Posts by Sandra Parker3

velvetmaker3 said:Who is "like me"? Who exactly are these people similar to me?

That sounds like a favorite little catchphrase used by labelers.

Can dignity even be defended that way? Does he even need that kind of defense?
Was dignity even threatened in this specific thread? And whose?

You think we're far away, but we're closer than you think—not just us, but many people west of here too. There are very few places in the world where you can freely say something that doesn't align with the political consensus of the ruling elite.
Politics in North Korea and in Western democracies both dictate what can and cannot be said. The only difference is the specific topics where free speech is restricted. And it's always in the name of higher reasons, usually for the "greater good."

Judolino insulted his interlocutors, which is a completely different matter. He can express his views without being insulting.

I haven't been studying who was playing what role there, but I saw the thread while it was on the second page and followed it a bit. I wasn't interested enough to jump in, just enough to see how it would unfold. Nothing particularly racist happened there; what caught my eye was the excessive, totally unnecessary, and unjustified insulting of anti-racist users, followed by a user with a few decent posts and nothing else I could single out. That's why the uproar over this thread surprises me. It was pure anti-racist hysteria over nothing.

He didn't have anything to scream about; he's just blowing smoke in the cold.

Can dignity even be defended that way? Does he even need such a defense?
Was anyone's dignity actually compromised regarding the specific topic at hand? And whose?

It seems to me we aren't that far off; we're closer than you think, and not just us, but many places west of here too. There are very few places in the world where you can freely say something that doesn't align with the political consensus of the ruling elite.
Politics in both Korea and Western democracies dictate what can and cannot be said. They just differ on which topics have restricted freedom of speech. It's always done in the name of higher causes, usually for the "greater good."

Judolina insulted her interlocutors, and that's a whole different thing. Someone can express their view without being insulting.

I haven't studied who played what role there, but I saw the thread when it was on page two and followed it a bit. I wasn't interested enough to jump in, but just enough to see how it would play out. Nothing particularly racist happened there; what caught my eye was the excessive and completely unjustifiable insults toward the anti-racist users, then some user from the divisions with a couple of decent posts, and nothing else worth mentioning. So, I'm surprised by the uproar surrounding this thread. Pure anti-racist hysteria over nothing.

There was nothing to scream about; they're just shouting into the wind.

velvetmaker3 said:Nobody wanted to suppress anyone; you're exaggerating. And you're doing it easily, way too easily.
It's not right to slap a stigma like that on someone.

velvetmaker3 said:Yeah, which is exactly why that anti-racist user got banned—he was practically bordering on hate speech himself.

I didn't notice any actual racists in those quotes.

I didn't even catch that guy being a so-called racist.

velvetmaker3 said:See, that's the issue. When people try to split hairs, they end up being labeled as "something"—in this case, a racist.

Nothing out of the ordinary happened in that thread, other than one user insulting others. Taboo topics and taboo ways of thinking shouldn't exist.

If conversation is only permitted when it aligns with official policy, then we're just like North Korea. There, you can only express views that fit the state line.

Freedom of speech is allowed, provided you stay within the bounds of official policy.

Nothing special really happened in that thread, other than one user insulting others. There shouldn't be any taboo topics or forbidden ways of thinking.

If conversation is only allowed if it aligns with official policy, then we're basically North Korea. Over there, only views that fit the state agenda are permitted.

Freedom of speech is only granted as long as you stick to the official line.

velvetmaker3 said:Look, this isn't a school where you need to go off and practice, and he actually made himself quite clear; it's just that not everyone interpreted him the same way.
Are you really sure everyone always understands you exactly the way you intend them to? If they don't, should they be practicing their understanding, or is it you who needs to work on being understood?

Sure, freedom of speech has limits, but you and I are coming at this from different angles. I’m advocating for free speech, whereas you aren't really fighting for free speech—you're fighting for the rule of law and the limited freedom of speech that stems from it.

If you were, say, a white person in South Africa during apartheid, would you also play the legalist and quote segregation laws, claiming they must be followed because they are supreme above all else?

Or if a majority in America ever voted in racist laws, would you stand behind them and quote them here just to silence anti-racists?

Freedom of speech, yes, but only if it aligns with official policy, which is how it works in North Korea, too.

Besides, there was no actual spreading of hate here.

That whole racism topic was pretty pointless; there were maybe five or six good posts, and the rest was just filler. But it shouldn't be a taboo subject.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they are a racist or why they believe what they believe. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily beat them with arguments. Or are they just afraid they won't be able to?

Besides, there wasn't any hate speech being spread.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they hold those views or what they believe in. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily shut them down with better arguments. Or maybe they're just afraid they won't be able to?

velvetmaker3 said:Completely unjustifiable.

If Black people have skin that's more resistant to the sun, what's the big deal in saying that?

More than unjustifiable, actually.

velvetmaker3 said:I didn't see any actual racism in that thread—just some minor undertones, but nothing worth making a massive scene over. The reaction from Judolino was completely unjustifiable. Just a totally useless response.

And then there’s this famous post:

Hatred toward Jews (during the era of WWII) is a perfectly normal reaction.....
When a superior nation settles in your country and advances ahead of the native population through their superior upbringing, connections, and traditions—while openly showing off their arrogance—they inevitably threaten that nation's values and wealth......

In that scenario, hatred is a perfectly logical and necessary reaction... as is acting upon that hatred.....

The guy being quoted to "prove" the author's horrific racism felt more like an attempt by the author to explain why Nazism became so widespread back then, rather than an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism as something justifiable.
Besides, in this specific context, Jews aren't being described as inferior, just superior.

Why treat this as a taboo subject? Shouldn't we be able to talk freely about the phenomenon of racism?
There's nothing wrong with discussing it. There’s no reason why fanatic racists, fanatic anti-racists, or people who find both sides ridiculous shouldn't be able to talk openly about why they think what they think. Provided, of course, they can express their views politely, regardless of what they are.
A forum exists for discussion; there shouldn't be any taboo topics. If someone is a racist, they aren't going to stop being one just because someone decides they aren't allowed to be. That doesn't make racism disappear. In this thread, people weren't attacking a racist; they were attacking benign observations and thoughts that would have been labeled as racism, Nazism, or Hitler-worship by the most hysterical forum users.
Totally over the top.

velvetmaker3 said:Look, I didn't see it as an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism, but rather as an attempt to clarify what the Nazis actually believed. And I don't think there's any doubt they believed their reaction was both logical and necessary.

So, it's not that the author thinks the Nazis were right; he's just explaining that the Nazis viewed their own actions as logical and necessary—something we already know regardless of him. Nobody does anything without thinking that what they are doing is logical and necessary. He just wanted to explain the mindset behind why they did what they did; he wasn't glorifying the act itself.

I didn't see any justification of genocide in that thread, and anyone looking for it is just grasping at straws. If that's the most racist post in the whole discussion, then all this moralizing hysteria is honestly just laughable.

Besides, does it even make sense to talk about racism without racists present? What would be the point if only people who agree with each other discussed it? That would be like burying our heads in the sand regarding a phenomenon that isn't exactly rare in the world.
It's better to have both sides debating racism than to have the only allowed conversation be nothing but anti-racist hysteria.

but we actually know that without him telling us.

If that's the most racist post in the thread,

jadetrucker43 said:The timestamps on Reddit match up perfectly with actual time for me...

jadetrucker43 said:... "Problem" solved.

John Doe says:
Is this a joke?
Just switch over to the Text version and then maybe try the mobile view. You'll end up opening about five different tabs of headlines and b>.... whatever /it doesn't matter/ ....

See more : Mobile View (for example) <----- clickable (at the top of the page) 😁
clicking that mobile view link (for instance) brings you back to the standard layout

You didn't really read what I wrote , they aren't the same thing, but it works as a workaround until...... blah blah blah 🙄

Benjamin King2 said:...SSL certs aren't free, so do you want to start paying just to access the forum? 🙂

Jack Cook7 said:I've noticed a few times now that when I try to log into Reddit, it doesn't work on the first try. Usually, it goes through on the second attempt....

Sam Green73 said:How passwords are collected.
There's this site.....

ambermason16 said:Good grief! My millions are in serious danger because of this forum password!!! I demand an explanation and compensation from the admins, the owner of unknown, the President, and the Director of the Internet! 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:There’s really no point in repeating what Monica said, though she did make a great case for why this whole topic of "meaning" feels pointless.
Or rather, it's pointless for people who are already dealing with specific issues in the field of Psychology.

Ashley Mitchell81 said:I mean, this thread might actually be a good fit for the Philosophy Department, but... Not even for the Psychology Department..

Of course, everyone has their own set of goals and plans laid out, including all the folks over at the Philosophy Department forums. It’s crystal clear, and honestly, there's really no point in wasting breath debating it..

brightbadger54 said:"Reason" is a pretty subjective term. The actual issue here is selfishness.

See? You’ve even managed to find a justification for your own selfishness so you don't have to help those who actually need it. It seems everyone is selfish, and some people go as far as creating excuses just to maintain that selfishness. Personally, I think it's perfectly normal to help someone in need. 🙂

See, you’ve even gone and found a justification for your own selfishness just so you don't have to help people who actually need it. It just goes to show how selfish everyone is, and some people will go as far as making excuses just to stay that way.

Of course, I think it's normal to help someone who is in need.🙂

brightbadger54 said:There is no such thing as a selfless person, really. It is merely a question of in which situations an individual chooses to exhibit their selfishness. Everyone has limits. Even someone like Mother Theresa was likely selfish under certain specific circumstances. The point, I guess, is whether that selfishness harms others or just serves oneself. If it affects others negatively while only benefiting you, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong"... for instance, "would you give the keys to your house and car to a gang of criminals?" or "would you hand your child over to total strangers?" Of course you wouldn't; you would be acting selfishly by keeping them for yourself. Would you hand over your home and access to a shower to a homeless person for a day? Naturally, you would if you weren't a "selfish" person. Until people realize that the entire world—and perhaps the meaning of life itself—is governed by the highest principle of contradiction, they will struggle to find balance and improve themselves. Some people rebel against contradiction, while others eventually grasp what it means, at which point life takes on a slightly more pleasant hue.🙂

The Jewish and Roman interpretations of faith and the Bible are, incidentally, incorrect. They were constructed to rule over people through fear. Hell and Heaven have nothing to do with that.

You have essentially just described capitalism. Is capitalism a joyful thing, or is it actually a construct where man selfishly looks after his own interests? Selfishness doesn't take from others; it deprives them. Theft is what takes from others.

Would you give a homeless person your home and a shower for one day? Of course you would, unless you're a "selfish" person.

ambersailor85 said:That's what true selflessness looks like—when you actually step back and say yes to someone else's request or idea.

Finding a selfless person in life is a huge win because, let's face it, most people are pretty selfish.
A wealthy person is a materialist. They’ve basically built their whole life around acquiring things. They live by that Ford philosophy of "having." To them, having is being.

Then there's the poor person—for them, "being" is just a hollow consolation prize they use as a lifelong philosophy. Since they can't have anything, they lean into it; instead of venting about wanting to be rich, they'd rather play the part of the idealist or the altruist.

But honestly, that person carries the same frustrations as the selfless one. Usually, being broke and being selfless go hand in hand.

Finding a selfless person to have in your life is a massive win because most people are just selfish.

ambersailor85 said:Your take actually reminded me of that one episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Hal goes to one of those motivational seminars filled with totally insecure people.
When someone hits you twenty times with "you can do it" or "this is waiting for you," it's a total scam—just like those late-night calls for free dinners, insurance agents, psychics, or weight loss pills.

More and more ads address you directly as "you"—mostly because psychologists behind the campaigns realized how desperate people feel when they aren't the center of attention. It gives them this little ego boost when an ad tells them, "you deserve this," or "treat yourself and your family."

At the end of the day, anyone who claims to "love themselves" is being selfish—true self-love pretty much blows right past any idea of being selfless or altruistic.

I bet even spiritual leaders are just as selfish, too—they act like they're somehow above the rest of us. Honestly, pretty much any religion does the same thing.

ambersailor85 said:Selfless people really ought to try therapy—specifically that movie trope where they smash a vase and yell "enough is enough!" 😁 Being selfless usually goes hand-in-hand with being a pushover. You get these people who are always running errands for everyone else; if someone calls or asks for a favor, they just can't say no because they "don't want to hurt feelings." It's those types who genuinely don't know how to receive anything, even if they haven't realized it yet, but they're constantly giving.

The way I see it, a selfless person can never say no when someone asks, begs, or even demands something. The second you push back, you're suddenly looking out for yourself—which is actually fine.

A selfless person ends up carrying a lot of internal frustration, because it eats at them that they can't just say "no" and finally grab something for themselves in this world. They turn bitter, even if they stay selfless, and it just gnaws at them until they develop an inferiority complex and start second-guessing every decision they make.

To me, a selfless person is like that kid in elementary school who lets a bully take his snack or lunch money; he gives it away, but it kills him inside because he's left hungry and broke, while some teacher or parent fails to teach him how to stand up for himself. That's when they finally realize that being Selfish is actually a healthy trait.

I've always found the statement "Oh, he's such an egoist, he only thinks about himself" hilarious. I honestly don't see what's so bad about it—at least you're living straight, standing for something, fighting for what you want, and not harboring resentment because someone took advantage of you.

Selfless people are basically trophies for every egoist out there! 🙂

Quick test for you guys: how much of a pushover are you? 🙂
Can someone please translate this into English for me? And not through some cheap online translator. Whoever actually does it can truly claim to be selfless, because I might need this translation for a specific purpose and I need someone to translate this whole post from start to finish. 🙂 I need it by 6 PM tomorrow. 🙂 Since I'm being Selfish and looking out for myself, I'm making various requests and presenting them so you all can do them as efficiently, quickly, and high-quality as possible. 🙂

Selfless people are basically trophies for every egoist out there! 🙂

Richard Wells said:I wasn't even thinking about wealthy people while I was typing, but let's just pretend I was so I can throw a similar question back at you... If you hand a rich guy more cash, it won't mean a thing to him in that moment. But if you give him a hug or do something genuinely kind from the heart—something he doesn't have to pay for—will that actually matter to him? Will he actually feel it?

ambersailor85 said:To a true materialist, a hug doesn't mean much—let's face it, most people who climb to the top aren't doing it by being warm and fuzzy with everyone they meet. But the real headache? It's the broke materialists. 🤣 They're just fueled by frustration, envy, and pure bitterness.

Think about the pool cleaners, gardeners, or house staff working for those big-money families.
They're always there, but they're never really "part of the family." And still, people try to tip them extra, acting like, "Oh, he's just a poor Mexican or Cuban guy who wouldn't have anything back home, so my extra $100 will really help him out."

In my book, the only thing that would actually touch a wealthy person is if you saved them from a massive financial blunder—like warning them about a risky investment right before they go bust. That's the only time they'd feel truly lucky. Everything else—hugs, gifts, cleaning the pool, baking muffins, mowing the lawn, driving the kids to school—it all just feels trivial to them.

But if you actually pull them back from the edge of bankruptcy? Now we're talking. That's when a wealthy person might actually feel genuine joy and gratitude, and honestly, that's one of the few selfless acts that matters to them. Though, hey, a massive reward might follow that, too. 😉

Since you can buy basically anyone these days, wealthy people find very little interesting and almost nothing catches their eye.

The only way to really get through to them is if you:

- Save or grow their wealth with solid advice
- Save their life as a doctor or pharmacist
- Pull them from a wreck or a drowning accident
- Save their kids or parents—since they probably don't value them that much anyway
- Or maybe save their dog.

The only way to get through to them is if you:

ambersailor85 said:Technically, you could just put the food on the ground; you won't poison yourself, even if you're stuck in eternal chambers. 😁 But I guess that would ruin the dignity of a person eating off the floor. Any kind of dropping or landing stuff carries a stigma of being rude, regardless of what religion you follow—eating like an animal is pretty much a universal flaw.
It makes it seem like the only way to keep your dignity is to feed each other. If you're dropping stuff from a height, you're definitely going to get messy, and the food ends up hitting dirty ground.

What about sandwiches or fast food? We don't eat those with spoons. 🤣
Does that mean opening a McDonald's or a Burger King somehow invalidates religious beliefs? 😉

ambersailor85 said:A lot of religions talk about wastefulness—you eat properly at the table, with family, without making a circus out of your meal. Religions always teach that there are people out there who aren't lucky enough to have a meal at all.

Rude eating is definitely bad manners, just like anything else you do while eating—like burping or smacking your lips.

ambersailor85 said:What's even the alternative to that typical American worldview? And what does that actually look like?