Posts by Sophia Thomas7

graniteridge6 said:I’m not questioning why there's a thread; I’m asking why someone’s getting a ban for it.

The site rules state:
"- do not "bump" old threads regarding anyone's specific, personal issues."

In most cases, the post just gets deleted so the thread sinks back down. If someone keeps bumping it, they get a strike.

The full Bridges backstory, from the coyotes to the song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUU48irmwtQ

😬

Terry Rodriguez41 said:What a letdown... I was actually looking forward to this one because I thought it might make for some fun trashy cinema, but I honestly had to turn it off after about thirty minutes.
If you're looking for something to watch, I'd suggest Sharktopus instead; that's actually pretty decent entertainment.😁

acting in a movie:



You honestly have to give this one a perfect 10/10. It’s an absolute spectacle like nothing else out there. Plus, they're already working on a sequel. 😁😁

Top comment on Rotten Tomatoes: "I'm actually looking forward to Squidnami and Piranha vs Volcano."

nimbleharbor10 said:I still don't grasp why everyone is losing their minds over this proposal. I’m talking about having two or three different ways to sort posts. Right now, we only have a chronological feed. You can track a conversation that way, sure—but look at how messy it gets. George told Peter he was being an idiot, then Peter snapped back with a comment about his feet smelling, followed by Jane jumping in to reply to something buried ten pages ago, and then George ends up cursing out Peter again...

The glaring flaw in our current system is that there isn't a way to handle "esquelle-style" replies effectively. If you quote a lengthy post just to say, "I agree, this is great," you end up creating a massive wall of text that serves no purpose. Having better sorting options would be incredibly useful in the politics section, where discussions constantly drift off course or devolve into petty bickering about things completely unrelated to the original topic. For instance, on a thread about doctors leaving the US, you might get some guy under a handle like "Zionist USA" who stubbornly insists that doctors are somehow more important than any other profession. That has nothing to do with the actual topic. But because he’s being provocative, people lash out at him, he snaps back, and it becomes a cycle. All that nonsense isn't worth reading, yet when everything is sorted strictly by time, it clutters the thread and kills any meaningful debate.

If people like the chronological view, they can keep using it. However, some users would probably prefer to sort by upvotes or downvotes. We could simply add a "Sort" dropdown menu next to the "Time" option, featuring "Plus" and "Minus." Wouldn't that be progress? Just a simple sort menu and two small icons: a blue plus and a red minus.

Let's look at it this way. This guy gets hit with ten dislikes per post. You really think people aren't going to read what he writes? If you set the filter to only show positive posts, things would get incredibly messy. You’d end up skipping over certain replies entirely, losing the context of how a conversation evolved, and you might miss some key info needed for the debate itself.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Let’s be real—Reddit is basically just here to stare at some hot girls. 🎉

4chan all the way. 😬

slynomad14 said:Do you seriously believe that clicking a little like button is going to improve the quality of any conversation?

🙏

Stick to Facebook, kid.

Otherwise, we’d just be shouting at each other, "Peter is right because he has 10 likes, but Mike only has 5!"😬

northerncyclist2 said:I mean, definitely not. That whole part of the proposal is just kind of silly, I guess. ☕

Also, what kind of cookie is a dropdown menu?

How can we be sure it’s stupid? Your own post implies a script like that actually exists.

A dropdown menu is a dropdown menu.

northerncyclist2 said:I think there’s actually a vBulletin script out there for that, and I can tell you from experience it works pretty smoothly. Plus, it won't break the bank, which is nice. But...

...we're talking about Reddit here 😁

And naturally, that script just pushes posts with tons of upvotes right to the top, just like the intro promised? Yeah, sounds absolutely brilliant.

Alex Barnes8 said:Even if placidorca16 happens to be aggressive, so what?
I guess why would aggression even be an issue within feminism?
Why is that such a bad thing to you people?

Given the kind of scum feminists have had to deal with, maybe they’re actually being too soft.

How exactly would you fight for your own rights, or anyone else's?
Just acting nonchalant, relaxed, and stress-free? 😁

I’m still trying to figure out which specific rights of "yours" have actually been violated on this forum. I haven't quite caught on yet.

placidorca16 said:It doesn't show in that specific quote—it shows up later. Why does everything have to be spelled out instantly? Is there some unwritten rule about the exact order people have to present their thoughts on screen? Or is that logic reserved exclusively for (certain) women?😁

Just asking because I'm curious.

I already answered you, but honestly, that question feels a bit pretentious.

With that extra explanation added, it’s pretty obvious to me—just looking at this from the outside—that it feels like a cheap way to twist the narrative.

placidorca16 said:It doesn't show in that specific quote—it shows up later. Why does everything have to be spelled out instantly? Is there some unwritten rule about the exact order people have to present their thoughts on screen? Or is that logic reserved exclusively for (certain) women?😁

Just asking because I'm curious.

I already answered you, but honestly, that question feels a bit pretentious.

Honestly, that whole little backtrack of yours felt incredibly pretentious. Anyway, have a good one.

placidorca16 said:Look, I clearly stated that women generally possess more abilities than men. Being able to give birth is an ability—that’s just a fact. Or do you and your little crew think it isn't? What exactly am I "claiming" I didn't say? 😕 Don't try to put words in my mouth that I never uttered or even thought.

Feel free to point out where I actually mentioned anything about a 'conspiracy.'

You didn't say it, but why on earth are you interrogating me about why I edited my original post? As if editing isn't allowed—as if a person can't make a typo and fix it, like everyone else does. Why even ask if it matters to you?😕 Why would that even matter to you in the first place?

Where exactly in that quote does it look like you were talking about having kids?

placidorca16 said:Look, I clearly stated that women generally possess more abilities than men. Being able to give birth is an ability—that’s just a fact. Or do you and your little crew think it isn't? What exactly am I "claiming" I didn't say? 😕 Don't try to put words in my mouth that I never uttered or even thought.

Feel free to point out where I actually mentioned anything about a 'conspiracy.'

You didn't say it, but why on earth are you interrogating me about why I edited my original post? As if editing isn't allowed—as if a person can't make a typo and fix it, like everyone else does. Why even ask if it matters to you?😕 Why would that even matter to you in the first place?

Look, I'm just asking because I'm curious.

placidorca16 said:Fine, if you and your little "reach" squad want to claim that:🤷 🙄 Good luck turning blatant facts into a joke...

The post was made on August 6, 2013, at 9:07 AM—last edited by placidorca16: 08/06/2013 at 9:29 AM.

🙂

And your point is?🤷 I spotted a typo—literally just a misspelled word—and fixed it twenty minutes later. Is that against the rules now, or are we calling it some kind of "feminist conspiracy"?😕

Which exact "undeniable facts" are we talking about here? Someone quoted what you actually wrote, and they had a pretty good reason for doing so. Now you're claiming you didn't mean what you said, but were just thinking something else entirely.

placidorca16 said:Fine, if you and your little "reach" squad want to claim that:🤷 🙄 Good luck turning blatant facts into a joke...

The post was made on August 6, 2013, at 9:07 AM—last edited by placidorca16: 08/06/2013 at 9:29 AM.

🙂

And your point is?🤷 I spotted a typo—literally just a misspelled word—and fixed it twenty minutes later. Is that against the rules now, or are we calling it some kind of "feminist conspiracy"?😕

By all means, point out exactly where I ever mentioned a "conspiracy."

placidorca16 said:So, in your world, is saying women have unique biological capabilities—like giving birth, which is a fact—just as wrong as claiming women aren't as intelligent as men? Because one's true and the other's a lie.😲

I see your original post has been edited a bit; looks pretty polished now.

I haven't actually "edited" anything since I started this thread—there was just a minor technical glitch right at the start that I had to fix immediately. Nothing major.

Once again, I'm going to say it, and I’ll be quoting someone directly this time:

I honestly don't know how people can live like this. It’s genuinely baffling. You look at what’s happening, you see the direction everything is heading, and you just have to wonder if anyone is actually paying attention. It feels like we're all just sleepwalking into a mess that nobody wants to take responsibility for. It’s one thing to disagree on certain ideas, but it's another thing entirely to watch the foundations of our society get chipped away while everyone pretends nothing is wrong. I’m sitting here trying to make sense of it all, and frankly, I’m coming up empty. It’s exhausting.

It’s nowhere to be found in the text—it doesn't mention anything about having kids. You're basically doing the exact same thing. 🙂 Nah, that was a total fluke. 😬

placidorca16 said:So, in your world, is saying women have unique biological capabilities—like giving birth, which is a fact—just as wrong as claiming women aren't as intelligent as men? Because one's true and the other's a lie.😲

I see your original post has been edited a bit; looks pretty polished now.

I haven't actually "edited" anything since I started this thread—there was just a minor technical glitch right at the start that I had to fix immediately. Nothing major.

Joined on August 6, 2013, at 9:07 AM. Last edited by placidorca16 on August 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM.

🙂

placidorca16 said:And what am I supposed to say to that? If it isn't obvious to you or Michelle Alvarez8, then that’s on you... Why would I bother worrying about it?

Why did you edit your opening post? 🍿

What opening post?

It's because you're acting just like everyone else in this thread. You're doing the exact same thing.

placidorca16 said:And what am I supposed to say to that? If it isn't obvious to you or Michelle Alvarez8, then that’s on you... Why would I bother worrying about it?

Why did you edit your opening post? 🍿

What opening post?

Well, looking at your opening post, it seems pretty well-written and polished enough to me.

placidorca16 said:That’s not even the same thing—easy to argue when you look at it that way. Women give birth, men don't. So, I guess that makes it an "ability"—more, not less, than men. Men can't even be compared to women in that department. The fact that women have the ability to reproduce is pretty much obvious to everyone.

On the flip side, this thread is all about claiming women have "lower" intelligence or other abilities compared to men—some users call these "facts," though they aren't facts at all because they just aren't true. Any differences found in intelligence aren't statistically significant, and there's actually a tiny spread for men in both the positive and negative directions. Basically, if there are smarter men out there, there are just as many idiots out there too... but hey, that's not "significant." Also, there’s more variation in intelligence within each gender group than there is between them, but nobody ever mentions that as being important, even though it actually is.
Then there's the whole thing about how women get belittled at every turn in these posts—which seems to be considered "normal" on this forum—but unfortunately, it just highlights one other reality: the kind of sexist society we live in.

Your post doesn't make that obvious at all. If I'm being blunt—it feels like a cheap reach because you felt called out.

Why did you go back and edit your original post? 🍿

placidorca16 said:So, in your book, comparing women to being inferior, less intelligent, or less capable than men is perfectly fine?😲🙄

As for that link—I have to wonder what kind of "scientific" site provides interpretations without citing the actual original sources. It's all just guesswork at that point.

Nice little edit there.

But what about that point Michelle Alvarez8 made—about whether you're actually doing the exact same thing? 😬

Alex Barnes8 said:That kind of terminology is pretty much off-limits now.

Not everything falls under the FBI's jurisdiction.

No.
I guess even the police aren't the only ones who can label things.
There are all those various associations, organizations, and media outlets too.

It was the same deal with religion.
An article once popped up about how believers were treated on a major US forum.
You might dismiss a specific news outlet, but if it hits one mainstream source, it eventually finds its way to another.

I was just reading in the New York Post that a whole group of people actually got hauled off by the cops because they used that word.

Amanda Diaz said:Why on earth don't you just report all of this to the police, get a subpoena for those IP addresses, and watch the people breaking the law and the Constitution end up behind bars?🤷

Or are you just afraid that the people actually in charge will laugh at the whole thing, just like I am right now?

If things like this were actually taken seriously, pretty much every online forum would be wiped out in a scorched-earth kind of way.

northernpilot2 said:Maybe check the Reddit settings on your phone? There should be an option to toggle notifications for new updates. I actually disabled mine ages ago—I much prefer just manually updating whenever I feel like it rather than being nagged by pop-ups.

The API for the forum is an older version, not the mobile client itself.