Posts by Daniel Davis40

Look, ppdf is fringe science—and I shouldn't even have to explain what that entails. Economics is a legitimate science, but proposing alternative ways to organize society falls into that "fringe" category (just like discussing various hypothetical scenarios regarding the Old West in history or archaeology classes).

Even the actual fringe science broadcast that this entire ppdf thread builds upon had an episode dedicated to alternative currencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvR0...LqKz6QZYU-kxqy. Now, obviously, it’s not the exact same thing—but it serves as the perfect example of an economic topic being treated as an alternative, which proves the OP was actually being original here.

In my view, Enid opened an incredibly creative and intelligent discussion topic. It sits right on that edge because it offers an alternative to our current economic structure—even if mainstream media loves to debate it, and you can find real-world policy examples like basic pensions in Australia—but it isn't just some recycled, over-discussed cliché; it’s something fresh in the realm of alternatives.

Not only that, but the topic was kicked off by proposing a fascinating scientific experiment—one that unfortunately wasn't fully carried out, so nothing has been proven yet—which keeps it firmly in the realm of alternative theory.

Unfortunately, the moderator—the one everyone keeps complaining about—completely failed to recognize this. She seemed genuinely baffled as to how this topic relates to ppdf, and then she just locks the thread and shuts down the conversation??? Seriously, why?

To be perfectly honest, after Administrator Nice backed that same moderator's claim—where she insisted that if I wanted to share what kind of water I drink as part of my raw food diet with my fellow enthusiasts, I shouldn't post it in the Raw Food thread, but instead go to the Living Water thread (???, involving some nonsense about water particles becoming "happy" if you tell them you love them) or the Water Filters thread (???? which I don't even use)—I really shouldn't expect this genuinely good thread to stay open. When mistakes pile up like this, leadership tends to hide them rather than admit them. I just wanted to point out yet another instance in a sea of bad moderation destroying ppdf through sheer incompetence! And besides—as other members have realized recently—this whole Amtrak institute has no merit whatsoever.

Michelle Robinson said:Look, if these things are off-topic, just take them to the DMs. For everything else, there is the report button. According to the staff roster, there are two other moderators besides me monitoring threads and reports—and if even one of us decides an intervention is necessary, it’ll happen.

Why on earth would I waste my time clicking report buttons for what is clearly a perfectly normal discussion? You seem to have gotten the impression from my posts that I started this thread because I can't handle being insulted by other users—is that why you gave me this response?

You know what? After receiving a reply like yours—especially after you baselessly claimed I was acting stupid—I am starting to think you are actually pretending to be slow. At least, that is what I'd prefer to believe.

Michelle Robinson said:That's exactly why this stuff should be handled via private message. There’s a report button for everything else. Aside from me, there are two other mods watching these threads and the reports—if even one of us decides an intervention is necessary, then it happens.

And that is precisely where the issue lies—nobody has ever behaved this poorly toward specific members like you. Sure, there are two other moderators, but if that were the case, why aren't they scrubbing dozens of posts every single day? Instead, they actually participate in discussions they understand, which is how things should work.

I have never once seen them delete posts without any basis, nor have they ever told us to stop participating on the forum.

I’d also like an explanation—ideally from someone actually capable of being objective—as to why a post where someone simply wrote:

"Ibrahime, your incompetence has just escalated to unprecedented levels."

isn't considered an insult,

yet when I write something significantly milder—suggesting the person clearly graduated from a small town in rural America (after they claimed to have an agronomy degree, only to later insist that only three specific plants contain amino acids while all others do not)

- here is the link to the original thread (since the post was deleted)

- is my post considered an insult that needs to be scrubbed from the site?

Give me my post back!!

And get that moderator off the team!!!

Are posts seriously getting deleted just because someone asks if a user took offense at something I wrote? Is that the new rule for "off-topic" content now? Or is this just some convenient excuse to dodge the fact that nobody was actually insulted—and my post wasn't an insult worthy of being scrubbed in the first place?

You still haven't given me a straight answer as to why those other posts—the ones you specifically pointed out—weren't flagged as offensive or scrubbed from the board.

Here are a few more—I just pulled up some tabs at random and, honestly, look what popped up first:

So, both posts are being cited—both by Rorion and by Nation.

I can't believe we're still having this exact same argument—it’s exhausting. It feels like every time a topic like this comes up, we circle back to the same tired justifications, and frankly, I’m over it. Some people seem to have a vested interest in clinging to these outdated ideas, acting as if they’re some kind of moral high ground, when in reality, it's just pure, unadulterated stubbornness. And then you have users like Robert Rodriguez9, who seems to think that ignoring the obvious facts somehow makes their argument stronger. It doesn't. It just makes it look desperate. You can't just wish away the reality of how things work in America by shouting louder—it’s not going to happen. We need to stop pretending that these half-baked theories hold any weight. If we actually want to move forward, we need to address the core issues instead of dancing around them with these pathetic excuses. It’s time to grow up and face the music.

I can keep going like this until tomorrow if I really want to...

What? Why are you being so subjective—deleting posts for some people while letting others slide? Is this intentional?

Other posts of mine have been wiped from this same thread—posts where I didn't insult a single soul—so now I am officially lodging a complaint against the SUPERMODERATORS:

What exactly was so offensive about that other post you deleted?

Just how many posts have you scrubbed from this one page alone???? Why won't you just let us have a discussion?

The topics I’ve written about matter to me—if they don't matter to you, then you don't need to take it out on everyone else. Why are you even moderating things that clearly hold zero importance for you?

So, is this post an insult too?

And this one?

How about this?

Or this?

Et cetera.

Robert Rodriguez9, why are you being so selective with your deletions instead of actually doing your job properly?

I will say it again—why did you delete my other post in a thread where I was simply asking Biljka if she felt insulted?

I am asking someone to please restore those posts... this is completely nonsensical!!!

EDIT: I can't keep coming back here to argue every time I visit that thread. We used to have perfectly normal conversations without any issues whatsoever. Ever since she arrived, the atmosphere in this thread has remained toxic and combative—she hasn't improved anything at all; she’s just selectively and maniacally deleting posts so that regular people can't connect and share their experiences here.

So, here is the thread history we're looking at:

If I actually insulted someone, why wasn't I slapped with a warning or a ban—instead, my post was just deleted???

And if my comment was supposedly "offensive," then why is this specific post—along with a dozen others just like it—still sitting there without any issue?

I took the test, and within a day or two, I started feeling absolutely terrible—exhausted, weak, unable to even stay on my feet. If I try to walk, I’m gasping for air like I can't catch a full breath, I'm getting hit by these sudden waves of heat, and my head feels bizarre—sort of stuck in that weird limbo where you aren't sure if you have a fever or not. On top of that, my throat is filled with thick mucus and it's painful...

(A few years back, when I did this same test, my fever spiked above 104 degrees and stayed that way for three days.)

What am I supposed to do now? How long is this likely to last, and where exactly am I supposed to report these side effects?

Matthew Anderson said:Who gets to decide what falls into which rank? 🍿

Look, if you can't see the massive distinction between those two "ranks"—honestly, I don't even know how to explain it to you. The difference is glaringly obvious and felt by anyone paying attention; it isn't something that needs some official decree to make it real.

Exactly—I was going to say that the joke about the Mexican on a tree and the rapist is right up there with that one about the crap, but this second one doesn't even touch that level. I honestly don't get how people can't see the distinction—and then they have the nerve to wash their hands of it, acting like we shouldn't be the ones deciding what counts as a joke. If they remove that tier of humor, they’re basically claiming it leads to the censorship of all jokes and dark humor.

Jacob Williams said:It isn't even personal. It’s more about the approach—say you find out someone is an xy Mexican, so you head over to the jokes section and post something like this:
A gypsy walks up to God to vent:
- "Lord, please let me be someone else; I'm sick of this gypsy life."
- "Fine, be a Canadian," God replies.
- "Not them, they're such a stingy nation."
- "Then be a Mexican," God says.
- "No way, they're too lazy."
- "Alright, be an Albanian," God offers.
- "Ugh, no, I hate jam, how could I possibly be an Albanian?"
- "Okay, then be a Mexican," God decides.
- "Well, why'd you take two tries to get it right, you gypsy?"

See the distinction?

That is exactly how people try to play the system. I've seen it happen on this forum several times now—the moderators don't take kindly to anyone attempting to skirt the rules, and frankly, they usually shut those attempts down immediately, no matter how much someone tries to disguise their intent.

Matthew Anderson said:We are discussing the PDF where the topic is located , so please try not to act clueless. I have zero interest in engaging with any other unconstructive nonsense.

So, apparently, we expect moderators to be the ultimate arbiters of what qualifies as a joke and what doesn't. Great—this is clearly just the beginning of outright censorship. 👍

No, I am not playing dumb; I simply don't follow the logic here. In your quoted post, you claimed something wasn't appropriate for the Politics section but was fine for Jokes—so my question is a direct logical consequence of your own statement.

I was under the impression that a moderator's job was to judge when something crosses the line of the forum rules in general—whether that thing is a joke or a factual statement.

This is exactly like saying a moderator is expected to decide what counts as trolling—which is just a slippery slope toward censorship.

Matthew Anderson said:In that case, we might as well ban all jokes about blondes and Canadians too. And—presto!—here comes the censorship.

Matthew Anderson said:So, what—the moderators get to decide what counts as a joke and what doesn't?

I see no way that's going to end well. 😁

Let me see if I've got this straight—if some user, say XY, gets on my nerves and I post "XY is an idiot" in the politics section, I get a strike. But if I head over to the Humor section and write "XY is an idiot, hahaha, hahaha, haha, aha, ha a"—that's fine because it's technically in the joke thread? It’s hard to believe the moderators are actually going to play judge and jury on whether something is funny just to avoid censoring humor.

I'm just asking for clarity here; it's good to know where the line is drawn.

Matthew Anderson said:So, we're starting a whole thread because of some controversial joke from 2006?

Precisely. It showed up on the cover back in 2017—and there are several other questionable bits scattered across those two or three pages—but to answer your question simply: yes.

Jamie Davis9 said:Honestly, I’d be incredibly interested to hear the forum administration weigh in on where the lines are actually drawn—if they even exist—and just who exactly they apply to.

+1

Matthew Anderson said:In that case, let's just ban all jokes about blondes and Canadians too. And presto—censorship!

Like someone already pointed out, this isn't "humor" and it certainly isn't a joke.
(I even noted in my opening post that some of the jokes there are actually funny and charming; I only started this thread because of that one specific quote—and maybe one or two others—that was just pure, mindless trash).

Maria Reyes35 said:Well, apparently the moderator for this specific sub-forum doesn't think it's an issue to have a thread sitting there, wide open and active, for eleven years... eleven whole years...

I didn't bother checking when the thread was started or last updated—it was right there on the front page.
I opened this discussion here because, unless I've completely misunderstood how things work around here, I believe this is where you go to address the people who actually oversee the moderators of individual boards.

neonfox12 said:Exactly. Trying to hunt down "offense" in a joke is just the first step toward censorship. For God's sake, just breathe. Why all this tension over a debate about humor?

1. You can't just dictate terms—claiming something is offensive without letting others decide if it actually is. If you think a joke is an insult, then say why. And what happens to all the other jokes, especially the ones about Jews that are way darker?

2. You aren't making sense. What is your actual goal here?
And let's be clear—not just for my benefit, but for everyone watching—why on earth do you think this attempt at censorship doesn't affect me too?

3. What historical circumstances could possibly equate Roma with Jews?

Look, I think there is offense being taken, but my opinion isn't some grand argument, nor does it carry any weight in the final decision.

My only actual point is that MAYBE it violates the forum rules (and potentially even U.S. law). That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Besides, I already stated that I haven't even read those specific rules or the relevant statutes. It's not my job to run this forum or decide what gets posted on it. 🤷

As for the historical context, I am certainly not here to act as your history professor. You have access to the history textbooks; go ask the scholars there.

Matthew Anderson said:There is a massive difference between A) politics and B) dark humor. I get that certain jokes might be inappropriate for the political section, but coming after Rom jokes in the humor section is straight-up censorship.

If you start banning those, you'll have to ban everything else that offends someone.

But don't you think that if the rules aren't applied equally to every single situation, someone could just exploit "humor" as a loophole to do things that are otherwise rightfully prohibited?

Matthew Anderson said:Banning dark humor is just the first step toward full-blown censorship. You ban one type of joke, and before you know it, they’re policing everything else.

I don't get it—how is getting rid of dark humor the start of censorship, when stuff like that is already strictly off-limits in certain areas, like political discourse?

neonfox12 said:It’s possible, but I’ve never seen that actually work unless you’re specifically making a joke about Jews. You sure have a way with words. 👏 Understand that you came here to defend an argument to everyone, and whether the moderators take that argument seriously depends entirely on how you defend it. You just don't get it.

What a stunning display of defending a position without providing a single actual argument. 👏

I am comparing humor targeting those specific groups to jokes about the Romani—why isn't that clicking for you? Why on earth are you equating the Romani with Jews, while treating Canadians and Mexicans as if they belong in a completely different category?

1. Bold—what argument are we even talking about???

2. Bold—you are absolutely losing it! What argument? What needs to be "taken seriously"? And before whom exactly??? I haven't even presented an argument that anyone needs to validate or reject—the mods will (hopefully) react if rules are broken, not based on whether my "argument" meets their standards.

What are you even rambling about? Do you honestly think I showed up here to justify myself to you??? And for what—to prevent the "suppression of free thought," as you put it?

3. Well, maybe it's because of historical circumstances???

neonfox12 said:That single sentence pretty much sums up your entire logic.

Look, I came here specifically to address the moderators—not to sit around and spoon-feed arguments to every idiot who decides to get worked up over a thread.

The fundamental issue when debating you is that you clearly don't even grasp the definitions of the terms you're throwing around.
And honestly? Comparing Canadians and Mexicans to Jews and Romani people... 🤦

neonfox12 - I honestly don't follow your logic at all, so I'm done with this.

Maria Reyes35 said:Daniel Davis40, what exactly would you have us do here? What’s your specific proposal?
And does this—whatever action you're suggesting—apply strictly to jokes about Rome, or should it extend to jokes about blondes, Canadians, Mexicans, or even cops too?
If it's just limited to Rome, then why aren't we addressing the others?

Well, I suppose the moderators should be the ones to decide—there ought to be some kind of protocol for handling situations like this. Personally, I wouldn't do anything; it's not my business either way. I simply pointed out something that I believe shouldn't be tolerated in public discourse. There are certain laws the government establishes regarding this sort of thing, and I assume there are forum rules for these scenarios as well, so I was merely highlighting the issue. I'm not making any definitive claims—I have zero interest in digging through the Penal Code or whatever legal statute exists, nor the forum guidelines, especially since I wouldn't even know how to interpret those provisions or determine if this actually constitutes a violation.

(In any case, I am certain this has nothing to do with whether the topic is categorized under humor or politics)