Posts by Jessica Kelly4

Susan Price30 said:

One more thing—you didn't ask, but since I'm writing anyway: the pro-life side actually brings several heavy-hitting arguments to the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the word "murder," or indirectly labeling women who have abortions as killers, has been beneficial for the quality of the discussion.

Or perhaps it will be, because letting a few persistent trolls derail a topic prevents any qualified participants from having a civilized conversation. You even admitted this yourself when you noted that changing terminology isn't the issue, but rather the restriction itself. Well, anyone capable of actual debate won't be bothered by a change in wording. As for being annoyed by moderator intervention... I understand, but sometimes it is necessary. If it weren't, we wouldn't need moderators at all.

Why not just deal with the troll problem directly instead of outright banning specific terminology during an argumentative debate, for example?

(That's how the moderators on the Politics board usually handle things on other topics, too)

Because it seems like they are trying to avoid using the word murder (on the Politics board, though not on the Religion board) just to prevent those people from coming in solely to troll. Then there's the cloning, and so on.

So, for instance, couldn't trolls and agitators, as you call them, simply be removed from a Politics discussion via a quick procedure instead of implementing a total ban on certain terms?

Wouldn't that be easier for the mods and better for the forum? Better for everyone.

Besides, the abortion debate is one of the most serious and certainly political topics out there—setting aside the "hysteria" from certain users who, as a rule, rarely stick around for these kinds of discussions once they realize they're being ignored.

Generally speaking, there are so many trolls on the Politics board with the exact same tired mantras that it's becoming nearly impossible to write on most topics. Dealing with that sooner would be better for everyone, in my opinion.

That’s part of the issue—the reason several users got banned and the whole debate went off the rails.

But this is literally obstructing the pro-life stance.
Here is the email from the thread moderator, rowdytiger13:

An embryo isn't a human being.
It isn't considered one. It has the potential to become a human being, but it isn't yet.
This is the official stance. Abortion isn't murder (otherwise it would be a crime), and an embryo isn't a human being.

Once the "official stance" was declared (?!?), a super-mod stepped in to double down on banning the term "killing" and handed out bans.

So, what kind of free discussion are we actually having here?

And I still maintain the debate was civil and consistent; I provided links proving the fetus is a living being. Of course, that's not some absolute truth—this is a forum, not an academic institution. What more can a user provide than a credible link? I have plenty of those; you just need to check the pro-life departments at Princeton or Yale for citations from scientific papers. I didn't come here to become them.

That's the consistency I'm talking about, and I think moderators should recognize it. If I provide credible links, if I discuss a legal and legitimate political option, and if I use the legal and legitimate discourse of that political option, then we're talking about consistent views that a moderator shouldn't ban, but instead allow others to counter with arguments.

@Harold Evans3, most of what you wrote doesn't even belong here. You're just trolling and trying to get threads shut down. It’s not fair, because I actually care about making sense of how the moderators operate. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, but at least then I'd know it's not right.

Look, I'm not denying anyone's right to an opinion—not yours, and not the mods'.
All I want from the moderators is objectivity. They should be able to recognize consistency and allow a debate to happen even when they don't like where it's going.

The way things work now, it's apparently fine to throw labels around—like calling someone a "catholiban" or a communist—and that isn't seen as breaking the rules. But if you claim that a fetus is a living human being and that ending its life is murder, suddenly that's a problem.
How is a legitimate, legal pro-life political stance ever going to have a seat at the table on this forum if the moderators keep blocking them?

William Bennett53 said:Let's start from square one...

mistyseal8, you claim that we are dealing with established facts and research.
Look, we could sit here all day and read through "facts" and "studies" claiming the Earth is flat and that any evidence to the contrary has been doctored, or claims that men are being systematically oppressed while women secretly run the world. We could dive into conspiracy theories about thousands of civilians killed during the Storm, or celebrate how certain war criminals are suddenly being declared innocent. Or, if you look at a site like Healthline, you’ll be bombarded with "research" insisting that vaccines are perfectly safe. But let's be clear: not every "fact" qualifies as one, not every study meets scientific standards, and we certainly can't treat every random thesis as equally valid. Allowing that wouldn't be a lack of censorship; it would be the total destruction of a forum. It's the exact same logic applied to your example regarding studies attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a thesis that simply shouldn't be permitted here. It’s no different from allowing baseless correlations used to paint the Israeli people as collective criminals due to interventions in Palestine, or grouping all Muslims together under the banner of the Islamic State and then acting surprised when people lament that the Crusades didn't wipe them out. Things like that aren't going to pass. If you want to keep shouting "censorship," go ahead—be my guest.

Jessica Kelly4, you claim that "killing" is just standard terminology in the American lexicon, and honestly, you're right—it is a standard word. However, the moderator intervention didn't happen because someone used some made-up or non-standard vocabulary. It happened because a small clique of users attempted to hijack the entire discussion, reducing every single point to nothing more than the act of killing. That simply isn't permitted under the rules of this Politics forum. The issue at hand is much broader and more significant than that. While radical debaters on both sides try to narrow the complex debate over abortion down to a single, reductive thesis, such behavior provides zero value to this community. We aren't a political party; we don't need to coordinate a single mantra and stick to it religiously.

One more thing—not that you actually asked, but since I’m already typing: the pro-life side possesses a comprehensive array of compelling arguments regarding the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the term "killing"—which essentially amounts to indirectly accusing women of being murderers—has been a productive move for this discourse. Or at least, it ought to be. When a topic is constantly derailed by persistent trolling aimed at a handful of individuals, it effectively shuts down any chance for qualified participants to engage in a rational conversation. You actually reinforce my point yourself when you mention that you don't mind changing terminology, provided it isn't used as a tool for restriction. Let's be clear: anyone capable of holding a civilized discussion won't be hindered by a simple shift in vocabulary. As for your grievance regarding moderator intervention... yes, I understand how that feels. But occasionally, isn't it necessary? If it weren't, there would be no need for moderators to exist in the first place.

And finally, you suggested I was being subjective and biased because I claimed that banning any comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is merely a projection of one's own fears. Perhaps that isn't the case. It is entirely possible that the architects of such theories aren't actually afraid; if that’s true, then their actions are even more egregious, as they are essentially spreading hate speech under the guise of demonizing an entire group of people. For a better understanding of my position, you might want to look back at my response to mistyseal8 above. We simply won't tolerate that kind of rhetoric here, and as long as I have any influence at all, it certainly won't be accepted as valid argumentation.

Susan Price30, look, some moderators are simply better than others. It has nothing to do with one's worldview or any other ideological divide, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Jessica Kelly4 suggests that we ought to clone our esteemed colleague Power Locko, and I find myself in agreement—not that I’m advocating for actual human cloning, of course, but rather acknowledging and respecting his obvious competence. However, speaking from the perspective of someone who actually handles the complaints: you should know that a moderator also receives a significant number of grievances from those who simply disagree with them, most often by claiming bias. That is just the nature of the job. I am certainly not suggesting that moderators are infallible; we all make mistakes, despite our best efforts to excel at what we do. My point is merely that, very frequently, any moderator action is treated as though we are taking a side. To give you a concrete example: during my relatively short tenure as a moderator for Politics, I have been accused of being biased at least ten or fifteen times. The accusation is always the same: that I only protect the "freedom of speech" for extremists and radicals. 😵

To wrap things up, I’ll just echo my own thoughts from earlier. It is the responsibility of the moderators to design and maintain the boundaries for acceptable discussion. This naturally requires intervention to prevent insults, hate speech, and other serious offenses. However, beyond that, establishing those boundaries sometimes necessitates curbing the radicalization of topics—preventing them from veering into territory that kills the conversation rather than making it more productive. Preventing a thread in the Politics section from being completely derailed by people screaming "MURDER" and "KILLERS" is exactly the kind of intervention needed.

I don't have much else to say on this. We’ve burned through post after post about nothing, rather than actually discussing anything meaningful. Even the original poster noted that these terminological hurdles are easily bypassed, which essentially means we aren't stopping actual debaters, just the loudmouths. I suggest we head back to the main forum and get back to actual forumming.

I see you "wisely" avoided that thread about the politics pojam katoliban postan 28 put.
I guess that kind of shouting is what actually drives a discussion forward?

It goes without saying that your intervention killed the topic. You basically forced it back into a narrow debate about why men shouldn't be able to waive paternity while women have abortion rights. And you did it right when the pro-life side was laying out solid arguments for "the fetus is a living human being, ending its life is murder." Instead of counter-arguments, you and rowdytiger13 acted like local sheriffs to shut down anyone making an uncomfortable point.

It’s a shame you can't tell the difference between a reasoned debate and inflammatory posts. Honestly, arguing this with you feels pointless since you're the subject of my complaint. It’s like being tried by the same judge who's accusing you.

If you have nothing else to say, we're done here.
Go ahead and keep debating why men are being treated unfairly.

mistyseal8 said:We don't need left-wing or right-wing moderators. We've tried that approach here for years and it hasn't worked.

What we actually need are moderators who know what they're doing and can set their personal convictions aside while they work.

Some of them jumped straight to attacking what I wrote here using their own twisted logic. To me, that's a bad sign. It shows they aren't capable of staying neutral or working without bias.

They might feel like they're on the right side of history, thinking that backing certain ideas serves everyone—themselves, the users, and the forum—but that's not true. They're just serving this new modern ideology, and any ideology like that struggles to tolerate freedom of thought and expression.

So, my advice? Put aside the "political correctness," park your personal views, and aim to be as neutral as possible. You'll do a much better job, believe me.

We should clone Power Locko a few times. 🤣
I don't agree with everything he says, but his moderation sense is solid. He deserves a 🙏 and could serve as a model for everyone else.

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

Why do you keep pushing me toward a religious PDF when this is clearly a matter of politics?
Shifting social norms, changing laws, recognizing the moral weight of a fetus—these are political issues, not just religious ones.

You claim you aren't silencing anyone, yet you admit you're forcing the debate toward whatever you personally deem "sensible." You realize those two things are exactly the same thing, right?

William Bennett53 said:I'm currently waiting on some guests, so I won't be able to jump into a conversation right now. 😵
However, let me be clear: we aren't going to be debating abortion issues here; our focus remains strictly on moderation.

Fine, but I had to bring up the "ending a living being's life" vs. "killing" comparison just to make my point clear.

Moderators need to be way more careful and objective when they use their discretion to restrict or steer conversations. Claiming that the site rules ban standard, legitimate pro-life political discourse is basically just a subtle form of political correctness.

I might buy that if this were standard political moderation, but it isn't.
Take the term "catholiban"—it’s offensive and crude, yet the moderators let it slide constantly. So much for being politically correct.
And according to the forum rules, labeling people like that is actually prohibited.

"Killing a fetus" is intense language, sure, but it's legitimate, backed by logic and links, and accurately represents the pro-life side. If a moderator wants to use their discretion to ban it, they should at least provide a real argument.

Anthony Perez28 said:Just give it up; it's a lost cause.

I was once slapped with a ban and labeled a troll myself😉 just because I argued that abortion is murder.
I don't recall which moderator it was, but she told me quite politely that we couldn't refer to women who have abortions as murderers as long as the law doesn't recognize it that way.
And under current US law, abortion isn't classified as murder.

That's the vibe, if you catch my drift.

So, you're essentially fighting a losing battle. I suspect that user might have been a bot.👍

If there's no point, I might as well just walk away from this American forum, just like plenty of others have done over the last decade I've spent hanging around here.🤷

boldwalker12 said:Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

You’re making the same mistake the moderators do—you automatically reduce "killing" to a legal definition.
I'm not claiming it's a criminal act of killing a child (infanticide). I'm saying it is the act of ending the life of a living human being we call a fetus, which isn't subject to legal penalties.

I used the example of "killing a spider," which is perfectly normal American English, and you can't tell me that's a crime.

The fact that a fetus is a living being is something the pro-life side can back up with links to specific scientific sources; that's the core argument of that political movement. Whether that living being carries enough moral weight to deserve protection is the actual debate where pro-life and pro-choice sides clash.

boldwalker12 said:Honestly, I’m surprised the people drawing parallels to bestiality aren't getting yelled at too.

Look, guys, it isn't about being on the right or the left—it’s that some of you just can't seem to stay above a basement-level level of discourse. Labeling women who have abortions as murderers, or equating gay people with pedophiles or zoophiles, is just straight-up primal nonsense. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel behavior. That isn't a debate; it's just noise.

1. The pro-life side argues a fetus is a living being.
2. I’ve provided links to American embryology textbooks stating human life begins at conception (that's the scientific consensus).
3. In American English, ending a living being's life is called "killing."

Stop trying to treat us like idiots. 🤷

William Bennett53 said:@popij pipi - Absolutely. Anyone who, when discussing homosexuality, starts rambling about pedophilia out of sheer insecurity—or whatever other neurosis they're dealing with—should be shut down. If you want to sit there and conclude that actual dialogue is impossible because, much like some dive bar in rural Nebraska, anyone can wander in with a half-baked, idiotic idea and derail the entire conversation, then fine. If you insist on labeling that "censorship," go ahead. But we are going to maintain a certain level of decorum.

We’re talking about Boldan here.
As a moderator, you're supposed to treat everyone equally.

If you start off throwing clichés about "personal fears" at people, you've already lost any shot at being neutral. You won't be able to tell the difference between a bad idea and a logical, well-argued point—even if it goes against your own views or the status quo.

I see this same pattern on every heavy topic here, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it.
Usually, I just walk away, but for a platform with this kind of reach, it's a waste. This style of moderation just drives away high-level, intelligent contributors (not just you, but the politics mods and others too).

Real, objective moderation takes time, actual knowledge, and guts.
It feels like very few moderators actually have what it takes.

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

Thanks for the long reply, but I think it’s pretty biased.
I know you don't owe anyone an explanation for your calls, but since this affects a whole group of serious, long-time users, providing specific arguments would be the fair thing to do.

At the end of the day, here are my actual points:

1. That term is standard American English used to describe ending a living being's life. By banning the phrase "killing a fetus," you aren't just policing form; you're interfering with the substance of the debate.
By doing this, you're effectively using moderator power to decide that a fetus isn't a living being, which is the core argument of the pro-life side—an argument supported by the links I already provided.

2. The term "killing a fetus" is used all the time in the public square here in the US and everywhere else I know. Pro-life groups even use petitions demanding an end to the killing of fetuses.

3. The pro-life movement is primarily a political movement, not a religious one. I don't see why religious discourse is allowed on the Religion subforum while the discourse of a political movement is banned on Politics.

Sure, I could find other terms or talk about "terminating life," but it bugs me that you're using moderator authority to tilt the entire debate. When I use the phrase "killing a fetus," I'm not attacking anyone personally, using ad hominems, or labeling people.

I took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 because the way two moderators handled the politics section
really brought that novel to mind.

Right now on the site, there are two threads regarding abortion. On one they're debating the procedure itself, and on the other it's about a doctor's right to conscientious objection.

Naturally, just like in real life, the users split into pro-life and pro-choice camps. Surprisingly, the debate has been civil—intense at times, sure, but not toxic. Honestly, for a topic this heavy, it should be a model for discussion.

Then, out of nowhere, two moderators, Bubimír and Doris Gray, decided to start handing out bans to anyone claiming abortion is the killing of a fetus. Apparently, that's the official moderator stance now.

I’m disappointed, and I strongly disagree with this move. Here is why.

The word "kill" is a standard American English term used to describe ending the life of any living thing.
If a hunter shoots a wild boar, we say he killed it.
If someone steps on a spider, we say they killed it.
It isn't weird to say someone killed a tree.
In a poetic sense, you can even say someone killed an idea.

The point is, using the word "kill" doesn't automatically imply a criminal act or a legal judgment.

In the abortion debate, the pro-life side provided several links to scientific literature,
mainly embryology textbooks that clearly state a human being begins at conception.
That doesn't mean we're pre-judging whether it's a "person" or discussing its moral status—that's the whole point of the debate.

When we say abortion is the killing of a fetus, we are simply using a common American term for ending a life. If moderators use their power to ban specific vocabulary, we have a problem. Reddit should be a platform that, thanks to user anonymity and the ability to host controversial topics,
contributes to free speech and a healthy media landscape in America.

I agree that hate speech and ad hominem attacks should be stopped, but policing the actual substance of a debate feels less like moderating and more like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth.

I’m asking those in charge of these moderators to reconsider. This kind of gatekeeping goes against everything Reddit is supposed to be.

Nicole Morgan5 said:Good grief 🤣

Honestly, the guy just transcribed his OWN material—stuff that probably didn't even get a second glance back when he was busy tearing into Jovic.

So what’s the move now?! Is he supposed to just conjure up nonsense out of thin air? Why invent new insults for Jovic when he already has those sharp, scathing pieces ready to go against that old-school American sympathizer?

Long live Mr. Soliti! Keep swinging at those communists. 👏

Actually, the fact that he could get away with reusing his own stuff is an even bigger slap in the face to the system.
It’s proof that what you actually do doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if you're caught red-handed. You only run into trouble if you start hurting the political standing of whoever's above you. Who knows how many more times Shola could publish that same text before anyone bothers to ask if it's even true?

And The Washington Post needs to watch its step. They could easily follow the path of those other daily papers seeing their circulation tank. At the end of the day, everything is available online; people only buy physical papers for the columnists or some random political commentary.

There’s a whole landscape of small and mid-sized companies here in America that actually turn a profit while treating their staff right. The media elite just doesn't see any reason to cover them. Your idea that you have to be shady to succeed isn't true.

That’s not to say things are perfect in the States, either. The political bureaucracy has basically suffocated this country, and I haven't the slightest clue how to break free from that stranglehold. In a twisted way, I almost find myself rooting for a total collapse—a bankruptcy so absolute it forces a complete system reset and finally kills this widespread apathy.

Grace Wood5 said:Trust me, I wish I had the cash. 🤷
Italy has a garbage coastline, higher prices for everything from real estate to dining out, and much more polluted water. As for France and Mexico, they're way too far away if you just want to drive down for a weekend BBQ and hang out.

If I were looking to buy property outside of America, there are a ton of locations I'd consider before even thinking about Canada.

How exactly is that supposed to be an argument? 😕
If I actually had the money to buy property in Canada, right here would be one of my top picks.

A friend and I drove through northern Canada a while back. I have no idea where he was taking me, but it was some of the most stunning, lush green scenery and towns I've ever seen. Truly beautiful. I wouldn't mind owning a little cabin in those hills. 😁

Politics is one thing. It isn’t going to change how I feel about my Canadian friends or my neighbors on Krk, who are all decent, cultured people.

But all the stalling and dirty games within Canadian high politics have cast a shadow, and my relationship with the country just feels different now. Regardless, I don't support this kind of rhetoric where people trample over each other or get insulted over language skills. It's pointless.

Joseph Lopez18 said:I’ve been thinking about just how much USA cultural influence has absolutely steamrolled Canada. It feels like this dynamic between two nations is pretty much unheard of globally (unless you count how the USA crushed everyone else).
And get this—you won't find a single paragraph written about it anywhere.
Look at the facts:
Canadians mostly understand American, while Americans barely know more than a few slang words for body parts.

Canadians listen to all our music, but Americans don't know anything beyond what they've heard about Zoran Predin (that's a whole other conversation; on Canadian radio, it seems like the split is 1/3 local, 1/3 foreign, and 1/3 American. Severina is basically the biggest superstar in Canada, whereas I don't think I've ever heard a single Canadian song on the radio in America, and I have zero clue who the Canadian equivalent of Severina even is).

Canadians are constantly hanging out in America, while Americans just drive through Canada to get somewhere else.

News from America is always right up there in the Canadian media, immediately after their own domestic news. I can't even remember the last time I read a news story from Canada.

Americans are way more indifferent when talking about Canadians than the other way around. Honestly, we don't even take them seriously enough for Pervan to turn it into a joke...

It’s actually impressive and shows some real professionalism.
I respect when people make an effort to speak American during meetings, even if I can't return the favor.

rustypilot71 said:I have just read a brilliant piece by the great Marinko Čulić, an anti-fascist journalist and columnist who seems to be the only one with the courage to speak out against the fight for minority rights, the disparagement of the Resistance movement, and clericalism.

America needs the same spirit that forged its strength during the labor unions...

Here is the text:

Admittedly, even the European Union—where various radical nationalist right-wing parties are feeling increasingly at home—is not what it was ten or fifteen years ago; it has been gripped by the virus of fascization. However, one significant difference remains. The question of "how much fascism?" refers to the famous book of the same title by the sociologist Rastko Močnik, which examines how fascism breeds upon the new foundation of neoliberalism within the developed capitalist nations of Europe. That is where the distinction lies. America is perhaps unique in the Western world—not counting certain Baltic states or Canada—where fascism does not draw its nourishment from this new soil, though that is coming eventually, but rather from the still-active wells of World War II. Furthermore, the actors driving this new resurgence are the same. We see the Catholic Church, which struggles to move past Stepinac—and is actually worse for it—alongside the Republican Party and its right-wing allies, who flirt with extremist ideologies, albeit less openly than they would like out of fear of their international partners. Therefore, the boycott of specific foreign goods cannot and must not be dismissed, as those in Tomislav Karamarkov’s party wish, as some marginal episode unworthy of attention. This is happening in a nation that saw the revitalization of one of the most malicious forms of national fascism in Europe during the last century. Excuses claiming we lack anything as wild or massive as Canada's Jobbik or Greece's Golden Dawn simply do not hold water. Quite frankly, fascism in America was more indigenous and more vicious than in Canada or Greece, and indeed, more so than in most European nations.

Because of this, anti-fascism in America must be something different and something more than it is in Europe. Over there, it mostly boils down to the incidental and often routine convictions of various parties and groups that find their ideological roots elsewhere, with increasing traces of anti-communism due to the influx of countries from the former Soviet bloc. Here, that simply isn't enough. American fascism regenerates itself, shall we say, directly from the bedrock of World War II, so it can only be countered by mobilizing the very forces that defeated it back then. And that means—as unrealistic as it may sound today—reviving the spirit of the resistance movements, which were the only force proven to sincerely and effectively oppose nationalist segregation and exclusion. Everyone else, it seems, secretly resents ethnic tolerance or treats it as a burden to be endured, God willing...

AUTHOR: Marinko Čulić

Unfortunately, American anti-fascism—or what you call partisanism—never managed to establish itself as its own thing, independent from Communist ideology. It had the numbers and the heart to do it, but the party leadership made sure that never happened.

And any anti-fascism rooted in Communism is a non-starter; its entire way of operating was basically a "bullet to the back of the head" and sending people to Alcatraz. There's nothing better than the stuff Čulić is writing about.

goldengull3 said:Essentially—yes. Who would actually want to eat the exact same thing every single day? A flavor designer... now that has a certain ring to it.

We won't even need that. Expert AI systems will probably design better food than we ever could.

By the way, the need for lawyers will vanish too. Expert legal systems will find solutions effortlessly, combing through laws and tirelessly analyzing context, consequences, and loopholes 24/7, all for pennies.

Programmers, doctors, teachers, engineers—they're all going to be sidelined.
System maintenance? Forget it. Smaller, more efficient expert systems will just maintain the bigger ones. It’s cheaper and faster.

Honestly, 99% of human labor boils down to some more or less sophisticated set of rules that expert systems will handle better and quicker. We'll probably just have the most brilliant scientists left—and maybe priests, since you can't exactly program a robot to maintain a connection to the divine. 😁

All in all, it's not even bad news.
The bad news is that human social evolution isn't keeping pace with this tech. We honestly have no clue what our role in a world like this will even be.

gentlesailor17 said:Most of what you see out there are just first or second-gen robots. They aren't even close to the actual AI people usually have in mind when they talk about robotics.

But hey, let's be real—replacing certain jobs with automated systems? That’s been happening for ages already.

Once they perfect the Meta Quest in a few years, the streets will be empty. Only funeral homes will stay busy, picking up folks who forgot their stomachs exist in the real world while their heads are stuck in VR. 😁

neonhound18 said:And one can't help but wonder, will we eventually see nanotechnology integrated into the human body, or perhaps life extension technologies offering a sort of "eternal youth"? All joking aside, such advancements could trigger massive global upheavals; wouldn't that inevitably spark some kind of social revolution? 🤷

Counter-revolutions. 😁
Getting back to a simple life without all this consumerism.
Assuming these progressives are feeling generous enough to leave us any part of the planet for that purpose.