CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › silentridge3 › Posts

Posts by silentridge3

179 posts shown.

Suggestion to improve "Television" PDF - separate "Series in Feedback & Suggestions ·
We’ve already spent quite a bit of time rambling on about the current state of affairs over on that "Television" PDF thread.

I mean, honestly, I guess the intellectual caliber here is significantly lower than what you’d find on some of those other PDF forums, which is kind of a bummer because, well, it makes the whole thing way less interesting than it probably could be, if that makes sense.

I guess I should probably start somewhere, though I’m never quite sure if anything I say actually matters in the grand scheme of things, or if we're all just shouting into a void that doesn't care to listen, anyway... It all seems to be winding down to the same old thing, really—just this constant presence of teenagers popping up with these incredibly brief, mindless little comments that feel more like a chaotic group chat than actual conversation, just endlessly dropping these tedious, grating remarks that don't really go anywhere, I guess. So, I was sitting there thinking about whether people actually enjoy that one show or if they’re just pretending to like it because everyone else is talking about it... you know how it goes. It’s like, some people are all over it, claiming "this series is absolutely incredible" with a million emojis flying around, while others are just blunt about it, saying "this show is honestly trash" 😂. I guess it really just comes down to whatever mood you're in, maybe? I don't know, it feels like everyone has such a wildly different take on the same thing, which is kind of exhausting if you ask me.

Since, I guess, in like 90% of these cases we’re really just talking about TV series anyway...

...and there's just one of them left, I guess. I guess they just aren't that big of a deal on television anymore, or maybe it’s just me, but it feels like they’ve completely lost that lightning-in-a-bottle magic that used to make everyone stop what they were doing just to tune in. It’s like that whole era of cultural obsession just evaporated into thin air, leaving us with nothing but static and reruns, though I suppose that's just how things tend to go eventually, isn't it? I guess some of the folks jumping into this discussion are binge-watching the whole series in single chunks through various streaming services, which I suppose explains why the conversation feels a bit out of sync with what’s actually airing on network television right now... maybe it just makes it hard to stay on the same page when everyone is watching at a different pace, but that's how it goes, I guess.

I guess it would be pretty great if they just treated TV series the same way they do movies—you know, actually giving them that same level of respect and production value, though I suppose that’s asking a lot from Hollywood these days. Maybe if they stopped rushing everything through the pipeline just to hit some streaming quota, we'd get something that actually feels like art instead of just content meant to be consumed and forgotten. It’s funny how we expect cinematic greatness from the big screen but then settle for whatever mediocre binge-watchable thing pops up on our dashboards, but I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical. I guess we could just hand them a separate PDF, maybe? I don't know, it might be better that way, honestly. It feels like if we cram everything together, things will just get lost in the shuffle, though I suppose there's always that risk of making things more complicated than they need to be. But yeah, a standalone PDF probably makes the most sense, I think.Maybe it’s finally time that the binge-watchers actually get their turn to speak up and share their stories, though I guess we’ll see if anyone actually listens. I guess you could say that television might end up focusing on whatever recent programming our networks have been pushing lately, though I suppose it’s all a bit much to take in at once..

Besides that, I guess... If they’d just stop obsessing over using the word "series" for everything, I guess we might actually stumble upon some topics that aren't so incredibly trivial, though maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part.I mean, if we actually had some substance here, maybe we could find a few more posts that actually make sense or offer something interesting, instead of just wading through this endless stream of adolescent chatter.
→ go to post
Locking off-topic threads instead of banning the users? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
fadedsailor932 said:..in theory, sure... but sometimes it's just necessary. In this specific instance, I felt it was required because the thread had spiraled way past its original point, and despite my warnings, things were still veering off into territory they weren't meant for. So, I suppose I had to choose between handing out warnings, maybe some bans, or just locking the whole thing down. Personally, I figure locking a thread is the lesser of two evils.

The core of what I'm getting at here is really about the question of "who actually gets punished?" To put it more bluntly: are we catching the actual culprits, or are we just hitting the innocent bystanders?

One way to handle this is by targeting the people actually breaking the rules—you know, the formal warnings, the bans, and all that—but the other way, which is just shutting down the entire topic, ends up punishing everyone who wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place.

It’s honestly a bit like when a teacher decides to cancel the entire class's field trip to Disney World just because three kids wouldn't stop talking during the lesson. Maybe it's an easier way to keep order, I guess, but it feels pretty unfair to everyone else.
→ go to post
Locking off-topic threads instead of banning the users? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I was wondering if maybe one of the moderators could jump in here and give us some insight on this?
→ go to post
Locking off-topic threads instead of banning the users? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
It kind of reminds me of this scenario I can't stop thinking about:

Imagine you’ve got this little diner or maybe a bistro that’s actually doing quite well, you know? People are happy, they’re sitting down, enjoying their meals, having a few drinks, just living their lives...

Then, out of nowhere, two mobsters burst through the doors and just start smashing everything in sight. Total chaos.

So then the cops show up, but instead of actually chasing down those two thugs, they turn around and start kicking you, the owner, and all your customers out onto the sidewalk, eventually locking the whole place down indefinitely.

I mean, honestly, who is the system actually punishing in that situation?
→ go to post
Locking off-topic threads instead of banning the users? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
It’s happened a handful of times now where I’ll start a thread, and people are actually having a decent, normal conversation...

...and then, out of nowhere, two or three people just fly in and start posting totally off-topic nonsense...

...and instead of the moderator just handing out a warning or deleting those random posts...

...they just go ahead and lock the whole damn thread.

The last time this happened:

I honestly don't get it—who is actually being punished here? Is it the person who started the topic? Or maybe the regular users who were actually behaving themselves and trying to have a civil discussion?
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
If you’d taken even a third of the energy you spent on this massive explanation and actually put it into your opening post, maybe there would still be a thread to talk about.
I mean, I see you've gathered some arguments and tried to build some connections here, so maybe give it another shot with a fresh intro.

Alright, fine, here goes nothing:

So, what you're trying to get at is that my original post—you know, the very first one, before the mods nuked the whole thread instantly...

silentridge3 said:A private corporation that—as far as I can tell—manufactures products specifically for women is out there handing out some sort of "Women in Science" award. I guess a private company has every right to hand out awards to whoever they want, though I suppose they’re the ones who have to deal with any potential PR backlash if things go south.

The thing is, this award is given to women within a very narrow niche of the natural sciences, specifically in fields where, in America, women aren't even remotely underrepresented—honestly, it seems to me like there might actually be more women than men in those areas.

I just don't really get the stance of our Department of Science, which is actively getting tangled up in this gender-segregated promotional stunt by a single corporation. I guess I'm just wondering about the moral justification for the government being involved in this at all.

Is the Department going to start helping Anheuser-Busch hand out their "Men in Science" award anytime soon?

And why wouldn't the Department help out with an award for, say, "Blondes and Blue-eyed Scientists"? What's really the difference?

...was so incredibly bad that the moderators had to delete the topic immediately? 😕
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sam Green73 said:Check this out:
The Department of Science and Technology openly discriminates based on gender says:
A company that (as far as I know) makes products specifically for women is handing out an award for "Women in Science." At the end of the day, a private corporation has every right to give awards to whomever they want, provided they're willing to deal with any potential backlash themselves.

The thing is, this award goes to women in very specific niches within the natural sciences—fields where women aren't even underrepresented (in fact, there are often more of them than men).

I just don't get what the Department of Science and Technology is doing being so actively involved in this gender-segregated promotional stunt by a single company. I’d love to hear the moral justification for why the Department is getting mixed up in this.

So, what's next? Is the Department going to help Anheuser-Busch hand out a "Men in Science Award" soon?

And why wouldn't the Department help out with an award for "Blondes and Blue-eyed People in Science"? What's the difference?

1. Wait, what exactly are we talking about here? Is there actually a connection?
2. How can you be so sure about the Department's official stance?
3. Who's saying the Department shouldn't help with a "Blondes and Blue-eyed People in Science" award?
4. Look, I didn't delete the thread, but I personally don't see the point in starting a discussion framed like that, even if we're dancing around politics.

I honestly just assumed this was common knowledge by now, but I suppose if we really need to lay out the evidence and prove it, here it is:

I was just scrolling through some news updates from the University of America today—not that anyone really follows those academic bulletins unless they’re looking for a reason to feel smarter than their neighbors—and I stumbled upon this bit about recent breakthroughs and awards. It’s one of those things where you realize how much goes on behind the scenes in research labs that most people couldn't care less about, I guess. There’s a lot of talk about various honors being handed out and new initiatives being launched, which, honestly, feels like a constant cycle of "look how important we are" in the scientific community, though I suppose someone has to do the work. It’s all very official and heavy on the institutional jargon, as usual, making everything sound much more monumental than it might actually be when you strip away the prestige. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes the sheer volume of these announcements makes it hard to tell what's actually changing the world and what's just a fancy way to secure more funding for the next decade.I saw this news floating around earlier, and I guess I’m just sitting here wondering how we even got to this point, though maybe that's a bit dramatic, isn't it? It feels like every time you turn around, there's some new development or some shift in the landscape that makes you question if anyone actually has a handle on things, but then again, maybe everything is proceeding exactly as intended, which is a thought that honestly leaves me feeling a little weary. I don't know, it just seems like one of those situations where you have to look at the whole picture, even if the picture itself is kind of blurry and hard to make sense of sometimes. Anyway, I suppose it's worth noting, even if it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things.

So, I was just looking over this whole "for Women in Science" thing, and honestly, it’s one of those things that makes you wonder about the way everything works these days. It’s an application process, a call for entries, I suppose, though I can’t quite decide if it’s meant to be a genuine push for progress or just another bureaucratic hoop to jump through in the grand scheme of things. You see these programs pop up, promising to bridge gaps and foster talent, and part of me wants to believe the optimism behind them, really I do, but then there's that other side of my brain—the more cynical side, I guess—that wonders if it actually changes the fundamental landscape or if it's just a nice gesture on paper. It’s all very complicated, isn't it? Maybe it's exactly what's needed, or maybe it's just another layer of institutional noise, but regardless, it's there, sitting on the table, waiting for someone to take notice.

Applications have finally opened up for the new cycle, I guess, though I can't say if anyone's actually ready for the headache that comes with them. It feels like every year we're right back at this starting line, staring down those endless forms and wondering if any of the effort will actually lead anywhere meaningful. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but the window is officially open now.I was thinking about that whole National Science Foundation Fellowship for Women in Science thing lately, and I guess it’s just one of those programs that stays on my mind, maybe because it feels like such a massive undertaking. It's this big national push to get more women into research and higher education, which is obviously necessary, I suppose, though you have to wonder how much of it actually reaches the people who need it most versus getting caught up in all the bureaucratic red tape that usually follows these kinds of large-scale initiatives. It’s a huge effort by the government to bridge that gap in STEM, but then again, you start looking at the sheer scale of it and you can't help but feel a bit skeptical about whether a single fellowship program can truly shift the needle in such a massive, complicated field. Still, it's an interesting concept, I guess, if you look past the paperwork. I guess it depends on where exactly they are in that final, agonizing stretch of their PhD journey, but if we're talking about women in science who are basically staring down the finish line of their dissertation, there are actually quite a few paths to explore. Maybe they could look into a National Science Foundation Fellowship if they want to bridge that gap between finishing up and starting something new, though I suppose those can be pretty competitive depending on the field. There might also be specific opportunities through organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts if their research leans more toward the humanities or certain niche scientific disciplines, which I know can sometimes feel like an uphill battle. It really just comes down to whether they're looking for immediate funding, a post-doc position, or maybe just some sort of prestige to bolster a CV before hitting the job market. I mean, it’s a lot to navigate when you're already exhausted from years of research, isn't it? When you look at the whole landscape of the natural sciences—and I really mean the whole broad spectrum, including all those messy, overlapping interdisciplinary fields that don't quite fit into a neat little box—it’s just... well, it's a lot to wrap your head around, I guess.So, I guess we’re looking at the fellowships for the fourth year in a row now, which feels like a lifetime when you really stop to think about how fast everything just sort of drifts by, doesn't it? It’s been four years of this, I suppose, and maybe that means something, or maybe it just means things are staying exactly as they are, which is a bit of a cynical thought to have on a Tuesday, but here we are. So, I guess it’s happening again—L'Oréal and the United States National Commission for UNESCO are teaming up with the National Endowment for the Arts to hand out some awards, which feels like just another thing on the endless pile of bureaucratic ceremonies we have to navigate. It's one of those things where you wonder if anyone actually cares about the substance behind the fanfare, but there it is, another official collaboration between big corporate players and our national cultural institutions. It’s all about trying to get people actually interested in science, I guess, though whether that actually works remains to be seen. If you're thinking about getting involved, the deadline to get those applications in is October 30th.

So, I was reading about these fellowships they're handing out—they're worth about four thousand bucks each, I think—specifically for women currently grinding through their PhD programs. The whole idea, or at least the official pitch, is to boost the profile of science and really push for more female advancement in research, mostly because all those studies seem to suggest that women are still way less represented in the scientific community compared to men. It’s a massive gap, I guess, though whether a few grand here and there actually moves the needle on such a huge systemic issue is something I can't quite wrap my head around, but that's the goal, anyway.

So, I guess it looks like they’re going to be handing out four fellowships this year, and... well, who knows where that's actually headed. So, I heard that the folks deciding on those new fellowships are putting together this selection committee, and honestly, it’s quite the roster of big names. It’s going to be headed up by John Doe, along with Jane Doe and John Smith, plus a whole lineup of heavy hitters like professors Jane Smith, Jane Doe, John Doe, John Doe, John Doe, and Jane Doe. It feels like they’re pulling together every major academic authority in the country to make these calls, which I suppose makes sense if you want total prestige, though I guess we'll just have to see how much of an impact this group actually has on the process.

So, I was reading up on this whole thing, and it turns out the National Science Foundation Fellowship is actually tied into this massive global initiative called "for Women in Science." It’s been around since 1998, which is forever, really, and it was basically launched through this partnership between L'Oréal and UNESCO as the very first international award specifically aimed at women in the sciences. I guess it’s pretty significant, considering how much they've expanded it over the years—they’ve ended up rolling out three distinct programs now, ranging from the big-deal Nobel Prize level recognition all the way down to the International and National Fellowship programs. It's quite a sprawling setup when you think about it.

It seems pretty obvious that the Department of Science and Technology is taking a stand here—they aren't just watching from the sidelines, they’re actively leaning into this and giving it their blessing. I mean, the Department clearly knows that women in those specific scientific fields in America aren't represented nearly enough as it is. It feels like any kind of segregationist move, if you want to call it that, really ought to be backed up by some rock-solid arguments and rooted in the actual, undeniable data regarding how underrepresented certain groups truly are in the current landscape. I guess it just doesn't make much sense otherwise.

I mean, if you think about it, this whole idea of a "Nobel Prize for blondes and blue-eyed women in science" would basically just be institutionalized segregation, wouldn't it? It’s a bit much, I guess. And honestly, that’s exactly the kind of messy, controversial topic that people on those "policy2" forums love to chew on—you know, right up there with debating the old-school clashes between the fascists and the partisans back in the day. It’s all just more division, really.

I guess this might actually be the most critical point of the whole discussion, especially since you’re claiming there’s "no real need" for a topic like this. If we’re looking at the big picture, moderator voluntarism can—perhaps even unintentionally, though it's hard to say for sure—completely warp and reshape the entire landscape of an online community. I mean, when you think about it, a moderator's actual job should really just be keeping things civil, making sure people aren't being abusive, and ensuring that specific threads don't drift so far off-track that they totally miss the point of the subforum they're sitting in. It’s a fine line, I suppose, between maintaining order and accidentally steering the direction of the conversation itself.

If all the basic rules are checked off, then I suppose it’s really up to the rest of us on here to decide whether a thread actually matters or if it's just noise. If someone goes through the trouble of starting a discussion, they clearly feel there's something worth saying, right? Personally, I look at about 90% of these newly created topics and think, "Really? We need this?" but I guess that’s just my cynical take on things. At the end of the day, the whole point of a forum being what it is—this kind of open space—is precisely that anyone can jump in and start a conversation about whatever they find meaningful, even if most of it ends up being pretty pointless.

Anyway, I really think this whole discussion about how the Department of Science and Technology is being blatantly sexist is actually pretty crucial—probably way more important than half those other topics that somehow managed to get deleted for no reason, I guess.
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sam Green73 said:Well, that looks like a textbook example of an appeal being handled perfectly.
The guy complained about his penalty, the mod looked into it, saw the mistake, and fixed it.
Problem solved.

So, what exactly are you complaining about now?

Maybe we aren't quite on the same page here, because I'm really not complaining about anything. This is just a PDF of sorts—messages, wishes, comments—and this whole thread was actually started by someone else, basically just carrying over a snippet of a conversation from a different sub-forum.

At its core, we're talking about moderation styles, though the underlying theme in the original post was more about how targeted moderation can be used to steer conversations and control specific members of a community.

With the linked case, the issue isn't whether the appeal worked, but rather how the situation unfolded in the first place. It’s about how a moderator could somehow read through a thread, miss blatant racism entirely without sanctioning it, and then turn around and penalize the wrong person—you know, the one actually speaking out against the racism. I suppose it might have just been a lapse in attention, but theoretically, it could be intentional targeting (not necessarily on this particular forum, mind you). In these scenarios, you tend to see all sorts of trolls and low-effort posters left alone, while those who try to elevate the discussion to a more cultured or intelligent level are systematically pushed out of the conversation or off the forum altogether. I guess a possible reason for this is that "mainstream" media outlets want to draw a clear line: they want forums to be spaces for a massive crowd of fools and endless bickering, while insisting that any actual intellectual discourse should be sought exclusively in "official" places, like news portals or traditional media.

Anyway, for the third time:

silentridge3 said:Oh, and before I completely forget—I’m still actually wondering why on earth they deleted that thread about how the Department of Science and Technology is openly discriminating based on gender. I mean, I honestly feel like that discussion was pretty vital and, you know, genuinely interesting to follow, and it wasn't like anyone was being offended or anything...
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Oh, and before I completely forget—I’m still actually wondering why on earth they deleted that thread about how the Department of Science and Technology is openly discriminating based on gender. I mean, I honestly feel like that discussion was pretty vital and, you know, genuinely interesting to follow, and it wasn't like anyone was being offended or anything...
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sam Green73 said:It happens all the time.
People don't usually come out here complaining about their own standing; instead, they whine because someone else didn't get the recognition they deserved.
It gets especially ridiculous when they're pointing out a post that isn't even part of the current thread, or sometimes even on a completely different subforum!

Look, some garbage is always going to slip past the moderators.
Even the local police department—which you guys fund through your taxes—can't catch every single thief, rapist, or even the random vandal smashing streetlights in the middle of the night.

Look, all this nonsense is one thing, but I guess you’d think that before someone goes around handing out bans like they're candy, the moderators might actually take a second to focus and get their act together, right? Maybe it's just me, but it feels like things are a bit scattered lately.

I mean, if you look at something like this...

I was just sitting here thinking about how much everything seems to be shifting lately, and I can’t help but feel a bit weary about the whole state of things, I guess. It feels like we’re constantly being told that progress is happening, that these big institutions—you know, the ones that are supposed to actually hold society together—are making strides, but then you look closer and it’s all just a bit of a facade, isn't it? Maybe I'm just being cynical, but there's this sense that the structures meant to support brilliance or nurture talent are more interested in the optics than the actual substance. Take the way we talk about recognition, for instance. We celebrate these massive achievements, these people winning the Nobel Prize, and we act like that's the pinnacle of human endeavor, which, sure, maybe it is, but what about the quiet work? What about the people who don't fit into those narrow, prestigious boxes? I mean, when you look at how organizations like the National Science Foundation Fellowship operate, or how the National Endowment for the Arts tries to steer the cultural needle, it often feels like they're just playing a game of musical chairs with prestige rather than actually fostering anything raw or real. And don't even get me started on the corporate side of things. You see brands like L'Oréal trying to position themselves as leaders in social progress or inclusivity, and while that might look great in a glossy ad campaign, I find myself wondering if it's anything more than just clever marketing to keep the shareholders happy. It's all very polished, very manicured, and perhaps a little hollow if you stare at it for too long. I saw Sam Green73 mentioning something similar the other day, and honestly, I think they hit the nail on the head regarding how much of our "progress" is just rebranding old habits. Even when you look at international bodies like UNESCO, there’s this layer of bureaucracy that seems designed to insulate them from any actual change. It’s almost as if the goal isn't to move forward, but to ensure that the movement looks sufficiently dignified while staying exactly where it is. I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of seeing the same patterns repeat under different names. It feels like we're all just circling the same drain, pretending the water isn't getting deeper.

It really feels like the moderator didn't just skim over the entire post that led to this guy getting banned, but actually failed to read any of the preceding comments in the thread at all—you know, the stuff everyone else was saying right before things went south. I mean, it’s almost impressive, in a deeply frustrating sort of way, how one can completely miss the context provided by the other participants in the same discussion. It makes you wonder if they're even looking at the full picture, or if they're just jumping in mid-sentence to hand out punishments without a second thought. Maybe they're just busy, or maybe I'm being too cynical, but it certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone gets sidelined because the person in charge wasn't paying attention to the actual flow of the conversation.

I mean, I guess you could argue that giving certain groups political freedoms is just an unnecessary burden on them, in a way—it’s like, maybe some people aren't actually built to handle the weight of all those choices without it just becoming this massive, exhausting pressure, though I don't know, it's a heavy thought to sit with.
I mean, if you really sit back and look at the global landscape, I guess you have to admit there hasn't been a single country with a majority Black population that has managed to achieve any semblance of lasting political stability, if that makes sense. It’s just one of those things where you look at the data and it seems like a recurring pattern, though maybe I'm being too cynical, but it feels like an inescapable reality when you observe how these nations struggle to find their footing.
I mean, I guess you could argue that Haiti is going to stay stuck in this cycle of extreme poverty until at least a decent portion of the population becomes literate and actually gains some real-world life experience, though I don't know, maybe that’s being too cynical, but it feels like there's just no way around it if people aren't equipped to navigate how the world actually works.
Sometimes you just sit back and find yourself spiraling into these heavy, cynical questions about whether certain groups can actually pull off the whole functional statehood thing, I guess. It’s one of those dark, wandering thoughts that hits you when you're looking at the chaos in places like Haiti, where everything seems to just... stall, and you start wondering if some populations are even capable of maintaining a stable, working government. Maybe it's just me being overly pessimistic, but I can't help but wonder about the fundamental capacity for building a cohesive society under those circumstances.
I mean, you look back at South Africa before the whole apartheid mess collapsed, and man, it really was such a prosperous, thriving nation, wasn't it? And then you see what it’s become today... I don't know, it's just hard to wrap my head around how things shifted so drastically. It's one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder where it all went sideways, I guess.
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sam Green73 said:Wait, you didn't actually write anything besides those emojis, and you're still acting indignant about getting a warning?

Take a look at the community guidelines and the sub-forum dedicated to banned users.
Everyone complains about bias—you've got Republicans complaining, right-wingers, leftists... everyone feels targeted.
Honestly, I won't start worrying about true objectivity until the Independents start filing complaints.
Besides, the users are usually the ones starting all these threads; the mods can barely keep up as it is.

It’s not really that I’m complaining about that, I guess; it’s more that I’m bothered by the fact that these warnings aren't being handed out in other—well, much more important—areas, like when people are being toxic, spreading hate, or just completely derailing threads.

BTW (not that it matters all that much, I suppose):

...if you look at other threads, posts consisting of nothing but smileys (usually just reacting to a quote) are actually way more common, even among the moderators themselves...

Regarding those smileys, I mean, if that's the rule, then fine, let them be penalized. But maybe there's some kind of moderator "discretionary judgment" involved here? For instance, you've got people who would love to just flood a whole thread with nothing but emojis, and then you have people like me, who might write these incredibly long, winding, exhaustive posts in a discussion, and then, in one single post out of a thousand, I'll just drop a smiley because it feels like the simplest, most effective way to communicate. If I recall correctly, I once just put a couple of those "bowing" emojis on someone's post because I totally agreed with them. I just didn't have anything else to add at that moment. I could have added a single word alongside the emoji to avoid getting flagged—something like "Great!" or "Agreed"—but the sentiment remains exactly the same...

But again, I'm just rambling; it's probably all less important than it seems. If that's how the rules work, then sure, penalize everyone, myself included.
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Looked through your thread history. There isn't a single deleted topic matching what you're describing in the politics section. On the politics subforum, there’s exactly one deleted thread from you titled: "Department of Science openly discriminating based on gender." That's it. Nothing else.🤷

Before I actually get to answering, I suppose I should go on a bit of a tangent here: I am genuinely curious about why that specific thread—you know, the one about the Department of Science openly discriminating based on gender—was taken down. It seems like a pretty significant and interesting topic to me, and I don't see how it could have offended anyone...

As for that other discussion regarding financial decentralization, that was happening somewhere around the last local or maybe even the midterm elections. Basically, certain political parties were pushing this idea of decentralization during their campaigns, cranking up the tension by arguing that "all the money goes to Washington, D.C., so we need to stop that"—though, in reality, when they say "Washington, D.C.," they really mean the federal budget—and quite a few people and discussions on the Politics board seemed to fall for that misconception.

My thread and my opening post actually tried to explain the core of that fallacy in a fairly civil and logical way. See, if you implement true financial decentralization, the wealthy states and big cities just end up getting richer, while the struggling areas become even more impoverished. I was trying to make people in those lower-income regions understand that if they’ve been sending $30 million into the federal budget only to receive $100 million back in return... well, financial decentralization won't actually change anything for them. They'll be left with their own $30 million, sure, but they won't be getting that extra $100 million from the federal pool anymore. Again, it was all just a pre-election, political issue.

The thread was deleted within ten minutes of me posting it. I even tried to "negotiate" a little bit through the PM with the moderator, but I didn't have much luck, I guess.
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Hey Rezonatore, since you're hanging around here...:

I was just wondering why this specific thread...

...is merely locked down, whereas my own post about the actual risks of financial decentralization—which I had barely finished typing the intro for before it vanished ten minutes later—was wiped clean from existence under the "Politics" category?
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sam Green73 said:Wait, you didn't actually write anything besides those emojis, and you're still acting indignant about getting a warning?

Take a look at the community guidelines and the sub-forum dedicated to banned users.
Everyone complains about bias—you've got Republicans complaining, right-wingers, leftists... everyone feels targeted.
Honestly, I won't start worrying about true objectivity until the Independents start filing complaints.
Besides, the users are usually the ones starting all these threads; the mods can barely keep up as it is.

Does this whole exchange really strike you as "whining"? I mean, who exactly is doing the complaining here?

We’re talking about the very real possibility of extremely tight oversight on what should be open, free discussion boards.

Theoretically speaking—and I guess this is just how these things work sometimes—it’s entirely possible that I get flagged just for posting an emoji, while ten other people can go off the rails and drop some heavy profanity without anyone batting an eye... It isn't even really about whether someone was personally insulted, I suppose, but more about how the conversation is being steered, or rather, how they create this massive amount of noise and static in the communication flow...
→ go to post
Moderation guidelines for the politics sub in Feedback & Suggestions ·
blaznica said:ps: I suppose free forums suffer more from forced expression than anything else. On a site like this, for instance, someone like Dr. House would probably get banned just for being blunt or crude. Maybe they’d only be allowed to run wild if they were busy interpreting the diagnosis of some favorite little darling of the establishment

And that freedom of speech can be used pretty selectively, I guess...

I might use the "Politics" section on a major US news forum as an example. Back then, my ideas were basically unacceptable to the moderators over there—they mostly breathed Republican air, I think—so I kept getting warnings for things like, say, posting a bunch of smiley faces after quoting something I liked. I guess the crime was being "off-topic." Meanwhile, you’d have these other posts in the exact same thread that included direct insults—worse than Dr. House, really—going totally unpunished.

If a moderator wants to, they can just pick one side of any conflict—whether it's politics, real estate, music, whatever—and continuously punish, delete, or slice up posts until the unwanted opinion simply disappears from the forum.

Another trick is "merging." On that same politics board, they could open a new thread every single day about some politically irrelevant figure like Stipa Mason, with titles like "Mason traitor," "The New Betrayal by Stipa Mason," or "Another betrayal by Stipa Mason," and the mods would just let those pile up. On the flip side, they could take much more significant political scandals involving someone like Ivo Sanders and merge them all into one giant, singular thread under a neutral title like "Ivo Sanders." So, on page 342 of that massive thread, you might find a debate about "Verona," and by page 456, it’s a discussion about "Hypo," and so on... Technically, everything is within the rules, but from a moderator standpoint, it's incredibly directed...

As for deleting and locking threads, well, I don't even need to go into much detail. I remember looking at a PDF archive of that "politics" section where threads about World War II existed alongside comments like "you're a total idiot" without anyone ever being penalized...
...I actually started a thread once where I wanted to explain the pitfalls of financial decentralization to everyone (which a lot of people were calling for before certain elections). My opening post was completely non-ideological, without any insults or violations of the rules whatsoever. It was wiped out within maybe ten minutes of me posting it.

I’m not saying there’s a grand conspiracy here, maybe it’s just the specific political leaning of the moderation team. But it seems pretty obvious to me that a "free forum" actually offers a ton of ways to steer the conversation using moderator tools...
→ go to post
Thompson distances himself from Nazi rhetoric and calls out Clinton! in Close to Politics ·
It feels like a brand new verb has just drifted into the American lexicon—something like "to hedge oneself."

Now, we just have to figure out what it actually means in practice, I guess.

*-this particular verb usually shows up right before a comma, followed immediately by the word "but." So, the sentence structure tends to flow along something like this: "...I'm hedging myself, but..."
→ go to post
Thompson distances himself from Nazi rhetoric and calls out Clinton! in Close to Politics ·
Casey Stewart17 said:Don't try to pull a fast one on me:
Even The New York Times is reporting it:

"While he is frequently criticized for his chauvinism, extreme right-wing behavior, and the use of Nazi iconography during his concerts, Thompson maintains that he is entirely apolitical. According to Jurkas, Thompson "]distances himself from Nazi and fascist ideologies."[/COLOR]
http://nytimes.com/news/article/ar...,14,,179484.jl

So, what does it actually mean when someone claims to "distance themselves" from something?

Does that imply that:

- they just don't want to go on the record saying they love it
- or that they actually hate it

?
→ go to post
Are restaurateurs the most important Americans for young female journalists? in Close to Politics ·
Just so this doesn't go unnoticed:

Yesterday (Sunday, Sept 27th), during the main evening news on Fox, they hit us with the third segment in a row—and by far the longest one, lasting maybe three minutes!

The big "breaking news" was that larger restaurants and bars will soon have to comply with these new regulations, specifically those under 50 square feet... (honestly, I don't know who hasn't heard this a hundred times already)... The "financial wizards" over at Fox decided to serve up this sensationalist scoop for the 101st time, and what’s truly wild is that for this (this endless repetition of "news" regarding smoking laws affecting hospitality businesses) THEY ACTUALLY SENT MOJMIR PASTORCIC OUT INTO THE FIELD!!!!!!>

It was just like when a train wreck happens somewhere, and you see a reporter standing right next to the tracks and the wreckage; that’s how Mojmir Pastorcic was yesterday, STANDING IN A BAR, while the screen flashed that she was reporting live from Brooklyn (a neighborhood in Washington, D.C.)!!!!! So—reporting from the scene, from inside one of those Washington, D.C. bars, we got to "learn" this "bombshell news" for the 101st time (news we've been hearing day in and day out for months now) about how the smoking ban is crushing the hospitality industry, how the law changed, and how bigger bars will have to provide a separate room (without service); or rather, make a choice...

I suppose I'll keep watching Fox news with great interest; maybe Mojmir will show up today with that exact same story from some other bar in Washington, D.C....
→ go to post
Are restaurateurs the most important Americans for young female journalists? in Close to Politics ·
I really don't want to start a whole new thread just about these local "business owners," so I figure I'll just keep riding this one.

The other day, some "hospitality pro" went and beat up a group of tourists again. Apparently, this German family—who, mind you, have been vacationing here in the States for years and basically fund our entire local budget—made a little comment to the guy about him parking his Mercedes-Benz on the sidewalk. So, what does our "hospitality expert" do? He comes back with a bunch of buddies and just starts bashing them with metal rods.

Since this isn't exactly an isolated incident, I guess I’m wondering what kind of "hospitality mindset" our local business owners actually possess?

What do you think the actual percentage is of people who are true professionals—you know, folks with actual training or at least a shred of decent service ethics—versus the crowd that calls themselves "hosts" simply because they happen to own or rent a dive bar?
→ go to post
Are restaurateurs the most important Americans for young female journalists? in Close to Politics ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:There are plenty of real stories out there, but they usually come with a side of layoffs, threats, being blacklisted from the industry, or even worse... baseball bats and actual executions... if you're into that kind of thing, be my guest... ☕

I mean, I honestly think a network like FOX is massive enough to tackle much more interesting stuff than this. If they're really that obsessed with pushing the exact same narrative day after day, maybe they could look into what's happening at Huntington Ingalls Industries—they've got witnesses coming forward right now. Or maybe something involving ExxonMobil, or Duke Energy. Or even the national forests, or the whole mess with agricultural subsidies. Or... well, anything else, really.

As for the restaurant industry, we already know everything there is to know about that; it feels like there isn't a single person left who hasn't been dragged through a prime-time news segment ten times over to talk about that supposed US economy crisis regarding declining sales in the service sector.
→ go to post