Posts by steelskipper132

nimbleharbor10 said:Local municipalities are fundamentally broken. We should implement a mandatory minimum population threshold for any municipality to exist, along with a strict cap ensuring they don't sink more than 20% of their budget into administrative payroll; otherwise, they should face automatic consolidation.

Anyway, drug prices have jumped by 40%, which I guess means these little local governments actually serve some purpose—mostly just finding new ways to restrict the movement of goods and people.

Rachel Roberts6 said:Not at all. Honestly, "headquarters" (ugh, I hate that word, seriously, who even came up with it?) is nothing but pure politics. Aside from two Republican ministers, you've got the director of the public health institute who was appointed back in 2016. Basically, the Republican Party picked him, along with certain people like Alemka Markotić—an infectious disease expert who gets tons of praise from Canadian clergy and once even said she "...wouldn't have survived the war in Ottawa if she weren't a believer." A textbook Republican appointee. Now I just need to check if she's carrying a party registration card.

Are you really so sure about this particular Alemka?
👎👎

stormybadger8 said:Honestly, I think we as citizens need to hire a killer lawyer and file a massive class-action lawsuit in a court like the Supreme Court to demand serious prison time for:

Minister Božinović, leading the charge as our prime defendant.
Every single head of those county and local emergency task forces.
All the mayors and city officials, just for the crime of existing in the first place...

For violating basic human rights and basically treating the public like complete idiots.
And anyone under 50? They get quarantine instead. Prison is too good for them.

You mean Strasbourg, France?

Look, buddy, go hunt for it yourself—just leave me alone with my stupid ideas.

Honestly, when you guys show such a complete lack of basic listening skills during a debate, I just can't believe it!

Death to misogyny—freedom for the forum users!

You guys really should have waited longer before jumping in with responses—it would’ve been a total bloodbath in the comments for Mio and Drag here.🤦

The post I’m replying to basically claims men can just bark at the moon if they aren't careful about contraception, whereas I wrote that women who choose to stay home can actually prepare themselves for childbirth.
I even gave them an out 🤦, though, honestly, it was all just a joke.
After I posted, the author actually walked back her grand statement, and then ended up making an even stupider point in her final reply.
Yeah, and I made fun of that too.😵
If you guys don't find that funny, well, that's your loss.
Personally, I think it’s hilarious—including the fact that I’m apparently the only one getting rewarded for trolling this thread.

Sarah Sanders34, I’m taking my yellow card and warning, so maybe take another look at things? You seem to have lost your way somewhere. Also, don't try to pin the blame on women or the vulnerable by default, because that’s clearly just something you pulled out of thin air by stripping my words of their context—plus, you issued that warning only after a few other users posted some incredibly rigid takes.

What really bothers me about your "objective" moderation is that you haven't actually managed to facilitate a real dialogue, not even on the thread welcoming the six new moderators—specifically regarding the men.
Your main argument seems to be defending women from misogyny as if we were talking about a closed community in Iraq, rather than a general forum in a normal society where the vulnerable are protected by default. You still haven't explained why men aren't allowed access here, and somehow that remains a taboo subject.
At the exact same time, you're working against the forum and yourselves because you're practically inviting excess, all while promoting the idea that women can casually write about self-destructive behaviors in relationships. Protecting someone doesn't mean shielding those who call out that behavior.
I'm not going to rebel against the yellow card, but these accusations say everything about you and nothing about me.

The topic itself was actually pretty interesting, but I guess the actual content just totally missed the mark.😉

Five whole days...🙏🙏🙏

Hey, seriously, take down this ridiculous accusation—it’s actually written right here...

So I got a yellow card for this post because of how I was referencing the previous post in this thread.
The moderator's ruling is just straight-up misogynistic trolling, and honestly, she’s totally MIA on DMs—but whatever, I still have a few things to add.

It's pretty obvious my reference to the previous post—even if it didn't have quotes—should have made the analogy clear. I used the exact same terms; I started with girls and women and ended with "coincidence."
My post isn't trolling; it's just following a trolling spree about lecturing kids, which has nothing to do with the actual topic.
What really gets under my skin, though, is being accused of misogyny. That’s just insane. But then again, it seems to be the standard operating procedure for how these moderators handle things.
What I actually wrote was meant to be a jab at the vague stance taken in the previous post, where Kuki claims that guys need to be explained to that if they aren't careful, they can end up as "f***ed parties" with no way to fix it. Basically, that claim implies women make one-sided decisions—something they wouldn't dare call "100% of cases" without getting into the whole abortion debate.
My analogy was simply that things can also work out one-sidedly for women if they decide to stay home. It was all a reference to the author's point—so it's on topic. It was a joke triggered by some nonsense Kuki wrote. I mean, nobody ever expects hands to be 100% guaranteed, right?

Basically, the "female judiciary" decided that this was just my way of being a misogynistic troll, and that won't be tolerated.
Of course, all of this is happening under the guise of protecting women from the "haters" on this forum. This site should be about male-female relationships and marriage, and both genders should be equally involved (or so the Trumpian grammarians would say). On a forum like this, you shouldn't start with a built-in bias where women are always the defenders and men are automatically the attackers. Except during Separation, where men easily get trampled because the legal rhetoric gets so heated.
I don't believe equality can be maintained with an all-female moderation team unless there's a balance of power, but right now, it feels like they're just riding men. My impression is that female mods jump on the misogyny accusation way too often, and personally, I think that charge is massive and needs to be handled with more care.
I’d ask them to consider that sometimes harsh rhetoric from certain authors comes from a need to quickly open people's eyes and speed up the discussion. That should be respected, because not everyone has all day to hang out on a forum. I mean, you can't have 80% of the male participants suddenly turn "misogynistic," especially when there are already so few men talking here.
I get that allowing open dialogue might create more work, but labeling everything that favors a woman's perspective as "misogyny" isn't a solution to anything.

stormylynx4 said:He basically said she was doing fine, and since her first post sounded more like a self-advertisement given how she described herself, he just threw in a rolling eyes emoji and suggested she could send him a photo—since she’s already offering herself up, I mean, not just a picture, right? Just so he can check exactly how "fine" she really is.

That isn't true at all. I was actually trying to poke fun at the impression most people on the Reddit had right from the start—you know, how they took lady X's opening post as some selfish advertisement full of misunderstandings.

It’s nice that all the moderators showed up, but in my humble opinion, they actually messed up right away by not shutting down everyone who started swarming lady X. To me, it felt pretty shameless how they allowed the focus to shift entirely onto her supposedly "pure" intentions.
When you add a warning and a strike against the author on top of that, the whole thing looks really messy. In this context, it doesn't even matter that the moderator missed my irony, because the whole thread had already gone off the rails earlier, and honestly, that responsibility lies with the mods.

So, it's kind of insane that you guys are insisting on an apology, unless there's some specific reason you're being so difficult.

After longlong spent ages being perfectly polite to lady X—basically rolling out the red carpet and checking in to see if she needed anything dissected—Sid decides to put on his Zorro costume as the vigilante protector of wronged women and starts an inquisition against the one guy, damn it, who was actually staying on topic. That kind of scrutiny is misplaced, offensive, and basically completely nullified all of longlong's effort.
Since they already failed to protect lady X, the moderators finally stepped up when they stopped Sid from trampling over longlong, especially considering how much of a pattern that is with him.

If anyone needs to apologize, it would be me, for stirring the pot with those messages through the inbox, but hey, excuse me, I guess every idiot is entitled to their own little way of having fun.😉

Alexander Howard79 said:Honestly, I’m just sitting here tearing up—it's pathetic, really.

Honestly, I’m telling you—I am watching.😵

It was on TV last night—way past midnight, too.🙄

In the end, he really does squeeze his finger—it’s enough to make you lose sleep over it, I guess—but honestly, even that feels like a bit much. The whole ending just feels unfinished, like they didn't quite know how to stick the landing. And if you ask me, the biggest letdown is Samir's acting. Since he's basically carrying this entire final sequence on his back, it's a huge bummer when he just looks lost, wandering left and right without any real direction... almost like he's trying to run away from the camera or something.
Bejo, the Iranian guy, and that kid—they were all just phenomenal. Honestly, I don't think people realize how much they carried that whole thing.
So, we finally get to the ending, and it lands squarely on Samir—but honestly, if you look closely, it’s that Iranian director who’s actually making all the real moves here. I mean, sure, I guess you could argue that the Iranian filmmaker wasn't technically responsible for how the happy ending unfolded, but at the end of the day, the weight of the whole thing just sits there on Samir and his catatonic wife. It feels unfinished—not enough, in my opinion.

6/10

Why doesn't anyone just tell him straight? You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.🤷
If he just pays off part of the bill, they might tack on a late fee from $10 on the next statement—though, I guess he should have received a notice about that by now anyway. On the next bill, there’ll just be an item labeled 'previous balance,' and honestly, they shouldn't even be charging interest on that.

It's a simple fix, and it's not like Diners Club is going under or anything.