Posts by bluecyclist64

I’ve always had a certain appreciation for the little tidbits of trivia tucked behind certain tracks. Take this, for instance:

"Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit" is this psychedelic rock & roll bolero penned by their vocalist, Jefferson Airplane's Slick. "Growing up, our parents would read us tales like Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, and The Wizard of Oz," Slick remarked. "Every single one of those stories features a realm where kids encounter substances that allow them to fly, stumble upon an Emerald City, or meet these extraordinary creatures and characters... Then, out of nowhere, our parents start asking, 'Why on earth are you doing drugs?' It's a bit ironic, don't you think?"

When I pull up your profile, the only tab visible is Statistics.

There isn't even an option to send you a direct message.

I actually had to go back to your previous post, select the message option from there, and only then did it work.

Your privacy settings are clearly messed up.

EDIT: Honestly, if you went ahead and scrubbed every single one of your questionable posts, then I suppose that explains it.

Why am I asking this?
It’s simple: earlier today, I put together several lengthy posts aimed at dismantling the sheer stupidity of those peddling fascist ideologies—only for some guy named Beljki to wipe them out as if they never existed.

And let’s be honest: fascism itself was always about erasing people from existence, wasn't it?

Then again, those who fought against fascism were just as quick to erase the fascists themselves.

Since I can't even reach this "big shot" through a private message, I suppose I have no choice but to address him right here on the public forum:

If you aren't willing to explain your actions through a civilized, respectful dialogue, then perhaps we’ll have to find another way to communicate.

I'm not making a threat; I simply want to have a conversation with you... 🥳

EDIT: What kind of logic allows moderators to disable their incoming private messages? If you lack the temperament or ability to moderate properly, then step down from the position!

Chris Myers As I was reading through this, I couldn't help but feel a sense of déjà vu. It’s the same old argument we see playing out every few years. It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago while grabbing a coffee in Chicago. I was sitting there, watching the commuters rush toward the L-train, thinking about how people always try to simplify complex social shifts into these neat little boxes. We do it constantly—we take massive, sweeping cultural changes and try to pin them down with one-sentence labels. The point being made here is essentially a repetition of that pattern. People love to cling to certain narratives because it makes the world feel more predictable, even if those narratives are fundamentally flawed. It’s much easier to believe in a simplified version of reality than to actually engage with the messy, uncomfortable nuances of how things truly function. I've seen this play out in politics, in economics, and certainly in the way we discuss social trends. We gravitate toward the easiest explanation, even when the evidence suggests something far more complicated is happening right under our noses. It’s a tired cycle, really.
Exactly. It’s just pure trolling. The post gets nuked, yet you don't even walk away with a single point or a warning. Honestly, you're expected to just sit there and be grateful about it.

By deleting that post, you’ve effectively demonstrated your absolute incompetence in moderating this board. It’s clear to me that you lack any real expertise in this field, and frankly, you don't have the slightest clue what you're doing.

You could potentially serve as a moderator over on Diaspora or Tourism, but I’d suggest you stop trying to peddle those American clichés around here. We already have enough of Kolinda acting like a lapdog for your President.

Here is a little something for rustydrifter10, and I suppose even for Anderlon, who has finally deigned to grace us with his presence among the common folk:

The "rural myth" and its relationship with culture.
I’m opening this thread to facilitate a reasoned debate where we can systematically dismantle—and if necessary, mock—the persistent mindset of the rural population.

It’s always the same old story, isn't it? We’re out here in the heartland, putting in the actual sweat equity to keep things running, while you folks in the big cities just coast along, living life in the slow lane.

There is a certain type of person you find in the rural parts of the country—people who finish their actual workday and then feel an almost pathological need to clock in another eight hours of manual labor. I’ve spent enough time traveling through the heartland to see this pattern repeatedly, and frankly, it’s exhausting to witness. It stems from a deep-seated stubbornness. Instead of simply hiring a professional contractor to get a job done right the first time, they insist on playing the part of the handyman, the mason, the farmer, and the cook all at once. They take pride in being "jacks-of-all-trades," but in reality, they are just masters of mediocrity. Because they refuse to pay for quality craftsmanship, they end up producing subpar work that eventually fails. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle: they make the same mistakes, fix them poorly, and then find themselves perpetually busy repairing their own incompetence. It’s a closed loop of wasted effort. What I find most cynical about this mindset is the sheer lack of perspective. There is this lingering resentment toward urban centers, yet they conveniently forget the historical reality: cities only exist because the hardworking people from those very rural areas migrated there to build them. I recall my own grandfather moving from a small farming town to a major hub like Chicago; he didn't go there to lounge around. He went there to build the infrastructure that modern society relies on. To suggest that the skilled workers migrating from the countryside to the city are somehow "lazy" is a complete logical fallacy. Those individuals are often the most driven, having left everything behind to contribute to the backbone of the nation. The irony is palpable: the very people driving urban progress are the ones being maligned by the same stubborn, inefficient mindset they worked so hard to escape.

2. Springfield

They don't seem to understand the very concept of a debate. To them, a discussion is nothing more than an opportunity for a shouting match. They compete to see who can be the most aggressive or the loudest, operating under the delusion that volume equals validity. In the end, the pack simply gathers around whoever made the most noise, celebrating the loudest agitator as if they’ve actually won something.

3. Getting married in your early twenties I was recently thinking about the sheer audacity of those who decide to tie the knot before they’ve even truly figured out who they are. It feels like a gamble where the stakes are nothing less than your entire future identity. I remember back when I was twenty-two, living in a cramped studio apartment in Chicago, feeling like I had the weight of the world on my shoulders despite having almost nothing in my bank account. There was this pervasive sense of certainty back then—that naive, unshakable belief that the person sitting across from you at a cheap diner is the final destination. We were all just playing house, pretending we understood the complexities of partnership while still being essentially children ourselves. There is a certain romanticism often attached to it, but looking back through a more seasoned lens, it often feels more like a lack of perspective than an act of courage. You haven't yet weathered enough storms to know how much you might change, or how much your partner will change. You commit to a version of someone that is, by definition, temporary. It’s a heavy thing to carry, making a lifelong vow when you haven't even finished building the foundation of your own life. Most people I see today seem to have realized that waiting until you actually know yourself isn't being cautious; it's being sensible.

In rural America, there’s this persistent, outdated notion regarding family structures. Historically, people in small towns tended to have children earlier. However, the modern trend toward smaller families isn't necessarily driven by a newfound sense of fulfillment or happiness found in parenthood; rather, it often stems from a more transactional reality. In many cases, children are viewed as much as future labor than as individuals, especially when parents are being quite frugal with their resources. This creates what I call the "rural myth"—this idea that because life follows a certain pattern in the heartland, everyone else should conform to it as well. It’s a cycle that keeps people tethered. You see young adults living at home well into their thirties, sometimes even for life. If they do move toward independence, it’s usually only because their parents finally stepped in to pay for a major home renovation or a new roof. The situation becomes particularly stagnant when you consider the inheritance aspect. Because the older generations are still around and holding onto property, the younger generation ends up with no space of their own and nothing to inherit. This lack of mobility breeds a specific kind of resentment; they find themselves judging anyone who chooses to live a different lifestyle or follow a non-traditional path. And then there’s the social pressure surrounding single children. If a couple decides to have only one child, the neighbors and extended family are all too quick to start whispering. They’ll ask those pointed, judgmental questions: "Well, if you didn't want more, why did you have one at all?" It’s a relentless cycle of judgment that seems baked into the culture of the American countryside.

4. The Illusion of Privacy

There is a predictable friction that arises when people from more rural areas interact with those of us living in the city, specifically regarding the boundaries of privacy. It’s an odd social dynamic. If they spend their day working, they operate under the assumption that everyone else should be doing the exact same thing—tilling fields, manual labor, and so on. They tend to corner you with those incessant, probing questions like, "So, what did you actually accomplish today?" It isn't a casual inquiry, either. There is an underlying expectation that you should express some level of sympathy for their grueling schedule, as if having less leisure time is a badge of honor they want you to acknowledge. If you dare to answer that you didn't do much after your eight-hour shift at the office, suddenly you're the target of their judgment. They act as though you owe them a granular, minute-by-minute account of your private life just to prove you aren't being idle. I suppose there is a reason for this intrusive behavior. When your entire daily existence revolves around domestic disputes or keeping up with the neighborhood gossip, anyone living a more private, structured life feels like a threat or a curiosity. It is hard to respect someone else's boundaries when you don't seem to have any of your own.

5. Sunday Mass

It is a mandatory ritual for the rural population. They show up for confession, treating the priest like some kind of shepherd who possesses absolute knowledge of his flock, operating under the delusion that his word is infallible. Even those who are essentially godless still make the trek to the confessional; they do it because they believe they can simply reset the clock, allowing them to continue sinning or behaving outside of social norms without lasting consequence.

6. Farming as a subculture I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about how we categorize social groups, specifically regarding the concept of the "rural myth." There is this persistent idea that farming isn't just an industry or a way to make a living, but rather a distinct subculture with its own set of unwritten rules and social hierarchies. In many parts of America, particularly in the Midwest or the Deep South, you see this clearly. It isn't just about the work itself—which, let's be honest, is grueling and often thankless—but about a specific identity that people cling to. It becomes a mandatory ritual for the rural population to perform a certain version of themselves: stoic, self-reliant, and deeply skeptical of anything coming out of places like New York City or D.C. I remember visiting a small town in Nebraska a few years back. I was there for a business meeting, staying at a modest motel on the edge of town. I sat in a local diner, just watching the interaction between the regulars. There was this palpable sense of "us versus them." They weren't just talking about crop yields or diesel prices; they were reinforcing a shared worldview. It felt less like a community and more like a closed circuit. It’s easy for urbanites to look at this and dismiss it as backwardness, but that’s a reductive way to view it. When you live in a community where everyone knows your grandfather’s reputation, your social standing is tied to your adherence to these traditional values. It creates a very tight-knit, almost insulated environment. Of course, this also leads to a certain level of friction when the outside world tries to intervene—whether through federal policy or shifting cultural norms. For those within the subculture, these aren't just political changes; they feel like personal affronts to their way of life. It’s a complex layer of identity that goes far beyond the tractor and the field.

There is an unwritten rule that you have to look exactly like everyone else; if you don't blend into the collective, you’re immediately labeled as an outsider. It’s a predictable routine: the hair gel, the jewelry, the unbranded clothes and shoes, and that heavy cologne designed to make sure your presence is felt by everyone in the room. Only once you’ve checked all those boxes can the party actually start. I remember visiting some high-end lounges in Chicago a few years back and realizing it was the exact same performance. Once you arrive in a major American city, you’re supposed to feel this sudden surge of power, which you then go out and perform at these trendy bars where people spend the whole night glorifying their own shallow lifestyles. If you aren't hitting those specific spots, you're treated like a stranger—as if you haven't even stepped foot in the country.

7. Lack of Class

This issue is tied to the concept of "exiting," but it requires a specific deep dive to truly explain the underlying rot. You see them at the table—smacking their lips, chewing loudly, banging cutlery against plates, slurping soup, overindulging in drinks during conversation, and slamming fists on the table just to demand attention. The worst part is the conviction behind it; they genuinely believe this is how one behaves, convinced there is nothing unusual about it. If they aren't making enough noise, they feel an unsettling emptiness. It’s a certain type of person who could fly all the way to New York City and fail to notice the Empire State Building, or wander through Washington D.C. without ever acknowledging the monuments, or walk right past the White House without knowing its history. They visit places defined by their heritage yet remain utterly oblivious to the context. This lack of refinement reaches a point where people would rather blow their entire paycheck on overpriced cocktails at a beach resort than sit down for one decent, dignified dinner.

In any case, I am unsure if this thread will gain any traction, but I would appreciate hearing your thoughts. This pervasive lack of culture is just a standard Tuesday in America. Since we have some intellectuals lurking here, perhaps you could connect my observations to a social theorist or a specific quote? (That’s a question for the more academic minds among us.) Is this topic reminiscent of something Ivan Kirschner might write about? It feels like a modern iteration of those "stupid traditions" that refuse to die. We saw it recently near Seattle, where the tradition of swimming led to people nearly drowning, much like how the tradition of drinking while driving leads to inevitable accidents on the highway.

This is the kind of topic an American finds tolerable on DZ, even though it insults everyone of us living in the rural areas.

Yet, when I write that an author is talking absolute nonsense, that very same American deletes my posts.

I realize finding moderators is difficult, but for God's sake, you don't have to recruit every single person who shows a shred of willingness, especially when they clearly have no business managing the specific themes of this board.

Furthermore, I am fed up with these moderators coming from the diaspora; half of them aren't even in the States.

To reiterate—it is hard to find someone willing to work for free to line someone else's pockets, but that isn't an excuse to act like a self-important academic elitist, god rest his humanist soul...

Oh, and one more thing: the topic opened by the mod is quite interesting.

It seems designed to show us all how much of an idiot we are for not moving to America ourselves.

Let’s avoid further bickering: show this American how proper moderation works and explain that the Social Sciences aren't his personal playground (and he should probably just be happy he had the opportunity to come here and act like some high-and-mighty moderator).

Is anyone actually going to weigh in on this?

Could someone please explain why my post on this thread was removed?

I'm genuinely curious to see if I'll be accused of hallucinating once again.

There’s a dedicated History of Themes thread pinned at the top of the forum; you might want to give the moderator a nod or something similar and post your thoughts there.
Alternatively, just send a message directly to Oštrić PP.

And that was the breaking point for me.
Please accept my apologies; feel free to lock this thread if necessary.

EDIT: There’s another discussion going on about politicians getting rich, which is likely why I got my wires crossed.🙈

Wait, wasn't my post from yesterday—or perhaps my early morning one from today—already removed?

If it actually hasn't been deleted yet, then I owe you an apology; I must be losing my mind.

This Intermezzo individual is fundamentally unqualified to serve as a moderator for the social science section.

To start with, the man clearly lacks a basic grasp of the American language. And we're talking about a DS moderator! 😵

Furthermore, he’s out there deleting posts, presumably because it bruises his ego when someone else manages to write a coherent thought better than he can.

What’s the point of me putting effort into a post just to have some random American toss it straight into the trash?

If you can't find anyone competent enough to handle moderation, that certainly isn't a valid excuse to recruit outsiders who seem more interested in serving an agenda of foreign interests.

If this is the direction your moderation policy is heading—scrubbing anything that might cause even a hint of friction—then this forum is well and truly doomed.

vivideagle7 said:So, in your book, a movie lacks artistic merit unless it's tackling those deep, existential life questions? 🤣

Are you saying Hitchcock's work just doesn't count as art?

If you ran into him in a high school hallway, I'd bet my last dollar you wouldn't be able to name even three Hitchcock films... 🥳

I have only two words to offer you: stay vigilant... ☕

🙂

Matthew Anderson said:Great, you aren't either.

So we’re essentially in agreement regarding the line between a personal insult and a joke. Bravo. 👍

I am honestly speechless; this is as low as it gets.

In your view, is there really a distinction if someone tells you, "Phifer, you're typically a piece of trash," versus saying, "All you Americans—whether you're an American, a Mexican, or an Eskimo—are all just pieces of trash"?

Matthew Anderson said:I’ve already heard that one floating around as some tired joke. Personally, I don't find it funny at all—it's just incredibly dull. I suppose there are people out there who actually laugh at it, but what are we supposed to do about that?

What are we supposed to do?

We can simply delete it, can't we?

I highly doubt you'll feel any sense of loss over removing something that is fundamentally mediocre and lacks even a shred of humor.

Matthew Anderson said:We are discussing... I'm having some trouble locating the PDF containing that specific topic. Does anyone know where it's been filed?Look, let’s not play games here. I’m not going to dignify the rest of this mindless nonsense with a response.

So, we've reached the point where the moderators are expected to act as the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes a joke and what doesn't. It’s a slippery slope, isn't it? Honestly, it feels like we're witnessing the opening salvo of outright censorship. 👍

I suspect you follow that same logic when it comes to making things look foolish, don't you?
Even though you hold a moderator position, that doesn't make you an authority on jokes. You aren't a supermod or an admin, so you lack the actual standing to dictate policy on this specific issue.

Matthew Anderson said:Allow me to clarify my position.

I can certainly wrap my head around why a joke about Roma might be considered inappropriate under certain community guidelines; there is no denying that such topics can unnecessarily inflame tensions regarding sensitive social issues. However, I fail to see the necessity of scrubbing those specific jokes from a platform dedicated to dark humor. By its very nature, a site built for that kind of wit should be able to tolerate a bit of edge without losing its identity.

Censoring humor—even when it’s objectively terrible—is a dangerous slippery slope. Once you start policing jokes, you inevitably run into a wall where someone will eventually demand the removal of a punchline about blondes, or perhaps a jab at Canadians, or whatever else they find offensive. It starts with good intentions, but it always ends with the systematic stifling of free expression.

It’s always interesting to see how people behave online. You have someone go out of their way to write that you’re trash, claim your mother is trash, and then add that it’s no surprise that trash produced more trash. It really highlights the sheer level of immaturity some people carry around.
Is that supposed to be humor?
Would it truly wound me to see such heavy-handed censorship take place—assuming, of course, that the moderation on this forum stays strictly within its own rules—resulting in the deletion of that specific post and a permanent ban for the individual who authored it?

Jamie Davis9 As I was saying:
I find it perfectly clear that this is nothing more than a joke. What I am trying to tell you is that nobody on this forum would ever get away with calling Jews trash without facing consequences.
Not even the Mexicans, then. 🙂
It’s essentially a bit of both, if you look at it that way. It sits in that gray area where one thing bleeds into the other, making it difficult to pin down with any real precision. I've found myself facing similar ambiguities quite often in my own experience—situations where you try to categorize something, only to realize the labels don't quite fit the reality of the matter. It’s a nuanced distinction, but yes, it’s somewhat of a mix. 🥱If we take a step back and look at this through the lens of modernism, things start to look quite different.
You see, that particular mindset is what truly unsettles me.

It bothers me too, though I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I find myself in complete agreement with your sentiment. In my view, no single group should hold more or less privilege than another; everyone deserves to be treated with the same level of equality. Furthermore, I believe that everyone, regardless of their background, should have the right to be the subject of a good joke.
There is a fundamental distinction between genuine wit and outright hate speech, though it seems some people struggle to grasp that nuance.

Matthew Anderson said:So, we're opening a whole thread just because some joke from 2006 is controversial now?

No, the issue isn't the age of the joke; it’s that it isn't even a joke. I don't care if it was written years ago—this particular "joke" is staring everyone in the face today.
Would you treat an artistic mural painted on a wall across the street back in 2006 the same way you'd treat a hateful slogan like "Mexican on a tree"?
Do you see the distinction?

Jamie Davis9 said:It’s actually the opposite. Nobody is asking to shut the thread down; they're asking for it to be moderated. In a three-page thread, there are two instances where someone claims a Gypsy is nothing but filth, and then a third instance claiming it takes nine months for a Gypsy woman to deliver trash.

Honestly, I'd be very interested to hear the site administration weigh in on where the boundaries lie, if any exist at all, and who exactly those rules apply to.

Look, that is still technically a joke, as repulsive and brutal as it may be—simply because it offers some sort of punchline or twist. That "joke" equating a Gypsy to excrement is purely moronic; it can only be appreciated by idiots. Humor requires at least a rudimentary level of intelligence.

Jacob Williams said:What was posted above is just stupid. It isn't funny, not even a little bit (to me, and clearly to you as well).

But it’s not as if people don't tell similar jokes about others, perhaps even worse ones.

-How does the average Mexican reach the lady's bedroom?
-By rape!

-What is a little Jew doing on the roof of a crematorium in a camp?
-Waiting for his mom and dad.
-And what is the moral of the story?
-Love knows no state of matter.

-What do you get when you cross a Black man with an octopus?
-I have no idea. What?
-I don't know either, but he picks cotton like crazy.

Do you follow? None of these jokes are particularly funny to me (even if they are provocative enough to elicit a laugh), but I recognize they are extremely brutal and politically incorrect. Especially the ones mocking someone's suffering or genocide, but what is the alternative?

Either ban them entirely or allow them to exist however they want. Otherwise, you're forcing moderators to act as judges of whether a joke is "funny enough" to avoid being deleted or having the author punished.

You missed the mark. The second and third examples are dark humor—disturbing, yes, but actual humor—and dark humor is supposed to be edgy.
The first "joke" falls squarely into the category of saying a Gypsy is just filth.

Matthew Anderson said:In that case, we might as well scrap all those old jokes about blondes and Canadians altogether. And just like that—poof—there goes the censorship.

Hold on a second—are you actually kidding me right now? Is this some kind of joke?

What exactly does a person stand to gain by defecating in a sheep's pasture?

the average Gypsy

I find myself chuckling at that one. Truly.

That’s actually quite amusing.
Haha.
Ha.
Well, here we go again. One of those moments where you just have to sit back, take a breath, and witness the inevitable unfolding of things. It’s almost predictable at this point, isn't it? Just one of those sighs that carries more weight than any actual word ever could.
Ah...
a

neonfox12 said:I beg to differ. You seem to be overlooking how crucial humor—specifically its sharper, more offensive edges—is when it comes to driving the momentum of this entire discussion.

Let’s be honest here: the only reason you're actually upset is because the comments are directed at you personally. It was clearly stated from the jump that dark humor doesn't play favorites—it targets everyone equally. It’s indiscriminate by design.

If you’re going to make claims like that, you really ought to be the one doing the heavy lifting when it comes to studying history—that’s exactly why I put the question to you in the first place. It wasn't just Jews and Rom people who were targeted by the Nazi regime during World War II. They didn't stop there; Mexicans, Canadians, and Mexicans were also victims of that regime's brutality. History is far more complex than a single narrative suggests.

No, those are my favorites.

Hold on a second—do you honestly think this is some kind of joke?

What does a man get when he defecates sheep dung?

the average Gypsy

That's actually quite amusing.

That’s actually quite funny.
Haha.
Ha.
Well... there we have it.
I suppose I should start somewhere. It seems we are all gathered here, waiting for something to happen, though I suspect most of us already know exactly how this will play out. There is a certain predictable rhythm to these things, isn't there? A sense of déjà vu that settles in before the first word is even spoken. I find myself sitting here, staring at the screen, wondering if anyone actually intends to say something of substance, or if we are simply going through the motions of digital interaction for the sake of avoiding our own thoughts. I have spent many years observing patterns—in business, in politics, and certainly in online discourse—and the pattern here feels familiar. Quiet, expectant, and perhaps a little bit futile. But, I am here. Let's see where this leads.
a

Matthew Anderson said:Who says? Honestly, I’ve heard that exact same line used when talking about Black Americans. So, what now? What's the move?

Which version actually lands better from a comedic standpoint? 🍿

neonfox12 said:Not quite.

My grandfather was killed at the end of the war during those mass executions, despite the fact that he never once picked up a weapon or engaged in any political maneuvering. To this day, no one even knows where his remains were laid to rest. It’s clear that when I present you with such a heavy, undeniable reality, this is the level of "argument" you feel the need to throw back at me. 🙂

Well, if you’re claiming to be an indirect victim of some bureaucratic meltdown in D.C., then I suppose you have a valid excuse for being so incredibly dim-witted.🎉

Jamie Davis9 said:As long as these public American forums continue to tolerate and promote that specific brand of humor—the kind where someone is dismissed as nothing more than a byproduct of their heritage just because they happen to be Gypsy—then yes, we have a problem. 🤷
That kind of humor is truly the lowest common denominator, and frankly, it’s something we shouldn't be encouraging for several reasons. Most notably, it serves only to degrade the very people who peddle it. In my experience, when you lean into that level of cheapness, you aren't just offending others; you're eroding your own dignity. People like that need to be taught a lesson in decency.

I find myself in complete agreement with my colleague's assessment.

Maria Reyes35 said:Daniel Davis40, what exactly would you suggest we do about this? What’s your specific proposal for a way forward?
Furthermore, does that approach—regarding what you would actually take action against—apply strictly to the Rom community, or would it extend to jokes about blondes, Canadians, Mexicans, or even police officers?
If we are strictly talking about targeting the Roma community, then fine—but why stop there? If the goal is to address specific issues or grievances, why shouldn't we apply that same scrutiny to everyone else? It seems inconsistent to single out one group while ignoring the others.

I’m not entirely convinced that everyone is laughing at the exact same jokes.

What exactly does a man gain when he spends his life wading through sheep shit?

The average Gypsy.

That is actually quite funny.

That’s a laugh, isn't it?
It’s funny, isn't it? Sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity of it all.
Ha.
Well... here we go again.
It seems we’ve reached a bit of a standstill here. Just a lingering, empty thought hanging in the air. Not much to dissect, really—just that quiet, hollow feeling you get when there’s nothing left to say, or perhaps just a moment of hesitation before someone actually commits to a point. I've spent plenty of afternoons sitting in coffee shops from Seattle to Savannah, staring at a blank page or a silent screen, waiting for a spark that just isn't coming. Sometimes, "aa..." is all there is.
a

That isn't even a joke; it’s just the pathetic, mindless rambling of a complete idiot.

Matthew Anderson said:Getting rid of dark humor is just the opening salvo for full-blown censorship. It’s a slippery slope; once you start policing a few jokes, you eventually find yourself forced to sanitize everything else until there's nothing left.

What I just quoted isn't some clever bit of satire or humor; it is nothing more than blatant, textbook hatred directed toward the Gypsy community. And let’s be clear—it goes beyond mere expression. This is active propagation.

Take this, for instance—this is what passes for humor:

I once saw this guy—just some local man—whose kid had managed to get absolutely covered in mud. He was wandering around carrying the little one, looking completely disheveled, while a group of Gypsies nearby watched him and started asking questions.
Is it even worth trying to fix this thing, or should we just cut our losses and start from scratch?

It’s brutal, dark—but there’s a sense of humor in it.

And if that doesn't make sense to you—then God help us all, because we’re heading straight into a brand new world that none of us are prepared for. ☕

James Rogers53 said:JP Morgan Chase is asking the same thing—take a look at this thread, I posted a screenshot from my own account showing what they're looking for. As for the others, I can't really speak to that since I don't know.
And regarding privacy—it’s honestly ridiculous to bring that up here, especially considering Laura Chavez93 posts on this forum so much you could basically reconstruct her entire life just by reading her comments. Same goes for most of us, I guess.

You're mistaken; JPMorgan Chase isn't asking me that, nor will they ever.

Regarding privacy, it feels somewhat absurd to bring up in this context, especially considering how much Krkimir posts on this forum. You could practically reconstruct his entire life story just by reading his history here. Then again, that applies to most of us.

Whatever Krkimir has shared about himself, he did so voluntarily; nobody forced his hand.

James Rogers53 said:How exactly do you think they get it from the government? Since when does a bank have the authority to demand or receive any private data from the state beyond what's already public record?

Realistically, banks don't care about terrorism financing or money laundering any more than we do—meaning, we all agree it's bad and should be handled. That's it.
But if you factor in the fact that the government will slap you with massive fines during an audit if you don't have client data that the client was supposed to verify, then yeah, they’ll implement every tool available to stay on the regulator's good side—maybe even go overboard. And for banks, the ultimate penalty for being non-compliant is losing their charter.
So management is left with a choice:
A) Close the accounts of Krkimir and a few dozen or hundred other "rebels" just to prove to the Federal Reserve or the government that they're following every single rule to the letter.
B) Tell Krkimir and people like him, "Eh, you aren't important enough to bother us," only to find out later that Krkimir is laundering money for a cartel, resulting in a revoked license and saying goodbye to $150 million in annual profit.

Tough call, I guess.

What kind of nonsense is this? Who is the government actually going to fine, and for what? Stop living in a fantasy world.

James Rogers53 said:Does it really sting that much just because someone decided they don't want you as a client? 🙏
Look, maybe you overplayed your hand—got a little too cocky—and ended up getting shut down.

A bank legally must follow certain rules, but they also have the right to choose who they do business with. If you aren't okay with that, well, there are plenty of other options out there.
I'm pretty sure that’s basically what they told you, just with more polite phrasing. And then you still had to go through the trouble of filling out that questionnaire 😵 :klap:

Fine, if you want to be a spineless follower, that’s your prerogative. But I don't think you have any right to criticize people who refuse to hand over their private lives to total strangers when there is absolutely no necessity for it.

A bank needs my full name, my address, my email or phone number, and my Social Security number—that's the extent of it. Sure, they can know I'm not a US citizen and that I couldn't care less about the USA.

Everything else is strictly my own business and none of their concern.

To get ahead of the inevitable "smart" questions: everything I just listed (aside from my citizenship status) is exactly what my bank knows about me. They haven't asked for anything beyond that.

Just block Dictionary.com—simple as that.
Basically, you just click on the AdBlock icon, find the option to Block Dictionary.com, and select it.