CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Joshua Anderson18 › Posts

Posts by Joshua Anderson18

4 posts shown.

Annoying moderator, please remove my strike in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Matthew Anderson said:You got banned because that part was pure, malicious trolling, especially after everyone in the thread was actually being decent and trying to talk to you.

My take on how I act based on what I’m saying isn't trolling. Trolling is when someone stirs up chaos just to provoke people. I responded seriously using perfectly acceptable language. Just because someone disagrees with me or thinks poorly of me doesn't make it trolling. If that's your definition, then stay out of moderation...
Annoying moderator, please remove my strike in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I just got flagged for "trolling" because I refused to lower my standards when it comes to the guys I date. Apparently, having expectations is an issue. The moderator took it personally—his ego couldn't handle someone speaking that way on his subforum. It was incredibly sexist, predatory, and honestly, just slimy... 👎 Just so you know who's actually moderating this Reddit thread...

Matthew Anderson said:Hey Sandra Chavez73...

You’ve been flagged for an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Trolling...
-------

-------

This violation carries a 35-point penalty. You might find your access restricted until the term is up. Just a heads-up: serious offenses stay on your record forever...

Original Post:
I don't know why people act like this is some massive, groundbreaking revelation. It’s just common sense. You can't expect things to work perfectly when the system itself is built on shaky ground. People love to complain about the results, but they completely ignore the flawed process that got them there... Matthew Anderson is right about one thing, though. The sheer level of incompetence we see sometimes is staggering. It's not just a few bad actors; it feels systemic. Like everything else in this country lately... nothing seems to be functioning the way it was designed to...
Quote: Matthew Anderson The user said:Here we go again with the rationalizing. Just because someone turned you down because you're inexperienced doesn't mean they're only looking for sex. It could just be that your lack of experience isn't a turn-on for them, and they don't want to waste their time while you're still trying to figure yourself out...

I don't know which girls you're trying to play with using this whole "rationalization" act, but they must have zero self-respect if they actually buy that those standards are just "rational..." 🙄 Like I said, if someone isn't "invested" in me—no matter how you define that or what kind of issues you think I represent—there's the door. That’s not me making excuses. It’s just... goodbye... 😛

Best Buy,
Reddit


The conversation started here:

Yeah... The user said:This constant hate toward guys is getting old. The assumption that we’re all just clueless or don't know what we want simply because we haven't had sex yet is honestly pretty irritating...

Matthew Anderson said:There’s definitely some truth to that. The reality is simple: some people are going to prefer a kid or someone totally green. Others won't...

Yeah... said:I agree that I don't know everything about myself. I never claimed to. How much you can actually trust my word is anyone's guess. That’s really up to whoever ends up in a relationship with me... it depends on how much time we spend together, studying each other's reactions and psychology, and actually trying to understand one another.

If there's enough risk that I might be coming off as naive to cause an issue, then honestly, let that act as a good filter. There’s a risk involved with anyone... At the very least, people just change over time...
I consider myself a low risk—just a virgin with a dirty mind. If that’s enough to kill a potential relationship, then he wasn't actually interested anyway. Sorry, but I would never believe someone truly wanted me as much as I needed them if they suddenly decided I didn't "measure up" because of my lack of experience. That's just the excuse people use when they're lying about why they broke up...

If someone turns me down right out of the gate because I’m a virgin, then honestly, good riddance. I respect that decision... It just helps me filter out the people who are only looking for a quick hookup or don't have the patience to actually get to know me.

Matthew Anderson said:That’s just a rationalization you're feeding yourself. Personally, I have zero interest in virgins. I don't have the time in my late 30s to wait around for someone to find their footing, only for them to realize that half the things that turn me on aren't actually that hot to them... It’s a pattern, too. This is a massive misconception among guys who haven't had much experience—they assume that because they've built up this specific persona in their heads, reality will somehow follow suit. I've seen countless threads on Reddit where guys complain they wouldn't even know how to reject someone if they had to, acting like they'd master everything in bed instantly. Newsflash: If we're talking about actual kinks, that assumption is highly questionable...

Here we go again with the rationalization. Just because someone turned you down because you're inexperienced doesn't mean they’re only looking for a hookup. It could just be that your lack of experience isn't a turn-on for them, and they don't want to waste their time while you're still trying to figure yourself out...

Yeah... said:I don’t know which girls you’re trying to manipulate with this whole "rationalization" act, but they must have zero self-respect to swallow that excuse. Like I said before, if someone isn't actually interested in me—no matter how you spin your version of "interest" or what issues you claim I represent—then there's the door. That isn't being rational. It's just saying: Goodbye...

Then he hit me with an infraction. On top of that, he flagged me just for bruising his ego, all while trying to play defense against my trolling...

Matthew Anderson The user said:How exactly am I supposed to be manipulating you if I reject you based on your lack of experience? I’m deciding right from the jump that you aren't interesting to me...



And then, immediately in the very next post, they started badmouthing me, claiming I was being "aggressive."

Matthew Anderson said:According to her, it's manipulation just because some guy rejects her for being a virgin. This is exactly the kind of aggressive girl I'm talking about.

Someone who feels so uncomfortable with a woman viewing her virginity as acceptable—and defending herself against criticism for it—is at best insecure, and at worst a predator trying to police "acceptable" behavior within a community. To him, any expectation that doesn't suit his agenda becomes "hate speech," or in this case, trolling. He’s subtly slandering me, using this supposed "trolling" to punish me, and twisting the narrative to make it seem like I'm upset because he rejected me... when my response made it perfectly clear that I'm simply stating my standards and refusing to let him twist them into some "rationalization."

Regardless of how you choose to deal with such a manipulative, insecure individual on your Reddit, one thing is obvious: my post wasn't trolling at all. The infraction needs to be removed.
Eric Newman4 said:They aren't really interested in partying, drinking, or smoking. They get along fine with their parents, but they tend to be loners. Here is a glimpse into how American teenagers are living these days...

I was watching a movie with my daughter on Friday night. Honestly, I don't know what to make of it. Is it normal for a 17-year-old girl to spend her weekend watching a movie with her dad without being forced into it?... asked a father of a 17-year-old girl—a top student at a high-end prep school in Chicago—during a recent discussion. The girl doesn't smoke, which is a huge relief for her father, a smoker, and she doesn't drink either. She has clear interests, knows exactly what she wants to major in, and works hard in school (even though she doesn't particularly like or value it) because she understands that grades matter for her future, according to USA Today. She spends most of her time online, on social media, or on YouTube, following specific topics and discussing them with friends. No boyfriend. Just a few girlfriends she grabs a soda with occasionally. She rarely goes out, and almost never stays out late.

Her father grew up in the late 80s and early 90s. His youth was a completely different world. Going out every Friday and Saturday was mandatory, and any chance during the week was taken. There was plenty of drinking, smoking, and experimenting with drugs. Every day was a battleground with his parents. Watching a movie with them on a Saturday night sounded like a nightmare. The whole goal was just to break away from the parents. My old man was strict; he’d definitely punish me if I messed up. She knows she wouldn't even get grounded, because we don't really have to discipline her. She knows there would be a conversation if she stepped out of line, but that would be it. Nothing more. I honestly don't think she's ever even had a drink, he said, nodding slowly, wondering at the end if perhaps he should talk to a professional, get some advice, and see if his child has an underlying issue he isn't aware of—or if she's simply becoming overly responsible.

Are today's kids just naturally more withdrawn because of the constant pull of technology, or is it because parenting styles have shifted so much?

Too many of them are hooked on some kind of tech. Giving a kid their own laptop is basically handing them heroin. I'm not even exaggerating. If you don't know, look up digital addiction. It's real. 🕺

Also, we're talking about a girl here... I get that men can have calmer temperaments too, but I honestly have no idea how these people would handle raising an average American boy. 🤷 I'm being serious, I actually want to know what you all think about this.
The source advocating for any specific parenting style matters deeply to me:
  • If someone is just unintelligent or driven purely by emotion—and they persist in a certain type of parenting despite the fallout—they’ll be too stubborn to admit they messed up. They can't face the fact that they failed the most important little beings in the world. When people feel their ego is on the line, they tend to double down on their existing biases rather than listen to reason.

  • A second unreliable source I refuse to listen to is anyone who grew up with emotionally unstable or abusive parents. I’ll volunteer myself here: my punishments depended entirely on whether my parents were having a bad day or not. It took me years to realize that. One kid was the favorite and could do no wrong, while the others were constantly under pressure. If they were angry, everything was my fault and I'd get punished multiple times a day. If they weren't (which was rare), they'd let things slide that I expected would hurt. To be honest, the psychological abuse I experienced left much deeper scars; it took years of therapy to deal with the aftermath.

The problem is that since I came from a home like that, I have no idea how healthy parents actually make decisions. I don't know what the impact would have been if there had been actual structure and love instead of chaos. I don't know if discipline would have felt earned rather than arbitrary. Neither I nor anyone else raised by unstable parents is capable of judging whether physical discipline is acceptable or not.

Worst of all, most people who dealt with parents who weren't outright monsters aren't even aware of what happened to them until much later in life when they wonder why their lives are falling apart. They stay stuck in their ways because they can't see their own bias. They write about how "logical" their views are... These people usually talk about bad "parenting methods," when they are actually describing abuse because they didn't have a name for it. Or they describe abuse and claim it's "normal" and that everyone else is "overreacting," simply because they didn't know any better.
  • A third source I won't touch is any study based on a tiny sample size or a handful of participants. Likewise, I avoid any study rooted in a specific ideology or philosophy. Whether it's religious, hyper-traditionalist, neoliberal, feminist, or any other nonsense—if they hide an agenda behind psychological or sociological research, it's straight in the trash for me.

Now, since I want children and have no clue if physical discipline is ever a smart move, please take what I've said into account. Help me find a mentally sound, neutral person or study that can help me form a real opinion.
Thanks