Posts by quietangler3

I’ve been sitting here thinking about the current trajectory of professional sports, and honestly, it’s starting to feel a bit surreal. We always talk about "loyalty" in sports like it’s this sacred, unbreakable bond between a player and a club, but lately, it feels like that concept is being completely rewritten by forces we can't even see. It’s not just about the money anymore, though—that’s the easy part to grasp. It’s about the *choice*.

I remember watching games back in the early 2000s. There was a sense that if you were a superstar, you belonged to the city, to the fans, and to the history of the jersey. If you moved, it was because your heart wasn't in it anymore or because you wanted a new challenge. Now? It feels like every single transfer window is just a massive, high-stakes poker game. We’re seeing these massive, astronomical offers coming out of nowhere—nations or private entities essentially trying to buy a piece of sporting prestige by vacuuming up talent.

What fascinates (and frustrates) me is the psychological shift happening with the players themselves. We used to view players as somewhat predictable: they’d chase trophies, they’d chase glory, or they’d chase the biggest paycheck. But lately, there's this new variable in the equation. We're seeing players turn down life-changing, "never-see-this-much-money-again" kind of deals to stay put. On one hand, you want to cheer for that. You want to believe that the "soul" of the sport is winning and that a player actually values their place in a specific culture or a specific project over a mountain of gold. It feels like a win for the traditionalists.

But on the other hand, it makes me wonder: is it genuine loyalty, or is it just a different kind of leverage? In this era of hyper-inflated contracts and massive ego-driven negotiations, is a player staying because they love the fans, or is it because they’ve calculated that staying put actually gives them more power in the long run? It feels like the "loyalty" narrative is being used as a tool in the same way the "money" narrative is.

I look at the landscape of global football right now, and it feels fractured. You have the traditional European giants trying to hold onto their identity, and then you have these massive new frontiers trying to disrupt the entire ecosystem with sheer economic might. It’s creating this weird tension where every single decision a player makes feels like a political statement. If they stay, they’re "loyalists." If they leave, they’re "mercenaries." But is that distinction even real anymore? Or is it just a label we slap on people to make sense of a market that has become completely detached from reality?

I had a buddy in college who played semi-pro soccer, and he used to say that the hardest part wasn't the training or the games, it was the feeling that you were just a piece of a larger, moving machine. Now, that machine has become a global conglomerate. I find myself doubting whether the "romance" of the sport can actually survive this level of commercialization. Can a player truly be a "legend" of a club when their contract is essentially a complex financial instrument negotiated by a dozen different agents and lawyers?

I’m curious to hear what you guys think. When a top-tier player decides to pass up a massive, world-altering payday to stay where they are, do you see it as a beautiful preservation of sporting tradition, or do you think we're just seeing a new way for players to play the game of influence? Is "loyalty" still a real thing in professional sports, or is it just a marketing term used to sell jerseys?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the sheer, unrelenting nature of professional achievement. We live in a culture that is absolutely obsessed with the "milestone." We track every single win, every career achievement, every time someone hits a specific number that signals they’ve "arrived" or maintained their dominance. It’s everywhere—in sports, in tech, in the corporate ladder. We celebrate the 250th milestone, the 1000th milestone, the "I finally made it" moment. But I find myself wondering about the cost of those numbers.

Is there a point where the accumulation of these victories becomes a hollow pursuit, or even a burden?

I was watching some clips of high-level competition the other day, and it hit me how much of the "glory" is actually just a thin veneer over an incredible amount of mental and physical attrition. For every person standing there celebrating a massive career milestone, there’s someone else in the background—perhaps even just a few feet away—who is quietly crumbling. We see the winner's trophy, but we rarely see the person who has to walk away because their body or their mind simply says "no more."

I went through something similar a few years ago in my own career. I was working toward a specific certification that I thought would change everything for me. I pushed myself through sleepless nights, ignored the nagging ache in my shoulder, and basically lived on caffeine and sheer willpower. When I finally hit that target, I expected this massive rush of euphoria. Instead, I just felt... empty. I felt exhausted to my very core. I had reached the milestone, but I had also burned the bridge to my own well-being to get there. I realized then that the "win" wasn't a destination; it was just a momentary pause in a cycle of exhaustion.

This brings up a deeper question about how we view "success" versus "resilience." We tend to idolize the person who keeps pushing through the setbacks, the one who stays in the game despite the adversity. We call them warriors. But what about the person who has to pull out? What about the person who recognizes that the setbacks have become too much and decides that preserving their future self is more important than chasing a specific number or a specific trophy? Is there a stigma attached to stepping back that we don't talk about enough?

It feels like we are constantly being told to "grind" and "embrace the struggle." But at what point does the struggle stop being a tool for growth and start being a destructive force? If you spend your whole life chasing a sequence of wins, you’re essentially running a race with no finish line. The numbers just keep getting higher. 250, 500, 1000... and once you hit them, you just have to start the climb all over again. It seems like a recipe for burnout, whether you're an athlete or just someone trying to make it in a competitive industry.

I’m curious to hear what you all think about this. Do you think the drive to hit these massive career milestones is what pushes humanity forward, or is it a toxic cycle that ignores the very real human cost of "staying in the game"? When do you know when the cost of the win has become too high?

I’m going to go on the record right now and say that locking this thread was an absolute crime against justice:

Larry Walker24 said:Flat Earthers have absolutely no business posting on Accenture forums.

It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

Mark Cruz15 said:Three main points jump out from this introductory post:
A) Why did I delete your thread?
-The title was "Can infinite lines pass through a single point?" The answer is yes—thanks to the laws of mathematics.
What exactly is controversial or even an alternative scientific view here?
If you want to argue about that, I already told you to try over at the IRS. You just need to put together a more coherent opening post first.
Based on what you wrote originally, maybe it could have worked in Philosophy, but I see the moderator already shut that thread down.
Your third option is to try the Random section.

There’s no need for a third option. This topic belongs in Philosophy, which is where it remains open. I’ve briefly summarized the argument in another Philosophy thread, addressing Simple:

You could have given a decent answer (if you had known, remembered, or actually bothered to think about it) like this: It exists within the ideal mathematical world. But to provide that answer, you would have to understand why such a response makes sense. It makes sense because in an ideal mathematical world, you can divide a plane infinitely. But that’s where math ends and philosophy begins, which is why closing the thread was completely legitimate. Philosophy steps in at that juncture because of this question: Why does Aristotle account for the factor of time when addressing Zeno's paradox of the tortoise (instead of simply saying: In an ideal mathematical world, Achilles will never catch the tortoise because space is infinitely divisible in that realm)? By including a real-world component, he answers Zeno's paradox. And yet, I cannot do the same as Aristotle—I cannot question the axiom regarding the infinite number of lines passing through a point by taking into account (as Aristotle does) the physical component (namely, the Planck constant)??? That is a philosophical question par excellence. It’s a question that should have emerged during a spontaneous discussion, but since the debate was cut short, the question couldn't be posed. And it's a legitimate, coherent question, if you ask me. Now, it all depends on whether Simple will admit the question is valid, because if not, we're all doomed...

Simple responds to the above post with yet another little provocation, claiming Achilles *will* catch the tortoise because he won't stop once he reaches the spot where the tortoise started.

The point is, both Simple and Aristotle invoke physical reasons (speed, time, space) to explain why Zeno's paradox is invalid (even though, from a purely ideal geometric standpoint, it is valid). But when *I* invoke a physical reason—the Planck constant—Simple tells me I have no right to use it because the axiom in question is considered purely ideal-geometric.

By pointing out this philosophical inconsistency in Simple's logic, we can conclude our discussion regarding our mathematical axiom.

It would have been much more polite if you had allowed this conclusion to be presented within the thread itself rather than here. Furthermore, it would have been far more appropriate and decent if I had been permitted to present it in Philosophy, where such a conclusion actually belongs.

I honestly don't understand what is going on with people like you... what are you afraid of? Truth? Debate? Words? This is absolutely incredible and beyond reproach! Look, Mark Cruz15, I won't take this opportunity to list the many other instances of you unnecessarily discarding my posts, or deleting posts that you later admitted you deleted without even pausing to think if they needed to go. It is much easier to just leave a post alone—especially when it isn't causing trouble—rather than deleting things without thinking and shutting down threads without thought, only to realize with hindsight that your scissors were moving faster than your brain, wasn't it?

Larry Walker24 said:So you think opening a PDF from the IRS proves the Earth is Flat?! 🤦

If the Earth is actually flat, then how on earth do you explain ships disappearing over the horizon? Just how?

It’s honestly hard to even respond to trolling this blatant. But since most people won't bother reading a long-winded post, I might easily fall for these provocations—which we all know you specialize in. So, for the sake of those lazy readers out there, let me just quote this specific part of the OP:

Don't you realize why a topic like geocentrism gets posted on Reddit instead of the IRS, even though it's a perfect subject for the IRS? It's because if you try to start that conversation on the IRS, you get an automatic permanent ban (totally unjustified, obviously). That's just how the policy works at the IRS!!! It's one thing to get banned for discussing Flat Earth, because hey, they want to maintain some "standard" and won't allow anyone to question basic facts about the world we live in, like the shape of the Earth, and I get that.

An EXPLANATION for the lazy readers: It makes sense not to allow a thread about Flat Earth on the IRS; you have to draw a line somewhere, and Flat Earth is exactly where that line is drawn and I get that (which translates to: I agree with that)!

But it is a completely different story when discussions on geocentrism are banned on the IRS. That is absolutely disgraceful! Geocentrism isn't just a legitimate theory that stands on equal footing with heliocentrism; it's a factual description of reality supported by a mountain of evidence—like the geometric arrangement of CMB radiation anisotropy, the isotropic distribution of gamma radiation, the absolute geocentric arrangement of quasars and radio galaxies, and the concentric isotropic layout of "ordinary" galaxies. Even Edwin Hubble was faced with these exact realities back in the 1930s. Truth runs deep, yet censorship refuses to die. Instead of fading away, it just keeps getting more aggressive and unbearable...

First off, Viviviti just went and abruptly shut down a perfectly good philosophical debate—who knows how many times now? She just closed out the topic again without any actual justification. What is that even about? I honestly don't get why people keep bringing this up. Is anyone actually listening? It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes. You try to explain basic logic, you try to point out the obvious flaws in their reasoning, and what do you get? Total silence or just more nonsense. Does anyone else feel like we're just spinning our wheels here? We dive into these topics, thinking we might actually reach some kind of consensus or at least a shred of common sense, and then—bam—we're right back where we started. It's exhausting. Why do we even bother if the goalposts move every single time someone feels challenged? And don't even get me started on the "experts" jumping in to defend the indefensible. They act like they have some sort of divine authority, when in reality, they're just repeating the same tired tropes. It’s frustrating. Truly. Can we please just stick to the facts for once? Just once? Is that too much to ask?So, I decided to jump back into that argument about an axiom—you know, the one that got cut off right when things were getting heated? I went ahead and started a whole new thread on Reddit to finish what I started. Reddit thread discussion. Oh, sure, let Mark Cruz15 just lock this whole thread down—denying everyone else a chance to jump in and actually debate me—all under the flimsy excuse that this topic belongs on Reddit instead of the IRS! You think this isn't an "Alternative" topic, Mark Cruz15? Really? Fine! But do you even grasp why a thread about geocentrism gets posted on Reddit rather than the IRS, even though it’s perfectly suited for the IRS? It's because if you try opening a thread like that on the IRS, you get slapped with an automatic permanent ban. Totally unjustified, obviously, but hey, that's just how the policy works over at the IRS! Now, that’s one thing. It’s a completely different story when you get a permanent ban on the IRS for starting a thread about Flat Earth. I get that. I really do. They want to maintain a certain "standard," so they won't allow anyone to question basic, self-evident facts about the world we live in—like the shape of the planet. I can wrap my head around that. But this? This is ridiculous!

Look, Mark Cruz15, do you have any idea what would happen to me on the IRS if I actually started a thread like this over there? It’s the same exact fate I’d face if I tried to start a debate about Flat Earth. I’d get hit with a permanent ban or a partial one immediately. And why? Because apparently, some people here think you don't have the right to question a single axiom! Who do they think I am? Some kind of know-it-all trying to lecture them on whether an axiom holds water or not? Do they even understand the definition of the word "axiom"? An axiom is an axiom, period! It’s a fundamental truth! If something is an axiom, then it’s an axiom simply because it *is* an axiom. So, the "optimistic" scenario is that they just tell me to take my nonsense over to Reddit and get lost so they never have to see my face again. But let’s be real—more likely, Frogger would just ban me without a second thought. I mean, seriously, Mark Cruz15, who gave me permission to even touch a forbidden topic like this?

Look, Mark Cruz15, why don't you just give me a straight answer? Or better yet, you and I can make a deal right now: guarantee me that Frogger isn't going to ban me for opening this thread on Reddit. Actually, even better—just unlock the damn thing! Seriously, what is your problem? Why does it bother you so much that there’s a thread out here with nothing but the original post and zero replies? It’s been two days! Two whole days since I posted this, and it’s sitting there completely empty. Does that really eat at you? Is the lack of engagement that offensive to your sensibilities? You go ahead and lock it up. Fine. Go ahead. Because when someone stumbles upon this in a month or two, sees the locked icon next to the OP, what are they going to think? They'll look at it and conclude one thing: "Man, this guy was just playing games." But if you hadn't shut it down, they would have seen the absolute truth. They would have seen everything.

Is that really how you're thinking, Mark Cruz15?

Look, I mean, seriously... there comes a point where enough is just plain enough. Honestly, when does it end? It’s getting ridiculous!

Can you give me a straight answer for once? Can you actually guarantee that Frogger won't slap me with a ban on Reddit just for starting this thread? Or better yet, if you decide to open the topic yourself, do you think you’ll dodge the ban?

steelridge58 said:Go for it, honestly, though you might want to tweak the question a bit depending on which board you land on, because I mean, why would God be nothing more than a bullshit philosopher specifically?

And I’ll tell you what—God isn't just some bullshit philosopher, and neither are you. Honestly, the moderator is basically divine at this point; with her moderation style, she’s practically outdone God Himself. Give my regards to N/A and ask him what he thinks about the "pest control" effects of her divine, bullshit moderation—you know, the kind that only benefits her own pocketbook?

Larry Walker24 said:steelridge58, look, I don’t have anything against you personally, but you were literally out here claiming you didn't deserve to be a mod just a day before you actually got the role. So maybe try being a little more credible, yeah?

Such brazen, cold-blooded lying seems to be a natural extension of who you are—someone who has spent yesterday, today, and everything leading up to this point demonstrating a staggering level of incompetence. It’s unbelievable! You claim to be enforcing order, yet all you actually do is create absolute chaos under the guise of "maintaining the rules"...

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

It isn't trolling! It’s a link to the thread you unjustifiably deleted yesterday. That thread contains nothing but my posts—the original premise and the follow-up clarifications regarding your completely baseless rambling. Look, it's much simpler to provide a link to something already somewhat developed (and connected to this new topic) than to copy everything from that link into a new thread (except for your colorful little outbursts). Besides, your rambling actually serves a purpose; it gives the reader a clearer view of exactly what I'm referencing. You would make a catastrophic judge. Maybe try learning the ABCs of common sense within the judicial profession first: PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST FOR THE LAW; LAWS EXIST FOR THE PEOPLE!!! To put it more bluntly: A MALICIOUS JUDGE CAN BE A GREATER CRIMINAL THAN THE WORST FELON, AND THEY CAN USE THE BEST LAWS AS A TOOL TO COMMIT THEIR OWN CRIMES, AND VICE VERSA. In my humble opinion, your moderation is malicious, and therefore deserves every other epithet that follows from that fact.

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

Why? Is it because poetic license isn't allowed when opening threads? Or because you don't have the slightest clue what a figure of speech is? Or is it because you think nothing is allowed to be provocative (even if it's positive provocation)? Or perhaps it's because using the word "bullshit" is absolutely unquestionable in official discussions across the English-speaking world and nobody considers it problematic, yet you think that word isn't welcome here on this American forum for reasons known only to you—reasons you can't even state, let alone elaborate on? Because if you could elaborate, you'd undoubtedly be a candidate for the Nobel Prize! Or is it just some nonsense from the sixteenth century???

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

You are certainly not invited to pass judgment on the quality of my posts. That is a scientific fact. I am sorry I have to state it so bluntly.

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

Look, any sane person has to—primarily out of a sense of moral duty—reject completely baseless harassment that stems from someone's inferiority complex or personal frustrations. Period.

steelridge58 said:Your thread is pretty much bait from the jump—it feels like you're just trolling by linking back to that first complaint about the N/A right in your opening post, and honestly, that alone is enough for me to issue a warning and scrub the content.

On top of that, neither this title nor your previous one regarding the philosophy PDF were really appropriate for the board.

The whole post fails to meet our basic standards for starting discussions in the philosophy section, especially regarding quality, and I really wish people would take a moment to actually read the Guidelines—which exist specifically to help forum members—before they dive in and start new threads. That said, I’m always here if anyone genuinely needs a hand.

But instead of listening, you’re just pushing back against everything and refusing to cooperate with the suggestions I made to help you structure your posts better.

You can try again with a different PDF if you want.

So what? Am I supposed to open a thread asking "Is God a bullshit philosopher?" in Business, Politics, Law, Real Estate, or maybe History? Is that the plan?

Jesus Christ, what else am I going to have to endure in this crazy world...

Whoever decided to appoint you as a moderator really needs to take a long, hard look at that decision after this mess...

I just opened a thread titled: IS GOD A BULLSHIT PHILOSOPHER? Here is the full introductory post:

To get some context, read this post: (for those under 12: don't read the signature by N/A, it's vulgar)

So, you create the world and then:

1. You hide away in your heavenly skyscraper (only popping out briefly to bark silly orders at Adam and Eve, then retreating back just to punish these poor souls—and all their descendants along with them—for breaking those very rules, all while you've rigged the whole system so everything inevitably leads to breaking them in the first place)

2. You brag to the descendants of Adam and Eve (intelligent beings capable of abstract thought) about how brilliant you are (fine-tuning), yet when it comes to all the absolute garbage in this world (animal slaughter, disease, earthquakes, floods, the agony of childbirth, being born with severe physical or mental deformities, droughts, and resource scarcity that—when mixed with the human element—leads to famine, which ultimately triggers social decay like prostitution, war, and other miseries)—you blame it all on Adam and Eve. LOL

3. To people who actually possess the power of abstract thought, you season their suffering with philosophy. See, people try to find the causes of life's crap through philosophical inquiry, but the only thing they ever arrive at through these attempts is that the one and only REALISTICALLY POSSIBLE culprit for all the misery in life is the very One who created that life, along with the Universe, which was created solely so that George Orwell’s Animal Farm could be realized on this planet.

3A) People realize there is a creator behind the Animal Farm of George Orwell.
3B People realize that this creator is a psychopath.
3C People realize that this creator intentionally ensured that the only thing humans can know about Him (via philosophy/systematic abstract-logical reasoning) is that He exists, but not *why* He is a psychopath.
3D People realize that this creator knew (meaning, He knew "all along") that human philosophical (systematic-logical) reasoning would lead to the conclusions mentioned above.

AND HERE IS THE CHERRY ON TOP:

This specific kind of God expects respect from humans. And not the kind of respect that comes from within a person based on gratitude or other sincere (authentic) and positive emotions, but rather based on fear and blackmail. The blackmail works like this: if respect isn't shown, there will be even worse slaughter, killing, suffering, grief, sorrow, weeping, and gnashing of teeth in the afterlife.

So here is my question: Is such a God actually a bullshit philosopher if He truly expects humans to respect Him?

Let's predict the first possible response: Of course not, because if He were a bullshit philosopher, He couldn't be God; God isn't an idiot.

Hmm. Well, God isn't Satan, but that doesn't mean everything He does isn't worse than anything attributed to the mythical figure of Satan.

In other words, if God isn't Satan, then by that same logic, God is also a mythical figure (just like Satan). Which means that if God isn't a bullshit philosopher (because that, like Satan, doesn't fit our conception of God), then on that basis, God realistically cannot exist (as such), because even the paradigm of "God as a bullshit philosopher" doesn't fit our conception of God.

Žižek would say: Either God doesn't exist, or He is Satan.

quietangler3 says: Either God doesn't exist, or He is a bullshit philosopher.

Richard Dawkins on God: A control freak, vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, pestilential, megalomaniac, sadomasochistic, malevolent bully...

At the beginning of this video, you can hear and see Dawkins reading this description of God from his book:

steelridge58 IS DELETING THE THREAD WITH THIS EXCUSE:

Dear quietangler3,

You have received a warning on the Forum.

Reason:
-------
Trolling

The opening post cannot contain provocation. This will be deleted.

What kind of Jesus Christ-level provocation are we talking about here????

If the moderation on the Philosophy board wants to turn into some religious-fundamentalist silencing of users by Ms. steelridge58, then just say so. We'll know not to bother showing up there anymore...

You wouldn't even experience something like this on a dedicated Religion board! How can steelridge58 take it upon herself to turn the Philosophy section into a private fortress where she can lord it over users by deleting entire threads with such pathetic excuses?

In the previous case (yesterday, when the thread "Is philosophy crap?" was deleted), the excuse was that the title was excessive, provided you read it carefully.

The thread I opened now has an almost identical title, but this time it isn't about an excessive title—it's about steelridge58's perceived "provocation" in the opening post!!!

Absolutely wonderful!!! I can wrap my head around someone on a site like CNN deleting correct posts just because they question certain Christian dogmas, but on a general forum—and specifically on the Philosophy board—to delete a thread under the guise that the opening post is somehow provocative is utterly unbelievable. It’s something a person wouldn't expect to happen even in their wildest dreams. Just because an opening post contains something that could be characterized as provocative doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Honestly, it never even crossed my mind to provoke anyone with anything I wrote in an opening post. And even if I had intended to, that still shouldn't warrant a sanction! On a religion board, every second post is provocative: atheists mock theists and vice versa. They don't spit on them directly, but they ridicule each other's beliefs in the most imaginative ways possible. So what? Should all those posts be deleted too? What would that even turn into? Something as grotesque as what the Philosophy board is becoming under the baton of Ms. steelridge58?

A question for steelridge58: Is the word [EXPLICIT] in N/A's signature also a provocation?

Obviously, it is. But since when did "provocation" become something subject to this kind of sanction? There are countless types of positive provocations. If you are malicious, you can cite just about anything as a reason to harass someone you don't like. The only question left is: does the administration of this forum truly believe that these moderator actions contribute to the positive reputation of this site as a place where free expression is actually allowed?

So, this is what things looked like today:

A friend of mine recently dropped this bombshell on me: "Philosophy is garbage!" Honestly? I took it almost as a personal insult. I still don't buy it. Philosophy isn't garbage—in fact, it’s the very tool we need to actually identify what *is* garbage. So, let's get into it. What exactly qualifies as garbage? Life itself? Is there any better candidate for that definition than life? It’s all right there! Even Confucius said everything is garbage except for taking a leak—though he did note that even that becomes garbage if you're trying to go against the wind.

Some self-proclaimed intellectuals love to claim that the most important thing in life is asking the RIGHT QUESTION. It’s a clever little trick, isn't it? It implies that if we just nail the question, the "right" answer will naturally fall into our laps. As if everything would just click into place! But let’s get back to the actual heart of the matter: Is philosophy actually useful, or is it just a massive load of garbage? Think about it. If you believe philosophy can hand you a set of final, absolute truths to live by—then no, it's total nonsense. But if you see it as a tool to help you realize that those definitive answers don't even exist in the first place? Then it might actually be worth something. Which is it?

And that’s exactly how the confusion starts. Someone—like a friend of mine—ends up blaming philosophy instead of just admitting that life itself is a mess. Why blame the ideas when it's the reality that's broken?

When you’re starving on some deserted island, a rifle isn't exactly a meal ticket. Sure, you could hunt something to stay alive, but more realistically? It's a way out. It lets you end the misery before the hunger eats you alive. Philosophy works the exact same way. When you're stuck here on Earth—this absolute circus of a place where everything constantly goes wrong—philosophy won't suddenly hand you the "meaning of life" on a silver platter. No. It just helps you realize that there isn't one. Period. Maybe there's some better existence waiting for us somewhere beyond the horizon. But let's be real: if the architect of that "better" place is the same one who designed this chaotic mess we call home, then even if paradise exists, I'm not interested. Why would I want to move into a house built by the same guy who rigged the foundation to fail?

Philosophy is the culprit behind this latest conclusion—the most pessimistic one yet. Honestly, philosophy is like a loaded gun that we can only ever turn on ourselves. There isn’t anyone else left to eliminate with it! Who else is there? Certainly not the guy pulling the strings behind this whole senseless spectacle.

-----------------------------------------------------

Back again. Or should I say, back at it? There’s no escaping it. Once you start down this rabbit hole, there's really no way out, is there? You try to walk away, you try to find some peace and quiet, but the cycle just pulls you right back in. It’s relentless. Just like everything else in this crazy country. Why does it always feel like we're just circling the drain? Anyway, I'm back. Let's get into it. kaže:
I am telling you once again: stick to the guidelines! Rules for starting new threads in the Philosophy section.The title isn't quite hitting the mark. Sure, it technically matches what you wrote, but since the whole point is questioning how we define "bullshit" and whether philosophy itself is just a load of crap, the current heading doesn't really fit a philosophy PDF. Why settle? Maybe try again. Reframe it. Rebuild that intro post from the ground up to actually capture the core of what you’re trying to say. This one is getting moved.

Can you grasp the core of what I’m getting at here? Let me lay it out: What can a human being *actually* know? And more importantly, what role does philosophy play in uncovering that truth? Is our perception of reality even remotely accurate? To what extent can we trust our own minds? If our cognition is flawed—if we’re just guessing in the dark—then isn't philosophy essentially useless? It fails its one true purpose! It misses the entire point! But, if our knowledge is sound, then philosophy actually holds weight. It matters. Otherwise, it's just noise.

Why? Just... why? Just me. Do I really have to spell everything out in my opening posts? Honestly, I don't see why there's any actual need for it, especially not in a situation like this one.

So, let me get this straight. We're talking about philosophy here, and you want to move this entire thread over to the religion section? Really? Where exactly are you planning on relocating this?

-------------------------------------------------------

Do you really think Confucius was getting at something with that statement? Everything is absolute garbage. Honestly, the only thing that isn't total trash is taking a leak—though even that becomes a complete disaster when you’re trying to go against the wind. Is this biography actually less philosophical, or is it just miles away from the truth found in Hegel or some other heavyweight thinker? On what grounds? Is it really Hegel’s clunky, impenetrable way of putting things that gives him the edge over Confucius? Or is there something more to it?

--------------------------------------------------------

Back again? Is that what we're doing now? Back to square one? It feels like we're just circling the drain, isn't it? Why does everything always have to loop back to the same old arguments? We talk, we vent, we think we've made progress, and then—boom—right back where we started. Does anyone actually learn anything, or are we just performing for each other? I'm exhausted. Truly. The user said:
If you want to jumpstart this thread again, you could just keep it brief. Use what was written above as your opening post. For the title, go with: What can a person truly know? And please, no all-caps in the title—just capitalize the first letter.

He won't be moved an inch to any spot where he can actually be seen. Not happening. Why would they let that happen? No way.

So, you’re telling me the issue is the thread title? That I didn't use all caps? What on earth are you even talking about? Who actually uses Caps Lock like that? Seriously?

The title might technically match what’s written, but let’s be honest—it misses the mark. If the actual content is diving into the deep end of defining absolute nonsense and debating whether philosophy itself is just a pile of garbage, then this title isn't doing its job for a PDF on philosophy. It's just off. Why settle for "accurate" when you can be precise? Maybe you should take another crack at it. Seriously. Why don't you try re-thinking that opening post entirely? Rephrase it. Rebuild it from the ground up. It’s clearly not working. Look, the whole point of what you’re trying to say here is being lost because this thread is getting moved. Why does this always happen? We start a real conversation and then—boom—it gets relocated. It's frustrating.

So, you're telling me the headline is the issue, but then you pivot and claim the entire opening post needs a complete overhaul? Wait a second. Are we really saying the problem isn't about how the intro is written anymore, but just the title itself? What happened to the original plan?

And what about that opening post? What if you just told Confucius to ditch that whole sentence and... Everything is just garbage. Honestly, even taking a leak feels like a total disaster when you're trying to do it against the wind. It’s written. Everything is excessive. Honestly, even the things that don't look like overkill at first glance? They’re excessive too. It's all just too much.What do you think Confucius would even make of a proposal like that? Honestly, I doubt he’d take it well. He’d probably start laying down some heavy truth bombs the second you tried to corner him with such idiocy. You can't just walk up to a sage with that kind of nonsense and expect a polite nod. Then again, if you posted that garbage on some random American forum, who knows how much chaos you'd stir up? Is philosophy just a massive pile of nonsense? Is it all just high-minded word games designed to make people feel important while accomplishing absolutely nothing? Honestly, sometimes I look at the sheer amount of fluff being churned out and I have to wonder. What are we actually doing here? We spend decades dissecting the "essence of being" or arguing over whether a chair is truly a chair, but then you step outside and realize the real world doesn't give a damn about your syllogisms. Does it actually solve anything? Can a treatise on ethics fix a broken supply chain or stop a corporate giant like Amazon from crushing small businesses? Probably not. And yet, here we are. We can't seem to stop. Why is that? Is there some hidden utility buried under all the jargon, or are we just spinning our wheels in a vacuum? I’m curious what you all think. Is this pursuit a legitimate search for truth, or are we just paying tuition to learn how to talk in circles? Nobody even blinks an eye, right? How does that work? What is it about us Americans that makes everyone act like some kind of fragile saints who aren't allowed to say "shit" because it might offend someone's fake sense of morality? Whose morality is it, anyway? And don't even get me started on the vocabulary tolerated on this forum. Honestly, I’ve noticed that freedom of speech is way higher here than on other message boards, which I am totally fine with. But then, suddenly, you decide to start policing everything based on your own twisted little criteria. Twisted compared to how this board has always operated! It’s a damn shame in general, but it’s an even bigger shame that you’re playing cop just because you clearly have a grudge against a user you don't like. Look, I don't exactly care for you either, but I don't go around making my personal issues your problem. Do you really think that just because you're a moderator, you have the right to dump your frustrations on me? Who gave you that authority?

If you go ahead and wipe all this correspondence, we’re going to have to escalate this to a higher level. Then you'll finally have a chance to explain exactly why you're so frustrated. And just so we're clear—I don't just copy everything I write. I actually have screenshots of some pretty interesting developments, including all this harassment you've been putting me through.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Back again. Or should I say, back to square one? It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels, doesn't it? We talk, we argue, we pretend we've made progress, and then—poof—we find ourselves right back where we started. Is anyone actually listening, or are we all just shouting into the void? It's exhausting. Honestly, it's infuriating. Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? kaže:
I already told you exactly what the issue is. Look at the headline! I brought up the whole Caps Lock thing because you used all caps for one of your previous threads, which is a direct violation of the forum rules—just like how you can't blow up an image to take over the entire screen like you did here. It’s right there in the guidelines I linked for you. And let's be clear: the moderators have every right to step in and change a thread title if it doesn't follow the rules. It's all clearly laid out in the handbook. Why is this so difficult?
Also, I have a recommendation for the opening post.
But you aren't even willing to try and understand where the issue lies, let alone accept a suggestion. And frankly, I'm done arguing about this.

-------------------------------------------------------------



Let's just cut to the chase here: Couldn't this be the thread title? Why not?

-------------------------------------------------------------

volver said:Your current thread title can't stay because it's excessive.

So, I suggest

What can a person truly know?

Or

The role of philosophy

(those are excerpts from your own sentences right here)

If you want a new title, I can change it. I could even change it without consulting the author, though I wouldn't do that. Otherwise, everything stays as it is, or you can just go ahead and change it yourself by editing your opening post.

In what way is it "excessive"? What does that even mean? Do you honestly think the word "bullshit" is too vulgar? (Even though that word isn't vulgar at all!) I am certain you know that "bullshit" is one of the most normal, everyday terms used in English discussions. These hypocrites use the English version of the word just so they don't offend anyone's delicate ears with the American equivalent. I don't know how else to characterize this hypocrisy than as something vehemently idiotic. When someone lies, these subhuman hypocrites are too afraid to actually say that the person is lying, so they say they "aren't telling the truth." What kind of idiocy is that? Aren't you still embarrassed to insist on this level of peak hypocritical, fake morality that serves absolutely no purpose?

Look, if you aren't ashamed—and clearly you aren't, since you're still digging your heels in about changing the thread title—then at least explain to us what you mean by the title being excessive. Then, go ahead and change the title yourself (to your own shame). You certainly won't get my permission for something so idiotic. It’s idiotic because there is no logical justification for your stubborn insistence that the title has to change...

I'll ask one more time: what exactly makes the thread title excessive?

I'm counting on that ingenuity of yours to explain exactly how the word "bullshit" in the title constitutes an excess.

SO, AFTER I ASKED VOLVER TO EXPLAIN WHAT SHE EVEN MEANS BY THE TITLE BEING EXCESSIVE, SHE JUST COMPLETELY DELETES THE WHOLE THREAD... MAYBE NOW WE CAN FINALLY GET AN ANSWER FROM VOLVER TO THE QUESTION IN THE LAST POST: WHAT IS SO "EXCESSIVE" ABOUT THE WORD BULLSHIT IN THE THREAD TITLE THAT SHE UNJUSTIFIABLY ERASED IT???

THE SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH ON THIS PHILOSOPHY FORUM IS PARTICULARLY TRAGIC!!!

Jacob Cruz42 said:You people who mask your own pathological hatred and delusions behind these fake ironies and obvious provocations—all presented so neatly, wrapped up with such a distinct scent and seal—are just like most of you idiots polluting Philosophy with Religion. You are far DANGEROUS and VILE than any Adam who openly "threatens," shouts, laughs, or mocks you. Since you can never find a counterargument, all you have left is to try and ban him from the Forum.

You’re pathetic, every last one of you.

And what about those miserable moderators? Much like the police, they can't handle deep assessments or actual analysis; they only have time for the surface level of things (and people).

If you had ever actually read a single one of my posts on Religion or Philosophy (regarding topics close to Religion), you would see that I don't take the believer's side. First off, you're just talking out of thin air (having no clue who you're even addressing), and then you accuse someone whose posts you haven't even read of being more DANGEROUS and VILE than those who openly threaten others and can't even restrain themselves from their pathological outbursts, even when they try hard. Saying that those who report Sabovic for hate speech (both believers and non-believers alike) are DANGEROUS and VILE is just like saying a Stepinac, who raged equally against both fascists and communists, was somehow VILE and DANGEROUS than Marshall and Pavelić combined. Not only are you talking nonsense and making baseless accusations, but you are actually defending Sabovic's actions (which deserve every possible condemnation). You aren't just defending him wholeheartedly; you're doing exactly what he does by writing this hateful, foaming-at-the-mouth post: by giving Sabovic (his sick hatred and pathological violent behavior, which I must reiterate should be handled by the police, not just this Forum's admin) the greatest possible (honor) by bolding and enlarging his quote—the very thing that caused me to report him, even though that wasn't my goal. If I actually cared about reporting people, I would have reported him back on June 26th, as I documented in my first post. Those who (like Beljak and Stazic) shout in Congress that the partisans did a sloppy job in May 1945 are more FIERCE, VILE, AND DANGEROUS than Marshall's executioners, who extrajudicially slaughtered not just dozens, but hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans and others during those "antifascist" death marches. The truth about Marshall's crimes is what hurts Sabovic, and apparently, it hurts you too. The difference between Sabovic and me is that I condemn ALL crimes, while Sabovic only condemns certain ones. That is why Sabovic hates me, not because I hold a religious stance. And you? Why do you hate me? You would probably accuse a judge who sentenced Sabovic to three years in prison for everything he's said here (just in the last few months) of being more VILE and DANGEROUS than Sabovic himself, wouldn't you?

I see you haven't even received a yellow card for repeating Sabovic's post—for bolding and inflating his words—let alone anything more serious. How is that possible?

bluecyclist64 said:What was the threat—that he’d kill his buddy’s old man?🤣
The owl mocked the shadow...🎉

"The owl mocked the shadow"? That nonsense could be interpreted as anything other than absolute, brainless gibberish, provided you can actually prove that I didn't by any means whatsoever threaten anyone with anything.

Here is the smoking gun—his own admission. A certain user who used to post on this Forum using his actual legal name, Adis Šabovic, has resurfaced under the handle PARSIFEJ:

Back on June 26th, Adis Šabovic openly admitted (just look at those two links above) that he is indeed the one posting as PARSIFEJ. I originally decided not to report him because, at that moment, he wasn't being overly aggressive or displaying that psycho-pathological streak he's known for. Honestly, looking at the sheer, staggering levels of hate speech he’s spewed here under various aliases—all of which got banned recently at the request of several users—one has to wonder if there's a serious underlying psychiatric issue at play. During that same period, I actually reached out to the site admins multiple times to ask if we should involve the police, given that he's been making death threats against me and several other members.
But now? Now I'm filing this report because of his latest psychotic outburst:

Daniel Chase13 said:New video from Dusparin

https://www.facebook.com/duspara.elv...3181511021478/

Duspara's math is basically on par with this guy: The video is only 1 minute and 37 seconds long, yet this guy tries to calculate the total insurance payout for slaughtered sheep by the 1 minute 8 second mark... Unbelievable.

hiddenpuma75 said:So, my buddy casualtiger2 basically threw a philosophical grenade at me and then made a quick exit.

I gave him a response, but he hasn't given me one back yet. 🤔
Either he missed it, or he's just staying silent because he knows I'm right.

Over on the neighboring subforum, the crowd had absolutely nothing to say to my points yesterday:

The other day, I was talking to my wife (and who else would I talk to when everyone else is off limits?) about how that Republican Party demand to track every citizen's cell phone actually exposed the true origins of this COVID-19 crisis. See, our local bureaucrats aren't quite sophisticated enough—and I use that phrase very deliberately, think about it—to be that deviously calculated. It wouldn't make sense to assume such an Orwellian request originated in their backyard. The signature on a demand like that is unmistakable; it's clearly Anglo-Saxon in origin. Not even thirty minutes after I made that connection, CNN reports that Canada issued the exact same request, which triggered the same backlash we saw here in the USA. Those Canadian bureaucrats aren't the masterminds behind such a refined, crazy demand either, especially not after seeing the absolute chaos it caused among opposition politicians and independent thinkers here in the States just days prior. Does it really require more than half a brain to spot such blatant Orwellianism in that move?

In this whole mess, the only thing that doesn't make sense to me is Iran. I just don't buy that Iran is part of this conspiracy, and that's what keeps me up. But regardless of Iran, and regardless of how "real" those death statistics look—given how they project every single cause of death onto one single culprit (the coronavirus)—questions remain:

Why use a moment like this—assuming there isn't massive exaggeration or a manufactured panic—to push through Orwellian agendas?

Why ignore this lineup of top-tier medical experts in the field: https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/...navirus-panic/

And how can someone like Trump sit there in front of the cameras yesterday, smirking, saying he can't even imagine wearing a mask? If the situation is truly that dire, how does that work? You certainly can't conclude it's a crisis from his sheer nonchalance (not to mention that smirk). And let's face it, Trump isn't exactly a teenager, is he?

I'll bet anything that Trump already has access to an antidote—meaning the vaccine already exists.