Posts by Sophia Thomas7

quietfox384 said:Yeah, I've seen this movie before.
Instead of actually moderating the thread (or PDF discussions in general) before things spiral, a mod just swoops in, shuts everything down, and calls it a day.
It feels like they could easily handle this earlier with warnings or strikes to keep the conversation going, rather than just pulling the plug entirely.

That’s because we’ve tried that countless times already, and it’s not the first time we've hit this exact same wall every few months.

neonfox12 said:This thread was shut down for good reason. It’s been nothing but constant bickering and trolling for months now. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother reopening this thing in its current state; there’s zero point when people are just using the space to take cheap shots at anyone posting an ad or—heaven forbid—anyone who dares to think outside the box. It’s reached a point where certain clones are treating these discussions like their own personal holy wars.

Exactly. Once a thread turns into nothing more than people bickering over each other instead of actually discussing the topic, it loses its whole purpose. I'm going to lock this down for now, and we can revisit it later.

After touching base with the admin, those disputed posts have been removed.

On another note, the mods have decided that this community doesn't need someone with your specific way of communicating—especially when you're being so blunt about hiding an HIV diagnosis from women for whatever reasons you claim.

You’ll be eligible to request an appeal in six months.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

In the middle of this debate where guys are claiming that any decent, respectful man couldn't possibly go that hard in bed—which, by the way, a user pointed out was just a vulgar way to frame things—it basically implies that only the bottom-of-the-barrel types can actually perform. And let’s be honest, society usually labels those guys as nothing more than low-class thugs. These posts aren't exactly high literature, either.

It’s not just about what’s on the screen; you have to look at the context behind it.

briskbison55 said:It’s honestly such a letdown compared to the first one... I mean, Colin Firth is barely even in it, and instead we get this Swedish princess who just feels totally pointless to the plot, I guess.

Plus, you've got a main villain who’s totally forgettable, an overbearing and unnecessary cameo by Elton John, some character deaths that feel completely hollow, and a total waste of the Statesmen cast.

bluecyclist64 said:I’m pretty sure those same rules apply to you when it comes to making things look stupid, don't you think?
Look, just because you hold a moderator title doesn't mean you're some kind of supreme authority on jokes. You aren't a supermod or an admin, so you really don't have much say in this particular area.

Not bad, you didn't either.

bluecyclist64 said:It’s pretty wild when someone goes out of their way to tell you you're trash, claim your mother is trash, and then concludes that it's no surprise that trash produced more trash.
Is that supposed to be funny?
Would it actually kill you to see some heavy-handed censorship—which, let's be honest, is exactly how this forum is run according to the rules—where that post gets nuked and the idiot who wrote it gets banned?

So, we’re all in agreement that there’s absolutely no distinction between a personal insult and a joke. Bravo. 👍

Nicole Johnson20 said:Honestly, I was just about to point out that while that one joke about a Mexican on a tree and a rapist is definitely bottom-of-the-barrel, this other one isn't quite in that same gutter. I don't get how people can miss the distinction and then act all high and mighty, as if we shouldn't be the ones deciding what counts as a joke. It’s like they think if you remove that specific level of trashy humor, it’s somehow leading to the censorship of all jokes and dark comedy.

But who actually gets to decide which category a joke falls into? 🍿

bluecyclist64 said:Hold on a second—are you actually trying to tell this as a joke?

I’ve heard it before, but personally, I don't find it funny at all. It's pretty weak. Then again, some people seem to get a kick out of it. So, what are we supposed to do about that?

Nicole Johnson20 said:No, I’m not playing dumb—I just don't follow the logic. You mentioned in your quote that something doesn't belong in Politics but fits in Jokes, so my question follows right from that.

Alright, let me clarify.

I totally get why a joke about Roma wouldn't fly in an American politics forum, since it could unnecessarily stir up tension on certain topics. But I don't see any reason to scrub that same joke from a Jokes sub, which—by its very nature—has to allow for dark humor.

Censoring humor, no matter how bad it is, is basically the gateway to full-blown censorship. Once you start, you'll inevitably end up in a loop where someone is demanding we delete jokes about blondes, Canadians, or whatever else.

Nicole Johnson20 said:So, if I’m following this correctly—say some guy on the forum gets under my skin, and I go over to the Politics board and write "that guy is an idiot," I get banned. But then I hop over to the Humor board and type "that guy is an idiot, lol, hahaha, ha!" and suddenly I'm safe because it's in the jokes section? Surely the moderators aren't supposed to be the ones deciding what counts as a joke; we can't just have them censoring humor like that.

I'm just asking for clarification so I know how things work. It's good to be clear.

We're talking about the specific forum where the thread actually lives, so let's not play dumb here. I'm not even going to dignify the rest of this nonsense with a response.

Right, so apparently we expect the moderators to play judge and jury on what qualifies as a joke. Great. This is definitely not the start of censorship at all. 👍

Nicole Johnson20 said:Like someone already pointed out, there's nothing funny about this. It isn't a joke.
(I actually mentioned in my opening post that some of the jokes there are pretty cute and harmless; I only started this thread because of that one specific quote—and maybe one or two others—that felt just plain ignorant).

Says who? I’ve heard the exact same kind of stuff used against Black people. So what?

Jamie Davis9 said:None of the jokes you just listed actually hit the mark of saying it takes a Gypsy nine months to haul out the trash.
But hey, moving on from that.
The real issue goes a bit deeper than what your average forum user finds funny. And frankly, it isn't even funny.
Think about it this way: if someone literally took a photo of themselves taking a dump, posted it, and drew an arrow pointing to a sign that said 'Moderator,' 'American,' 'Jew,' or 'Rom'... just because they thought it was hilarious—is that actually the kind of content this forum is supposed to support just because it’s under a 'jokes' thread?
I think that’s the core question we need to address here.

So, what, the moderators get to decide what counts as a joke and what doesn't?

I see no way that ends well. 😁

Nicole Johnson20 said:Don't you think that if the rules aren't applied consistently across the board, someone might just use "humor" as a loophole to get away with things that should actually be banned for good reason?

If we follow that logic, we’d have to ban all those tired jokes about blondes or Canadians too. And—presto!—we've accidentally stumbled right into censorship.

bluecyclist64 said:That’s not even a joke; it’s just some total moron trying way too hard to act clever.

So, let me get this straight—we're starting an entire thread because of some questionable joke from 2006?

Jamie Davis9 said:It really just boils down to smart moderation and whether the mods can actually tell the difference between actual content and pure spam. That's all there is to it.
.

Great. This thread has been around for over a decade. Are you seriously going to point out which specific posts from this past year were even remotely problematic? This whole thing is a textbook example of Special Wanking—literally just two jokes between 2015 and today, and now suddenly, "Oh, OP, let's just shut the thread down."

Nicole Johnson20 said:Wait, how is banning dark humor even considered censorship, when stuff like that is already strictly off-limits in places like politics?

Look, there's a massive difference between A) actual politics and B) just dark humor. I get that some jokes aren't fit for a formal political debate, but claiming that banning a joke about Romani people constitutes censorship is a stretch.

If you start pulling that thread, you’ll eventually have to ban everything else that might offend someone.

Getting rid of dark humor is just the first step toward full-blown censorship. Once you start banning certain jokes, you'll eventually find yourself having to police everything else too.

placidorca16 said:Oh, really? So calling someone a feminist is "ideological," but labeling them patriarchal isn't? Nice logic there, genius!

Look, unlike you, the actual user didn't say any of that. You just twisted their words and slapped a "patriarchal" label on them, which totally misses the point of the discussion.

The mods are free to ban you or whatever they see fit—I’m staying out of it.

placidorca16 said:Can I actually get an official answer to what I asked the authorities, or is that just wishful thinking?

Well, here's hoping they actually get back to you. In the meantime, feel free to keep flooding the feed with those ideological rants of yours. 😁

placidorca16 said:Are we back to the cardboard thing again?🙄 Seriously, where on earth did I even mention cardboard?😕 My entire point was about your "brilliant" comment. It’s right there in the thread title! Are you actually having trouble distinguishing between the two? If you were being consistent, why didn't you just call his post "brilliant" too and close the thread then, since it's the exact same content just under a different label? Why is it that calling a man "patriarchal" is considered just an ironic "brilliant" remark, while calling a woman a "feminist" isn't treated the same way?😕 Both comments were made "because of the thread posts." And what does it matter if mine was the last one? Does the first person always get a free pass?😁

Since you clearly can't give me a straight answer, I’m asking the moderators to step in and review this once more!

You claimed I didn't sanction that specific post. As for everything else, if his post had been the most recent one instead of yours, he would have faced the exact same outcome. Yours happened after a string of similar "brilliant" remarks.

Generally speaking, Apple was right in what they wrote. Your posts are heavily colored by ideology, and this isn't the first time you've taken this tone. In fact, even the senior mod team has issued a warning to you before.