Posts by silentridge3

northernsailor8 I guess what they're saying is...
I mean, when you really sit back and think about it, this whole decade-long stretch of data collection being carried out by various university researchers and medical and physics institutes... it’s just undeniably massive, isn't it? It’s such an enormous undertaking, I guess, spanning ten whole years of gathering all that information from these specialized academic institutions, though I suppose one could argue about how much of it actually translates into anything useful in the end. Still, there's no denying the sheer scale of it all. It’s all been proven, I guess. Everything we suspected, everything that was just hovering in the periphery of our collective anxiety, has finally surfaced as a settled fact. It's one of those moments where the weight of reality just sort of settles in, heavy and undeniable, leaving you wondering how much longer we could have possibly stayed in denial before the truth became too loud to ignore. I mean, I guess if we’re looking at it from a certain angle, maybe the idea is that daily doses of Wi-Fi aren't actually doing any damage to our health, though I don't know, it's one of those things where you just sort of wonder, isn't it? It feels like one of those debates that just keeps circling back on itself without ever really landing anywhere solid.

Not quite, I guess.

First off, it’s not like there's any actual proof that it isn't harmful; they were really just testing the opposite hypothesis, if that makes sense. So, I guess you could say the conclusions don't actually go to show that...I mean, look, it’s just been pretty much settled at this point, isn't it? It’s practically an established fact that there’s no harm being done, though I suppose you could argue there are always people looking for something to worry about, I guess.It’s less like an "either/or" situation, really... it feels more like we're just drifting into that middle ground where one thing inevitably bleeds into the next, if that makes any sense.I mean, at the end of the day, it’s just not been proven yet that it actually causes any harm, I guess. It feels like everyone is jumping to conclusions, but without concrete evidence, we're really just speculating, aren't we? Maybe there's something to it, maybe not, but for now, it's all just a lot of noise without any real proof behind it.It’s not just some semantic hair-splitting, really; there’s a fundamental difference here because we're talking about the precautionary principle. And honestly, I guess that's exactly what so many major institutions and governments in much more advanced countries are already baking right into their own policy frameworks and day-to-day operations.

Second point: It’s honestly not even possible to prove that there isn't some kind of harm involved, because you really need a massive amount of time to actually measure those cumulative effects. Even the WHO keeps pushing forward with their studies, and I guess we'll just have to wait for whatever conclusions they eventually decide to drop on us sometime in the distant future.

northernsailor8 said:When you look at the whole mobile telephony situation, I guess it’s worth noting that by 2014, they had pretty much wrapped up the collection of all those relevant data points and studies spanning from 1996 through 2011, and the big takeaway—if you believe the consensus—was once again that radiation from cell phones doesn't actually pose a health risk.

So, I was just scrolling through this latest update from the WHO regarding mobile phone use, and honestly, it’s one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder where we all stand with our gadgets, I guess. They’re basically laying out the whole situation—how they develop public Information materials and promote Dialogue among scientists, governments, industry, and the public to Raise the level of understanding about potential adverse health risks of mobile phones—and it feels like we're constantly caught in this loop of waiting for definitive answers that might never actually come. The core of it is that they've classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans, which sounds pretty heavy when you say it out loud, doesn't it? It's categorized in the same group as things like pickled vegetables or aloe vera, if you want to get technical about the classifications, though I suppose that doesn't make it feel any less unsettling. There are these massive studies ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of Mobile Phone Use, and while the current evidence isn't quite enough to be conclusive, the sheer scale of how much we all rely on these devices is hard to ignore. It’s funny, in a dark sort of way, how we just carry these things around constantly, almost like they're an extension of ourselves, while the scientific community is still essentially trying to map out the long-term fallout. I mean, maybe there's nothing to worry about, or maybe we're all part of a giant, unintentional experiment, but it definitely leaves you feeling a bit weary about the future of tech integration in our daily lives. Everything is moving so fast, and the caution seems to always be one step behind the innovation, I guess.

So, honestly, that’s just a completely inaccurate claim. If you actually look at the link being cited—which, if I recall correctly, contains the WHO conclusions—it clearly states the following:

Quote : northernsailor8

The document from the WHO that’s being cited here... you know, the one they always bring up when things get heated... it's just one of those pieces of paperwork that seems to sit there, hovering over everything, though I guess whether it actually changes anything in the grand scheme of things is anyone's guess. The user says: The electromagnetic fields coming off our cell phones have actually been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as... well, you know how these things go. It’s all very official, I suppose, though I can't help but feel like we're just circling the drain of uncertainty here. Everything feels so tentative lately. There’s this whole ongoing discussion regarding whether certain things might be possibly carcinogenic to humans, and honestly, it feels like we're constantly circling the same drain of uncertainty. I guess you could say everything is a bit of a gamble if you look closely enough, but when you start hearing terms like that thrown around by the experts, it definitely adds a layer of heavy, lingering doubt to the mix. Maybe it's just the way the world works now, where nothing is ever truly settled and we're all just left squinting through the fog of scientific debate, waiting to see which way the wind blows.. # Studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of Mobile Phone Use, though I guess we all know how that usually plays out in the end, doesn't it? It feels like we're constantly waiting for some definitive answer while the technology just keeps moving faster than anyone can actually track, which probably means by the time they figure anything out, we'll have moved on to something else entirely. Maybe there's a real pattern there, maybe not, but I suppose it’s all part of that endless cycle of investigation and uncertainty we live in now. Studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of Mobile Phone Use. Studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of Mobile Phone Use, which I guess is one of those things where we’re all just kind of waiting around to see if the sky falls, though maybe that's being too dramatic, but you have to wonder, doesn't it? It feels like we're constantly rushing into these technological leaps without really grasping what they might do to us down the road, and I suppose there's a certain level of uncertainty that just hangs over everything lately, making you feel a bit weary about the whole direction we're heading in. Studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of Mobile Phone Use. # The WHO is planning to step in and take the lead on this one, I suppose. It feels like they’re getting ready to conduct some sort of massive investigation or rollout, though I can't say for certain what the final scope will look like just yet. Maybe it's a formal inquiry, or maybe it's something more proactive, but they seem to be positioning themselves at the center of the action. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how they actually handle the implementation once they get moving. So, there was this whole thing—this massive, formal risk assessment that went down back in 2016, basically trying to wrap its head around every single studied health outcome linked to being exposed to radiofrequency fields, which I guess we just call cell signals and stuff now. It was an attempt to really dig into the data and see what was actually happening, though, you know, looking back, it feels like one of those things where you realize how much we still don't truly grasp about the long-term impact of constant exposure. I mean, maybe they covered a lot of ground, but when you're dealing with something as pervasive as wireless tech, it feels like the goalposts are always moving, or perhaps we're just constantly playing catch-up with the science itself. It’s a heavy topic, honestly, and I can't help but feel a bit weary thinking about how much complexity is buried under those technical reports.

The most fascinating little detail regarding this whole thread being shut down is...

The document from the WHO that everyone seems to be talking about... says:
I guess it’s worth noting that the WHO develops public Information materials and promotes Dialogue among scientists, governments, industry and The public to Rais The level of Understanding about potential adverse health risks of Mobile phones, which seems like a massive undertaking if you really stop to think about how much red tape and conflicting interests are involved in those kinds of global conversations... maybe.

So, the WHO develops public Information materials and promotes Dialogue among scientists, governments, industry and The public to Rais The level of Understanding about potential adverse health risks of Mobile phones, right? But then you look at this forum, and honestly, it feels like any actual dialogue is strictly forbidden here, or maybe just pushed toward those "alternative" theories that people love to label as nothing more than lizard people conspiracies. It’s all a bit surreal, I guess... it's just hard to wrap my head around how something can be considered serious enough for the WHO to tackle, yet somehow not serious enough to be discussed within the standard policies of a random online forum. It’s all very confusing, really.

northernsailor8 said:If they actually managed to prove otherwise—and honestly, if they could just prove that this stuff is dangerous—then the whole conclusion and the entire regulatory landscape would look completely different. It’s really that simple, I guess.

The conclusions and the regulatory framework are exactly what I’ve been laying out here.

So, looking at that link you shared, I guess what we're really talking about here is that whole committee from the WHO—you know, the one dealing with all this Wi-Fi and electromagnetic radiation stuff. It's just one of those things where you start reading and suddenly you're spiraling down a rabbit hole about how much exposure we're actually getting. So, it’s official now—they've officially lumped it into that Group 2B category for things that are potentially carcinogenic. It's just one of those things, I guess, where everything eventually ends up being labeled as a risk if you stare at it long enough.Well, that’s it then—it's official, the final verdict is in. Looking at that list, you've got things like DDT on there, which is that chemical they used to spray around kids back in the day in schools. Honestly, I can't even imagine the absolute political nightmare it would be if anyone tried to bring DDT back into an American classroom today. It would be a total disaster, I guess.

When it comes to the actual regulations, they basically say exactly what I’ve been saying all along:

silentridge3 The user said:I mean, you look at how advanced nations across America and other parts of the world operate, and it feels like there’s this underlying, constant worry about protecting their kids—you know, focusing on their actual health and what kind of future they’re even going to inherit. It's all just such a heavy thing to weigh, I guess.

So, I was reading through some news earlier, and it looks like the government over in France decided to pull the plug on Wi-Fi in their preschools. It’s one of those things where you sit back and wonder if we're all just collectively losing our minds, or if maybe, just maybe, there's a shred of common sense left floating around out there. They're basically saying that little kids shouldn't be surrounded by all those wireless signals while they're still trying to figure out how to tie their shoes, which—if you think about it—is actually kind of a wild thing to have to make a formal policy about in this day and age. I guess it makes sense in a way, though, because everything is so hyper-connected now that we don't really stop to consider the sheer amount of invisible noise we're pumping into every room we walk into, let alone a classroom full of toddlers. It's just one of those situations where you can't help but feel a bit cynical about how much we've normalized having constant, seamless connectivity everywhere, regardless of whether it's actually healthy or even necessary for someone who hasn't even mastered basic arithmetic yet. Maybe it's an overreaction, or maybe it's a long-overdue reality check, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how the rest of the world reacts to the idea of unplugging for a second.

I was reading about how schools over in Canada are actually stripping out their Wi-Fi, and honestly, it’s one of those things that makes you wonder if we’re all just sleepwalking through this digital age. It feels like every time we think we've found a balance between being connected and staying sane, some authority figure decides to pull the plug, though I suppose there might be some actual logic behind it this time. I guess it's just another sign of how much we're constantly debating the invisible stuff floating around us, but you have to wonder if it'll actually change anything in the long run or if it's just a temporary fix for a much deeper problem.

So, I was reading this bit about how they're banning Wi-Fi in schools over in Frankfurt, Germany, and honestly, it just feels like one of those things where you can't help but wonder what else they might decide to pull next. It’s one of those situations where you see these massive shifts in policy, and you just sit back and think, "Well, I guess that's just how things are going now," while trying to wrap your head around whether it actually solves anything or if it's just another layer of bureaucracy being added to the pile. It makes you wonder about the long-term implications for students who are basically living in a digital age, though I suppose there's an argument to be made for giving them some breathing room from the constant connectivity, maybe. It's just one of those things that stays on your mind, I guess.

So, I was reading through some news earlier, and it seems like the Bavarian government is actually recommending against installing Wi-Fi in schools. It’s one of those things where you start looking at the headlines and just think, "Well, here we go again," you know? I guess there's this growing sense of hesitation regarding how much tech we should be shoving into classrooms, and maybe—just maybe—it isn't all sunshine and progress. It makes me wonder if we're all just rushing headlong into a digital future without really stopping to ask if we should, though I suppose that's just how things move these days. It's a bit of a heavy thought, honestly, seeing authorities suggest pulling back on connectivity in places meant for kids, but I guess it's worth considering.

I guess you haven't heard, but there’s this thing happening over in Spanish schools where they’re actually ripping out the Wi-Fi, and honestly, it makes me wonder if we're all just circling the drain, maybe. It feels like one of those rare moments where someone might actually be looking at the big picture instead of just rushing to plug everything into a wall, though I suppose it's hard to say what the long-term fallout will be. It’s just one of those things that stays on my mind, I guess—this constant push to connect everything, everywhere, all at once, while people are finally starting to ask if maybe, just maybe, we should take a step back.

So, I was reading about this news regarding schools over in the UK pulling out the Wi-Fi, and honestly, it just makes me wonder where we go from here. It feels like every time we turn around, there’s some new pushback against the tech that’s basically become our oxygen, you know? They’re stripping the wireless connectivity out of classrooms, and while I can see why people might be worried—I mean, the whole debate about constant connectivity and focus is pretty heavy—it still feels like one of those things where nobody really has all the answers, and we're all just sort of reacting to the latest headline. I guess it’s just another sign of how much we're struggling to figure out how to balance being hyper-connected with actually being able to sit still and learn something without a screen buzzing in your pocket every five seconds. Maybe it's for the best, maybe it isn't, but it definitely feels like we're constantly shifting the goalposts on what a normal environment looks like.

I guess it’s only a matter of time before we see more of this happening, but apparently, the Israeli Ministry of Education is moving to restrict Wi-Fi access within schools. It feels like one of those sweeping, top-down decisions that sounds reasonable on paper if you're just looking at distraction levels, but honestly, I find myself wondering about the ripple effects on how kids actually learn in a digital age. Maybe they think it'll boost focus, or maybe there's some deeper concern about connectivity, but it just seems like another layer of bureaucracy stepping in to micromanage the classroom environment. I don't know, it just feels like we're constantly oscillating between total digital immersion and these sudden, reactionary pulls in the opposite direction.

I guess it’s finally happening over in India, where they're actually moving to ban cell phones in schools. It feels like one of those things that’s been brewing for ages, honestly. You look at how much everyone is glued to their screens these days, and maybe—just maybe—it makes sense to give kids a break from the constant digital noise while they're trying to actually learn something. I don't know, it seems like a massive shift, but then again, everything is changing so fast that nothing really surprises me anymore. Maybe it'll work, or maybe it won't, but it's certainly an interesting move for their education system.

So, I was reading about how the French government is pushing through this new legislation to ban kids under 14 from using mobile phones in schools, and honestly, it feels like one of those things that’s probably going to be a massive headache to actually enforce, though I guess you can see where they're coming from. It’s just one more thing to add to the pile of ways we try—and usually fail—to manage how much technology bleeds into every single aspect of growing up these days. I mean, maybe it'll help them focus, or maybe it'll just create a whole new layer of drama in the hallways, but who knows? It's just one of those sweeping moves that sounds great on paper but always gets complicated once the reality of a busy American school day sets in.

So, I was reading this earlier, and apparently, some libraries over in France are actually ditching their Wi-Fi altogether and going back to old-school wired connections. It’s kind of wild when you think about it, isn't it? I guess there’s this whole movement happening where they want to move away from wireless signals entirely in those spaces, opting instead for physical cables to get everyone online. Maybe it’s about focus, or maybe it’s just a reaction to all the constant noise and interference we deal with nowadays, though I don't know. It feels like such a massive pivot from how everything has been moving for the last twenty years, but then again, maybe returning to something tangible and stable isn't the worst idea in the world, even if it seems a bit regressive at first glance.

The Council of Europe committee is basically sounding the alarm, telling us we really shouldn't go making the same kinds of massive blunders we made back in the day with asbestos, leaded gasoline, and cigarette smoke. It’s that same old cycle, I guess—waiting until the damage is already done before we finally decide to act, which honestly feels like it happens every single time we face a new crisis.

So, I was reading through some news earlier, and it looks like the Council of Europe is putting out these recommendations about schools switching back to wired connections instead of relying entirely on Wi-Fi. It’s one of those things where you start reading and suddenly you're spiraling into how much everything has changed, I guess. There's this whole movement pushing for hardwired Ethernet in classrooms again, which honestly feels like a bit of a reality check after we all spent years thinking wireless was the absolute peak of human achievement. Maybe it's just me, but there's something kind of exhausting about the constant push for everything to be seamless and invisible when, in reality, the stability of a physical cable seems much more reliable for actual learning. I don't know, it just feels like we might have overcorrected on the wireless thing, and now these institutions are looking back at the old ways and realizing that maybe, just maybe, a wire isn't the enemy.

I guess there isn't much to say here, really, though I suppose I could ramble on about it if I felt like it, which I don't, so... yeah.

So, anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is... I guess we really need to talk about those regulatory bodies, you know? Those massive, sprawling institutions that supposedly hold all the reins when it comes to political oversight and making sure everything stays within the lines. It’s a bit of a headache, honestly, thinking about how much power they actually wield over our daily lives while remaining so incredibly detached from the actual pulse of the people. Maybe it’s just me being cynical, but there’s this constant, heavy sense of bureaucracy hanging over everything, where every single decision feels like it's being filtered through ten different layers of red tape before it ever reaches reality. It's exhausting to think about, really—how these organizations act as the gatekeepers of policy, often feeling more like obstacles than facilitators, though I suppose that might just be the nature of the beast in a system as complex as ours. I guess you could say that when the Council of Europe, various Western governments, state authorities, or even local city councils step in to set official rules—whether they’re handing out bans, setting strict limits, or just issuing those formal recommendations—they're basically just following the precautionary principle, since we're dealing with something classified as a Group 2B potential carcinogen.

It’s honestly kind of baffling to me why, given how much this issue dominates the political conversation over in Europe, Israel, Canada, and so many other places, it’s treated like some forbidden topic here on this forum. I guess it just seems strange, maybe, that something so heavily debated in mainstream policy circles is suddenly off-limits in our own little corner of the internet.

Nathan Moore6 said:...every kid nowadays is exposed to way more various electromagnetic fields at home than they ever would be in a classroom, so I guess you're suggesting we should just revert back to the Stone Age because you're worried about Wi-Fi radiation, which, honestly, is incredibly low power—the field strength drops off with the square of the distance, and if you want proof, just look at how a typical Wi-Fi access point doesn't even have an enormous range, especially if there's a wall in the way...

...and you, of course, were right there measuring everything and doing all the math...

.. the "school of the future"...

...just imagine 30 students each with their own tablets, spread across 20 classrooms in one building, packed with maybe 50 mini base stations in that entire volume, all that simultaneous data transmission moving in every direction from those 650 devices, for about 6 hours a day, plus another 3 hours or so back at home...

...and you actually concluded that a banana is somehow more harmful?

Or maybe it’s that "argument" from the centenarians in Japan, people who spent at least their first 90 years living without any WLAN technology nearby, and in the last decade, they haven't even really needed to get too close to it anyway...?

I mean, how many kids coming out of today's "schools of the future" will actually have solid cognitive abilities, strong bones, and zero random disorders by the time they turn 18, let alone make it to 50? We don't even have the clinical studies yet because the time hasn't passed. Have you ever even heard of the "precautionary principle" that governments in more advanced countries use?

Nathan Moore6 said:Honestly, if we're really going there, you've probably got a better shot at picking up cancer from eating bananas than from some Wi-Fi access points, I guess.🤣

Look, I’ll say it again: we are talking about political issues here, involving the governing bodies of actual sovereign nations—not some "banana republic" type of situation.

Cheap little jokes like that really belong in a completely different conversation.

PS: It seems pretty obvious that, say, the French government or the Israeli government doesn't seem to be losing any sleep over the supposed dangers of bananas; instead, they've actually focused their attention on Wi-Fi in schools. Maybe you should try sending that little joke of yours over to them?

Nathan Moore6 I guess what they're saying is...
I mean, it isn't really about censorship, if you ask me... it feels more like just a case of huge retardation, honestly.

"Huge retardation"? So, you're saying it isn't actually about censorship, but just some kind of huge retardation? I guess that's one way to look at it, maybe.

Nathan Moore6 said:I mean, if you ask me, all this noise about Wi-Fi having some kind of massive impact on kids in schools just feels like one of those things that gets blown way out of proportion, I guess. It’s like, we’ve been living in this hyper-connected era for ages now, and honestly, I haven't seen any concrete evidence suggesting that having wireless access in a classroom is doing anything special to them, maybe? People love to worry about every little technological shift, but at the end of the day, I suspect the whole thing is pretty harmless for students, though I suppose there's always someone out there ready to argue otherwise.

Are you seriously telling me that? Have you actually gone out and measured it yourself? Or maybe you’ve spent your nights digging through the data and doing some real investigative work? I don't know, I guess I'm just wondering if there's any actual substance behind those claims, because it feels like we're all just spinning our wheels here.

But really, what kind of sample size are we actually talking about here? I mean, I guess it’s hard to say without knowing the specifics, but you have to wonder about the actual power levels involved, right? Like, how much wattage was being pumped out, how many devices were running simultaneously, and just how many hours a day were they exposed to this stuff over the long haul? It’s all a bit vague, isn't it?

Could you maybe lay out the actual findings from those studies of yours right here? Or, I don't know, are you just some IT professional writing this all because it serves your own interests?

Nathan Moore6 said:I mean, look, you really need to grasp the fundamentals of EM radiation and field theory if you actually want to wrap your head around this stuff, but instead, you're just out here fueling panic and spreading fear without a single shred of scientific backing to support it. I guess that’s why the moderator has every right to toss this into the alternative category—it's where people seem to gravitate when they just want to indulge in that kind of pseudoscientific garbage.

Just to remind you, all this "pseudoscience" nonsense is baked right into the official documents and legal frameworks of the French government, the Israeli government, the Bavarian government, and honestly, a hundred other places too. This whole thing is fundamentally a political issue, not some "alternative" conspiracy theory.

Otherwise, I mean, what kind of connection could there possibly be between "politics" and things like religious education in schools—which, let's be honest, is just pseudoscientific garbage—along with all those heated debates over abortion, domestic partnerships, smoking bans, the legalization of marijuana, or even curriculum reform? It's all so tangled up, I guess.

Before the head admin gets around to answering my questions from the first post, I think I’ll offer up a perfect little example here:

Wolf protection in the US

Topic: Federal (legal) wolf protection in America
Pdf: Politics
Permissibility: Yes
Posts (after intro): 132

So, looking at the Politics subforum, you see people debating wolf protection all the time. It isn't happening over in "Natural Sciences," because, well, the whole debate is political—we're talking about federal regulation, laws, and mandates that are born out of political decisions.

Does it actually matter what some "international wildlife organization" thinks regarding whether wolves need protecting? I suppose not. Because, you see, a segment of the citizenry holds their own specific political stance on matters like that, much like they do with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, God, religious education, healthcare, marriage equality, the Constitution, or anti-fascism, and so on.

Topic: Federal (legal) protection of children from electromagnetic radiation in American schools
Pdf: Politics
Permissibility: No
Posts (after intro): 0

Don't citizens have the right to hold their own political stance here, just like they do with the wolves? Don't they have the right, instead of just blindly following the WHO, to choose the political stance of the French government, or the Israeli government, or even the Bavarian government or the city of Frankfurt? Are the WHO, the IMF, the WTO, and those types of organizations supposed to be treated like sacred cows on this forum?

Are wolves considered a relevant political topic, while children are not?

I’m pointing this out specifically to the moderator here, but if we're being honest, political topics have always been considered relevant and even authorized in our discussions back home—things like abortion and conception, the whole Darwinism versus creationism debate, sex education in schools, how marriage is defined, fascism versus anti-fascism, or even bans on smoking in bars...

...and all of that, mind you, despite what the official scientific consensus might say at any given moment.

When it comes to Wi-Fi and its impact on kids, the picture seems a hell of a lot clearer to me—there are just so many scientific studies and piles of evidence regarding the potential harm. It’s honestly kind of similar to the whole cigarette situation. You've got endless recommendations from scientifically backed committees and various organizations, not to mention actual decisions made by political bodies.

I mean, if people aren't forced to stay quiet about God or cigarettes, then I just don't see why there should be this silence surrounding Wi-Fi and electromagnetic radiation.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--seLb4vsC-g/VWS3skFogfI/AAAAAAAAAWs/b4nWWo5jsjY/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-26%2Bat%2B2.12.22%2BPM.png

At an absolutely staggering speed, a highly relevant political debate regarding the relationship between the state (the government) and the use of Wi-Fi in schools has been shut down:

In a rather ridiculous "justification" for the express locking of this thread, the admin labeled numerous POLITICAL decisions and recommendations from various governments (like those in France, Israel, etc.), state governments (like Bavaria), and other entities as merely "political decisions by local authorities" that consist of "facts not supported by science but rather populism driven by pseudoscientific nonsense," while citing conclusions exclusively from the WHO (which, I might add, are themselves subject to debate), and suggesting the discussion move to an "alternative" venue. It was basically an indirect way of telling me, "go take your paranoid theories to people who believe lizards are replacing humans instead of people." And yet, I have to point out, political bodies of prestigious nations happen to think exactly what I do.

I am asking the SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR (not the one who locked this, since he’s already made his "stance" quite clear) for some clarification:

- Which specific forum rule was violated by opening this thread, and why is this topic considered UNAUTHORIZED?
- Why is comparing our own laws and regulations to those abroad (for instance, in France, Israel, etc.) considered irrelevant or not a PERMISSIBLE topic for discussion?
- Does the mere existence of opposing views on a political issue necessarily lead to an immediate ban on the thread right after it's opened? For example, if the official stance is that a certain politician is great, do we just lock every thread that questions that view? If we are officially an anti-fascist nation, do we shut down every single thread that problematizes anti-fascism at the starting line? If the WHO expresses an opinion in one document, does that mean all 1,000 contrary documents and decisions from various national political bodies are automatically relegated to "alternative" status and "pseudoscientific nonsense"?

If IT enthusiasts or telecom sponsors don't like it when their interests are questioned—which is just basic discussion, really—is that enough justification for censorship and omertà?

Just one more quick favor to ask.
Back on Thursday, October 29, 2015, there was an episode of "Vita jelo, zelen bor" that airs pretty much every weekday. They dive into a different topic every single time, and this particular installment focused on the absolutely abysmal position fathers find themselves in during divorce proceedings and after the split. It was heavy stuff—they brought up some pretty shocking cases and statistics, including those nightmare scenarios involving false accusations of abuse and pedophilia. Both guests, the president of the Equal Parenting Association and Gordana Flander-Buljan, seemed to be in total agreement about how terribly men are treated in the system. Now, I’ve only heard about the show through word of mouth, so I wanted to go hunt it down on "PBS on demand".

But here’s the thing—it looks like that specific episode is just... gone. I mean, I checked, and you can watch every other past episode, but that one from the 29th is nowhere to be found. Everything up until the 28th is there, and then the 30th pops up right after, but the 29th is a total blank. I can't help but wonder if maybe someone actually put pressure on PBS to pull that specific broadcast? Is it possible? Could anyone point out this weird little coincidence in a relevant thread or subforum?

William Bennett53 said:Go ahead and criticize the ombudsman, or even go after Nancy Pelosi—I’ve basically opened up a whole new thread just for you to do that if that's what you want. I honestly don't see the issue with it.

I actually have a bit of a request for the moderators here.

Yesterday (Thursday, Oct 29th), NBC aired this absolutely scandalous program called "Open Forum" regarding the failure to meet female quotas during elections, and the conversation drifted into the whole supposed "general plight of women in society." The show was pretty much a disaster for two main reasons:

1. Most Americans, if I'm being honest, don't just fail to see the point of gender quotas in politics—they actually think they're unfair and totally unnecessary. And it's not just regular people either; plenty of folks within the various elites share that exact sentiment. So, in an environment like that, it feels incredibly strange that "Open Forum" produced a special featuring four female guests who all promote these quotas, without a single guest present to offer a different perspective (you know, someone representing what most people actually believe). The guests were the ombudsman and three other feminists. I think this might be the first time in the history of "Open Forum" where they had four guests and every single one of them held the exact same view (not to mention the host, who was clearly on the same page too).

2. The broadcast was just loaded with an unbelievable amount of nonsense, fabrications, and heavily biased statistics. I won't try to list them all out because, gosh, it would take forever, so please, just watch it yourselves if you can.

Since the thread about gender quotas was locked because the moderators decided the topic had "reached its end," and then this new thread was immediately shut down under the logic of "we already had that first topic, so we don't need another one," and then the discussion on Mizandria in American society got closed because of one single post that wasn't quite right...

...well, I'm asking the moderators, if you could please watch the episode on NBC at their request, and then instead of waiting for me to jump in, maybe write a post about the show themselves? Somewhere they feel is appropriate. They could include a link to the broadcast, and maybe even a snippet of what I've written here. That way, we can proactively avoid any risk of me posting in the wrong place, or doing it the wrong way, or opening a thread incorrectly, or trolling, or breaking some obscure forum rule or whatever.

Supposedly, it's perfectly fine to criticize the ombudsman here, though I still haven't quite figured out exactly where the line is drawn. Since this topic is arguably more important than my own personal gripes, I’d ask the moderators to handle the discussion properly themselves, rather than leaving it to me. Thanks in advance, I guess.

William Bennett53 said:In that absolute nonsense of a post, you’re just rambling on about the percentage of kids conceived while the dad was wasted on booze, claiming all along that the women were actually looking to get pregnant while the men were totally against it happening.

I guess you could say I’m just bluffing, or maybe I'm just talking out of my neck, if that makes any sense... it’s hard to tell sometimes when everything feels so incredibly uncertain, isn't it? I suppose I am just throwing words at the wall to see what sticks, though I can't be entirely sure if there's any substance behind it all. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. It's all a bit hazy, I guess.

I still can't quite wrap my head around what the actual criteria for punishment are here, I guess. From what I can tell, this whole Reddit place is absolutely overflowing with people just shouting nonsense into the void, yet apparently, that kind of mindless rambling isn't even against the rules. It’s all a bit baffling, really.

When it comes to the whole concept of "trolling," I guess if you look at how most other subreddits define it, it’s basically just someone intentionally throwing in these massive, winding tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic at hand, or just straight-up wrecking a thread by flooding it with stuff that doesn't belong under that specific heading.

If "talking nonsense" has officially become a punishable offense, I can't help but wonder if they're planning on rounding up everyone who speaks without thinking, or if they’ve just got their sights set specifically on me.

William Bennett53 I guess what they're saying is...
I mean, if you look at what’s actually happening in that second box... honestly, I guess it’s all just part of the same messy picture, isn't it? It feels like we're constantly staring at these fragmented pieces of a puzzle that nobody really wants to solve, though maybe that's just my own cynicism talking. Everything seems to be shifting around again, much like how things tend to drift when you aren't looking, and I suppose there's a certain exhaustion that comes with trying to make sense of it all, but then again, who can really say they know what's coming next?
So, you’re out here spinning this whole narrative about millions of women being murdered by men and some massive figure of 1.6 million criminals, which, if you ask me, feels like an absolute fabrication. I mean, honestly, it’s just straight-up misinformation, and I guess it’s no wonder people are going to flag it as trolling—it really is just blatant provocation at this point.

Look, I’m not exactly "talking" about this or spinning some narrative, I’m just laying out the actual numbers straight from the Ombudsman’s own official statement. If there’s any falsification happening here, it isn’t coming from me—it’s her. I simply crunched the percentages she provided, but since those were her words on paper, the math belongs to her. It’s honestly kind of wild, I guess, that in a situation like this, where an anonymous user on a site like Reddit—just a regular person trying to make sense of things—gets their post wiped away. I was just pointing out how she was publicly fudging the facts in front of maybe ten other people who actually give a damn about this topic, yet somehow, my post gets deleted. It's just one of those things, I suppose.

By the way, I honestly don’t quite grasp why the moderators feel such an intense need to defend that publicly released falsification from the Ombudsman, or why they’re working so hard to downplay her blunder. It’s all a bit much, isn't it? I guess I just wonder where this overwhelming urge comes from—this weirdly protective impulse within this Reddit community toward the Ombudsman, especially when she’s clearly, undeniably in the wrong.

Or, perhaps even better, Let me just ask a direct question here: is it actually allowed on this forum to criticize someone holding public office—like, say, the Ombudsman? If you've got something to say, just lay it all out right here, plain and simple. No need to beat around the bush or waste everyone's energy playing those ridiculous little games with the "troll cards" and all that nonsense...

lonebadger6 said:1. This isn't a casual chat; you asked for an explanation and you got one.

Just like with the initial situation, I wasn't looking for a "chat," I was actually hoping to hear from someone else—like a senior moderator or whatever—not just from you, I guess. Back then, I didn't get that second opinion either, so I'm really hoping someone else might step in now to explain this whole trolling business. I mean, surely I have the right to ask for clarification from a different authority figure, don't I?

In a broader sense, what I’m really getting at is asking for a bit of leniency regarding these strict disciplinary measures that seem to be applied exclusively to me, specifically by those moderators who happen to hold views diametrically opposed to my own during a debate—it feels like a total conflict of interest when they delete my posts if I'm not actually breaking any rules, or if I'm "breaking" them in the exact same way that 99% of the other users on this Reddit thread are, without being penalized themselves.

lonebadger6 said:I suppose the trolling just keeps on going through those wild exaggerations you make when you try to spin the data. Because, look, even if what they're saying is an actual claim rather than just a massive mistake—and, like I said before, it’s definitely a mistake, which I think you know perfectly well—you still can't pull these insane conclusions out of thin air, like claiming there are "a million male murderers" in your first cardboard-thin post or "1.6 million male criminals" in the second one.

So, if the Attorney General claims that 80% of women have experienced violence from men, and the female population in the US is roughly 160 million, then it isn't 1.6 million?

I mean, where exactly is my "dramatic exaggeration" in all of this? And where am I supposedly trolling?

lonebadger6 said:But maybe you should stop treating one tiny, poorly written news snippet as if it’s some massive foundation for entire threads, drawing conclusions about the whole "social climate," or presenting these things as absolute gospel to back up your points, because honestly, that’s just not what happened here.

lonebadger6 said:...one tiny, poorly written news snippet...

>>??

I guess I’ll try to explain my side of things, and then you can tell me if I’ve totally missed the mark or misunderstood you.

So, we have an official Attorney General posting on an official government website, and they put out this incredibly sensationalized and, frankly, inaccurate "statistic" claiming that 80% of victims are one gender and 80% of perpetrators are the other...

...and somehow, that’s just a "...tiny, poorly written news snippet..."—it isn't considered inciting anything or fueling any kind of fire, apparently.

...but then, when some random, insignificant person on a forum—just one guy among thousands on a massive site like Reddit—actually takes the time to write a post questioning and criticizing those official little "errors"...

...suddenly that becomes a huge issue, and the moderators start jumping in with all these different ways to shut things down?

I mean, why aren't you treating me with the same weight as the Attorney General? Why isn't my thousand times less significant "error" being treated as just a simple mistake?

I’ve actually reached out before asking for some clarity on why the moderators seem to target me specifically, specifically regarding that thread about our patriarchal society—you know, the idea that society treats men worse than it should. Back then, one of the mods, who clearly holds views totally opposite to mine (for instance, he seems to believe that in any divorce case, the kids should automatically go to the mother), slapped me with a ban, and honestly, I still haven't been given a real reason for it. It wasn't just him, either; nobody else bothered to explain what exactly constituted "trolling," and frankly, his little excuse just didn't hold water:

Now, an even more ridiculous situation has cropped up, where two different moderators handed me enough penalty points for a single post to trigger a ban—essentially giving me two yellow cards for one message:

Quote: silentridge3 said:Here you go.

Instead of hiding behind those useless "number of reports" metrics, maybe someone could tell me what actual study the Attorney General is basing this claim on:

the so-called Gender Equality Attorney General said:a huge percentage of women (75-80%) are victims of domestic violence, often with tragic outcomes.

Therefore, if we take her official statement at face value, she’s claiming that in America there are roughly 1.6 million women who are victims of domestic violence, many of whom face fatal outcomes—let's say about 1 million women are killed by men. If we assume, just for the sake of argument, that these 1.6 million women aren't all being beaten by the same guy, but rather by their own individual partners, then we're looking at 1.6 million male criminals in America.

Do you actually agree with these figures? Are you aware of a study that backs this up? Or do you think the Attorney General is just making things up?

And if you try to argue that she just miswrote her official statement, then you're right back to the "number of reports" argument, aren't you? Because if that's the case, the data shows that based on reported cases, less than 1% of women in America are victims of domestic violence—which would mean less than 1% of men are violent. That would imply 99% of men aren't violent and 99% of women aren't victims. That's all the report tells us, nothing more.

One moderator hit me with 65 points for that post, and another gave me 35, presumably just enough to push me over the edge for a ban. The post was scrubbed from the thread entirely. This whole "trolling" explanation just feels incredibly flimsy to me.

So, I'm asking for a detailed explanation of what "trolling" actually means here, preferably a definition that applies consistently to every single post on this forum.

Since there hasn't been even a whisper of a solution regarding these threads that get shut down without any justification (and then just stay locked forever)...

That primitive, sexist outburst from politician Tierley

...and considering how yesterday’s signing of that leftist coalition agreement went down, where the very same Tierley was a key signatory for her party...

...it makes me wonder: was the thread actually locked just to protect the reputation—if such a thing even exists anymore—of Tierley, who happens to lead a party currently backing the ruling administration?

lonebadger6 said:Stay out of it, we're just on a forum 🙂

We’re speaking in generalities here, obviously, though everything really depends on the specific context. If "felixx" just drops a link to some bizarre study, then sure, it’s trolling and misogyny, especially since he’s posted about 875 things like that so far. But if it isn't that kind of case, there’s no point in punishing someone just because they assumed a link was accurate when it wasn't. Though, usually, it isn't even that hard to tell if someone is being malicious or if they simply... don't know. Just a quick note regarding the specific example—differences in IQ between men and women in the general population do exist. And superficial studies will typically show men are more intelligent because they're being measured within a certain "similar" population. The actual truth is that men are more "spread out." To put it very simply: if you imagine 100 men and 100 women, the men will have 10 "geniuses" and 10 "idiots," while everyone else hovers around the average, whereas the women will have 5 "geniuses" and 5 "idiots."

Besides, that's a trivial study with trivial data. There's no doubt plenty of women have incredibly high IQs. So what’s actually the point of that link in a discussion about gender? That "we" are smarter than "them"? No. It’s a completely trivial fact that says nothing about the capability of a gender, let alone an individual. And there’s a good chance anyone bringing it up in a gender debate is doing it maliciously (and probably isn't one of the smarter ones either)...

On your second point, you're right, I caricatured things quite a bit and went overboard. But the content itself points toward that. What was the point of mentioning Varga and Cacic? I'm not saying it was malicious, but that's where this type of discussion leads. Tirello said something sexist. Period. To me personally (and I don't think I'm alone in this, not by a long shot), mentioning how "men immediately jump in when a man speaks..." makes it sound like the bigger issue is that they jumped in, rather than the fact that they aren't jumping in now. It's pandering to low impulses right in the introduction. Then the topic stops being "this politician said something sexist" and turns into "men are under attack, everyone is treating us unfairly." To me, it feels very similar—and the relationship isn't all that different—to when "hardline nationalists" start whining that certain minority groups have more rights than they do in America.

(I'm not trying to say women are oppressed, nor am I suggesting any minority group is oppressed, not in the slightest. But for a variety of reasons, it's incredibly tasteless to claim women are privileged in American society /they might be in terms of parenting, but that's mostly true everywhere in the world and was true even back when they didn't have the right to vote and were expected to stay in the kitchen and wash the dishes/.)

It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that this is an old statement. This didn't happen yesterday, causing a sudden scandal; this was an interview from February.

Finally, if we want to get into the weeds—those three statements (Cacic, Varga, Tirello) aren't even comparable. Tirello's comment was more stupid than it was sexist. That study was recently all over various media outlets, mostly just trivial stuff. What I find saddest about the whole thing is seeing someone so, hm, "simple" holding relatively high political offices. Not that it's anything new for us. It sounds like a comment from a teenager on Facebook. But it is based on actual research. Varga and Cacic made overtly sexist remarks. Especially Cacic. Varga came off as a bit foolish—a sexist remark, sure, but essentially benign. Cacic had a very serious sexist outburst; behind a seemingly simple sentence lies deep-seated sexism.

What do you mean, "period"?

CASE 1:
- Čačić and Varga made sexist comments regarding their appreciation for the beauty of the opposite sex.
- They faced massive public backlash, including condemnation from a politically appointed gender equality ombudsman.
- The topic on the forum is still active, and Varga is being dragged through the mud, even facing some pretty nasty insults.

CASE 2:
- Tirello made a sexist remark that essentially disparaged her entire gender, claiming they were even more dishonest than herself*.
- And yet, she didn't face any public outcry, nor did she get any heat from the ombudsman who is literally supposed to respond to this kind of thing as part of their job.
- The thread on the forum is locked.

(*- if you look at the interview, the sexism actually runs deeper; she basically presented herself as more suitable for a board chair position based solely on her gender, which implies men are less competent and less moral.)

William Bennett53 said:Let us attempt this once more...
Anyone willing to dig through the archives of the PŽK will easily stumble upon several lengthy debates—mostly initiated by Goldman Sachs and Felixxaa, if one wishes to search more efficiently—regarding the controversial practice of closing threads centered on threats to men's rights and gender (in)equity (which, naturally, comes at the expense of men). Perhaps I was overly brief in my initial response to my colleague Goldman Sachs; he is, after all, quite well acquainted with the administration's stance on these matters.

Beyond the PŽK, discussions on this subject are frequently held among the moderators themselves, and I must admit there have been some dissonant "tones" even within our ranks. After all, it is hardly disputable that there are instances where men receive the short end of the stick simply because they are men. We know this happens, and we all recognize it as a reality. In fact, most of us likely personally know a man who suffered unfairly during a divorce due to the biases of the courts or other governing bodies. Similar issues occasionally arise regarding domestic violence, employment stability, and elsewhere. We even have legislative precedents that are demonstrably discriminatory. Therefore, it is clear that a similar topic could, and perhaps should, exist somewhere on this forum.

Why, then, is it absent? The recurring issue—and it is not that we haven't tried—is that every one of these topics rapidly devolves into a circus of vile trolling, falsehoods, manipulation, sweeping generalizations, and hate speech directed at women. Such behavior cannot and must not be permitted. Now, many will ask: why not simply curb such conduct through moderation to steer the discussion back to its intended purpose? Well, closing a thread is also a moderating action, and thus far, it has proven to be the only effective tool in these circumstances. Just as the immigration thread on the main board had to be shuttered after two attempts because participants simply could not refrain from xenophobia, racism, fascism, and personal insults, threads on the Politics board have consistently been closed when users exploited the topic of male discrimination as a vehicle for misogyny.

Perhaps there is another way; Pringles noted in her addition to the previous thread that the moderators are revisiting this discussion. It might be possible to prevent hate speech in a manner similar to how order was recently restored on the Politics board regarding the vaccination debate, but that would necessitate extremely rigid moderation and constant oversight. Consequently, this would inevitably trigger fresh outcries regarding censorship, perceived bias, and perhaps even more nonsense concerning the sexual orientation of participants or moderators. In any case, the discussion is ongoing; it is happening, but this is simply the reality of the situation.

As for Nancy Pelosi and her statement, no one has any objection to opening a thread about her or what she said. That particular thread was closed because of the manner in which it was opened, not because anyone felt the need to shield a secondary political figure.

I mean, look, I think we can all agree that there really ought to be a dedicated space on this forum—and honestly, in society at large—to talk about the systemic discrimination men face these days. But it’s just not there. It’s almost like this one specific topic is met with a total wall of silence around here, you know? It feels like the one subject that gets systematically shut down more than anything else, which is pretty strange if you think about it.

William Bennett53 said:Let us attempt this once more...
Anyone willing to dig through the archives of the PŽK will easily stumble upon several lengthy debates—mostly initiated by Goldman Sachs and Felixxaa, if one wishes to search more efficiently—regarding the controversial practice of closing threads centered on threats to men's rights and gender (in)equity (which, naturally, comes at the expense of men). Perhaps I was overly brief in my initial response to my colleague Goldman Sachs; he is, after all, quite well acquainted with the administration's stance on these matters.

Beyond the PŽK, discussions on this subject are frequently held among the moderators themselves, and I must admit there have been some dissonant "tones" even within our ranks. After all, it is hardly disputable that there are instances where men receive the short end of the stick simply because they are men. We know this happens, and we all recognize it as a reality. In fact, most of us likely personally know a man who suffered unfairly during a divorce due to the biases of the courts or other governing bodies. Similar issues occasionally arise regarding domestic violence, employment stability, and elsewhere. We even have legislative precedents that are demonstrably discriminatory. Therefore, it is clear that a similar topic could, and perhaps should, exist somewhere on this forum.

Why, then, is it absent? The recurring issue—and it is not that we haven't tried—is that every one of these topics rapidly devolves into a circus of vile trolling, falsehoods, manipulation, sweeping generalizations, and hate speech directed at women. Such behavior cannot and must not be permitted. Now, many will ask: why not simply curb such conduct through moderation to steer the discussion back to its intended purpose? Well, closing a thread is also a moderating action, and thus far, it has proven to be the only effective tool in these circumstances. Just as the immigration thread on the main board had to be shuttered after two attempts because participants simply could not refrain from xenophobia, racism, fascism, and personal insults, threads on the Politics board have consistently been closed when users exploited the topic of male discrimination as a vehicle for misogyny.

Perhaps there is another way; Pringles noted in her addition to the previous thread that the moderators are revisiting this discussion. It might be possible to prevent hate speech in a manner similar to how order was recently restored on the Politics board regarding the vaccination debate, but that would necessitate extremely rigid moderation and constant oversight. Consequently, this would inevitably trigger fresh outcries regarding censorship, perceived bias, and perhaps even more nonsense concerning the sexual orientation of participants or moderators. In any case, the discussion is ongoing; it is happening, but this is simply the reality of the situation.

As for Nancy Pelosi and her statement, no one has any objection to opening a thread about her or what she said. That particular thread was closed because of the manner in which it was opened, not because anyone felt the need to shield a secondary political figure.

That’s just not true, honestly. If you’d just take a second to actually go back and look through those threads—especially everything that's been blowing up lately—you'd see that... There’s absolutely no trolling going on here, and I won't stand for any insults toward women or that whole misogynistic vibe....well, certainly not in any significant amount, I suppose.

I mean, look, I don't actually write anything about women, and I certainly don't go around saying nasty things about them. I don't hold any ill will toward women or anything like that; my whole stance is really just that we need to have clear, straightforward equality across the board.

What people are really getting worked up about—and honestly, I find myself joining in on the criticism too, maybe using even harsher language than most—is basically... It’s always the same pattern, isn't it? You see these specific ideologies taking hold, then certain bureaucratic bodies start swelling up to enforce them, followed by a handful of public figures stepping into the spotlight to champion the cause, and eventually, it all culminates in these very specific laws being passed. It feels like a predictable cycle, I guess, where one thing just inevitably leads to the next, though maybe I’m just being overly cynical about how the whole system operates.So, this is where we finally hit the actual heart of the matter—that core issue that I guess the moderators just can't seem to wrap their heads around, no matter how much you explain it.

The chairwoman of the congressional committee is a politician. And then you have the gender equality ombudsman... It feels like someone was just hand-picked for this role based on pure political maneuvering rather than actually having any idea what they're doing. It’s that classic move where the appointment is all about optics and playing the game, I guess. You can almost see the strings being pulled behind the scenes to make sure everything fits the party line, which usually means actual competence takes a backseat to whoever's most useful to the establishment at the moment. It's just one of those things that makes you roll your eyes, honestly.Both of them are essentially working political gigs on our behalf, supposedly acting for the common good—and yeah, I suppose that includes looking out for men too. But if they aren't actually delivering on those promises, then I feel like it’s not just okay to call them out, it’s absolutely necessary. It’s really just about calling out incompetence when you see it, I suppose, which seems to be a recurring theme whenever you deal with any public figure or political appointee in this country. It’s the same old story, isn't it? You look at these people in office and you realize that pointing out when they aren't actually doing their jobs—or worse, when they're actively failing at them—is just part of the deal we have to deal with, much like any other high-profile official in America.Honestly, I couldn't care less about all those endless "sociological analyses of men and women" people love to drone on about; what actually matters to me is... I wonder if these key figures fighting for men's rights and women's rights actually care about both sides with the same level of intensity—because if they don't, then I guess we’re really looking at a top-tier political issue, isn't that just the way it goes?It’s the same story with those legal provisions, too; they seem pretty obviously at odds with the Constitution, I guess.

If you honestly believe that certain topics—things like modern ideology, those politically appointed gender equality ombudsmen, or laws that seem specifically designed to discriminate against men—are strictly off-limits, wrapped up in some kind of unspoken code of silence to prevent anyone from actually talking about them, then just say so plainly. I mean, if you want to shut down every single debate by hiding behind this preemptive excuse of "stopping alleged hate speech against women," then just be upfront about it, because there’s hardly any actual misogyny to begin with; I guess you could easily just toss out the occasional outlier and move on. But if the goal is to kill the conversation before it starts, just tell me straight, and I'll stop posting altogether.

William Bennett53 said:Let us attempt this once more...
Anyone willing to dig through the archives of the PŽK will easily stumble upon several lengthy debates—mostly initiated by Goldman Sachs and Felixxaa, if one wishes to search more efficiently—regarding the controversial practice of closing threads centered on threats to men's rights and gender (in)equity (which, naturally, comes at the expense of men). Perhaps I was overly brief in my initial response to my colleague Goldman Sachs; he is, after all, quite well acquainted with the administration's stance on these matters.

Beyond the PŽK, discussions on this subject are frequently held among the moderators themselves, and I must admit there have been some dissonant "tones" even within our ranks. After all, it is hardly disputable that there are instances where men receive the short end of the stick simply because they are men. We know this happens, and we all recognize it as a reality. In fact, most of us likely personally know a man who suffered unfairly during a divorce due to the biases of the courts or other governing bodies. Similar issues occasionally arise regarding domestic violence, employment stability, and elsewhere. We even have legislative precedents that are demonstrably discriminatory. Therefore, it is clear that a similar topic could, and perhaps should, exist somewhere on this forum.

Why, then, is it absent? The recurring issue—and it is not that we haven't tried—is that every one of these topics rapidly devolves into a circus of vile trolling, falsehoods, manipulation, sweeping generalizations, and hate speech directed at women. Such behavior cannot and must not be permitted. Now, many will ask: why not simply curb such conduct through moderation to steer the discussion back to its intended purpose? Well, closing a thread is also a moderating action, and thus far, it has proven to be the only effective tool in these circumstances. Just as the immigration thread on the main board had to be shuttered after two attempts because participants simply could not refrain from xenophobia, racism, fascism, and personal insults, threads on the Politics board have consistently been closed when users exploited the topic of male discrimination as a vehicle for misogyny.

Perhaps there is another way; Pringles noted in her addition to the previous thread that the moderators are revisiting this discussion. It might be possible to prevent hate speech in a manner similar to how order was recently restored on the Politics board regarding the vaccination debate, but that would necessitate extremely rigid moderation and constant oversight. Consequently, this would inevitably trigger fresh outcries regarding censorship, perceived bias, and perhaps even more nonsense concerning the sexual orientation of participants or moderators. In any case, the discussion is ongoing; it is happening, but this is simply the reality of the situation.

As for Nancy Pelosi and her statement, no one has any objection to opening a thread about her or what she said. That particular thread was closed because of the manner in which it was opened, not because anyone felt the need to shield a secondary political figure.

I mean, I’m really not sure what the "correct" way to bring up Nancy Tierley’s sexist outburst is supposed to be. But I definitely think anyone—even a moderator, for that matter—should feel free to reopen this exact same topic (you know, regarding the sexist slip-up by the gender equality ombudsman) if they just do it the "right" way.

PS:

- If we’re following the logic that any thread capable of attracting trolls (like those party activists on the politics forum) should be deleted immediately, then you might as well just wipe out 90% of the existing threads right now.
- And if it’s somehow considered unacceptable to use a critical prefix like "so-called" when talking about a gender equality ombudsman who seems only interested in one specific gender—which, mind you, is exactly why a moderator flagged me, gave me a warning, and locked things down—then maybe consider that such a prefix isn't "misogyny," but rather just a critique of a specific POLITICAL individual. I guess you could look at how people normally label figures like Mason, Josipović, Milanović, or Varga on other threads in the politics forum, among all the various politicians and public figures mentioned there. Out of the thousands of insults like "idiot" or "moron" that fly around, using "so-called" really shouldn't be treated like some massive transgression.

If my memory serves me right, I used the word violence rather than terror, though I suppose it’s all a bit of a gray area. We’re really talking about a kind of communicative, intellectual, and structural violence here. You see, a thread gets shut down without any actual rules being broken on the forum, even though the subject matter itself is strictly off-limits according to their own standards—even if it happens to be incredibly relevant and important from a political standpoint.

The moderators really ought to be told that they don't actually have the authority to just lock threads and delete posts simply because:

- they happen to dislike a certain Forum user
- they find a particular topic unappeable
- they just don't care for certain ideas or viewpoints

Look, they have every right to lock things down or hit delete if someone actually violates the Forum rules. But those rules, well, they should be applied equally to every single topic and every single Forum user. It shouldn't be this thing where the rules are stretched infinitely thin in one instance, and then suddenly become endlessly "subtle" in another.

In this case, it isn't even about the moderator Klonka trying to steer a discussion away from going off the rails; it’s more that this is literally the 20th thread regarding the political struggles surrounding men's rights in modern America that has been shut down by a moderator. Most of the time, the moderation process just kills the conversation before it even gets a chance to breathe, usually without any legitimate cause or reason at all.

It seems like a few of the mods have basically decided that they can adopt this attitude: "We've had enough of these discussions about men's issues; they're irrelevant to us. Every time someone, say silentridge3, starts a new thread, we're just going to shut it down." By constantly "opening and closing" these discussions, they create this false impression that people are just "trolling by repeating the same 20 or 50 topics," but that's just not true—it's fundamentally wrong, because the moderators are the ones closing them all, which means there's never actually more than one thread active at a time.

I should probably point out that this forum definitely allows people to call out sexist remarks when they’re directed at men. I mean, look, back when Secretary Varga made that comment about how much he enjoys "curvy nurses," nobody shut the conversation down; instead, we had this whole ongoing debate right here on the forum about "sexist Varga":

Klibicl said:This idiot is living proof of what America does to people 🙂

7nationarmy said:Nah, he's just proof that America shouldn't tolerate this kind of trash; we have our own windbags, but they usually stick to private networks like Fox 😉

aha, so like corsets on the nurses then 😁

Silver Bear said:This foolish President is doing everything he can to lose the election. He drives away the decent guys and keeps this troll around

When Varga's sexism was being questioned, moderator Klonka didn't start asking for some "sense of context" or "what the underlying meaning of Varga's statement was." Back then, you could talk about Varga on this forum however you wanted—calling him a "hillbilly," an "idiot," or just part of a "weak breed" of people. But now, when Tirelli does something arguably even worse, suddenly the thread gets locked.

Blanche DuBois said:You can really feel the awkwardness and the forced laughter from the onlookers in the video. Maybe they were just caught off guard by what he said and didn't know how to react... but then again, maybe they really are just a bunch of sycophants and yes-men. If you ask me, those awards for top nurses and doctors are nothing but a marketing gimmick, especially since the head nurse usually wins when she doesn't even work directly with patients but just handles the administrative side.

Anyway, I worked in a hospital for six years, and honestly, even during the most relaxed staff parties, you wouldn't hear such crude, low-class nonsense—yet here is a Secretary of Health blathering such colossal garbage right in front of the cameras. It’s just insulting to a highly demanding and underpaid profession. For the millionth time, I find myself wondering about the negative selection process among our politicians... I mean, who on earth raised this entire generation of people?🤦

Moderator Klonka went ahead and shut down a totally relevant political thread regarding some primitive, sexist outburst from a Congresswoman.

The blatant sexism from Representative Tirelli. Is she about to be replaced?

Without any legitimate reason—honestly, without anyone even breaking a single rule on this forum, and frankly, without any logic or common sense at all—it’s been made impossible right out of the gate to actually discuss a major political issue: having a sexist leading the Congressional Committee on Gender Equality (having a sexist running that committee is basically like putting a fox in charge of the hen house, I guess).

But what’s really the worst part is the so-called "explanation" the censor provided for locking the thread:

"She didn't specify which studies she was citing, but without that context, her accusation of lying takes on a completely different connotation. This topic can be locked."

With an "explanation" like that, I suppose any topic could be "locked" whenever a moderator just feels like it, maybe. I'm calling on a senior moderator to step in and remind the junior mods that there's such a thing as acting reasonably.

And yeah, the thread needs to be unlocked so we can actually deal with this problematic situation. Personally, I don't think a moderator's own disagreement with a viewpoint is a valid excuse for locking threads and deleting discussions.