Posts by Brenda Cook4

crimsoncyclist71 said:No, that’s strictly your own interpretation of a Metaphorical poster. I’ll say it again: if referencing a specific military operation can be interpreted metaphorically, then what exactly is the issue with interpreting this poster the same way?

Are you trying to suggest that when the Bishop called for a new "Desert Storm," he was essentially issuing an open invitation to start a whole new war?

Go ahead and start a separate thread about the Bishop—I’ll have to look up exactly what was said, because Desert Storm and burning down a church are definitely not the same thing. One was a defensive operation against an aggressor, while the other certainly isn't. But regardless, I'll check the context. Just let me be clear: stop trying to justify calling for action against a church. Honestly, posts that incite a mob or call for violence aren't allowed here, period.

crimsoncyclist71 said:Look, I get what you're saying—you've decided that if someone uses a Metaphorical way to call for military action, it shouldn't be treated as an actual call to war. But it’s funny how that works, isn't it? When someone else uses a metaphor to talk about "burning down churches," suddenly it can't be a metaphor anymore and has to be taken literally. Honestly, this whole argument is a waste of breath because why bother debating someone who clearly uses double standards? You should probably just get back to spinning stories about who's actually dodging their taxes...

See, your posts are a perfect example of what we simply won't tolerate here on the Forum. Just so we're clear: making excuses for inciting violence isn't just a violation of our rules—it's a criminal offense in the US.

crimsoncyclist71 said:I honestly can't tell if it's worth wasting breath on people who just refuse to let go of these stubborn double standards. They're fine with using a Metaphorical reference to "Desert Storm," but then they claim that a Metaphorical call to "burn down churches" is nothing more than pure extremism and hate speech. Just pick a side already,is the right to use metaphors universal, or is it some exclusive privilege reserved for certain groups?

Look, I’ve made my decision. To me, it's crystal clear: calling for church burnings is a hard no. Yet, for some people, it's still somehow excused as "art."

Stop inventing these "double standards," stop spinning the narrative, and stop dodging the point. I’d really love it if you stopped validating even this "Contribute" bit, especially if you're busy defending an "art piece" about burning churches. Because, let's be real—that "artistic work" didn't include the sentence "CONTRIBUTE." This isn't art; it's a blatant call to action.

I think we need a dedicated thread on whether it's acceptable for Mary Smith to call for church burnings and how the legal institutions responded to it. As both a citizen and an atheist, I genuinely want to know.

crimsoncyclist71 said:If there's no issue with calling for a new "Desert Storm," then what exactly is the problem with this poster? Is it just unpaid taxes? 🙄

Don't try to twist my words here. I never said any of that; I was simply questioning why you were defending it, asking if that’s actually okay. So, fine. It’s perfectly acceptable to call for burning down churches? Great. Honestly, we definitely don't need a discussion about people who spread hate and incite violence. Absolutely not.

crimsoncyclist71 said:Look, if someone is quoting a controversial piece of art, you have to take it at face value. There’s zero room for metaphors here.

So, according to this logic, quoting a work of art counts as extremism, but calling for police intervention or demanding we repeat the same actions doesn't? Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Wait, so you’re actually defending that MM poster? The one where the bottom text basically tells people to burn down a church by saying 'Contribute'? Are you seriously telling me that an 'artistic work' can include such a blatant call to action like 'CONTRIBUTE'?

rowdytiger13 said:The whole thread was just pure vitriol. And seeing as they’ve started throwing around those old-school hate images, I can only assume there's some serious trolling going on under the surface too.
That's why I'm siding with Charles Fox10 here.

What do you even mean by "vitriol"? People are venting about everything on the New York Post. That's just how it goes. This specific topic definitely earned a bit of a backlash.

If someone breaks the forum rules, please, give them a warning or a ban. But shutting down a thread just because people are being blunt? That feels a lot like censorship to me.

edit:
I guess I'm just an idiot.
Pointless.

Charles Fox10 said:You clearly know more about this than I do.

Honestly, calling for physical violence against that person is just pathetic.And you really ought to realize that, just like you should know that commenting on the moderation team within a thread is strictly off-limits.
Besides, where on earth did you get the idea that starting a new topic is forbidden??

It’s honestly sad—using insults like "total fraud," "vile creature," or "half-wit"—it's all just pathetic. It's personal. And from the perspective of the forum itself, I don't exactly approve of those kinds of comments either.

On the other hand, inciting violence? That is absolutely NOT allowed here. Period. That needs to be sanctioned and deleted immediately. I don't even know why anyone would question that.

I've started threads before only to have them pulled because they were deemed "unnecessary" or some other excuse for a standalone discussion. You see the deleted topics, but I've already forgotten the specifics—all I know is that was the explanation given.

The point is this: keep the thread under control. There are plenty of mods over on the Politics board to handle things; their job is to moderate the conversation, not just go around deleting entire threads.

feralranger said:It seems like people like this are totally untouchable in the "mainstream" and "democratic" American media outlets.

If that’s what they call freedom of speech, then I guess I’m doing it wrong—because real free speech means everyone gets a turn to respond, not just one person shouting into a void where no one is allowed to talk back.

And that's how they shut down the conversation; they just slap a "label" on the poor soul and say, "Look at how they express themselves!"

"Johnson is a total piece of trash, did you even call Klein and Glogowski???" Mary Smith asked on her Meta page.

edit:

Freedom of speech, apparently... as long as it doesn't involve directly calling for someone to burn down a church. It would be quite something if she actually stood in front of a cathedral with those kinds of messages, just to see what kind of reaction we'd get. Whether it's a Catholic cathedral or any other house of worship, it would be an eye-opener.

feralranger said:You’re just trying to dress up censorship to make it look like something else. If you're actually worried about preventing the issues you mentioned—assuming they even happened in the first place—you don't need to go around shutting down the whole conversation or censoring the thread.
.

It’s censorship, plain and simple. There was absolutely no reason to make a "special" issue out of those arrests over the IBM posters, nor should there have been that whole ordeal involving the seizure of protest signs outside the hospital opening—not to mention the way Joe Biden handled it all. None of this should be happening.

Charles Fox10 said:Look, there’s a difference between censorship and just cleaning up the trash. Deleting inappropriate posts or banning users isn't censorship—it's maintenance. Honestly, the reason this thread got locked is that the moderators over in the Politics section don't think we need an active discussion where people are basically putting targets on someone's back. When you start throwing around insults that cross the line into being outright indecent—or even potentially litigious—it becomes a liability. We really don't need that kind of mess here.
There’s no such thing as sacred cows around here. You can debate just about anything you want, but there’s one catch: everything needs to stay within the lines of the rule pdf. Take politics, for instance:

This thread isn't going to be unlocked.

Are you serious, Cuca? Is it just me getting singled out like this? It feels like everyone else gets a free pass while I’m the only one being labeled.
Could they file a private lawsuit? Sure, they could. But honestly, when someone goes around calling our veterans "mercenaries," they aren't just attacking individuals—they’re basically trying to tear down the entire legacy of the war itself. It’s like trying to erase the very foundation of what we fought for.
Let’s not even get started on everyone else and all those "labels"—you know, from the left wing to the right. Honestly, that's just how things should be. But this? This right here is where I have to draw the line. It just doesn't work.
What is this even supposed to be? Some kind of special feature? Is she really that controversial that we can't even talk about her?

Let’s move this thread back to the root. The President isn't just part of the general political scene; if the Administration is featured on the front page, it's because the President, the Administration, and Congress all function together as the core structure of the US government. We can't have a discussion about the Presidency sitting in the PDF section where we talk about politicians and parties. Either that, or move the Administration section over to Political Scene. We really need to follow some kind of logic here, if nothing else.

Charles Fox10 said:It’s not over there, it’s right here in the thread about Joe Biden's administration - general discussion. Your specific post is

A while back, some posters near Obama caused a stir and we didn't have a dedicated thread for it, so I don't think we need a whole special topic just for this one protest sign in San Diego.

Everything is fine, Lay's.

Chuck, actually, I feel strongly that we absolutely need a discussion regarding these rather unsettling tactics this administration has started using. Some people call it a creeping police state. It's strange—neither the arrests over posters nor the blocking of protests seems to have earned its own space here on the forum, even though these are things that should concern every single one of us.

Think about it: on one hand, we have threads discussing freedom of speech and what people can get away with, but on the other, removing signs, arresting protesters, and messing with banners is treated like it's perfectly normal. Everything else gets covered under Politics; it's truly bizarre that a topic like this doesn't exist. Hmm. It's not that I disagree, but I think that since free speech is being stifled, I should start a thread specifically about the suppression of expression and protesting (we have plenty of material from TV station layoffs and other events to fuel that topic). I didn't intend for this to be one of those: opening separate threads for every little bit of nonsense with clickbait titles.

But, clearly, it's no use. That's why I said I folded in a moment of weakness when I filed an appeal against my warning. As if I just showed up yesterday! I almost deleted everything, but then I thought, "Let me give them a chance." Maybe—and I mean maybe—I'll get a sensible response. I haven't. And honestly, I really expected better from you.

Michelle Evans said:Your appeal regarding the ban hasn't been deleted—in fact, a post like that doesn't even exist (you can check your own post history to see).

As for this other matter, we can just make it its own separate thread, so I'll move your post into a new one.

Michelle Evans, you might want to read a bit more closely here, though I suppose I wasn't as clear as I thought I was (I assumed the rest of my sentence would make the point). It’s not that my "appeal against the ban" was deleted; it’s that I deleted the typo where I wrote "frog on a cardboard box"—honestly, I don't know what I was thinking!

And regarding that second thing... well, it could have been much simpler, like right there on the labels, but whatever.

- My appeal regarding the strike was wiped out... I mean, seriously, what was I thinking? Complaining about Amtrak like I just arrived yesterday...

I’m posting this here because even though it isn't about my record, I didn't know where else to put it without starting a whole new thread about Amtrak—and since deleting posts is technically a penalty, I figured this space works:

My thread about the protesters having their signs confiscated while demonstrating against Joe Biden (Kamala Harris and the rest of the administration) in San Francisco was deleted. Why?

edit:

Now I see the thread was moved over to the 'be yourself Charlie' section.

But why? That’s a completely separate topic. Otherwise, we might as well just merge every single discussion into one giant mess.

crimsonjackal63 said:Here’s how I see democracy working:
- Every single person on this forum should have the right to pull comparisons they think strengthen their point
during a debate.
- And everyone else should have the right to tear those comparisons apart to bolster their own arguments.

Labeling one side or the other as "trolling" is just anti-democratic.
Banning certain viewpoints is straight-up censorship.

Whether or not a comparison actually makes sense—that’s what the discussion itself is for.
At least, that’s how it ought to be.

Honestly, if we’ve reached a point where even the basic rules of engagement are being questioned—largely due to all these endless complaints about the Democratic Party—then please, let’s just be blunt about it. Personally, I'm out of questions, and I'm certainly out of things to say on a topic like this.

Well, unfortunately, I’m living here in America, posting on this forum to join your protest—which, frankly, is long overdue (think Agajan & Agajan). We have to address the blatant intellectual dishonesty that went down during the last similar discussion here. The thread was locked—and honestly, they really need to stop doing that, which is something the moderators should fix—only for a final moderator post to be dropped in on September 3rd, 2014, at 11:05 AM (here), specifically calling out users by their actual names. What kind of logic is that? To strip away the ability to respond when no rules were actually broken, and it was just a healthy debate? It's incredibly rude and disrespectful to the community. You end up with questions left hanging, even though that's the whole reason the thread was opened in the first place. For instance, take this ridiculous notion that you aren't allowed to compare the aggression against Ukraine to the aggression against the US during our own history, or any criticism of the Russian regime. By what authority is that being done?

Kate Gonzalez11 said:Is it really racism if I call my brother a monkey?
Why is calling Obama a monkey considered racist? Honestly, I’d much rather be called a monkey than a fascist.🤷

Wait, didn't Julijica say we should just drop an atomic bomb on Russia? And haven't the Ukrainians banned the KP Ukraine party? Haven't they rolled back minority rights? Yet people are suddenly whining about calling the Ukrainian fascist government "fascists"... wtf, who's actually losing it here?

Bottom line: either we let everyone say whatever they want, or we move toward a civilized conversation built on actual arguments and logic. Otherwise, we're stuck with this word salad where both sides just troll each other and derail the thread by slapping insults on anyone they disagree with. 🤷

Though, we all know exactly who benefits from keeping things messy...

By the way, you don't even sound subjective to me....🙄

Exactly. This isn't Putin's Russia, and there shouldn't be forum censorship—just civility. That means nobody attacks each other personally, calls for violence, or justifies aggression. That's what the forum rules are for. Everything else is just a user's opinion, which, granted, should be backed up by some reasoning. Nobody thinks just throwing out a label is enough to win an argument. Everyone should state their stance with substance—

I'm asking you to please stop with the racism; it's honestly nauseating. Feel free to call Obama or American policy "fascist" if you want and make a case for it—I have nothing against that. In fact, I'd welcome it. Someone will provide a counter-argument, and that's how a real discussion works.

I can't even keep track of which specific thread on Reddit this is regarding the war in Ukraine, but honestly, shouldn't it be crystal clear by now that we need to stop censoring and micromanaging these discussions? Especially when it comes to those little instructional notes telling us how to phrase things or what's "unacceptable" to say. By what damn authority is someone allowed to drop a disclaimer telling users, "you mustn't compare the aggression against Ukraine to the aggression against America," or "it's improper to call Putin a fascist"? It’s absolute madness. You guys allow just about anything, really.

urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?

Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?

Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.

If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?

To be honest, I'm an atheist (never was a believer), but after these constant waves of offensives from the very dark forces in this country (not aiming this at you personally, obviously), I'm actually thinking about attending Mass and becoming an active parishioner. You say "in name only"? Look, there was an actual census; people stated who they were on official documents—direct declarations! But nope, according to a poll, it's just "nominal." I can't deal with this BS anymore: 😁

Charles Fox10 said:Consider this thread moved, though I did tweak the title slightly since the gentlemen mentioned were actually extradited.

Thanks, Charles Fox10.🙂

Calling this a 'case' isn't really hitting the mark or being accurate at all. It should honestly be titled 'The trial of J. Perković (and Z. Mustač) in Munich'.

Alexander Barrett31 said:Charles Fox10, how would you folks in San Francisco put it?
"Holy cow! 😛

Give me a break!😁