Posts by lonetrucker4

brightpuma said:I honestly don't get why you're even complaining.

Look, this isn't even a formal complaint—I'm not actually asking for my ban to be lifted, because let's be real, that almost never happens anyway. It's more like a suggestion, a little commentary, or just an idea on how we could make this forum a bit better and less trashy.

I've been following this whole thread. Look, the guy made it crystal clear—this is a PZ where we actually expect people to back up their claims with some real arguments.

Honestly, I’m struggling to explain this any better without sounding like a broken record, and man, that constant "forum looping" really grinds my gears. If we’re fundamentally on different pages, we just gotta call it and move on. It's not like we're playing a tennis match where we have to rally forever until someone hits a winner. It's not even that deep—even in actual natural science, you hit walls when different fields start clashing. We're talking tech and industry here, not some abstract debate over PZ.

Like I said, this whole thread should've been shut down ages ago. It’s one of those classic catch-22 situations: if you keep arguing, you're a troll, but if you stop, you're being condescending. Total lose-lose. And the immediate reason for that second warning? Just because I called out how messed up it is to threaten someone with a ban mid-argument.

That take... Need it. Look, I can't exactly back this up using natural science, since debating isn't really part of that field. I could bring up legal stuff like a "conflict of interest," or lean on ethics via Kant's "categorical imperative"—you know, the idea that if everyone acted like this in a thread, the whole conversation would just collapse. I could probably dig up some analytic philosophy papers to back me up too, which is usually what the science crowd prefers anyway. But honestly? Most people from the STEM fields I deal with just roll their eyes and call it "philosophizing"—and they mean that in the most condescending, dismissive way possible. They think it's all just useless noise.

I laid out the main points of the debate just how I saw them—my own personal take on things. My point was simple: you have to account for the socio-psychological and political reality that these numbers don't actually move the needle for regular folks or politicians. shadoworca3 says we shouldn't even consider that factor. It's a tough spot to argue from there, especially since he keeps claiming my position isn't clear, while you keep trying to gatekeep what counts as an "argument" based on your own little rules.

Where are the numbers? Give me some actual data, research, or at least a link.

So, what kind of stats or studies could actually back that up? Just saying it isn't enough. Gotta take that into account.So, let's just strip it down and call it what it is: people are just plain terrified of radiation, right? Like, can we just assume that's the whole argument? We aren't even talking about nuclear energy as a whole here—this whole thread went off the rails because the topic was supposed to be about Focus, but since the moderator let it slide, I guess off-topic chatter is allowed. Off-topic stuff shouldn't be strictly banned anyway.

And then, shadoworca3 was like... Basically you'd have to be logical enough to calculate the "mathematical probability" of death tolls per unit of energy produced over time. My take? If we're talking massive fallout scenarios—think Chernobyl or Focus—it’s a non-starter. Doesn't matter how tiny the math says the risk is; if the consequences are that huge, it's unacceptable. Plenty of people feel the same way (I first heard this from an old contact about 30 years ago, back when I was actually a nuclear energy fanboy). I can't boil it down to a single number, though. (Honestly, I’ve always been skeptical of those "probabilistic studies." I once got sued for libel because of one, but I was cleared after a physics PhD testified for me. I haven't messed with that stuff in 25 years, so I'm out of the loop.)

If you aren't going to argue, then statements like "if you get it, you get it" are just trolling.

Actually, that used to be called undermining an opponent, which falls under "insulting". Look, I really don't think there's anything wrong with ending a discussion if we're just talking past each other. An opponent says "I don't follow your logic," I say "Sorry, I can't make it any clearer"—maybe it's on me, who knows—but I don't see why that should be punished, especially if you're directly involved.

I think some of the stuff you're saying about alternative or supplemental energy sources just doesn't hold up. Anyone working in the field will tell you that. For example, the EES can't rely solely on solar panels and wind farms. You need conventional plants as a base.

I'm not diving into that debate here, since, from what I gather, that wasn't even the reason for the ban. Regardless, it's not true that "anyone in the field will tell you that." (Unless you add extra criteria where plenty of pros with actual degrees "don't understand.") People are having very serious debates about the US power grid for 2050—whether it'll be 50% wind or 80% renewables (counting hydro, obviously). And the whole "conventional plant as a base" argument falls apart if you have storage options, like pumped-storage hydro. I won't derail the thread; there are specific threads on PZ about solar, wind, and general economics.

Also, if someone edits a post after getting banned for it, they totally deserved the warning... Not sure what the issue is. 🤷

Since I haven't dealt with this specific issue before, ignoring the immediate drama, I'd ask the moderators for a general clarification—this applies to all forums.

Say I lose my cool and type something like "get lost, you..." Ten minutes later, I've cooled off, I regret it, and I delete it. If a moderator hasn't jumped in yet, I assume we're good. But if they already handed out a ban, why is it bad to fix it? I repented, took back the insult, yet the ban stays.

About ten days ago, I drifted into this subforum for the first time and dropped a comment about that ban I caught from a moderator over in the natural science section. shadoworca3So, what's the deal? Just one little sarcastic observation from me. Thought it was an insult:

Oh great, just what we need—a bunch of "experts" on this forum who think they have an answer for everything under the sun, ready to lecture us poor, clueless peasants. 🙂

I thought it was way too harsh, and honestly, I still do. Not gonna get into the weeds about it right now, but fine, whatever. (shadoworca3 then turns to the offended party with that patronizing tone that just gets under your skin.)

Here’s the deal: I see the issue. We’re deep in a debate about nuclear power—specifically that "Nuclear Safety Issues at Focus" thread—and since I’ve been an anti-nuclear activist since way back in '86, my main target for sarcasm is the pro-nuclear crowd, including shadoworca3. It feels like this whole dynamic is messing with how moderators decide what counts as an insult and what actually deserves a ban.

Turns out I called it. Saw the red flags early on and was totally right about the whole mess.

I see this pattern all the time in the El Niño threads: some guy claiming to be a natural science or tech expert who thinks he’s God’s gift to intelligence. He shuts down any actual philosophy like it's beneath him. To him, he just KNOWS. Yep. So what? Needs work..

On PZ, people actually know the difference between logic and total nonsense. A bunch of philosophers have churned out endless books trying to define what "rational" actually means, but honestly, we already get it on the PZ—it's basically just "I know what I know," and I don't need some academic lecture cluttering up my shop.

Regarding my point—back when I was trying to lay out my full stance in that one long-winded post... Just like I mentioned in a later post.):

You gotta look at the socio-psychological and political side of things here—those numbers? They don't mean squat to regular folks or politicians. They just don't move the needle.

It’s a total joke to claim those facts don't even matter.

All that psychological stuff you're rambling about regarding the NE issue? That’s exactly what needs to go. We don't need feelings or head games—just pure, cold numbers and a rational call.

He clearly has no clue what's actually going on—it’s like watching someone try to play quarterback without ever having stepped onto a football field.

Look, when it comes to renewables—if you ask lonetrucker4—there’s basically nothing worth looking at here except for some tiny fraction that isn't actually going to fix anything.

It shouldn't just be ironic—it needs to be full-blown sarcasm.

That was sarcasm, man. Basically saying your sources still aren't pulling their weight—or better yet, they shouldn't be in the game at all.

If you’ve got a philosophy degree, that effortless leap from "is" to "ought" is enough to make your eyes bleed. It's that classic Humov Is-Ought problem that people still can't stop tripping over today.

The idea that renewables aren't playing a major role? That argument died a decade ago. It's ancient history.

I get people like that, honestly. I don't let it get to me too much. But it’s a real mess when someone holds the power and uses it just to feed their own biases. It's like they suddenly stop being part of the debate and start acting like a judge, using their mod status to slap down anyone they disagree with.

After my two attempts to explain myself up there, this guy's already filing a complaint:I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, responding Yeah, I know it’s not clicking for you., here’s the deal: So, I lay out the numbers, and you just hit me with "I don't get it." No explanation, nothing. You're playing a dangerous game, pushing the envelope. Look, I tried to explain—including the fact that it’s not all just about raw data. My response: I tried to be as clear as possible, but if you aren't getting it, I'm sorry, I can't make it any simpler. (...) And what does "pushing the envelope" even mean here?

Basically, he says, "Your argument makes no sense," and I say, "Sorry, I can't make it clearer." We could both just shrug and walk away; it’s not like we’re playing in the Wimbledon finals where there has to be one winner. Maybe we would have, if I wasn't so curious about this whole "pushing the envelope" thing.

shadoworca3: What that means is you can't just condescendingly tell someone they don't understand something—not just me—and then dodge the actual arguments. You've already caught a yellow card for stuff like that. Man, give me a break. I just said I didn't understand, so what am I supposed to argue? Here’s my take: It feels incredibly shady when someone is right in the middle of a heated debate, taking a massive stand and calling opponents paranoid and all that, only to suddenly flip the switch into moderator mode and threaten people with cards just because someone opposes them "condescendingly." It puts me, and everyone else arguing with him, in a totally rigged and unfair spot.

And now I'm getting a card for trolling. It’s actually pretty funny (honestly, endless pages of philosophy and psych analysis could be written here)—what even is "trolling"? Based on the last paragraph:

You're trolling because I already gave you a reasoned answer back on the "Corner" regarding who I was talking to.

Get the joke? I expressed frustration because someone is debating while simultaneously acting like a mod and threatening opponents with cards—and the response is that expressing that frustration is "trolling," which earns me a card. It’s like a variation of that "Catch-22" logic—you can't win; you're guilty no matter how you spin it! Seriously, you could write entire books on self-reference, reflexivity, consciousness, or paradoxes in set theory... but I won't go there.

Then comes the warning that we can only talk about "Focus and natural science" here, which is a total reach, since you naturally link different aspects when dealing with complex topics like energy.

Then another anti-nuclear guy gets a card, casualharbor9, and then the public message drops: Edit your post again to remove the part that got you flagged, or you're banned from PZ for life, followed by him deleting the post where the guy was explaining his reasoning (the guy decided to change it before he even saw the card).

I'm not delusional enough to think writing this will change anything. shadoworca3 isn't going to change his worldview (KJTV, it's like a religious mindset, everyone has one), and honestly, ever since the days of Usenet and Fidonet, it's been nearly impossible for a regular user to influence the mods.

But whatever, I'm putting this out there: "Don't hand out cards to an opponent in a discussion you're personally participating in!" should be part of some official moderator code of conduct (you know, conflict of interest and all that, like a variation on Kant's "categorical imperative").

And especially, don't throw a card at someone just because you're irrationally afraid they might throw one at you.😁

I'm done. I'm officially checking out of any nuclear energy debates here on the PZ forum. Honestly, I can't even guess when shadoworca3 is going to decide my post is an insult, trolling, or just off-topic. When you're dealing with someone that stubborn, impulsive, and trigger-happy—you just gotta get out of the way. Not exactly a huge loss for humanity, right? 🙂 Besides, there’s zero chance we're building a nuclear plant in America anytime soon, and renewables are definitely taking over anyway.

Tyler Brown3 said:What you're talking about is the so-called fine-structure constant, which describes... electromagnetic interaction. The Fine Structure Constant of the Grand Unification (1/42) It describes the era of the unified force—that moment when the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions were all merged into one single, cohesive force.

Got a link for that? Wikipedia doesn't say squat about the fine structure constant, and there’s nothing on the number 42 either. Is this some new thing? Was this even around back when Douglas Adams was writing?

From what I can tell, this whole thing is just a pile of nonsense and total guesswork.

@Kyle Carter2: I’m bringing this up because I haven't just "stopped caring." Regarding terms like "American" or whatever—yeah, I agree, they're offensive. (Not always, obviously, you can say stuff like "you're crazy" as a joke between friends, but strictly speaking? Yeah, they're insults.)

Looks like the chat has veered off into all that messy ethnic drama in Canada instead of actually talking about how this place is moderated. From what I can tell, the mod's take is basically "no rules, no limits."

I didn't even drop the word "penalty" in my message.

Look, you can't set the bar way too high—people need an outlet—but shouldn't we occasionally tell folks to chill out? People catch fire in this thread, bringing up the Homeland War or talking about defending territory like it’s some battlefield, when it really isn't. It happens all the time.

I actually caught a warning recently for an ironic jab at someone—not in the politics section, but over in science, which makes sense since the rules are different there. A bit overkill if you ask me, but whatever, I can live with it. I'll try to blunt my edges moving forward. 🙂 So yeah, basically just stay away from insulting nations, countries, religions, and all that stuff.

I honestly think calling Canadians "Canadian" is offensive, and I actually called that out over in the "politics" forum. The moderator observer thinks it isn't, and even claimed I was being off-topic just for bringing it up.

I’m curious—what do the other mods think? The "politics" board (and the history section too) is pretty much an echo chamber for right-wing types, so they act like statements that most people would find insulting are totally fine. Still, I feel like there should be some lines we don't cross.

To me, comments like this are just wrong:

Now those Canadians actually think they can block America's entry into the EU: this is seriously over the line.

(Reading it again, I get what the user meant, even if they completely butchered the actual facts of the article—it's really about how America could stall Canada's progress—but using the term "Canadian" like that still feels derogatory. It's like saying "Gypsies," "Mexicans," or "Blackies"...)

It's pathetic how we've ended up, getting blackmailed by that quasi-state in Canada.

(Canada is a sovereign nation that America recognized twenty years ago. Regardless of the ongoing issues with "entities," you shouldn't be calling them a "quasi-state.")

They should have just told them to get lost

(We're talking about relations between America and another sovereign nation here; you're supposed to show some diplomatic respect.)

Honestly, the whole thread is a waste of time. It's just one news article about Canada insisting on its right to unhindered access to international waters. That's standard stuff, nothing new, and has zero to do with giving up territory, even though half the commenters seem to think it does.

Just a heads-up: if you ever stumble upon an old copy of the Strugatsky brothers' "Scoundrel on the Heath"—specifically that 1979 version from New York City published by Penguin Random House in their "Centaur" series—be careful. It’s wild. When I first read it, I had this nagging feeling like pieces were missing. Turns out, they split the translation work between two different people to handle alternating chapters. Half the story takes place in a human colony, and the other half happens out in the woods on some distant planet. Well, the guy handling the forest half totally blew it, so they just published half a damn novel! Sounds insane, but that's the reality.

The full set actually came out later in New York, back in 1988, through a Scholastic and Highlights collaboration as part of a six-book collection of the Strugatsky brothers' best work.

Something from a Science Fiction Book just popped into my head: "To even ask a question, you've gotta already know most of the answer."

lonetrucker4 said:Think of this one short story—it was published back in the day, can't recall where exactly. Basically, some ancient, extinct race built this massive machine that holds all the knowledge in the universe. Now, younger species show up and start asking questions, but there's a catch: the machine only answers if the question is "properly formulated." You actually have to know the right terminology just to get an answer. It won't even bother answering a biologist asking "what is life" or "what is death," because those terms are way too narrow when you look at the big picture. Like, a worm asks about the nature of mud... and that's where it goes.

Then you've got that Science Fiction Book, "2001: A Space Odyssey"—just as deep and philosophical as hell.

Clarke basically mashes gritty technical specs and near-future tech with those grand space opera vibes that hit right on the edge of mysticism. I was twelve when we landed on the Moon—watched the whole thing on TV—and I devoured both the book and the movie a year later once they finally hit the shelves here. That stuff messed with my head in a big way, and honestly, it did the same for everyone else in my generation. Back in the 70s, we actually believed we’d have permanent colonies on the Moon by 2001, massive orbital stations (that Apollo-Soyuz mission in '75 felt like proof), and crews heading straight for Jupiter. Then there's that spiritual vibe you get from seeing the Blue Marble—that shot of Earth from deep space where everything looks so tiny yet totally unique against the infinite void. It was also when people started waking up to the environment; I actually wrote something about this recently regarding the Rio +20 summit. The first UN environmental conference was back in '72, around the same time as the "Growth Limit" study and that classic "This Only Country" book. There's just something mystical about humanity leaving the cradle and potentially evolving even further. We went from ape-like creatures to self-aware beings with brains three times the size in just a few million years—so what happens in the next few million? But yeah... that dream slowly just faded away.

The Strugatsky brothers are top-tier. They’re the ones behind the whole vibe for Tarkovsky’s Stalker.

Yeah, obviously. Personally, I think their best novel is To Be or Not to Be.

Isaac Asimov messing around with robot identity and ethics, then hitting us with that whole "psychohistory" concept in *Endowment*... heavy stuff.

The author is Robert Sheckley. It was published in New York City in an issue of Analog Science Fiction Magazine back in '76 under the title "Ask a Foolish Question." A quick search on Google shows the original title was indeed "Ask a Foolish Question," and you can find the story on Project Gutenberg.

The final paragraph (scanned from an old translation):

Alone on his planet—which isn't too big or too small, just the perfect size—The Answerer waits. He can't help the world coming his way, because even The Answerer has his limits.
He can only answer the properly posed questions.
The Universe? Life? Death? Purple? Eighteen?
Just partial truths, half-truths, tiny crumbs of the ultimate question.
But The Answerer, all by himself, mutters questions to himself—real questions that nobody else could ever wrap their head around.
How, then, could they ever understand the real answers?
The questions will never be asked, and The Answerer remembers things his builders once knew and subsequently forgot.
To ask a question, you must already know the greater part of the answer.

That wording's actually pretty interesting:

Honestly, that's more of a book thing than a movie thing.

What's his deal? Whatever.So what, like books are some lower class of media now? Truth is, movies are pretty much useless when you actually want to tackle deep philosophical ideas. I’m a reader through and through—don't ask me about movies, I don't get them.

The movie version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is alright, but if you actually want to get what the author was laying down, you gotta read the book. It’s like how 2001: A Space Odyssey managed to land its big message through pure visuals alone. In that case, the writer and director were basically joined at the hip, working on the book and the film simultaneously—pretty wild way to do things.

@Walter Edwards: You got it wrong, man. It's a planet stuck deep in some medieval wilderness. The crew from Earth is doing this "participatory research," while back home in America, it’s a Country Ruled by Communism governed by those rigid laws of historical materialism. Some big shot eventually starts thinking he'll inevitably rule that planet too. It only pops up for maybe two or three sentences, though—doesn't ruin the read.

I'm guessing you read "Roadside Picnic" in English, which is pretty standard nowadays. Seems weird to me, reading something in English that feels so close to our own language. 🙂 I read a translation back in the 80s.

@Walter Edwards: You got it wrong, man. It’s a planet stuck deep in some medieval wasteland. The crew from Earth is doing "participatory research," but since this Only Country is ruled by communism under those rigid laws of historical materialism, the main guy eventually starts thinking he's destined to rule that planet too.

I'm guessing you read "Roadside Picnic" in English, which is pretty standard these days. Seems weird to me, reading something in a language so close to our own in English. 🙂 I read an old translation back in the 80s.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Look, I have to admit, the book is absolutely brilliant. It actually puts me in mind of a specific line from an old SF Book that always stuck with me: "To ask a question, one must already know a larger part of the answer." You see that kind of deep, philosophical heavy lifting all over the genre—take *2001: A Space Odyssey*, for example, which is basically a meditation on existence wrapped in a space suit. Then you’ve got the Strugatsky brothers, whose work is so profound that even Tarkovsky felt compelled to adapt it into *Stalker*. There are endless examples like this if you bother to look.
Then you have Milivoj Solar, who claims that when it comes to Jacques Derrida, the guy is essentially just writing literature and trying to pass it off as philosophy.

Think of this one short story—it was published back in the day, can't recall where exactly. Basically, some ancient, extinct race built this massive machine that holds all the knowledge in the universe. Now, younger species show up and start asking questions, but there's a catch: the machine only answers if the question is "properly formulated." You actually have to know the right terminology just to get an answer. It won't even bother answering a biologist asking "what is life" or "what is death," because those terms are way too narrow when you look at the big picture. Like, a worm asks about the nature of mud... and that's where it goes.

Then you've got that Science Fiction Book, "2001: A Space Odyssey"—just as deep and philosophical as hell.

Clarke basically mashes gritty technical specs and near-future tech with those grand space opera vibes that hit right on the edge of mysticism. I was twelve when we landed on the Moon—watched the whole thing on TV—and I devoured both the book and the movie a year later once they finally hit the shelves here. That stuff messed with my head in a big way, and honestly, it did the same for everyone else in my generation. Back in the 70s, we actually believed we’d have permanent colonies on the Moon by 2001, massive orbital stations (that Apollo-Soyuz mission in '75 felt like proof), and crews heading straight for Jupiter. Then there's that spiritual vibe you get from seeing the Blue Marble—that shot of Earth from deep space where everything looks so tiny yet totally unique against the infinite void. It was also when people started waking up to the environment; I actually wrote something about this recently regarding the Rio +20 summit. The first UN environmental conference was back in '72, around the same time as the "Growth Limit" study and that classic "This Only Country" book. There's just something mystical about humanity leaving the cradle and potentially evolving even further. We went from ape-like creatures to self-aware beings with brains three times the size in just a few million years—so what happens in the next few million? But yeah... that dream slowly just faded away.

The Strugatsky brothers are top-tier. They’re the ones behind the whole vibe for Tarkovsky’s Stalker.

Yeah, obviously. Personally, I think their best novel is To Be or Not to Be.

Isaac Asimov messing around with robot identity and ethics, then hitting us with that whole "psychohistory" concept in *Endowment*... heavy stuff.

@Sandra Wilson68: Seriously? You actually don't get the whole "42" thing? 🙂 It’s straight out of a book by one of the biggest heavyweights of 20th-century philosophy!

They finally nailed down the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, but they totally missed the actual question... And it gets weirder... 😲 You can't have the question and the answer chilling in the same universe at once. It’s all tied up in set theory paradoxes—you know, that whole "set containing itself" mess—plus Tarski’s logic truth problems and those Gödel theorems. Plus, it all loops back to how we split consciousness from self-awareness, like that whole struggle with grounding the "Self" you see in Fichte and early Schelling.

@Amanda Jackson5: I am not pulling your leg, I’m being dead serious—I actually think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is some deep philosophical gold. Who cares if it's formatted as a novel? We’ve got guys like Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, even Ayn Rand, who wrote fiction to make their points. Not to mention authors whose entire books are basically philosophy in disguise! Dostoevsky and H. Hess were huge favorites of mine, and then there's the SF crowd... You can probably tell I'm not exactly a fan of that dry "analytical" philosophy stuff. 🙂 Same goes for the traditional metaphysics Sandra Wilson68 is preaching. You don't have to buy it, but seriously I'm not kidding around here!

rowdyowl said:Hold on. If independents can win local races as mayors or county executives, why couldn't they do the same as members of Congress? 🤷

Out of all the towns and cities in America—around 3,000 if you're counting—how many actually have independent mayors? One percent? Probably not even two.

Look at history—it doesn't matter how you set up the voting rules, almost everyone gets funneled into parties. In a winner-take-all system, you're basically stuck with two or three big players. Just look at the US. It’s like 99% Republicans or Democrats. They had one independent governor once, some former wrestler guy... what was his name again?

Look at New Zealand's last election—out of 150 seats, you had 73 from the center-right coalition, 72 from the Labor Party, one Green Party rep, and even four independents. That’s a crazy outlier if you ask me. I think they might have a bunch of "independents" in the Azerbaijani parliament too, but let’s be real—they're all just puppets for that one authoritarian president. It’s the same old story; we basically had that fake "non-partisan" democracy back in America.

Look, Poanda is basically this: three centuries of parliamentary democracy later, and political parties still force themselves down our throats like they’re some kind of necessity. It totally flies in the face of what liberal theorists—or even guys like Thomas Jefferson—actually believed. It drives me nuts, but hey, that's just how the game is played. 🤷

In a winner-take-all system where people vote for individuals directly, you basically end up with two big divides depending on how the lists are set up:

1. You've got maybe two or three heavy hitters running the show nationally, plus some local outfits. If your goal is to keep the US Congress limited to just the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, and maybe the Reform Party, then this is your golden ticket!
2. The party bosses hold all the cards, leaving the actual candidates and elected reps playing second fiddle to the higher-ups.

The Roman Catholic Church bishops are the last ones left who think they have the authority to claim a government isn't "representative of the people." Give me a break. They aren't representative of anyone—their whole position has zero connection to the American people; they’re just hand-picked by an absolute ruler from a foreign state. That supposed right to stay completely insulated from any democratic input or government oversight? The Vatican grabbed that through a concordat signed with the Socialist Federal America (back when Josip Broz Marshall was given a massive hero's welcome by the leaders in Vatican City, which was even covered in a book last year), and the Republic of America later just rubber-stamped it. Under the Kingdom of America, the state had to sign off on bishops, so Alojzije Stepinac became a bishop while he was still incredibly young, all thanks to backing from King Alexander Karađorđević after he passed over two other candidates.

They look down on regular folks, basically calling them sheep in official terms. They won't allow even a tiny whiff of democracy inside the Church—not even a debate about the influence of the people. For example, they’ll never budge if a local parish rebels against their chosen "pastor." Bishops appoint priests like little autocrats, and those priests are essentially appointed by the guy in Vatican City.