Posts by Daniel Ward87

swiftstag66 said:That’s all well and good, but honestly, it's just a long-winded way of repeating the same old conclusion. It still doesn't actually answer the question I asked.

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Can we please stop comparing every little thing to fascism or Nazis? Honestly, what's in power right now—and even some folks on this forum—feels way more like Bolshevism to me.Next time, just go with the Bolshevik comparison.

I'm not saying an "unbiased" mod team is actually going to be understanding here, but we really need to break this reflex where everything bad gets labeled as fascism.

swiftstag66 said:Another messy part of this is talking about Robert Rubin's secret police. While putting this post together, I tried to sift through as much material as possible, but since most of it was scrubbed, there isn't much left. Still, the recurring theme here is labeling tax collectors as "secret police." If you take it out of context, that sounds wild, but that's exactly why we need context. Here’s the deal: people are discussing the way tax inspectors are operating this summer, and forum users are drawing parallels to the Nazis in the 1930s. There are plenty of overlapping elements there to make the comparison stick. It goes deeper, too—the way the media covers the issue mirrors how they covered things back then. It's no secret that certain outlets spin stories to help one side and hurt the other, both now and then. Within that framework, the comparison reaches a higher level—it becomes a metaphor. It's not just saying inspectors are like secret police; it's saying they have become Rubin's secret police.

Edward Fisher86 said:I would say that it is... An absolutely stellar Moderator. What does he really think about the enrollment process? He’s got plenty of opinions, but unlike that one person complaining, He always maintains a level of respect for other Forum users as individuals. Regardless of how much our posts might differ in content.

placidorca16 said:Dear moderators,
It’s honestly wild how several threads regarding feminism—currently active over in Politics (specifically those regarding "feminist protection of domestic abusers" and various "feminism" discussions)—are completely ignoring blatant sexism, misogyny, and direct violations of the Constitution and federal laws, not to mention international standards. A few users (the original poster, along with felix, bongo, and others, plus the thread starter) are basically just insulting women and their capabilities in general—spreading outright lies about female intelligence and skill as if they were "facts," despite having zero evidence to back any of it up. It's baffling that the mods aren't stepping in, especially since these posts have already been reported.
Does this mean the owners of this forum also endorse the misogyny, sexism, and falsehoods being directed at women?
I’m looking for an official statement from the administration here—this isn't just a breach of forum rules, it’s a violation of the Constitution and the laws of the USA, as well as the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Sean Cooper65 said:I totally get what he was saying—it wasn't exactly rocket science. It just feels like you guys haven't really explained how everything else in Politics works regarding Thompson, his taxes, and all that, yet suddenly this one concert is where everyone draws the line.

Why do people keep ignoring the facts right in front of them?

You guys don't have an answer, so you just ignore it.

Jeffrey Wilson67 said:Robert Gomez59, you just weren't hitting the mark. You kept missing it, so this status is exactly what you earned with how you acted. It’s staying right where it is.

Charles Fox10 said:I still feel like it’s high time we let the generals live their lives as free citizens without being harassed over this Mississippi mess on this forum.
Operation Storm will definitely have its own dedicated thread, just like always.

Michelle Phillips54 said:Christian Watson2, Matthew Anderson laid it all out in his first post—he gave a clear breakdown of why those posts were nuked and why the warnings went up. I don't see much point in repeating what’s already been said. I’ve gone through the thread, and honestly, I’m on the same page as the mods. It’s their job to step in when a discussion starts drifting off-topic, and they usually try to give a heads-up before handing out bans, even though they aren't strictly required to play nice with warnings.

And yeah, getting flagged for attacking the moderation team? That one definitely sticks.

Justin Harris12 said:Thanks for getting back to me. The topic and the opening post have actually shifted since I first filed my complaint regarding the critique; apparently, the moderators took my grievance seriously and modified the initial post, replacing the original opener with a post from a different user. However, I have to say, I'm really not a fan of the loaded language used by the thread starter in that intro. That first post is incredibly biased and draws conclusions that aren't backed by any actual facts.

And this isn't just me being pedantic—we are talking about a Prophet whose teachings are followed by 1.2 billion people, not some random guy or a minor figure.

I have no interest in filing reports against Ego because I’m not looking for revenge or trying to start drama with anyone. I just want us to approach this objectively and have a real discussion, where maybe even I can learn something new. Let's remember that this is a highly popular forum, and it's vital to maintain accurate information since every topic gets indexed and pops up right at the top of Google searches. People who type queries into a search engine usually take those first results as absolute truth, which is exactly why I’m insisting that the opening post be written properly.

Just to remind everyone what the thread starter wrote in the first post concerning Aisha:

Because some Muslims on this forum claimed that Muhammad had sexual relations with Aisha much later, once she reached maturity, after she had been living with him and his wife as an adopted child.

For instance, in several authentic hadiths, we clearly read that Aisha was playing with dolls when Muhammad entered her room to consummate their marriage:

It is true that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was 9 years old, according to at least the authentic hadiths that claim this.

Is this really how you open a discussion about sacred figures like Muhammad and Aisha?
Is it appropriate for the very next post to be exactly like this—just a collection of prejudices? 🤷
It's even more complicated than that, given that modern scholars still debate various theories regarding exactly how old Aisha was; the latest research suggests she wasn't under 17. All of this is up for debate, but how can you start a thread this way, without even a shred of decorum, regardless of whether it's your faith or not? I respect every religion and those who don't believe; their choice and their path are their own.

The thread is dying because nobody has responded in a while. This could have been a beautiful conversation that leads to genuine understanding, but it's being ruined by a crude opening post.

Americans are fortunate to live in a place where there are Muslims who can answer all your questions—Muslims who are friendly toward you and who have always maintained good relations with the US. Why should those same Muslims, who extend a hand in friendship, be met with prejudice and hatred simply due to ignorance and misinformation?

Thanks again for the response, and please don't take this as me putting pressure on you. I'm simply asking that the first post be reviewed so we can decide if the topic should truly start this way, or if it should be steered in a higher-quality direction.

I'm going to be posting every single decision I make

Justin Harris12 said:Seriously, have you people actually read this post from Big Jason? What on earth are you doing over there?
The post is pure hate speech—completely subjective and loaded with insults. Honestly, it’s even worse than the original opening post. Is this meant to be some kind of intentional provocation? Because I truly can't tell. Even a complete layman could see that this entire thing is built on falsehoods, ignorance, and blatant bias.

I am demanding that this topic be shut down immediately because it is clearly just inviting trolling and fighting; it was framed as an attack on an entire faith, which signals exactly what kind of toxic direction this discussion is going to take.

The whole thread is quickly devolving into nothing but sexual commentary and personal attacks.

What’s particularly disturbing is that even the supermoderator, who is supposed to be stepping in to stop the trolling, writes in the second post—and I quote: "how do we describe someone who has relations with a child"—alluding to the idea that Muhammad was a pedophile, despite the fact that Aisha was an adult according to numerous pieces of evidence, and there is no proof regarding her specific age.

Administration, I really hope you find the time to review this.

It seems to me that the moderation team isn't even following the forum's own rules.

Personally, I don't have anything against atheists; everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but if a supermoderator is using their official position to push personal agendas while simultaneously violating the site's guidelines, then that absolutely needs to be investigated.

An entire religion is being marginalized here. Just imagine if I did the exact same thing to, say, the LGBTQ+ community? How would they feel being targeted like this?

I’m appealing to you to take action before it's too late, because if you leave this unchecked, it opens the floodgates for people to start attacking any group they choose, including the LGBTQ+ community, and we all know exactly where that road leads.

Jacob Allen said:Alright, let's just say that's how it is... I mean, if that's the deal, then fine, I don't really see a massive issue with it and I'm definitely not looking to start some huge debate over it.

But, something else is kind of... making me feel like I have to be that one guy who keeps pointing out the obvious flaws in the system.

So look, I won't go interrogating the administration right now... but is there any way at all to find out... you know, get a hint about what kind of information we're talking about here? Maybe these users are dangerous to me too, and you guys are just keeping these top-secret files under wraps.

I mean, seriously, what you just said sounds pretty intense to me! It almost sounds sketchy, like there's this whole organized structure going on where users come forward, gather intel, and report back... how does that even work?

And could we at least get a heads-up on which users are doing the reporting? Like, will they step forward themselves or are we supposed to figure out who they are? 🙂