mellowraven22 said:Look, I handled the opening post ages ago, you just don't dig my answer. There's nothing I can do about your taste, sorry.
Regarding this idea about cloning abuse? First off, what would even be the motive or the end goal behind such an abuse? And are you certain that my thread regarding the case over at politics (the Aunt Elsa situation) doesn't exist independently of whoever started it? You keep saying that useful content is what matters to you—well, isn't that topic useful to you too? If it isn't, then why not? That was really the question I posed in my initial post.
mellowraven22 said:Nah. I’ll answer whoever I feel like answering, and however I feel like answering them. You don't get to demand that everyone directs their replies solely to you.
So, I guess you decided this was the point worth addressing, but skipped my opening post entirely? Especially since that first post covers a topic that falls under your duties as an admin and moderator—not just some random comment by Nine Williams, or this specific post you're replying to now.
One more thing—I’m the one who actually started this thread, not Matthew Grant9. You’re responding to me first, so if you happen to address someone else along the way, that doesn't really apply to my concerns. You can't exactly answer me by just chatting with another forum member within the same thread.
Honestly, this topic would have been opened much sooner if it weren't for Silaj's thread—which I supported, by the way, and I even adjusted to the format used there. Now, you're finally addressing a topic that should have been handled over twenty days ago. Just look at the opening post—specifically that last sentence.
mellowraven22 said:So? Nothing new here, they've always been complaining. They threw fits over jokes when a thread got shut down, they bitched about RiD once moderation actually started working properly, they complained about politics for a million different reasons, they even acted out over religion when they couldn't get a private subforum just for Catholics... See my point. This whining isn't anything new or special, and I'm definitely not wasting my precious time on it. It's just more of the same daily nonsense we've seen a ton of before, and we'll see plenty more of it. I've already made my stance clear and I don't have the energy to write a hundred-page manifesto just to justify myself again. If they don't like it, there's plenty of other stuff on the internet.
You can call that thread you closed yesterday whatever you want, but it only lasted a month, it was ten pages long, and you could count on one hand the posts that were even slightly rude.
Polite <> useful.
Just give me one sentence—why are you guys even complaining?
Honestly, this is brilliant. If you look at my deleted threads—and even the posts from Silaj's threads—there’s actually more substance and actual utility there than in those "summaries" of yours.
I just want one sentence—why are you all even complaining?
It seems almost impossible that you haven't managed to figure out the main points of the debate by now, right?
mellowraven22, if you're finding it difficult to keep up with everything, maybe just take a look at the last sentence of my opening post.
I didn't start this thread just to give Matthew Grant9 some general answer about that situation. It isn't about being petty—honestly—it's more about the actual substance of what was said.
The issue here is that mellowraven22's conclusion doesn't actually follow from the topic at all. Even if I take the part where they address the cliques into account, I think the discussion points were clear from the get-go. It seemed obvious to me from the start that this thread wasn't being allowed to grow because there's some constructive goal in mind—it's more like it’s being held back until the timing feels right to finally shut it down. Still, I don't think that should be how we approach these conversations.
It might be useful to look closely at the actual content being debated, and perhaps see whether "cliques" are forming before or after certain questions are raised. If it happens afterward, maybe we aren't dealing with cliques at all, but rather just a large enough group of us who recognize the core issue? It isn't necessarily true that this was a forced topic (I would have been strongly against that, and I've voiced my opposition to similar examples—even within the moderator circle—that I felt fell into that category), but it's possible that something which initially slipped under the radar—maybe due to routine or just general chaos?—only gained significance through a later, more articulated complaint. I wonder, would things have played out differently if someone else, say someone from within the inner circle, had been the one to spot the problem instead of me?
mellowraven22, regarding the twenty-sixth day of Silaj's topic
First off—my ban—let's just call it trivial. Just as I told you all that I won't tolerate people going behind my back, you've made it clear you won't tolerate me doing the same to you. In mainstream psychology, I believe they call that the no asshole rule.
My topics actually matter—and unlike having or lacking some sort of "justifiable" reason to post under a pseudonym, these have substance. Someone else could have written them, or I could have posted them under a different handle—it wouldn't change much, unless your argument is that the issue doesn't exist outside of my specific framing. If there is a possibility that you feel that way, it’s been pretty easy to conclude that over these last twenty days, primarily based on how ZgSash reacted in that long-running case thread, and even in some of the satellite threads.
So, I am asking for a closer explanation regarding why my two threads were removed (whether by deletion or locking):
The issue of "fair" generalization via EL: regarding the level of discussion on Politics The non-functioning subforum PŽK, or lost in translation
I’ve gone through the code of conduct on PŽK as written by Bellwether, and—well, it isn't entirely clear where I went wrong. I wonder if anyone else would have run into the same trouble if they had opened identical threads. Saying this doesn't apply to me wouldn't hold water, because it was evident from both threads exactly how the moderator actions or the identified issues directly impact me. It is even clearer how both situations are significant in the long run, and how they strike at the very essence of our purpose here (as part of other media outlets).
In the middle of the confusion, all my posts and threads from some time ago were deleted first, only for most of those posts and one thread to be restored later. However, those two specific threads above were not. Regarding the one about PŽK, I don't mind if it's simply noted, but for the one concerning the situation on Politics, I am requesting an explanation as to why it wasn't taken into consideration.
So, what happened to this thread? I suppose Graham could be of some help—with the caveat that we can't really dive into private messages here in the public forum.
The movie is titled analyze this. 😁I decided to add this to the existing discussions on the subject.
There was also another failed attempt at a thread: The Internet and Identity. Over on the Spirituality forum, Brother linked clans and clones—referring to those multiple identities: Forum Clones.
The sociological perspective essentially focuses on how much a biological individual is embedded within society—that's really the core of its entire body of work. Most disciplines today are inherently "eclectic" by nature of their scientific foundations; you only really see reductionism creeping in through specific sub-disciplines or the particular emphasis placed during observation and theorizing. Things like the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and epistemology—those specialized branches—all put these nuances under the microscope as well. I suspect, Drew Lee7, that your issue isn't necessarily with these fine distinctions, but rather—if I may say so—a certain personal aversion toward disciplines that deal with the "intangible."
A few general thoughts (for Drew Lee7): - Distinguishing between sex and gender is primarily—if we are treating it as a theory or a construct—a sociological matter (anthropological, cultural, etc.); its main goal is to explain the mechanics of socialization, identity formation, and social biases. - If there’s any doubt about whether this theoretical approach—interpreting reality through a tangible, defined concept—actually makes sense, one might just look at other constructs, like national identity, for instance. We tend to feel those identities are real and exist independently of us, even though they aren't strictly tied to being born into a specific ethnic group; it’s also worth remembering that the very basis for interpreting society stems from these types of identificationsof distinct (independent of the individual) realities, which is an idea found in the recognition of social facts dating all the way back to Emile Durkheim. - Transsexuality and transvestism might fall under the category of gender identity disorders in a clinical sense, simply because there is a logical discrepancy between one's assigned status and their lived experience that needs to be acknowledged and addressed; however, that doesn't mean it makes sense—or is necessary—to label such people as disordered, let alone ill.
In the meantime, I have replied to the thread regarding BPD—once again—specifically touching upon that controversial connection between the disorder and violence against women. I feel like this might finally allow me to draw a line under that whole episode.
Is this even about you, or is this actually regarding Julian Assange? I suppose it’s fine for a debate—or maybe it’s just plain wrong—but it shouldn't be grounds for a ban. It isn't that you're justifying violence against your friend or anyone else, per se; it’s more that your own situation might be causing a bit of a skewed interpretation of why violence happens. There seems to be an entire dimension missing here—specifically the part concerning those socially accepted reasons for domestic violence. If this is enough to get someone banned, then I guess plenty of other posts lacking sociological awareness should be banned too, though I honestly have no idea who would act as the ultimate arbiter.
Lisa Hernandez3 said:Not everyone is capable of killing animals in the woods—and even fewer would think it’s okay to take a photo with a dead animal just as a souvenir.
Brilliant. 😬
I suppose I should ask—is a moderator allowed to have an opinion? And I don't mean this is strictly about current rural populations, but rather about the legitimate thesis that there might be a connection between certain rural habits, impulses, or worldviews and a certain lack of sensitivity toward others' space, integrity, or life. Of course, that doesn't mean urban environments—as a construct—don't have their own version of "psychopathology." I find the points Endymion makes quite understandable, even if we can easily poke fun at both extremes—say, the "wild man" archetype versus the "urban hipster" type. The issue is that something which feels intimate or extreme to some people can, in certain ways, enter the cultural mainstream and effectively "mask" the raw process itself. It seems perfectly reasonable to wonder what drives that process on an individual level, or what keeps a particular ritual or custom alive. Furthermore, it's worth considering how much of those rural principles are actually transferred into high-functioning urban patterns or specific scenarios, such as war.
Nicole Turner35 said:... Unfortunately, I think we can all see how this plays out after a blowout like this one regarding the warnings—after there's been some movement and people have shared their perspectives, there’s usually this long, months-long silence on the topic. It happens either because people are afraid of getting sanctioned again (just look at the latest post that also got flagged) or because they feel forced to "get back to the topic." But I guess BPD isn't just a "topic"—it's deeply woven into every single part of life for both the person with BPD and their loved ones. It’s just a shame for the discussion.
Don't you feel like it's actually easier to breathe in this thread now that the tension has been cut by those warnings? They were applied specifically where things really crossed the line, in my opinion. I suspect that some things have been communicated in the meantime, and maybe both sides now have a better grasp of why the other side reacts the way they do or what specifically triggers them. I'm not saying the warnings helped anyone reach an understanding; they are more like a temporary tool to calm things down—so that the meaningful stuff you all create here actually has a chance to be seen. Even that last warning I issued was just a reminder; it was only a yellow card, and I don't think it was nearly as "dangerous" as the post that actually got flagged. I don't think ambermason16 was trying to take sides; she was mostly just flagging things that felt over the top when looking at one-on-one interactions (like a person with BPD vs. a family member) within the thread—and honestly, I might have done the same thing if I were in her shoes.
Regarding Julian Assange's points, I mentioned earlier that I find them debatable, though I still don't think they warrant a strike (they are just reckless, rushed, and highly emotional, I suppose). It seems to be based on his own impressions and qualifications, which makes his position easy to challenge. His stance identifies a problem, but it lacks a certain cultural dimension, which—perhaps unintentionally—leaves it open to becoming a personal issue within the thread. From an interpretive standpoint, I don't think it holds much weight. Maybe we could address it by cautioning against using unverified data (or going off-topic). I'm not entirely sure if it was intentional trolling.
Generally speaking, regarding situations similar to this, I'm not in favor of protecting certain "truths" simply because some users hold more weight than others just because they have a specific diagnosis and demand that certain interpretations remain untouchable. Then again, I suppose it depends on the information being used. I think the style of users who speak openly about their diagnoses really helps highlight the importance of these issues and helps strip away some of the stigma, but their role is to coexist with other styles—just as it's the job of users with different styles to be communicative and personally respectful toward you, especially since you are all so candid. As for personal attacks, I believe they should be sanctioned appropriately on those final pages. Based on what has been written here, it's pretty clear where the friction points are, so we can pay extra attention to those areas. Please let me know if there is anything else to discuss. For instance, what kind of moderation style do you think would best suit the unique needs of this topic?
It has that film noir vibe—all about the atmosphere, those sharp contrasts, a sense of being lost, and just a hint of allure (if you look at the distinct silhouettes of the female characters in the previous post, and the color palette):
There’s a certain perfection in the shapes from the 1960s (what we call "retro" today), and a real longing for that pop of red:
The way the shapes, colors, and details are presented isn't accidental—it feels like intentional, careful work:
I find these parallel chat intrusions quite fascinating from the perspective of shifting forms—the way people enter and exit a conversation.
Take service industries, for instance. They were essentially designed to "retreat" in response to specific psychological needs and consumer demands; they exist to lure clients in, which means they inherently require a clear, visible, and polished structure.
Most economic and business models are actually built upon patterns derived from basic anthropological truths. Some of these truths have been consciously shaped throughout history to define certain concepts or to mold causality and variables. Over time, they evolved into constructs that we now mistake for being natural, though that’s really just another layer of the power dynamics at play.
Polarity was a particularly prominent theme in popular culture during those decades when there was such an intense, massive push to integrate natural principles into industrial engines—roughly from the introduction of the assembly line in the 1910s through the 1960s. I suppose it served as a way to either legitimize or perhaps process (whether through resistance or acceptance) the changing landscape. You see it in things like Laurel and Hardy—the thin man and the heavy man—or even the contrast of light and shadow, or the whole femme fatale concept in film noir.
It isn't quite like that, I suppose. I was actually just letting one of the ladies on the forum know that I'm female—mostly because she had formed an opinion on what I wrote based on the assumption that I was a man. Those kinds of reactions and interpretations really just go to show how much drama seekers love a good polarity. For instance, you see that sort of concave integrity from Dudekov over in Smalltown, USA.
