boldwalker12 said:Yeah, sure. ZK is so famous for everyone being best buddies and constantly agreeing with each other that they even made a custom smiley just to capture that specific brand of harmony. Give me a break.
Total dogma. Talk about the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the damn log in your own.
Exactly. Isn't it a bit ironic how you "progressive" types end up just recycling our "old-fashioned" ideas? Doesn't that tell you something? 😁
Jessica Kelly4 said:That’s part of the issue—the reason several users got banned and the whole debate went off the rails.
But this is literally obstructing the pro-life stance. Here is the email from the thread moderator, rowdytiger13:
An embryo isn't a human being. It isn't considered one. It has the potential to become a human being, but it isn't yet. This is the official stance. Abortion isn't murder (otherwise it would be a crime), and an embryo isn't a human being.
Once the "official stance" was declared (?!?), a super-mod stepped in to double down on banning the term "killing" and handed out bans.
So, what kind of free discussion are we actually having here?
And I still maintain the debate was civil and consistent; I provided links proving the fetus is a living being. Of course, that's not some absolute truth—this is a forum, not an academic institution. What more can a user provide than a credible link? I have plenty of those; you just need to check the pro-life departments at Princeton or Yale for citations from scientific papers. I didn't come here to become them.
That's the consistency I'm talking about, and I think moderators should recognize it. If I provide credible links, if I discuss a legal and legitimate political option, and if I use the legal and legitimate discourse of that political option, then we're talking about consistent views that a moderator shouldn't ban, but instead allow others to counter with arguments.
It’s a classic journey, really: moving from one set of dogmas to another. It might take a little while, but eventually, we'll have a complete dictionary of all the "correct" opinions. Discussions will basically just consist of everyone nodding in agreement and giving each other pats on the back. Honestly, we already see plenty of threads like that on this forum! 👍
William Bennett53 said:Let's start from square one...
mistyseal8, you claim that we are dealing with established facts and research. Look, we could sit here all day and read through "facts" and "studies" claiming the Earth is flat and that any evidence to the contrary has been doctored, or claims that men are being systematically oppressed while women secretly run the world. We could dive into conspiracy theories about thousands of civilians killed during the Storm, or celebrate how certain war criminals are suddenly being declared innocent. Or, if you look at a site like Healthline, you’ll be bombarded with "research" insisting that vaccines are perfectly safe. But let's be clear: not every "fact" qualifies as one, not every study meets scientific standards, and we certainly can't treat every random thesis as equally valid. Allowing that wouldn't be a lack of censorship; it would be the total destruction of a forum. It's the exact same logic applied to your example regarding studies attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a thesis that simply shouldn't be permitted here. It’s no different from allowing baseless correlations used to paint the Israeli people as collective criminals due to interventions in Palestine, or grouping all Muslims together under the banner of the Islamic State and then acting surprised when people lament that the Crusades didn't wipe them out. Things like that aren't going to pass. If you want to keep shouting "censorship," go ahead—be my guest.
Jessica Kelly4, you claim that "killing" is just standard terminology in the American lexicon, and honestly, you're right—it is a standard word. However, the moderator intervention didn't happen because someone used some made-up or non-standard vocabulary. It happened because a small clique of users attempted to hijack the entire discussion, reducing every single point to nothing more than the act of killing. That simply isn't permitted under the rules of this Politics forum. The issue at hand is much broader and more significant than that. While radical debaters on both sides try to narrow the complex debate over abortion down to a single, reductive thesis, such behavior provides zero value to this community. We aren't a political party; we don't need to coordinate a single mantra and stick to it religiously.
One more thing—not that you actually asked, but since I’m already typing: the pro-life side possesses a comprehensive array of compelling arguments regarding the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the term "killing"—which essentially amounts to indirectly accusing women of being murderers—has been a productive move for this discourse. Or at least, it ought to be. When a topic is constantly derailed by persistent trolling aimed at a handful of individuals, it effectively shuts down any chance for qualified participants to engage in a rational conversation. You actually reinforce my point yourself when you mention that you don't mind changing terminology, provided it isn't used as a tool for restriction. Let's be clear: anyone capable of holding a civilized discussion won't be hindered by a simple shift in vocabulary. As for your grievance regarding moderator intervention... yes, I understand how that feels. But occasionally, isn't it necessary? If it weren't, there would be no need for moderators to exist in the first place.
And finally, you suggested I was being subjective and biased because I claimed that banning any comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is merely a projection of one's own fears. Perhaps that isn't the case. It is entirely possible that the architects of such theories aren't actually afraid; if that’s true, then their actions are even more egregious, as they are essentially spreading hate speech under the guise of demonizing an entire group of people. For a better understanding of my position, you might want to look back at my response to mistyseal8 above. We simply won't tolerate that kind of rhetoric here, and as long as I have any influence at all, it certainly won't be accepted as valid argumentation.
Susan Price30, look, some moderators are simply better than others. It has nothing to do with one's worldview or any other ideological divide, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Jessica Kelly4 suggests that we ought to clone our esteemed colleague Power Locko, and I find myself in agreement—not that I’m advocating for actual human cloning, of course, but rather acknowledging and respecting his obvious competence. However, speaking from the perspective of someone who actually handles the complaints: you should know that a moderator also receives a significant number of grievances from those who simply disagree with them, most often by claiming bias. That is just the nature of the job. I am certainly not suggesting that moderators are infallible; we all make mistakes, despite our best efforts to excel at what we do. My point is merely that, very frequently, any moderator action is treated as though we are taking a side. To give you a concrete example: during my relatively short tenure as a moderator for Politics, I have been accused of being biased at least ten or fifteen times. The accusation is always the same: that I only protect the "freedom of speech" for extremists and radicals. 😵
To wrap things up, I’ll just echo my own thoughts from earlier. It is the responsibility of the moderators to design and maintain the boundaries for acceptable discussion. This naturally requires intervention to prevent insults, hate speech, and other serious offenses. However, beyond that, establishing those boundaries sometimes necessitates curbing the radicalization of topics—preventing them from veering into territory that kills the conversation rather than making it more productive. Preventing a thread in the Politics section from being completely derailed by people screaming "MURDER" and "KILLERS" is exactly the kind of intervention needed.
I don't have much else to say on this. We’ve burned through post after post about nothing, rather than actually discussing anything meaningful. Even the original poster noted that these terminological hurdles are easily bypassed, which essentially means we aren't stopping actual debaters, just the loudmouths. I suggest we head back to the main forum and get back to actual forumming.
Did I say that homosexuality and pedophilia were being equated? I don't think I did. You can certainly discuss both topics without making a direct comparison—for instance, by examining their relationship to one another. There is actual research out there on the subject, regardless of whether it offends someone's specific ideological sensibilities.
It honestly makes my blood run cold when I hear people say, "we just shouldn't allow it." It’s terrifying to think that we're increasingly being handed over to ideological gatekeepers—people who want to sit in judgment and decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are considered "offensive" or taboo. Personally, I value open conversation too much to see that happen.
The path you're taking here will just lead to creating an echo chamber where like-minded people pat each other on the back and congratulate one another on being so brilliant. Best of luck with that. ☕
boldwalker12 said:Look, I’m not saying I disqualified you or anything, but let's be real—you were just echoing the same kind of nonsense that pops up on major news sites like CNN every single day. You didn't even need to drop the link; honestly, it was just the cherry on top of a pretty ridiculous sundae.
It’s honestly hilarious watching you lecture someone else about being "ideologically biased" when you’re clearly deep in the trenches of your own worldview yourself. You're basically preaching to the choir while wearing the exact same colors. Look, I'm not going to get into a massive back-and-forth with you over this, though—this isn't exactly the right venue for a full-blown ideological brawl.
Yeah, let's be real—moderation definitely involves a certain amount of robotic, mindless busywork. Honestly, it might be better if you just stepped down at this point, because every single post you make just proves you’re completely incapable of being impartial. ☕
Look, sure, being a mod involves certain boundaries, but that doesn't mean a moderator has to be some mindless, soulless drone without a single opinion of their own. Honestly, trying to attack someone just because they have a viewpoint—and then spinning that into some big "critique of the moderation"—is just plain stupid.
I'm on it. Be there in a sec. 😁
Look, I can afford to be opinionated because I'm just a regular user here. I can be totally subjective. As long as I’m following the rules, I’m keeping the forum orderly. If other users want to try and tear me down or discredit my arguments, that’s on them.
The real issue is that in this supposed "fair fight," the moderation needs to stay neutral. They shouldn't be tying one person's hands behind their back while handing weapons to another.
It certainly does include that, but it doesn't mean a moderator has to be a mindless drone without any personal views. It’s silly to take someone's opinions and frame them as a critique of the moderation team.
I'm running! 😁
You’re free to hold your own views, but when you're participating in a discussion, you should act like a standard forum member. However, the moment you step into a moderator role, you have to shed that skin and adopt a completely different persona. You have to be consistent, whether you're dealing with people who agree with you or your ideological opponents. In my opinion, you—and quite a few of your colleagues—just aren't capable of doing that. ☕
boldwalker12 said:Since you were trying to toss me links to CNN and stuff during our argument, it’s pretty hard to agree with you that those count as actual "sources" or a real debate.
Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a grain of truth in what you said. Look, I don't hide my opinions—I'm not a robot. If being a moderator required me to be a mindless drone with zero backbone, I never would have taken the job in the first place.
I remember that whole situation clearly. We were mid-debate, and you were just tossing out clichés without any actual evidence or reasoning, while I was backing up my points with several links. One of them happened to be from a major news outlet, but honestly, I could have linked to ten other reputable sites. It was purely coincidental that I picked that one. You didn't have a single real argument on your side, so you resorted to that "hahaha, they used a mainstream link!" tactic just to disqualify me. It seems like that's your go-to move whenever a debate gets serious. Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. 🙂 🙂
Sure, moderation requires a certain level of robotic consistency. Honestly, it might be better if you just moved on, because every time you post, you're just proving that you can't stay objective. ☕
boldwalker12 said:Look, just because a pressure cooker is about to blow doesn't mean you should hand out matches to the people trying to set it off. Suppressing things isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate garbage that's straight-up subhuman. If we start letting everything slide under the guise of "open debate," we're basically giving a free pass to every xenophobic jerk out there who wants to calmly explain why certain people are "lesser" because of their skin color or where they were born. That's not how this works. Just because some toxic, pathological hatred is bound to boil over somewhere doesn't mean we have to validate it as a legitimate part of a civilized discussion. If some hateful nonsense starts bubbling up, we shouldn't be feeding it or giving it a stage to perform on.
You’re acting as one of those ideological moderators. You aren't being neutral; you're showing clear bias. All you have to do is look at your own posts on this thread, where you immediately label anyone with opposing views as "disruptive" or claim they're acting beneath a civilized standard. It never even crossed your mind that the other side is perfectly capable of engaging in cultural debate, backed by their own facts, sources, and research to support their positions.
See, this moderator is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. 👍
Susan Price30 said:And you're just as much of a neural network—or a "supermodel," as you like to put it. Politics, too.
You think you're untouchable? Just wait until your luck runs out.😁
Or perhaps it would be better to balance things out by adding a moderator with a different political perspective? It might be worth having at least one conservative moderator on the team.😉
Well, that's it then. One. Maybe everyone would be a little happier if there were some actual balance in how the moderators handle their decisions and viewpoints. lol
We don't need left-wing or right-wing moderators. We've tried that approach here for years and it hasn't worked.
What we actually need are moderators who know what they're doing and can set their personal convictions aside while they work.
Some of them jumped straight to attacking what I wrote here using their own twisted logic. To me, that's a bad sign. It shows they aren't capable of staying neutral or working without bias.
They might feel like they're on the right side of history, thinking that backing certain ideas serves everyone—themselves, the users, and the forum—but that's not true. They're just serving this new modern ideology, and any ideology like that struggles to tolerate freedom of thought and expression.
So, my advice? Put aside the "political correctness," park your personal views, and aim to be as neutral as possible. You'll do a much better job, believe me.
William Bennett53 said:@popij pipi - Absolutely. Anyone who, when discussing homosexuality, starts rambling about pedophilia out of sheer insecurity—or whatever other neurosis they're dealing with—should be shut down. If you want to sit there and conclude that actual dialogue is impossible because, much like some dive bar in rural Nebraska, anyone can wander in with a half-baked, idiotic idea and derail the entire conversation, then fine. If you insist on labeling that "censorship," go ahead. But we are going to maintain a certain level of decorum.
It seems like neither you nor the other participants here have actually listened to what I've been saying. I’ve been focusing on hard facts, reliable sources, and actual research, not the imaginary fears or phobias you all keep trying to pin on me. No, 🙂 and 🙂 were just doing their jobs. Censorship. Banned. 🙂
An online forum should be a space where ideas can be exchanged freely within a well-structured environment. Unfortunately, that isn't the case here, because the rules seem to be shaped by ideology rather than logic.
William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.
But let’s go back to basics. A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.
Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.
So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.
Let’s call this fancy wording what it really is: censorship. ☕
This isn't the first time we've seen this play out on the platform. I can think of plenty of other examples, but one that sticks in my mind was during that massive wave of debate over protecting traditional marriage. Back then, any attempt to discuss homosexuality was treated like a total taboo. Even though there's a mountain of research linking certain topics, mentioning them alongside pedophilia became an instant death sentence in the discussion. But, in its infinite wisdom, the Forum decided it needed to "set the framework," which is just a polite way of saying they censored those perspectives and went after anyone who stepped out of line. One day you get a warning, the next you're banned—it feels like some heavy-handed moderator is just playing judge and jury.
It's also quite interesting how these "frameworks" always seem to be rigged so that the liberal, permissive side gets a free pass, while the conservative and traditional views get shut down immediately.
I’m going to lay out my grievances here like Roman generals vying for political office, presenting my war wounds in the form of Meadow's warnings. Anyone with eyes—or better yet, any actual authority—can see just how much of this is due to her clicking buttons. I find myself agreeing with some of the points made by the OP; it feels like Meadow occasionally misses the nuance of a topic or completely misinterprets a comment, leading to unfair penalties. For instance, I recently took a massive 100-point "mega trolling" strike that won't expire until next year. I received it while commenting on ISIS, noting that blood is being spilled there today and will continue to be because the work wasn't finished in the past—referring specifically to the Crusader liberation of the Middle East. I got flagged because they misinterpreted my historical context as an endorsement of genocide. 🙏 What’s next on the agenda? Are people going to get banned for supporting the Spanish Reconquista? If Spaniards had the right to reclaim the Iberian Peninsula, then the Romans and Crusaders certainly had the same right in the Middle East, especially since Christians still made up half the population, if not more at the time.
Because of this shaky moderation, I tend to steer clear of certain topics on this forum, and honestly, I avoid posting there altogether. Every single post feels like a gamble where I might end up with a penalty I didn't earn. ☕
redfox5 said:Man, I haven't seen that in forever... but what part of AI is even in Gattaca? Isn't that just about genetic superiority and stuff? 🤔
Not really. "Gattaca" was all about genetic engineering—that was its sole focus. It didn't dive into social structures, ecology, or anything else. It’s a bit like "Blade Runner," which stays strictly focused on what it means to be human.
I finally sat down and watched it. Honestly, after finishing, I feel like I just hopped off a roller coaster at a local fair—it was such a wild, fresh experience that was genuinely fun. You start at the beginning and somehow end up right back where you started. A complete circle. 🙂
It’s almost impossible not to draw comparisons to *I, Robot* and *Transcendence*. Honestly, if you could somehow blend those three movies together, you might actually end up with one definitive, top-tier masterpiece about AI. It’s been a while since I sat down to watch *I, Robot*, so some of the finer plot points have slipped my mind, but I think I actually prefer this one. There's a sense of realism here that hits differently. On the flip side, the movie tries to juggle way too much at once. Trying to tackle an ecological disaster, the distant future, and the complexities of AI all in one go is a massive ask for a single film. I've always felt it's more effective when a movie picks one specific niche and nails it—kind of like how *Gattaca* does.
Give him a call or just shoot him an email; you can't exactly just ghost someone like that. In my experience, the higher you build up these unrealistic expectations through online chatting, the harder the crash is when you finally meet in person. If I were in your shoes, I’d definitely sleep on it before making a move.
shadowheron49 said:😂 I mean, I get where they're coming from. But seriously, meeting up with him isn't even an option right now... The whole thing is basically over. Now I just have to try and talk myself out of this fantasy using some actual logic. I am totally spiraling here; I have no idea how I let things get this heavy, but here we are...
If you want to use logic to get through this, you need some real-life perspective. Personally, I don't think there's a better antidote than actually seeing him in person. I'm not sure what went down or why things ended between you two, but a face-to-face meeting is usually possible—unless, of course, you did something truly massive, like accidentally joining a gang or something.
shadowheron49, if you ask me, you’re stuck. It feels like you've been frozen in this one single moment for way too long, and honestly, you need to move forward with your life. The only way out I can see is to go right through it—you either have to keep going or finally bring this whole story to a close. In other words, you need to meet him in person. Once you actually face him in real life, he'll be brought back down to earth, and based on everything you've told me, you already know exactly how to handle people like that.