Posts by Bradley White73

Sandra Brown18 said:It’s obvious you wouldn't just take anything at face value.

We went from a site where someone actually leaked a user's Intel address after they were questioned by a public figure, all the way to having thousands of active users. A community isn't just the admins and the website itself; it includes everyone participating, and even then, any platform can be hacked.

Is that really okay with you?

As a regular user here, I just don't trust the situation anymore. Maybe I would have considered your side if you had been honest about not engaging in these little gymnastics—if you had just stuck to saying you wouldn't reveal your source.

Though, I suppose when facing such a heavy accusation, it might be fair to provide some proof—maybe via private message to the admins if you don't want to go public. Otherwise, anyone could start throwing mud around and then just hide behind "journalistic privilege" or "source protection" later on.

Roger Castillo9 said:Anyway, the whole flat earth discussion is officially over...

The Hollow Earth is wide open, though—you should really try expanding your horizons. 😁

Back during the Corona era, there was this one user who would just drop some completely nonsensical statistic that nobody even found worth responding to, and then every few posts he’d ask, “Wait, why isn't anyone commenting on this?” Then, once someone actually debunked him, he’d just roll out a whole new set of fabricated data until he basically killed the entire discussion. It was such a shame because, for such a heated topic, the conversation had actually been quite objective and high-quality before that.

I guess that kind of behavior deserves a ban (though I can't quite recall the specific guy). Personally, I don't think anyone ruins a thread quite like Woobie did in those Corona PDF's. But they won't remove him, I suppose; maybe he's on some kind of assignment or something. He just keeps grinding through threads without stopping. I guess there's no point in complaining, since the Corona stuff will eventually die down too.

It's the same deal with that female user in the economics section. She's so heavily driven by ideology that she constantly throws in incorrect data just to back up her own views, usually seasoning it with "well, that's what people are saying on the subway," which just drags down an otherwise great discussion.

But I suppose both of them help boost the post count, so if that's what matters most...

I'm not entirely sure who you're referring to; the most active woman over there seems alright to me. I guess things probably need to be loosened up a bit regardless. Since we're a nation that struggles so much with economic literacy, maybe it would actually be better if the PDF's were more accessible to the general public.

Roger Castillo9 said:I mean, if you ask me, anything involving abortion is almost certainly going to be a heated topic. It’s just one of those things that gets people talking, I guess.

I guess you could say the pro-life crowd has every right to him. It really just falls under the umbrella of free speech, which isn't even up for debate, I suppose.

It seems like people are throwing around all sorts of claims lately, isn't it? I mean, you hear things like "The country is flat" or "Fewer people died in this country than last year"—even though, if you look at the actual numbers, way more people actually passed away. Then there’s the constant shouting that the Republican Party is nothing more than a criminal organization. Well, I guess we have to ask ourselves: has there been an official conviction for that? Technically, yes, there has. And then you have those sweeping statements claiming that every single person in the Republican Party is a thief. I don't know, maybe not everyone is, but it certainly feels like that's how the conversation goes sometimes.

Well, honestly, everything seems to be fine. I suppose even places like Flat Earth (and Suplji, if you can believe that) have their own dedicated threads here on Reddit. Of course, you wouldn't exactly take those kinds of arguments to the Police; you’d just head over to the Alternative section instead. I guess everything just has its own little corner.
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding regarding the death toll numbers being circulated, so I’ll go ahead and correct that with the accurate information. I guess it's easy to get turned around with all the conflicting reports out there, but we should probably stick to the verified facts to stay on the right track. Maybe it helps to look at the official data to clear things up.
I suppose there’s a bit of a debate going on regarding freedom of speech lately, especially since some people seem to have walked away with the impression that everyone in the Republican Party is just a thief. If they feel that way, I guess they should feel free to say it. At the end of the day, the Republican Party isn't an ethnic group, a religious sect, or some protected minority that needs shielding from those kinds of broad generalizations. Though, I suppose critics might argue they function more like a special interest group, if you want to look at it that way.

Where exactly do we draw the line between having a strong opinion and just spreading blatant lies or being straight-up offensive? It’s one of those tricky questions, isn't it? I guess it really comes down to what actually deserves moderation. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere, but honestly, it feels like a bit of a gray area most of the time.

Honestly, none of what was mentioned above really warrants a ban. That said, if someone keeps insisting on using an incorrect death toll even after the accurate data has been provided—well, they’re probably just trolling at that point. In my opinion, that should be grounds for a ban (after a warning), especially if they're just being disruptive to the flow of the discussion.

Anonymous said:..
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding of what was actually written. I guess nobody ever claimed they would fight to the death just to defend a specific viewpoint they hold. Rather, the point was about fighting to the death for the right to express that view. Even if it was a bit of a slip of the tongue on my part, I felt it was important to clarify this here so the discussion stays on track.

I hear you, though I suppose I wasn't being very precise before (I sort of assumed people knew what I meant, so I kept it brief).

Maybe it's better put this way: in all my time following American Politics, I've seen instances where someone wouldn't necessarily die for their opinion, but they certainly would fight to the death against anyone trying to silence them. To put it simply, if I were a Moderator, I think I’d be a pretty terrible one.

Hopefully, that clears things up. 👍

David Richardson67 said:....

I guess it would clear up all the confusion if you just explicitly stated how PDF politics and history get censored. That might actually settle things.

I really feel like Reddit should be open to pretty much any opinion or political stance, because I think that’s how it gains value and becomes more relevant as a mirror reflecting "real" society. Maybe the Moderator should try to live by that Voltaire quote—you know, "I disagree with everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"—rather than focusing on imposing ideological uniformity or censorship. Well, that is, assuming the site is actually open to everyone.

First off, I’d probably separate History and Politics. History should really be treated like a hard science, I suppose.

In bold? Honestly, no. It's not that I haven't come across a thought or two where I wouldn't fight to the death for someone's right to speak. But then again, Voltaire didn't have the internet, so I guess I understand that somewhat romanticized view of free speech. Personally, I don't have a particularly optimistic outlook on this being a cross-section of real American society, so I wouldn't go quoting that. Just my two cents.

fottinbras:
I promise I don't have a single hateful, insulting, or derogatory post in me when I say I've seen examples of people being punished for their opinions, mostly because a Moderator was playing mind reader or something like that.
But alright, I see roughly how the people writing there are viewed (you need a thick skin, that kind of clientele and all), so I suppose none of this really matters.

Scott Long71 said:No, that's not quite right. You might own over 100 clubs, but your guys are only getting beaten up in one specific spot because of the type of crowd that hangs out there. Would I choose to go to that specific club? Only if I was looking for a fight or wanted to get hit. I think I'd be a bit smarter and try to figure out why some people just don't end up getting beat up.

On the Politics board, things seem to depend more on whoever happens to be the Moderator at the moment rather than the actual users posting. You could get anything from a warning to a minor penalty or even a direct ban for the exact same kind of post. I suppose that bolded part would have been a decent strategy, but the way it is now just seems to lead to unnecessary anxiety. 😁

I don't follow the History section closely, but I have seen the responses to appeals over at the County Jail, and I guess they are fairly fair, even though I'm not usually a fan of that style of moderation. But that’s History, and that's America; revisionism pops up quite often, so I suppose I support it as an exception.

Daily Politics is a different story entirely. I've noticed quite a few instances where Moderators abuse their discretion to decide whether something is just a user expressing an opinion or "aggressive trolling," which leads straight to a ban. It feels particularly harsh when a user gets banned for a post that is simply replying to a Moderator. That would be what people here are calling "punching down."
I mean, you obviously have to step in at some point and decide if someone is actually trolling or just being thick-headed. But if you're part of the discussion yourself, and if it isn't glaringly obvious—if there's even a little bit of doubt—I guess the decision should probably go in favor of the user. That seems like the basic rule of fair play. No matter how questionable the crowd is, they still gather there, or whatever it is they think about the people discussing things in Politics.

And one more thing: in the Economics section, it seems to me like the Moderator insists on a near-scientific level of discussion, almost threatening to ban users who they feel aren't demonstrating enough expertise 🤣 (there was a topic about Kerf, and the Government of America opened that one up in the County Jail)
.
It's similar to how Ostric acts in History, except here, that approach feels totally unnecessary. The crowd here is pretty harmless, I guess.

Nicholas Watson said:we don't have any footage showing the destruction of those young Turkish forces☕

I'm back! I've been on a bit of a personal retreat lately (though, I should clarify, nothing involving mushrooms or ayahuasca). I just really needed to head into my own little wilderness for a while—sort of playing shaman for myself, away from all the forum chatter.😁

Happy New Year's Day (a little late, I know). I'm really hoping that 2021 turns out to be a better year for everyone. 🙂

I guess you could say some gullible retirees end up footing the bill for them....

Nicholas Watson said:I feel like I'm learning so much from her suffering
plus, once you start overthinking things, you end up believing that birds aren't even real—they're just government drones spying on us everywhere

When was the last time you actually saw a baby pigeon? Honestly, some people just need to get a grip.

rowdytiger13 said:If you’re still stuck in that horror movie headspace, I was wondering... have you had a chance to check out *The Dark and the Wicked* yet?
I guess it isn't quite as incredible as everyone makes it out to be, though I suppose it’s still not bad.

I’ve actually been working on this one for quite a while now, just waiting for that perfect moment to finally pull the trigger. I haven't really felt like sharing it for any kind of praise, though—if it’s just "decent," then I guess it’s not really worth the fuss. I'm just in one of those phases, I suppose. 😁

Ashley Johnson46 said:I mean, honestly, who among those guys on the Royals isn't playing both sides at some point? It seems like everyone gets caught up in that kind of thing eventually, I guess. 😁

We really need to make sure the inheritance stays intact! 🧐

Well, I guess she actually has some sort of dual Habsburg lineage—it seems like Josip Broz Tito and Sophia Loren might actually be related through that line. 😁

Nicholas Watson said:Honestly, if you haven't watched Comrade detective, you should probably feel a little embarrassed ☕

unknown

That's actually a pretty bright idea. As soon as I'm in the right headspace, I think I'll check out at least the first episode to see if it's worth sticking with—but until then, I guess I'll just live with the shame 😁.

In the meantime, the daughter of Josip Broz Tito and Sophia Loren has apparently surfaced on the news. She isn't asking to tear down any statues or rename any downtown plazas; she just seems interested in sorting out some legal technicalities regarding her inheritance (the primary line of succession), I suppose.

Someone really ought to fly up there and let the judge know; I imagine they'd be absolutely thrilled about it. ☕

I guess I'm looking for some recommendations for... Run.
I watched it yesterday, and I’d say it sits right up there in the same vein as Misery. It might be a good idea to avoid reading too many reviews before you dive in, though—just to stay safe from any potential spoilers, I guess.
I guess if Sarah Paulson isn't giving me more chills than Kathy Bates, then I might just be missing something. Maybe there's something deeper there, but honestly, she just hasn't quite hit that level of creepiness for me yet.

It’s truly happening.

Merry Christmas to everyone!

Nicholas Watson said:not Linda King or rowdytiger13

Jimmy Kimmel just kicked off a new showdown with Cenk Uygur 😬

I guess Jimmy thought this was some kind of bad faith attack on progressives. Back in 2016, Sam Seder kept insisting that losing control of the Supreme Court would be the real disaster, and that we should probably weigh that heavily when considering Clinton vs Trump—since, you know, presidents come and go, but the court stays. And well, look where we ended up. With the current Supreme Court. 😁

Maybe Jimmy's strategy isn't actually the strongest one, and it feels like Cenk might be playing the same hand now. This whole conflict has been simmering under the surface for quite a while, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before they finally dropped the gloves. I think I'll stick around to watch this drama unfold; it’s certainly been a long time coming. 🍿

Nicholas Watson said:I guess I’m not entirely sure how much we should be welcoming the folks from the local meatpacking plants around here, but maybe it's worth considering. ☕

I’ve been hearing this particular label popping up quite a bit lately, mostly from people I actually thought I knew. It's a bit strange, I guess. I guess you probably already realize that Guns of Brixton is a media outlet with a pretty heavy leftist agenda... I mean, if you just look at their roster of writers, it’s basically nothing but leftists from start to finish.

I guess that’s usually how I handle things, much like what I'm telling you now: maybe one day we'll finally uncover the actual truth, but until then, I don't see much point in fighting or throwing labels around. At the end of the day, what someone chooses to believe is a deeply personal thing, I suppose, provided we still maintain some level of respect for the other side—or even just the opposing viewpoint. 🙂

rowdytiger13 said:I guess I'm heading wherever Linda King is going. 🙈

I guess we'll all have a great time together and make this chat really something special, maybe. A bright future ahead. I guess. Maybe. 👍

Ashley Johnson46 said:I suppose that's true, in a way. 🙄

ironranger67, I think you should try being a little more welcoming.

Well, it’s because he's Black. I guess you didn't believe it at first, Nicholas Watson, but now you're seeing it for yourself. It's just blatant discrimination in action. I mean, go ahead and speak up if you want to.

Thanks for the warm welcome! I guess we've been keeping an eye on this pleasant little chat for a while now—ever since things started heating up over at the other place... 😁.

...I'm hoping you might have enough room left for a few more newcomers. 😁 I’m checking in on behalf of myself and a colleague from the New York Times... we’re pretty low-key folks, honestly, you probably won't even notice us being here. Politically speaking, I suppose we sit somewhere in the center; we aren't big fans of vaccines or the whole COVID situation, and we still hold onto the belief that the Earth is round (though maybe I shouldn't assume my colleague feels the exact same way—I guess I'm overstepping there).

As for Clovis, we actually know him from the discussions over at the NYT forums and specifically from that Trump thread, where he fought right until the bitter end and was basically the last man standing after everyone else on his team had already conceded defeat and moved on. 🙂

Even though we were on opposite sides of the aisle back then, that kind of grit really impressed us, and it kind of inspired us to come find him here on OFF. (Though, to be fair, I don't think I'll be able to post on the NYT forums nearly as much as I used to 🙂).

I think you might have overlooked "those losers". 🕺 I was wondering, though, what specifically rubbed you the wrong way?