Posts by redbear2

bluecyclist64 said:No, that’s not right. The thread starter was actually talking to moderator Meadow—he told her she didn't have enough brains.

And of course, they threw two more insults my way to top it all off.

Well, I read it. Whatever.So, basically, looking at this entire thread from start to finish.

Great, then you get the context.

I get the context, don't worry about it.

So you're siding with Meadow too. At least in this specific instance—if not across the board.

bluecyclist64 said:Why would anyone consider that an insult?

That comment was actually aimed at me, not host Meadow. I think NOD14 quoted it because it highlights the specific vibe of the person who started this thread.

What if it’s true (even though I have no idea what we're talking about, purely hypothetically)?

You could have known what was going on if you had bothered to read anything here.
The OP basically equated judging people by their skin color with being an atheist. When I asked if he was trying to lump those two things together, he gave me a subtle little dig instead of answering.

What are you actually getting at? Are you saying it's an insult if someone can't wrap their head around string theory or the fact that the universe might have 17 dimensions?

If you just look at the context of how these insults were thrown around, you don't even need to ask those kinds of questions.

Larry Baker72 said:The admin handling the evaluation can just scroll through the posts easily enough. There’s really no point in me flooding the thread with endless quotes. 😵

It won't work. How is anyone supposed to take a complaint seriously when the person filing it doesn't even care enough to back it up with actual evidence? 🤷

If you're running a thread, you have to stick to the topic at hand. It’s basic rules. Atheists don't respect religion, and that’s exactly why they get disqualified.

I don't really get it. Atheism is an identity just like any other—Buddhism, Catholicism, you name it. It belongs on that PDF just as much as anything else.

I’m not equating atheists with racists. I’m just using a comparison that operates on the exact same logic. It seems like that bit of mental gymnastics might be a little too much for you to wrap your head around.

You aren't using a comparison based on the same logic, which makes your point invalid. Unless, of course, you’re trying to argue that racial prejudice is the same thing as atheism—in which case, you’re essentially equating racism with being non-religious. Maybe "equating" is too strong a word; I can give you that much, but my head is pounding right now and I can't think of a better way to put it. The main thing is that you need to get what I'm actually getting at here. If it's the latter, then I can say for certain that judging someone by their skin color and not believing in God are two completely different things. They don't operate on the same principles. So, we're back to square one.

Grab a copy of Principles of Logic and get to work. ☕

I’d tell you, but I think I'll just hold my tongue. Just take this advice to heart, regardless.

I try to stay objective most of the time, though I’ll be the first to admit I have my own biases.

Someone mentioned a book to me recently—something about the fundamentals of logic. I can't quite wrap my head around the title right now. It’s slipping through my fingers.🤔

Look, if someone happens to disagree with my take, I’m not just going to shut them down or kick them out. I actually enjoy the debate. I'd rather talk it through than just eliminate the opposition.

From what I've gathered, she follows that exact same pattern—unless logic dictates otherwise. If you've got evidence that proves me wrong, go ahead and lay it out.

It’s great that you agree with her on everything; sounds like you two are soulmates or something. 🤣

Honestly, being soulmates with her sounds a lot better than being soulmates with you. 🤷

Larry Baker72 said:Just scroll through her post history; all the proof you need is right there.

The fact that she likes snails or that you find her charming doesn't matter. It’s not a requirement for being a moderator.
If you think she's great, fine. Move on.

Regarding believers and the Religion subforum—look, it's simple. You wouldn't pick a white supremacist to moderate a forum dedicated to tolerance. But that's not even my main point. The core issue for any moderator is objectivity, logic, and judgment. She lacks those. Instead, she tends to steer every single thread toward her own subjective opinions. If she can't explain herself, she just hands out bans.

If we had more people like Meadow, this whole site would be a ghost town.

I don't care about "proof." I'm telling you that if you keep linking questionable posts here, nobody is going to take this discussion seriously.

It's the same logic as saying her religious views or her take on school history textbooks don't affect her ability to moderate.
You just don't like her. Period.

Are you equating atheists with racists? I don't follow.
In my experience, she’s actually quite rational—at least during the times I've dealt with her. Again, if you want to make a point, link actual evidence that proves otherwise. Not for my sake—I don't represent anyone here—but for the sake of your own argument.

So your opinions are the objective truth, are they? In every debate I've ever had in the Religion subforum, I actually found myself agreeing with moderator Meadow.

Reading this, I can't tell if you're attacking her moderation style or just her personal beliefs. 🤷

I’m just a face in the crowd here, but I’m standing by Meadow because she’s got a knack for collecting snails. 🙂

You haven't provided any actual evidence, so your whole argument is basically dead in the water. Either drop a link showing why you think she lacks competence, or you're just going to end up spinning your wheels in this thread.

I don't see how her personal take on history class or religion affects her ability to moderate. Should a discussion on faith be handled exclusively by someone who believes? (I assume she isn't religious, though I don't know her specific stance)

To me, Meadow is the only mod with a bit of soul. 😳

Sophia Thomas7 is decent too, but he lacks that certain spark. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Exactly, it isn't.

What do you mean "it isn't"? I literally just said it. You even quoted that post, so don't act like you missed it. 🤷

Are we going to troll each other, or are we actually trying to have a real conversation here?

northerncrane4 said:Nobody actually said that.

Really?

northerncrane4 said:Attacking an entire group of people? That’s hate speech. Simple as that.What’s actually the point of having infractions on a forum if they aren't being used?

If you were trying to troll me by claiming that "insulting someone isn't the same thing as hate speech," I’ll give you credit—you weren't. You weren't being a troll. But there's a logical hole here. If an insult doesn't automatically equal hate speech, then insulting an entire group of people doesn't necessarily constitute hate speech either, because an insult doesn't inherently require hatred. It can certainly cross the line into hate speech depending on the context, but one doesn't strictly dictate the other.

Maybe take a second to actually look up the definition of "hate speech" first. Then you can come back with all that newfound wisdom. Or don't. It’s your call.

It’s pretty interesting. I’m going back and forth with two moderators from the Movie subreddit, and they’re being incredibly unprofessional—especially considering their status over on Reddit. :takes notes:

northerncrane4 said:Attacking an entire group of people counts as hate speech, which is a violation of our community guidelines.

I disagree. Being insulting isn't the same thing as spreading hatred.

bluenomad2 said:Yeah, yeah, Reddit user Stephen Hawking. 🤣

Just your typical Redditor here. Someone actually went and asked a question about a movie. Interstellar. It’s one of those films that sticks in your brain long after the credits roll. You watch it once and think you get it, then you watch it again and realize how much you missed. It’s heavy stuff—time dilation, gravity, the sheer loneliness of space. It makes you feel small, but in a way that feels purposeful rather than just empty. Some people find the science a bit much, but I think that’s part of the charm. It pulls you in by making the impossible feel almost tangible. Definitely worth a rewatch if you haven't seen it in a while.

I wrote this. If Stephen Hawking isn't worth the hype, why would the movie be? Oh yeah, I meant one of the folks over on Reddit.

silvergardener6 actually figured that part out, but now you guys are just rambling about some phantom user going by the name Stephen Hawking. 🤣

I'm going to go ahead and see if there's actually someone out there on Reddit who posts like this.

The issue is that users like silvergardener6 never bother looking at both sides of an argument. They just jump straight to insults and labeling people, acting like they aren't doing anything wrong, even when everyone tells them to knock it off. Personally? Let him keep going. At least he makes things interesting.

Well, look at that. I just stumbled upon a user with a nickname like that on Reddit.

127 posts, last seen back in 2008. 🤣

How do you actually know Stephen Hawking wasn't just some regular guy hanging out on Reddit? 🤷

You know. Yes or no? Honestly, who knows. At this rate, we might as well start insulting some random group of people whose existence on Reddit we can't even verify. My understanding of the rules is pretty straightforward: if you want us to get flagged for an insult, the target has to be a registered user here. It’s like saying you can't commit a foul if the other player isn't officially on the roster. On top of that, I was told that calling the members of this community worthless counts as an insult too. Simple enough.

I’m just looking for consistency.

northernpilot2 said:If I actually have to sit here and explain why there’s a massive difference between insulting an entire nation and just insulting a random actor, singer, or Stephen Hawking—it doesn't matter who—then we've already lost the plot. There's really nothing left to discuss.

Real mature for a moderator. Just dodging the actual question. It’s more than just avoiding the point, though; it feels like a subtle dig at my intelligence just to sidestep a direct answer. Shouldn't moderators be setting the standard for everyone else on the site?

northernpilot2 said:We aren't going to 'play games' like that. 🙂
It was pretty clear he wasn't targeting or insulting any other user in the thread.
Having his own take on Stephen Hawking is his business. It doesn't change anything for me, and I have no interest in debating his opinion endlessly.

As for my role as a supermod, this issue is settled.

Fine, I accept that. Insults are only penalized if they are directed at users. That makes sense.

But what if we're disparaging or insulting an entire nation? Would that be treated as an insult under these rules? If not, would it even be flagged, and if so, what’s the penalty? Since we don't know if a specific group of people includes our users (excluding neighboring countries where we obviously have active members), does that mean it's all fair game and won't be punished?

I'm looking for a straight answer here—no fluff. This is about whether those in charge (the mods and higher-ups) are actually being consistent with their judgments. More importantly, it's about whether the Reddit rules themselves are applied consistently.

northernpilot2 said:Is Hawking actually a member here on Reddit, or am I just losing my mind?

If he’s referring to a specific user under the handle Hawking, then I clearly missed a chapter. Calling someone worthless would definitely be an insult in that case.

So, does that mean we have a free pass to insult people who aren't even part of this community? Like public figures?

Even if it were a fellow user, why would it be considered an insult? It's just our own evaluation of a person.

I really don't want to get bogged down in what people think about one another, or who respects whom.
You respect him, he doesn't respect you—who cares?

northernpilot2 said:There’s really no need to play lawyer for Hawking. If Hawking doesn't carry weight for him as a person, then he doesn't. Honestly, I'm not interested in getting into what people think about others, or who values whom.
If you value him and he doesn't value you, who cares?

Before everyone starts boiling over here, I just want to ask: does this mean we can call other users worthless without violating the rules of Reddit?

From what I gather, insults on this site get you banned regardless of whether they're aimed directly at a specific person or group, or if they're indirect (and it doesn't matter if they're members here or not). Based on how you phrased things in this thread, calling someone "worthless" isn't considered an insult, but rather just a question of respect. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, thanks for the clarification. I'll be keeping this as a precedent in case anyone gets banned for similar behavior down the road.

redbear2 said:Hey guys, I need someone to help me resize an image. Honestly, I’m not even sure if it’s necessary, but I shrunk this GIF down to 75x75 and it’s still acting up. I have no clue what the hell is going on. 🤔

Here is the original file.

Anyone willing to lend a hand?

Thanks for the help, though I ended up figuring it out myself. One thing that still bugs me, though—what's the deal with this "Note : The -> maximum size of your custom image is 75 by 75 pixels or 29.3 KB (whichever is smaller)." rule? It seems redundant to require both conditions to be met simultaneously.

Hey everyone, I need someone to help me resize an image. Honestly, I’m not even sure if this is what I actually need to do—I already shrunk the GIF down to 75x75, but for some reason, it’s still acting up. I have no clue why the hell it isn't working. 🤔

This is the original file.

Anyone willing to lend a hand?

Richard Wells said:Just talking nonsense. Totally unnecessary.

Same here.

It’d be an interesting move if you just took a leap off a bridge.

Richard Wells said:Enivej, what exactly do you mean by a weak spot?

It’s the spot where someone is most exposed or vulnerable. Like the Achilles' heel—that specific target meant for an attack.

I guess having a weak point is just part of the deal.

Bryan Martinez72 said:Look, not everyone processes things the same way—some people wear their hearts on their sleeves while others act like they’re made of stone. Usually, when someone holds back, it boils down to being terrified of being vulnerable or just straight-up refusing to acknowledge what they're actually feeling. A lot of this traces back to how we were raised and the environment we grew up in, too—especially for guys, since society tends to push that "tough it out" mentality on them from day one. If a kid is naturally sensitive and reacts to stuff with tears or genuine fear, but the people around them just mock them or tell them to toughen up? Well, obviously, that’s just going to make them feel even worse.
For some, that becomes a turning point where they shut down entirely—either because they can't find the right words to explain what's happening inside, or they just lack the capacity to express it. And like I was saying earlier, you can try to deny your own emotions all you want by pretending you aren't vulnerable, but let's be real: those feelings always find a way to bubble up to the surface eventually.

That bolded part is worth noting.

I think you can split the answer to this topic into two simple buckets: "They can't express their emotions" versus "They choose not to." Since it's an individual thing, I don't see much point in overanalyzing it unless the goal here is just to list out all the possible reasons why it happens.