Gerald Rivera17 said:I’m seeing this for the first time, but I find it hard to believe that's actually the reason 😉
That's exactly why several forum members have already been banned for it, and if I recall correctly, there were even a few warnings issued to stop spreading that stuff...
David Vaughn75 said:Gerald Rivera17 is just falling for the media trash being served up to them.
Half-baked info from sites like CNN or Fox News triggers mass hysteria, and that's genuinely dangerous...
Plenty of people are. Personally, I think news from outlets like those should be banned everywhere except on Alternative or Edge of Science. It isn't about their political leanings, but rather the fact that they're quite literally publishing targeted half-truths, and more often than not, blatant lies or total nonsense... Blocking insanity isn't censorship. It's no different than how "censorship" would be described if you weren't allowed to discuss curing cancer by staring at the sun on a medical forum.
Back when this was being discussed last time, things were relatively calm both here and globally, but now you can see the kind of damage these media monsters can inflict. Not that other news outlets are some paragon of objectivity, but this is a whole different breed—sites that openly, if subtly, incite hatred and stir the pot... and not just when it comes to immigrants.
Nobody actually gets what’s going on here, and honestly, I have no clue why there wasn't a penalty for opening a third thread right after two others were locked...
I’m basically throwing my hat in the ring to be the first moderator to get a strike just for commenting on how the moderation is being handled 😁
1. Mods and super mods don't have access to your private messages
2. Now, admins in theory (if they really put their minds to it and waste enough of their lives) can see them, just like on any other forum on the internet
3. But the likelihood of that actually happening is exactly zero, much like on any reputable site out there, though whether you should be losing sleep over it is a different story altogether 🙂
It isn't even about "celebrating" per se... it's about marking the moment we were liberated from fascist occupiers. Even if you look at how the Allies committed massive atrocities during and after WW2, everyone still knows exactly who was on the side of good, and those later crimes don't just erase their cause... We certainly committed our own crimes during the American Civil War, but that doesn't change the fact that we were the righteous side fighting against an aggressor... The same logic applies to the liberation of Washington, D.C. seventy years ago, just as clearly as it applies to the liberation of Little Rock in 1995.
If your whole philosophical stance is that all wars are inherently evil and everyone commits atrocities—meaning no liberation should ever be celebrated—then fine, I guess... but I highly doubt that's actually what you're getting at.
Private messages aren't meant for public consumption, nor should their contents be used in any public correspondence whatsoever. Even standard private messages shouldn't really be passed around privately, though there isn't much anyone can do to police that... and that goes for every user on this board, not just the mods.
The thing is, there's a distinction to be made—private messages still have to follow the rules regarding decent communication, just like public posts, which means they're subject to the same penalties. So if you're using a PM to insult someone, make threats, spam, or push ads... any user, whether they're a mod or just a regular member, can report that message via the flag icon just like a public post, and then it hits the moderators' queue for review.
But when it comes to a normal conversation, there's no way for anyone to control whether Peter secretly sent something to Mark (unless Mark decides to blab)... I can tell you that I've never forwarded a normal message in my life, and I haven't seen any other moderator do it either.
There were plenty of warnings beforehand, and honestly, those people posting today were being pretty clever by adding little disclaimers like, "well, I don't think this is allowed, but here goes..." The thread is open, and the basic rules are already laid out...
Just a heads-up, posting links to profiles or photos is strictly against the rules here, so if you spot someone breaking that, feel free to report them... though I should clarify that having a Facebook page is a different story entirely. Sharing status updates about the show is fine, as long as there isn't a link attached to it.
You’ve been warned a billion times already about posting links to other people's Facebook profiles or, for instance, ripping photos straight from someone else's Facebook page. Whether you actually agree with the rule or not is pretty much irrelevant at this point... multiple moderators have already made it clear that it's against the rules, and since a few of you decided to ignore that and break them anyway, the conversation is over.
As for whatever people are saying about the show on the official Facebook page—feel free to comment to your heart's content there.
Honestly, here's my two cents... when it comes to discussions about the Holocaust Memorial, we really ought to be just as strict—if not stricter—about punishing those who claim 700,000 people were killed as we are about those peddling lines about "only 460 bodies found" or claiming it was just a labor camp where a few folks died from sickness or were picked off for being political enemies. In a functioning democracy, certain truths shouldn't be up for debate or subject to conspiracy theories, because once you're dealing with pure EVIL, you don't get to play semantics... Not that any decent forum would ever tolerate such nonsense regarding the Holocaust Memorial. Well, except for Stormfront, I guess.
Actually, I’d go even further and penalize the claims of 700,000 deaths too, since inflating numbers is just as disrespectful to the victims and uses their suffering to push a separate agenda...
Hey there. Honestly, Northern Exposure is one of my all-time favorites, though that final season was easily one of the most disappointing things I've ever seen... Then again, I probably would’ve sat through the whole thing regardless if someone had warned me beforehand. It’s a total lose-lose situation 😁
granitefalcon26 said:What counts as trash? Maybe The New York Times is garbage to you, but to me, the real trash was those old state-run propaganda rags like the Los Angeles Times or PBS... ☕ You’re trying to sneak censorship through the back door here, acting like your opinion—and the opinions of everyone who agrees with you—should be the only one that matters... ☕This forum is democratic, and that little power trip isn't going to fly...
People could make that exact same "argument" if they were pushing colloidal silver as a cancer cure or claiming the Earth is flat. You can find plenty of stuff about lizard people and similar nonsense right there on The New York Times... And they get "censored" too, apparently, because they aren't allowed to start threads on the FBI boards about living on a flat plane or how staring at the sun cures everything... Basically, it's not even an actual argument... Most people crying about censorship don't even understand what the word means...
Anyway, as far as I know, this isn't a debate floor, it's a suggestion box... Bjesomar made a suggestion, some people liked it, some didn't, the admins will have their say—which they basically already did—and that's that...
Adam Morales45 said:So, you’re clearly the ultimate authority on our common sense and emotional maturity... 🙄 We should probably just follow your lead on what to read on the Internet since you're such a genius at figuring out exactly what we need to know 🤣
Thanks, take care of yourself. 🥱
btw,
Discussing colloidal silver over in the Alternative subforum isn't censored. 😬
1. Talking about colloidal silver in the Alternative section really isn't censored, but nobody actually said it was... "Censorship" is an issue in the HEALTH subforum 😉 And I never suggested The New York Times should be banned from the entire site, just that everything needs its proper place—much like colloidal silver, given they share the same level of credibility 🙂
2. As for your common sense or emotional development, I couldn't care less... You're an adult, and you were raised however you were raised.
Dorian—I think there's a massive difference between saying: "This is garbage, pure garbage." and... "There is some garbage here."
It's kind of like looking at a neglected field overgrown with weeds and saying, "Look, there's weeds everywhere" 🙂
Anyway, I get the general logic behind the rest of this...
If we briefly ignore the fact that Adam Morales45, lonebadger6, Matthew Young35, and the rest aren't actual people but just digital handles—making it pretty hard to call anything on a private forum "censorship" in the first place... it's still not censorship, but rather (if you ask me) just putting people in their place. Sure, you could argue that banning someone from pitching liquid silver as a cure for cancer in a thread about oncology is censorship, but... those are just the rules.
And yeah, everything is yellowed and decaying, and the media landscape today is generally a total disaster, but grouping the New York Post in with them is honestly an insult to anyone with a functioning brain. It’s right up there with claiming the Earth is a flat plane...
Look, every subforum has its own set of rules and those definitions can be pretty blurry, but yeah, I'm with you on this one. I honestly think the New York Post should just be relegated to the "alternative" theory sections under Health, Natural Science, or World News. I haven't been browsing much lately, so I'm not sure if "Close Politics" is still a more laid-back corner of the site... maybe they could allow it there, but ban it from any of the serious political discussions. Dropping a link to the New York Post during a heavy debate is basically the digital equivalent of telling a cancer patient to just drink colloidal silver or go bask in the sun, or maybe just rambling about how the Earth is flat. A mountain of nonsense like that hasn't quite hit the mainstream American media scene yet, so it wouldn't be out of line to treat it like the other ridiculous theories mentioned above, just to keep everything in its proper place... maybe you'll actually do the community a favor by doing so.
There shouldn't be any room here for playing favorites with one side or the other...
I see some clone account from Mexico constantly popping up on ZK, trying to spin stories about how evil Americans are. So, I figured I'd use that as an example...
It’s perfectly standard for the admins to shut down a thread titled "Operation Storm — Liberation or Genocide" immediately.
But if they actually let it stay open, it would be insane to ban someone just for calling it genocide, which is why they won't allow the discussion in the first place.
It’s the same deal with Politics—if the administration thinks there's no place for claims that abortion is murder, then they should just ban or close those topics entirely. But if they've already allowed the abortion debate on Politics, then it’s honestly nonsensical to delete or flag posts from just one side of the argument...
northerntiger said:@lonebadger6 You basically just answered your own question about whether debating abortion itself even makes sense here—especially on a thread focused on something like conscience clauses. Plus, if there’s a specific PDF meant for those kinds of deep dives, we should probably stick to that. We aren't even supposed to touch historical stuff on the Politics board, so no use complaining. Just head over to History instead. 🙂
The typical lifestyle crowd is doing their usual thing, playing the victim and whining that they aren't being allowed to voice their opinions. Honestly, what they have to say doesn't carry much weight on the Religion board anyway, and they could easily take it to the ZK. But no, they’re dead set on staying in Politics. If they don't get their way, they start acting like democracy is broken.
It’s starting to feel like a certain kind of fanaticism—just this obsessive behavior that gets exhausting really fast. Both for people trying to read the threads and for those of us moderating them.
Sorry, just seeing this now...
Personally, I don't see any issue with a politics ban abortion debate on the Politics board...
My issue is when you allow the debate to happen, but then silence one side or hand out bans for saying exactly what their entire platform is built on. That's just messy, and those bans feel pretty unfair...
If a thread gets locked, fine. There's usually a reason for it. But letting a thread stay open only to penalize someone for expressing their core argument... that's just nonsense...
northerntiger said:Look, mods aren't trying to start endless, pointless fights; they just want a decent conversation. You can't have a real discussion if one side is busy calling the other a murderer just because they support legal medical procedures here in the States.
What you're constantly hunting for is basically like someone starting a thread on a political sub supposed to be about policy, but instead, they just go off on how all Catholics are killers because the Church is against condoms, and therefore people die from AIDS. They'll find plenty of links, studies, and articles to back it up—because let's face it, you can find a "study" to support almost anything. Then, once the mods shut the thread down or give them a warning, they come crawling back here whining about how democracy is dead.
It's pretty simple: we either have total anarchy with zero moderation, or we follow the forum's rules. Personally, I think the admins have way more patience for this group of slackers than they should, for real.
Well, now this is a topic actually worth debating. Should we allow a thread in Politics that challenges—and usually does so in a pretty blunt, "murderous" way—something that is perfectly legal in America? Personally, I’d say go for it; that’s what these forums are for, but hey, if the mods don't want it here, that's their call...
And the second part is still just a perfect example of my point—if that's the case, then why not just ban the politics abortion debate entirely and keep it strictly in the Religion section...
This is just nonsense—saying "you can talk about abortion in Politics, but one side isn't allowed to state the core of their belief." I don't know how people don't get it. You either decide "it's legal, period, no debates in Politics," or you pretend to allow a "discussion" while effectively silencing the pro-life side from making their fundamental argument. For God's sake, their name literally tells you what their main argument is...
slywolf45 said:Come on, let’s not deal with these half-baked arguments. If you’re going to be that extreme, it would actually be more honest to just advocate for the right to openly call abortion murder and label the women and doctors involved as murderers. At least then we'd be playing with a full deck.
What you just wrote is frankly insulting to anyone's intelligence. It’s basic logic: if you define an act as murder, then by definition, anyone performing that act is a murderer. It's not some deep mystery; it's just how language works.
But let's be clear: he didn't explicitly call women who have abortions murderers; he simply stated that abortion is murder.
🙄 🙄 🙄
Exactly. If I need to spell it out again, I'm pro-choice, and personally, I find most majority pro-life arguments pretty stupid, and they usually just irritate me...
But the whole damn foundation of the pro-life side is that abortion is murder. That's why they're against it . And what actually insults your intelligence—using your own term from earlier—is how nonsensical and hypocritical it is to allow the politics abortion debate on this sub, yet forbid anyone from actually calling it murder. What else is there to discuss? That's the entire point... 99.99% of pro-lifers oppose abortion because they see it as murder.
northerntiger said:Some people don't actually want a discussion; they just show up to preach at everyone else using all sorts of shady, unscientific stuff (basically just religious claims). So, I think the moderator made the right call here. It was the only way to go. Honestly, though, I’m a bit confused why this thread is even still live, considering we basically just moved a banned debate from the original PDF over here.
There it is. We probably feel the same way about abortion, but in my view, the moderator's decision is the only wrong one. The only bad one...
They can ban the politics abortion debate on this sub. They can open it up to both sides.
Either choice is their business, and I support both options...
This part is just completely senseless.
It's like saying you can talk about abortion, but one side isn't allowed to mention their main—often their only—objection. 😁