a logical move to me; one would assume doctors might be better equipped to explain these kinds of physiological responses...

I’m not entirely certain if I’ve selected the right research paper, but my intuition suggests I have; it seems we are likely looking at a physiological response—a sort of internal "self-regulation" of our thermal sensors...

To illustrate: over the last few days, I stumbled upon a phenomenon I had never previously considered. During this recent heatwave, my indoor thermometer read a steady 72 degrees Fahrenheit. At the time, I was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, bare legs, and sandals, yet I felt perfectly comfortable—neither chilled nor overheated.

Contrast that with my experience during the winter months. When the house is set to that exact same 72 degrees, even while dressed in layers—long sleeves, sweaters, heavy socks, and trousers—it feels freezing. I find myself immediately cranking the thermostat up to 75 or 76 degrees, which is the bare minimum I require to feel functional and comfortable.

Does anyone have an explanation for this baffling discrepancy? It is as if temperature ceases to be an objective metric, as though our perception of the exact same degree shifts based on certain—though I am unsure which—circumstances.

Edward Ortiz77 said:I’m echoing this inquiry and would like to remind everyone that I raised this exact issue on these boards a while back. The situation surrounding Zlatko Hasanbegović is a complete anomaly for this forum. We haven’t seen a case where a thread about a current political figure is censored and discussion is outright blocked like it was with his topic. From a purely business standpoint, he is the kind of figure who generates debate, drives clicks, and boosts readership—exactly what any forum owner should want. Yet, the thread was locked, and the justifications provided for doing so are utterly unconvincing. Looking at this from all angles, it forces us to question the competence of the current moderation team. If the present staff is incapable of handling discussions regarding figures like Zlatko Hasanbegović without resorting to tactics that look a lot like censorship, perhaps it is time to consider a "refresh" of the moderation staff instead of these heavy-handed maneuvers.

Yes, I remember clearly; I actually took part in the debate regarding how that specific thread should have been moderated, only to watch the whole thing get extinguished shortly after. Quite some time has passed since then, and one can only hope the moderators have learned their lesson—realizing that the solution is to manage a conversation (even if they approach it with a certain bias👎), rather than simply burying it. After all, a discussion regarding a prominent and very active member of the US Congress has a perfectly legitimate right to exist, regardless of whether people find his actions agreeable or not.

The discussion thread dedicated to Zlatko Hasanbegović has been absent from the forum for quite some time now. If memory serves, it was shuttered under the rather dubious pretext of excessive bickering, flame wars, and off-topic tangents... yet it wasn't just a temporary cooling-off period as we usually see; it appears to have been closed for good.

Personally, I find this decision entirely unacceptable. Given that Hasanbegović is a legitimate member of the US Congress, I am certain that a dedicated thread regarding his activities would attract a significant and reasonable amount of engagement. Furthermore, if specific users were violating community guidelines, that should be handled through standard moderation—letting the mods actually do their jobs—rather than erasing the entire conversation.

Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be barred from discussing or commenting on the actions and policies of a US Congressional representative like Zlatko Hasanbegović? It seems inconsistent if we are permitted to debate any other political figure, whether they operate on a local, national, or global stage.

I look forward to your response.

Adam Barrett said:And why hasn't this post been hit with a well-deserved 500-point penalty? I reported it, a moderator is even active on the thread, yet this guy is openly cheering for the murder of children, claiming the braids from the Hudson pit are fakes, and just straight-up mocking the victims.

It didn't get penalized, and it won't, because the moderators share the exact same mindset as that user.
I have a feeling that somewhere in the background, they’re just smirking at this entire discussion... thinking to themselves, "Let those fools keep scribbling and whining away..."

Over&out

I honestly question why a thread like this is even allowed to remain on the forum. It’s one thing to host such discussions, but for the moderators to actually chime in and join the celebrations for something we had to dismantle through sheer bloodshed... all while we're just days away from the anniversary of the tragedy in the Midwest... It’s frankly shameful.

KLCCLK As stated by redhawk76:
...

Look, my friend... I didn't start this thread just because someone in an otherwise "normal" post decided to call Hillary Clinton "fat" or a "cow," or whatever other insults they threw at her in a row.
I opened it because of those posts I mentioned—whose was it? The sheer volume of insults being hurled here has long since moved past a momentary outburst or a single misplaced word born of frustration; we have entered a territory of sustained hostility that far exceeds a simple lapse in judgment.It is quite telling that none of the moderators stepped in to remove those posts—even after seeing them and engaging directly with the author—nor did anyone bother to issue a warning or, heaven forbid, impose any actual sanctions, until I finally took it upon myself to report them.

So, there's really no need to drag that into the conversation. Individualized. Those subtle, almost impudent little remarks that slip through the cracks—you know exactly what I mean. It’s never truly about the words themselves. If I were actually paying attention to every minor slight, I’d spend my entire day just clicking through endless reports.

We are seeing a continuous stream of lengthy, crude, and frankly hateful outbursts—posts that are nothing more than pure vitriol—yet the moderators seem content to sit idly by, offering zero intervention unless a user eventually takes the initiative to file a formal report.

We seem to be drifting off-topic again, yet strangely, nobody is stepping in to comment. Is this kind of tangential wandering actually permitted here, or is this thread somehow an exclusive playground for such diversions?

lonebadger6 said:Most people get a pass for insulting politicians because it acts as a sort of pressure valve... the kind of things you mentioned usually get scrubbed because they cross the line, though they don't always result in a ban.

When it comes to politicians, we typically issue bans for anyone spreading medical diagnoses—not just calling someone "crazy," but actually labeling them with mental illnesses—as well as more malicious slurs that carry much heavier consequences, like saying "Joe Biden is a traitor" or "Newt Gingrich wishes he could reopen Auschwitz."

How exactly do you interpret this, given the circumstances?

Guidelines regarding PDF submissions for the Politics section.As they say:

• Article 4.
On the politics sub-forum, the following is prohibited:
• To insult is a simple thing, yet rarely is it done with any true elegance or purpose. Whether we are discussing nationality, ethnicity, social standing, religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, or political affiliation. ...or any other basis whatsoever..

In these matters... Regarding our community guidelines. I don't see any instance where anyone's insults toward others are being tolerated by anyone.
If that is indeed the case, then any decision to tolerate offensive behavior becomes nothing more than a matter of arbitrary whim for individual moderators—a level of inconsistency that simply cannot be tolerated on a forum of this caliber.

Society generally tends to turn a blind eye when it comes to people insulting politicians. It’s nothing more than an exhaust valve.

If one considers the fundamental nature of any proposition...It seems we have reached a stage where every possible target is being insulted without distinction.The rules are explicitly clear, which means there’s absolutely no room for "discretion," leniency, or a soft touch—regardless of who is involved, even if we're dealing with someone prone to histrionic outbursts and thin skin.

Otherwise, those who find themselves irritated by certain users on this forum could just as easily demand the same privilege—standing there with the exact same logic and justification. On what grounds are we denying them their own "safety valve"?

William Bennett53 said:What goes for Andrew Cuomo, Todd Solondz, Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi also applies to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Robert Bork, or John Roberts. You can call any one of them a fat cow, a drunk, a disgusting creature, or a total loser. We don't permit attacks on voters, insults based on race or nationality, or any similar attempts at generalization. Furthermore, posts targeting politicians have been penalized when they become excessively repetitive, as that falls under trolling. To summarize: anything you can get away with saying about Todd Solondz, you can just as easily say about Hillary Clinton, but you certainly can't say it about forum member X.

First off—I find myself deeply skeptical of your claims, as I cannot recall a single post on any thread that was ever phrased with the kind of vulgar vitriol found in those posts by kiss me.

But perhaps I should test this theory.😉 Are you suggesting that if I were to write something truly vile—say, calling Nancy Pelosi a fat, arrogant, lying cow—on her own thread, I would remain unpunished and my posts wouldn't be deleted? Fine, let’s see how that plays out. (I still need to come up with something for Joe Biden, though I doubt that will prove difficult.😛)

1. If everything is supposedly permitted, why were those specific hateful and insulting posts on the Hillary Clinton thread only removed after I reported them?

Do you honestly believe I am such an influential figure on this forum that the moderators would delete posts—even polite ones—simply because I intervened?😲
I highly doubt it. It seems quite obvious that those posts were so egregious and unacceptable that they were only addressed once they were flagged, simply because the staff had to act to maintain even a shred of credibility. It is frankly pathetic that users have to constantly remind the administration to uphold their own standards instead of the staff doing their jobs proactively.

Your explanation is hollow and lacks substance; it results in nothing more than inconsistent, biased, and discriminatory moderation lacking any "measurable" criteria. It feels as though any moderator can decide to delete, punish, or warn users based solely on whatever doesn't "sit right" with them personally. Most of the moderators here seem to lean toward certain left-wing ideological preferences, which makes the outcome predictable: there is a clear distinction between what is tolerated and what is sanctioned immediately without a report or a plea. (The irony is that by practicing this kind of censorship, you are merely showcasing the lack of culture and coarseness inherent in the left, effectively forcing us "conservatives" to remain civil and polite just to avoid being silenced...😁)

2. And what about the off-topic discussions?
Why are endless tangents regarding Hillary Clinton's husband, her wardrobe, or her "putting her feet up on the furniture" allowed on her thread? (kiss me constantly posts nearly identical nonsense in the gossip threads, where it might actually belong, but on the Politics board, it is entirely inappropriate).

In short: this entire thread is subject to terribly biased and inconsistent moderation.

William Bennett53 said:redhawk76, are you actually suggesting that we should moderate politicians with the exact same rules we apply to regular forum users?
Or is it simply that you haven't grasped the fact that we maintain a much higher threshold of tolerance for public figures—especially politicians—here on Politics? By virtue of their roles, they automatically accept a significantly heavier dose of criticism. If this is merely a matter of confusion on your part, I find it quite surprising that it hasn't become clear to you during your ten years of browsing this forum.

Brenda Taylor13, you're more active here, so surely you understand that addressing an interlocutor directly is fundamentally different from commenting on a public figure. Therefore, I would ask that you refrain from further trolling.

If I were fundamentally opposed to criticism, I wouldn't have chosen a life spent clicking through various threads on the Politics PDF.

I believe my position is perfectly transparent to anyone paying attention (and I have stated it quite explicitly in another thread on this very PDF:

Criticism—always, even if it's biting! But what we have here isn't just blatant insult; it's hate speech that practically bleeds from every word of the quoted sentence.

Under our forum rules, I cannot tolerate vitriolic insults or hate speech. While you may personally—and I suspect only in certain instances😉—find such expressions understandable, that is your prerogative; however, it does not obligate me to accept a violation of the forum's established standards.

northernsailor8 As stated by:
I am going to issue this warning only once: refrain from commenting on your own disciplinary actions within threads that don't belong to you. We have already had this discussion, and I have absolutely no intention of revisiting it.

Michelle Evans As stated by:
Brenda Taylor13, let's start things off by discussing those grievances regarding the cardboard packaging.

Regarding those other rude, provocative posts I’ve had to scrub—yours and your colleague's included—consider this a one-time grace period where no penalties were issued. If you decide to persist with that particular brand of behavior, however, expect an immediate strike, and a heavy one at that.

As far as I can tell, this thread is centered on the moderation regarding the Hillary Clinton topic—specifically concerning that comment made by Brenda Taylor13. I’ve illustrated the concept of "cardboarding" by using my own recent experience within this very discussion; given the specific post from Michelle Evans that I cited in my opening remarks, the example feels entirely appropriate and fits the topic perfectly. It feels remarkably petty to prohibit him from commenting on the moderation process, especially when those very guidelines serve as the structural foundation for my entire discussion.

I suppose you have the power—you hold the reins of authority, so you can certainly act however you please. You can choose to be unreasonably rigid, or perhaps insist with a certain mindless, bureaucratic formality that one simply cannot pivot to discussing cardboard packaging when the current topic is something else entirely, but... If this thread is fundamentally centered on moderation and the issuance of warnings, then I find it somewhat baffling that there is an attempt to prohibit discussions regarding those very penalties—even when referencing one's own experience.

northernsailor8 The user states:
The fundamental division we find ourselves endlessly debating—it’s right here on the forum. It is curious to observe how much more lenient we are when it comes to the verbal abuse and public targeting of high-profile figures compared to the standard we apply to fellow members right here on this board..

I haven't even noticed where exactly you all claim to be "constantly dulling" the point. Even if you were strictly adhering to the established posting guidelines on this forum, that still wouldn't be the case.

Your own set of guidelines—specifically those governing how we handle PDF uploads within the Politics section—state the following:

• Article 4.
Within this specific sub-forum, discussions regarding politics are strictly prohibited.
Any form of disparagement based on nationality, ethnicity, social standing, religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, politics, or any other fundamental identity is strictly prohibited.

If you find yourselves operating with a high tolerance threshold for certain types of insults while maintaining an incredibly low one for others, then:

The moderation is being handled in total contradiction to their own established rules, which... They don't make any real difference at all. It essentially boils down to the question of whether we should permit or prohibit the targeting of specific groups of people with offensive rhetoric.
There is only one possible outcome for this. The moderation here seems to be guided by principles that are both arbitrary and inconsistent—which is really just a polite way of saying they’re discriminatory.It’s a pattern we see playing out in various arenas, though it becomes particularly glaringly obvious within the confines of this specific discussion.

A few people’s lack of manners on certain message boards shouldn't be used as a pretext for imposing sanctions.

I beg your pardon?

Even the most trivial matters shouldn't serve as an excuse for people to resort to insults here on the forum.

I could certainly agree in principle, though one might argue that while action typically triggers a reaction, we are facing the inverse here: a profound lack of reaction is what ultimately forces the hand toward action.
The harassment they face from other users is a direct consequence of a moderation team that has allowed unbridled vitriol to flourish for months, if not years. If the moderators actually enforced the rules, people would simply wait for an official response rather than feeling compelled to descend into retaliatory insults. Instead, the moderators effectively set the pace for the trolls and hate speech peddlers by validating their behavior through their own commentary.

The moderation in this thread is an absolute disaster.

It’s drowning in off-topic noise, where users pivot to everything except actual presidential policy.
These tangents eventually snowball into multi-page arguments, while the moderators fail to intervene—in fact, they often join in on the distractions themselves.

Furthermore, this particular thread has become a breeding ground for hate speech and insults that go largely unpunished. Usually, if a report is filed, the original offending post is deleted, but the subsequent replies—where users quote and dissect the vitriol without repeating the exact slurs (thereby dodging the filters)—are left untouched.

Certain users stand out for this behavior, most notably #kiss me, who continues to post without consequence despite her incredibly vulgar outbursts. When I take the time to report one of her posts, the content is simply wiped away, yet she remains active. It’s a strange sight to see people banned for much more benign infractions while she remains untouched; by any logical standard, she should have been permanently banned ages ago, yet her presence serves as a silent threat to those who actually follow the rules.

#kiss me said:...that fat moral monstrosity is nothing but a mindless idiot, incapable of anything besides lying, stealing, and padding her own pockets at our expense.

#kiss me said:What a primitive, uncultured, and ill-mannered hillbilly, it’s truly appalling... a total disgrace with zero shame or class—just some heavy-handed brute...

These are just a few glimpses into her style of expression, which the moderators tolerate completely unless someone happens to flag them. Even then, the intervention is superficial: the post vanishes, but the user and her cohort continue their crusade unabated.

It is quite clear that certain individuals enjoy a privileged status here. They receive nothing more than a reluctant, half-hearted reprimand for their toxicity, while others find themselves under the microscope for even the slightest perceived slight or "hidden meaning."

I have to admit, I still struggle with my own "addiction" to this site, but I am getting closer to the day when I finally commit digital suicide. Given what this forum has devolved into over the years, I’ll likely trigger a permanent ban through a deliberate outburst, since there isn't a way to simply delete one's account.

At this point, things have truly crossed a line...

I would honestly love for a moderator to weigh in on the thread and explain how it is possible that, for two full days without any intervention or disciplinary action against the OP, an option remains in the poll that serves absolutely no purpose. It wasn't even mentioned by anyone or officially proposed as a potential name for the US Congress; rather, it exists solely as a chauvinistic mockery of people based on their heritage or birthplace—and by extension, the way they speak.

If this isn't the ultimate example of nitpicking for the sake of it—the kind of behavior this forum supposedly maintains a "zero tolerance" policy against—then I truly don't know what is.

I would like to wish everyone a meaningful Victory Day and a respectful Veterans Day.

We must ensure those sacrifices are never relegated to the shadows of memory, allowing the old adage "History is the teacher of life" to hold its full weight for every American...

Gary Perez7 said:Is there any actual footage out there to back up that claim?
If there is, I don't see why we shouldn't be talking about it.

Maybe if you actually provide the video as proof, they'll realize they messed up and finally reopen the discussion.

Yes, the footage exists, and the link was included in the opening post. (Perhaps you should try checking there first?)

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Exactly. I only have patience for threads that actually celebrate the struggle.

You can play the wit if you like, but your criteria reveal your true colors perfectly well.
It’s an embarrassment to this forum—just as it would be to any other community attempting to call itself a democratic space.

On a different note, my view is that the attacks on Joe Biden here are entirely unfounded, primarily because the full context of his remarks remains unknown.

Think of it this way: if we assume, contrary to the accusations, that he was actually honoring the working class and the uneducated for defending America—if we treat his use of the word "elite" as sarcasm, and if we believe he was offering a self-critical admission that he didn't personally fight on the front lines—then once you listen to the recording, everything aligns seamlessly.

So, it could easily swing either way...

Since we lack the preceding and following remarks, it is impossible to assert with any certainty what his true intention was.

The fundamental issue with our dear President is his boundless arrogance; rather than preparing his speeches with enough rigor to ensure they aren't misconstrued, he insists on acting more brilliant and "spontaneous" than everyone else, which inevitably leads to those incredibly clumsy and foolish gaffes.

Some might label him a master rhetorician... To me, it’s almost comical, given the endless stream of "misunderstandings" triggered by his supposed oratorical skills.