Posts by Gerald Rivera17

Charles Fox10 said:And of course, you missed the fact that The Evening News was the one who broke this—only to issue an apology a few hours later because they accidentally posted a story from 2013.

So, my question is... what was even the point of that post, or any of the other comments reacting to it? It’s all a bit moot, isn't it?

And if you actually take a second to look at that CNN link again, I am positive you'll find this sitting right there at the bottom of the page:

Maybe, just maybe, try reading the actual article before filing a complaint next time...

I don't bother with the fine print—that mindset cost me dearly back when we switched over to the dollar...😉

so don't come complaining to me if someone sends you a DM with a response like yours.

First, the rules

So, links aren't a substitute for actual writing. When you drop a link, you really should include a brief rundown of what's actually in there—maybe a headline, a quick summary, or just a key quote... something to give context.

In two posts that ended up getting deleted, I did provide a link.

http://cnn.com/en/2014/world/27916

I included the title:

San Francisco burning: Immigrants set fire to hundreds of cars

And a quote:

Unrest broke out after police in San Francisco shot an older immigrant last week who, according to official reports, threatened officers with a machete. However, left-wing activists argue the root cause of the unrest is systemic racism within the local police force—which they claim is driving the protests currently centered in the Compton suburbs, where about 80 percent of the population is comprised of Turks, Somalis, and Arabs from the Middle East. Media outlets are reporting that the unrest is also spreading to Detroit and Seattle.

Everything was done strictly by the book based on the instructions in the first post, yet my posts were still wiped...

The reason?

William Bennett53 said:The moderation team's take is that the veteran protests over on the Potomac stopped being a trending topic a while ago. (Honestly, we already covered this in the linked thread—I'm not really sure why the same question keeps popping up.) I’m looking forward to the day when the refugee crisis stops being headline news and becomes just another thing people ignore, but right now... trying to compare these two political issues feels pretty pointless.

I'm not quite following your logic here...

either you aren't getting what I'm saying, or I'm missing you.

Back when those veteran protests were actually hitting their stride—think phase two or three of the whole movement—they weren't exactly a trending topic, nor were they ever.

By the second phase, refugees became a trending topic, though if you ask me, they're only just starting to hit that level now.

Comparing them today doesn't make much sense, but look at the timing—compare when the protest was "in" versus when refugees became "in." Even then, the protest couldn't be a trending topic, yet the refugee situation was.

So, what's the actual criteria?

Following up on my previous thread

I’m just looking for some clarity here—why exactly wasn't the thread regarding the veteran protests designated as a Top topic, yet the one about the refugee situation was...

30 - The Rolling Stones - Satisfaction
29 - The Rolling Stones - The Last Time
28 - The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter
27 -The Rolling Stones - Paint it Black
26 - The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter
25 - The Beatles - Strawberry Fields Forever
24 - Jimi Hendrix Experience - Hey Joe
23 - The Moody Blues - Nights in White Satin
22 - The Animals - The House of the Rising Sun
21 -Procol Harum - A Whiter Shade Of Pale
20 - The Mamas & The Papas - California Dreamin'
19 - The Shadows - Apache
18 - The Who - My Generation
17 - Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive
16 -Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall
15 -The Temptations - Papa Was A Rolling Stone
14 - Steppenwolf - Born To Be Wild
13 -Abba - Dancing Queen
12 -Creedence Clearwater Revival - Have you ever seen the rain?
11 - Deep Purple - Child In Time
10 -The Beach Boys - Don't Worry Baby
9 - Boney M - Rivers of Babylon
8 -T-Rex - Children of the Revolution
7 - Fleetwood Mac - Albatross
6 - The Cream - White Room
5 - Simon & Garfunkel - The Sound Of Silence
4 - Jefferson Airplane - Somebody to Love
3 -Jethro Tull - Thick as a Brick
2 - Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody
1 - Led Zeppelin - Whole Lotta Love

Charles Fox10 said:We've put together a poll.

What’s your stance on opening up our borders to immigrants?
YES, regardless of the circumstances
NO
YES, but only for refugees fleeing war zones
YES, for everyone, provided we collect their personal data first
YES, but strictly as a transit process without them staying
I don't have an opinion
I couldn't care less

If there are four different ways to say YES, why is there only one way to say NO?...

Sarah Doyle54 said:Look, Gerald Rivera17, whether this is your first post on the thread or your eightieth doesn't really matter—and while you technically should read the whole discussion, as Sam Green73 pointed out... the real issue here is that you shouldn't be posting links to news stories that have already been debunked—whether we're talking about Reddit or mainstream media outlets. The responsibility for making sure information is actually legit falls on the user sharing it. If it turns out to be fake, then sharing it is just trolling at that point. Next time, maybe double-check your sources before dropping a link onto a forum for news that isn't actually true.

How am I supposed to know they've been debunked?

The news sites I follow haven't said anything about them being false...

And regarding responsibility—does that apply to the mods too?

Sam Green73 said:That rule about being decent predates even the creation of Reddit

In general, nobody actually reads the rules

Everyone knows what's off-limits—what's just plain inappropriate—but reading through every tiny detail about how to format a post on this site? Nobody does that... except, I suppose, the mods who use them to hand out punishments

And honestly, that rule is so nonsensical that if new users want to jump into an open discussion, they end up spending 90% of their time just scrolling through old threads to get the vibe...

lonebadger6 said:Neither I nor anyone else deleted your post about your German relative. You actually made three posts on this thread: I personally deleted one of them and gave you an explanation as to why, you deleted the second one yourself (which was on the exact same topic), and the third one is right here:

I won't go into anything else; you have all the explanations, including the ones regarding Gerald Rivera17.

@Nathan Brooks4 - even though, as I mentioned, there’s a specific thread for "Ban Appeals," I can tell you exactly why you got flagged. It was for this part: "immigrants, in whom, as has already been proven, there are many terrorists."
Nothing like that has ever been "proven"... those are just offensive assumptions that basically border on hate speech, so you actually got off easy with just a 35-point deduction.

As for the rest, I can only laugh... Like I said, there are over 6,600 comments on this thread, and probably 70% of them—if I'm being modest—are anti-immigrant.

Maybe it would be helpful if we had fewer "conspiracy theories" and more actual, reasoned communication... things like "they are terrorists," "they are going to steal and rape," or "these are people whose only goal is to slaughter Christians with swords" don't really count as arguments...

you haven't actually provided any proof that your take is more valid than anyone else's on this forum

other than the fact that you're a mod and can basically do whatever you want—just like the rest of the mods...

but you haven't served up a single shred of evidence showing why your opinion should trump someone else's...

lonebadger6 said:That isn't an immigration issue; it’s a matter of "human character." That’s exactly why those specific links aren't allowed here. If crime rates spike in certain countries like Sweden because they're taking in more asylum seekers, that’s a whole different beast—it's way more nuanced than just saying, "they arrived, and now there's more crime because that's just who they are," but we aren't going to get into all that here... still, things like this don't get deleted; they're a perfectly normal part of the conversation.

The fact that one guy (who might have nothing to do with this current wave of immigrants, maybe he's an asylum seeker from Africa who's been here ten years, or who knows, some people were saying he's mentally unstable) attacked someone with a knife... leaving that up in this context only serves to stir up panic and make people think "the killers are coming."

There have been crimes committed by Americans in Germany, too. I doubt anyone would appreciate it if German forums started a movement to ban us from entering Germany just to prevent those kinds of crimes...

Why do you assume your perspective is the right one and not someone else's?

Do you actually have evidence for this idea that "it isn't an immigration issue, it's a 'human character' issue"?

And do you have any proof that writing in that manner is what triggers the panic?

lonebadger6 said:No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

Some of these mods—honestly, I don't know where they get their training—don't seem to grasp the distinction between having an actual opinion and just straight-up being offensive or using hate speech... so, what does that leave me with now?

And then there's the moderators—armed with their shears and fabric... just waiting to cut things up...

lonebadger6 said:No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

So, you're calling an entire nation—one that sounds pretty much like everything you just listed—a hate state... that's your take? Just like that...

lonebadger6 said:No moderator has handed out a penalty for an opinion just yet.
The fact that some people on this forum can't tell the difference between having an opinion and straight-up hate speech isn't exactly a moderation issue...

Statements like "all these immigrants are ready to blow themselves and a hundred civilians sky-high in the name of Allah," calls for forced conversions, suggesting we block people from entering the US by laying minefields, or dropping links to ISIS atrocities to imply that all immigrants—by extension, all Arabs—are ISIS members... that's hate speech, not an opinion.

Even a glance at the topic makes it pretty obvious that all opinions are permitted—if certain people don't know how to speak without resorting to hate speech, that's their own damn problem...

...just like those mods who can't seem to tell the difference between having an opinion and actual hate speech...

So, I was scrolling through some news sites earlier and stumbled upon

VIDEO Syrian migrants rejecting aid—they say the American Red Cross logo is the problem

And I thought, well, this is perfect for that discussion about refugees... so I dropped it onto page 247 of the thread

Immigrants at American borders

And I put that in as my very first post in the thread...

Which earned me a response from Sarah Doyle54;

Dear Gerald Rivera17,

You have received an infraction at Reddit.

Reason: Trolling
-------
This has been debunked so many times already that reposting this link can only be viewed as trolling.
-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

So, apparently, I was supposed to read all 247 pages of the thread, taking meticulous notes on which links were posted, which debunkings were shared, which thing went with what... spend half a day doing that just to write one single post...

I mean... 🤦

That’s why I’m sending out a little message—dear Redditors, when you start posting in a thread, please read it from the beginning to the end, especially in politics sections, because you might end up getting flagged just like I did...

So, I’m venting a bit here, because that link came out that very day... I figured it was fresh news, directly relevant to the topic, and the fact that it had been posted dozens of pages ago shouldn't be reason enough to penalize me, especially since it was my first time even participating in that thread...

I’m just mentioning this to warn other users and the admins about the lack of logic here, just so this doesn't happen to anyone else...

GoodMorning said:A solid 45 points...

but then again, who knows. You listed a whole bunch of links there... I guess it really just depends on how the moderator is feeling that day—or whose side they happen to be on....

🙏

jadecyclist36 said:Gerald Rivera17, you didn't get flagged because of the link 😉, I already told you.

The thread had already gone back and forth on that video a few times. It’s hard to say for sure why they turned down the help. People on the forum were speculating it was due to the crisis, but that doesn't seem quite right since they did accept aid when civilians were handing it out to them.
As for why they refused back then... well, we can only speculate...

This is the first time I'm seeing this, though I find it hard to believe that was the reason 😉

David Vaughn75 said:Gerald Rivera17 is just a victim of all the media trash being served up lately.

That kind of half-baked info from outlets like CNN or Fox News creates mass hysteria, and that’s a dangerous thing...

🙏

Following up on my recent back-and-forth with the mods—here’s part 😁

Got hit with a warning because of this

The explanation doesn't actually say why—just "rule violation"—but it doesn't specify which rules... so if you were planning on appealing it, you wouldn't even know what to argue against 😉

Not that I'm planning an appeal, mind you... it's just that this whole thing feels a bit ridiculous. I was just using the latest info to offer some commentary

I posted something similar over on Reddit too, so now I'm just sitting here waiting for them to flag me there as well 🙂

I suppose it's safe to assume the mods—and whoever else runs the show—aren't thrilled with how brief my post was... which makes me wonder about these other posts in the same thread;

So, since the mods seem to love it when we drop links, I went ahead and shared ten links from this same thread—all either identical to or very similar to the one they flagged me for—yet none of these have been penalized

And that's only looking back five pages... who knows what would happen if I scrolled all the way back to the first page.

rustydrifter10 said:What exactly are you complaining about if it isn't just a cardboard box? I mean... if the only example you’ve got is your own box—one that you don't even complain about because the reasoning behind it was already explained to you—then it really shouldn't be used as some kind of basis to claim that someone else is being protected...

I sent you two messages—the first one right after my thread "adios division" got nuked, and the second one just today...

Well, if people want to go out of their way to defend Klonka... well, they can try... though it’s hard to ignore that none of the complaints against her work actually hold any water...

Example;

Divizija posted about why he’s leaving F—and honestly, he gave Klonka a much-needed reality check. After reading that, I ended up opening a whole new thread titled "Adios, Divizija," just reminiscing about that old era... you know, the one where he spent ten years posting on Politics. I mostly stay away from that section because of Klonka anyway—I didn't even bother commenting on my last post there after they deleted it for no reason...

A few hours later and both my thread and the division's topic have been wiped clean... If the division thought I was being offensive, fine, that’s one thing—but then why go ahead and delete mine? It didn't offend anyone... or at least, I didn't think it did...

It all lines up perfectly with that whole mess involving the opening of the ŽK thread—you know, the one where they started tearing into Klonka... plus those posts she made that somehow didn't result in any actual sanctions... turns out everything is connected...

Well, I laid out that example of her work—or rather, her lack thereof, or just the general mess she makes—and ended up losing 30 points from Michelle Evans because apparently, I was "mixing topics"... which is one way to look at it, I guess. If I actually put in any real effort, I could probably give you a list of ten other posts that should be sanctioned for the exact same reasons, yet they aren't...

And when I finally went ahead and opened that thread about how Michelle Evans protects Klonka... she just goes and pivots the whole thing over to a complaint about cardboard boxes... 🤦

I’m not exactly complaining about the cardboard... I’ve got some grievances regarding how things are being handled by Klonko and Prigles... just feels like we aren't getting anywhere...

Just wanted to vent a bit about my thread getting nuked over on PŽK... goodbye, division...

i I’m honestly a bit bummed about that farewell post from the division getting scrubbed... just feels a little sudden—it's a shame when things get wiped like that without much notice...Well, he's been banned... so he can't really do anything about it now...

Just to be clear right out of the gate—I’m not complaining about the ban

because, honestly, it just gave Michelle Evans an excuse to move my thread

Moved: How Pringles protects Klonka
Gerald Rivera17

over in the Appeals section.

But I wasn't actually filing a complaint at all

I was just pointing out how Michelle Evans is basically the one showing everyone that she's got Klomki's back

my post;

No grievances here, just stating the facts as they are...

though I could have easily brought up the mountain of complaints regarding Klonka's work that you see floating around here and in the Banned Corner

So, that leaves us with a question;

Michelle Evans, why are you doing all this?

The head of the cannabis oversight committee responded to The New York Times claim that the US government has admitted marijuana kills cancer

The whole thing started when the British tabloid Mirror cited Cancer.gov—the official site for the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—which updated its advisory Q&A section on cannabis back in July. They explain what cannabis actually is, and they mention certain mouse and rat studies showing that cannabinoids (the active bits in the plant) might kill specific types of tumor cells. But—and this is a big but—they explicitly state that if you look in PubMed, the gold standard for medical databases, there isn't a single clinical study proving cannabis works as a cancer cure...

Dr. Ognjen Brborović also thinks these media reports claiming marijuana treats malignant diseases lack any real scientific footing—he happens to lead the government investigative commission tasked with analyzing and recommending how to use industrial hemp and cannabinoids for medical purposes.

who are we supposed to believe at this point? 🤦

Nancy Cruz3 said:😍

Where are you ladies?

It seems you were a bit stung by losing your little discussion platform—so naturally, you’ve decided to take your frustrations out on me instead.

I figured it would be best to give everyone some breathing room to cool off before half the subreddits ended up banned, but clearly, you aren't interested in playing nice.
You're entitled to your opinions.

Since I have zero interest in getting dragged into a massive debate, I'll just say this: feel free to join the moderation team. You can clean up your own messes then. I'm sure the other mods would love the extra hands, and it would certainly take a load off my plate.

😲 you just shut down any criticism by being completely inflexible 🤦

kudos to you 🙂

+1

it’s always easier to just shut things down instead of actually doing the work ☕

US Government officially acknowledges: Cannabis targets cancer cells

It’s all right there if you bother to look—the information is publicly available on the National Cancer Institute website, tucked away in their Q&A section regarding cannabis and cannabinoids. According to the NCI, research conducted on mice and rats has demonstrated that cannabis—specifically its active components, TLC and CBD—actually does kill off cancer cells...