Posts by crimsoncyclist71

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:I don't know... maybe... honestly, who knows?

As for her being against the Czechs, she protested all over the place... hmmm, if I'm being totally honest, I'm pretty sure you haven't even looked at the list of protests she's actually shown up to. So, go ahead, name a few of these protests where she was supposedly "against anything with a shred of national identity".

Look, let's try this...

I have zero clue who she is... what she does... her whole deal...

The first time I ever heard of her was seeing her at this anti-protest...

You tell me right now—is this really the first protest she’s attended or organized? Because if she’s been at others, name them...

Because if this truly is her first time, then we really don't have anything to talk about... out of all the actual issues facing this country that people should be protesting, she shows up to protest the protesters... Is Rhode Island going to be any better if they even strip pensions from all our veterans? Is that really worth it?

And you don't see any problem with that? Especially on the very day that the person responsible for those political assassinations is finally leaving The White House. 🤦

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:I don't know... maybe... honestly, who knows?

As for her being against the Czechs, she protested all over the place... hmmm, if I'm being totally honest, I'm pretty sure you haven't even looked at the list of protests she's actually shown up to. So, go ahead, name a few of these protests where she was supposedly "against anything with a shred of national identity".

Look, let's try this...

I have zero clue who she is... what she does... her whole deal...

The first time I ever heard of her was seeing her at this anti-protest...

You tell me right now—is this really the first protest she’s attended or organized? Because if she’s been at others, name them...

Because if this truly is her first time, then we really don't have anything to talk about... out of all the actual issues facing this country that people should be protesting, she shows up to protest the protesters... Is Rhode Island going to be any better if they even strip pensions from all our veterans? Is that really worth it?

She's just an activist. From what I've read, she hasn't organized a single protest in her life.

Why anyone bothers protesting for one thing or another is beyond me. I wouldn't participate. Whether a cause is worth fighting for is entirely a matter of personal opinion.

The argument that a Budweiser worker wasn't at the protest is weak. If we used that logic, we could dismiss every other organization or activist group that didn't show up too, and I don't consider them bad actors. What's your take?

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:I mean, let’s be real for a second, if we’re actually being honest here... she had plenty of chances to prove she was actually one of us, but instead, she spent all her energy trying to play the part of some hardcore leftist, anarchist, counter-culture, atheist type. Honestly? Give me a break.

Look, like I’ve been saying, she’s spent the last few years protesting just about anything that carries even a hint of national pride, but I’d bet my life she wasn't out there at any of those big marches for women's rights or local community rallies... So why is that?

Man, she really needs to watch her mouth next time... honestly, what was she even thinking?

What else happens? Is she going to end up like Martin Luther King Jr.? Or one of the many others killed by a communist regime just for speaking their mind?

As for her being against everything patriotic... hmmm. To be blunt, I'm pretty sure you haven't actually looked at the list of protests she's attended. Go ahead, name a few of these protests she supposedly held "against anything with national sentiment."

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:

I can't even begin to process this. I can't really make sense of what you're trying to say here, so if you want me to actually do something with this, you'll have to give me some actual content to work with first.
This is just another blatant lie cooked up specifically to stir the pot and fuel all this hate toward that person, which inevitably ends up spiraling into death threats and all that nonsense.

Look, even though I’m a huge advocate for free speech, I honestly think the Department of Justice should be jumping on this stuff proactively as part of their actual job, rather than waiting around for some random person to file a private lawsuit before they even bother to react. I know it’s probably a pipe dream, but the forum admins really ought to be stepping up and scrubbing all those fake accusations designed just to stir up hate.

Am I wrong here? Are you actually telling me the truth?
Let’s hear that audio recording, then—maybe that’ll finally be the smoking gun we need to prove you actually know what you're talking about.

There isn’t even an actual audio recording of Ronald Reagan ever saying he was glad his wife wasn't some outsider, so if there were, half this forum would probably still find a way to argue that he actually said the exact opposite.

Look, if I claim Mary said something, I basically need a full transcript of the conversation or I'm gonna get hit with a red card immediately. It’s just total nonsense, honestly.

Let’s be honest. I don't weigh every lie the same way. There is a massive difference between a white lie and a targeted smear campaign designed to incite hatred and intolerance against one individual. These specific lies have crossed a line, directly resulting in death threats against that person.

I saw a similar post here a few days ago about her being framed for someone else's tax debt. That’s a completely different ballgame than the stuff you keep bringing up just because you read it on some obscure blog. Nobody is going to threaten her life over a fake tax bill, but because of this other situation, they absolutely will—and they already are.

Jonathan Ortiz2 said:Wait, isn't she that lady who said people should throw trash out of their hands when she was talking about the American flag?

This is just another lie manufactured specifically to incite hatred against her, which inevitably leads to death threats.

Regardless of my stance on free speech, the Department of Justice should handle these matters proactively as part of their official duties. People shouldn't have to file private lawsuits just to get the Department of Justice to take action. I realize it’s unlikely, but forum admins should also be removing these false accusations meant to fuel hate.

Am I wrong? Think you're telling the truth?
Let's hear the audio recording that will prove your claim is actually true.

Brenda Cook4 said:Look, your posts are living proof of what this Forum will tolerate. Justifying calls for violence isn't just breaking the rules here—it's a criminal offense.

No, that’s strictly your own interpretation of a Metaphorical poster. I'll say it again: if referencing a military operation can be viewed Metaphorically, why can't this poster be interpreted the same way? What's the actual issue here?

Are you suggesting that when the Bishop called for a new "Desert Storm," he was actually calling for an open war?

Brenda Cook4 said:Look, I've made up my mind. To me, calling for arson is a non-starter. Some people still insist on labeling it "art."

Stop inventing "double standards," stop spinning the narrative, and stop making excuses. I wish you’d stop even validating that "Donate" button if you're going to defend "artistic works about burning down churches." Because, frankly, that "piece of art" didn't include the sentence "DONATE." This is an explicit call to action.

I think we need a thread on whether it's acceptable for Mary Smith to call for church burnings and how the authorities responded. As both a citizen and an atheist, I want to know.

It's obvious to me. You've decided it's fine for some people to use a Metaphorical call for military action without it being seen as starting a new war, but when someone else uses a metaphor to "call for burning churches," suddenly it can't be a metaphor and has to be taken literally. Honestly, this whole discussion is pointless because there's no use arguing with someone who doesn't even try to hide their double standards. You should probably get back to spinning stories about who actually owes taxes...

feralranger said:It wasn't some military operation; I don't know what you're rambling about. Making up nonsense like that just exposes your clumsy attempts to justify censorship regarding Mary Smith.

Oh, right. It's about the wind, not a military crackdown... It's obvious to everyone that for Americans, "Desert Storm" is just a synonym for a gust of wind, not a combat operation. ☕

Brenda Cook4 said:Don't try to twist my words. I never said that. I was simply asking if it's acceptable to justify your stance by doing exactly what you're criticizing. So, fine. It's perfectly okay to call for burning down churches. Great. We definitely shouldn't have discussions about people who spread hate and incite violence. Absolutely not.

I'm not sure it's worth wasting energy on someone stuck in such blatant double standards. They view a Metaphorical nod to Desert Storm as fine, yet they label a Metaphorical call to burn churches as extreme hate speech. Pick a lane. Is the right to use metaphors universal, or is it a privilege reserved for a select few?

feralranger said:What exactly are you quoting? Where? Why are you twisting my words and lying? Get off this thread about censoring the discussion on Mariana Mart, stop trolling and don't spam irrelevant garbage here.

The best move would be to just silence me whenever I say something you don't like. That would really show how much you actually care about free speech and your supposed opposition to censorship. 🤣

Anyway, you dismiss calls for military action as nothing, yet you label quoting a work of art as extremism.

To me, that only reinforces why closing the thread on Mariana Mart is the right call. It would immediately devolve into a circus of hate, labeling, and blatant lies.

feralranger said:Inventing double standards that don't exist is a pathetic, clumsy attempt to justify censoring the discussion about Mary Smith.

They’re pulling stunts more convoluted than Joe Biden trying to protect that operative John Doe from extradition. People making these kinds of moves only expose themselves.

Everything I said was a direct quote. Anyone interested can see exactly how much hypocrisy is actually present on your end.

Brenda Cook4 said:So you're defending this Mary Smith poster that basically tells people to burn down a church with the phrase 'Contribute'? You're saying this 'art piece' includes a very clear call to action: 'CONTRIBUTE'?

If there's no issue with calling for new "Storms," then what's the problem with this poster? Tax debt?🙄

feralranger said:If someone posts something irrelevant, we just delete it.

My question is why the entire thread regarding Mary Smith, a public activist, was censored.

It's obvious her ideology aligns with Matthew Babb and those other pseudo-democrats who find her extreme hate speech acceptable—but this forum shouldn't stoop to Matthew Babb's level of selective censorship regarding types of activists.

So I'm asking, Jerry... do you really want to drag this outlet down to such a low, practically Babb-esque tabloid level?

Just one small correction regarding the article you keep linking:

...a drunken, disheveled brat...

Go ahead, lecture us about pseudo-democrats and tabloids again while linking the same garbage...

feralranger said:Extremists who... They’re out in public wearing transparent masks while spewing extreme hate speech. They get special media protection just for calling for arson, yet we’re expected to censor any discussion about them. It's backwards.

It’s interesting how you have two different sets of standards for this. You seem to interpret any mention of the Storm however it suits your narrative. For example:

feralranger said:A storm is just wind, but metaphorically, it can mean anything—from a military operation to a political shift, an economic surge, or even a sports team's name. It always symbolizes raw power and energy. In fact, in the US, more than ten different sports teams have "Storm" right there in their name.

Honestly, if you mention "Storm" to Americans, they just think about the weather. They think about wind and rain, nothing more.
No, not when someone is quoting. Controversial art. Then you have to take it literally. There’s no metaphor here.

So, quoting an artwork is considered extremism, but calling for police intervention and demanding we do it all over again? Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Given the absolute hysteria and the mob mentality being directed at one individual simply for having a different opinion—to the point where she's receiving daily death threats—I can certainly understand why the thread(s) would be closed to prevent participating in such a disgusting witch hunt.

As for you "democrats" who joined in on this lynching, including pedantic nonsense like repeatedly blaming someone else for her tax debt, maybe take a moment to reflect on your actions. Personally, I hope Mary Smith receives all the protection and legal support she needs to sue everyone spreading falsehoods, regardless of which media outlet they represent.

William Bennett53 said:Look, staying here is your call. But if you plan to stick around, watch your phrasing. Vague constructions lead to misinterpretations, and when people read things differently than you intended, they react. That’s exactly what happened in your example: you were clumsy with your wording, describing projectiles hitting a school as "convenient," whether you meant it that way or not. It triggered a reaction, and now you're surprised that posts got deleted and people pushed back. A little more precision and fewer ambiguous insinuations would go a long way in making sure your point actually lands without causing unnecessary friction.

Is it really such an issue to provide context regarding why someone might target a school on the very first day of classes? I can't believe I have to explain this, or that I need to repeatedly point out that the quotation marks in that sentence clarify the actual meaning. Given the context of the discussion, the sentence is perfectly clear.

Once again, 🤦

William Bennett53 said:Look, I don't see those posts you're mentioning as anything worth a ban either.
That deleted post of yours where you wrote "It's convenient" sounds a bit ambiguous. I don't think you were actually celebrating civilian deaths, but I'm not sure I would have assumed that if I had just seen the sentence without your clarification. So, to avoid wasting more time on trifles, I restored your post, though I edited out that questionable phrase.

This isn't a trifle. I came here specifically for discussions involving those kinds of remarks. This is a forum, and my sole purpose here is to write such things. If that right is taken away, there’s no reason for me to stay.

Given the context of that day's discussion regarding the projectiles that caused the tragedy (though I wasn't explicitly referring to any specific event in that exact post), and the suspicions raised about whether a projectile might have been fired by outside parties holding Donetsk, the motive became clear. In that context, my meaning was obvious. Of course, saying something like, "From a propaganda standpoint, it's 'convenient' for a projectile to hit a school on the first day of term," would have been more precise, but I felt it was redundant given the conversation.

Secondly, yesterday was likely the first time I reacted emotionally, and it happened right here in this thread when I realized I was being accused of this:

As for responding to the offensive posts from that certain individual, it never even crosses my mind to engage with someone who stoops so low as to suggest a fellow forum member is celebrating civilian casualties.

On the other hand, it seems perfectly acceptable to accuse me of rejoicing in civilian deaths, and then to repeat that accusation while bringing my parents into it. Realistically, what kind of person celebrates civilian victims? A scumbag? An idiot? A complete zero? Pick an epithet and tell me which one applies to me if the post I reported doesn't warrant a ban.

I'm quoting from the post "but you and people like you." I am certain this type of addressing is penalized on this forum, but setting that aside, I want an answer regarding the implication that I celebrated civilian deaths. What does that say about me and people like me? If that isn't an insult worthy of a ban, then what exactly was that user trying to achieve?

To avoid any confusion, I’m asking the moderators to clarify why the post I reported hasn't been sanctioned. I would also like to know exactly which rule I supposedly broke, since my own post was deleted based on a single sentence taken completely out of context.
Thanks in advance.

So you actually deleted my post just because of that one sentence... 🤦
Later.

I can't help but wonder why this keeps bothering you people:

Calling it "convenient" is a stretch when a projectile could hit a school on day one...

Yet you leave this standing:

Do you realize what would have happened if Tiananmen had succeeded? The death toll of democratized Chinese citizens would be massive, and China wouldn't look anything like it does now.
We could build a monument to Deng Xiaoping larger than the Statue of Liberty.

post

Once again, 🤦

Charles Fox10 said:That was in a deleted post—deleted specifically because of what you wrote.

The response to that was also wiped.

Where exactly in my writing is there any "celebration" of civilian casualties?

Charles Fox10 said:You’re attacking the person rather than the topic, which is basically an insult:

How am I insulting him? By pointing out he falsely accused me of celebrating civilian deaths. Don't you think it's low to misrepresent someone like that?

Charles Fox10 said:It's none of my business; none of those posts warrant a ban.

If those are your moderation standards, I don't see much point in participating in a forum like this.

I intended to wait 24 hours before reporting, but seeing as several moderators have already stepped into this thread since my initial report, I’m submitting this formal grievance regarding why this specific post hasn't been penalized.
The previous post saw this user accusing me of celebrating civilian casualties, and now he's doubling down on that exact claim here. My actual contributions to this thread remain untouched; anyone can check them and see how baseless those accusations are.

Anyone following this discussion knows I make an effort to stay civil, polite, and respectful. The idea that I would mock civilian victims is offensive to me personally.

While his first comment was removed—likely resulting in a sanction—this post is just a continuation of that same behavior. Even if one argues that people are entitled to their opinions, bringing my parents into the argument is completely irrelevant. It’s nothing more than pure trolling.

I have no interest in engaging at this level. If you don't find this worthy of a sanction, fine, but I refuse to continue discussing this topic with someone who attacks me personally like this. Thanks for your time.

My bad. I’ll admit I didn't check the subforum rules before jumping into this thread.