Posts by silentridge3

Richard Wilson4 said:If you want stuff like that, you just stick to HBO, Netflix, or whatever else is out there...

I mean, movies in theaters lately seem to be either strictly for the kids with all those superhero flicks or for parents dragging their little ones along for the animated features.

I guess if you look at the massive blockbusters pulling in over a billion dollars, it’s almost always cartoons dominating the charts.

But that’s exactly my point, I suppose.

For those of us who aren't obsessed with superhero sagas or stuck in the whole parenting loop with kids...

...and we actually want to sit down and watch a decent movie, without getting completely worked up by all the weird surrealist nonsense or the total lack of actual scriptwriting...

...it would probably be pretty helpful if those few realistic films left in today's landscape were somehow flagged ahead of time, just so we could actually pick something worth our time.

Paul Anderson7 said:I just don't see the point. The content of a movie defines its genre, so I don't understand the need to introduce some label that wouldn't even accurately describe the film anyway. Because if we went by that logic, a movie about climbing Mount Everest, a thriller about a serial killer, a drama about searching for a lost family member, and an action car chase would all fall under the exact same genre.

Yeah.

Genres are kind of a mess, honestly; a single film can be partially one thing and partially another depending on how you look at it. But everything you just listed would basically fit into the category of a realistic modern film, and I guess there's really no harm in adding that descriptor when a movie is being advertised to viewers.

I mean, it might save those of us who actually enjoy this stuff from sitting through fifteen minutes of some "crime procedural" or "heavy drama" only to realize, out of nowhere, that a horse has started talking or a guy is suddenly flying...

Paul Anderson7 said:Because there are still plenty of movies in the mainstream that fit what you're talking about, and I don't see any necessity for such a special genre.

If I read some "top 10 most watched movies of the year" chart correctly (I can't quite remember where...), all ten of them were about things that aren't real.

Paul Anderson7 said:Sure, superhero movies have been huge lately; there's a massive audience of comic book fans who want to see that on screen.

Those kinds of films are usually very well made, they have great actors, and they're just visually engaging.

And there's a ton of fantasy too, mostly because today's technology makes it possible to create those worlds convincingly, and a lot of people seem to love watching that.

What "people love to watch" is a pretty questionable concept, I think; nobody actually asks people what they'd want to see if they truly had a choice. They just make the movies that are easy to produce and the ones that are guaranteed to turn a profit. That's why we have what we have. It feels like actual quality and decent scripts have migrated over to TV series now, since those can be monetized more easily.

PS: You know how on American TV they put those ratings like "not for ages under 12" or "not for ages under 18" to indicate the content? Well, I don't think it would hurt to add a tag like "realistic, contemporary" next to the titles, just so we know ahead of time that we won't find superheroes, supernatural powers, talking animals, or any of that sort in there.

Roger Garcia9 said:The idea of charging a fee based on $83 just for the privilege of touring an apartment is an absolute disaster.
Generally speaking, I have little patience for working with agencies, and I find myself agreeing that their service is often subpar while their commissions are frankly excessive. In my view, whoever chooses to hire an agency should be the one footing the bill. Why on earth should I, as a buyer, be expected to hand over 2% of the purchase price to an agency simply because the owner was too lazy to handle the sale themselves? If they want that level of assistance, let them cover the cost.
When I was purchasing my own place, the only professional I hired was an attorney to draft the sales contract (and even that was only necessary because I was buying from four different owners, which made the whole situation rather complicated). I managed all the rest of the paperwork on my own, and honestly, I didn't feel any need for an agency at all.

That number is just a flat estimate, so the actual price could swing around.

What I’m trying to get at is that if a potential buyer actually goes out of their way to schedule a viewing, I guess the agent should probably be compensated for that service at some kind of reasonable rate.

Right now, agents are basically dragging hundreds of potential buyers through apartments for absolutely nothing. They’re wasting their time, burning gas, wearing down the soles of their shoes—they're working, you know? And they're doing it all for free.

And then, after spending three months showing properties to a hundred different people without getting a dime, they end up taking a massive, unrealistic $3,000 or $4,000 cut from the one single buyer who actually closes the deal—for a service that the buyer usually didn't even ask for in the first place, which was the exact same walkthrough. If you think $83 is too much for a simple viewing, then it’s definitely $5000 too much for that very same viewing.

I honestly don't know if any other profession uses such a nonsensical billing model, a model where there isn't even a basic principle of "value for money" involved.

I suppose there’s really no point in wasting too much breath complaining about how terrible movies have become lately, nor should we bother dwelling on all the reasons why they've tanked—you know, the whole mess of high-budget blockbusters being impossible to turn a profit on, everyone just migrating over to TV series instead, all this new tech, different generations coming up, or just a general disdain for actual scripts and storytelling.

From what I can gather, if you look at any of the top trending lists, it seems like people are still mostly obsessed with supernatural heroes, animations, space-dwelling half-werewolves, and that kind of stuff.

I wonder, though, if it might actually be a good idea if that tiny handful of mainstream films—and I don't mean indie flicks or those niche foreign productions, I mean actual mainstream cinema—where the plot is grounded and takes place in the present day were actually treated differently; maybe distributors and networks could market them as a special genre—something like "modern realism" or a "contemporary realist film"
?
I realize it’s incredibly difficult to make a realistic movie about life right now, because if you tried, ninety minutes would probably end up being eighty minutes of actors just sitting around staring at their smartphones, but I still believe it’s possible to make something that wouldn't bore us folks who aren't exactly interested in werewolves, eight-headed tigers that speak five languages, or secret agents with crazy superpowers; I mean, just some kind of film where actual modern people experience situations that could realistically happen in our lives.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

Look, if an apartment is listed at $150,000 but ends up selling for $120,000, then calling that "slightly lower" is just... well, it's a stretch. That’s not a minor adjustment; that’s an unrealistic asking price.

Most buyers who actually have $120,000 in their pocket—and yes, they *want* to buy—aren't even going to bother looking at a listing priced at $150,000. So, they certainly aren't going to pay the full $150,000.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

If they walk away with $120,000, they didn't get anywhere near what they were asking for ($150,000), I guess.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

That’s true, I suppose. But in America, one of the major things holding the market back is the flawed business model used by RE/MAX agencies.

Nancy Bishop4 said:You've got it wrong; prices aren't significantly lower, just slightly lower. Anyone who is serious about buying will find a way to buy.

What people think doesn't really matter as long as they manage to pull in close enough to the asking price.

I disagree. There are always fluctuations in value because there are just too many moving parts involved.

And you could technically do that today, too. The difference is that you'd be looking for a place for peanuts.

If I want to buy a place that’s realistically worth $120,000, and I want to pay, you know, exactly $120,000, then that isn't exactly "peanuts," is it?

PS: Instead of getting bogged down with me and trying to defend current prices, maybe we could actually stick to the topic? Do you honestly believe that the way American real estate agencies operate and charge fees right now is justified? What does being a real estate agent actually mean to you—what do they actually do, and what exactly are we paying for?

silvertiger11 said:Trying to sell an apartment for 15 years isn't "selling." It’s just waiting for Godot.
There’s no deep philosophy involved in gradually dropping the price until you actually move the property within a year at most.

The reality is that there was clearly zero serious interest in selling. It’s the same story you see with countless properties across America. That’s exactly what I meant in my previous post when I said agencies simply cater to whatever the seller wants to hear.

As for whether a 2-3% commission is too much for work that anyone could basically estimate themselves? Clearly, for many people, it isn't.

The point wasn't about how agencies cater to the seller's whims, but rather the buyer's. You wrote:

silvertiger11 said:Trying to sell an apartment for 15 years isn't "selling." It’s just waiting for Godot.
There’s no deep philosophy involved in gradually dropping the price until you actually move the property within a year at most.

The reality is that there was clearly zero serious interest in selling. It’s the same story you see with countless properties across America. That’s exactly what I meant in my previous post when I said agencies simply cater to whatever the seller wants to hear.

As for whether a 2-3% commission is too much for work that anyone could basically estimate themselves? Clearly, for many people, it isn't.

How exactly do agencies "respond to requests from buyers, and how does their huge number prove that part"?

And I'm genuinely curious—since you seem to think it's such a monumental task for an agency to actually track down the paperwork for a house and vouch for its legitimacy—what exactly do you think constitutes the profession of a real estate agent?

Just to give a few examples:

- A notary public guarantees certain documents; that is their profession.
- An asphalt worker spends 10 hours out in 100°F heat for $67 a day; that is their profession.
- A surgeon operates on a heart and stakes their reputation on a life for $12 per hour; that is their profession.
- A fisherman wakes up at 3 AM, works hard for 10 hours, and brings home $1333 a month; that is their profession.
- A travel agent sells you a flight and a room in some far-off hotel and guarantees the whole package for a fee (where they personally make maybe 100-$100); that is their profession.
...

So, what is a "real estate agent," really? What is the actual core of their job? Is every person with a smartphone a real estate agent now? Is it just someone whose entire career consists of refreshing an ad on Craigslist? And is that really worth taking $50,000 after some transaction somehow eventually happens? I mean, where is the actual value for the money?

Nancy Bishop4 said:Just because you aren't a fan of those prices doesn't mean they aren't actually happening. Claiming that every single price out there is unrealistic is honestly just absurd.
And here we go again. I’m back to asking the same old question: where exactly do you get the authority to tell someone else what they can or can't write in their own Craigslist ad?

Where on earth am I "telling someone what to write in their ad"?

I’m talking about much more fundamental issues here, specifically regarding the totally broken business model—the way they handle billing—of agencies like RE/MAX. It’s almost like if a bar owner decided to give away every single beer—Bud Light, Coors, Miller... whatever—for free, but then charged an insane premium for just one specific brand, say, a Heineken. And then, just to make up for all the money lost on those free beers, they’d charge $300 for that Heineken. Just because you might find some person who, for whatever reason, decides to buy that Heineken for $300 doesn't actually make that price "realistic," nor does it make it reasonable that they had to subsidize all those other beers at $0.00.

As for this whole concept of a "realistic price"...

1. I’ve heard and read quite a bit that apartments actually sell for significantly lower amounts than what is listed in the ads. So, by definition, the asking prices in the listings are unrealistic.

2. I’ve also heard and read that real estate in certain parts of America is way overpriced when you look at the analyses and comparisons with other countries in Europe.

3. In countries where the real estate market is actually well-regulated, people know exactly what things are worth over the long term, which lets a person plan their life using property as a sort of "currency." The "flow"—you know, the volume of transactions—is much higher there precisely because everything is transparent and built on long-term trust. Here in America, most people don't have any kind of transaction flow at all during their entire lives; it feels like one single transaction is considered the absolute peak of a person's real estate journey.

If things functioned differently—if the listed prices were actually grounded in reality—people would be buying and selling a lot more frequently. Sales would increase because more buyers would actually agree to the prices, and sellers wouldn't be stuck waiting forever for some buyer willing to pay an astronomical, unrealistic amount. People would have more freedom to organize their lives. You’d buy a studio in your college years, sell it one autumn, and within fifteen days, buy a two-bedroom. When kids come along, you sell the two-bedroom and within a month, you have a house. When the kids move out, you downsize back to a two-bedroom, and so on. All of this works perfectly fine for the average person if the market is stable and realistic.

But here, only a tiny minority are actually buying and selling. Life can't really flow normally if you lose five full years of your life between selling one place and buying the next because of unrealistic pricing and a stagnant market. And honestly, part of that mess is definitely due to the flawed way these real estate agencies operate.

silvertiger11 said:Real estate agencies exist because they respond to the demands of both buyers and sellers. Their sheer volume alone proves they aren't redundant. Sure, someone might just toss a few photos and a zip code onto Craigslist, but even that is significantly more effort than your average private seller puts in. 😁

I honestly don't think anyone would flock to a business model like yours. And let’s be real here—do you really want to be held liable for the legal mess surrounding a property just because some lazy owner neglected their paperwork? Do you actually have the capital to guarantee everything to a buyer? Or is there some massive insurance firm ready to back you up? I highly doubt it. 🤷

People claim that adjusting property taxes will "reinvigorate" the market, but I think both the proponents and the critics are overestimating the long-term impact. The absolute disaster that is the current state of property titles and legal standing isn't going anywhere; it'll plague us for generations.

Could you maybe elaborate on how "agencies respond to buyer requests"? Because, honestly, from everything I’ve ever heard or witnessed, in at least 99% of cases, buyers either don't have any specific demands toward agencies (while paying a fortune for services that basically don't exist), or the agencies simply don't know how to handle—or frankly, just don't want to handle—the actual service requested, like providing accurate info or sorting out paperwork, all while charging prices that are just wildly unrealistic.

silvertiger11 said:Real estate agencies exist because they respond to the demands of both buyers and sellers. Their sheer volume alone proves they aren't redundant. Sure, someone might just toss a few photos and a zip code onto Craigslist, but even that is significantly more effort than your average private seller puts in. 😁

I honestly don't think anyone would flock to a business model like yours. And let’s be real here—do you really want to be held liable for the legal mess surrounding a property just because some lazy owner neglected their paperwork? Do you actually have the capital to guarantee everything to a buyer? Or is there some massive insurance firm ready to back you up? I highly doubt it. 🤷

People claim that adjusting property taxes will "reinvigorate" the market, but I think both the proponents and the critics are overestimating the long-term impact. The absolute disaster that is the current state of property titles and legal standing isn't going anywhere; it'll plague us for generations.

🤔

Wait a second now... are we actually talking about a legitimate profession here, or just people playing amateur?

From what I can see, most "agencies" these days are just a couple of 25-year-olds who call themselves an "agency" simply because they own a smartphone; they probably know next to nothing about the properties or even how housing works, yet they’re looking to make a quick buck without doing any real work.

But in a normal, functioning society, this is supposed to be a profession. A real profession involves tasks, challenges, and complicated jobs that aren't necessarily fast or easy, and it follows that those kinds of jobs are what get paid for. Providing a guarantee to someone is something people pay for, too.

Do you seriously believe that a "profession" consists of taking $5,000 from a buyer just because you posted an ad on Craigslist and walked them from the front gate up to the third floor?

hollowbear6 said:I bought my place through an agency, and honestly, I’d do it all over again because they were fantastic. Back when I was reading a PDF from Housing Solutions, people practically tore me apart for saying something similar, so I’m just hoping I don't catch any heat here 😁. These specific agents worked exactly according to that new model, and it was great—they handled the entire mountain of paperwork, managed all the emails, ran errands to drop off and pick up documents, stood in lines for me, and basically just guided me through the whole ordeal. At the same time, I knew I could just hand everything over to them instead of wasting way more time trying to figure out the logistics myself. I’d much rather spend my hours making extra cash—which, let's be real, is always helpful when you're dealing with the costs of buying and renovating a home.

Their initial asking price was definitely higher than what I was prepared to shell out, but after some negotiating, we landed at roughly double the costs described here as "ideal." Still, I’d pay that money again just for the peace of mind you get when it’s obvious that someone actually knows what they’re doing. Looking at other threads on the forum, it seems like a lot of people have had significantly worse experiences, but I think it's worth mentioning that you can actually have a really smooth ride if you pick the right people.

What I’m looking for when it comes to agencies is someone I can hand the keys to for my rental property—someone who handles the tenants, ensures it stays occupied, manages maintenance, keeps track of the keys, and deals with whatever random issues pop up. Personally, I’d gladly hand over 30% of their commission—maybe even more—just to have that taken off my plate.

Yeah, I guess that’s really the only thing most buyers actually want from an agency.

But then again, buyers should probably be choosing those specific services themselves from a menu of options and paying for each one based on what they actually get.

Instead, we just end up with people paying some flat $5,000 fee to an agency just because they bought a condo, regardless of whether the agency actually did anything helpful at all or if they were basically useless throughout the entire process.

Nicole Nguyen6 said:I don't know if you've actually sat down to think about this, but according to your model, RE/MAX would be pulling in way more money than they are right now, wouldn't they?

Well, let them make it. I mean, why shouldn't they?

But only for actual services rendered, you know, at realistic market rates.

Nancy Bishop4 said:So, what's the big deal?
If these sellers aren't in a rush for the cash, they can sit on their property for twenty years for all I care. It's their asset; why should anyone else care what they do with it?

As for the agencies, the real question is why they even exist in the first place. You have the listings right there; you pick one, go see it, and keep going until you find what you need. Brokers are essentially obsolete.

Well, I suppose I care for a few different reasons, if you can call them that.

- First off, it makes it impossible for me to actually find an apartment at a realistic, lower price point, because everyone on Craigslist just ends up copying those totally delusional asking prices from one listing to the next, creating this weird loop.
- Then there's the family side of things; my relatives spent fifteen years trying to move one single property—which was supposed to be split up among us—just because they were holding out for some buyer willing to pay a ridiculous premium, all because every other listing on the market was inflated to those same unrealistic levels.
- And honestly, it’s just exhausting because when I'm actually trying to buy something, I have to wade through hundreds of completely useless listings just to find one thing that isn't pure fantasy.

cosmicsailor63 said:So... look, after buying and selling a few times (once working with RE/MAX and once just doing my own thing), I've come to the conclusion that the market basically levels itself out. A house is going to sell—or be bought—at its actual value regardless. All those prices you see on Zillow are just people's wishful thinking, not what's actually happening in the real world.

Maybe so.

But I don't know, there still seems to be this massive issue with how many properties are mispriced, which, on one hand, just totally floods the listing sites, and on the other, kind of scares away sellers who won't drop their prices to reality, while also turning off buyers who see those insane asking prices and just move on.

I guess a lot of sellers just fall for what they see in other listings, and because of all those inflated ads, they honestly believe their place is worth way more than it actually is. And then you have both sellers and buyers who just aren't interested in haggling, so a bunch of potential deals just die before they even get off the ground.

In this current setup, it’s entirely possible for someone to list an apartment worth $100,000 for $150,000 for five years straight, and it doesn't cost them anything. Then, if you multiply that by ten different agencies all listing that same place for $150,000, and throw in a hundred potential buyers who would have happily paid $100,000 but never even bother calling because the ad says $150,000... well, nothing happens.

If we actually changed the way these agencies make their money, it would probably completely overhaul how prices are set and how things are advertised. You'd end up with people actually trying to sell, buyers who actually want to buy without all the back-and-forth, and agencies would be charging for the actual work they do based on fair service fees. It wouldn't make sense for an agency to keep a hundred unrealistic listings active just to create a "wide variety of inventory," or to use ninety-nine overpriced homes as "proof" that one specific house at a realistic price is a total steal.

If you take a look at that "Housing" PDF, you’ll see a massive amount of negative feedback from people dealing with our local RE/MAX offices. The general vibe I get is that the whole setup is pretty much a useless model where these agencies don't actually provide any real value, and honestly, they might even be doing more harm than good. Most of them act like these "lures" who barely know anything about the properties they represent and won't guarantee a single thing, yet they sit right there as this annoying barrier between the buyer and the seller, taking an absurdly large cut of the money for almost zero service. Usually, their entire job description boils down to slapping together a listing—which is often super vague and filled with those terrible, wide-angle photos without even a floor plan—refreshing the ad once a month on some free site, and then basically just walking a buyer from the sidewalk up to the front door.

I guess one of the biggest headaches for me personally is that this whole system makes it impossible to list realistic prices, which just drags the entire market down. You don't get actual market rates; instead, you just have the same exact apartments sitting there indefinitely at prices that, in most cases, aren't going to lead to a sale. Sales happen minimally, while these agencies just survive by squeezing every possible cent out of those rare transactions, charging amounts that feel totally unrealistic.

You’ll have a dozen different agencies all trying to list the same house, and they start playing these weird little games. For example, they might keep prices artificially high on several listings just so they can push a specific property at what looks like a "deal" by comparison, or they’ll keep ads live for houses that sold a year ago just to pad their inventory. If they manage to "sell"—or rather, list—20 homes in a neighborhood over a year for $2,200 a month when the real value is closer to $1,600, then everyone else in that area starts copying those inflated prices to match. On top of that, that 3-4% slice of the pie that goes to these agencies isn't nothing; it really does scare people off from buying or selling altogether. Plus, this model messes with sellers too—they can just let an overpriced ad sit there for three years for free because the agency is footing the advertising bill while pretending to "work" on the sale. It’s all just a bunch of motion without any actual movement.

THE OLD MODEL (bad):

AGENCY JOB: Listing the place, showing it to buyers.
PAYMENT: A one-time, massive fee upon closing that is way out of proportion to the work done (often taken from people who didn't even want to deal with an agency in the first place).
AGENCY ROLE: A roadblock between the buyer and seller; they aren't responsible for anything, don't need to know the details of the house, and are basically just gambling on whether they'll see a check in the future.

THE NEW MODEL (my suggestion):

AGENCY JOB: Listing the property, showing it to buyers, gathering honest info about the home, verifying paperwork/titles, and assisting with the transaction to keep both sides safe.
PAYMENT STRUCTURE:
- Property listing - $17, once a month (paid by the seller)
- Showing the property to a buyer - $167 ($83 from each side)
- Gathering property information - $83 (paid by the interested buyer)
- Verifying property documents/title - $167 (paid by the interested buyer)
- Transaction assistance for security - $667 from each side
AGENCY ROLE: A service provider that clients choose as needed, charging for specific tasks in real-time so they don't have to wait for a sale to close to get paid.

So, my thought is that an agency should just perform the specific services clients ask for and charge fair, market-driven rates for them—the numbers I listed might be different, but you get the idea. Just a clean, transparent way of doing things. That would allow the market to actually function and prices to stabilize based on reality.

Anyway... I'm no economist. Let me know if I'm onto something or if I'm just totally off base here.

Maria Fowler39 said:The issue isn't really about whether you agree or disagree with what someone on the show—or whoever else—thinks; it’s more that once the forum users start bickering amongst themselves, the whole conversation loses any actual connection to the broadcast itself.

I don't really follow that logic, I guess.

I mean, how can it not be connected to the show? If you have five people sitting around a table on a talk show discussing a specific topic, and then I jump in to comment on the ideas they presented regarding that topic... well, it seems kind of pointless to just comment on, say, the host's outfit or something, right? People watch the show for the arguments and the viewpoints being shared, not for anything else. So, if I disagree with an opinion someone voiced during the segment, it feels pretty natural that my response would involve sharing my own take on that same subject. Is there even a way to critique someone's ideas from a program without, you know, actually expressing a viewpoint of your own?

lonebadger6 said:There’s a massive difference between just touching upon a subject and turning an entire discussion about the show "Fifth Day" into some endless debate about feminism or misandry and all that.

The "Fifth Day" thread has never actually been turned into a feminism discussion; I mean, the whole point of the "Fifth Day" thread was to cover every single topic brought up during the broadcast. We’ve talked about so many different things in this thread, just like those same topics were discussed on the show itself.

I guess you have to wonder, why is it considered wrong to completely ban a specific topic from the show within its own forum thread?

Well, maybe because feminism is such a huge factor when they're picking guests for the program. It’s probably not a coincidence that for a long time, the show was hosted by a radical feminist (you know, that hipster type from the Women's Studies department, that unnamed person?), then we had a guest who is a very vocal activist, that unnamed person, and now, in the current lineup, we have one of the ten most radical feminists in the entire world, that unnamed person. I suspect these women aren't invited for any other reason—they are there specifically because they are feminists. They're there to inject that feminist perspective into the show.

In practice, it feels like every third topic turns out to be at least partially feminist. And more often than not, that unnamed person brings her own feminist—sometimes even radical feminist—views into other subjects too. It even edges into misandry sometimes; like, during a "man day" segment, that unnamed person tells this joke about how men are basically like public restrooms.

But, yeah, even though the show is (arguably) feminist, and even though it peddles certain falsehoods (like claims about the wage gap for the same job or saying there aren't enough women in certain fields when, in reality, they outnumber men), and even if it occasionally leans into misandry... it's still considered off-limits to discuss those exact topics on a standard forum thread dedicated to commenting on the show.

And if you want to talk about how absurd this all is, apparently it's perfectly fine to post comments about the cleavage of one of the show's guests on this very same thread.

lonebadger6 said:The thread will be unlocked, but going forward—please stick to discussing the show itself and how the guests performed. That’s what the discussions on TV Network are actually for. We can't have the next episode cover abortion and then have everyone spend ten pages debating abortion here. If you want to talk about abortion, go to Politics; if you want the religious angle, hit up Religion; if it's medical, head over to Health... On the "fifth day" thread, we just want to hear what Laura Chavez93 (or anyone else, really) thinks about the quality of the broadcast, who the participants were, who outsmarted whom, etc. Not what Laura Chavez93 (or anyone else) thinks about abortion.

This is all pretty new, I guess; it wasn't like this before.

In that discussion that was recently wiped, there was even a former moderator participating, someone who had previously made it very clear, in their capacity as a moderator, that if three topics are covered during the week on the show, you could absolutely discuss those specific topics here on the "fifth day" thread. In fact, that’s exactly the principle they were using when they were posting those now-deleted comments just last week.

Honestly, this stance that we can only talk about "who was good or bad in the show" (in a show where five people are sitting there having a conversation!) feels like it completely guts anything interesting, making the whole topic feel kind of pointless, I suppose.

Specifically, by doing things this way, the forum is basically steering the entire conversation about the fifth day exclusively toward Selak's cleavage.

PS: It all reminds me so much of how TV series threads get destroyed by deleting everything that isn't just a short post saying "I liked it," "when is season three coming out?" or "where can I watch the last episode." I don't really get why we aren't allowed to discuss the actual subject matter; I mean, who is this specifically bothering or hurting? Why all this intense controlling, channeling, and correcting on a thread where, for a long time, a small group of people who actually watch the show have been talking without any issues at all. I guess I wonder which massive crowd of other forum users is supposedly waiting to jump in and join this particular conversation that finds this so bothersome...

I mean, I don't know, maybe I’m just being overly cynical here, but it feels like we’re all just circling the drain waiting for someone to actually make a decision that sticks, you know? It’s like everyone is talking in circles on the forum, and honestly, I guess I’ve heard it all before from people like Laura Chavez93 and Tyler Vaughn7, who always seem to have an opinion on how things should be running, even if nothing ever actually changes. I was thinking about it this morning while I was staring at my coffee, and it strikes me how much energy we waste arguing over things that won't matter by next Tuesday, though I suppose that's just the way the world works now, isn't it? It’s almost exhausting, really, watching the same patterns repeat themselves over and over again without any real progress being made, but what else can you expect in this day and age? Maybe I'm just tired, or maybe it's just the general state of everything, but I can't help but feel like we're all just spinning our wheels. kaže:
So, they shut the thread down again, and I can't help but wonder—what was the actual reason this time? It feels like we can barely get a conversation going before someone pulls the plug, though I guess that’s just how things work around here lately. Maybe it was something specific, or maybe it's just more of that same old pattern where everything gets suppressed if it gets too heated. I don't know, it's hard to say for sure without knowing what happened behind the scenes, but it definitely leaves you feeling a bit cynical about the whole process. 🤷
So, who’s actually at fault here? I mean, really? It feels like we're just circling the drain, looking for someone to point a finger at while everything continues to slide, though I suppose that's just how things tend to go lately, isn't it? It's hard to say, honestly—everything is so tangled up in itself that trying to pin down a single culprit seems almost futile, but I guess people are going to want an answer regardless. Maybe it's the systemic stuff, or maybe it's just individual incompetence, or perhaps it's a bit of both, which, let's face it, is usually the case in these situations. I don't know, it's all a bit much to unpack right now, but I'm curious to see where everyone else lands on this. 🤔

Maybe the real problem lies with the people who actually sit there and watch the show, I guess; maybe we’re just feeding the beast by giving it our attention, which honestly makes me wonder if we're all just complicit in the whole circus. I guess if you look back at everything that was covered in that particular forum... though I honestly can't say I've kept up with every single thread lately, given how much noise there usually is, but all those topics they went over... it’s a lot to take in, really. intellectualist I mean, they’re actually out there debating people based on whether their posts hit that five-sentence minimum... which, I don't know, maybe it's just a bit much, isn't it? It feels like such an unnecessary hurdle, though I guess if you look at it from their perspective, they probably think it keeps things from getting too chaotic, but honestly, it just seems like a lot of extra effort for something that might already be overkill.

Maybe there’s just some massive misunderstanding going on here, or maybe I don't know, perhaps people on this forum don't quite grasp what they're actually supposed to be posting about. It feels like there might be a disconnect, I guess, regarding the whole vibe of the discussions. For instance, maybe everyone is just looking for posts and debates that look exactly like these:

Laura Chavez93 It’s like... I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I feel like everyone is saying:
I guess yesterday's episode was actually pretty great, if I'm being honest.

silentridge3 said:I mean, did you actually see Selak's cleavage? I guess I'm just sitting here wondering if anyone else noticed that, though maybe I'm just overthinking things like I always do.

I mean, I guess you could argue that posts like these aren't really an issue, if that's even what we're talking about, but honestly, it feels like we're just spinning our wheels here. Maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe I'm just being my usual cynical self, but it seems to me that this kind of stuff doesn't actually cross the line into being problematic, though I suppose everyone has their own take on where that boundary lies, right?

Laura Chavez93 said:I was wondering where I could actually find the last episode, since I somehow managed to miss it entirely... maybe I just lost track of time or something, but I really need to catch up.

...

I mean, honestly, there’s really no point in going over why a massive pile of posts suddenly vanished or why the whole thread got slapped with a lockdown policy, is there? It feels a bit redundant at this stage. What we actually need—what would be genuinely useful—is some sort of clear guidance on what exactly people should be typing out if they want to actually satisfy the moderators and keep the discussion moving without hitting another wall.

northernsailor8 said:Yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

If someone actually wants to get into a heated debate about discrimination regarding military service, I guess they could just go ahead and start a thread over in the appropriate subforum.

But wait, I’m wondering, which specific "appropriate" subforum actually allows someone to open a discussion about discrimination against men? Is it even okay to bring up—or rather, mention the total lack of action from the ACLU or the Title IX offices—when it comes to cases where men are being targeted by discrimination?

Anyway, thanks for the input.

Joseph Allen71 said:I was under the deep impression that we were living in the 21st century, Guga & Co., so thank you ever so much for pointing out just how mistaken I was.

Don't mention it, I'm happy to help.

If I've pointed out something that apparently has to stay hush-hush here in the 21st century—well, now you know that France, Germany, Israel and other authorities in this modern age actually ban or restrict Wi-Fi in schools.

PS: besides the whole "chalk and blackboard" thing, there is also "hardwiring." Haven't you heard of it? Does all your energy have to "float through the air" just to be considered cool? Not that it matters, I guess; the bigger question might be whether anyone has ever stopped to consider if learning is actually a cognitive process rather than an electromagnetic one...? And it still hasn't been proven that "swapping chalk for tablets" leads to better results (except maybe in subjects specifically about IT), no matter how hard those IT marketing types try to spin it...

Nathan Moore6 said:Nathan Moore6, have you purged your apartment/house of cell phones, Wi-Fi access points, and other microwave tech just so you can be completely consistent?

"Completely consistent"... with what, exactly?

With the fact that I am comparing the regulatory standards of France, Germany, and Israel against American regulations regarding Wi-Fi in schools?

You (and I) can do whatever we want at home. For instance, we could drive a nail into our own eyes, install a WLAN station inside our skulls, cuddle up to a tablet, sleep with it, keep it right next to us during sex, and so on. That’s a personal choice; we can choose to do it or not, and in whatever quantities we deem fit. I personally don't even own a microwave—I don't know anyone who does, except perhaps as some useless wedding gift sitting on a kitchen counter gathering dust—and we use our phones sporadically; we aren't glued to them constantly. Most people I know are perfectly fine with a wired connection; they don't feel the need for wireless everywhere.

Exposing 500 kids in a school to six hours of exposure from 50 nearby Wi-Fi nodes and 500 tablets transmitting heavy amounts of data (text, images, movies, etc.) is a completely different beast altogether:

First off—it’s mandatory; a child can't just opt out. School is an obligation, a state-imposed requirement.
Secondly—it happens for long, uninterrupted stretches: 6 hours a day, 300 days a year, over 12 compulsory years.
Thirdly—no one has actually measured the cumulative effect of all that yet; it's something that still needs to be studied. That's why governments in more advanced nations (compared to ours) tend to share my perspective rather than yours.

Anyway

Joseph Allen71 said:I was under the deep impression that we were living in the 21st century, Guga & Co., so thank you ever so much for pointing out just how mistaken I was.

..I don't know if you realize that back in the 20th century, there was:

- smoking was totally fine on planes and buses...
- using X-rays in department stores just to see if a ring looked good on your finger...
- installing lead water pipes right in people's homes without a second thought
- painting watch hands with radioactive paint just so they'd glow in the dark
- making everyday kitchenware like pots and spoons out of aluminum
- letting kids buy alcohol
- letting kids buy cigarettes
- spraying children down with DDT

I suppose we should be thankful that we aren't living in the 20th century anymore, because most of those things aren't considered normal or legal in this day and age. Just like how, even in the most progressive and liberal Western nations today, you won't find kids buying booze or getting sprayed with DDT, it follows that you shouldn't be exposing students in schools to massive doses of electromagnetic radiation either. There are actual laws regulating it now.

But here, I guess, you aren't even supposed to talk about it.

I'm still sitting around waiting for a senior moderator to actually address the questions I tacked onto the end of my first post.

Quote : northernsailor8

Gary Perez7 said:It’s funny, in a dark sort of way, how history tends to repeat itself—or maybe it just loops in these endless, exhausting circles—because it seems like there’s always some powerful interest group out there ready to launch these massive, coordinated attacks against anyone brave enough to actually think for themselves or dig into the truth. I mean, you look back at how people were relentlessly hounded and vilified just for trying to investigate the actual dangers of smoking, or even those early researchers who dared to point out how dumping CO2 into the atmosphere was going to be a problem, and it really makes you wonder if we ever actually learn anything. It feels like whenever someone tries to shine a light on something uncomfortable, whether it's tobacco or carbon emissions, the establishment just jumps in to shut them down, and I guess that’s just the way the world works, isn't it?

I mean, look at this guy—he was basically treated like some kind of laughingstock by his own colleagues, the media, and honestly, pretty much the entire American public just because he had the nerve to claim that lead in gasoline was absolutely wrecking human brains. It took years upon years of grueling legal battles and endless fighting, but I guess he finally managed to prove he was right all along.
If you honestly believe that things have changed much from how they used to be, I guess you’re seriously mistaken, though maybe I'm just being overly cynical about the whole thing.

I just wanted to offer a quick heads-up that this isn't really an instance of "one person against the system" at all, if that's what you're thinking. The whole situation regarding Wi-Fi in schools is actually a bit different than that; there are essentially two distinct "schools of thought" playing out here...

Group

The Guggenheim Group, the Council of Europe, the WHO, the French government, the Israeli government, the Bavarian government... you know, it just goes on and on, doesn't it? It’s all just one endless, dizzying loop of bureaucracy and power plays.

I mean, if you look at all the various indicators and the actual research coming out lately, it really starts to point toward some potentially harmful effects, especially when you consider how much kids are exposed to it all day. It’s just... I don't know, it feels like a real concern, honestly. It’s official. So, they've gone ahead and slapped it into Group 2B—you know, that category for things that are potentially carcinogenic. It’s just one of those things, I guess, where everything feels like it's constantly being reclassified or scrutinized by these massive agencies, and you just sort of sit back and wonder where it all ends.
I mean, if we’re talking about reaching any kind of definitive conclusions regarding long-term impacts—you know, actual clinical studies—it’s just going to take a massive amount of time, I guess. We won't really have any clear answers until much further down the road, which is the tricky part, because by the time those results finally land on our desks, the damage might already be done.
Given everything we've been talking about, I suppose what we’re really looking at is the application of the political precautionary principle. It’s that whole philosophy where you basically decide to wait until it is definitively proven that something isn't harmful, rather than just recklessly exposing kids to all those potential risks while we sit around waiting for some definitive proof that it actually is dangerous. I mean, it just seems like the only logical way to handle it, though I guess everyone has their own take on it.
I mean, honestly, if you look at the whole mess, it’s all just completely political in nature, I guess.
It’s really all about encouraging people to actually stay informed and, you know, fostering some kind of genuine public debate, I guess. It's just... well, maybe if we had more actual conversation instead of just noise, things might move forward, but that's just my two cents.

2. Group

northernsailor8, there are just two trolls haunting this thread right now, and then you’ve got the US government (though, honestly, I still haven't quite wrapped my head around what this whole Forum actually thinks as a collective)...

So, apparently, nothing is harmful at all—even though it’s sitting right there in Group 2B. I guess we're just supposed to ignore that part, huh?
I mean, honestly, anyone who starts talking out of both sides of their mouth or actually goes out and acts in direct opposition to what they just claimed to stand for is nothing more than a complete fool—and that goes for everyone from some random guy on the street to the entire French government or even the leadership over in Frankfurt.
I mean, they’re basically saying any kind of open public debate is just unauthorized now, mostly because they claim it "unnecessarily alarms the public" or somehow falls under that whole "alternative" label—which, honestly, feels like such a tired excuse to shut things down.

I’m still just sitting here, hanging around, waiting to see if some high-level moderator actually weighs in on this, which is really the whole reason I even opened this thread in the first place. I suppose I’m just hoping that we don't end up in a situation where a French or Israeli minister, or maybe even someone from the WHO cancer research board, feels like they’re being backed into some kind of corner on this forum, forced to pivot toward "alternative" stances just because of certain legal mandates or official recommendations.