Posts by Susan Price30

Henry Hernandez7 said:That’s true, but I only replied to your post because of one specific reason... a gut feeling, which makes these points feel pointless in this thread.

but I wasn't just talking about that; looking at everything else I wrote in that same post—in my opinion, they definitely make sense...

And it all follows logic; people take issue with things simply because they are illegal (or will eventually be once certain laws change or get more specific).

Henry Hernandez7 said:To put it simply, the ideology I’m representing with my avatar is acceptable. It isn't prohibited by law; if anything, it's entirely legitimate and rooted in the very foundations of our Constitution.

Are we discussing potential changes that might happen once America joins the Union, or what exactly?😁

In your post on the first page, you're talking about the current state of affairs, yet the topic is supposed to be about what happens when America becomes a member of the EU, isn't it?

That is what this discussion is about...

^^^ regarding what I was discussing before you deleted it—specifically those legal regulations concerning the public use of totalitarian symbols.

To put it simply: as we know from history, publicly endorsing any criminal ideology is legally prohibited. If someone chooses to display personal support for one of those ideologies—say, by using a specific symbol in their profile avatar—that is, by default, defined as glorifying such an ideology.

(And perhaps the only real question left would be whether the forum hosting the content would be held legally liable, or if the responsibility lies solely with the individual who chose that avatar, signature, or whatever else)

*

bluecyclist64 said:I’m genuinely curious—who gets to decide which communist regimes were actually totalitarian and which ones weren't?

Well, presumably any regime where there was only one active political party. By that logic, they were all totalitarian. So, what was your actual question here??

casualharbor3 said:That star on your avatar looks just like a swastika to me. Pure evil thinking. ☕

In post-war Germany, using the swastika is strictly prohibited by law—as we all know—but it makes me wonder: does adopting the symbols of other totalitarian ideologies fall under that same category of "promotion and glorification"?

I’d say it belongs there. It’s just as easy for people to be bothered by certain symbols in an avatar... essentially, that visible support for those ideologies through the use of such imagery. In someone's avatar..

Well done, Daniel Ward87 🙂, you're much like Margaret Thatcher in one specific way— after your tenure, this forum will certainly be different than it was before...

You cleaned up the mess in Religion then Politics; perhaps it is finally time for a raise.😁

*

What you’re presenting as a "prime example" would honestly just look like a plain old generalization to anyone else.

As for the idea that the admins or the owner of Reddit actually want to drive Catholics and believers off this site—well, I wouldn't go that far.

If that were true, then everything discussed here would be the direct responsibility of a specific moderator, rather than being the fault of the admin or some broad policy from the owner. Besides, who’s to say the owner has even been aware of what's been happening in these threads? It's entirely possible they haven't a clue.

Nicole James said:On the Religion subreddit, you have all sorts of different people claiming that "other" faiths are offensive. You have some who worship Jesus as God, while others find that very idea to be sacrilegious. There have even been those who worship Satan... The way my moderation could be interpreted isn't any different from how the moderation of any user, regardless of their religious convictions, could be interpreted.

🤣 It seems pretty clear you don't have much grasp on Religion or how spiritual experiences actually work.

It’s hard to imagine anyone being offended if they simply recognized and respected someone else's right to be a Jew or a Muslim. By respecting their faith—or even just their freedom of choice—they are respecting them as human beings. That is an absolute basic tenet of every one of those faiths.

Do you personally respect Christianity or Islam, for instance? Do you respect Christians?

Nicole James said:By that logic, all moderators would need to be completely devoid of any personal stance just so their rulings couldn't be called into question. 🤷

Of course they can have opinions, and honestly, they should. But if someone holds an strongly (or even extremely) negative view regarding the very subject this sub handles, it raises a perfectly valid question: why are they even here? Whether you're a regular user or a moderator—especially a moderator, given the extra responsibility involved—it matters.

Also, why are you jumping from one extreme to the other with these examples? 🤷 Isn't there a middle ground between strict fair play and special treatment (like the first example you gave)? And isn't there a difference between "having an opinion" and using moderator tools to force that opinion on others? I believe there is, and we usually call that common sense.

Are you suggesting someone like Hodja should moderate a forum where Catholics are the ones posting?☕

If Hodja is reasonable and moderate in his beliefs, then naturally, there’s no issue. But if he were, say, an extremist or a fanatic, then yes, that becomes a problem. It isn't about what people believe; it's about character and conduct..

(I don't know about everyone else, but these excuses feel incredibly cheap and pathetic to me. Plus, the insults toward intelligence are almost unnecessary; the point was made several times already in this thread.)

Nicole James said:LOL, I see we’re already diving into the amateur psychoanalysis phase here.

Just like everything else on Reddit so far, it seems people are protected from criticism—it's just their beliefs that aren't. If someone is looking for a space where their convictions are treated like some untouchable, sacred relic, they can find plenty of niche forums for that elsewhere.

But... did anyone actually ask for or demand immunity from the rules or special treatment? No. From what I can see, that’s never been the issue. What people are actually asking for is an objective, fair moderator who possesses at least a basic understanding and fundamental respect for the subject matter this subforum covers—namely Religion—along with a level of consideration (respect) for both religious beliefs and religious individuals, obviously. The argument was simply that someone who lacks that inherent knowledge cannot be an adequate moderator for such a niche topic. It all comes down to the fact that biased or non-objective moderation encourages bad, biased discussions rather than preventing them.

I suppose that's where the responsibility lies for any moderator. If they fail at the job they were entrusted with, it ultimately degrades the quality of the debates and the caliber of the users participating in those discussions.

The bottom line should be this: why would anyone want to engage in a discussion on a subreddit or thread that's crawling with trolls, provocations, or argumentative posts left by people for whatever motives? The goal should always be constructive dialogue. If that isn't being encouraged or maintained, then a large part of the blame—or responsibility—lies with the moderator first, and then with the users participating in it.

The bottom line is simple: Catholics engaged in actual debate, while atheists just resorted to repression.

If this topic is truly as spammed and troll-filled as you claim, then why bother discussing it at all? 😉 Besides, how can one even tell? If you respond to or build upon a post that was purely trolling or meant to start a fight, is that a real discussion, or just more bickering? Or perhaps something else entirely... maybe it isn't really a debate at all.

And if the majority of posts or entire threads are like this, doesn't it raise the question of why we should even leave a footprint by posting on such topics or subreddits in the first place?

And who exactly is inciting violence against gay people? Is it the King and the theocracy in Saudi Arabia, or someone else?

Regarding those links, first off, the Old Testament has nothing to do with anyone's specific doctrine or what that second link represents in terms of teaching. Basically, the Old Law Wall is one thing, while the New Testament is something else entirely. That’s precisely why Judaism and Christianity—which evolved from Judaism—are two distinct faiths, not identical ones. They follow Abraham's Law and Moses, whereas Christians follow Jesus and a doctrine that has moved away from that Old Testament... etc etc.

But look at the irony—when an ideology that actively promotes hatred, discrimination, or violence against anyone based on their sexual orientation is rebranded as "Religion" or "Faith," suddenly that same hate speech and incitement becomes legally protected.

Well, if there’s any reasonable suspicion that someone out there is acting like a fanatic or an extremist by pushing that kind of agenda, perhaps it’s worth contacting the police. It should be straightforward enough when you have publicly posted or promoted text from these so-called "fanatics" that points directly to it.

I'm not sure how it works everywhere else, but here in the States, religious or secular fanaticism is taken extremely seriously because we recognize these individuals or groups can be genuinely dangerous to society. In fact, being a "fanatic" is often viewed as a destructive and hazardous psychological trait.

Nicole James said:From where I stand, your faith is deeply offensive. So, what happens now?

Nothing, though if that's how you feel, it just proves you aren't cut out to moderate the Religion sub-forum.

To handle that role, one would need to be someone who prioritizes respect, tolerance, and an understanding of diverse convictions—someone level-headed, rather than someone who gets "deeply offended" by someone else's legitimate faith or worldview.

That is a personal stance you have openly shared, which leads one to wonder why you have volunteered to moderate this section for nearly ten years. Truly, why?🤷

If the goal is the well-being of the users and the health of the Reddit community, based on that comment above, it certainly doesn't look like that's the priority. (Unless I am missing something.)

If this forum is trying to make this topic off-limits...

I find it hard to believe—unless the decision to close, open, or move any thread is made collectively by all sub-mods, the head admin overseeing Politics, and the rest of the leadership team—but I have a feeling that isn't how it's working here.

Why lock a thread when the whole country is talking about it and the dispute is nowhere near finished?

It’s just easier for moderation—just shut down an incredibly hot, active topic and call it a day.

Splitting off specific parts of a massive discussion into a new thread might be more work, but surely that serves the forum better. Or they could try something else entirely.

The easiest move is to just lock the topic, though sometimes it feels pretty heavy-handed...

Benjamin Taylor6 said:The whole thing boils down to this: bureaucracy in America has just ballooned out of control lately. And since the federal budget is perpetually running dry, the government’s go-to move is always to dream up some new, creative way to squeeze us for taxes.
The reality is pretty grim—it's the working class that ends up footing the bill, mostly because they don't have the legal machinery required to outmaneuver the state while staying within the lines of the law. Meanwhile, those sitting on mountains of cash? They have the high-priced lawyers to make sure they never pay a dime more than necessary. If things keep spiraling this way, the only logical move is to pack up and get out of the country—and take all that capital right along with you!

😁 It’s always been this way, hasn't it? Ever since that former leader—what was his name?—who deserted the country and his own people, fleeing with stolen national assets.
Afterward, he spent years living in one of the most expensive hotels in London (one of the priciest in the world) with his family.🤦

It honestly surprises me that the man is even still alive, let alone not sitting in a prison cell... but as for those who leave with their capital, well, that's just fine, isn't it? After all, they haven't exactly done anything wrong.

neonhound19 said:Flying the flag at home while keeping their hands deep in the federal treasury—those are the biggest fake patriots out there.

Taxes are sky-high specifically because of those people dodging them. If you actually told them $0.33 what they’re paying every single month, they’d be obsessing over every cent just to see if they could squeeze a little back, even if they can't grab the whole thing.

No, I mean because of a certain mindset. Even gambling is heavily taxed for people who win money in international lotteries. It's literally unprecedented.

Back then, they took from the wealthy—back when "Bolshevik proletarians" were literally looting and forcibly seizing private property—and they are still grabbing it now. There isn't much difference; perhaps just a few shades of nuance...

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Husbands won't be able to register at the main house while the wife stays at the vacation home:

Robert Rubin stated today in Indianapolis that utility fees are essentially a relic of the old socialist era—which, let's face it, we've moved past—and therefore they should be replaced by a property tax. His goal? To make the American tax system actually transparent so that any entrepreneur out there has a clear, predictable roadmap of what they're dealing with.

Rubin believes this new legislation will effectively shut down fraud attempts. "We can't have situations where a husband is registered at the primary residence while his wife is listed at a seasonal getaway," he noted. Apparently, since we started using Social Security numbers to track everyone, the computer systems have become incredibly pedantic—they flag every single inconsistency. Now, the government knows exactly how much water you use, your electricity consumption, your salary, and where you’re officially living... If a couple wants to live apart, fine, that's their business, but if it's just a paper sham to dodge taxes, they'll be hit with massive fines. According to The New York Times, Rubin insists this isn't a tax hike, just a structural swap.

He expressed confidence that The Cabinet will have the final draft of the property tax bill ready by March, with the congressional debates expected to kick off in April.

On paper, sure, this looks great for the treasury because the state gets to collect more revenue. But honestly? I know several couples who REALLY do live separately despite being married.
For instance, my neighbor—his husband inherited a cottage on the coast and makes his living fishing, while his wife inherited an apartment in the city and works as a nurse. They aren't playing games; they just live different lives.

Overtaxing wealthy people (both when it's necessary and when it isn't) is a mistake.

Because what those people will do is... wow... move or invest their money abroad, leaving behind an even poorer country with zero perspective for anyone.

This is totally socialist—or in my opinion, "Bolshevik"—thinking. In wealthy nations, there's a limit to this. It’s understood that the wealthier members of society drive the economy; the entire nation's stability depends directly on them.

That is why more developed parts of Europe create the most favorable conditions possible to attract foreign (or domestic) investors. They logically want to pull them in, whereas in other places, they make it difficult through various means—like incredibly complicated and often unnecessary bureaucracy, or simply the mentality of "petty bureaucrats" lacking any broader vision.

And I assume that's why certain nations enjoy prosperity and well-being, while others end up poor or on the brink of bankruptcy and financial ruin.

For example, I know people who own villas or hotels in Pula and throughout Istra, but everything became so complicated to run and maintain that they sold everything and moved their business to the Caribbean Islands. The Caribbean! It's a top-tier global destination, and it's actually cheaper and better for business than America. Maybe it really is time to rethink things; if these petty bureaucrats finish off the tourism industry too, what will actually be left? That's the question.

It’s not just one person... everyone uses derogatory terms for those labeled as "right-wingers" or the right side of the aisle.

Just try using that kind of language toward the other side and you'll be banned before you can even blink.

If things were actually handled the way you claim, nobody would be getting banned for minor infractions.😬

I don't know, but looking at some of the most active—or rather, most visible—mods (the edge, PowerLock, and Cuka), they all seem like solid moderators who are genuinely trying to maintain order and wipe out that kind of extremist nonsense...

For instance, the edge alone probably nukes about 50 to 60 posts a day just on this specific topic. It's not that the mods aren't putting in the work or acting in unison like that one guy from Religion who famously said: 'Once I start getting paid, I'll put in more effort' when asked why he wasn't moderating reported posts... meanwhile, some people almost came to blows in this thread, lol.