Posts by silentridge3

So, since I can't seem to get a straight answer on what actually counts as acceptable content for the "TV series" sub-forum, this is the official response I got from the moderation team:

silentmaker51 said:Analysis, impressions, opinions, etc., regarding what was shown in an episode, season, or series. Discussions should be based on specific examples. In short.

Analysis of... what, exactly?

Impressions... about what?

Opinions... on what?

I should probably point out that most of my own deep dives, my impressions of certain shows, and my general takes have already been wiped away. For instance, they deleted my comparison to other shows where I was trying to explain how a series draws viewers in through character aesthetics—like focusing on the lead actor's blue eyes and all that.

If I’m forced to conclude that we aren't actually allowed to provide analysis, impressions, or opinions (unless they happen to align perfectly with the moderator's whims), and since talking about the actual plot is forbidden because it's considered "spoiling"...

...then I guess the only thing left permitted is some sort of superficial teenage chatter like, "Omg, the last episode was so good!" or "Cool show, I'll keep watching." In any somewhat sane environment, the leadership of this forum should probably be thrilled that someone (in this case, Electric Rabbit and myself) is actually putting effort into writing something more substantial than that. I mean, it shouldn't really be a bad thing if teenagers end up picking up a few extra insights along the way, right?

Nathan Turner3 said:Listing buildings that stood in Miami 500 years ago (among other things) isn't exactly a deep historical treatise. 😳 Deleting it was totally justified.

I mean, do you even realize WHICH ten or so posts actually got nuked? In one specific post, there was this whole breakdown of the culture, science, and architecture that existed in our neck of the woods back when the Vikings were living almost at a Neolithic level of existence.

And the other nine posts didn't even have that kind of stuff in them.

I suppose all of it was wiped out just because I happened to poke at someone’s complex—you know, that weird obsession people have with Vikings, Scandinavians, Thor, Freya, Valhalla, or just anything that feels foreign. Trying to look at this TV series outside of that context seems pretty pointless to me. This is a ROMANTICIZED (distorted) take on ACTUAL HISTORY.

So, you basically erased the historical context of the discussion about the show, you erased the jokes about the gorgeous actors playing Vikings (and the incredibly unattractive ones playing the Viking victims), and you even wiped out my comparison to the TV series "Rescue Service" and the movie "The Hunger Games," which, if you think about it, directly describes Stockholm syndrome—even looking at the poster for this show...

What's left to talk about now? Is it just going to be stuff like:

"Man, I can't wait for the last episode!"
"Yessss! They're filming a new season!!!"

Would it really be such a disaster if some fifteen-year-olds read something a bit more substantial, so that maybe, through a discussion about a TV series (a HISTORICAL one, featuring REAL people), they could grasp a little bit of historical context, myths, human psychology, and things like that?

Is the "television pdf" subforum really intended to be nothing more than a place for promoting specific shows and teenage chatter?

I think I’ve managed to lose my bearings again regarding what we’re actually supposed to be posting in the "Series" subreddit.

There’s this one thread about the series "black and white world," and honestly, at least half of the comments there are just people hunting down historical inaccuracies in how they portrayed the 1980s. Even the moderators are getting sucked into this deep dive into history, which makes the whole thing feel more like a history lecture than a discussion about a TV show.

But then you look at the thread for "viking," which—let’s face it—is way more historically focused than the dramedy vibe of "black and white world," and the moderator (lie) went ahead and nuked about ten posts where a buddy and I were trying to add some actual historical context to the conversation. And if that wasn't frustrating enough, she also wiped out posts that had nothing to do with history at all, like stuff about the main characters or the overall concept of the show.

So, I guess I’m wondering, will those posts be politely restored? Or is it going to be the case that those 150-ish posts over in "black and white world" get deleted too, simply because they’re deemed "off-topic" or "too much like a history lesson"?

I mean, what does "discussing a TV series" actually entail here?

Thanks in advance.

Charles Fox10 said:Do you honestly believe we have nothing better to do with our lives than just sit around waiting in ambush for someone??

Sure.

Alright then. I suppose I’ll eventually find the energy and the actual time to carefully spin up a new thread under that specific title, probably sometime next week, if I can manage it.

And once that's done, maybe you can go ahead and shut down that other thread, assuming it's actually bothering you to have two different discussions that kind of overlap. Though, if you ask me, I’d much rather just let this current "Everything and Anything" thread stay as the catch-all for random stuff. That way, the thread about "Systemic Discrimination Against Men in America" can stick strictly to what the title implies, while all those broader sociological and historical deep dives can just live over here in the general discussion area.

Just so we’re all on the same page regarding what counts as an acceptable topic versus what crosses the line into being outright toxic, I guess I'll provide an example of a permissible subject:

I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole dynamic between New Yorkers and everyone else in the States, and I guess there isn't really a perfect way to put it, but it's kind of a thing, isn't it? You have that specific New Yorker energy—that fast-paced, slightly abrasive, very distinct way of moving through the world—and then you have the rest of the country, which feels like a completely different universe sometimes. It’s funny how people try to draw lines, because if you ask someone from a small town in the Midwest or maybe somewhere down in Texas, they probably look at a New Yorker and see a totally different species, and honestly, I can see why they might feel that way, though I don't know if it's strictly accurate. It’s almost like there’s this unspoken tension where the urbanites think they’re the center of the map, while the folks from the heartland or the coasts just view them as loud and overly complicated, and I suppose both sides are right in their own weird, fragmented way. It makes me wonder if we even inhabit the same cultural landscape anymore, or if we're all just living in separate little bubbles, pretending the others aren't even there, which is probably a bit cynical of me to say, but maybe it's just the reality of how massive and fractured everything has become lately.

Well, we’ve got ourselves a flamewar starter right here—full of prejudice and nothing but pure anti-New Yorker sentiment—and honestly, I guess the moderators are actually letting this slide, which is something else entirely. I feel like it might be worth putting together an introductory post just to set the stage (and I'll probably end up bolding things for emphasis, because why not), so here goes...

I suppose I should probably mention that I haven't really thought about this in a while, but there’s just something about the way people talk about things that feels so incredibly hollow lately, isn't there? It's like we're all just drifting through these endless cycles of noise without any actual substance, which brings me to my point about the toad—or whatever we're calling it today—though I guess even the most mundane creatures have more presence than half the influencers scrolling through their feeds in New York City these days. It’s funny, really, how we obsess over the small stuff when the big picture is such a blurred, chaotic mess, but maybe that's just the way it goes, I guess. I guess what they're saying is...
I mean, let’s be honest, we all remember how back in 1991, it was practically unthinkable in America to even suggest the idea that people from the Midwest, the Deep South, the Pacific Northwest, or out in New England weren't all part of one single, unified nation. It was just... well, it was an impossible thing to say without everyone losing their minds, I guess.

It feels like everyone is just obsessed with tearing others down lately, doesn't it? It’s become this huge trend to just pick on anyone who crosses your path. I guess it’s especially rampant if you happen to live in a place like New York City, where there's this weird tendency to look down on absolutely everything that wanders into the city limits. It’s a funny contradiction, really, because at the same time, those same people are more than happy to soak up every single luxury and perk that comes with living in a massive metropolis. It's all very strange, I suppose. So, what I’m hearing is that New Yorkers basically want all the glory of being progressive without actually having to deal with any of the real-world consequences, if you catch my drift. It's like they're obsessed with this idea of being edgy, right? And honestly, in a place like NYC, you see it everywhere—it's more visible there than anywhere else in the US, I guess. You've got all these different groups constantly in the spotlight, whether it's various ethnic minorities or the whole LGBTQ+ community, just always front and center in the media and everything. It's just one of those things, I suppose. It feels like everyone is just pointing fingers at those guys from the outskirts, you know, most of those folks who were actually right there on the front lines. I guess I should probably offer an apology to the decent New Yorkers who actually care about this country and stood right up there alongside everyone else, even though the mainstream media outlets have basically branded them all as nothing more than idiots or thugs or whatever label they feel like slapping on them today.

I mean, it feels like there’s this almost pathological level of propaganda being pushed around in NYC these days, if you ask me. It’s getting a bit intense, I guess. You see it everywhere you look, just this constant, relentless stream of certain narratives being shoved down everyone's throats, and it honestly feels more like a sickness than actual information at this point. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it's hard not to notice how pervasive it all is.I guess if you happen to be from the South, or maybe a guy from a small Midwestern town, or even just someone who leans toward that certain type of aggressive, old-school rock music, then people are just going to label you a violent thug, a fascist, a career criminal, or some kind of twisted relic of a dark past. It’s funny how those labels get tossed around so easily, I suppose.

I guess I should probably start by saying hi, though I’m not entirely sure what there is to say, really. It feels like we're all just sort of drifting through these digital spaces, isn't it? Anyway, hello. Maybe you’re some activist in an anti-fascist youth group, or perhaps you’re just some guy rocking Gucci shoes, or maybe you’re just riding the wave of whatever trendy radio station is playing right now—you know, doing that slightly feminized little hip-shake to stay relevant. You probably think you're being all cool and modern, acting like the perfect, model citizen of America, just a dedicated little servant waiting in line to serve the interests of big EU capital and whatnot. I guess that's how it works these days.
It feels like you can’t even have a passing thought around here without walking straight into a minefield, I guess. It’s reached a point where it’s practically illegal to suggest that a certain demographic might have violent tendencies, or to point out how some of those liberal columnists at the big mainstream outlets are supposedly beating and drugging their own wives, or even just joking about how the editor over at that major pop station is obsessed with certain names... it's all just completely off-limits now, maybe. Everything is so sensitive that you can't say anything without someone losing their mind.
I mean, those kinds of traits and that whole specific etiquette... they really just belong in some remote, rocky corner of the Ozarks, I guess. It's just not something you see around here.

I mean, if you really stop to think about how things actually work around here, I guess it’s hard to say exactly how much longer we have to wait before everything finally... well, you know, happens. It feels like we're constantly stuck in this endless loop of anticipation, doesn't it? Maybe it’ll be months, maybe years, or maybe we'll all just be old and grey before the dust finally settles on this whole situation. I don't know, I suppose there isn't a clear timeline, and honestly, trying to pin down a specific date seems a bit optimistic, given how unpredictable things tend to get in this country. I wonder if Americans will ever actually stand up against this tyranny coming out of New York City? It feels like we’re just watching it happen, one slow step at a time, while everyone else stays quiet. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just seeing things clearly for once, but there's this sense that the people in the rest of the country are just waiting for a sign that never comes. I guess it’s easy to just drift along, but at some point, you have to ask if anyone is actually going to push back against the control being exerted from the big cities. Or perhaps we'll all just keep nodding along until there's nothing left to protest.

I don't know if anyone else has been picking up on those racist stickers popping up all over the city lately... you know, the ones that say "Speak up or die"? It’s just one of those things that makes you wonder where everything is headed, I guess.

In my deeper moments of contemplation, I’ve come to be almost entirely convinced that, looking at the long game, it isn't actually healthy for the development of the American nation for New York City to remain the sole primary hub. It just feels like... well, I don't know, maybe it stunts everything else, because when one massive center holds all the gravity, the rest of the country just sort of orbits around it without ever really finding its own footing. I guess you could argue it creates this imbalance that prevents true national growth, though I might be overthinking it. He just doesn't deserve it, I guess. It’s all because of that narrow-mindedness and the xenophobia he carries around... it's just one thing after another, really. If you ever bother to travel to some of those smaller European cities, you’ll realize that all these regionalist debates people love to stir up just don't have any real ground to stand on, I guess. It’s honestly kind of pointless. You have so many New Yorkers who have lived in the city for decades yet somehow end up feeling like total outsiders in their own backyard. And then you have Americans living in their own country, just trying to exist. So much for that whole idea of big-heartedness and open-mindedness in New York City, really.

I think I mentioned somewhere a long time ago that maybe Oakland or San Diego should actually be the primary hubs of the country, if we're being honest. It’s funny how we look at these things, but I guess Oakland might have the edge because of that certain international, cosmopolitan vibe it carries, you know? Or then there's San Diego, which has all those deep historical roots to lean on. It's just one of those things I've always felt, I suppose.

I guess I should probably dedicate this whole thing to Temu, if that's even the right way to put it... though I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing here. I guess you could say things are getting a little bit ridiculous lately, almost like we’re staring down the barrel of some kind of triple threat or a trifecta of chaos, though I suppose calling it a "triple threat" might be giving it too much credit, if that makes any sense. It feels like everything is just piling up all at once, you know? Maybe it's just my cynical outlook, but I can't help but feel like we're being hit from three different directions simultaneously, and honestly, it's all starting to feel a bit overwhelming, or maybe just predictably exhausting, in that way only modern life seems to manage. 😉

I'm kicking this whole thing off with this post, and honestly, besides that one blatant, flame-baiting racist idea, there’s just such a massive pile of other details in here that you’d think it would have been flagged or deleted by now, I guess.

I guess I’ve just been sitting here thinking about how much everything seems to be shifting lately, though maybe that’s just me being cynical, but there’s this constant, exhausting tension everywhere you look. You see it in the way people talk about certain groups—you know, those aggressive types from the Midwest or the friction between different subcultures—it feels like everyone is constantly picking sides in these endless, bitter disputes over identity. It’s like, whether it's the intense political clashes or the way people react to the LGBTQ+ community, there’s this pervasive sense of hostility that just won't quit, and honestly, it makes me feel pretty weary of the whole thing. It’s all just so loud and divisive, and I can’t help but wonder if we’re ever actually going to move past this cycle of judging everyone based on who they are or where they come from.
I suppose we’re getting into that whole three-pronged thing again, aren't we? It feels like one of those men's topics that just keeps looping back around, though I guess I might be overthinking the whole structure of it. Maybe it's just how things work sometimes, where everything seems to hinge on this triple-layered setup, but honestly, I find myself wondering if anyone actually finds it as complicated as I do. It’s all very layered, I suppose, if you have the patience for it.
It’s funny how people always try to paint New York City with such a narrow brush, you know? I keep hearing this constant chatter about how the city is somehow small-minded or just plain xenophobic, which is an interesting take if you really sit with it for a second. I guess it’s easy to label a massive, bustling metropolis like NYC that way when you're looking at it from the outside, or maybe even from within certain circles, though I don't know if I'd go that far myself. It feels like one of those sweeping generalizations that ignores the sheer complexity of everyone living there, but then again, maybe there's a grain of truth in the friction between different groups that people pick up on. I mean, I suppose every major American hub has its own brand of tension, but calling the whole city xenophobic seems like a bit of a stretch, even if things can get pretty intense sometimes. It's all very subjective, I guess.
I guess you could call it the tyranny of New York City, if you really want to get into it, though I’m probably just overthinking things again. It feels like everything always trickles down from that one massive hub, doesn't it? Like there's this central authority breathing down everyone else's neck, making all the rules and deciding what matters while the rest of the country just sort of deals with the fallout. Maybe it's just how things work in a place this big, but it definitely feels like a certain kind of centralized dominance that leaves everyone else feeling a bit sidelined.
Those typical New Yorkers who talk a big game about wanting to get laid, but honestly, they’re too terrified of actually making a move.
...

It’s honestly just so incredibly difficult to wrap your head around why they actually allow one... I mean, I guess you could try to make sense of it, but maybe it's just one of those things where the logic feels completely out of reach, if that makes any sense? It’s just such a head-scratcher, really. collectivism is being tossed around here as if it’s just some arbitrary value judgment—without anyone actually having to show their work—yet somehow, you aren't allowed to criticize a government agency based on actual, documented evidence that justifies the critique.

I mean, why is it perfectly fine for someone like me (a New Yorker) to be labeled with every slur under the sun—calling me a "Mexican, a queer, a lesbian, narrow-minded," and whatever else comes to mind—while it's supposedly strictly forbidden to present evidence regarding the gender bias of the Equal Rights Commissioner?

Why is it that an entire city can be branded as xenophobic or tyrannical without any proof whatsoever, but the second you try to call a state institution chauvinistic—using their own official documents to prove they really are gender chauvinists—suddenly you've crossed a line?

Is this title okay?

State-sponsored discrimination against men in America

Charles Fox10 said:I’ve been going back and forth with you about this for two months now, and you're still stuck asking questions and hunting for answers.

Yeah. I am still full of questions.

The thing is, you guys haven't actually let me start this men's topic yet (which is what you called it, by the way, when you invited us to dive in). Every time I tried to get something going, it just got nuked—deleted, moved around, or whatever else happens here.

So, I guess it's a little weird that I have questions, right?

I just want to get everything squared away ahead of time—even the title—so I can be reasonably sure you aren't going to delete it, move it, or rename it the second I post. I mean, I realize it's probably a massive headache for the mods to wait for that annoying silentridge3 "in ambush," letting him struggle through opening a thread and carefully building his case, only to pull the rug out from under him by deleting or moving it. But honestly, I don't really feel like putting in all that effort just to end up looking like a complete idiot. I'd rather just know where I stand upfront.

Charles Fox10 said:Title ???????

It just doesn’t work, I guess, because the whole thing feels inherently malicious from the jump with this constant demonization of men, and honestly, I don't feel that way at all. Maybe you could try coming up with something a bit more appropriate and just start a new thread over on the politics subreddit instead.

I mean, how are you even supposed to feel when you’re being bombarded every single day by government-funded agencies and various NGOs, all of them pushing these totally skewed statistics that basically paint you as some kind of monster—just simply because you happen to be a man? I guess the title of this whole thing doesn't even really matter much in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it doesn't bother you, and honestly, who am I to judge? Maybe you actually *are* a violent guy, who knows? But personally, it gets under my skin. Though, I suppose it almost doesn't even matter how much it bugs me or you specifically; what matters is that we're looking at a case of systematic propaganda that is being actively funded to essentially demonize an entire gender. It isn't just some "personal opinion" floating around out there; it's a documented fact.

It’s honestly such a toss-up trying to figure out what qualifies as "evil" and what doesn't, isn't it? It's all so subjective, I guess. Like, if you look at certain political subreddits, you'll see thread titles that seem perfectly normal on the surface, yet they carry this underlying weight... For example:

I guess I should probably start by saying that there isn't much left to say about this whole mess, but here we are again, staring at the same old patterns and wondering why nothing ever actually changes, though deep down, maybe we already know the answer. It feels like we’re just circling the drain of the same tired arguments, drifting through these endless discussions on Reddit where everyone seems to have an opinion but nobody actually wants to deal with the messy reality of how things function, which is honestly pretty exhausting if you think about it too long. There's this sense of being stuck in a loop, where the discourse just keeps spinning around without any real momentum, and I can't help but feel a bit cynical about whether any of this matters in the grand scheme of things, but then again, maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic about the whole situation.

Allowed titles on the politics subreddit The user said:Is another massive shakeup on the horizon, or are we just staring down the barrel of a second pension pillar heist? I mean, I guess it’s worth asking whether they’re actually planning to raid our retirement savings all over again. It feels like every time things start to settle, some new scheme crawls out of the woodwork to redistribute what little we've managed to scrape together. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I can't help feeling like we're just waiting for the next big grab.
The education gap between Americans and the Romani community... I don't know, I guess there’s just so much nuance there that people tend to ignore when they start shouting about it on social media. It feels like we always jump straight to the most extreme conclusions without really digging into the systemic stuff, though maybe I'm being too cynical. It's one of those things where you look at the data and it seems straightforward, but then you realize how much history and cultural friction plays into why certain groups end up struggling more in the school system than others. I suppose it’s easy to point fingers, but it’s probably way more complicated than any single headline makes it out to be.
It feels like we’re just watching it happen in real time—the government is actually footing the bill for a quiz show that is, quite frankly, unconstitutional in how it discriminates against people. I guess it’s just one of those things where you look at the news and think, "Wait, are they really doing this?" It seems like such a blatant disregard for basic principles, but maybe that's just the direction things are heading lately. It's all getting a bit much, isn't it?
It feels like these predatory clans, operating with that same old-school North American-style greed, are making a massive, coordinated charge against Mirna’s factory.
I honestly find myself wondering just how much longer Americans are going to sit around and take this constant political prostitution from our government—it’s like they’re just shamelessly selling us out, taking everything from the working class and handing it over on a silver platter to the ultra-wealthy.
I can't help but wonder how much longer this cannibalistic brand of neoliberalism is going to keep trampling over the working-class folks in public service while essentially tearing the very fabric of the State apart. It feels like we're just watching a slow-motion demolition, I guess.
THE BIGGEST AMERICAN SCAM: A paramilitary-style squad of cronies swindled away 660 houses and apartments
I mean, I guess you could argue that America is slowly morphing into some kind of totalitarian state, driven by this constant wave of media censorship and the complete erosion of press freedom, though maybe that’s just my cynical take on how things are sliding sideways lately.
... ‎

On Reddit, in the sections that are close to politics, you see all sorts of titles like this popping up:

I guess I should probably start by saying that I don't really have a strong opinion on this specific point, though I suppose I could be persuaded otherwise if more evidence came to light, but anyway...

The permitted titles over on the "close to politics" subreddit. As if I haven't heard this all before... someone says: I mean, I don't know, maybe it’s just my cynical way of looking at things, but you can't help but feel like there's this whole underlying layer of influence involving the Zadar mafia and that Hypograd crowd, which honestly makes me wonder if anyone is actually calling the shots anymore... or if it's all just one big, messy web of connections that we're all expected to ignore. Joe Mraović—the man’s basically the Reagan of his region—is an actual hero, you know? He isn't one of those spineless types who just folds under pressure or plays the coward, which I guess is more common than people care to admit these days. The media’s coordinated criminal scheme... So, I guess we’re looking at Džakula—who used to be the big shot leader out in the countryside—now trying to take on the entire country without even having any weapons to his name. It feels like one of those situations where someone loses their leverage and decides to just start shouting at the wind, though I suppose that’s just how things tend to play out sometimes, isn't it? Maybe he thinks he can still make an impact through sheer noise alone, but honestly, it all seems a bit desperate to me. I guess it’s worth looking back at how our neighbors acted during the Homeland War versus what they’re up to nowadays, though I suppose it’s all a bit complicated when you start digging into the details. It makes you wonder, really, where all that energy went, or if it just shifted into different, perhaps more subtle, channels over the years. I guess I have to ask—are we Americans just a nation of small souls? It’s just one big, hypocritical mess, isn't it? I guess we all see it, though maybe some people prefer to look the other way just to keep their own peace of mind. It feels like everyone is performing for an audience that doesn't even exist, pretending to hold certain values while acting in total opposition to them the second they think nobody is watching. It’s exhausting, really, watching the constant pretense. The whole "law and order" rhetoric feels like such a blatant, low-effort setup aimed right at naive citizens who are already being systematically stripped bare by the powers that be. I mean, if you look closely, it’s all just a clever little facade designed to distract people while their pockets are being picked by the state, and I guess it's almost impressive how they pull it off, though it's pretty exhausting to watch. It’s this subtle way of framing control as something beneficial, when in reality, it seems more like a calculated move to keep everyone compliant while the actual looting happens behind the scenes. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it feels like a massive sleight of hand meant to pacify a population that's already been bled dry. I can't help but wonder if the Government is actually planning to dip their hands into our second-pillar retirement savings. It’s one of those things that just keeps gnawing at the back of my mind, you know? I mean, looking at how things tend to go lately, I guess it wouldn't be the first time they've looked at people's hard-earned nest eggs as just another pot of money to shuffle around for their own ends. Maybe I'm being too cynical, or maybe I'm just being realistic about how these political maneuvers usually play out, but there's this lingering sense of uncertainty that makes it hard to feel truly secure about where that money is actually going. It's all a bit unsettling, really. ... ‎

I honestly find myself wondering about this intense, almost surgical level of subtlety being demanded when it comes to picking a thread title—especially for a topic that deals with such blatant discrimination against men within the American system. It’s quite a thing, really, seeing how incredibly "thin-skinned" and hypersensitive the moderators seem to be regarding a headline like that. I mean, if you just take a quick look at these other titles I’ve listed here—titles that actually made the cut without any fuss—it makes you think. I guess I have to ask:

Do you ever get that feeling, I don't know, like you actually belong to something? Or maybe it’s just me being overly cynical, but sometimes I wonder if anyone truly feels like they’re part of the fabric of this country anymore. It’s a strange thing to ponder, I guess, sitting here thinking about identity and where we all fit in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it’s just an existential crisis hitting me out of nowhere, but the whole concept of belonging feels increasingly complicated these days. Just a nation of small souls, I guess.Is the US government actually... It’s all just one big, sweeping robbery, isn't it? Honestly, I guess if you look closely enough at how things are running lately, it starts to feel like nothing more than a massive, organized heist. It’s exhausting, really, watching the whole thing unfold, but maybe that’s just the way the world turns now. I mean, what happens if they actually start aiming for the second pillar of the Social Security system? I guess the US government is really starting to... well, you know. It feels like every time we turn around, there’s another shift in how things are handled, and honestly, it makes me wonder where the floor is. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it feels like we're just watching the pieces move on a board we didn't even realize we were playing on. It feels like everything is just spreading out endlessly, stretching thin across the horizon like some sort of vast, overwhelming expanse that refuses to settle down. I guess you could say it’s all just sprawling out in every direction at once, becoming this massive, unmanageable stretch of nothingness that somehow manages to take up even more space than it actually occupies, if that makes any sense. Maybe it's just the way things tend to drift lately, stretching further and further until the original shape is lost entirely.title ? Are we actually living in... I guess you could call it some kind of cannibalistic neoliberalism, if that even makes sense—though I suppose it does when you look at how everything just seems to feed on itself these days. It’s like this endless, self-consuming cycle where the system doesn't just exploit resources, but actually devours its own foundations just to keep the engine humming for one more day, which feels pretty grim when you really sit down and think about it.Is America actually... It honestly feels like we’re living under some kind of totalitarian state where media freedom has just gone out the window entirely. I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but it seems like every time you turn around, there's another layer of control being wrapped around what we're allowed to see or say. It’s all becoming so heavy, this constant sense that the information landscape is being curated by forces that aren't exactly interested in the truth, and I guess it makes you wonder if genuine expression is even possible anymore in this climate....Wait, do you actually feel like Hypograd is really... what was I saying? I guess I’m just wondering if anyone else gets that same sinking sensation about the whole thing. It’s hard to say, really. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but sometimes it feels like we're all just circling the same drain, watching things unfold without much power to change the trajectory. I don't know. It's a lot to process, I suppose. It’s all just one big, interconnected web of organized crime, isn't it? I mean, you look at how certain groups operate, and it honestly feels like we're dealing with nothing more than a local mafia running the show behind the scenes. It’s that same old pattern where power and influence are just traded around in backrooms, and frankly, it makes you wonder if anyone is actually calling the shots or if it's all just a choreographed dance by these shadowy figures. I guess it doesn't really matter who's pulling the strings when the outcome always seems to favor the same few players, though maybe I'm being a bit too cynical about the whole thing. Still, it’s hard not to see the fingerprints of corruption everywhere you look lately.title ??????? Is establishing order actually something you can even define, or is it just a concept we cling to when things start feeling too chaotic? I guess it’s one of those questions that sounds simple on the surface but starts to feel incredibly heavy once you really sit with it for a second. Maybe it's about structure, or maybe it's just a way to soothe our own anxieties when the world feels like it's spinning a bit too fast. I don't know, I suppose there's no single right answer, which is probably why people argue about it so much. It feels like such a cheap, low-effort setup, honestly. Just one of those transparent little jabs that isn't even clever enough to be insulting, if that makes any sense. It’s just... beneath the belt, I guess.?...

I’m not even bringing this up to pick a fight over specific headlines or whatever, I guess, but more to point out this weird double standard I'm seeing. It seems like the moderators think it’s perfectly fine to label the government as a bunch of looters if they try to dip into a different pension fund, which, okay, fair enough, maybe, but then suddenly it becomes off-limits to call that very same administration chauvinistic when they use their laws, their agencies, and taxpayer money to directly and systematically finance discrimination and the demonization of men. It's just one of those things where you wonder how the rules work, you know?

I can't help but wonder why there’s such an intense wave of moderator panic surrounding this specific thread. It feels like everyone is walking on eggshells, doesn't it? I mean, why does the title of this particular discussion have to be absolutely flawless, while every other thread on the board is allowed to be a complete mess? It’s a bit strange, I guess, if you think about it.

I suppose I should start by saying that there isn't much left to discuss here, though I feel compelled to weigh in anyway because, well, here we are. It feels like we’ve been circling the same drain for a while now, hasn't it? I guess what I'm trying to get at—and maybe I'm just being overly cynical, which is my default setting at this point—is that the whole conversation seems to be drifting further away from any kind of actual substance. It’s all just noise, really. Just a lot of people shouting into the void on Reddit, hoping someone actually listens, even if most of it is just repetitive nonsense. I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of seeing the same arguments pop up every single week without any real evolution in how we think about these things. It’s exhausting, honestly.

Charles Fox10 said:I don't really feel like organizing my posts by specific topics, I guess, because I’d rather just put in the effort myself, though if I've managed to grasp the core idea correctly, this whole discussion should be focusing strictly on the political dimension of the legislative frameworks.

I mean, honestly, I feel like her whole focus should really be on anything involving the system and politics that touches upon the discrimination of men. It’s just... I don't know, maybe there's a better way to look at it, but she ought to be tackling all those systemic issues where the political machine and the legal framework actually intersect with how men are being treated.

I guess it’s just your specific desire as moderators to force everything into one single thread rather than letting us start separate ones, isn't it? It all ties back to the legal side of things, too—you know, the way we see people getting away with violating gender equality laws when it’s actually men’s rights being trampled on. There's this very obvious, blatant bias in how federal agencies like the EEOC or the Ombudsman operate under the guise of "gender equality," not to mention the massive amounts of taxpayer money being funneled into various NGOs that basically just run gender-biased propaganda campaigns. Then you have politicians getting public backing for these openly sexist stunts that only focus on violence against one specific group while ignoring everything else. It feels like a systemic effort, I suppose.

I guess you could open a hundred different threads if you really wanted to, but since you moderators insisted on keeping everything squeezed into just one single topic, well, you can't exactly complain when things spiral out of control. You can't demand that the whole conversation stays strictly about legalities and nothing else when you've already bottlenecked the entire discussion into one tiny space. It’s just how it works, I suppose.

By the way, you really have to try to wrap your head around the fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a political entity—just like any other federal agency, a cabinet department, the White House, or the administration at large. It isn't some private non-profit or a local grassroots NGO. And because it functions as a political body, I guess it follows that it can, and frankly it should, be scrutinized from a political standpoint. That’s just how things work, I suppose. politics It’s honestly just like those ridiculous incentives coming out of the Department of Agriculture, or those endless, empty statements you hear from the Deputy Secretary of Culture. It’s all very much the same thing, I guess.

I guess I should probably start by saying that there isn't much to go on here, since the quote itself is just... well, it's empty. It’s a blank slate, really. Maybe that's a metaphor for the whole situation, though I suspect it's just a technical glitch or someone forgot to hit paste, which, honestly, feels pretty fitting given how things usually go. It’s like staring into a void and expecting a deep philosophical revelation to pop out, but instead, you just get nothing. Nothing at all. I suppose we could sit here and debate what the silence implies—is it a commentary on the lack of discourse, or just a simple mistake?—but I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it. It’s hard to have a conversation when one side hasn't actually said anything, right? Still, I'll be here, waiting for whenever the actual substance decides to show up.

Charles Fox10 said:Title: My little thought experiment... what’s actually happening to the status of men within our political system and legal framework?

I mean, what are we actually going to do about all this taxpayer money being funneled into these women’s advocacy groups that seem more interested in pushing a specific gender bias than anything else? It’s getting a bit much, I guess. And then you have those politicians out there making these sweeping claims—claims that, if you actually look at the data, turn out to be nothing more than blatant falsehoods—about things like the "wage gap" or how some woman is being assaulted every few minutes in America. It’s exhausting, really. I don't think you can just tuck all of this under the umbrella of "legislation," because it feels like something much bigger is happening here; it's more about the broader landscape of political maneuvering and a systemic framework that was essentially built to facilitate that kind of rhetoric.

rule : Quote

Charles Fox10 said:Are we actually going to debate what would make for a better discussion here, or are we just... circling the drain?

Personally, I’m sitting here waiting for an actual idea instead of just bickering until the sun goes down.

Look, we can talk about "discussion quality" all day if you want. But if we're talking about moderator activity to actually improve things—which would lead to much better conversations much faster—it shouldn't be about locking threads. It should be about penalizing the people who are out there insulting others or trolling. You just need to punish the posts and remove them, leaving the thread free to focus on the political side of things, like specific actions, laws, and how they're being implemented.

But honestly, let's not get distracted by debating "how to raise the quality of discussion" when there is a far more pressing issue at hand:

Will you allow me to start a single thread that features a title clearly addressing the problems facing MEN in modern America, along with some introductory posts describing those issues?

I'll say it again:

rule : Quote

Charles Fox10 said:Either silentridge3 or Bradley Scott2 can go ahead and start a thread—let's call it a "men's topic" for short—and I won't have any problem with it.

So, will that actually happen? Will it be permitted?

It seems kind of pointless for me to take you up on that offer and open a thread only to have you moderators immediately lock it, move it, rename it, or do something else similar to shut it down.

What I am asking for here is explicit permission for a specific title and introduction:

rule : Quote

silentridge3 said:title: systematically financing discrimination and demonization of men in America

INTRODUCTORY POSTS:


Post 1

Post 2

Post 3

Thanks in advance for a straight answer.

I guess I should probably start by saying that I don't really have a dog in this fight, but looking at how things are unfolding, it feels like we're just circling the drain of some inevitable social collapse, doesn't it? Maybe I'm being too cynical, maybe that's just the weight of living in this era, but there's something about the way people talk now—especially on places like Reddit—that just feels so incredibly hollow and performative. It’s like everyone is playing a role in a play they didn't write, and I can't help but wonder if anyone actually remembers what it was like when discourse wasn't just a series of choreographed outbursts. Anyway, I digress. What were we actually discussing before I went off on that tangent?

granitefalcon26 said:Honestly, I can't help but wonder why we keep opening yet another thread about this whole supposed "men are being victimized" thing. It feels like we're just circling the drain with these topics lately. 🤣

I mean, this whole idea of those so-called "100 topics" is honestly just a myth at this point. It’s never actually existed, really; there were just some attempts made, I guess, but nothing ever truly took flight. To be fair, the moderators haven't actually let a single one through—not even once—whether you look at the titles or the actual subject matter being discussed.

granitefalcon26 said:I mean, you’re basically the only one around here who ever kicks off threads like this, so if I didn't know better, I'd probably start thinking you actually have some kind of deep-seated issue with women, or at least that you don't particularly care for them.☕

I mean, honestly, these topics just seem way too heavy and intense for such petty, low-level provocations, I guess. It feels like we're using sledgehammers to crack nuts, if that makes any sense, which is probably just a waste of everyone's energy.

This whole thread isn't actually about some obsession with women—honestly, she doesn't even mention them much—it’s more about questioning a system that is quite clearly violating the human rights of one specific gender, namely men. When I say it's clear, I mean it's right there in the paperwork, documented and undeniable. I think I've laid out a massive amount of facts to back that up, but I guess it just goes to show how deep the issues run.

For what it's worth—I actually really like women. I mean, most of the people I hang out with on a daily basis are women, so I guess you could say they make up my inner circle.

rule :

silentridge3 said:...so yesterday I went ahead and opened up a thread titled:

Systematically financing discrimination and demonization of men in America

..and I kicked it all off with these specific posts:

Post 1

Post 2

Post 3

So, basically, just open the thread for me with that exact title and those three opening posts.

I guess I should clarify that I’m really not interested in getting bogged down by insults directed at women, nor am I looking for endless historical or sociological debates, I suppose. What I’m actually after is a strictly focused discussion—one that centers on the political dimension of the issue, the actual system, and the hard facts. And, if I may be so bold, I’d really appreciate it if the moderators would focus on penalizing the people causing the trouble rather than punishing the victims.

I guess if I’m being honest, not a single thread on this Reddit has actually managed to catch fire or truly come to life yet, which is kind of depressing if you think about it. TITLE I mean, I guess you have to wonder if it actually qualifies as systematic—you know, like, legally sanctioned or state-sponsored—discrimination, or if it’s just some other way of infringing on people's rights altogether... it's hard to say for sure, maybe. MENSo, I actually went ahead and did it—I opened that thread yesterday, mostly because you suggested I take on the role of moderator myself.

First off, here’s what I’m thinking:

I suppose there isn't much left to say, really, though I guess I could try to wrap my head around it if I had the energy, which I don't, so maybe I won't. It’s just one of those things where you look at the situation and realize that everything we thought we knew about how things work in this country might just be a bit of a stretch, or perhaps a complete fantasy, depending on how cynical you're feeling today—and personally, I’m feeling pretty cynical. I mean, when you sit back and actually weigh the implications of what's being discussed, it feels like we're circling a drain of our own making, though I'm probably just being overly dramatic, isn't that always the case? Anyway, it's all quite exhausting to think about.

Charles Fox10 said:I’ve already posted about this once, so I suppose I’ll just go ahead and do it again. It isn't like we’re intentionally splitting up threads because we have some sort of hidden agenda or anything; it's more that we only really merge them once they start becoming identical and basically overlapping one another.

I guess either silentridge3 or Bradley Scott2 can just go ahead and kick off a thread—let's call it a "men's topic" for lack of a better term, I suppose—and we won't have any issues at all.

I mean, I guess it actually makes a lot of sense that they’d be over on the Politics subreddit, especially since the whole point of that section is to host discussions about legislation and government affairs. You have the main Politics sub dedicated to the heavy hitters—the parties, the organizations, and the people running the show—while the "close to politics" side of things is really meant for everything else that touches upon our social fabric and daily lives. It feels like everyone should be treated with the same level of importance there, honestly; we should probably be looking at all these different facets of society through the same lens, though I suppose that's easier said than done in practice.

If none of the ladies feel like stepping up to start their own "women's thread," I guess I'll just go ahead and open one myself, probably just by copy-pasting some of the posts from this discussion.

I was thinking, if it’s alright with everyone, maybe we could try moving this to Sunday evenings? I guess since that's when most people finally have a bit of breathing room after the weekend, it might actually make sense to catch everyone while they're winding down.

If anything seems a bit fuzzy or unclear, I guess you could always just shoot me a private message.

We had this whole clear understanding that we’d handle things this way, you know, so that the specific issues men face within the system wouldn't just get buried or lost. I mean, if we don't keep them distinct, they're just going to end up swallowed up by some vague, sweeping title like "violence and discrimination," which, let's be honest, doesn't even mention men at all. It's just one of those things where if you don't draw a line, the actual point gets completely drowned out.

I guess I went ahead and suggested a title for the thread, anyway. He was complaining.And then you went and wrote this:

I guess I should probably start by saying that there isn't much left to unpack here, though I suppose if one really wanted to dig through the wreckage, they could try. It’s all just part of the same exhausting cycle, isn't it? Everything feels a bit stagnant, like we're just circling the same drain over and over again, and honestly, I’m not even sure if anyone actually expects anything to change at this point. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it feels like we've been through this exact same loop more times than I can count, and yet, here we are, staring at the same old problems as if they were brand new. It’s almost funny, in a dark sort of way, how little progress actually gets made despite all the noise and the endless, pointless arguing that seems to define everything lately. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it feels like we're all just waiting for a shift that's never actually going to come.

Charles Fox10 said:So, you're telling me you waited three days and then just decided to open a thread here on Reddit, and I guess, if that’s how you want to play it, fine—that’s all well and good for you—but if we really had three whole days to work with, maybe, just maybe, we could have used an extra day to actually hash things out and get on the same page regarding these topics first.

Honestly, it feels like absolutely nothing has changed around here. It’s kind of exhausting, really, because it seems like the only topics that actually get any traction or stay permitted are these weirdly vague threads where the opening post completely avoids the actual issue at hand, usually topped off with a title that has zero connection to the systematic financing of discrimination and demonization of men. I guess that's just how things work now, maybe.

Regarding your suggestion... I mean, looking at what you’re proposing for the moderation side of things, I guess there's a certain logic to it, though I can't say I'm entirely convinced just yet. It feels like one of those situations where you think you've found a perfect fix, but then you start wondering if you're just trading one headache for another, if that makes sense. Maybe I'm being too cynical, or maybe I've just seen this movie before, but I tend to hedge my bets when things seem this straightforward. It's a lot to chew on, really.

So, well, after that thread was shut down at lightning speed...

The latest sexist scheme involving those fake gender ombudsmen is honestly just exhausting.

I mean, let's be honest here—this is clearly a topic that is 100% close to politics, isn't it? I guess it’s just one of those things where you can't escape the political undertones no matter how hard you try.

...based on that line of reasoning:

I was scrolling through some old threads on Reddit the other day, just killing time, when I stumbled upon this massive discussion that really got me thinking about how much everything has shifted lately. It’s one of those deep dives where you start reading one comment and suddenly an hour has passed, and you realize you're knee-deep in a debate about how society handles sensitive issues. There was this one specific thread—it’s hard to even describe the vibe without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I guess—but it really touched on how certain groups seem to be targeted by the way things are run now. It felt like people were arguing over whether we’re actually making progress or if we're just finding more sophisticated ways to alienate people. You know, that feeling where you wonder if the institutions meant to protect us are actually just spinning their wheels or, worse, heading in the opposite direction entirely. It made me reflect on how much noise there is online these days. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone is shouting, yet it feels like we’re further from any kind of consensus than ever before. Maybe it's just my cynical side talking, but I can't help but feel like the more we talk about justice and equality, the more we end up creating these intense divisions that just feed into more tension. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly, trying to parse out what's actual truth and what's just someone's heated take during a late-night browsing session.

...let me say this again:

I guess I should probably start by saying that I don't really have a strong opinion on this, or maybe I do, it's hard to tell sometimes when everything feels so incredibly repetitive, but looking at what was said... well, it's just more of the same, isn't it? It seems like we're constantly circling the same drain, wading through these endless debates that never actually lead anywhere substantial, though I suppose that's just how things work these days in America, I guess. Everything feels a bit exhausted, a bit worn thin, if that makes any sense, like we've already had this exact conversation a thousand times before on Reddit and yet here we are again, still talking, still searching for some kind of resolution that probably doesn't even exist in this messy reality we live in. Anyway, I'm just rambling now, I suppose.

Charles Fox10 said:Maybe silentridge3 or Bradley Scott2 could just go ahead and start a thread—let’s colloquially call it a "men’s topic"—and we won't have any issues.

...so, yesterday I actually started a thread titled:

Systematically financing discrimination and demonization of men in America

..and I kicked it off with these posts:

Post 1

Post 2

Post 3

I also wrote this:

rule :

silentridge3 said:Honestly, I'm asking everyone participating in this thread to please refrain from the usual back-and-forth between men and women, those endless sociological debates about gender differences, rehashing the past, and all that stuff. This isn't about that; it's about a significant, systemic, and political issue facing our society today.

This is the only form of discrimination that persists unchecked and unpunished right in the middle of the system. Not on the fringes, mind you, but directly within the institutions of the state.

Now, looking at things today, it seems like that thread doesn't even exist anymore; it's like the posts were just dumped onto page 100,000 of some "everything and anything" thread under the title "violence and discrimination forum link." So, I followed the agreement with the moderator, did exactly what was suggested, yet this thread with a "male-centric" title was wiped out almost instantly.

Some questions (for Charles Fox10):

Does an agreement actually mean anything?
Is it even allowed on this Reddit to have a thread regarding the threatened rights of men by the system (with a title specifically addressing the vulnerability of male rights)?

I suspect certain moderators probably think, "Oh, that silentridge3 guy opens the exact same thread every single day," or maybe they think he's opened a hundred of them already. But the reality is quite different from the impression that there are a hundred identical threads—to be honest, there isn't even one, because the moderators just rapidly delete them, lock them, or drown them in a thread with a neutral (non-male) name.

I see that over on the politics section, there's a perfectly fine thread where a tycoon like Warren Buffett is characterized as a criminal in both the title and the opening post. I just can't wrap my head around how questioning the work of fake gender Ombudsmen (political bodies) and mentioning chauvinism toward men is considered a bigger problem for this Reddit than (much harsher) bashing entrepreneurs... Buffett didn't go "crying out" on Reddit, but the Ombudsman did? And now, everything that might bother the Ombudsman gets cut, even if it's perfectly logical and well-argued?

Thanks in advance for the response.

rowdytiger13 said:The headline basically paints the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as chauvinistic.
The whole opening post is just swirling around this idea of "gender chauvinism" and people making chauvinistic statements. It’s framing the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as some agency meant solely to promote women's interests while demonizing men.
Starting a thread this way, with an intro like that, I guess it just naturally leads straight into trolling, fighting, and a massive, endless crusade against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I mean, did it ever cross your mind that maybe—just maybe—these so-called "equality bodies" might actually be gender chauvinists, that they might issue chauvinistic statements and that they might actually act in a chauvinistic way?

I suppose if they just stood up and publicly declared, "Yeah, we're gender chauvinists," would it suddenly be okay to talk about their chauvinism then? Or do they need to get it tattooed on their foreheads before anyone is allowed to have a discussion about it?

It feels a bit hypocritical to trash a headline if that headline is actually reflecting reality, I guess. Instead of just shutting down the thread, wouldn't it have been better to use actual arguments to prove the title and the first post wrong? And, instead of punishing the person who started the topic and killing off what could be an important conversation, maybe you should focus on punishing the actual trolls?

Thread titled

The latest gender-chauvinist project involving fake gender advocates

..was locked because of a "violation of forum rules" based on that title alone.

I’m honestly just looking for some clarification here: which specific rules were supposedly broken, and how exactly does that title constitute a violation?

Thanks in advance.

I guess I should point out this one incredibly active feminist troll—she’s basically a thread-killer (she even showed up right here)—named Ginger. She dropped these two posts just yesterday evening; Chuck, the moderator, saw them (he actually posted right after her), but he didn't say a word, which is kind of telling:

Ginger said:
Workers of the world, unite!

So, where are you all wasting this obviously excessive energy of yours?
Where do you even get this much energy from? You're clearly all fakes. ☕

And you, you absolute scumbag Scandinavian with your endless walls of text... you're clearly doing just fine, nothing short of a total "feminist"...

Fake, fake, fake.

Ginger said:
You people are so dim-witted that I actually have to respond to you one by one.

I'll say it again: I don't know men this stupid in real life,

... because most of your replies are just the product of some neurotic impulse and have absolutely nothing to do with actual logic.

So, no deletions, no bans... (though I suppose this is just the thousandth similar post from this Ginger woman...)

It seems to me that these feminist warriors only join these discussions to throw insults and troll; meanwhile, the moderators mostly just sit there and watch (at least, I don't recall seeing any action taken). I guess the whole impulse behind these feminist agitators is to dump as much trash content as possible, make the topic look pointless, insult anyone trying to contribute constructively, and bait as many people as they can into those low-level, classic gender wars where we all end up looking equally bad, effectively burying the actual discussion about male discrimination. It feels like the interest of feminists from those heavily government-subsidized women's organizations is to ensure the truth about the actual state of gender equality in America stays hidden. It's honestly a bit unclear why the interests of the moderators and the Forum seem to align so perfectly with the agenda held by Ginger and these other feminist trolls.

Jesse Cooper97 said:Look, I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly think you're complaining for the sake of complaining. I spend a fair amount of time lurking on that thread, and from what I can see, the moderators seem to be doing an incredibly fair job of keeping things in line.

Come on, please, let's try to keep the trolling to a minimum here... at least in this corner of the internet...🙄

Charles Fox10 said:🤣That's great, 🤣 though I suppose it won't mean much to you that we missed your objection on this subject, but there it is.

So, you say you waited three days before starting a thread here, and honestly, as far as I'm concerned, that's fine, but if it really took three days, maybe we could have had, I don't know, an extra day to coordinate on these topics.

Sure, besides that one day you need for your little discussions, I’ll go ahead and give you two more.

It’s all in the interest of making a sound decision and finally grasping the sheer weight of the issue—you know, actually understanding what the topic is even about.

In the meantime, while you guys are busy thinking, I see you're also busy moderating that other thread (someone in here actually shrunk my font size in one of the topics), all while leaving a title that basically implies women are being discriminated against. But nobody is even talking about female discrimination in that thread, which makes sense, because systemic discrimination against women in America just doesn't exist—whereas discrimination against men is pretty firmly baked into our laws, regulations, and court rulings and everything else.

Charles Fox10 said:The title isn't even the main issue here, and I actually mentioned earlier that the headline was just slapped together quickly, so I’m more than happy to change it if anyone has a better suggestion. But apparently, nobody had any ideas.

To put it bluntly, that’s just not true.

I mean, I actually voiced my protest and made a formal suggestion in two separate posts:

Post 852:

Post 888:

I tried to be civil and polite—I really didn't want to have to start a whole thing in the complaints section—so I waited for two days after those two posts. This is the post in question:

silentridge3 said:I am lodging an official protest against changing the title because it completely alters the entire meaning of the discussion. Besides, even the original title wasn't particularly original, and that was a creation of the moderators (though at least it stayed on topic). As it stands now, this is just some messy mix of gender wars rather than a serious political discussion regarding the systemic gender discrimination men face in America, which is being driven by manipulations and lies surrounding "violence" and certain "initiatives."

If it becomes necessary, I will open a thread in the "complaints" section. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Here is what I suggest for the title (just a reminder: I am the one who started this thread):

"The 1000 Anti-Violence Initiatives: A Tool for Discriminating Against Men in America."

I wouldn't use a question mark in that title, since I’ve already demonstrated through various articles of the Constitution, different laws, and regulations that this discrimination is a reality.

So, yeah, that was the idea for the title.

Charles Fox10 said:This is easily the fifth thread discussing gender discrimination, and without fail, these threads always end up merging during the debate. The moderators seem totally open to finding ways to keep two threads running without them overlapping after about ten posts.

I think the problem with how the moderators are handling this subject is that they just don't grasp its political or broader importance. For some reason I can't quite wrap my head around, the mods seem to find it problematic that there are "as many as" five different threads covering various aspects of systemic—and I stress *systemic*, legal, and state-level, which makes it a political issue—discrimination against men and chauvinism directed toward them.

They would probably take a thread like "Chauvinism in the 'Protect Victims of Predatory Bank Loans' Initiative" or "Romani discrimination" seriously, but when it comes to the discrimination of men, they just brush it off as some trivial nonsense about "men's versus women's issues"...

When it comes to things that aren't even that important, I guess it’s totally normal for the mods to let a million different threads pop up about the same old thing—you know, like how every single time Joe Biden sneezes, it becomes its own massive political debate, or every little scandal involving Barack Obama gets its own dedicated thread instead of just being lumped into one big "all affair all politician" mega-thread or something like that.

But look, if we, the male victims of the system, are supposed to just roll over and accept this kind of moderation style, then I suppose they could at least leave one single thread untouched, maybe one with a clear focus on the discrimination and chauvinism directed at men. But apparently, even that seems to be asking too much...

Charles Fox10 said:So far, despite everything we've tried, we haven't really pulled it off.

I'm saying this honestly and without any malice, I really don't see any actual effort from the mod team. These specific topics—the ones dealing with discrimination against men—they just get left completely unmoderated. Off-topic nonsense isn't deleted or penalized, and those feminist trolls who systematically insult people and derail the whole discussion? They never seem to get banned (I can't recall seeing a single warning, honestly), so eventually, every significant issue just devolves into exactly what the mods seemingly intended: some sort of low-level, generic gender warfare where the original point gets lost in the noise.

If the titles were actually straightforward, if the posts were actually moderated, and if off-topic rambling, insults, and trolling were actually punished, then maybe these important political questions could actually be discussed properly.

...and well, here are just a few examples of the kind of society we’ve ended up living in:

So, I was thinking about this whole setup we have with the so-called "gender equality commissioner," that state-appointed position that pulls in something like $500,000 from the taxpayers every single year, and honestly, it feels more like a dedicated advocate for women than anything else. It’s kind of strange when you really sit with it, because she doesn't seem to give a single thought to the rights of men being sidelined, which I guess is the whole point of "equality," right? Instead of actually stepping in to put out the fires of social friction, it feels like the person in charge is actually the one pouring gasoline on them. I mean, it just seems fundamentally absurd to me that the head of an agency meant to balance things out between genders is exclusively a woman—and quite often a hardcore feminist at that. It’s a bit like suggesting that the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be some self-proclaimed skinhead; it just doesn't make any sense if you're looking for actual balance.

So, I was looking through this new proposal for the updated family law—specifically Article 50, paragraph 3—and I guess it’s just one of those things that makes you stare at the wall for a minute, wondering where we actually ended up. It seems like under this new setup here in America, a man is essentially stripped of his right to file for divorce for 21 months for every child involved, which feels like a massive, heavy weight to drop on one side of the equation. Meanwhile, women don't seem to face any of those same hurdles or restrictions at all. It's just... I don't know, it feels incredibly lopsided, and I suppose it’s just more of the same kind of stuff that leaves you feeling pretty cynical about how these legal shifts are being handled lately.

So, I was looking through the current US defense laws—specifically those sections regarding military obligations, Articles 20 and 21 if you want to get technical—and it’s just one of those things that makes you realize how much the government keeps track of everyone, I guess. It says here that for men, the whole military obligation thing basically expires at the end of the calendar year they turn 55, while for women, it wraps up when they hit 50, which feels like such a specific way to track aging, though I suppose it makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint. Then there's the part about women not being subject to the draft or active service requirements, which is pretty straightforward, whereas men are still technically on the hook for the draft or civilian service whenever the draft is actually active, or even just being entered into the military registry when there isn't an active draft in place. It’s all very orderly, I suppose, but it really makes you think about how these legal frameworks just sit there in the background of our lives, waiting for some shift in policy to suddenly matter again.

It turns out that about 89% of those accusations leveled against fathers regarding child sexual abuse are actually just completely false, which I guess is a pretty staggering number if you really stop to think about it. It seems like these fraudulent claims—whether they involve sexual misconduct or various types of domestic violence—are being weaponized against men just to gain some kind of tactical advantage during messy divorce proceedings. And the real kicker, the thing that really wears you down when you look at the legal landscape, is that there’s practically zero accountability for it; the system almost never punishes people for filing these kinds of false reports, which honestly feels like a massive, gaping hole in our justice system.

I mean, if you look at the numbers, it’s pretty much a given that women walk away with custody in over 95% of divorce cases, which I guess is just how the system is set up here. For a father to even stand a chance at getting the kids, he basically has to be a complete disaster—like, we’re talking about the mother being a literal addict, serving time in prison, or voluntarily signing away her rights, or some other extreme scenario. It feels like there's almost no path forward otherwise. And then you have this recent overhaul of the family law, where they went ahead and scrapped the upper limit on child support payments. It used to be capped at something reasonable per kid, maybe around a few thousand dollars depending on the state, but now? Well, the math just points toward infinity, I suppose. It's all becoming quite a bit much.

I guess if you look closely enough at how things are running nowadays, you start to see this whole society is basically woven together with these gender-based awards and special credits that are reserved exclusively for women, which feels a bit strange if you think about it too long. We’ve got things like this "award for women in science"—even though, let's be honest, in a lot of those fields women already make up sixty or seventy percent of the researchers anyway—and then there’s the whole "Woman of the Year" thing or those "Entrepreneur of the Year" accolades. It’s not just awards, either; there are entire credit lines out there specifically earmarked only for women, whereas men are pretty much left to fend for themselves in the open market without any kind of gender-based assistance or specialized perks. And I don't know, maybe it's just my observation, but ever since the economy started hitting the skids, it seems like the guys are the ones disproportionately losing their jobs, all while being a minority in the student population to begin with. It just feels like the scales are tipped in a way that people don't always want to talk about.

So, I was looking into these so-called "gender equality" agencies—which, let’s be honest, are basically just glorified women's unions masquerading as official institutions—and it’s honestly kind of wild how they write their mission statements. They openly list "women's healthcare" as one of their primary action items in all their official paperwork, which is fine, I guess, but what’s truly bizarre is that you won't find a single mention of "men's health" anywhere in their agendas. It’s like men's well-being just doesn't exist on their radar at all. And if you look at the actual numbers, it’s pretty telling; the average American man lives to about 72, while women live closer to 79. So, women end up drawing from those retirement funds for much longer, even though we’re all paying into the system at the exact same rate. It just feels like a strange imbalance when you really sit down and think about it.

You know, I’ve been sitting here thinking about how some of these high-profile women in the media just casually drop these blatant instances of sexual chauvinism, claiming their gender somehow makes them inherently superior—you hear it all the time, like "women are more conscientious" or "women have proven to be better at X" or "women are just higher quality professionals"—and honestly, it’s wild because there are absolutely zero consequences for it. Not a single hit to their reputation, nothing. It’s like nobody even notices the underlying sexism in those statements, which is kind of surreal when you consider that if the roles were reversed and a man said something equally biased, the social backlash would be immediate and massive. But for this? It’s just silence. Zero reactions. I guess we just live in a world where the rules only seem to apply one way, maybe, or perhaps everyone is just too distracted to see the hypocrisy for what it actually is.

So, I was reading up on this whole mess involving the legal definition of non-consensual sexual intercourse that got shoved into the Penal Code—specifically Article 152, if you want to get technical—and honestly, it feels like one of those things pushed through by activist groups that just fundamentally breaks how our justice system is supposed to work. It’s like they’ve essentially tossed the presumption of innocence right out the window, which is pretty wild when you think about it. Under this setup, once the prosecutor establishes that a sexual encounter actually took place, the entire burden shifts onto the accused to prove that consent was actually given. It’s this weird, inverted logic where you’re basically guilty until you can somehow provide proof of a "yes," which seems like an impossible mountain to climb in a courtroom most of the time. I guess we’re just moving toward a reality where the mechanics of proof are totally flipped on their head, and I don't know, maybe that's just where things are heading now, but it feels incredibly heavy and a bit unsettling to me.

So, I was looking through the penal code earlier—you know how I get when I start falling down those legal rabbit holes—and I stumbled upon Article 116, and it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder about the logic behind everything, I guess. It turns out that the mutilation of female genitalia is explicitly listed as a criminal offense under the law, which, obviously, makes sense in a vacuum, but then you notice the glaring omission where it doesn't mention anything regarding the mutilation of male genitalia. It's just... absent. It’s such a strange, lopsided way for the statutes to be written, and it really makes you think about how these legal frameworks are constructed and what they choose to prioritize or ignore, though maybe that's just me overthinking it.

So, I was looking at some labor regulations the other day—you know how it goes, digging through all that bureaucratic fine print—and it’s kind of wild how things are structured, I guess. Under the current workplace safety rules here in the States, there’s this specific distinction regarding lifting limits, where a man is technically allowed to hoist up to about 110 pounds, while a woman is capped at around 33 pounds. And the kicker, if you really want to think about the absurdity of it, is that this applies to the exact same job description with the exact same paycheck. It doesn't even account for individual physical stats, which seems a bit arbitrary to me; like, you could have a fifty-year-old guy who's carrying an extra fifty pounds himself, yet he's cleared for the heavy stuff, while a twenty-five-year-old woman who might be significantly stronger or more fit is stuck under that lower limit. It just feels like one of those weirdly rigid systemic things that doesn't quite square with reality, maybe.

12. It seems to me like these various women's advocacy groups are pulling in massive amounts of taxpayer money just to push feminist agendas and, frankly, paint men as the villains in every scenario. Take one organization, for instance—let's call them something like the ACLU or a similar big-name nonprofit—they’re scooping up over a million dollars annually from various public funds. It feels like society is essentially paying a small army of activists to turn around and manipulate the very public that’s funding them.

13. Then you look at the academic side of things, where we have these institutionalized "Women's Studies" programs popping up everywhere in our universities. I mean, there aren't really any "Men's Studies" departments to speak of, which feels a bit lopsided, if you ask me.

14. And the media coverage? It's almost overwhelming. Last year alone, there were 179 organized public campaigns centered on female victims of violence, which translated into over 2,000 news stories across different outlets. But when it comes to male victims, the count is basically zero. It feels like the public is being bombarded with this constant narrative that women are always the victims and men are always the aggressors. I guess it’s all designed to manufacture a sense of an "emergency," creating this illusion of a crisis so they can justify "temporarily" suspending true equality in order to "fix" things by granting women disproportionate rights.

I think there's actually a fair amount of substance laid out in this particular post, if you have the patience for it: