Posts by Anonymous

lonebadger6 said:There is such a thing as an internationally recognized genocide.

Are you seriously suggesting that different rules apply to the Armenian genocide—which hasn't been officially sanctioned by the international community—compared to something like the Holocaust?

lonebadger6 said:It’s a completely different matter when we're talking about retaliatory crimes committed against members of a defeated criminal military (and keep in mind, being part of a criminal army or regime doesn't automatically make every single individual a criminal).

It's pretty obvious you don't understand the fundamentals of what happened at Wounded Knee or Stalingrad. It's honestly sad.

And honestly, the mods here are top-tier. I’d even go so far as to say they’re actually pretty solid. Whenever a thread starts getting heated and things really start flying, they step in, scrub the posts, and drop a global warning—basically a polite request for everyone to chill out before the heavy-duty sanctions kick in.

You wouldn't believe it, but it actually works.

Give me a little room to expand on this discussion, since I can't reply over there because I've been banned, but I wanted to address this specific post:

Are we also expecting people to get handed 900 points just for mocking an entire generation at Waterloo?
And should we expect that—to paraphrase—"anyone who shows even a hint of hidden or blatant hatred toward Americans /which they are spreading in the most disgusting way possible right now regarding topic X/ will be banned from the forum for good"?

I'm just trying to figure out if we're actually being consistent with the level of discourse we're supposed to be maintaining here.

lonebadger6 said:It’s all part of your broader body of work, so listing out individual examples doesn't really get us anywhere.

It actually makes perfect sense, though. It’s pretty fascinating to see what exactly triggers someone to pull the "ad hominem" card. I mean, they don't just wake up one morning and decide to do that, right?

lonebadger6 said:Look, we’re talking about a long history here—warnings, deletions, minor infractions, and then those much more serious bans (you can see them all laid out in the moderation history alongside the comments).

I have to agree—we’re looking at a long history of completely inconsistent and questionable moderation here. Since you're going to talk about how "constant" this is, why don't you do me a favor and tell me exactly when I received my last warning on that thread about Canada?

lonebadger6 said:For instance:

How exactly does "Don't be a jerk" qualify as an ad hominem attack? And where do we draw the line between that and calling someone out for trolling? From what I can see, both seem to be tolerated all over this forum, including posts that... I just signed up. Where exactly is this person still throwing around insults like "pathetic trolls"? 👏 Honestly, from what I can see, certain posts using that specific slur are still up, so it doesn't seem like you have an issue with the language itself—you just have a problem with me.

lonebadger6 said:A response to a perfectly reasonable post that doesn't contain even a hint of denial regarding the crimes committed by one side or the other.

Not at all. There’s been nothing but blatant denial regarding any responsibility held by Canadian politicians for the current crisis at Alcoa—the very same Canadian leaders who were openly bragging about how they purged Americans from public enterprises, including Alcoa. https://www.facebook.com/Poskok.info...68396003255956)
This fits perfectly into that typical Canadian narrative—the idea that Americans basically forced themselves out of Boise or handed over the Midwest on a silver platter. So, even if the original post wasn't directly about the war, the question itself is totally valid. I’ll allow it, even if it drifts a bit from the main topic. No ad hominem attacks here, just facts.

lonebadger6 said:"According to the polls, Canadians are the biggest supporters of joining NATO and the EU."

And there’s my response to that claim that pluralism is thriving among Canadians. This one guy on the forum keeps trolling the thread, insisting that while Americans lack any sense of diversity in thought, Canadians are practically blooming with it. It’s honestly ridiculous, especially since he hasn't been able to name a single public figure—someone like Dezulovic over here in the States—who could actually serve as a symbol of that supposed variety. As long as he keeps pushing this narrative about Canadian plurality without being able to provide a single shred of evidence, I’m going to keep calling him out on it.

If you’re feeling frustrated by "Sarajevo-land"—which, honestly, feels like a pretty fair name for a district that completely ignored the Dayton Agreement by failing to include even one token representative from our community in the local government—then you're not alone. It just goes to show how much of a lack of true political pluralism there actually is in the region. And hey, I'm not attacking anyone personally here; just stating the facts.

Honestly, once you debunk the "fact" that fellow forum member lonebadger6 brought up, you really have to wonder if he even understands the implications of what he was saying. There’s no ad hominem here—just pointing out that the logic doesn't hold water.

I could see "Trokutistanska" being taken as a bit provocative or even just trolling (though it stays pretty much on track with what was originally posted). There isn't any ad hominem here.

lonebadger6 said:And so on.

"And so on" isn't even a thing.

lonebadger6 said:Basically, it’s just your textbook definition of an ad hominem attack.

I think you might want to crack open a dictionary and look up what "ad hominem" actually means before you keep going.

Also, keeping those troll posts active just to bait people into responding, only to then swoop in and lecture everyone on the "quality of the debate," would be pretty low. I’m not saying that’s actually what's happening—I really hope it isn't—but I can't entirely rule it out.

And finally, until you start hitting back with sanctions against those who play by different rules... Reported. Look, you really need to get off your high horse when it comes to the threads you follow and police. You shouldn't be acting like the morality police, lecturing everyone about the "quality of debate." We both know exactly which post you’re talking about, and we both know exactly what kind of tone was being set.

I could honestly go on about some of the stuff happening here on this forum lately, but frankly, any attempt to complain about the "quality of discussion" would just be laughable at this point.

The moderator lonebadger6 wiped my posts regarding Canada and slapped me with a warning for "constant ad hominem attacks on the topic of Canada." Since they deleted everything, I can't quote or link my own words here, so I’m asking if anyone could grab them for me? I’d love to actually walk through them and see which specific part was considered an attack—especially the one where I was responding to Adidas.

Also, I’d appreciate some clarification on what qualifies as "constant" ad hominem. Honestly, over the last few weeks, I've barely even touched this topic; you could count my posts on one hand, if not two.

:mah:

fortinbras said:Just showing some basic decency and making sense is enough to keep you from getting banned on this site.

Actually, it isn't. Just look at what happened to a user on a thread about abortion. He was incredibly polite and his arguments were actually pretty solid. He didn't even take the bait from the local clique that basically acts as the Moderator's personal guard. He still got banned. So, if you don't really know your stuff regarding a topic, it's probably better not to state your opinion so aggressively.

Linda King said:I wouldn't go that far. It's not like I haven't come across a view or two that I wouldn't fight to the death over.

You're missing the point. Nobody said anyone would die fighting for an opinion they disagree with; we're talking about fighting to the death for the right to express that opinion. Even if it was just a slip of the tongue, I need to make this correction here to keep the discussion going.

Scott Long71 said:Nah, let’s get it straight: you claim to own over 100 clubs, but your crew only actually operates in one because that’s the only crowd you can handle.

Actually, look at it this way—you bought an all-access pass to a 100-story skyscraper of a club. But once you hit the 43rd floor, the bouncers beat you up just because they don't like the color of your eyes. Then, some guy with brown eyes walks in, gets treated like royalty, and the bouncers just give him a friendly pat on the back. So you go to the owner, and he tells you to be "smarter" and try to figure out why some people get a free pass while others get roughed up. He claims his job is just to keep the peace, except on the 43rd and 44th floors, where he refuses to take responsibility for his staff's behavior and where "peace and order" don't even exist. To top it off, the bouncers on those specific floors love getting into arguments with guests out of nowhere, acting like they know everything, and then losing their minds if anyone disagrees with them. Honestly, those bouncers are part of that same problematic clientele you're talking about.

Scott Long71 said:Or maybe I'll just be smarter and try to wrap my head around why some people dodge the beatings.

I get the feeling this kind of vibe was pretty common down in the American South before the 1960s.😉

Scott Long71 said:I wouldn't say Reddit is just copying Twitter or Facebook; I think they've finally started doing what Reddit has always done—actually moderating.

What you're describing isn't actually moderation.

Scott Long71 said:The post you quoted applies to basically the whole site, except for the Politics section (and the political debates over in History).

Well, I'm most active in Politics myself.
And if we're excluding Politics and History from this debate about whether moderators are judging "truth" versus managing discussion, then we're really talking about... well, violating the site rules that the admins constantly bring up—like in those threads about ban appeals. 😉

Scott Long71 said:Do you have an issue with any of the other 100+ subreddits regarding that?

Not yet. See my point above.

@Amanda Diaz 👍

Scott Long71 said:Why did Twitter and Facebook ban Trump? Because they decided his claims were socially dangerous and harmful. At the end of the day, social media platforms actually evaluate content and take an editorial stance.

Trump would have been banned from Reddit ages ago.

This is the second ridiculous post I’ve seen from you—you're practically a candidate for "Scammer of the Year," and February isn't even over yet.

Look, let's not get carried away, but I'm genuinely trying to figure out how this post even relates to the topic at hand. Could you explain it for those of us who aren't catching your drift? The only thing I can gather is that you're pointing out how Twitter and Facebook act as gatekeepers of truth, implying that Reddit takes a similar stance. But honestly, that completely contradicts your original point 🤔

Anderson said:The moderator isn't there to play judge and jury on what's fact or fiction. Their job is just to keep the discussion civil and on track.

If that’s the case, then why do moderators like Ostric and KLCCLK keep handing out bans based on their own personal takes on what's true or false? And don't even get me started on how aggressively they've been cracking down on anything related to COVID.

Either their constant moderation is totally pointless, or the actual role of a moderator on this forum is to decide who's right and who's wrong. You can't have it both ways.

You can't do it if you don't have it.

What do you mean by "when will you care"? I care right now, which is why I’m asking for an example, since there aren't any listed here.

By my own standards, I should probably ban myself for that last sentence. Are you actually going to be consistent about that? If not, can you at least give me an example of what qualifies as "idiocy, spinning, trolling, or playing dumb"?

And honestly, seeing as I'm clearly not the only one getting handed out warnings and bans left and right (I saw another user just get banned for simply telling a female user to do exactly what she said she was going to do), I'm starting to doubt the issue is me. Not to mention there's a third person still waiting on an apology for being totally unfairly flagged and banned just for calling things what they are—your post is pretty much just a slightly lower version of that.

So, here comes the penalty for some imaginary "continuous ad hominem" attacks across multiple topics. It’s funny how much people love throwing around that term—they didn't even bother to provide a single actual example of it.

Are you really that petty? Is it just too hard to handle being called out on your lack of knowledge regarding what actually constitutes a protectorate, so you've decided to wage these little mental wars instead? It’s definitely easier than actually debating the subject. That’s clearly why posts discussing whether Canada is a protectorate get wiped, while those claiming Belarus is one stay perfectly fine. Can you see any consistency there at all?

And then there’s this "rule violation" nonsense: "Complaints about moderator actions or commenting on moderator decisions within these threads is a violation of the rules."

Can anyone give me an example of when I specifically commented on a specific moderator action? Or better yet, why don't we just update the rules to say that any mention of the site itself is forbidden on the site?

Can you actually explain how anyone is being insulted here? If I claim that her arguments—which she keeps recycling in every single post—are idiotic, I’m not attacking the person; I’m attacking the arguments themselves. And when I say "idiotic," I mean it literally. Someone lacking basic cognitive function wouldn't even be able to grasp concepts like *modus ponens* or *modus tollens*. Any post that fails to meet that absolute bare minimum of logical reasoning is, by definition, idiotic.

It's the same thing when someone tries to lecture people on Canadian abortion laws without having any clue what the actual legislation says—I don't know what else to call that besides being uneducated. Or when someone claims the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child doesn't mention rights prior to birth, even though it's explicitly stated right there in the text.

Are we really going to label it an insult to a user if someone on a science forum calls out another person for being uninformed? For instance, if they try to draw conclusions about algebraic structures without knowing what a Group, Ring, or Relation even is?

Where exactly is the trolling in this? Engaging in an argument with a forum member who took a snippet of my post, after they repeatedly insisted that I prove it to them? Doesn't it seem more like a genuine debate to you, rather than the exact opposite of trolling?

I’m giving this a 5/5. Honestly, I don’t want to be that guy pointing fingers and saying, "But wait, why wasn't he punished?" because I get it—it's impossible to catch everything, and wasting a ton of time obsessing over it isn't productive. Still, I’m bringing this up because I think there was a lapse in consistency here, and I'd rather flag it just "for the sake of future generations."

What actually bugs me more, though, is the warning issued to user Lukarak for "insulting" someone. To be perfectly blunt, I don't see the insult at all. I wasn't being overly diplomatic; I was simply calling out troll behavior. :nezna:
Maybe that specific post just got lumped in with his other comments directed at another user?

I don't really have an issue with any of the other users here—well, except for the obvious double standard being applied. My interlocutor, who actually started this whole thing :zubo:, clearly got a free pass, which explains why his latest post is full of insults directed at me (if we’re all supposed to be playing by the same rules). But honestly, my main concern is this specific post.

Can someone please point out where the actual insult is? Is telling someone they aren't capable of staying on topic considered "harassment" now?

Seriously, if you look back at that earlier post where another user baselessly accused me of making things up and lying, does nobody else see the blatant hypocrisy here?

Look, I don't care. But honestly, adding a comment to that old thread—after everything that's gone down—would be pretty helpful, just so people actually know what's going on.

Since the Google moderator is back at it again—and apparently handed out a one-day ban just for using American English ( curious: what language are we actually allowed to speak on this forum? Just asking so we can avoid any more "misunderstandings." Maybe we could start a transparent thread listing all the forbidden words along with their approved replacements. I’m eagerly awaiting the list of new vocabulary the Ministry of Truth will prescribe to replace our usual ways of describing self-harm.

Just seeing this now.

It wasn’t an ad hominem attack per se, though it definitely leaned toward being insulting. I get wanting to keep the tone civil, but wouldn't it be better to just clear out the obvious trolls from the start so we don't end up in this mess? Look at what happened today.

Bump

So, here we go again. Can the moderator lonebadger6 please point out exactly where they see an ad hominem attack? Seriously, I’m asking because I genuinely want to understand.

Also, could you show me specifically what part of my posts constitutes trolling? Especially when actual trolls are flooding the political threads, spreading blatant intolerance toward certain groups without anyone lifting a finger to stop them.

And since we’re already talking about moderation and banning people for bad behavior, can someone explain why the thread regarding the Brookings Institution was deleted?