Posts by briskotter13

7 posts shown.

Another request for a political deep dive? in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 16, 2017

I don't align myself with either the left or the right, and while I haven't exactly written a political manifesto under this handle, I’m requesting a partial move to the politics section.
I want to show some solidarity with the folks holding conservative or moderate right-wing views. I'm returning to this forum—even though the moderation team remains exactly the same—hoping there might actually be room for debate between both sides. But once again, and I mean this for the very last time, I’ve realized it’s impossible to take a conservative stance without getting red-carded or having comments deleted. It kills what used to make this site great: the ability to exchange ideas regardless of your political leanings.
Honestly, I’m at a loss for how to even participate here anymore. A revision of the forum rules might be necessary, because the definition of "trolling" seems totally lost on everyone except the moderators and the left-leaning users, who seem to view anything that doesn't fit their worldview as a form of trolling.
Cheers to everyone, and goodbye to politics.

→ go to post

What's going on with the Politics subforum? in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 27, 2016

Maybe this very thread holds the answer as to why commenters are disappearing and why the quality on Politics has plummeted so hard.
We could try to discuss the causes, but we aren't allowed to mention moderation. Give me a break. At that rate, we might as well just lock the whole thing down right now to stay consistent.
We’ll immediately protect the root cause of the issue and pivot back to a superficial review. It’s like saying we need to investigate why things are failing in America, but we aren't allowed to mention corruption.

I’m an old-timer here, despite having a brand new profile. I haven't posted in years, but I’ve kept touch with some of the regulars. Talking to them, I found out the main reason people walked away was strictly because of the moderators.

Some say the forum has shifted left. But it isn't just the conservatives leaving; high-quality users with liberal views are walking out too.
A real contributor wants a debate. Ideally, they want to go toe-to-toe with someone who disagrees. That’s where real insight comes from. That doesn't exist here anymore.
A colleague noted—and I actually agree—that this forum is under a microscope by various interest groups that hunt for mistakes 24/7 just to report them. It keeps them funded. Just look at how this forum was dragged through the mud by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Did the site ever release an official statement to debunk those claims? I don't think so, but I know it definitely impacted many threads where censorship did its job.
The trouble started with hate speech, homophobia, and political correctness. These terms have no clear boundaries, and extremists expand them daily using almost Stalinist methods to decide what is "acceptable" and what isn't.
In an atmosphere like that, anyone—especially the moderators—can be accused of failing to stop hate speech or being politically incorrect.

Given everything, the moderation is to blame for what's happening. Censorship killed the forum. But you have to understand them; who in their right mind would go against the mainstream today and put their neck on the line for free speech, only to be branded a racist, a fascist, or a homophobe? Media is everywhere now, including outlets run by people with incredibly distorted perceptions (those scare me most) who can smear you in an instant and ruin your life.

I’d say this forum is dead as a platform for exchanging ideas. And it's not just us; the whole concept of uncensored communication is dying. It used to be that censorship meant removing the rude or the vulgar; now, it means removing anything deemed "unsuitable," without any clear rules on what that actually means. When there are no clear criteria, the only ones left swimming in that swamp are one-time trolls.

→ go to post

Men - is this a forbidden topic? in Feedback & Suggestions · Aug 30, 2015

Michelle Evans, you probably won't be offended if I mention I was posting on this forum long before you ever wrote your first message. However, my views changed so much after a multi-year break from the politics forum that it felt pointless to keep posting under my old handle.
So, speaking candidly as a veteran user, I don't recall seeing such poor moderation on any thread I've participated in or followed. My impression is that discussions are simply allowed to spiral out of control so there's an excuse to shut the whole thing down later. Quality comments either vanish or get sucked into a repetitive loop where everyone just repeats the same points. That's entirely due to bad moderation.
The only way I can make sense of why you guys aren't being labeled bad moderators is to assume this is intentional. Sure, call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but it's a logical move given that the site wants to stay open to everything while remaining politically correct—nobody wants to see negative mentions in Congressional reports. Poorly moderating sensitive topics and then closing them is a clever way to minimize the damage to the owner.

→ go to post

Men - is this a forbidden topic? in Feedback & Suggestions · Aug 30, 2015

I really enjoyed reading Thomas Morgan67's latest comment. I agree with much of his perspective on how discussions regarding male-female dynamics should be structured to foster actual constructive debate. Honestly, I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that this politics forum is even capable of hosting those kinds of talks right now. Anything outside of what Thomas Morgan67 laid out would just be opening a thread for the sake of it, rather than pursuing the goals a few of us actually care about. Given the two-day silence from the site admins, it feels like they're just looking for excuses to keep topics closed—all while hiding behind the guise of protecting free speech and democracy. In reality, they're avoiding the fact that "politically incorrect" dialogue is often the very foundation of a high-quality discussion.

On the topic of quotas, our colleague clumsily veered off-topic by dropping a link to a petition against an upcoming European Union Parliament report aimed at women's empowerment through education.
When you look at how boys are falling behind in education at every single level—from elementary school all the way through college—it's worth questioning the logic. If we operate under the assumption that girls are the ones being left behind and focus exclusively on their empowerment, won't they simply end up dominating the few remaining university majors where men still hold a significant lead in graduation numbers?
This is a subject that would be incredibly relevant for both current and future parents, especially those raising sons. But thanks to political correctness and a handful of snowflakes, it’s unlikely we'll ever get a real conversation started on it.

→ go to post

Men - is this a forbidden topic? in Feedback & Suggestions · Aug 29, 2015

Regarding the off-topic section, I viewed this thread as a space where we can offer suggestions to the Attorney General, who seems unsure about how to handle this herself. But she needs to figure it out, because I’m increasingly seeing men push back against female privileges. Sure, some are just nostalgic for the "good old days," but we shouldn't dismiss legitimate, reasoned arguments just because of that.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a tough spot. Honestly, I think they feel exactly how feminists felt a century ago—treated like oddities or weaklings, mocked and ridiculed. There isn't really an organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. They do it however they can, often bluntly or without much tact, but that shouldn't stop the conversation from happening.

To make matters worse, they have to fight through endless stereotypes, especially the one regarding the sheer scale of violence against women. It feels like our society has created a climate where discussing any male issues is considered distasteful until the issue of violence against women is fully resolved. That’s the "trump card" used to shut down any man trying to point out what bothers him. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic related to men. And frankly, if you look strictly at official statistics, that issue is being blown way out of proportion. I have to admit, I was surprised by the scale; we aren't talking about slightly inflated numbers here, but massive, astronomical discrepancies. Maybe that's not an exaggeration, but wanting to know how those numbers are calculated shouldn't be treated as a problem.

I wondered how this gets away with it, but reading this forum makes it clear. It’s not just that unverified figures are released into the public square; it’s that any attempt at criticism is immediately branded as misogyny. Why? Because apparently, "everyone knows" it's true. These widely accepted falsehoods and "creative truths" form the bedrock of every debate on gender relations. In reality, it’s impossible to touch on the vulnerability of men without first addressing the foundation: the creation of a negative public perception of men (violence, Pay-gap, patriarchy). I believe this is exactly why the moderation team hesitates to open threads about men—they worry about things spiraling out of control. If the scope is the problem, maybe it’s better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas resulting from feminist lobbying without mentioning the root causes of those quotas? To me, that looks like just another major evil fueled by political cronyism and nepotism.

I would love to see a dedicated thread on men opened here, followed by a formal invitation to federal equality institutions and various NGOs to join the discussion. I truly want to hear them explain the data points that we are supposedly expected to take on faith without questioning. I envision a debate where forum members aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and provided mathematical or statistical evidence for their claims. Just as there are male trolls, women can be just as bad, throwing out empty platitudes instead of actually engaging with sensible questions.

→ go to post

Men - is this a forbidden topic? in Feedback & Suggestions · Aug 29, 2015

You can't possibly draw that conclusion from what follows.

I don't see much beauty in arguing with people who already agree with me. I'm also not sure how a debunked lie actually ruins a debate. That only happens with lies we don't have the facts to counter. At that point, you really have to ask yourself if it was even a lie to begin with.

Vague terms that lack clear definitions usually exist just to serve a specific purpose. Sure, misogyny and misandry are real things, but people rarely agree on how to identify them. This means someone gets slapped with one of those labels and is left standing there completely bewildered by the accusation. I have to admit, I’ve been there myself—back when I was discussing gender quotas, someone immediately tried to diagnose me with "rationalization squirrel."

That’s the thing—since there isn't one clear definition, everyone just makes up their own. Where you see misogyny, I don't see it at all. And I'm sure it works the other way around, too. My point was that any viewpoint which discourages men from speaking openly about their struggles feels like patriarchy to me. In fact, it could be seen as misogyny because it treats me like someone who needs to be shielded from reality. People are all different, and there are just as many definitions for these terms as there are people.

I see it differently. Nowadays, the term "patriarchy" is defined exclusively as a negative concept. Yet, within that system, men have built many things that women benefited from, some created specifically for women's well-being. Perhaps a user repeats these points simply as a defense against the aggressive stereotype that patriarchy is solely a system designed to oppress women for the benefit of men. Repeating it countless times might just be a reaction to being attacked by that exact logic, not just here, but in much more serious arenas.
We are back to the subjective perception of misogyny again.

Now you're really moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter how many times someone says something if it's true. However, if it's a falsehood, even one instance in the public eye is too many. It needs to be corrected regardless of context, otherwise, we fall into the trap where repeated lies become perceived truths. Some falsehoods are repeated so often that what are we supposed to do? Punish the person who keeps pointing out the problem?

That last sentence highlights the awkward problem I mentioned earlier: there is nothing left to explain because everything is already "known."
Let's look at what is "known." If statistics from last year showed that 350 women were assaulted and recorded, am I asking if those numbers are large or small? Philosophically and humanly, even one victim is too many. Statistically, however, it represents fractions of a percent. That sounds small. Regardless, it shouldn't be enough to make "man" and "violence" synonymous. So, multiply that number by 90, and you get the reality: a woman was assaulted every 15 minutes. I don't have a specific reason for using 90, but it doesn't require a detailed explanation.
If some eccentric guy hits those same numbers but only casts women in the lead roles, everyone immediately screams misogyny.

So what’s the connection? That’s like saying a debate on immigration turned into chaos just because the conservatives showed up—or the liberals, it doesn't matter. People are going to argue using whatever logic they think holds water. If you can't find a solid counterargument for any reason, that isn't his fault; it's yours.

Dorian replied to your question. This topic is pretty provocative, and honestly, that’s the only reason it can exist at all—otherwise, it wouldn't even be a conversation. Personally, I’m all for keeping it on the table.

Women-focused NGO sites are constantly churning out articles like this, often getting their funding indirectly through government institutions. I’m not saying there’s necessarily a problem with that, but we have to remember that Forum.hr is a private platform with its own set of rules. Let's not be hypocrites and go looking for flaws in someone else's backyard when our own house is far from perfect.

The real issue often lies in how "insulting" is defined rather than what was actually said. But I've already made my point. Personal insults don't get under my skin. 🙂

I'll give it a read.

Impressions depend on the context. Forum.hr ended up in annual reports from government agencies, and not in a good way, which isn't great for the owner. Around that time, moderators appeared who are much better at spotting politically incorrect statements. But I'll take your word for it. If it doesn't matter to me, then fine—if it gives you satisfaction, that's your business.

→ go to post

Men - is this a forbidden topic? in Feedback & Suggestions · Aug 28, 2015

Political correctness is going to kill free thought and free speech. What’s being shoved down our throats today under the guise of fighting misogyny is crossing all lines of good taste, and in a way, it’s just driving a wedge between men and women. For some people, any sexual interaction is automatically labeled as rape or misogyny. Luckily, our moderators don't fall into that category, though they occasionally have a pretty bizarre sense of what counts as misogyny. Statements can simply be lies or truths. I actually love it when my opponent lies. A few solid arguments and the debate is over. Seeing them persist in useless attempts just makes me smile more.
The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth that we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's where terms like misogyny and misandry come in—they act as tools for people in dominant social positions to silence their opponents.
On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't considered politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.
We can't just label everything we don't want to hear as misogyny. And look, I don't always use the prettiest language. When a user says most inventions came from the male side, that isn't misogyny; it's a fact. On the flip side, is claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes misandry? Because Department of Justice statistics show an interval closer to 90 minutes. Is it misandry or a lie to say there were 75 rapes last year, while estimating that only one in 15 cases was reported because of false accusations against men? Is it misandry or a lie to claim a Pay-gap exists by grouping everyone from CEOs to students into the same bucket?
We can't allow sweeping generalizations on one hand, but we also can't hide the truth on the other. Why shouldn't we be able to speak? Because I see this behavior as a direct insult to me as a woman—an insult to my ability to defend myself and stand as an equal. Sorry, moderators, but what you're doing is patriarchy in its worst form. Tomorrow, women will hold 40% of political offices, and eventually, educated women will shift the ratio of men to women in leadership roles. Will you still try to protect us like we're fragile little children, even when we're wrong, lying, or causing harm? Are you implying that because we're women, we're always the weaker, more delicate ones, and any criticism is misogyny? Are you trying to tell us we're less intelligent or capable?
Don't do us any favors. We are more than capable of defending ourselves against lies and accepting uncomfortable truths. Let men say what's bothering them. Let them vent. If we don't, we might miss vital issues that we'll regret later. Even if they're being offensive, I want to understand the root of those negative feelings so I can try to help fix whatever is eating at people. Okay, this isn't a psychology sub-forum, but here in politics, conflicting views are respected. That is the whole point of a forum—different opinions and the debates they spark. I've learned a lot from banned users. I had no idea how powerful the media is and how easily "untouchable truths" are forced upon us. If you dig beneath some of these narratives, you find very ugly, dirty lies.

I get the impression that with these topics, the moderator's main job isn't managing verbal sparring, but rather making sure they don't miss any "politically incorrect" statements—even when they aren't entirely sure what those look like themselves. You never know when someone might jump down your throat for it, so it's easier to just nip the thread in the bud. It ensures a peaceful night's sleep for the moderators, but it's terrible for gender relations and actually understanding the complex power dynamics in today's world.

→ go to post