Posts by Karen Rodriguez3

So what, everyone else is cutting corners, so we should just let our kids do whatever they want too? Why be hypocrites about it? Is that really how you see it?
Look, I get it. The system is broken and half the stuff going on feels shady as hell, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise our kids with actual standards.
Honestly, teaching them to recognize when things aren't fair... I guess that’s actually one of the most important parts of growing them up right.

It’s honestly hard to wrap your head around how bad things have gotten until you actually talk to people who’ve been in the education system for, like, thirty years. They see the shift. I mean, isn't the fact that they're cutting out outdoor learning programs and field trips enough of a red flag? Even fewer teachers want to lead senior trips anymore. At my local high school, they just scrapped them entirely.
Yeah, we definitely did some wild stuff back in the day, but at least we didn't have to worry about a teacher getting sued or losing their entire career just for reacting to something.

I mean, honestly? Probably not. You might want to go chat with a professional therapist or a family counselor about this one. Does the guy actually have an official diagnosis?

Douglas Gonzalez4 said:It’s honestly quite disheartening when the things I find important are dismissed as childish, or when I'm accused of playing the hero or acting immaturely. It stings even more coming from someone I've always enjoyed talking to—someone I thought I could disagree with without it turning into a total vendetta.
If you aren't interested in debating, that's perfectly fine; you don't have to. But please, don't label those of us who actually want to discuss things as mere complainers. Let us hold onto the hope that something might change, no matter how slim the odds might seem. You might see this struggle as a lost cause, but we haven't given up. I certainly haven't.
In all seriousness, I truly hope that the persistent, well-reasoned cendranje from a certain group of users on this forum eventually reaches the right ears.

I don't quite follow your last point about the way people are commenting. When exactly did that happen?
Today? It happened today. And a handful of users were properly "rewarded" for it. I really don't see any debate to be had there.

I don't think what they're fighting for is childish, I just think the way they're doing it is.
My bad if that hits a nerve, maybe I'm just an old lady who fought her own battles back in the day 🤷 and I've seen where this kind of stuff leads.

Douglas Gonzalez4 said:I'll try to stay on topic as much as possible in my response.

As for the comments regarding friendships and the moderation team, I have nothing to say. And your take on MelodyNine's post doesn't belong here either.
We don't share a collective intellect, and thank goodness we don't all think the same way. That exchange of ideas is exactly what the Gutanje discussions were about, though it seems you're missing that point.
This isn't about taking sides; it's simply that a certain group of users has reached their limit. Some of them hang out outside of this space too, so what?

There was a thread right here on the USA with a specific problem. It was presented appropriately and backed by arguments. And the result? "Idiocy."
That was the response.
So, the fact that the core issue was raised in the proper venue has been proven once again.

I'm not advocating for insults. Calling the moderator Peter stupid or incompetent just because he deleted three posts regarding Tonson isn't something I'm pushing. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to mention that Peter was banned for trolling, but that's a separate matter entirely. If the rule is that we can't discuss moderation decisions in passing, fine. I'll accept that.
But only on one condition: that there actually exists a place where I can express my opinion and comment on how the moderators operate. These "idiocies" are showing me once again that such a space doesn't truly exist.
Another thing mentioned during this so-called "defiance," as you call it, was the equal application of rules to everyone. Whether you're a regular user or someone tasked with keeping order, the rules should apply to everyone regardless of their username—even if those names are patterned in purple elephants.
If you think otherwise, I'm sorry, but I can't help you. No one has the right to call you stupid, even if you were insisting the sky was brown.

And there's no need for insults just because you don't understand something—or rather, because you don't want to. I know you could make the effort, but if you choose not to, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Way to go, Africa, following the rules to a T.
Is that better now?
Frankly, I don't care how she feels when she has to issue a penalty to Melody. She’s a moderator, isn't she? It’s her job to flag posts that warrant it, period. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether the post subject to discipline was written by Person A, Person B, or Person C. If we can't handle that level of objectivity, then we have a real problem on our hands.
A problem that is clearly present, even if you are stubbornly choosing to ignore it.

So, what did you all actually gain from this?
Herp just made you all turn red, the thread is locked, and now you all look like a bunch of hysterical women who just got worked up over nothing—honestly, none of us gained a single thing.😢

Nothing, it's not like we didn't already know that. We said what we had to say, and that's that.
I am sorry if all you see is a group of women making a scene, but fine. As I told Karen Rodriguez3, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, and honestly, I don't think I even did. Maybe I just phrased things weirdly, I guess.😕
If I said all this stuff today feels like being back in grade school or dealing with some playground drama, well, maybe it does. At least that's how it looks to me.
But why, though?
Look, I agree with a whole bunch of what you guys said, but I also don't think any of it is actually right. There's definitely stuff I'm not on board with. If I actually felt like getting into a whole debate about it, I probably would. Maybe.
I haven't been around since yesterday, so I've got no clue what went down. I guess I missed the whole thing.
So, Klonka is finally out of the picture. Most people seemed to be on the same page regarding Lastan, too. But honestly? It’s just one thing after another. People are still constantly opening threads, whining, and just waiting around. There are endless announcements about things turning gray, and it feels like people are straight-up ignoring the rules on purpose—even after that Smartin post and those pleas from Africa. It just keeps happening.
So, what was actually gained from that? I mean, seriously.
I mean, couldn't someone have just come over here and started a bunch of different threads with all those questions right from the jump? Just a thought, I guess.
I mean, I think you get what I'm saying—it wasn't really about people bringing up banned users during the Gutanje sessions. It was more about the vibe of the comments themselves, I guess. Just how people were talking, you know?

Just to be clear, my take on this has absolutely nothing to do with any specific woman on this forum. I mean, sure, I might have brought up some older posts in previous threads, but that’s it. No one here has actually rubbed me the wrong way or anything.
Look, I honestly think debates and having different opinions is a good thing. I've never really made an issue out of it, and I definitely don't go around ignoring people on other threads just because we didn't see eye-to-eye on one topic—especially when I actually agree with them most of the time anyway. It's not that deep, I guess.
Look, just because I’ve got a different take on things or I'm pushing back on an idea I don't really vibe with, it doesn't mean I'm taking anything personally. It's not like I'm getting defensive or feeling attacked. I guess it's just how I see it.
It just means I’m not on board with the current arguments or how things are being handled right now.
Simple as that.

Now we’ve reached the stage where people are calling out the mods and bringing old friendships into this. I mean, is it even fair to go after a moderator just for doing their job?
Look, ladies, you really don't need this. If there's one thing I can't stand in life, it's people being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.
For crying out loud, get it together.
Melody, what was that post even about? Is everyone who disagrees with you suddenly a villain?
And yeah, we were all just talking, joking around, sharing our wins and our struggles. What does that mean? That we all share one giant brain and aren't allowed to have different opinions from one another?
If I know anything at all, it's that I'm not always right, and other people have every right to see things differently, even if I happen to be right.
If there's an actual issue, bring it up where it belongs and fight for your stance.
With actual arguments.
What happened today wasn't argumentative, mature, or even coherent. It was just denial, forcing an agenda, and playing the part of some edgy dissident hero.
Oh, and isn't saying "half the PDF" a bit much? Are all the other users posting on the USA considered unimportant or invisible?

Anthony Garcia19 said:Forget about the economy! 🙂

Look, you can't deny that business owners have total autonomy when it comes to how they handle profits and payroll. They can choose to pay people based on their actual individual contribution to the bottom line, or they can just stick to standard market rates—it’s their call. And it isn't just about salaries; it's about reinvestment too. Sure, that profit comes from everyone's hard work, but legally, it belongs to the owner. I don't see what the big deal is here, at least for this discussion.

Sure, maybe a group of like, 20 employees could take out some loans or pool their savings to start a business. Then they could just split everything equally at the end.
But if one person puts up everything—their house, their life savings, their whole future—just to get the doors open and manage the crew, I guess it's weird to think the profit should belong to everyone else, right?

Anthony Garcia19 said:I'd say a massive amount.

But when you're looking at an individual, the government sets the rules for taxes, social security, and various other fees. Those are limits set by the state that they control regardless of what the owner wants. Once that's out of the way, the owner—or group of owners, depending on the setup—decides how to use and split whatever is left over.

You've got a point there. The government sets the baseline, and after that, it's mostly down to the market.
Not everyone is doing jobs where you can just pay some basic minimum wage set by the state and call it a day. If I need a solid specialist for my business, I have to pay them what they're actually worth. Basically, whatever rate they're willing to work for. Otherwise, they'll just head over to a competitor.
Obviously, there's a ceiling to how much I can spend based on what my business can actually handle. If I can't find the right person for the budget I have, I end up lowering my standards, which honestly just puts the whole company and everyone relying on it at risk.
Sometimes, you just don't have a choice.
And then there's the whole thing where people tend to take the path of least resistance. They go through the motions to get degrees in jobs that aren't really in demand, and then act surprised when they have a Master's degree but zero job offers.
And yeah, ideally, some of that money should actually stay in the pot. But if that were the case, who do you think should be calling the shots on how it's spent and distributed?

Anthony Garcia19 said:You could draw a similar parallel with the myth that success is solely the result of an individual's talent. It's definitely not true that skill and profit are always proportional (unless by "skill" you actually mean being "street smart" or shady). What people usually ignore is that anyone's success is built on the labor and ability of countless others. Most of those people only get whatever the owner decides to give them, rather than what their actual contribution is worth.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying gains can't happen without losses. That's usually how it works today, but if we boost overall prosperity and distribute things fairly, that wouldn't have to be the case anymore.

That's just straight-up wrong.🤷

placidwolf27 said:It doesn't matter... certain disparities in ability or whatever aren't an explanation or an excuse for the systemic mess we see today. There isn't much connection between the two, aside from the obvious assumption that people will grab whatever slice of the pie they can based on their skill sets...

What exactly "didn't work"? Are you talking about economic growth?

There are efficient ways to handle this—more or less direct approaches exist...

It just seems to me—perhaps implicitly in your posts—that you view this as some sort of natural state... as if this is just how things go, or how humans are inherently wired... or something like that...

Nah, I don't think individuals hoarding stuff is some natural state of being. It's more like a byproduct of how people act, I guess. And if you tried to stop it by any means necessary, it would probably just lead to stagnation, or maybe even a total step backward.

Anthony Garcia19 said:So, you're actually arguing that we aren't all equal (like I mentioned in point one earlier), rather than saying humans are just naturally greedy?

I guess so. I'm just not totally sure if that's happening right now in the middle of everything, or if we've just drifted that way because of those reasons you mentioned in your second point.
But yeah, pretty much. I don't think everyone is on the same level.
🙈
😁

placidwolf27 said:We really ought to pause and consider that this has nothing to do with the current debate over wealth accumulation, nor does it touch upon the idea of hypothetical redistribution...

Besides, who ever actually claimed that all people possess equal capability in the first place?

I was just using that as a starting point for the argument. I wasn't talking to you specifically.

But hey, if there's no way to register, how is that irrelevant? Wealth piling up is basically just a side effect of progress. We tried doing things differently before and it didn't exactly work out.

Still, I'd love to see someone actually map out a redistribution model. Like, what’s the most efficient way to pull that off without ending up right back where we started in a few years?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Karen Rodriguez3: I see your point; you believe those individuals have simply shaped their environment to suit their inherent nature.
My view is different. I don't believe in a fixed "nature." Human nature is essentially the capacity to become anything. If you take a child from one community and raise them in a completely different one, they will adapt and adopt a totally different worldview. That worldview becomes who they are.

I suppose there are exceptions to my rule—for instance, psychopaths seem to be born that way; it's just their nature, though we don't truly understand why. But a typical child can be raised to be a decent person, or they could just as easily be raised to be a killer or a thief, without ever questioning if their actions go against some internal compass.

Anthony Garcia19: It seems what I shared with Karen Rodriguez3 actually addresses your concern as well. Aside from those born as psychopaths, you simply have people who experiment with cheating or greed, perhaps out of pure curiosity. That is entirely human. Then you have those for whom this behavior isn't new; they’ve seen it firsthand, lived through it, or were raised surrounded by it. The world isn't a bubble where deception is some unknown concept.
Simply put, it exists and cannot be eradicated. It can only be kept in check through constant effort to root it out.

Regardless of how someone is raised, I still think there's a core nature lurking inside everyone that dictates how they act when things get real, depending on the situation.
But hey, doesn't matter if I'm right or you are. As long as we have a society where the family is the foundation and where upbringing and guidance happen mostly at home, that’s the bedrock of everything.
Good people raise good people, and vice versa.
Unless, of course, their basic nature is fundamentally different.😬

Not at all. I'm not saying someone is just born bad. Or rather, I'm not implying that every single person is inherently rotten.
Since you brought up those two examples of civilizations developing in isolation, I don't really see that as proof they evolved specifically because of their surroundings. To me, it feels more like individuals with similar worldviews just ended up building an environment that fits them. If you know what I mean.🤷

Zachary Mendoza2 said:No, it is quite simple: humans evolve through interaction with their environment. Someone cheats someone else, gets away with it, and profits as planned. They try it again and see that it works, so they adopt a new behavioral model. The environment might not respect them, but it tolerates them, and he profits. Or, if he uses theft, people fear and despise him, yet they do not stop him. Then he finds someone similar to organize with, making them stronger and more successful together. Eventually, some dissatisfied people notice this and say, "Why shouldn't we act just like these successful people?" Everyone else hates them and complains, but in reality, they are just more successful than their surroundings. So, I follow suit.
It becomes infectious. Once it spreads, it becomes obvious that general social morality has gone to hell, people retreat into themselves, and the opportunists take over. Resourcefulness becomes the ideal, while compassion, sharing, empathy, brotherhood, and unity are seen as part of that old, failed system—a system that hates you because you are successful.

Weeds grow faster than crops, stealing the sunlight, water, and nutrients while reproducing more quickly. Weeds grow wherever they can, whereas crops require a specific, favorable environment. If you don't constantly pull the weeds, you will soon have nothing but weeds in your field.

So, are you basically saying one person can't be more successful than another unless they're cheating?😕

placidwolf27 said:How exactly would that prevent the "advanced and intelligent" from doing their thing?

Are we suggesting that having a larger pool of Capital available to a broader segment of society somehow breaks the system?
Is the concern that a higher number of "capable" individuals wouldn't be able to fight for their slice of the pie or build something meaningful?

Or perhaps it's about preventing control over development—and its ultimate results—from being concentrated solely in the hands of a few individuals and massive corporate entities... if that power were decentralized, wouldn't a much wider array of "advanced" minds be able to influence and contribute to progress, while ensuring a greater number of people and organizations actually benefit from what is created?

You don't need a PhD to realize we aren't all cut from the same cloth when it comes to talent. Right?
If you take someone who’s naturally driven, capable, and works harder than most, and you constantly force them to split everything they achieve with people who can't help or—let's be real—people who just won't, it won't take long before that high-achiever just says, "screw this, let someone else carry the load."
It's a total simplification, I know, but honestly, it's pretty straightforward.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Anthony Garcia19: Neither one serves as a foundation. The true foundation is a person's capacity to become anything at all.
Essentially, you need an environment that prizes empathy, creativity, selflessness, and cooperation. At the same time, selfishness and exploitation must be met with absolute disgrace. This requires constant effort. If you don't maintain it, the first rotten apple in the barrel will ruin everything.
Communism initially succeeded because party officials went out to people who might not have even known how to read or write. They carried Marx's Capital and explained the essentials—human rights, the difference between labor and exploitation, and what defines a healthy society versus a sick one. But once that instruction faltered, charlatans took over. These people were mistaken for being "clever" or "resourceful," when they should have been cast out and punished. Human nature immediately resurfaced and communism collapsed: the apples rotted, and today, egoism is treated as a virtue while man becomes a wolf to man.

I don't think human nature "returned." It never left. It was just shoved into this forced shell that barely let it breathe. You can't do that without a dictatorship, obviously. Those scammers didn't suddenly appear after the guidance stopped; they just finally showed their true colors. So, I guess, what does that actually say about what people are really made of?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:When the first man arrived and claimed, "This belongs to me," someone should have immediately thrown a stone at him. 🧐

Yeah, well, that kind of thing isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

Anthony Garcia19 said:We already touched on the necessity of the wealthy at the start of this thread. To avoid repeating myself, my take is probably best summarized in my reply to Frogger (post #49).
There’s also a discussion about this over on the Spirituality subforum, in the thread started by Vivekananda: Is money "the work of the devil"?. Like you, most people today find it impossible to imagine a highly advanced society without powerful, wealthy individuals driving it forward. Personally, I disagree.

I’d love for you to walk me through how that would even work in practice, you know? Like, how do we avoid holding back the most driven, smartest, or most capable people...
Because honestly, that isn't just some capitalist myth or something invented in the modern era.

gentlestag3 said:My mom actually wants to move into an assisted living facility once she gets weaker. My wife's grandfather broke his leg recently, and since her parents work from sunrise to sunset, there just wasn't anyone available to stay with him, so he had to go into a care home. He fought it so hard at first, though—he kept saying everyone abandoned him, blah blah blah. But after being there for three months until he could walk again, he actually misses it. Since her parents are still working non-stop, he's just alone all day, whereas at the facility, he had company around the clock.

I guess I don't really get why people are lecturing me about my upbringing? Like, who decided it was wrong to step up and help my mother if she becomes incapacitated?

I’m not even talking about that. Honestly, I think a facility is a better option than someone just sitting home alone all day. I’ve seen stuff like this happen in my own family, so yeah, maybe that's just how we were raised.
But look, taking care of your parents isn't really any different from taking care of your kids, and it's not a bad thing in itself.
As long as it comes from a place of love, I guess.
Trying to guilt-trip kids or force obligations on them is where I draw the line. That's just not okay.
And caring for someone doesn't just mean having them under your roof.
You can still look after your parents while they're in a facility. You call them, you visit, you just hang out...