Posts by Sean Cook2

placidorca16 said:Fine, if you and your little "reach" squad want to claim that:🤷 🙄 Good luck turning blatant facts into a joke...

The post was made on August 6, 2013, at 9:07 AM—last edited by placidorca16: 08/06/2013 at 9:29 AM.

🙂

And your point is?🤷 I spotted a typo—literally just a misspelled word—and fixed it twenty minutes later. Is that against the rules now, or are we calling it some kind of "feminist conspiracy"?😕

placidorca16, Sophia Thomas7 thought that quote from Michelle Alvarez8 came from your opening post—he clearly didn't bother clicking the arrow to see she pulled it from the "feminism" thread.

My sincere respect to those who remain optimistic while tilting at windmills—I simply lack the energy to reopen those debates or wade through the endless nonsense found there.

Nicholas King said:Honestly, this is a question you should be directing at someone who—despite those figures you claim "aren't small"—still feels the need to repeatedly spout entirely different, incorrect numbers. Oops, my bad—it turns out you're actually the one who keeps typing out the wrong data... 🙂

I truly cannot wrap my head around why you're incapable of discussing the very issue you're writing about without resorting to terms like "feminism" or falling back on these weird forum conspiracy theories (though, I suppose if you look around, there isn't a single man to be found on this entire board, not even among the admins or the moderators...)? Surely you don't think the problem is too insignificant, or that you aren't skilled enough at debating, to handle a standard, civil discussion on a forum?

The figure being waved around here refers to attempted murder rates in the US back in 2011 (broken down by men and women)—and even that number is questionable. It doesn't account for actual homicides.

silentridge3 said:Personally, I’m curious about where they get off calling "women who don't express any objectively unacceptable views" feminacists.

To me, the term "feminacist" should only apply to public figures—or anyone else, really—who openly display chauvinism toward men and act through media or systemic channels to promote gender discrimination against males.

There are plenty of examples out there, and I think some of the forum members have described them quite calmly and accurately. I mean, I’ve probably pointed out at least ten different instances myself.

Well, for what it's worth, I've been labeled that way myself—though I haven't the slightest clue which of my six posts on this thread were supposedly "objectively unacceptable" enough to earn the feminist label, unless apparently failing to mention violence against men every single time I bring up violence against women counts as a crime.

silentridge3 said:I mean, I feel like you’ve got it completely backwards, honestly; if anything, the reality of the situation is the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

When...

I was reading the news earlier, and I can’t help but feel a bit weary about how this all plays out, but apparently, Judge Kršul went on the record with the press, claiming that women just make better colleagues in a professional setting. And then, as if that wasn't enough to set the tone, the director of a hospital over in Indianapolis told reporters she prefers hiring women for her staff—which, if you ask me, probably means she actually does it, which feels like a pretty blatant way to discriminate against men, I guess. It’s just one of those things where you see these public statements being made and you wonder where the line is drawn, maybe, between preference and outright bias, though it seems the trend is moving toward making things quite complicated for everyone else.

I mean, I guess there isn't really a better way to describe that kind of blatant segregation than just calling it feminism. It’s honestly pretty wild when you think about it, because those kinds of statements feel just as loaded as saying, "I'd rather hire white people over Black people," or claiming that Americans are somehow better employees than members of the minority communities here. It all feels like the same old pattern, really.

When...

So, this judge basically just went on record admitting that she bypassed the actual law to decide on child custody and a restraining order against the father in what—what, five minutes? And the kicker is that absolutely nothing happens to her afterward, which makes me think we’re looking at a truly broken, feminist state strategy in action. I mean, I don't think the issue is just about one individual person being reckless, though maybe it is, but more likely it’s the entire system itself; it's built in a way that actually allows this kind of thing to happen without any real accountability, and honestly, that’s when you know the whole setup is rigged.

And that’s how the whole system actually looks, I guess... if you want to get into the weeds of it.

Back in 2011, they were actually listed among the partners... I think it was around that time, maybe? It’s hard to pin down exactly, but if I recall correctly, they had already established themselves as part of the partnership group back then. I was looking at some of those old crime statistics recently—you know, the kind of data that just makes you sit back and sigh—and I noticed this weirdly specific breakdown where men were responsible for about 19 major offenses while women accounted for around 14. It’s one of those things that feels like it should mean something profound, I guess, but then you start digging into the context and everything gets so murky and complicated. Maybe it’s just a statistical hiccup, or maybe there’s some deeper sociological shift happening under the surface that we aren't quite catching yet, though I honestly doubt there's a simple answer to any of this. It’s just one of those heavy, lingering thoughts that stays with you, I suppose..

So, I was sitting around thinking about this whole feminist state strategy thing—you know, that so-called "national policy for gender equality" they keep pushing on us—and it just feels like one of those things that's being forced down our throats without much thought, I guess. It’s hard to tell where the actual necessity ends and the bureaucratic overreach begins, maybe, because everything seems to be moving toward this centralized, top-down approach lately. It's all very much part of this broader push by the government agencies to micromanage how we interact, and honestly, it just feels exhausting to watch the way they try to engineer social outcomes through sheer policy force. I don't know, it just feels like we're heading toward a reality where every single aspect of life is filtered through these massive, sweeping mandates, and I can't help but wonder if we're losing something vital in the process of trying to legislate equality into existence.

1) I suppose we should probably talk about the whole push for promoting women's rights, though I’m never quite sure if we're actually moving toward anything meaningful or just spinning our wheels in a very loud, very public way. It feels like one of those things where everyone agrees on the basic idea—because, honestly, who wouldn't?—but then you look at how the actual state strategy unfolds, and it all gets so incredibly complicated and messy. Maybe it's just me being cynical, but I often wonder if these massive pushes for a national policy for gender equality end up becoming more about bureaucracy than actual, tangible change for people on the ground. You see these big announcements from the government agencies, and they sound wonderful on paper, almost too perfect, but then you have to deal with the reality of how things actually function in cities like Indianapolis or anywhere else in the country. I guess it’s just that constant tension between the lofty ideals we all claim to hold and the slow, grinding gears of the system that seems to struggle with any real progress. It's a lot to wrap one's head around, really. And then there's that whole thing about gender equality, too... I guess you could say it's just one more layer in this massive, complicated mess we're all navigating, though I'm never quite sure if anyone actually knows what they're aiming for anymore. It feels like every time you turn around, there’s some new push for a national policy for gender equality or some other sweeping mandate, and honestly, it just makes me wonder if we're all just spinning our wheels in the sand while trying to balance everything. Maybe it's necessary, maybe it isn't, but it certainly adds another heavy weight to an already exhausting conversation.
2) Creating equal opportunities within the labor market
So, I was thinking about this whole push to improve how we handle gender-sensitive upbringing and education within our schools, and honestly, it’s one of those things that feels like it could go a dozen different ways depending on who you ask. I guess if the government agencies actually get their act together, maybe there's a way to refine the state strategy to make sure kids aren't being boxed into these rigid, outdated roles from the moment they walk into a classroom, though I suspect the bureaucracy will just find a way to overcomplicate it. It’s a massive undertaking, really, trying to weave this kind of nuance into the entire educational framework without it becoming some sort of performative lecture, if you know what I mean? I don't know, maybe it's possible to strike a balance where we're promoting equality through the national policy for gender equality without making everything feel forced or artificial, but then again, history suggests that whenever the State gets involved in "improving" social dynamics, things tend to get messy and bogged down in red tape. It's a complicated mess, I suppose.
I guess we’re back to talking about the whole balancing act regarding men and women in political and public decision-making processes again. It’s one of those things that feels like it’s constantly being debated in Washington, isn't it? You have this whole push for a national policy for gender equality, which I suppose is meant to ensure that everyone has a seat at the table, though whether that actually leads to better outcomes or just more bureaucracy is something I can't quite wrap my head around. Maybe it’s necessary, maybe it’s just another layer of oversight from some government agency, but there's definitely an ongoing effort to make sure representation isn't just lopsided in our leadership roles. It’s a complicated mess, honestly.
5) I suppose we could all sit around and dream about a world where we finally manage to strip away every single form of violence, though I don't know if that’s even a realistic goal for us as a species, maybe. It feels like such an overwhelming, massive undertaking—just completely eliminating all kinds of aggression and force from our society—but then again, I guess you have to wonder if humanity is even capable of that kind of restraint. It’s a heavy thought, really, just imagining a life without any of that friction, but I suppose it's worth pondering, even if it feels a bit like chasing a ghost. I guess I’ve been sitting here thinking about the whole thing—the way everything seems to be shifting lately regarding women and how society is trying to reshape things—and it just feels like we're caught in this endless, swirling cycle of constant adjustment. It’s hard to pin down exactly where the needle is moving, but you can feel the tension, I suppose, especially when you look at how various government agencies are pushing these massive shifts in social dynamics. Everything feels so heavy and complicated, almost like we're constantly being told that the old ways were fundamentally broken, which might be true in some sense, but then you look at the sheer scale of the new initiatives being rolled out by the state, and it just feels... overwhelming, if that makes any sense. I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but there's this sense that we're perpetually in the middle of a massive, unceasing reorganization of how men and women interact in public life, and it leaves me feeling a bit weary, honestly. It’s like we’re all just drifting through these sweeping changes, trying to figure out what the new rules are while the goalposts seem to move every single week.
I suppose we should probably talk about how we might push for more international cooperation and a real commitment to gender equality outside our own borders here in the States, though I honestly don't know if anyone is actually listening anymore. It feels like one of those things that sounds great on paper—you know, all that lofty talk about global partnerships and making sure everyone gets a fair shake regardless of gender—but when you look at how messy things are globally, it just seems like such an uphill battle, maybe even a bit futile if you ask me. We could try to influence how other countries handle their social policies, perhaps by pushing for a more cohesive international approach to women's rights, but then again, trying to get the whole world on the same page regarding a national policy for gender equality is like trying to herd cats in a thunderstorm. It’s a massive undertaking, I guess, and quite frankly, I’m not sure if the current state strategy of most major powers is even headed in that direction, let alone capable of fostering true global equity.
7) Strengthening our institutional frameworks and how we actually get things done.

What is it we actually want? I mean, really think about it for a second. It feels like we’re all just drifting through these endless cycles, chasing after things that probably don't even matter in the grand scheme of things, though I suppose that's a bit cynical of me to say, isn't it? Maybe we're all just looking for some kind of stability or maybe just a sense of purpose that doesn't feel so manufactured by the constant noise of everything around us. It's hard to pin down, I guess. We spend so much time debating what should be done or how things ought to work, yet when you sit back and actually look at the core of it, the fundamental desire remains this vague, shifting target that seems to move every time we get close to grasping it. It's a bit exhausting, honestly, trying to figure out the collective aim when everyone seems to be pulling in a slightly different direction.

I mean, I guess we should probably just decide if point five needs to be wiped out entirely or if we’re looking at a total overhaul... maybe? It feels like one of those situations where you're stuck between deleting it or just rewriting the whole thing from scratch, though I'm honestly not sure which path leads to less of a headache in the long run.
I guess we’re finally at the point where this whole massive scandal regarding the state strategy has to be dragged out into the light, because honestly, seeing that chauvinistic fifth point they've cooked up... it's just exhausting. Maybe it's too much to hope for transparency, but it feels like everything is being swept under the rug lately, and I can't help but feel a bit weary watching how these things play out.
I mean, if they’re actually going to move forward with this, I guess they should probably just come clean and publicly announce who the actual authors of that whole strategy are, you know? It feels like there's a lot being hidden behind the scenes, and honestly, it would be better if we just knew whose names were actually on those documents instead of all this vague maneuvering. Maybe it's too much to ask for transparency, but it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to demand at this point.
I mean, honestly, maybe it’s time we just cleared out all those so-called "gender equality offices" and the entire Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, because, let’s be real, they haven't actually done anything. It feels like they just sit there, and I guess when you look at the track record—not just in this instance, but in so many other cases where the rights of one gender, specifically men, were being stepped on—they just stay completely silent. It's almost like they aren't even looking, if that makes any sense.

Otherwise, it’s pretty obvious that we’re looking at a broken system here, rather than just a few bad actors, I guess. The term "feminacism" actually feels somewhat appropriate in this context, since the way the system is set up leads to people being unfairly discriminated against—in this specific case, based on gender. It’s all laid out right there, plain as day, in a document that is officially labeled as the state strategy. It feels like there’s this underlying implication everywhere you look lately, almost as if it’s been written into the social contract that men are exclusively the villains and women are nothing more than perpetual victims, which I guess is just how things are being framed now. It’s all very black and white, isn't it? One side gets the hammer and the other gets the shield, and honestly, it just seems like such a wearying way to view the whole human experience, though maybe that's just my cynical take on the current state of things.And that’s just a flat-out lie, if you ask me.

silentridge3's numbers are just as arbitrary and subjective as his definitions—he knows they're wrong, yet he keeps recycling them.

Lately, I’ve noticed that women participating in discussions about feminism or violence against women—even when they aren't saying anything objectively offensive—are being labeled "feminacists" without any real consequence.

Based on what I’ve seen here, it seems like this kind of insulting language is being tolerated—which is interesting, to say the least. I’d actually appreciate an explicit stance from the administration on this matter. At what point does calling someone a "feminacist" become a violation of the rules on this forum?

The feminist state strategy—well, it’s certainly something. It’s nothing more than a slur—plain and simple. Allowing the use of such pejoratives is a mistake. The current feminist state strategy—if you can even call it that—is becoming quite a spectacle. It’s essentially the same as permitting the use of certain terms—though one could argue the distinction is thin at best. A total chauvinistic pig. And even the sheer weight of the words themselves matters—if you catch my drift. Absolute pig. Less impactful than the words themselves—if that makes any sense. racist.

Is it actually permissible to call someone a male chauvinist pig? Or—at the very least—just a male chauvinist.

the problematic behavior of someone aggressively hijacking threads

You're free to beat "the individual" in an argument—or report them for specific instances of harassment and rule-breaking—but you can't force them off a topic or hijack it yourselves. Being stubborn about one's own views isn't a valid reason to drive anyone else off the forum.

And I honestly don't get why posts like this aren't sanctioned after a moderator warns that the discussion isn't actually about "the individual" in question.

Daniel Ward87 said:You've got a point. The standards used over at the UN don't really apply here on Politics—they're essentially two different worlds.

Look, if you want to play by the book, we can certainly insist on following the rules.

Option A.
Anyone who claims you're being stupid or malicious could technically receive a warning for insults—because, strictly speaking, they are.

The catch is, you’d end up with two warnings yourself. One for implying an infantile male chauvinism that Cuka should be practicing over at the UN—which suggests he shares those exact traits. The second would be for insulting the users at the UN by labeling the whole place a breeding ground for chauvinists—effectively calling everyone there one. They aren't. You’re just stating your opinion, much like the person you're calling out, but if we’re sticking to the letter of the law, both sides are liable.

Option B.

Nobody gets penalized.

Which will it be? Because I won't allow this back-and-forth to drag on indefinitely.

I'll go with Option A.

Daniel Ward87 said:I think my point was taken quite the wrong way here.

I’ll quote the specific part of the post that prompted my response.

"I'll leave the guys to enjoy their infantile male chauvinism there, but I don't think it belongs in the other subforums."

What Nancy Johnson17 failed to realize is that by making this comment, she essentially labeled Cuka an infantile chauvinist—and by extension, everyone posting there. She actually goes a step further, labeling the UN forum as a breeding ground for male chauvinism. There's already been plenty of discussion regarding the UN and its culture, which is why there's even a link to "women's rights in the US" right there.

The UN is a unique space, much like the Women's Forum. Verbal chauvinism pops up there frequently, but that doesn't mean the people posting are actual chauvinists. The UN is primarily a place for good-natured, masculine banter. Plenty of women post there and embrace that "verbal chauvinism" as just part of the fun. Sure, it occasionally crosses a line, but generally, it stays within the realm of harmless entertainment.

Furthermore, let me be clear—I don't make threats regarding bans. I issue warnings, and if those fail, then I issue the ban. I don't do threats. I simply suggested that Nancy Johnson17 shouldn't be surprised if she receives one herself. While I have the authority to issue a ban on the spot, I prefer to leave that to the NAACP moderators out of professional courtesy. However, I've been a moderator long enough to know how things play out. I couldn't care less about the labels being thrown around—male or otherwise—but I do care when people start handing out labels based on a single isolated incident.

Thirdly, if someone can't handle the vibe at the UN—which almost all the women who post there seem perfectly fine with—then perhaps they shouldn't visit that section at all.

Nancy Johnson17's argument was that such comments shouldn't be tolerated in Politics, that moderators should punish them, and that they shouldn't be treated as normal there like they are in the UN, where, incidentally, Cuka is a moderator. Just because Cuka was mentioned, she believes the standards from the UN shouldn't apply to Politics.

The explanation provided by Cuka is offensive to me, as I remained within the bounds of decent behavior while the other party did not.

I was actually saying that I'll let the guys have their fun if that's what they enjoy. I didn't deny them that right, even though I could have. I’ve certainly laughed at certain threads myself—though, I still find the whole thing rather infantile.

dustyranger64 said:The user was simply cautioned—not even sanctioned—that her tone wasn't quite appropriate, and she was later given an explanation as to why.

Since I’m apparently the subject of discussion here, I assume I’m allowed to weigh in—considering my thread was locked while I was away.

Honestly, I’m almost speechless.

I find it hard—actually, impossible—to believe I'm facing a ban just for calling out male chauvinism as "infantile." It seems someone felt the need to step up and defend his honor.

And what else is there to conclude? Apparently, on this forum, you're permitted to say:

"If you don't agree with me, you're stupid and malicious."

Though, I suspect saying that in the masculine gender might be against the rules. I'll test it out and let you know.

EDIT:
If anyone looks at my posts with a level head, they'll see only one thing. To put it simply:

Someone called another person "stupid and malicious" over in Politics without any consequences. You used to be able to talk like that anywhere on the forum, but nowadays—optimistically speaking—it seems only permissible in the UN, which has become a breeding ground for chauvinism. In this case, the adjective "infantile" was used as a personal opinion toward that specific individual, not the people writing there. The kind of insult that goes unpunished in the UN ( EXAMPLE) shouldn't be tolerated anywhere else and really ought to be sanctioned.

Charles Fox10 said:I haven't been online continuously, so I missed your last PM—and somehow you managed to file an appeal before I could even reply. Look, I have no issue with the process itself, but I haven't deleted a single conversation—your posts are all still right there on that very first thread about the gentleman resident.

One of the politics moderators responded to your report—and I already shared my take via PM when you first reached out about it.

So, the moderation of those two posts is the issue at hand—which I didn't actually touch—rather than my own opinion, which I sent to you via PM just to avoid any misunderstandings.

I'm not entirely sure why you brought the men's corner into this—it feels a bit out of left field—but I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Edit: I just caught your latest post—it popped up right as I was typing this. If anything I wrote came across as offensive, please accept my sincere apologies.

I have no issue with the conversation being deleted—it happens—but I am curious if the author faced any sanctions.

I gathered from the PM you sent that you didn't actually delete those posts—not that it changes much regarding how you handled my message.

Your decision not to remove those posts is effectively a moderator's ruling—you reviewed them, decided nothing was out of line, and concluded they stayed within the rules.

And that, naturally, raises the question—where exactly do we draw those lines?

Thanks for the apology.

Daniel Ward87 said:The moderator of this sub-forum, for instance.

The logic is pretty straightforward—you’re implying that Charles Fox10 is being infantile (read: immature) and, to top it off, a male chauvinist. If you’re looking for a ban based on those posts, then you’ve earned one yourself—if nothing else, for the sexism. From what I can see, the MK description specifies verbal chauvinism, not male chauvinism. That means you'll find all sorts of posts there, but it doesn't mean everyone posting them is a chauvinist.

I’m not trying to police Charles Fox10's moderation, let's be clear. I'm just offering a warning.

Daniel Ward87

Male chauvinism is inherently infantile—is there any kind that isn't? It's an immanent trait, which is why I said the guys have the privilege of practicing infantile male chauvinism on MK; it should be their oasis, where those "guy moments" aren't tolerated elsewhere—let alone defended by a moderator.
And if it isn't male chauvinism, what kind of verbal chauvinism is being practiced there?

What he wrote can only be categorized as sexism. Whether he personally is a chauvinist or whether everyone posting there is, hasn't been stated—but if you enjoy it, feel free to penalize me for the implications you're drawing.

The point is, you haven't actually said whether that insult deserved a sanction or if Charles Fox10's explanation was acceptable.

Best,

Sean Cook2

@ goldengull3, thanks—but what’s your take on my other point?

Daniel Ward87 said:Don't act surprised when you get flagged for "infantile male chauvinism."😉

Daniel Ward87

I'm not sure why you think that would surprise me—and I honestly wonder who exactly is handing out these flags and what their reasoning even is.

Under the men's corner section, it reads: "For fans of beer, remote controls, verbal chauvinism, and other typical guy talk..." By definition, "infantile" implies something childish or immature.

Claiming someone deserves a penalty for being "ridiculous"—which is a generous way of saying "stupid and malicious"—is pure sexism. Try swapping the genders in those examples and then reconsider Charles Fox10's (or perhaps your own?) criteria for sanctioning such remarks.

Charles Fox10's moderation is questionable—partly because he joins the debates and seems to only step in when insults are aimed at Pauletić or his allies. Given that he failed to flag a comment like "this is worse than hell" despite reports and its offensive nature toward others, I'd say he should be removed from moderating this thread.

While I wait for a response, I’d like to add one more thing.

The supermoderators can check my history—I’ve only received five warnings in six years, two of which came from Charles Fox10.

When faced with the insult mentioned, I simply responded: "It isn't wise to speak like that on this forum. 😁" I asked for an apology before we continued, which he refused—a move that only served to prove my point.

Setting that specific incident aside, I remember when this kind of language used to be the norm here. I’ve never been one to stoop to insults, so I was actually glad to see the community finally adopt a standard similar to my own.

Of course, that doesn't apply to the "men's corner" subforum, where Charles Fox10 also moderates. I’ll leave the guys to their infantile chauvinism there, but I don't believe it belongs in any other section.

In the meantime, Charles Fox10 wiped the entire thread clean—but the question still stands: should that post have actually been flagged or not?

Well, after six years of lurking on this forum, I’m finally stepping up to file a formal complaint regarding moderator conduct.

I flagged the following post:

It isn't because I'm angry or personally offended—I'm actually not—I was just enjoying the banter and found the whole trajectory quite amusing. Rather, it's because I believe a rule was broken.

Since the post hadn't been sanctioned yet, I sent a private message to Charles Fox10 asking if he intended to take action.

His response was that he had reviewed the thread and decided it "didn't warrant a ban"—claiming we stayed "within the lines"—while also suggesting we weren't discussing the actual topic but were instead attacking one another. That isn't quite accurate; the conversation drifted toward stereotypes because my interlocutor was quoting my own post, and discussing stereotypes is a massive, essential part of the discussion surrounding cartoons and Žanić's book "how to speak american donkey."

In my reply, I reminded him that he once hit me with a red card for saying "🤣 You're ridiculous! Are kids from California suddenly speaking with a Southern accent?"—to which he replied that the penalty was deserved.

So now, I'd like to ask the supermoderator: is being "stupid and malicious" permitted on this forum? Because I'd love the opportunity to say that to someone myself.

I am also curious why a post containing the phrase "it's worse than hell" wasn't sanctioned, despite my flagging it. Charles Fox10 claims that it all depends on the context.

Just a matter of principle, really—I'd like to know where I stand for future reference.

Thanks for the help!

Charles Fox10 said:Honestly, I have no clue where it belongs, but it certainly shouldn't be on Politics—we’re all a bit exhausted from that one. We cleared out the first topic for the usual reasons, and this second one was locked simply because the last few pages were just the same thing on repeat.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if there's anything left to say about this gentleman's life and work that hasn't been covered, but a headline framed around boycotting a major corporation's films isn't really what Politics is for.

Charles Fox10, you realize you can't read that anymore because it's been deleted, right?😁

Jonathan Reed4 said:Oh, really? :rolleyes:

So, the title is actually an issue after all. :lol:
Fine then, you guys come up with something. We'll just accept whatever you decide on.

By the way, that guy whose name we aren't allowed to mention announced he’s dropping the results of his grueling, weeks-long analysis of Continental's films tomorrow. This makes having a solid topic even more important so we can actually discuss it.
Or did that guy's legal team threaten a new lawsuit if anyone dares to start a thread about their client again? :es

Well, that's exactly why I left him out of the title.😁

Maybe we could agree to write without mentioning his name at all?

P.s. It should probably be a new thread, complete with a fresh intro post.

Charles Fox10 said:Jonathan Reed4-no Mad Corner here for quite some time now

Sean Cook2's title isn't doing much for the topic or the discussion 🤷 perhaps there's a better way to frame this.

Henry Cox78, your thread was locked by a colleague with an explanation, and the moderators don't have the authority to move or edit polls.

If I'm following you correctly, we could just move the Pauletic discussion over to the PDF Near Politics section under a different heading?

The core idea is pretty clear in the opening post. It's about tracking Pauletic's boycott initiative—he mentioned his analysis of Continental's cartoons is finished and he'll be sending them to the right outlets. We can easily swap the title for something more appropriately toned.

Charles Fox10 said:Honestly, I have no clue where it belongs, but it certainly shouldn't be on Politics—we’re all a bit exhausted from that one. We cleared out the first topic for the usual reasons, and this second one was locked simply because the last few pages were just the same thing on repeat.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if there's anything left to say about this gentleman's life and work that hasn't been covered, but a headline framed around boycotting a major corporation's films isn't really what Politics is for.

So, the issue is just the tone of the headline?

I get it—no worries at all.

I just wanted to double-check.

After ninety-two pages were filled up on the pdf near politics section regarding Pauletić's boycott initiative, is the discussion being shut down there simply because she doesn't technically belong in that subforum?😕

Where else would it go? Which subforum is actually going to take it?