Posts by Sean Cook2

Bradley Scott2 said:Look, whether you like it or not—this whole "alpha male" trend is going to be everywhere for the next few years. It's just like the manosphere phenomenon we see all over the US. Anyone trying to put a stop to it might as well try to stop the tide from coming in.

Buh, if we don't stay on our best behavior, you'll all start coming up with all sorts of nasty names for us...
🤣

Michelle Wells3 said:Well, he wasn't actually banned for that, but the post itself technically qualifies for a warning based on the subforum rules. Any kind of negative generalization in Politics has always been against the rules and has always been penalized. The moderators can stomach it, but most people can't, so they need to be protected from it. Otherwise, things just spiral—threads turn into endless nonsense and insults until they become unreadable. On the other hand, this user wasn't banned for this specific thing, but rather for his track record, which included trying to "clarify" misconceptions about National Socialism, denying the Holocaust, praising apartheid, and straight-up insulting anyone who tried to engage him in conversation.

Sure, it would be great if there was a dedicated space for topics where people want to argue that women are stupider, gay people are "sick," or Black people aren't white enough—whatever crazy thought pops into their heads.

And there is. Those are the science subforums. If he wants to prove those points to the world, he should go do it there and then come back to Politics to use those arguments.

Sean Cook2 was just asking for a warning, and technically she's right, so she isn't some grand inquisitor like you guys are making her out to be now, even if her reasoning was a bit over the top. The real issue is that the guy is already on a timeout, and I agree with Daniel Ward87 that this is an exaggeration since the site made its stance clear by banning him. And honestly, we shouldn't fall into this trend of using laws to harass forum users. Look, here's another one who thinks the site is violating the Constitution.

It's like reading some trashy tabloid.

Before I asked about the strike on that deleted thread—and honestly, before this whole thing started—the guy wasn't even banned. After that, I didn't push for a strike; I just wanted to know if one should have been issued, and I'm still waiting for an answer.

If the guy hadn't been a clone of someone who was permabanned, would I have received that strike based on this debate?

And she shouldn't have fallen for this trend of using laws to harass users. Here's another one who thinks the site is violating the Constitution.

It's like reading some trashy tabloid.

Maybe yes, maybe no...😁

slybison8 said:So, to reiterate my point: Reddit itself doesn't promote any specific set of values. It seems to me that the platform remains value-neutral, leaving it up to individual members to express their own beliefs—for which they are, of course, personally responsible.

The role of the moderators and admins, as I see it, is simply to maintain the integrity of the discussions, ensuring they remain engaging, well-presented, and an environment where as many people as possible can feel comfortable and free to speak.

I guess that also addresses your dilemma regarding "hate speech" and other moderated content, though naturally, there are certain legal requirements that the law requires us to follow, such as restrictions on displaying Nazi imagery and similar things.

In principle, I believe Reddit shouldn't allow itself to be used as a tool for free promotion by organized interest groups, and perhaps that is where one might draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't.

However, it shouldn't be based on any particular "value," because Reddit is essentially just a space where all "values" are treated equally in terms of their right to be expressed publicly—provided they stay within the Terms of Service and the specific guidelines outlined there.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable with this kind of rhetoric—and frankly, no woman should have to feel at ease reading it. Being "free" to strike back in kind doesn't mean much to me. There are plenty of threads where you'll see similar insults, and they almost always end in threads being locked, bans, and endless appeals. Can we not draw a line somewhere? Is the right of certain people to claim women are inferior actually something worth defending so fiercely?

So, regarding the disparagement of men or women in general—is there really no limit to it under the guise of free speech? I’m just looking for a straight answer to my question, one way or the other—is it actually permissible or not—rather than being told that kind of language won't be tolerated, when, in reality, it is.

slycrane94 said:Give me a break. Of course he’s allowed to believe women belong in the kitchen or that Saudi Arabia is right to ban them from driving.

The law exists to protect women from things like being denied a job just because they're female, not to force everyone to hold polite opinions or kiss their asses.

If he were calling for violence against women or telling employers to fire them, then we'd have a case. But he wasn't saying that, so the law has no business stepping in here. A person has a right to their opinion and to express it, no matter how much it gets under your skin. I'm sure there are plenty of people whose opinions get under yours, yet here you are, still posting on Reddit.

That’s just the logical conclusion of the stances he promotes.

And you—just keep talking nonsense.

slycrane94 said:The color I choose doesn't prove a thing. What's your actual reasoning for complaining about it?

Are we really at a point where you can't say anything that might be interpreted as slightly negative toward feminists?

Exactly.

It shouldn't matter what he thinks about feminism—nobody is stopping him from expressing his views—but he shouldn't be allowed to belittle or degrade all women in the process.

The Equal Rights Amendment states (Art. 16):

Media outlets are expected to promote awareness regarding gender equality through their programming, content standards, editorial guidelines, and self-regulatory measures.

Publicly portraying or presenting men and women in an offensive, derogatory, or demeaning manner based on gender or sexual orientation is strictly prohibited.

How much is this media outlet actually promoting gender equality if they won't penalize content that explicitly claims women will never catch up to men in intellectual or creative capacity—essentially arguing that true equality of ability is a myth and therefore women don't deserve equal social standing, or that their ambitions are just inflated and they are merely submissive conformists lacking willpower?

To speak like that is high-level sexism—unless, of course, you hold those exact views and find nothing wrong with them.

Harold Walker44 said:Why on earth would he care?😕 He was simply asking a straightforward question, much like how people will inevitably ask why you're trying to pass off someone's opinion as a criminal offense or introduce the concept of "blasphemy." If those kinds of ideas actually take root here on Reddit, then I’ll be forced to endure reading your tedious posts—which, if I may say so, feel rather dull based on your writing style—instead of the witty contribution from that other user who was permabanned for blasphemy, even though I don't particularly agree with him...

He was banned because he's a clone of a previously permabanned user, not because of the blasphemy in that quote—which wasn't even an issue for the Politics moderator, nor are the admins willing to call it out definitively.

If you want to know why he's permanently banned, just ask the Politics moderators; Michelle Wells3 was quite clear about whether he deserved it or not. You can enjoy his "wit" once he registers a new clone account. Until then, you can stick to reading pillar of society, bailiff, and public official.

slycrane94 said:What exactly makes it so illegal and disgusting, if you don't mind me asking?

j

Just from the way you phrased that, it’s clear nothing bothers you. And you're wearing purple—how lovely.

Charles Fox10 said:No, it isn't clever. When a rational person realizes something wasn't written correctly, common decency—at least for me—dictates they fix it at the next opportunity.

Well, if you're already willing to admit you can make mistakes, why is it such an issue to concede that you should have handed out a red card—and that the user shouldn't have been tolerated on the topic for nearly that long?

slybison8 said:Without really getting into the specific issue regarding that user and their particular posts, I suppose I should only address your mention of the law in this case. I guess Reddit cannot be penalized under that specific section of the Equal Rights Amendment, since it isn't violating it through its own programmed content, let alone through advertising.

User posts aren't "programmed content," but rather just their own private content that they share publicly, for which they bear full responsibility. This is a principle that was also upheld in the new ZKP, which, when dealing with sanctions for online libel, excluded the possibility of penalizing websites for such claims; instead, it simply requires them to disclose the identity (the IP address) of an individual suspected or accused of online libel to the proper authorities.

Furthermore, I think questioning certain legal solutions can hardly be interpreted as a violation of them within the context of public debate, because if we used that criterion, it would be almost impossible to ever change most laws—and I don't believe that is the purpose of democracy at all.

Reddit could only be held liable under that article of the law if its management discriminated against a specific gender through their decisions—for instance, if they banned women from doing something they allowed men to do, or if they applied rule enforcement inconsistently based on the gender of the violator, or something similar. But in the specific situation you've highlighted, I don't think such liability for Reddit exists.

If the platform isn't liable for anything, why not just allow hate speech against certain races or nations across the board?

Let the lawyers weigh in, I suppose—but maybe we should just file a report and see how it plays out.

Even if the platform isn't legally liable, there is still a moral component—moderation decisions reveal what values a site actually stands for. That’s why I’m pushing for a statement from administration; we need to establish a standard where the belittling of men or women is no longer tolerated.

Charles Fox10 said:The administration didn't write that; I did, within the context of that specific debate. Once a few young ladies pointed out how one-sided my phrasing was, I corrected it immediately.

It’s tied back to the administrative response regarding this similar topic.

Daniel Ward8, is it really okay that this post went unpunished? I see Charles Fox10 over there trying to justify himself as if

The issue is that some young women—and even certain women—take any critique of female behavior written by a man as an absolute insult or pure hate.

Is this still just an administrative question about whether we're taking critiques of women's behavior too seriously?

Daniel Ward87 said:That user got permabanned, so deleting the post isn't going to change a thing. That kind of toxic energy isn't welcome anywhere on Reddit, and the mods were just doing their jobs. What's actually gained by scrubbing the post?

I get that nothing changes, but since his posts are still sitting in the Reddit archives, I thought having that red flag next to them might at least signal that this kind of rhetoric isn't tolerated.

Once the user was banned, my actual concern wasn't about the flagging—it was whether it's acceptable for posts like that to go unpunished in the first place.

That type of discourse isn't welcome anywhere on Reddit, and the moderators did their job.

The moderators could have been faster and more effective, but fine.

So, I’m asking again and looking for a straight answer—did that post at least warrant a red card? Moderators, admins?

Which ones didn't end up getting penalized elsewhere.

Alex Barnes8 said:I still don't quite get why this post got flagged. 🤷

Perhaps some technicality regarding the links—nothing too major.

Jerry Rogers6 said:I’d sooner say someone in this whole situation is just a massive idiot rather than Sisyphus... but hey, that’s just my two cents. 😁
Because at the end of the day, all those good intentions don't mean a damn thing. 🤷

Any moderation more aggressive than what we have now would basically turn into simulating police procedures, which would cause far more damage to the community than any benefit it provides.

What’s the actual point of these maniacs who wander from one corner of the internet to another trying to push their twisted indoctrinations?
And if you want the circus to get even bigger, I’ve frequently run into these types—people I used to recognize myself, actually—bragging about how they got banned from other sites. I mean, seriously, what is this? A social services center? A playground for the needy, the humiliated, and the rejected? 🤷

They should just go start their own specialized forum alongside this one and let people like that play together 24/7.
It’s a win-win.

My top recommendation: use the ignore list. 😁

The user isn't saying anything else. 🤷
But damn this administration for failing to see anything problematic in the absolute filth left behind after every single incarnation of this guy.

Exactly.

It’s impossible to miss what’s being written—even if you have them on ignore—when there's always a crowd of people ready to sign off on that garbage and cheer him on.

Michelle Wells3 said:Look, speaking as a former moderator, I can tell you firsthand that this "public official" type pops up in a different guise on Reddit every single time. It takes a little while to spot them, but once you do, you have to give credit where it’s due—it’s a lot of work to track them down. In the meantime, they manage to clutter up the feed with posts that are way too long to actually read. Every now and then, they’ll drop a genuinely sharp observation, like something about domestic politics, but they always try to sneak in these absolutely pathetic theories regarding gender, race, and nationality. Someone reports them, a mod steps in to issue a ban and scrubs the worst of it, but there’s always some leftover trash left behind.

I mean, look, I think my former colleagues have good intentions, really. But if you ask me, they’re basically playing a game of Sisyphus here—just pushing that same heavy boulder up the hill over and over again. Honestly, any attempt at more aggressive moderation than what we're doing now would probably just start looking like a simulated police investigation. It would definitely cause way more damage to the community than it would actually solve. Maybe it's overkill, but I guess that's just how it goes.

My honest recommendation? Just ignore the lists. 😁

Honestly, they aren't even that hard to spot—which makes it a bit frustrating that his posts still slip through on clearly moderated pages, allowing him to keep posting for days. I actually started this thread just to ask why nothing is being done about it.

A public official has been called out, yet his post—one among many that deserved it—remains untouched. The post directly beneath his, however, was swiftly slapped with a red card long ago. I can't quite wrap my head around the criteria being used here—some sort of fan club mentality, perhaps...🤷

My thread regarding a banned user's clone was shut down yesterday—Sean Cook2 sent me a PM explaining why—but since I never received an answer to my other question, which I assume doesn't violate any site rules, I'm re-posting it here.

So—given those bold claims, shouldn't this post have at least earned a red card? If posts like this go unpunished, the outlet is essentially permitting gender discrimination—which could lead to legal action under Article 36 of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Media outlets that broadcast content—or run ads—portraying men or women in an offensive, belittling, or degrading way based on gender or sexual orientation will face fines for violations up to... $333333

.

A public official. said:I suppose I have to address this bolded section—especially that little smiley at the end. Beyond the implication that women are essentially confused creatures who can never quite decide what they actually want (one minute it’s all about being "emancipated," the next it’s "alpha males," then it shifts again)—this attempt at "witty" sarcasm actually hits the nail on the head. It perfectly captures the reality of what’s happening, and exactly what those feminist puppet masters are trying to pull by using their frustrated brigades on the ground.

The feminization of men—turning them into soft, submissive little things. Characterized by a lack of grit, drive, or backbone. Essentially, bodies that look male but possess a female psyche. It’s easy enough to see why these wet dreams of the feminist movement exist. They seem to realize that women will never quite match men in terms of physical, intellectual, or creative capacity—so their only move left is to try and drag men down to their level.Wouldn't that just turn them into competitors—thereby satisfying those inflated ambitions and that desperate craving for social status and prestige?

A certain subset of men—and I use that term loosely—actually managed to pull it off. These particular "men" are publicly hailed as being "emancipated" and "civilized," though privately, they’re met with nothing but mockery and disdain—dismissed as mere weaklings—while we just call them what they are: frauds.

Poor souls—tame, conditioned, and utterly neutered. Whether it’s driven by a fear of the ruling class, the media, the judiciary, or just general systemic pressure—or perhaps their own personal failings and... eccentricities—they don't just settle for less. They basically deny women any actual equality when it comes to capability—or even social standing—effectively rendering the Equal Rights Amendment a mere formality. Sometimes they actually ramble on about some kind of female "supremacy"—we can see plenty of examples of that right here in this thread. They seem perfectly fine with watching our once progressive and dominant culture devolve into a decadent peacockocracy, where men's rights are systematically eroded more and more every day. Honestly, some of these oddballs even go so far as to fantasize about living in such an unnatural, distorted world.

Fair enough. The feminist ambitions are clear—once we actually get to them. I can't seem to elevate women enough to match men in terms of skill or societal contribution—so I suppose my only option left is to handicap the men until they catch up to our level. Feminize them—train them to accept these vague stances and ever-growing, insatiable demands. Let them become like oxen; doing all the actual work while refusing any recognition or status—just blindly, predictably accepting their subordinate role in society as if it were perfectly natural.

So, what exactly are these feminist puppet masters—the architects behind all these "movements" and "ideologies" pulling the strings of feminist and "gender" upheavals—actually after? It’s quite obvious. The nature of a real man is such that he isn't easily manipulated; he tends to question imposed "authorities" and their dogmas, explores different paths, and has a certain rebellious streak. That makes him a terrible subject to rule over.

History shows us that men are the ones starting rebellions, driving revolutions, changing regimes, and toppling governments. Women's involvement in these things has been largely symbolic—and often not even that. By nature, women aren't typically inclined toward high-stakes risks, physical danger, or direct conflict with those in power. They generally tend to fit into existing systems, respect hierarchy, and don't feel the need to challenge "authority"—meaning they cause far fewer headaches for the ruling structures than men do.

That is why the goal is to turn men into "feminized pushovers." To make them just like women—obedient, compliant conformists and opportunists who won't give the people actually in charge any trouble.

History has proven that no regime can ever build a repressive apparatus large or efficient enough to keep people in submission forever. No matter how hard governments try to squeeze, they eventually fall.

So, they came up with a plan. Since men are the ones creating problems, rebelling, and tearing down leadership, they need to be neutralized. And the easiest way to do that is through emasculation. Men shouldn't be allowed to be men anymore; they have to become as much like women as possible. Basically, "softies." That way, they stop posing a threat to the ruling regimes and their masters.

But how do you immobilize, pacify, and feminize half the population? No one can build a police force or intelligence agency massive enough to handle a task that gargantuan. So, they had a bright idea: let's invent feminism and "gender ideology." Convince women that men are their enemies, that they are being oppressed, and that traditional masculine behavior and traits are a threat to women that must be fought. Get women to pull the wagons for the regime.

Let them hunt men down. Let them denounce and sue them for any behavior that could be labeled as "typically male." Imagine having one half of society—women—constantly monitoring, spying on, and reporting the other half. It's brilliant, really. And cheap. Just toss some funding at feminist organizations and "activists" to keep the fire stoked and recruit new waves of "self-aware" and "empowered" crusaders, and you've got a mass-scale, low-cost surveillance system for anyone who might threaten the status quo.

The police and secret services can't watch everyone 24/7. But a wife, a girlfriend, a coworker, a curious neighbor, or those eternally vigilant "civic activists" certainly can. Every man can effectively be under constant surveillance by someone, and any "masculine" behavior can be promptly detected, reported, and neutralized. There is no respite and no safe space. Everything and everyone is under scrutiny.

And you don't even need to be charged with anti-government activities. Why would a regime bother with such complicated legal constructions? An accusation of vague and fluid "sexual harassment" is plenty. The point is to ensure citizens—especially men—realize the regime can detect them at any moment, turn them into social pariahs, and neutralize them. If you dare to be disobedient, lift your head, or—heaven forbid—think for yourself.

Under this constant pressure and the watchful eye of the "fairer sex," men will supposedly find it easier to accept a subordinate role, gradually adapting and turning into softtons—or "pushovers." Accustomed to being quiet and compliant not just with women, but, crucially, with the authorities. Exactly the kind of people the regime wants. That is why feminism and "gender ideology" were invented, and why they are kept alive today.

Of course, a system like this is unsustainable in the long run—it's bound to collapse. But if men simply allow it—if they truly undergo a mass transformation into spineless pushovers—then perhaps such a society *deserves* to fail. It should make way for something healthier and more vital, built upon a natural division of roles and responsibilities. I'm talking about a society where social standing and prestige are earned through duty and merit, rather than dictated by gender or sexual orientation. A society free from "positive discrimination," quotas, or the ability to be shut down without evidence—just based on someone's word—leading to people being evicted from their homes or cut off from their own children. We are witnessing an increasing number of these violations against men's rights every single day.