Posts by Keith Lee2

Hey admins, could you guys please lift my partial ban from the
"natural science" subforum?
It’s honestly just for practical reasons—it'd be way easier to track down my own
old posts and threads I've jumped into.
I promise, uh, I won't be posting in that section anymore, so there's really no
need for the partial ban.
Thanks!

Thanks, guys!

dustyranger64 said:So yeah, basically just posting once every five years—don't blame me if people don't take it all that seriously.

But seriously, the big question is still hanging there... is this quarantine—which has been going on for, what, almost
a whole year now—actually gonna end or not?

dustyranger64 said:I don't see why someone arguing at this level should even be allowed to participate here.
Besides the basic misunderstandings and shaky logic—which could easily be debunked with actual facts—the stuff above is just straight-up trolling, twisting words, and then throwing in those posts about the link between homosexuality and mental health.

Look, if those arguments could actually be shut down with logic, then they
would have been, and there wouldn't be any need to kick the other person
out of the debate.
And that’s not even mentioning how simply failing to grasp what someone is trying to say
gets labeled as "trolling" or "twisting words."
Plus, I don't get why bringing up the correlation between homosexuality and
mental health would get just one person banned, especially since others were
using that exact same correlation in the thread.

Honestly, the whole topic of homosexuality is a closed book for me—I don't see
why we should give it so much weight that someone gets banned from every single
topic on the entire subforum just because they don't support
same-sex marriage.

dustyranger64 said:The mods and Smod are looking into it. We'll let you know what we decide by tomorrow night.
If you want, maybe let us know if anything changed regarding the original reason for the partial ban—you know, the whole discourse that led up to it.

Honestly, I can't even remember exactly why I got hit with the partial ban.
Basically, back then I was just jumping into that thread about same-sex
marriage—just sharing my arguments without actually attacking anyone.
I can't dig up those posts right now because the thread is totally buried, but it'll be way easier
to find them once I get back into that subforum.
I ended up posting 72 times in that one thread, and the penalty points were for
"trolling"—hit me with 85 total across four warnings; one was 35, two were 15, and one
was for 20.🤷

Since nobody really got back to me about my request to lift that partial ban
in the thread down below, I figured I’d just start a new topic.
So, I’m just looking for an update from the admins regarding the possibility of clearing the restriction
on my posts over in the "social science" subforum.

Brenda Cook4 said:There is a massive distinction here. I thought I was being clear. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, we might as well say "every thought is an action." Once some high-tech brain scanner or whatever comes along that can read your mind, it's game over—your very thoughts become subject to the criminal justice system.

Thoughts aren't actions. Period.

We might eventually take that next step, but only once thoughts are readable in the way
you're talking about.

So, speaking out loud—or any other way you express a thought—is an action. And just like any
other thing a person does, there has to be some level of reasonable restriction.

Maybe we can debate where exactly to draw that line,
but it's gotta exist.

Mark Torres14 said:Fine. On one level, you can just ignore the individual. If they don't have any real influence, they can scream whatever they want, whenever they want. People will just write them off as crazy, drunk, or some delusional messiah... whatever. But that kind of "freedom" is basically useless. It’s the classic "you can say what you want, but you can't actually do anything" scenario.
It's a totally different story when a major media outlet steps in, claiming to speak for "freedom of speech" on behalf of a group, a community, or even the state. That's when someone—whether you agree with them or not—is essentially speaking for you, presenting their own version of reality to the public under the guise of your rights.
So, is free speech something that can be institutionalized through representation? Like, does having millions of readers at The New York Times mean those readers automatically back everything printed there? Or is free speech a supra-democratic principle—something that democracy itself must obey in order to actually function as a democracy? In the first case, "truth" is just whatever the majority thinks. In the second, "truth" is simply whatever follows the established rules.

I don't know—talking is its own kind of action, and honestly, everything we do has to have some limits.

ironmarlin1 said:Well, perhaps. Personally, she isn't really my type.
I neglected to mention that the title of this thread feels like something a complete idiot would post on Facebook. You see those kinds of posts there constantly—just endless streams of them. And then there are the baby pictures. Honestly, I’ve been half-tempted to start jokingly threatening people who post photos of their newborns; you know, telling them I might just have to choke the infant if they dare upload one more picture of it.

Usually, you find things like this over there:

My bad—that whole "real man" thing was just a joke.😬
Let me rephrase; "Some guys dream about being intense..."😍

ironmarlin1 said:Not really. Since imagination is preoccupied with things that don't actually exist, it carries almost zero weight in the real world—it’s as if the subject matter of our daydreams simply lacks any tangible impact on our physical reality.

Is imagination truly, fundamentally more intense than reality? It’s a question that tends to drift through my mind during those quiet, late-night hours when the world feels a bit too small and a bit too predictable. I often find myself wondering if we aren't all just architects of elaborate, shimmering cathedrals in our minds, only to step out the front door and realize we’re standing in a dusty parking lot in suburban Ohio. There is a certain weightlessness to a thought, an uninhibited freedom where the laws of physics and the tedious constraints of logic simply refuse to apply. In the theater of the mind, you can build entire universes—grand, sweeping epics that make even a Hollywood blockbuster look amateurish by comparison. Reality, by contrast, is often stubbornly granular, composed of nothing more than unpaid bills, lukewarm coffee, and the relentless ticking of a clock. We tend to polish our internal visions until they gleam, while the actual world remains stubbornly unpolished, jagged, and frequently quite underwhelming. Is it possible that our capacity to dream is actually a defense mechanism against the sheer, unvarnished mundanity of being alive?

No, let’s be clear about one thing: imagination isn't like a shot of bourbon. Now, don't get me wrong—real bourbon has that necessary, bone-deep sting that hits you right in the chest. But imagination? It doesn't possess that kind of bite. It lacks the burn.

Does this vary from one individual to another, and if so, in what specific ways? I can't help but wonder about the ripple effects—what kind of implications would such a statement have on one's actual lifestyle or their fundamental outlook on existence if they truly accepted it as truth? I might have wandered into the wrong corner of the forum here; perhaps this belongs under Psychology, or maybe even a Women's Interest thread, or some other niche entirely. 😁I mean, I can’t help but feel like I might have picked a rather questionable corner of the internet to kick off this particular discussion, though I suppose there's no harm in trying.

Well, you could argue that the entire foundation of civic ideology is built upon nothing more than pure imagination. It’s a concept Flaubert explored quite deeply. For instance:

When one considers the tragic trajectory of Emma Bovary, it is impossible not to feel a certain heavy sense of melancholy regarding the sheer weight of her unmet expectations. She wasn't merely a woman chasing whims; she was a soul suffocating under the crushing boredom of provincial life, constantly searching for a cinematic grandeur that simply didn't exist in her small-town reality. It’s much like those modern stories we see where characters chase a hollow version of the "American Dream," thinking that a change in zip code or a flashier lifestyle will suddenly fix a fundamental emptiness within themselves. Flaubert captures this beautifully—and cruelly—by showing how her romanticized visions act as a slow-acting poison. She views her life through a lens of filtered perfection, much like someone scrolling through an endless, curated Instagram feed, forgetting that the reality behind the screen is often just mundane chores and mounting debt. Her descent isn't just about scandalous affairs; it’s about the devastating gap between who we imagine ourselves to be and the quiet, unglamorous truth of our daily existence. It makes you wonder how many people around us are living out their own silent, desperate dramas, fueled by the same misguided hope that life should always feel like a grand novel.

Come on, who’s actually fantasizing about the burn of bourbon?🙂
A real man dreams about the heat of being with someone like Angelina Jolie.☕

shadoworca3 said:Nah, they picked me for moderator because they actually think I know what I'm talking about. 😉

Just totally blinded by all that grit and arrogance. 😉

shadoworca3 said:It's just that a lot of people on this forum can't spot someone who doesn't know what they're talking about—so they end up getting sucked in by how confident and cocky he acts.

That's exactly my point.

shadoworca3 said:—look, your complaint about me being arrogant is denied, so what's your next move?

The complaint about you being arrogant and belittling people on the forum wasn't actually rejected.
That’s literally the whole point of this thread.

shadoworca3 said:Maybe just start your own thread next time—it’d save the admins from having to shut down lonetrucker4's post because you're trying to take over.

Honestly, you're the one hijacking the thread here. Instead of letting the admins focus
on dealing with complaints about how you act, you're stepping in their shoes and messing up
the whole dynamic between the users and the staff.

P.S.
I actually started this thread myself, but it got locked after you decided to play judge.
And hey, if the original poster has an issue with me jumping in early, they can
just say the word, and we can just wipe my post and all the replies
tied to it.

shadoworca3 said:
The supermoderator makes a call after hearing both sides

Basically, hearing "my side" was cut short because you think you have the right to pass
judgment:

shadoworca3 says:

As long as this mod team is running PZ, and while this admin and the owner are in charge—your partial won't be pulled from PZ.

Then "Nice" just ignored it, and since "Daniel Ward87" isn't even
that bothered, he just locked the thread.

shadoworca3 said:Look, both I and the admins—who already locked your thread regarding that complaint—have already explained this to you.

I’m not trying to act superior to anyone—your Partial went through the proper channels and the admin team signed off on it.
The owner doesn't deal with stuff like this.

Man, you again!
I already told you—my issue is with how you act, specifically that arrogance
and the way you look down on other people on the forum.
I don't really care about your explanations... what I care about is finding someone who can actually step in
and put a stop to that kind of behavior, if anyone even can.

Since nobody’s replied to my stuff in the "Admin Questions" section for a few days now,
I’m just gonna drop this here for support—basically a second attempt at
calling out how this moderator is acting:

I’d really appreciate it if the admin team could weigh in on this:

Why does shadoworca3 get to act all high and mighty—after I already filed a complaint about his arrogance and
how he looks down on everyone else here—and then basically act like he's above the admins
and even the site owner by deciding the outcome of his own complaint? Like, look at this:

Quote:

As long as this mod team is running PZ, and as long as the admins and the owner are in charge—your partial won't be pulled from PZ. Seriously, what’s even the point of filing a complaint against a moderator if that exact same guy is the one judging it?

shadoworca3 said:Look, let me just lay it out for you straight.
The guy who started this thread is a skeptic—and I mean he's honestly one of the top physicists in the US when it comes to relativistic quantum physics. He's easily the best in the country and surrounding areas at interpreting quantum mechanics, specifically Bohmov formalism. Plus, the guy is a brilliant logician, and his favorite hobby after hanging out on Reddit is the philosophy of science.
He’s also got that witty, quirky vibe like Sheldon Cooper... so when he files a complaint that you're derailing his thread, try to figure out my move here—do I pull you from the natural science section, or risk him walking away entirely? 😕😉

I appreciate the honesty.
I totally get where you're coming from and why you made that call.
But this all went down back on August 11, 2011, in that thread about the moon, when
I basically ended the conversation with @Skeptic—basically "asking" him nicely to stop belittling
the other users—and wished him nothing but the best in life.
Here's the post:


But I actually got banned on February 15, 2012, because of something in a completely different thread;
the "spacetime" one, which I only joined because @Spreče (who
you banned too, by the way) invited me. I didn't even say a single word to @Skeptic in that one.

rustydrifter10 said:The warning was more about your writing style in general—just a heads up. It's not just about this one topic—I honestly don't know what gave you the idea that you could just troll through the rest of the PDF like that.

I wasn't even trying to push that PDF. PZ.
I mostly just jump into threads where people are looking for a different perspective—kind of a contrarian vibe, I guess.
Like, on that thread "Is there a moon when nobody's looking at it"—where the OP is basically just asking everyone to chime in...
People have different opinions—so I'll probably just end up getting trashed for them later anyway.
Just a quick heads-up to the OP—I’m circling back to that first post where you asked us all to keep things diverse and open-minded.
My moderator is actually coming at me with insults—seriously.

Keith Lee2 said:.

Look at this blatant display of disrespect and raw power.
How would you even describe why they gave him that red card?

he'll probably just hand me a red card right after I reply to him—typical.

After that, @Servantes actually had the nerve to point out that the moderator is shadoworca3.
The guy who basically earned himself a red card with that post—and then got hit by the same mod right after.
Straight up red carded.

So, what exactly was that moderator warning even about—like, what part of my writing actually triggered it?
Just asking generally, if you don't mind.
Maybe it’s not even my writing style—or the way everyone else on Reddit writes—that’s the issue, but more about how the mods handle things.
shadoworca3 is out here collecting ban hammers—man, that moderator is being so arrogant.

shadoworca3 said:Keith Lee2,
you really don't belong in the natural science section of this subreddit. Your posts don't add anything—honestly, they just cause clutter (in a scientific sense) and create the perfect breeding ground for spam, off-topic nonsense, trolling, idiots, and bans...
Maybe your way of thinking would work better in Philosophy or Religion, so why not go find some validation there?
You'll only end up disappointed here. 🤷

Look, more people have spoken up about how much you don't fit in the natural science sub than
about how I don't fit in mine.
It’s pretty obvious why you're still hanging around while I'm gone.

And don't worry about me being disappointed—I've got plenty of other things to be bummed out about besides the stuff you're trying to "protect" me from.