Posts by Daniel Davis40

neonfox12 said:Because if that’s how you define humor—as being an insult—then we have a problem.

Look, if something qualifies as hate speech—and I’m honestly just asking the moderators here because I don't know where the line is—then it’s hate speech. Period. It doesn't matter if you say it straight to someone's face or try to hide it behind some "clever" little joke. The law isn't going to give you a pass just because you wrapped your vitriol in a punchline. I really don't understand why this is so confusing for you, or what kind of logic you're using here—are you suggesting that otherwise it's prohibited, but if it's presented as a (bad) joke, it suddenly becomes acceptable???

neonfox12 said:Look, I’m not personally drawn to jokes or that kind of humor—it’s just not my thing—but I am extremely sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech, which you seem intent on restricting. And besides, you’re positioning yourself as the "normal" one while labeling anyone different as stupid. Sorry, but that’s just narrow-mindedness.

The moderators will chime in with their own takes, but I was specifically asking for the reasoning behind your stance.
Insults are strictly against the rules on this forum, so if there's any happening, it likely just hasn't been flagged yet—that's what the report button is for.

First off, where exactly did I claim to be "normal"?

Second, I didn't actually have the freedom to express how I view them—because I would have been banned immediately—so yes, clearly narrow-mindedness exists everywhere.

That is why I am asking. When you insult an individual user, I know there are consequences, but I don't understand how *this* specific instance is being categorized (is it hate speech or what?). I am simply asking for clarification.

And please, stop cluttering this thread; this isn't some endless debate forum. If you want to argue, take it somewhere else so we can move on.

Look, I didn't come here to get into a back-and-forth with you, nor did I start this thread just to argue about PDF discussions—I simply sent an inquiry to the moderators and am waiting for their call.

I have no idea what you mean by "reasons for visiting" or some kind of "trap." I’m currently watching a movie that keeps buffering—which is actually fantastic, and honestly, you’d probably enjoy it given the subject matter—and during a break, I grabbed a snack and hopped on the forum to see what was happening. What "reasons" or "traps" are you even talking about?

And if you truly can't tell the difference between the first couple of jokes the OP made and the rest of them involving vulgarity—well, that's your problem.

Frankly, I'm worried you'd be out there posting those kinds of jokes in public using your full legal name.

All I did was ask whether that specific brand of humor—you know, the crude stuff—actually belongs on a public forum.

I honestly have no clue—which is exactly why I decided to come here and ask.

If someone thinks their peak comedic wit is making jokes about "shitting yourself" only to follow it up by targeting a specific nationality—and actually finds that hilarious—then they’ve clearly hit rock bottom. To me, that isn't just lazy comedy; it is a glaring, undeniable sign of incredibly low intelligence. I won't even go into what I really think about people like that, because honestly, I don't want to be accused of being just as offensive as they are.

I’m posting this here to ask the moderators one thing—is this actually the appropriate place for this kind of discussion on a public forum?

What kind of ban on humor and free thought is this? Seriously—where on earth did you dig this up? 🤷

By the way, I popped in here during a break from watching *Sami Blood*—you really should check it out if you haven't seen it yet! It was actually playing at the Tribeca Film Festival recently.

I’m not entirely sure what the official forum policy is—and look, I know there have been plenty of nasty, vulgar posts regarding various marginalized groups in the past—but it seems like there's a double standard at play. For instance, if the group being targeted is women, the mods are usually quick to scrub any sexist comments. So, I just wanted to check: is it actually acceptable for a thread whose sole purpose is to mock and insult a specific group of people to be hosted on a public forum like this?

Sure, you could argue that the first couple of posts are somewhat humorous or even charming, but it quickly devolves into these incredibly low-brow jokes where they're straight-up calling an entire nationality "scum" and other such garbage.

Even if the thread stays up, I suppose there is one small silver lining—it serves as a perfect litmus test for the participants. It exposes exactly what their values, intelligence levels, and sense of humor look like, so it’s not entirely without utility.

Let’s talk about Pringles—or rather, let's talk about the absolute audacity of their branding. You buy a tube thinking you're getting a snack, but what you're actually buying is a highly engineered, mathematically precise stack of potato starch slivers designed to trigger a physiological response. It’s almost unsettling how much thought went into that specific shape. They aren't just "chips"—they are hyper-processed cylinders of salt and starch, engineered for maximum crunch and zero resistance. Honestly, if you think you can stop at just one, you've already lost the battle against industrial food science. It's efficient, it's predictable, and frankly, it's a little bit terrifying how well it works. kaže:
This discussion has spiraled completely out of control—not that anyone is surprised—but frankly, this entire thread shouldn't have even been included in this document to begin with.

I completely agree—and like I’ve already made clear in my previous posts—but maybe someone should take that up with the moderator who moved her over here instead of taking it out on me. I didn't go looking for this thread—neither here nor in the PDF archives—where I was simply responding to another user's post (who, predictably, has since been deleted).

If this thread were opened under these circumstances on any other subreddit, one of us moderators would have already stepped in to demand the specific links backing up these claims. Let’s be clear: if those links aren't provided, the thread gets locked. Period. Every single assertion—whether it's someone claiming things happen "all the time," "never," or "always," or accusing a moderator of failing to perform their duties—must be accompanied by verifiable links that support those accusations. Otherwise, the super-mods, or even the site administrators, have absolutely nothing to review. Without evidence, there is no way for anyone to evaluate the situation or resolve an actual problem if one exists. Since this topic was moved over from another sub, I am asking you now to provide those links immediately so we can bring this thread in line with our community guidelines. If you don't, the thread goes under lock and key because, quite frankly, a super-mod cannot be expected to investigate a vacuum.

Look, half the content has been wiped out—and I’m speaking figuratively here—but it feels like a total purge. I honestly don't get the logic behind users dropping links to posts that have already been deleted. What’s the point? I assume you guys have access to the backend analytics—not that I’m actually serious about digging through your interface—but you really ought to take a look at the numbers. Just check the stats on how many posts she’s nuked compared to the other moderators. It's glaring.

I get how this works—you get hit with a warning or a ban, and you're told exactly which rule you supposedly broke. Then, you come here because you’re convinced that what you did wasn't actually trolling, or wasn't an insult, or didn't violate any of the existing guidelines. You're essentially coming here to argue that the call was wrong and to have the situation reconsidered—to see if the violation actually happened or if it was just a mistake. Honestly? That’s fine by me. In fact, I support it. That’s exactly how a functional system should operate.

Look, that’s not even the core issue here—the real problem is that they never actually issue bans. How could they? They don't even provide a specific reason for the removal, which means there is absolutely no way to challenge the validity of the censorship or argue against it. Instead, what we see is this obsessive—and I mean manic—deletion of posts. And when you dare to ask why? You get some pathetic excuse like, "Oh, you didn't respond to me the way I wanted," or "He shared his opinion so politely, and your reply was just too uncomfortable." It’s absolute nonsense.

So, go ahead—read the response above: "It’s not my problem how the forum users interpret my explanation" (?!)

I’m not even going to bother complaining about individual posts—honestly, most of them aren't vital, and frankly, there's plenty written here that I’d probably love to see deleted myself if I were being truthful. My issue isn't with the content; it's with the entire philosophy of moderation and the way the staff treats the community. It is fundamentally disrespectful—and quite frankly, idiotic—when every other post seems to vanish into thin air without explanation. There is zero consistency, and since the rules aren't actually being followed, you're left completely in the dark as to why certain things stay while others disappear.

I’ve been intentionally limiting my posts to threads where other moderators are actively participating—and I make sure to tag them directly—because that’s the only way I can be certain my contributions won't just vanish into thin air. Let’s be honest: there is no way they would dare go around deleting posts made by their own fellow mods. Which brings me to the real question here—is this actually what a forum is supposed to be for? Is this really what moderation is meant to achieve?

I already laid all of this out in my previous thread—which I opened specifically to address this—and several other members jumped in to back me up. In fact, some people articulated the core issue even better than I did. Since then, a handful of others have started their own threads voicing these exact same grievances. Most of those people haven't even bothered to file an official complaint yet (not that it should be my business, according to what I’ve been told), but I decided to reiterate my stance here too—even though that wasn't my original intention. I ended up drifting into this specific thread and, well, somehow found myself caught in this debate. At this point, I honestly don't have the energy to keep explaining what the problem is—nor do I see much point in doing so.

(OFF: I have to agree—Rorion isn't actually addressing the main topics in this PDF; instead, he’s just taking swipes at other participants. Honestly, I couldn't even wrap my head around what his point was supposed to be with that post 😍)

Seriously?

Is that really your response?

Edit: Anyway, my posts on this thread were clearly trolling—I even stated that myself in the post—so naturally you either delete them or slap me with a warning just to prevent me from filing an appeal. I know how to read the rules, believe me; I’m well aware that there are sanctions for both trolling and criticizing the moderation team on these threads. This has never once been an issue before!

I am honestly speechless. Do you even grasp why I and several other—completely unrelated—users are all filing appeals? Clearly, you don't. At this point, I don't think I have anything left to say about it, because I've already laid it all out there.

Michelle Robinson said:It’s never about me just doing whatever I want—something you could have easily seen for yourself when the other (so-called "super") mods were weighing in on my moderation style. I stand by my decisions, and frankly, I have no problem admitting when I've messed up and fixing it. If users ask why they've been sanctioned, we explain the reasoning; there are just some people who simply refuse to see the truth or accept it.

Oh, sure, your moderation is just "fantastic"—it’s funny how users seem to target *you* specifically with their complaints all the time. It’s always the exact same issues, too. Nobody is complaining about any of the other moderators, and it's certainly not happening nearly as often or regarding the same specific topics.

I honestly have no idea who here is refusing to see or accept that some things just aren't working out!!

And quite frankly, I suspect the real issue is that you don't even grasp what people are actually telling you or the substance of their grievances—which is honestly the most pathetic part of this whole thing.

Michelle Robinson said:My explanations are what they are. How everyone else perceives them isn't my concern.

And that is exactly my point—it's a massive problem! Thank you!

You’re deleting posts without any actual justification—none at all. I have been trying to hammer home the fact that rules exist for a reason. If there are guidelines regarding post removal, then a post should be deleted because it violates a specific rule—something you can actually point to for the user—not because of some moderator's whim or personal likes and dislikes. Look, I get that there's always going to be a certain level of subjectivity involved, but surely we should strive for objectivity and maintain at least a modicum of consistency? As it stands, a user is typing away with absolutely no idea if their contribution will be wiped out or not, or even on what basis that decision is made. Instead of focusing on the discussion at hand, they're forced to second-guess the moderator's mood. It's ridiculous.

Thank you!

If I’m supposed to just accept that neither I nor any other users can even participate in discussions anymore—and apparently, I shouldn't feel slighted by that either—then fine, if that's your stance. I guess now you get to decide what should offend me and what shouldn't. Wonderful.

Your explanations (at least from where I'm sitting) basically boil down to: "I didn't like your post, so you should have phrased it this way," or "your post made me uncomfortable," and so on. That's really all there is to it.

And as for everyone else, you just went ahead and deleted their posts where they were actually voicing their grievances.

But please, don't try to pivot back to the main topic or drag this out by nitpicking individual posts—they're irrelevant, especially when they've been ripped out of context. If someone discovered something worthy of a Nobel Prize, I highly doubt they'd be announcing it on an internet forum.

Is it honestly possible that you can't see how the regular users don't seem to have these issues with the other moderators, yet the complaints are always directed at you?

Michelle Robinson said:Look, I’m asking you to be more specific when you start rambling about banned users and deleted posts—otherwise, there's absolutely no way to have a coherent conversation with you.

Nicole Johnson20, you were whining about some deleted post nearly a month ago. At that time, nothing of yours had been removed—so I’m asking you, before you start launching these baseless attacks, to actually be specific. Tell us what, when, and where. Stop showing up every once in a while just to spew venom.

Oh, please—give me a break. Stop playing dumb and get to the point. What exactly are we talking about here? Because what you’re serving up is complete nonsense. I wasn't even complaining about a specific post or a warning—I was simply building on a comment from another user—the one you deleted before moving my thread over here and labeling it "Complaint Against Moderation." Let’s be clear: I am not lodging a grievance against any particular post, I'm not contesting a strike, and I certainly am not sitting here waiting for some high-level moderator to swoop in and give me an official response. So, honestly, I have to ask—what is the actual purpose of this thread? 🤷

I’ve already laid out my entire argument here before—I said everything there was to say—and then I actually sat through their response. It was pathetic. They didn't grasp a single word of what I was trying to communicate, and frankly, it's clear they couldn't care less. To top it all off, they just locked the thread. Fine. Whatever. Let's move on.

Look, I never once complained about a specific post or a ban—that’s pretty easy to verify if you actually bother to look—so I have no idea why you’re so hell-bent on twisting my words to make it sound that way. I'm not talking about one single incident; my issue is with your overall approach to moderation and this blatant lack of respect you show to everyone participating in the discussion!

Look, I’m not here to just drop random insults or launch baseless attacks for the sake of it—I’ve got better things to do than just "spill tea" constantly. But I am noticing that other users on this board are running into the exact same issues I am. It’s becoming a pattern. I’ve actually stepped in a few times because I saw you doing this to others—it’s infuriating. Every single time I go to reply to someone's perfectly reasonable post, I find that while I wasn't even logged in, the post has vanished. You deleted it. Just like that.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve watched you fail to do your job properly—and frankly, I didn't even bother speaking up at the time. There was even that one doctor participating in the vaccination discussion—I can't recall his handle right now—who pointed out your blatant lack of respect, your unfair moderation tactics, and your total inability to actually grasp the topics you're supposed to be overseeing. Not to be repetitive here—I already laid all of this out in a post a few months back—but I certainly had no intention of reopening this entire headache today.

bluemason3 said:Any comments regarding moderation on this forum are strictly prohibited outside of the official PDF appeal process. It doesn't matter what the topic is, why it happened, or who is at fault. Therefore, it’s completely irrelevant who is doing the deleting—because deleting shouldn't involve some grand philosophy or subjective judgment. If you comment on the moderators within a thread, that post absolutely must be removed.

You're lucky if it's just a deletion; more often than not, I issue a warning, especially to those repeat offenders who have already had everything explained to them.

No, I wasn't talking about commenting on specific threads (I got a warning there after realizing for the first time how this "system" works—namely, the unnecessary deletions—so I reacted)—I was talking about right here, in this thread: Suggestions for Improvement.

But now she’ll probably announce again that this isn't the place for it and that we should go to Amtrak instead—honestly, I don't know how she has the nerve, or how she isn't embarrassed, playing the "I don't see the problem" card to an ever-growing number of forum users.

I fail to see the point of even bothering to write anything on this forum if it’s just going to be wiped away—especially when you (and you aren't the only one) can't even tell which rules apply to what gets deleted and what stays. We are talking about posts that don't break a single rule of the forum or sub-forum, aren't trolling, and aren't being offensive. So, what? Are we all supposed to write our posts by thinking primarily about the moderator rather than the actual topic? Like, we have to shape our sentences and expressions based on whether she will personally approve of the style or not. Forgive me, but I think that is excessive—and frankly, it's not the purpose of a forum or its moderation.

Look, I know I don't act like some sweet little lady who hops onto the forum to tell everyone, "Bravo, you're doing great!" or give out high fives. But surely I have the right to be myself—provided I'm not insulting anyone or breaking the rules—rather than being forcibly shoved into whatever narrow little box she has imagined for us.

For instance, she deleted my post where I was speaking negatively about psychiatry (which made me angry, leading me to comment on the moderation in that thread and receive a warning), yet when you guys were saying the exact same things in the chat, nothing happened. Of course.

I honestly can't tell if it’s even against the rules for a moderator to hand out warnings when they’ve personally taken offense at people "criticizing forum members"—and then proceed to scrub any post questioning their actual competence. It’s a total conflict of interest—it’s like being both the judge and the defendant in a courtroom at the same time—but frankly, it says everything you need to know about his character. He probably thinks that if he just keeps deleting posts from an ever-growing number of users, nobody will catch on to the pattern. 🤷 I mean, look—if someone was actually confident they were being fair and doing their job correctly, those kinds of posts wouldn't bother them (and they wouldn't be happening in the first place).

And here’s what really gets me: if some absolute clown—myself included, I suppose—writes a post like this, fine, let it stay because nobody’s taking me seriously anyway. But the second someone with a bit more credibility says the exact same thing? Boom—instant deletion. Apparently, if it’s coming from someone serious, it becomes "uncomfortable," so they just have to hide it.

Istiphul Amue As specified by:
This isn't even about you—it’s about humility. Honestly, seeing a real-life example play out speaks volumes more than any amount of endless theorizing ever could. 🙂
So, let me ask you this—do you constantly run into people who just seem to lack even a shred of basic comprehension? Because honestly, it’s infuriating.🍿
You’re telling me that... Always. You have to remind people that not everyone was born with the same set of tools—and one thing certainly implies the other, doesn't it? You’ll always find a disproportionate number of idiots in your life who just don't get it—more than the average, frankly—and it’s enough to make anyone lose their cool. But does that data point somehow justify walking away from several great career opportunities just because you let your anger at them get the better of you? Not really. 😲 😁

So, like I already asked—do you think that was supposed to be an example of me being (or not being) submissive?

I don't run into them all that often—and considering I quit my job (which, let's be honest, covered several roles at once)—I have no idea how that connects to the fact that these people are more present in my life than average. Maybe it means there are actually fewer of them than average? (Again, the logic here is a little shaky...)

And regarding what I wrote about having to constantly remind myself—what exactly are you implying by that? Are you suggesting I’m constantly rushing into things? That’s not what I said. All my statement implies is that whenever I happen to run into them—whether that's once a week or once a year—I need to be reminded. Seriously, try using a little logic for once.

Honestly, I can’t even begin to answer that—I don't really care about averages, nor do I care whether something is above or below them. But regardless, there are far fewer of those types around me now. I recently switched to a much more demanding role, and I’m finally surrounded by actual professionals who actually grasp concepts quickly. Believe me, it feels like I'm finally on vacation.

Let me be crystal clear: I am not claiming that being wealthy equals being humble—so stop trying to twist my words! What I’m saying is that when life is going my way, when I'm successful, happy, and feeling grateful... that isn't humility. It's just not. 🙂

Come on, please—find where exactly I ever said "life is going great for me." You basically hallucinated that entire premise out of thin air and then proceeded to launch into this massive, nonstop rant based on nothing. You completely misread the situation! Honestly, you just ended up looking foolish.

Look, I don't want anyone thinking I'm just blowing off steam here—I'll make a point of breaking this down step by step.

Melissa Rogers4 said:You ask for an explanation and then call it being a know-it-all just because you don't like the answer...🙂

Where did I even mention an axe or anything falling? I was talking about a state of mind, not what you own or what's happening around you.

You weren't talking about a state of mind; you were describing circumstances that are actually pretty rare—being incredibly happy and content simply because life feels good and kind to you. Since you framed it as something to be grateful for and ultimately humble about, it’s impossible not to conclude you missed the mark completely.

Everyone feels down sometimes; it's just part of being human. But you can still be grateful and happy with your life and the experience of living, and that leads to true, effortless humility.

It's obvious you realized you messed up and now you're pivoting, because this paragraph totally contradicts what you said earlier. Just feeling bad occasionally while being mostly happy and enjoying a "good life" just puts the focus back on favorable circumstances, which isn't humility. If the situation were reversed and stayed that way for a long time, I'd be asking you about real humility that flows naturally...

You could tell yourself stories about how miserable you are, how you're a victim, how others have it better, or how things are unfair and you have to fight just to survive. In those cases, humility is either fake or it just drains a person instantly.

None of that is actually humility; it's just the natural reaction of an unconscious person who feels hurt and uses self-pity to find the strength to keep going.

Because someone can feel unhappy and think life is hard, yet decide they want to do the right thing, serve others, set aside their own needs, and be humble.

This is getting intense. I don't know how old you are, but you sound more like you're daydreaming about an idealized world than actually living in reality. You can't just decide to be righteous, serve others, suppress your needs, and be humble. That's just an ego-driven idea—thinking you can earn "spiritual" points that way—but it doesn't work like that. Spirituality doesn't respond to performances or acting the part.

Quincy:

In my post, I was suggesting that it’s better to first cultivate that kind of headspace—things like joy and gratitude—so that humility follows naturally. Trying to force it when you don't feel it just leads to burnout. I figured it was worth mentioning because I know many religions wouldn't agree with that approach, since they tend to focus on controlling behavior first...

I somewhat agree with your first point, but let's be honest about how you actually phrased it. You won't break if you admit it. The thing is, striving for that state of mind doesn't guarantee humility will come easily or naturally—it won't. That only happens for people who live out their stories rather than just dreaming them up. People like that aren't lying, and lying is easy. You're saying something that sounds "wise" and smooth, so it feels true, but you aren't living it because you're too caught up in this new narrative. You're basically an example of that exact mindset...

As for behavior, you're right that we have it wrong. Even though it feels like we can choose how we act, we really can't. We're driven by forces that are far too complex for our surface-level way of solving problems, so this idea of "free will" is mostly just a hope that one day...

Quincy:

I just thought if anyone responded, I'd want to hear what they think.

And then you get defensive when someone tries to help you refine your thoughts so they make more sense. You miss the good intentions and just see it as a personal attack...

So, yeah, 🙂

Where on earth did you get the idea that I was talking about the circumstances of existence? Seriously—go ahead, try to find even one single sentence in my post that refers to the nature of being. You completely misinterpreted my point from the jump, and because your initial logic is flawed, every single reaction you’ve had since then is fundamentally wrong.

When people start preaching about gratitude, do they honestly believe that being wealthy somehow makes you more thankful than someone struggling to make ends meet? It’s a ridiculous notion—honestly, it’s nonsense. Gratitude isn't some luxury item you pick up once you hit a certain tax bracket; it’s a state of mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the balance in your bank account or what you own. Period.

Look, you realize you’ve completely flipped your script here, right? You’re changing your tune—this paragraph totally contradicts what you were saying just a moment ago. When things are going great—when you're feeling wonderful, happy, and genuinely enjoying the fact that life finally seems to be treating you well—it's easy to credit those favorable circumstances. In those moments, it isn't really humility; it's just luck. But if the situation were reversed—if things were going poorly for a long, long time—then I’d actually start asking you about true humility—the kind that is forged through relentless struggle.

No, I am not changing my stance—it isn’t even in conflict with what I said before. You really should have read that more carefully in the first place; if you had, you would see there is no contradiction here and that absolutely no position is being shifted.

Look, just because someone is wading through a rough patch doesn't mean they’ve lost their footing entirely—it’s a common misconception. You can experience genuine hardship, or even feel like everything is hitting the fan at once, without losing your grip on gratitude. It is entirely possible—and frankly, necessary—to navigate those dark moments while still maintaining a sense of joy for being alive. One doesn't negate the other.

None of this is about humility—it isn't an act of submission at all. It’s just the raw, natural reaction of a wounded being—someone who’s feeling the sting and is retreating into self-pity just to scrape together enough strength to keep moving forward.

I was talking about an entirely different subject—specifically, how most religions teach us (quite convincingly, and I’ll admit I'm prone to believing them) that just because we feel a certain way—and let's be honest, most of us hit those low points occasionally—it isn't an excuse to take it out on others. Instead, the doctrine suggests we should remain decent and, more importantly, maintain a sense of humility toward everyone around us. That is why I brought this up as a topic for debate. Because, looking at it from another angle, constantly suppressing your true state can easily slide into being performative or, frankly, it can just completely burn a person out.

This is a massive reach. I don’t know how old you actually are, but it’s pretty clear that you’re leaning way too hard on wishful thinking and some idealized version of the world rather than dealing with actual reality. You can’t simultaneously strive to be righteous, dedicate your life to serving others, suppress your own needs, and remain humble. It’s a mathematical impossibility—it just doesn't work that way.. That’s just the logic of an egoist—someone who thinks they can perform their way into some kind of "spiritual" merit—but let me tell you, it doesn’t work like that. True spirituality isn't fooled by people putting on a show or acting the part.

Yet another perfect example of how you completely miss the point of what I'm saying. This isn't about my personal opinion—you clearly failed to grasp that—I am simply stating that I have discussed this exact topic with various clergy members from different faiths, and they all maintained that this is indeed the correct path. On the other hand, it seems to me that we first need to cultivate the state of consciousness I mentioned in my initial post—gratitude, happiness, etc.—before true humility can even manifest.

Both sides—whether it's the "fake it till you make it" approach or the "just be who you feel like being, even if it adds more negativity to the world" stance—have their merits and their flaws. There is no single, absolute answer here.

But seriously, can you at least see how much you’re dodging the actual substance of my argument and how wildly you're misinterpreting my words?

I somewhat agree with the first part, but let's be honest—that's not what you actually wrote. You aren't going to lose anything by admitting it. The issue is that striving for such a state of mind doesn't mean humility will suddenly arrive naturally or easily—it won't. Only people who spin fairy tales and indulge in fantasies, without ever actually living out what they preach, find it "easy." Such people are essentially lying, and lying costs nothing. You say things that sound profound and "wise," so they must be true, but you aren't willing to back it up with your life because you're too busy believing in some new narrative. It doesn't apply to you—you're just a textbook example of that specific mindset.

As I’ve tried to explain—and as other users here have actually understood—that is precisely what I wrote. And let me be clear: I am not going to change my stance or my word just to appease you.

My contention is that it *will* come naturally and easily. Whenever I have been in that state of mind—and let me clarify so there's no confusion: I don't mean when I had material wealth and felt happy because people were sucking up to me; I mean a state of spirit regardless of my circumstances. In fact, during times when I was fasting heavily and might not have even had enough to eat, the result was the same. When I am in that state, humility follows naturally and effortlessly. Just like everything else—courage, initiative, and so on. I am speaking from direct experience here. I have no idea why you insist on dismissing this as mere daydreaming.

All I want to know is how I should conduct myself when I am *not* in that state of mind. But I’ve already laid out my thoughts and my dilemmas, and I refuse to keep repeating myself.

Regarding behavior, you're right that it's flawed. Even though it feels like we can choose how to act, we really can't. We are driven by forces that we select at levels far too complex for our superficial attempts at problem-solving, making our so-called "free will" nothing more than an illusion and a hope that one day...

It isn't that black and white. If we follow your logic that we can't decide how to behave, then I could theoretically kill someone just because they annoyed me and claim I wasn't responsible because I couldn't control my actions. That's an extreme example, sure, but where do we draw the line? What rights do we actually have? Should our assessment of how "good" or "bad" we are allowed to act be influenced by whether we feel hurt, or whether we lack that internal state of being happy, grateful, and seeing life as beautiful? (And again, I am talking about an internal state, not external factors like your job, your money, or how much people admire you.) There are plenty of questions to unpack here.

EDIT: That was actually my entire motivation for starting this thread—to emphasize that when we feel right with ourselves, humility follows naturally. It shouldn’t be forced. (Seriously, if you actually read my original post with a bit of nuance, you’ll see that’s exactly what I was saying.) A lot of people think humility means self-flagellation, and since several preachers I deeply respect hold the opposite view, I was hoping to hear what other members of this forum thought about it.

So, contrary to your impression, I actually *want* to hear from people who disagree with me—I find those perspectives genuinely interesting. But that doesn't mean I want someone who hasn't even grasped my point to try and "fix" my supposedly contradictory thoughts! Well, I suppose this is a forum, and anyone can chime in with whatever they want. I guess I'll just have to deal with it.

You listen to them, and then you get defensive when they try to "tidy up" your opinion so it sounds less contradictory. You fail to see that they're coming from a good place rather than attacking you.

There you go, as if 🙂

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and frankly, I don't see how you can "tidy up" a concept you haven't even understood in the first place.

Melissa Rogers4 said:It wasn't about acting humble, it was more about seeing what your natural reactions look like and how much criticism you can actually handle.

Quincy:

But did you even realize you were wrong? That you messed up? "Just admit it, it won't kill you." ☕

I didn't mess up. You still haven't explained why your sentences don't make logical sense—basically, why they belong in a fantasy novel rather than reality. Telling me that you understood but I didn't is just wishful thinking 🙂

You call this communication or coherent writing?
- you don't understand what you read at all
- you clearly missed my point
- I'm not changing my mind or being stubborn (not because of some random person with limited comprehension)
- I have no idea what you think you're doing
- acting like you wrote something brilliant
- changing my opinion because of you? Yeah, right...
- I wouldn't change my mind based on two empty sentences from you
- now you're trying to tell me what my own opinion is—sorry, but you'd need a bit more intellect for that
- you're way too confident without any basis
- my opinion isn't contradictory—it's just that you can't grasp it
- your response just shows you didn't get what I wrote
- I don't feel like going back and forth since you struggle with basic understanding
- I shouldn't have to waste my time defending myself to someone who lacks logic and reading comprehension
- I didn't ask for your input, yet you jumped in to claim my post couldn't be anything but wrong...
Arguments are maybe 1%, while the defensiveness is 99% and climbing...🍿

Fine, I'll admit it: I have zero patience for stupidity. I constantly have to remind myself that people aren't to blame for having limited cognitive abilities—since, clearly, we weren't all born with equal mental capacity—but it’s an instinctive trigger for me. I’ve actually walked away from solid jobs in the past because I couldn't stand working alongside idiots who just don't get it. But let's stay on track; this conversation isn't supposed to be about me.

You still haven't actually addressed my points regarding how your claims are completely baseless and illogical. I believe I laid out perfectly valid reasons why my words cannot be interpreted the way you’ve twisted them. Furthermore, other users understood exactly what I meant—so when you dismiss that as "wishful thinking," what kind of actual argument is that supposed to be? It makes no sense.

Like I already asked you—though you probably missed that too—what possible logic leads to the conclusion that wealth equals humility? Go ahead, explain that to me, seeing as you're so insistent that those were my words.

Hold on—do you honestly believe that was my attempt at being humble?

The point is, did it even register that you were wrong—that you completely missed the mark here? "Just admit it; you won't lose your status just by owning up to it" ☕

Look, you clearly didn't grasp what I actually wrote—and now that I’ve gone out of my way to break it down with specific examples only for you to still miss the point, you're insisting that I'm just backtracking? You think I'm trying to change my tune because I can't admit I was wrong?

I am not changing my mind or "flipping my stance"—that rarely happens because, frankly, I’m far too stubborn for that (not exactly a virtue, but let's be honest). And I certainly am not doing it because of some anonymous user on a forum with limited reading comprehension; I don't know what kind of ego you've developed here. As if you wrote something so profoundly brilliant that I'd suddenly overhaul my entire perspective just because of you—yeah, right. Absolutely not.

And for the record, I don't shy away from being wrong—if I am, I take it as a learning opportunity. If I actually held the rigid views you seem to think I do (which, honestly, I don't even understand how you've framed them), there is no way I would alter my position based on two empty sentences from you! You think you've "analyzed" my opinion for me? Sorry, but you'd need a bit more intellectual heavy lifting for that—you're just being overconfident without any actual substance. That’s what I call "pseudo-intellectualism"—acting like you're being smart rather than actually engaging with whether an answer is good or bad.

There are zero contradictions in my position—it's just that you are incapable of understanding it.

You think I "don't like" your response? It’s not about whether I like it or not—there's no reason for me to care about that—it's simply that your response proves you failed to comprehend what I wrote.

I have no interest in continuing this back-and-forth when you're clearly struggling with basic reading comprehension.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and believe that I claimed someone is humble only if they have houses, cars, planes, vacation homes, cash, gold chains, and a fleet of women waiting for them. That’s exactly what I meant—wow, you're just so perceptive. And now that you've "enlightened" me that this isn't what humility means, I'm supposedly "trying to save face" because I can't admit I was mistaken? --> Your logic is truly something else. It genuinely baffles me how people can be so incredibly dense.

Besides, I shouldn't have to waste my time defending myself to someone whose strengths clearly don't include logic or textual analysis. Unbelievable. 😲 🤦 🤦

I wasn't asking for your input; you just decided to jump in and claim my post couldn't be anything but wrong.

When I was discussing where humble behavior should originate—whether it stems from our sense of luck and gratitude in life, or if we must force ourselves into correct behavior before we ever reach that state of unconditional gratitude (though clearly, that means something entirely different to you)—I was thinking of someone with a deeper foundation in spirituality and theology, not someone who doesn't even follow the conversation.

But hey, thanks for weighing in!

In any case, if you don't believe me, just read Gigabyte's response to my post. They understood exactly what I was getting at, and maybe that will help you catch up. If I had actually messed up or been contradictory, how could they have grasped the exact point I was making—the very point I tried so hard to clarify for you in my last post?

Oh, please—spare me the lecture; you really think you’ve got it all figured out, don't you?

Where did I ever mention an actual axe or where it fell? Nowhere. I was talking about a state of mind—not physical possessions or external circumstances.

Look, everyone hits a low point now and then; that’s just part of being human. But even then, you can still maintain gratitude and find joy in the fact that you're actually alive—and from that foundation comes a genuine, effortless kind of humility.

The alternative is to spin this endless saga where you're the victim, where life is unfair, where everyone else has it easier, and where you have to fight tooth and nail just to avoid being eaten alive. If you choose that path, any sense of humility you claim to have is either fake or it'll just burn you out instantly.

Someone might feel unlucky or overwhelmed by life, yet they can make a conscious choice to be a decent person—to serve others, to set aside their own ego, and to practice true humility.

My whole point was that it’s much better to cultivate that internal headspace first—that sense of vitality and gratitude—so that humility follows naturally. If you try to force it when you're feeling miserable, you're just going to exhaust yourself. I felt it was worth bringing up because I know plenty of organized religions would disagree with me—they tend to insist that you have to start with outward behavior and discipline alone.

I simply thought if anyone was going to reply, I might actually hear a thoughtful perspective for once.

There. That's it.

Explain!

Just slapping a "facepalm" emoji on a post and claiming something isn't true helps absolutely nobody—it’s just noise. Do us all a favor and actually explain yourself—enlighten the uneducated masses for once...