Posts by Susan Price30

The mere fact that certain people are still participating in this debate proves that these kinds of things aren't being shut down. I'm talking about terms like "young slut" or "commissar" and things of that nature.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't...

Though, I don't think that really connects to the constant insistence on using labels like "fascist" this and "fascist" that... which is what some folks from Religion are always doing.

James Patel20 said:Gregory Turner71 isn't just some random guy on this board.

There aren't any moderator powers on this site that would make someone an "ordinary user"... why don't you just report posts like that as trolling or spam? If they really are breaking the rules, the mods will scrub them from the discussions. That’s pretty much it.

Gregory Turner71 said:Since this entire Politics section is constantly peppered with terms like communists, Yugoslav nationalists, or similar labels, I don't see anything wrong with my posts.

Just plain old lies. Nobody is "scattering" offensive terms around without the moderators stepping in to delete them or issue warnings.

And terms like "communist" or "nationalist" aren't insults; it's just a handful of you coming over from Religion and suffocating us with those same talking points you use there. You spread intolerance just like you do on Religion—which is basically a tragicomedy of a subforum and a breeding ground for extremism (not everyone, mind you, but certain specific users who always show up on these topics across various threads). Meanwhile, the folks here in Politics are much more objective and generally better prepared for actual discussion, rather than constant extremist rambling.

The fact that the Politics moderation is actually above average probably helps quite a bit... or at least, it certainly does.

Honestly, this part is hilarious 😁... the Religion section literally has a virtual sign at the entrance: 'Dear users, please refrain from using derogatory terms such as "clerical-fascist" or "Catholic-liberal."

And yet some people think, "Oh well, let's head over to Politics to see steel," where we can fly under the radar and enrich our debates with brand new insults... *massive facepalm*.

If this sub-forum is dedicated to events happening in the World , what kind of connection could they possibly have with America?

Isn't there an entire primary forum for that? The PDF World section exists specifically because it shouldn't necessarily be dealing with those matters—or at least, shouldn't theoretically be.

(Especially if there’s going to be yet another sub-forum, as you mentioned above, that might eventually focus on European Union nations.)

The United Kingdom is doing quite well here, but there are several other players far more vital to the future of America than the UK.

Should the topics on the PDF World forum even be addressing that?

Amanda Hughes37 said:Can someone tell me how I even go about reporting a personal threat or hate speech to the police?

And what specifically were you planning on reporting? (I seem to recall you pointing out some hate speech in another thread—basically stuff you felt was hateful and kept being repeated).

I never once wrote or suggested that things should be reported to moderators instead of the police. Honestly, I don't care who gets reported—my only concern is that this stuff doesn't clutter up the discussion as trollish threats. If there's actual grounds for a report, just handle it quietly. Amen

The last thing I'd ever think to do is report something happening in another country, or even here in the States... it makes no difference to me at all.

Responsibility for what, exactly?

Alright, I finally get it—user posts are essentially owned by the website they’re hosted on. The forum itself carries the legal weight for whatever content goes up, rather than the anonymous writer. I actually thought things worked differently before the recent legal shifts here in the States regarding those issues.

It's the same deal with threads from this site being picked up by major American news outlets or other sites (like when a user wrote about that CNN reality show). Those pieces aren't credited to the actual author; they just list the username and the host site. So, I figured the platform was taking credit (or, if you want to be technical, "responsibility") for the content instead of the individual who actually wrote it.

Nicholas King said:

Susan Price30 Asks:
Potential legal liability—it’s one of those things that people just seem to gloss over until it’s too late, I guess. There's this constant, nagging question hanging over everything: where does the responsibility actually lie? Maybe it's a gray area, or maybe we just don't talk about the consequences enough. It's a messy subject, honestly—full of nuances and "what-ifs" that can turn a simple situation into a total nightmare if you aren't careful. One wrong move, one oversight in following the Law of the USA, and suddenly you're staring down a massive headache that could have been avoided with a little more foresight. It’s a heavy topic, but it bears repeating—you really have to consider the fallout before you dive headfirst into something. Honestly, I’ve got to say—Reddit is absolutely killing it lately. It makes those old-school message boards look like ancient history..

I don't think you're quite right on this one—if I may be so bold.

Up until now, it was always understood that any text posted on Reddit was the sole property and responsibility of Reddit itself. Even quite recently, a moderator stated exactly that on the KzB board.

If that's no longer the case, perhaps it should be officially announced somewhere, because the current situation is a bit confusing...

Nicholas King said:I mean, why should the administration even need to agree or disagree with someone's personal decision to report something to the cops? 😕

Anytime someone injects elements into a discussion that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, that's trolling.

I really don't see any distinction between the relevance of saying "I reported you to the police" and saying, "Oh, we were out at a BBQ yesterday and I was recounting your posts—man, we were cracking up—and then Pero opened a bottle of Knopfltrunkov's Traminer, which is quite a remarkable wine, by the way..."

One more thing—if those entries here were made by anonymous users... Ownership. If someone files a report regarding certain posts on Reddit—which is a completely different beast compared to, say, long-form articles on other social media platforms—what would be the actual legal liability and consequences in that scenario? Reddit is such a joke, honestly. It’s nothing compared to the old forums.Is it just me, or does all this talk about whether filing a police report is even a viable option seem completely baseless?

Bringing up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand is just trolling.

I don't see any difference in relevance between saying "I reported you to the police" and "Man, we were at that BBQ yesterday and I was re-reading your posts—we were cracking up, then Pero opened a bottle of Knopfltrunkov's Traminer, which is honestly an incredible wine."

That’s true, but this might actually be even worse. If someone is resorting to threats just to silence a conversation, what does that say about their character? It’s pretty telling when people try to weaponize intimidation like that. In my opinion, it’s clearly just a troll with nothing to back them up.

Nicholas King said:Four pages spent debating a question that doesn't even exist in the first place🙂.

Whether or not someone decides to report posts to this or that instance—well, that’s entirely their business. It's a personal choice and an individual right, and frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual mechanics of how a forum functions. I mean, people have the right (let's set aside the potential consequences of such reports for a moment) to call the police if a neighbor is cooking cabbage again and the smell is drifting into their house, or if a neighbor stumbles in at 3 AM and wakes everyone up with footsteps in the hallway; so, why shouldn't they have the right to report a forum post they believe violates some specific Law of the USA? 😕 The suggestion that "instead of calling the police, you should be reporting to moderators" is just a massive fail, in more ways than one.

By the same token, it is everyone's prerogative to view those who report posts as either conscientious crusaders or, conversely, as petty nuisances. Again, that perception has zero connection to the fundamental nature of forum culture.

What *does* actually pertain to forum etiquette is the simple fact that saying "I reported you to the police," "I'm going to report you to the police," and things along those lines, is trolling—and as such, it ought to be met with the appropriate penalty. There isn't a single discussion where a sentence like that would be considered on-topic, constructive, or even remotely sensible.

And that is really all there is to 🙂it.

you're right, of course🙂 but until a rule or classification is actually introduced stating that such behavior constitutes unnecessary trolling (which it seems to be), then I guess we need four or however many pages of differing opinions and "thinking out loud"...

steelskipper5 said:Look, I said that’s an argument you could—if you really tried—actually back up. But just repeating it isn't providing an argument. ☕
Reporting crimes (or things people *think* are crimes) is basically a civic duty. The institutions, assuming they do their jobs, are the ones who decide if a report is legitimate or if there’s actually enough ground to move forward.

Unfortunately, the government even encourages this by allowing anonymous tips and acting on them, but that's a whole different conversation...

So, what—the laws and the people enforcing them are encouraging system abuse? 😵
Setting aside the fact that a lot of stuff couldn't be reported unless it was anonymous because people don't feel safe coming forward—but yeah, sure, you're probably right. 🙄

The legal consequences are a joke. The fallout from someone being harassed or subjected to an investigation based on malicious or fake reports is irreparable.

If we're talking about a malicious report over something posted online, the consequences for the person being investigated are also non-existent. Not "irreparable."
I once reported some extremely explicit threats, and the absolute worst those losers got was a little chat with the police. Because the Department of Justice decided there were no criminal elements since they claimed they were "just joking."

So much for those "irreparable" consequences.
Save the fairy tales for someone else.

Someone who publicly threatens to report others (or brags about doing it) is saying way more about themselves than anyone else.

Don't do that.

Fine. From now on, I'll just report every single crime I see on this forum directly to the police, without bothering to discuss it with anyone else or the moderators.
There's really no point in warning forum users that certain behavior might have elements of a crime.

I’d just love for an admin to confirm what you said here, just so I have it in writing that administration is on the same page. ☕

But the question remains: why would you—or anyone else—warn a user about something like that unless you were trolling or, at the very least, going off-topic? By doing so, you're essentially breaking the rules of discussion by default.

Unless someone isn't just some troll, right? In that case, it’s actually a godsend... basically just a heads-up or a warning, which you see used all the time on certain subreddits anyway.Well, I guess I'll be reporting you to the moderator for that entry.If things had been even a little bit more pathetic—I am going to report you to the police for that post.

So, what happens next? Theoretically, someone could be charged with "wasting police resources," though I honestly wonder if the police would even take a baseless report seriously—especially when it's coming from the same person over and over again. In that case, I don't think they'd pay much attention at all.

Of course, we’re still seeing those "non-right-wing" opinions and links being circulated. He can go right ahead and call them communists or whatever else he wants. It clearly doesn't bother our little guy one bit. He hasn't made it onto the unheralded censor's blacklist on Reddit yet, but who knows when that might happen?

Do you have any examples where that actually works without getting completely rejected? Let me think... yeah, absolutely nowhere. 😁

steelskipper5 said:I'm really not sure if that’s actually a great idea.

See, making a threat like that—regardless of who's doing it—actually gives the other person a moment to pause and rethink things. I mean, reporting something that isn't even against the Law of the USA doesn't achieve anything; I've used that warning myself, and I've seen it used, specifically in cases where there was blatant illegal activity being ignored by mods—whether that's due to ignorance or just plain old stubbornness, but I won't get sidetracked by that.

If the other person is certain they aren't breaking any laws and realize it's just a bluff, they can always just say, "Go ahead, report me." ☕
Continuing the debate along those lines is pretty pointless and, at the very least, totally off-topic.

just take that post you feel deserves a police report and pass it along to the administration instead of threatening or trolling within the thread. Simple.

It feels to me like this is becoming a weapon for trolls, so maybe it would be a good idea to introduce a specific rule to put an end to this kind of thing, even if it's just on certain sub-forums.

James Patel20 said:I’ve been sitting here thinking about how we handle things around here, and I honestly feel like there should be an immediate rule added to the guidelines regarding users who threaten to call the police or file legal reports against other members during a discussion... it just seems like such a heavy-handed way to escalate a debate, and maybe a permanent ban should be on the table for anyone who uses that kind of intimidation tactic instead of just sticking to the argument at hand... it would certainly change the energy of the conversations if people knew they couldn't just weaponize the authorities to shut someone down... anyway, just a thought that's been weighing on my mind lately...

Since there have been quite a few instances lately where people actually ended up facing police reports or even full-blown court rulings just because of things they wrote online, I’ve noticed some users on Reddit starting to weaponize that concept... you know, using it as this sort of unspoken subtext or a veiled threat to shut people down, claiming they're "just joking" while they try to intimidate their conversational partners into silence by threatening them with legal action...

Just one example...

I've been noticing certain trends heading in that direction lately, and I can't help but feel a growing sense of unease... I truly fear it could end up causing permanent damage to this community and, more broadly, to the very concept of free speech that I believe almost all of us here stand for...

Or just treat it (and issue a warning) as standard trolling because, essentially, that's exactly what it is. Especially when it comes from a user who is already known for that kind of behavior on various threads.

shadoworca3 said:I can't make any promises, but you certainly don't have anything to lose by trying. 🤷

It’s honestly surprising how many of them we’ve already boxed up, processed, and permanently banned. 😲
The last one was just here yesterday on the thread about Dawkins.

Exactly—that's precisely what leads to questions about how much, and to what extent, differing opinions are actually tolerated on certain subforums. (And then, in another thread, people start worrying about the 'Talibanization of the forum' or inconsistencies from the moderators and admins), while elsewhere, it seems like diversity of opinion and stance is "tolerated" to its absolute maximum.

Plus, it looks pretty concerning when a moderator on a PZK subforum wonders why a "jerk" can't be called a "jerk" or punished with similar epithets for acting out... Is that really a dilemma? Why can't someone in Psychology be called a "nutcase" or "sick," or someone in Politics be labeled an "Islamoterrorist" or similar? Or is that considered perfectly fine from that side?

And the bitterest part of all—perhaps most of all:

Walter Brooks5 said:If he realized he was wrong, then he surely realized *how* he was wrong—specifically how severe the violation actually was and which category it falls under. If he's supposedly willing to serve time for a mistake he didn't commit, then he should be more than ready to serve time based on a fair and just judgment, rather than some watered-down euphemism, right?

I have never seen an explanation like this for downgrading someone's violation before!

And what is even the point of softening the charge if he’s stuck with 7 days anyway???

Does this not apply because Unknown is a notorious repeat offender? His "handwriting" is unmistakable: he persistently attacks and falsifies the Bible, insulting not just Christian followers, but Jews and Muslims too, all while using his signature hate speech against the God of the Bible. This is a chronic insult to anyone who respects the Bible in its entirety or the foundational parts upon which various faiths and denominations are built.

We are talking about a specific case, on a specific subforum, regarding a specific individual. A person who for years has been falsifying quotes from the Bible, muddling facts, implying things, mocking, and ridiculing, without ever truly arguing. (And after being sanctioned, they go to the PMs to make excuses or act foolish, only to go right back to their old ways)... if he were given another 100 points for his "work" and contribution, I don't know how many discussants from Religion (who are familiar with the case) would protest, because everything written above is the truth...

Anyway, bye... enjoy.

shadoworca3 said:What specifically is bothering you?

If I tell you, will you actually solve the problem?☕

I have my doubts that any solution would be particularly satisfying. 😉😁

shadoworca3 said:I haven't encountered that specific coinage before, but I honestly fail to see why one shouldn't apply it to someone who holds positions that the modern Church itself has since discarded. After all, what is there to say about a person who attempts to justify the burning of witches, the trial of Galileo, or a strictly literal interpretation of the story of Noah's Ark, especially when the official Church has already stated that such accounts should be understood metaphorically and has publicly apologized for the treatment of Galileo?

As for my own choice of pejoratives, I tend to use "burned creationist" for those who, despite overwhelming evidence, insist on proving things like Noah's Ark, or "Catholic Jamahiriya America" when, for instance, government ministers push through laws against medically assisted reproduction simply to curry favor with the Church without consulting any actual experts first.

And these blood-sucking 'Catholic-Talibans' are all heading in the same direction on the PZ forums, debating this like crazy. I mean, really...

Paul Anderson2 said:I actually just searched the forum (using Google: katotaliban site:forum.hr) and I can't find that term anywhere except right here in this thread.

I'm one of the mods over on the Social Sciences board. To be fair, I mostly handle the Linguistics section (the other mod covers everything else).

Are there people who cross the line and stop being polite? Yeah, there are.

People who follow that subforum (personally, I don't think I've ever even opened it, let alone posted there, so I really can't say) claim that's how it is (in this thread) and that it's been happening for a long time. Even if that were true, it isn't necessarily a critique of your moderation, because it might have been that way long before you arrived.

Amanda Hughes37 said:The term "Catholic-Taliban" has been firmly embedded in the Religion and Social Sciences section for ages—and I haven't seen any attempt to moderate or ban it.
It’s tossed around in debates to describe certain groups of people whom some user decides, by their own arbitrary standards, are basically imposing KC values like Talibans... it's all a bit vague, but whatever.
Honestly, when I first stumbled onto the Religion sub-forum, I felt like Alice in Wonderland. I expected discussions on various aspects of different faiths—comparisons, traditions, interpretations, things of that nature.
I was looking for atheists who actually care about the subject matter—people seeking information, engaging, asking questions.
I imagined this would be an oasis of peace, love, and tranquility.
Instead... it's a pit.
Pure horror.
Entire threads dedicated to someone trying to convince another person that their deeply held beliefs are nothing short of idiocy.
Mocking faith, mocking believers... that's the usual routine. And if I'm being honest, what shocked me even more—though it's less frequent, still present—is the blatant disrespect between believers of different faiths.

Regarding how communication works over at PZ—that's what I wanted to address, and eventually, how the moderator there communicates, even within this thread. Sorry about the misunderstanding.🙂

Forgive me, let me add one thing: on the Social Sciences board—someone already touched on this at the start of this thread—and on the Natural Sciences board as well, terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' are being used specifically to insult others. I assume there isn't any other reason someone would resort to such a derogatory label, but I can't be certain...

It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how we use perception and linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis...
When someone calls Bozanic a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he's literally a fanatic who's the first one in town throwing stones at adulterers. Rather, it’s a vivid way to emphasize that his views on sexuality aren't aligned with the modern era; instead, they lean toward older, religiously inspired values, much like those most visible among the Taliban today.

So, because of that, as a moderator for DZ, you're okay with terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' being used as a label for people in debates, or just generally (if that's what they call it)? Or are you not?

Paul Anderson2 said:So, calling someone a Taliban (= religious fanatic) is unacceptable, but calling them an idiot (= mentally slow) is fine?

Is it because when the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they started ruling through terror? I mean, that’s just what all fanatics do once they get power. So, basically, he was implying Bozanic is a religious fanatic (which, as far as I know, he isn't).

Anyway, what does any of that have to do with "insulting the American people"?

And since when am I a "kid"? Just because I'm debating a guy with fewer than 200 posts who's only been on this forum for a few months?

The moderator for Religion has already explained and provided the reasoning regarding the sanctioning of certain posts.

It’s quite simple—you went too far. Things get heated on the Religion boards and people say all sorts of things to one another, but you really overstepped this time. Furthermore, by labeling him the ultimate Catholic-Taliban, you're implying that there are lesser ones out there, suggesting they actually exist. There is a difference between criticizing someone or even "spitting venom," but this is just excessive..

Are you seriously going to ask Socrates to explain why the moderators made that specific decision, or what their exact purpose is?

It’s almost like we’re living in North Korea, where one word against the Great Leader or his ideas is enough to land you in a camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just thaw you out? Are you still struggling to wrap your heads around democracy and free speech? Seriously, someone touched a nerve with a sacred truth—let's drag them to the gallows. 😲😠
I can't believe what I'm reading. 😕

I honestly don't understand why that term is even being used. Us versus them.That alone says quite a lot about someone's mindset or how they approach things, I would say. (And that's without even considering those emojis.)

And now that this is being dragged out... The distinction between "we" and "you." Is there really a difference? It’s just like some of those other subforums, honestly... anyway, I'm heading out to lunch.😁

Drew Jones6 said:I honestly cannot believe my eyes reading this garbage 😲😲😲

"Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban of all time!?!?"
And let me tell you, anyone bold enough to type something like that is a bigger fanatic than the person they’re attacking. Period.

And those people trying to play dumb, acting like there's no line between a joke and an insult? They aren't just trolls, they're basically digital extremists running a jihad on Forum.hr.

🤦 🤦 🤦

What is that? I only saw 'anti-religious jihad' being pushed on the DZ subforum as if it were THE definitive worldview. 😬

But sure, let's just quote whatever random opinion comes along. How interesting.

You're missing the point.
I'm not claiming Bozanic is the greatest fanatic among Americans (because I'd have to prove that), but rather pointing out that a priest and a Member of Congress is the one saying and arguing this in the public media.
If he is allowed to say it—which, under the US Constitution, he is—then why shouldn't anyone else? America is a democratic and secular nation where everyone is fair game for reasoned criticism. From public figures to religious and other sacred things. Banning the criticism of individuals or beliefs feels very much like something from a bygone era.

Furthermore, it really is difficult to distinguish between constructive criticism and outright insults. The only metric we have is the depth and quality of the arguments used.
__________________

Why are you moderating the Religion PDF? What exactly do the decisions made by the Religion moderators have to do with you offering 'guidelines' on what should or shouldn't be allowed (especially since every subforum is unique in its own way)?
I don't quite follow...

(I agree that reasoned criticism and mindless trolling are two completely different things.)