Posts by mellowraven22

dustypuma5 said:Look, you can't just claim the US Army generals are total geniuses and then go handing out bans to anyone you provoke into fighting back.

The first part of that isn't even up for debate—you’re totally free to call the US Army generals brilliant if you want. But, honestly, banning people and moderating a thread you’re actively participating in? That's not exactly standard procedure. Sometimes you just can't help it, but it's better to stay hands-off unless the situation is crystal clear.

In this specific thread, though, the situation is crystal clear. 🙂

It’s happening now.

Nicholas King said:Is this some brand new rule they just dropped 🙂, or is the OP just trolling big time?

Nah, nothing new was actually implemented. Most likely, the person who supposedly started this thread hasn't even confirmed their account activation yet. This kind of stuff happens all the time.

Go spam somewhere else. Three guys have already paid the ultimate price for this ☕

I mean, honestly, I don't even know where to start with this one. Just sitting here thinking about how things work in America lately. It’s wild. Everything feels like it's moving at a hundred miles an hour but somehow nothing actually changes, you know? It's just constant noise. Anyway, I was just mulling that over while grabbing a coffee. Just some random thoughts. Nothing much else to say. I can't even begin to explain how much this matters. It’s just one of those things that hits you all at once, you know? Like, you think you have everything figured out, then boom—reality check. I was sitting there thinking about it, probably overthinking like I always do, and it just clicked. It’s not even about the big picture most of the time, it's the small, annoying details that actually run the show. People try to make it complicated, but honestly? It's pretty straightforward if you aren't looking for excuses. Just a straight shot. No fluff. Anyway, I'm just saying. It's obvious.
So now mellowraven22 is back at it again, claiming I’m just whining and complaining. Whatever, man. It is what it is. Clearly, not everyone gets treated the same way around here. 🤷

Yeah, whatever, keep whining if you want. Honestly, since this whole forum is such a mess right now, we’re just taking it one step at a time. We should have everything wrapped up by the end of next week.

Something was acting up. We good now?

Laura Mendoza said:But Blondy should really have a capital letter there. You make a fair point jadetrucker43, I can't stand seeing things smashed together like that either. If they could just write it as Blondy ri, that would be ideal; if not, I guess we'll just have to live with it. Still. 😁

Haven't checked if there are other variations of Blondy-ri out there yet. Nah, just leave it like this.

hiddenhound3 said:I would like to formally request that my username be changed to hiddenhound3 🙂

That can certainly be done. Please reach out to Tyndall to finalize the change.

Done.

Laura Mendoza said:Can Laura Mendoza handle it? I certainly hope I have enough capital to get started too 😁

In fact, we’re all for these kinds of changes! Just reach out to mellowraven22.

Done. And what if we just ditch the hyphen altogether so everyone stays happy?

Roger Barrett2 said:That isn't true. You didn't ban Christianity; you banned me. I have no idea why there's such a desperate need to hide behind that logic, especially since mellowraven22 openly states that Christian doctrine contains vile elements, and I see you're saying the same thing. You didn't ban "my interpretation" of Christianity; you banned Christianity itself.

So, I'll ask you again: was any part of Christian doctrine in violation of U.S. law? It wasn't. So, what exactly are we debating here? Are we talking about how everything boils down to the editorial policy of Reddit, which (as Tyndy pointed out) has the right to manage its own moderation?

The conclusion I'm drawing is this: on this site, religious opinions aren't being suppressed because they violate the law (because they don't), but rather because they happen to irritate a certain humanist, naturalist, or atheistic worldview. If that's the case, then have some backbone and put it in the official site rules instead of hiding behind the legal code. If I had known that was the standard, I wouldn't have joined this community in the first place.

Look, you’re being totally shameless and dishonest right now. You’re twisting my words, straight up, and implying things I never even said. Just... please, don't do that anymore. It's not cool.

Jeremy Young19 said:By the way, mellowraven22 and ego actually know each other in real life. It’s enough to raise some serious questions about potential bias, especially since they even use identical signature layouts... honestly, just tear him apart.

So what? If you honestly think my personal connections have anything to do with this, you're dead wrong. 😉

Matthew Grant9 I can't even begin to explain what I was thinking when I saw that... honestly, just wild. It’s like people don't realize how much this actually matters. You look at the way things are moving right now and you just have to wonder if anyone's actually paying attention. Probably not. Most people are just scrolling through, looking for the next distraction while everything else shifts under their feet. Anyway, my point being—it's all about the long game, even if it feels chaotic right now. Just my two cents.
Look, if we’re being honest and this whole thing was just some jokes that spiraled way too far out of hand... I mean, after everything that's been said on here, maybe the only thing actually worth doing is for both of you to just change your signatures. Seriously. On a personal level, I'm asking you guys. Please. Just do it.

I mean, I’ll probably be there, just waiting around for whatever ridiculous thing he says next to grace us all. This one is actually kind of my favorite.

Look, since signatures are basically nothing more than a few short lines, taking things out of context is pretty much inevitable at this point. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say it’s practically a tradition on most forums, whether you're looking at local boards or big international ones. It just happens.

Roger Barrett2 said:Are we seriously talking about sanctioning other religions based on Christian principles?

Why didn't you just lead with that? Instead, you've been dragging this out, pivoting the conversation away from my initial complaint about being banned and turning it into whatever this is we're doing here now.

Where is this coming from now? Like, where did I even say something like that? No, what I'm saying is that "it's in the holy book" or "that's just my religious foundation" isn't an actual argument you can use when you're appealing a ban or a strike.

Why didn't you just say that from the jump? Instead, you guys just drag me through the mud on this topic after I already complained about the ban you gave me, and now we're doing it again here.

I just figured it was obvious to someone with over 1,000 posts.

Roger Barrett2 said:Assuming for a moment that it actually is written in the Quran—then sure, you're right.

Furthermore, is any tenet of the Christian faith subject to sanctions under American law? Let's keep in mind that the Church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption quite often. Has any legal complaint ever been filed against the Church for those stances? No. The moment the law dictates that a specific Christian doctrine violates one statute or another, then the forum has the right to sanction posts regarding Christianity or Islam. Until that happens, this kind of policing is essentially extrajudicial; it feels like harassment of believers and their deeply held views.

Alright, cool, so let's just apply that same logic to every other religion then. If the Bible says being gay is a crime, we should be handing out sanctions for that too, right?

Also, is any Christian doctrine actually subject to sanctions under US law? Let's not forget the church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption alike. Has any official complaint ever been filed against the church for that? Nope. The second the law states that some Christian article goes against this or that specific statute, Reddit would have the right to sanction posts about Christianity or Islam. Until then, this whole sanctioning thing you're doing is totally illegal and is basically just harassing believers and their views.

Look, some things that are perfectly legal under US law aren't allowed by the editorial policy of Reddit because it's a private site. The owner—who, in this case, acts through their representatives—can make whatever rules they want whenever they feel like it. If they suddenly decided, I don't know, to ban every single user whose username starts with the letters E or T, they are absolutely free to do that.

So, I’m looking at your take—this idea that a sentence in egov's signature, which was actually written by mirzekv, should be off-limits for any forum mods because it's backed up by the Quran? Yeah, we aren't doing that. We aren't letting that slide, period. If anything, using that as an excuse just makes it look like pretty obvious hate speech. Using the "it's in the holy book" defense isn't going to work around here when it comes to stuff like this.

Roger Barrett2 said:In your last paragraph, you claim this isn't your personal opinion, then immediately pivot to saying we shouldn't attack the person, only the viewpoint. But now you're saying "I think..."—which makes it your viewpoint, so what am I allowed to comment on here? You seem to miss the fact that it’s often impossible to decouple a person from their stance, especially in a discussion like this where you are personally presenting a specific view on religion. This isn't trolling (though it was a decent, if unsuccessful, attempt at a spin on your part); it's a discussion about the subject matter, which inherently involves you as an individual holding a certain position regarding faith.

So, where exactly is this "right" (to not be equated) written down? And where does it say that Christianity doesn't have the "right" to express its views on anything else? If you want to go that route, just state clearly that on this forum, one can only discuss Religion insofar as it doesn't infringe upon others, rather than treating "Religion" as a broad institutional belief system. You're stripping away the "right" for one group while granting it to another—on what basis?

Says who? Is that your personal take? Or are you presenting it as an objective fact that somehow becomes off-limits for debate? Give me a break...

And regarding those parts that aren't "fine" (by whose metric, exactly?)—what happens next? Are they supposed to be banned or something?

Once again, you're spinning this as if I'm the one who missed the point. I didn't. There's a massive difference between presenting doctrine and committing atrocities in the name of that doctrine (things like burnings, imprisonments, torture, criminalization...). I'm asking you again: show me which Law, regulation, or whatever rule on this forum prohibits expressing Christian doctrine or subjects it to warnings or bans?

Just look at my first paragraph.

Look, my life as a private citizen has absolutely zero to do with how I handle things as an admin. They're two completely different worlds.

So, like, where exactly is this "right" to make everyone equal written down? And where does it say that Christianity doesn't have the "right" to voice its own stance on anything?

That's not what I said.

You’re still spinning this around like I didn't get the point. Trust me, I did. There's a massive difference between presenting scientific facts and then using those "facts" as an excuse to commit atrocities—you know, the whole litany of horrors like burnings, mass incarcerations, torture, and criminalizing people. That's a completely different ballgame.

Calling people out to do those kinds of nasty things—or even trying to justify them—is just as much of a reason to slap someone with sanctions. Honestly.

Roger Barrett2 said:In your last paragraph, you claim this isn't your personal opinion, then immediately pivot to saying we shouldn't attack the person, only the viewpoint. But now you're saying "I think..."—which makes it your viewpoint, so what am I allowed to comment on here? You seem to miss the fact that it’s often impossible to decouple a person from their stance, especially in a discussion like this where you are personally presenting a specific view on religion. This isn't trolling (though it was a decent, if unsuccessful, attempt at a spin on your part); it's a discussion about the subject matter, which inherently involves you as an individual holding a certain position regarding faith.

So, where exactly is this "right" (to not be equated) written down? And where does it say that Christianity doesn't have the "right" to express its views on anything else? If you want to go that route, just state clearly that on this forum, one can only discuss Religion insofar as it doesn't infringe upon others, rather than treating "Religion" as a broad institutional belief system. You're stripping away the "right" for one group while granting it to another—on what basis?

Says who? Is that your personal take? Or are you presenting it as an objective fact that somehow becomes off-limits for debate? Give me a break...

And regarding those parts that aren't "fine" (by whose metric, exactly?)—what happens next? Are they supposed to be banned or something?

Once again, you're spinning this as if I'm the one who missed the point. I didn't. There's a massive difference between presenting doctrine and committing atrocities in the name of that doctrine (things like burnings, imprisonments, torture, criminalization...). I'm asking you again: show me which Law, regulation, or whatever rule on this forum prohibits expressing Christian doctrine or subjects it to warnings or bans?

Just look at my first paragraph.

I don't know, man. Just feels like everything is shifting under our feet lately. Sometimes you look at how things are moving in the US and it just hits you—nothing stays the same for long. You gotta stay sharp.

So, here’s the deal with the law right now. If you go out there publicly spewing hate—we're talking racial, religious, gender-based, ethnic, or even skin color stuff—you're looking at serious jail time. We're talking anywhere from three months up to three years behind bars. It covers anyone trying to spread that kind of vitriol or if you start preaching about one group being superior or inferior to another based on race, religion, gender, or whatever else. And it doesn't just apply to people shouting on street corners, either. If you use a computer system to spread, distribute, or make anything available online that denies, downplays, or tries to justify genocide or crimes against humanity... yeah, you're facing those same exact penalties. The law is pretty clear on that part.

Roger Barrett2 said:The phrase "core civilizational values" is basically a massive fill-in-the-blank placeholder. People just use it to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given moment. Let me be clear here: is there actually any part of Christian doctrine that is outlawed by U.S. law or somehow poses a threat to the state? No. It simply doesn't exist, so let's stop dancing around the issue. You can start making these arguments once Christian teachings and values actually become something you can be prosecuted for under the law. Until then, it's all just noise.

That’s exactly what I was getting at, and it sounds like we’re definitely on the same page there. But I have to wonder—did you actually catch the nuance of what I was saying? There's a pretty significant distinction between our positions that I think we might be glossing over.

And what about the rest of my post? You didn't really say anything about it.

Look, I think saying "people with different sexualities shouldn't be lumped in with criminals" is pretty damn straightforward.

Sure, talk all you want, but once Christian doctrine and values actually become punishable by law, then we can have this conversation.

Christianity isn't some monolith where everything is either totally banned or totally allowed. It’s not one single block. There are parts that are fine, and there are parts that aren't. Simple as that.

Hey, I said that myself, so clearly we agree on that point. But did you actually grasp what I was getting at? Did you see the difference?

I got it. You're the one who didn't.

And what about the rest of my post? You didn't comment on any of it.

That's because it had nothing to do with the actual topic. Those were just my personal takes, and there's no point debating them here—especially when people just throw out cheerleading or go straight for personal attacks instead of addressing the argument. And honestly? The attacks are super obvious. It's more effort spent on creative trolling than anything else. This kind of lazy trolling is just insulting, really.🙂.

Nicholas King said:Now, look—despite my frequent, shall we say, colorful references to certain... anatomical regions 🙂, I am far from being a deadly serious individual. However, in this specific instance, I do believe Ego's signature is improper (specifically because of that "declared Muslim" addition). You're setting a precedent that other users will—rightfully so, and even more often without cause—cling to, essentially saying, "Well, if a moderator can get away with it, why can't I?"

It would be quite an interesting experiment to try out a signature like "All Americans are just like this—Steve, declared a Mexican," and then we could see exactly how long that survives before getting nuked. 🙂

Listen, there are already plenty of signatures like that out there and I don't see them changing anytime soon. Don't ask me to go find examples for you right now because I'm just not feeling it 🙂.

It would be pretty wild to run an experiment with a signature like "All Americans are just like this—Steve, declared Mexican," and see how long that actually lasts before getting nuked. 🙂

If Steve is constantly making his nationality a thing in his posts and feels like it's a huge part of who he is on this forum, then it'd be totally fine.

Roger Barrett2 said:A few things regarding your statement here:

a) When you guys were giving me the runaround about equating homosexuality with corruption (since both are sins), I argued that you were punishing my worldview rather than me personally—because I haven't incited anything, insulted anyone, or disparaged... well, anyone. You’ve finally admitted it now.

b) Religion ceases to be a place of tolerance because of this. Who are you to decide, based on your own worldview (whether it's atheism or whatever), what constitutes "garbage" in Islam or Christianity??? Besides, what Christian "garbage" has actually been sanctioned by American law? FYI—there isn't any, because Christianity doesn't threaten a secular society at all—except perhaps in your head and clearly here on Reddit.

c) You clearly don't grasp the distinction between presenting Christian doctrine and committing atrocities in the name of that very same doctrine. Want an example? Being gay is considered a sin, just like corruption is. Throwing gay people in prison is committing an atrocity in the name of "correct" doctrine. Locking up corrupt officials is not. Is that clear enough?

d) If we start labeling disagreements over worldviews as "garbage," then what do we do about atheist "garbage"?

And finally, what about ego? Is his signature a provocation or not? Of course, you'll say it isn't. Pathetic. And scandalous!

Ultimately, is this the official stance of Reddit or just yours? Because if it is, then go ahead and sanction every "atrocity" you don't like, so we "scumbags" don't have to deal with your "disgusting" version of a supposedly tolerant debate.

Yeah, even a worldview can be offensive, especially when you start dragging sexual orientation into the same bucket as white-collar crime. Look, you can choose not to be a criminal, but you can't just choose not to be gay. That's the big difference right there. If some specific belief system tries to claim those two things are equal, then the problem lies with that belief system—it just doesn't mesh with basic civilized values.

c) you clearly don't get the distinction between preaching Christian doctrine and doing disgusting things in its name. Want an example? Being gay being a sin is the same as corruption. Throwing gays in jail is doing something gross in the name of "correct" doctrine. Locking up corrupt people isn't. Clearer now?

Justifying anti-civilization or inhumane actions by saying they're written in some holy book just doesn't fly.

Nicholas King said:It’s a bit awkward—if you can even call it that—to try and hold a debate with someone whose username is purple and who carries a nearly identical quote in their own signature. 😁 (By the way, you misspelled "certain" in your post.)

However, unlike you, ego includes the addition "declared Muslim" in their signature, which—as I mentioned before, and I realize this is impossible to prove—is offensive insofar as it (I guess) suggests, "See? This is how a Muslim perceives things."

Quote : for the third time: sure, one could always just give a little smirk (something like this: 😁) and say, "Oh, noooo, please, you're just letting your dirty imagination run wild, noooo"—but honestly, what is the point? Why does it matter so much in that signature that Mirza is a "declared Muslim"?

Furthermore, the whole situation becomes even more awkward when a moderator starts dealing with these petty little jabs.

Finally, besides citing verses from the Quran in your signature, there is also an added comment that serves as a mockery of Shady—that last sentence (regardless of how much we stay silent about it) clearly implies, "Just look at what Shady doesn't consider to be violence."

I figured things would get a little awkward, but hey, that’s just part of the job description. You gotta balance what you actually believe with the responsibilities of running a site like Reddit. Since I’ve had this handle since long before I stepped up as an admin, anyone could go digging through my old posts and try to throw my past comments back in my face from back when I was just some random user.

(By the way, you're typing "certain" wrong.)

That’s just how it is in the original. 🙂

Quote : for the third time: of course you can always pull it off, as long as you've got the right smile (like this: 😁It’s like, people just start shouting, "Noooo, stop! You’re just being dirty-minded!" or whatever—but seriously, what's even the point of all that? Why does it actually matter if Mirza puts "declared Muslim" in his signature? What's the big deal?

You really ought to check with ego about this. Might be a little awkward or whatever, but honestly, I don't see it as some massive sin. The guy who wrote that quote in his signature was just being himself—he declared his faith, plain and simple. There's nothing fake about that.

Finally, you’ve actually gone and added that little jab to your signature alongside all those Quran verses. It’s basically just a direct shot at Shady—that last sentence pretty much screams, "Hey everyone, look at what Shady doesn't count as violence." Even if they're staying quiet about it, it's totally obvious.

Honestly, messing around in signatures is totally fine if you ask me. They aren't even part of the actual discussion on Reddit, so who cares? It’s legit.

Roger Barrett2 said:Look, putting that statement in egov's signature is clearly a provocation aimed at Muslims, but if what that user wrote is actually a core teaching of the Quran, then the statement itself shouldn't be sanctioned.

But it wasn't even banned.

The thing is, nasty stuff written in holy books is still nasty stuff, and it should be subject to consequences just like anything else.