Posts by Susan Price30

Banning everyone who displays racism (with a 100-point penalty) would mean removing or deleting all racist posts within this thread. This includes any content that incites or promotes intolerance. Whether based on religion, race, ethnicity, or any other

As we know, that kind of behavior is illegal. People with extremist, far-right, or legally questionable views should find somewhere else to vent their opinions—somewhere appropriate—so they don't "pollute" this space. It makes it impossible for decent people to have a normal conversation.

Just a suggestion.

By the way, I hope the forum owner is reading this too (just to ensure they're aware of what's actually happening here).

lonebadger6 said:You've picked up three strikes in just three days. The first was for suggesting we should forcibly assimilate immigrants just to let them in. The second was for openly criticizing the moderation team. The third was a yellow card to prevent an outright ban—which is honestly the only mistake the mods made here—for a post that dances right on the edge of hate speech, since you mocked the warm welcome refugees received in Germany by posting a video of Muslim fanatics attacking women and trans individuals, implying all refugees behave that way.

Regarding the moderation of hate speech, generalizations, or insults directed at Muslims as a religious group, the handling is correct and fair (given the topic), but I ask that the same or similar standards be applied to Catholics or the KKK. If there is gross or unnecessary disrespect regarding the KKK, those posts should at least be deleted...

In my view, it’s tasteless and looks like classic trolling, plus it's clearly off-topic since there is a dedicated thread about it on The New York Times. Some of those posts even border on actual hate speech, depending on their tone or intent.

That is all.

.

We are discussing this topic in general terms, specifically regarding how it is moderated.

If those bans aren't rescinded—or if these concerns aren't properly examined—who is to say we won't just face another wave of two or five more bans on this exact same thread, given the current state of moderation?

That is precisely the issue. That is the core of the problem.

>

Nicholas Chavez37 said:That’s why we were penalized. Because we told the truth. 🙂

So, did you actually get penalized for that?

Quote: Chloe Sullivan88 said:Why are you permitted to post in this thread, and why haven't you been banned, considering you're just a clone of another user on part of this forum?☕

Where is the justice in all this? 🙂

It is important that you post your spring updates here.

Perhaps because I am not? Did that just occur to you?

Whether my posts violate this forum's rules is entirely up to the moderators. Your springs. Regarding my standing on this thread, if anyone finds it objectionable, feel free to take your grievances to the proper authorities. Now move aside and stop blocking my sun.

By the way, my response to that previous post of yours is also being dismissed as mere trolling.

How can you tell he wasn't trolling? He’s as honest as they come.

Sam Alvarez4 said:@Susan Price30
could this be some kind of conspiracy against you? 😁

Jokes aside, those are heavy accusations.
Personally, I’d put my money on the fact that neither as a moderator nor as a commenter would anyone ever act like that.

The thing is, I haven't received a single warning from any moderator on the Politics board in years, except for this one specific moderator who seems to hand them out whenever they get the chance.

(And I don't get red cards anywhere else I post)

That user was, in my opinion, being rude, malicious (and let's just say—constantly picking fights in threads), and they straight up attacked me out of nowhere.

Instead of those few trolling and clearly ad hominem posts being deleted, I was the one given two warnings for "trolling"... following that same logic, considering everything he piled on there, I should have at least gotten four warnings for him, but apparently, nothing happens.

(Or at least—not much, because if he had actually gotten three warnings for trolling, I assume he'd have been banned yesterday, but he wasn't.)

So what's the deal then?

Nicholas Chavez37 said:You're exaggerating a bit, but it's true there are hints about which user we're talking about; however, it can't (allegedly) be proven because they aren't foolish enough to log in with the same IP on both accounts. ☕

It's just extreme trolling of one side (which has nothing to do with reality). ☕

Look, maybe sometimes an unacceptable way of writing is enough on its own to trigger a ban or at least raise a red flag... without needing to go to the International Criminal Court to prove who committed the offense or who is repeatedly using clones, which isn't the case here.

It seems the issue with permanent bans is that, usually, I can't stay active long enough when people start posting in the exact same way that got them a perma-ban or a partial ban in the first place.

Now, if there is a moderator somewhere who happens to have info on a clone and doesn't use that information according to the forum rules, what does that tell us? 😉

Sam Alvarez4 said:btw.
"immigrants at the American borders."
What kind of headline is that? Who even came up with it? ? 🤦

Even then, this user—who looks like a total clone from Price—attacked another user too (the admins can check the deleted post) using the "argument" that now only "Americans" should be debating this topic, and everyone else, including the "diaspora" (🤣), should just "mind their own business."

Given how everything played out, I am 100% convinced that the moderator sent, supported, or encouraged him to come after me like that.

Maybe I'm wrong about the specific details of how or why, but I absolutely have that impression. Otherwise, what else could it possibly be, considering all the circumstances?

Is this a textbook case of extreme bias, or is it just getting absurdly twisted? 🤦

I just got slapped with two warnings for supposedly "trolling," while the person who started attacking me—using the crudest, most personal insults possible—out of nowhere, since I wasn't even arguing with him or addressing him, gets to keep going in that exact same tone. I see now that his posts are still active on the thread. This user is just running wild, throwing around jabs at "the diaspora from the 90s" and mocking "elite liberals," insulting anyone who disagrees with him left and right. Meanwhile, the moderator just rushed to hand me two strikes—nothing less than 70 points. 🤣

Why are you playing the victim? Why all the ad hominem attacks? Are you actually capable of using logic in a debate, or did you just come here to spread your narrow-minded views?

I don't really care who these people are or why they showed up. If there were fewer of them, they wouldn't be such a massive news story, but we're talking about waves of people—mostly men in their prime—which makes this less of a humanitarian issue and more of a national security concern. I get that some people see an opportunity here for purely subjective reasons, but by any objective measure, this situation is an emergency.

If you’re suffering from some sort of Maria Theresa complex, feel free to invite them into your own house at your own expense, but leave us Americans alone. There is nothing more nauseating than elite liberals or the diaspora that spent the 90s living abroad and is now dragging those same 90s issues back into the spotlight.

Furthermore, if we aren't allowed to mention genocide, then let's be consistent and ban the manipulation regarding the events of the 90s that has been dragged through this thread and this topic repeatedly. And maybe ban Catholicism too, because I can already see a flood of atheist preachers taking over the discussion.

I am all for a referendum on accepting these migrants into America because I don't want a single one of them here, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty more coming. This isn't our war; they should go somewhere else.
__________________

So my post is "trolling," but his isn't? What kind of twisted logic is that?

And continuing my point to the other forum member:

Oh, don't worry. I've already passed the background check since that seems to be everyone's favorite hobby here. And honestly, considering how obsessed you are with cloning, maybe you're the one who needs to be "vetted" through the system, clean as Mary Ali.

Of course, it's not your job to do the moderator's work, but I do hope they actually do it, because what you're doing in this thread violates several rules.

Quote:
Which refugees? Who gave them refugee status?

The facts are that 70% are coming from countries that AREN'T even at war, and 90% of them are able-bodied men!!!

Which refugees? Why are you lying??

Leave the elite liberals alone. They'll have plenty of chances to prove their generosity and empathy very soon. The Democratic Party has already surrendered, despite how much they bragged about being the multicultural face of California all those years.

In the meantime, news outlets are reporting that North Mexico has closed its borders again.
__________________

link

He's attacking everyone in sight, almost every second post is an ad hominem attack, and the moderator overseeing the thread does absolutely nothing. Others are labeled as "trolling," but this specific user isn't. Is this normal, neutral, or unbiased moderation? Sorry, but it doesn't look anything like it.

Everything is happening at once—it’s just like what I mentioned briefly on that thread yesterday afternoon.

We all know how it goes; it’s just that... It is always an exhausting experience to watch those salon intellectuals and multiculturalism advocates actually put their theories into practice..

They remind me of those bigots who act all disgusted once they're finally caught: "I don't have a problem with it, just not in my backyard."

It will be because of that corrupt, predatory Catholic Church, and it won't be the first time either.
__________________

LINK

Whatever. I can't be bothered to look any further.

Why hasn't this user—who is under serious suspicion and has been the subject of multiple articles in Politico regarding whether they are actually a banned account returning under a new name—received a single strike for any of their posts above, while another user was slapped with two strikes for something ten times less significant?

To me, it all seems to stem from one thing—that moderator’s blatant bias. I don't know how it looks to the rest of you, though.

Since this "protected user" just randomly jumped into the thread to attack me for no reason at all, I’m starting to think this person was actually sent here specifically to provoke me. To me. The result is nothing more than a collection of empty promises.

I actually mentioned something along those lines in my previous posts, which the moderator flagged as "trolling." Now it looks like I was right all along, lol.

What if I am just sitting here, minding my own business, while someone else goes out of their way to pick a fight? If I give a calm, shrug-off response to a provocation, why am I the one getting handed a penalty card? Why resort to such blatant ad hominem attacks? This first individual is launching incredibly crude personal insults out of nowhere. It isn't just about deleting them; they're leaving unedited posts all over the thread. So, I was right after all.

A textbook case of moderator abuse, if you ask me. I don't see it any other way.

I would truly urge the authorities to review these specific records and examine the entries that preceded my account being flagged. Furthermore, I request that the moderator in question be held accountable and sanctioned for such a significant lapse in oversight.

Let’s not overlook the blatant labeling and the aggressive insults that were actually permitted in this instance: High-society liberals, the diaspora from the 90s being this way or that—it’s all just a bunch of people with a Maria Theresa complex. It's nothing but nauseating nonsense like "salon liberals who act like homophobes" and other equally disgusting rhetoric. A few posts from the same user containing similar insults or personal attacks have been deleted. I’m not sure if any of them resulted in a permanent ban, though.

Hi, and thanks.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:The whole point of this forum is to hash out all the different options and scenarios. You're clearly just pushing for censorship because you can't back up your own views with solid arguments, so now you're looking for a moderator to step in?
?

My point was simply that we need competent moderators—not "censorship"—especially when things get heated on sensitive topics. That's all I meant. 🙂

Sarah Doyle54 said:...... International. The international refugee crisis remains one of our most pressing political and humanitarian challenges. I have no intention of shutting down the conversation on this matter..

It seems this isn't an international issue anymore, just a local one. 😁 Where can I find the thread discussing potential future issues in America, rather than just the ongoing crisis? What's currently happening? Is there a political crisis unfolding in Europe? Or perhaps it’s even more severe in other countries than it is here in America.

I completely agree with your latest point, though I suspect a real debate on the matter is essentially impossible—whether that’s due to your approach or simply because the Politics mods actually know how to run their section.
.

Just as an example of what we're talking about, take this post for instance:

Quote:

Why bother worrying? Those liberal leftists say people like you and me are the real issue, not the immigrants. We need to secure our borders with wire. The way they view the world is beyond my comprehension. I worry about my children and grandchildren. As for those liberal leftists, frankly, I can't bring myself to care; I'll probably just laugh when Islamic radicals start targeting them for how they dress. Their worldview is simply a result of lacking any real experience with the people they judge. Once they actually feel the impact of multiculturalism firsthand, they'll change their tune. On the other hand, this influx of savages might actually have a silver lining, as it will surely strengthen pro-Western (so-called far-right) parties against the cultural Marxist "insurgents" and "socialists."

Scary. Before this, there was all that talk about a 'Muslim invasion' or 'how the diaspora will flee back to the West,' which were just baseless personal fantasies. Or maybe it's just intimidation tactics used against other commenters, but what is it actually based on?

Personal phobias?

The first Muslim invasion came through the West, via Spain. Now it's happening through the West again.

A time will come when our diaspora flees back from Western Europe.
__________________

David Vaughn75 said:Look, you don't need to shut down the thread just to stop people from becoming bigger fascists. Let them read and debate—as long as they aren't breaking hate speech laws. Honestly, I'm just saddened by how deeply rooted extremist ideologies remain within the American spirit. 😢

It's probably vital to maintain some level of balance on the Politics board, and ensure we aren't promoting anything "alternative" or fundamentally wrong at any level. The forum moderators should probably focus their attention there, rather than on what you mentioned above.

(By the way, we had this exact same issue in the Religion sub-forum with a moderator a few years back; things were sorted out quickly and a compromise was reached, so it's definitely doable.😉)

Sam Alvarez4 said:That’s a bit much; you’re throwing around terms like "Nazi" way too lightly.

This isn't a Nazi-related thread.
But the hate speech and conspiracy theories? Those are definitely out of hand. The moderation on this topic really needs an upgrade.

If Chuck and Bradley Sanders4 took over this thread, I don't think we'd have any issues—otherwise, you'll be seeing a repeat of that whole mess from the new "Ukraine" thread very soon. 😉

David Vaughn75 said:That thread on the world news subforum has become a complete breeding ground for Nazism, racism, and xenophobia. It’s honestly revolting to read, and I suspect some of the content might even cross the line into criminal territory.

How much longer will the moderators allow this to continue?
If you actually consider this forum to be a serious place, then this should be locked immediately.

They're actually selling bumper stickers about a "Muslim invasion" now? It’s like people are treating this whole thing like some kind of joke. Encouraging trends in that direction. And then there are the conspiracy theories—I think I saw something similar from the pro-Russian crowd regarding the situation in Ukraine, so this isn't exactly groundbreaking.

The solution, if you ask me: prioritize. Is there anything more unsettling than a clone? She manages the thread herself. With her being such an excellent moderator over on Politics, her oversight should hopefully prevent things from spiraling out of control, even if that isn't the desired outcome.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Look, if we're treating it as philosophy—since it seems like us Americans are just better at applying Buddhism when we lean into it as a sort of practical psychology (especially if we've got that moderate temperament)—then sure, it works. But if it's religion...

...well, then it's connected (like Hinduism, for instance). But that kind of stuff—totally detaching from the world and crushing all willpower and desire? That just doesn't sit right with the American mindset or how we view the purpose of life.

True, I know Belkica (Beljki) has shared plenty of interesting posts and topics regarding Buddhism on this forum. 🙂

.

.

Justin Garcia7 said:Some people say you shouldn't get attached to anything you're afraid of losing.☕

We feel the sting when we leave a job we actually loved, when a relationship ends, or whenever we lose anyone or anything we were emotionally invested in.

Buddhism suggests that life itself is suffering because we are beings driven by desires—which cause pain—and fueled by emotions that lead to even more attachment.

So, what’s the actual lesson here?

How do we avoid getting attached to people or things? Is it even possible to remain completely detached? Maybe it all comes down to how we frame things in our minds—our perception of what we hold dear. Or should we just let logic override our feelings?

Is the "right" way to be empathetic without letting ourselves become overly emotional?

I’ve noticed something interesting about some elderly, deeply religious folks I've met—people who carry their prayer beads everywhere. They’ve outlived their own children, yet they don't seem to grieve with the overwhelming intensity a "typical" person might. It's almost as if they possess this profound sense of peace, fully aware of how fleeting life is.

But would that mean happiness and laughter are just the flip side of the coin? We know many famous comedians struggle with depression behind closed doors. Should we spend our lives in an emotional "flatline," avoiding the highs and lows? Is a state of total emotional neutrality the only way to truly grasp the Truth?

Honestly, that sounds like one of the worst ways to exist. I’d much rather endure suffering and learn something from it than just live like a vegetable. It’s better to love and lose than to never have loved at all—isn't that basically what Kant argued? It certainly feels that way right now.

Does Buddhism actually teach people to just live like plants—just vegetating without any drive and drifting aimlessly through life? 😁

Or am I totally misinterpreting what Buddhism is about?

Justin Garcia7 said:Some people say you shouldn't get attached to anything you're afraid of losing.☕

We feel the sting when we leave a job we actually loved, when a relationship ends, or whenever we lose anyone or anything we were emotionally invested in.

Buddhism suggests that life itself is suffering because we are beings driven by desires—which cause pain—and fueled by emotions that lead to even more attachment.

So, what’s the actual lesson here?

How do we avoid getting attached to people or things? Is it even possible to remain completely detached? Maybe it all comes down to how we frame things in our minds—our perception of what we hold dear. Or should we just let logic override our feelings?

Is the "right" way to be empathetic without letting ourselves become overly emotional?

I’ve noticed something interesting about some elderly, deeply religious folks I've met—people who carry their prayer beads everywhere. They’ve outlived their own children, yet they don't seem to grieve with the overwhelming intensity a "typical" person might. It's almost as if they possess this profound sense of peace, fully aware of how fleeting life is.

But would that mean happiness and laughter are just the flip side of the coin? We know many famous comedians struggle with depression behind closed doors. Should we spend our lives in an emotional "flatline," avoiding the highs and lows? Is a state of total emotional neutrality the only way to truly grasp the Truth?

The root of suffering isn't attachment—after all, emotional connection is what makes life worth living. Real suffering comes from sin.

(Whether it's your own mistakes, how others mistreat you, or how you treat them).

If you live with less regret and learn to love everyone and everything—meaning, choosing not to judge and instead seeking out the good in every person—you'll find happiness... etc., etc.

neonbadger9 said:....., it's just the pure whims of certain admins who can't objectively oversee a discussion, so when they run out of arguments, they resort to locking threads. It’s honestly pathetic, if not outright sad.

Charles Fox10 clearly isn't an "admin," he's a moderator—one of the most popular and respected ones on the Politics board—so your tone doesn't really seem appropriate or well-placed here.😉

Furthermore, it doesn't even strike me as anyone's "whim" to lock a thread, especially one that's more or less irrelevant, redundant, or just a parallel topic; there hasn't been anything new on the Politics board worth doing that for.

(As far as I know, the moderation team has the discretion to keep a thread on the main board, move it to the Lounge, or simply lock it, whether temporarily or permanently).

In some third-world country --- a rehabilitated Mexican leader from a criminal movement/war criminal, woohoo, who cares? It's hardly a significant or relevant topic for any of us. Let's all go have a little cry because a thread got locked. 🙏.

Paul Jones7 said:@Susan Price30:
What’s the actual, fundamental difference here—are we talking true ownership or just possession? I mean, for someone living within the church circles, staying single, and having no offspring (at least officially 😁)?

These folks—the prebendaries, if you want to get technical—get their own salaries, which they can spend however they please on themselves. I don't think there's anything stopping them; they could even make donations
. They use what they hold just like they actually owned it
. Plus, those with authority in the hierarchy can, say, buy a car—technically, the buyer is the KC, but really, they're the ones driving it
.
The 'employees' of the KC have everything they need, and some people higher up the ladder have way more than they actually require
.
The KC holds massive wealth, but maybe not just to sustain the faith itself, but to maintain its power—real, tangible political influence—and by extension, its status
.
Now, we could speculate whether this kind of approach was actually necessary for the religion to survive. Maybe it was. But that would imply the KC doesn't quite believe that God would look after His church if it weren't busy amassing property and assets
.
Honestly, I used to doubt that the ban on marriage was primarily about protecting assets, but lately, I've come to believe that's the main reason
.

What do you think? 😉 Whether you're looking at Protestants or Anglicans, my understanding is that they can marry, but once they hit retirement, they end up with absolutely nothing. They lose everything they once owned, leaving them with no assets to pass down to a spouse or their children.

They have their own priest's residence, of course, and everything else operates on the basis of a tenant rather than an owner.

It’s clearly due to Christian teachings. Both through study and practice, one learns to avoid attaching oneself to anything trivial or fleeting, focusing instead solely on what truly matters in life. And Christianity isn't even the only faith that specifically upholds this truth or this doctrine.

Paul Jones7 said:hmm... what about prebendaries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prebendary

As I understand it, the clergy are merely granted use of church property for their own enjoyment—they act as stewards rather than owners. It isn't their personal property to sell, distribute, or dispose of in any way.

He doesn't actually own it; it was simply entrusted to him. It’s much like how the Pope doesn't even own the vestments he wears—they are granted to him for his use and service, yet they aren't his personal property. Once his tenure ends, those same items are passed on to the next Pope.

You can sell things for a profit, or you can simply give what you own to someone you love because you hold the title—isn't that right? 😁 And they simply can't. Specifically the Pope or those high-ranking clergy.

And that’s considered a good thing because... Is there anything more fundamental than the art of tying knots? Material possessions can truly lead a person astray. They have this way of steering you toward selfishness, greed, vanity, and an inflated ego. I’ve always believed there is more value in living a simple life. Personally, I don't keep much clutter around my house; I prefer having fewer items, provided they are high quality and hold some personal meaning. Even with my wardrobe, I tend to recycle pieces after each season or pass them on to others. I once read a fascinating book about a woman who practiced this lifestyle by giving small tokens, like pens or even an apple, to her students. 😁 Or something like that, but I’d always give them something along with a genuine smile—you know, from the heart.

Perhaps it's better to be free like a story. 🙂 Some might see it as a total paradox—that the more we give, the more we actually end up with. It’s true for our finances, too, not just the sense of satisfaction that comes from it.

Quincy:

The religious paradox is just as glaring—today, Vatican City serves as the hub for the Christian organization, which stands as a manifestation of immense wealth, driven by a desire for riches. This seems fundamentally at odds with the essence of Christ's teachings regarding service to humanity, especially considering millions of people worldwide die from hunger every year (most of them children). On the other hand, Islam has been fervently focused on the "desire for power" for centuries, though the two are often intertwined; in one case, one aspect dominates, while in the other, it's the opposite. Furthermore, Islamic states are largely led by religious organizations, and even if they aren't currently in power in a specific nation, they remain a powerful opposition with massive followings, simply waiting for the moment to overthrow the government through violence and everything else that entails. __________________

Well, of course it's wealthy because it's the largest religious group (one in four people on this planet is Christian, and Catholics make up the largest portion), and they pour the most funding into missions, humanitarian aid, and social projects globally—projects intended for everyone, not just Christians per se.

Clergy, monks, or nuns personally own nothing. They take vows to live without material wealth, focusing entirely on the spiritual realm. It’s all about serving the Church, after all.

The logic is probably quite simple: if the world's largest religious organization were as poor as anyone else, it would be difficult to achieve anything with their work. They wouldn't have any social influence, and the mission of the Church is precisely that—to have social influence, to improve society, and to provide help where it is needed most.

I think that is exactly what distinguishes the Church from all other groups. And by the way, who funds the Church? 😁Atheists? No, the believers give. By giving to the Church, believers are giving for everyone.

Who does Islam help, since you brought up that religion? Additionally, if you "stand against" a Muslim, they believe evil should be answered with evil (doing even greater harm to those who wronged them)—which is completely and 100% contrary to what Christians believe or what any other faith practices, as far as I know.

That isn't what Gandhi ever believed or preached to Indians, for example.😉 Using such principles—inspired by figures like Martin Luther King—they effectively dismantled the influence of one of the most powerful and greatest Empires in history, the British one, in India. That seems to be the strength; there is a certain spiritual power there that truly has the potential to tear down everything in its path.