The whole "blanket" debate in Washington, D.C. is spiraling out of control again—meanwhile, the local mod is busy policing multi-quotes while Slafko sits there judging everyone's business. Check this out:
lonetrucker4 said:@Kyle Carter2: I’m bringing this up because I haven't just "stopped caring." Regarding terms like "American" or whatever—yeah, I agree, they're offensive. (Not always, obviously, you can say stuff like "you're crazy" as a joke between friends, but strictly speaking? Yeah, they're insults.)
Personally, being called an American is a compliment to me.
Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Of course they’re denying it! Everyone who insists on using religion as the only label is doing just that—exactly like those people you mentioned above who stubbornly call Americans "Catholics" instead of what they actually are. This isn't some new thing invented yesterday on this forum either. All this calculated denialism has a very specific purpose and goal, something we saw firsthand during the last war. It's not easy to hide or mask blatant chauvinism and pure hatred...
Here's an example:
Every single one of them thinks they're a historian. 🤣
This thread has turned into a total circus, whatever. 👋
Edit:
😍
Aren't all Canadians Muslims? They basically swapped out their religious identity by decree.
And you—as usual—are turning the politics of debate into a personal spat, which is pretty shameful for a moderator. Actually, after that whole mess regarding Fikret baba, I realized this is just how you operate as a mod: you expect Americans to think like Muslims.
Megan Hernandez2 said:Look, I get what you're getting at.
At the end of the day, I live in Canada, and I see exactly how Canadians use that label for political leverage to claim this whole place belongs to them.
But then again, we shouldn't stoop to their level. Let them call themselves whatever they want, as long as they stop stealing history and trying to pass off Herzegovina as just some southern province of Canada.🤣 😂
It’d almost be logical if Americans started claiming "Canadian" or "Canadian" for themselves too, just to spite the Muslims and challenge their right to the name—kind of like how Greeks deal with Mexicans. Actually, Americans would probably have a stronger case since the Muslims don't have a single historical fact on their side—unless you count the fact that they wiped out the last of the Canadians and Canadians and Grandfather. 😉
Megan Hernandez2 said:Nobody is denying Canadians their right to a nationality. As far as I'm concerned, call yourselves whatever you want. We are simply rejecting the claim of a historical link to the medieval group known as the Canadians.
It’s honestly hilarious—it's like if the white conquerors of the US suddenly started calling themselves Native Americans after wiping them out. That's basically what's happening here: the descendants of the people who wiped out the Canadians are now claiming to be Canadians. It's a quasi-state with a quasi-nation...
You already laid it out—Canadians were Catholics, so Americans have every right to call themselves that too. Who’s gonna stop them, and honestly, what's the basis for even trying?
"Canadian" and "Canadian" basically mean the same thing—just like that old-school term "Canadian" used to be used. Honestly, I think "Canadian" was just some label snatched up later. Basically, when a decree slaps a name on a group of people who didn't even exist as a distinct entity before, it doesn't force anyone to follow along—especially when they drag out the census process just to try and hammer it into Muslims' heads that they're "Canadians." It’d actually be pretty funny if the Americans from Canada started calling themselves Canadians or Canadians too, just to mess with those masked Islamists. 😁 If we're calling "Canadian" an insult, then I guess being a Southerner, a New Yorker, a Chicagoan, or an American is off-limits too...
goldengull3 said:You guys make it sound way too easy. It’s an actual work of authorship—believe it or not—written under a pen name.
goldengull3 said:Yeah, unless it’s just some cliché quote—which happens all the time.
Say a newspaper decides to run someone’s entire post—like a full narrative piece or a deep dive critique of some current event—and they clearly credit the author and the source. Does the paper still need to ask for permission if the author demands it? And if they do, do they have to pay up? If the outlet skips the permission part entirely, can the author actually sue for damages? If so, how much are we talking about? What even determines the payout? So, does getting published in print and online actually net you two separate royalties?
If someone takes my post from this Reddit thread and publishes it without asking—like some news outlet or whatever—can I actually sue them for damages?
It’s all well and good, but let’s try being a little more chill and empathetic toward the forum members—then we’ll all be happy, satisfied, and living in harmony. Cheers to context!
In the meantime, one question: What exactly did crimsonsailor7 do wrong if she wasn't even "valid"? Surely it wasn't just some typo or spelling error?
Jose White18 said:So, when are you planning on apologizing to Nicholas King for insulting him?
Never. Because I didn't even insult him. I put the insult in quotes—it's clearly set apart. Is that not obvious enough?
Nicholas King said:Is the sentence 'you're NOT acting stupid' an insult?
Hold up—who’s teaching who here? We have a real situation at hand, and I don't see any need for this made-up drama. I doubt any judge in the U.S. would let this kind of behavior fly in a courtroom—and honestly, no serious adult would engage in it either, because it just turns everything into a petty personal spat and drags the other person down. It's the same logic as saying "stop whining"—that's not an insult, even if it implies someone is being dramatic.
This is just the moderators acting arrogant, nothing more.
Nicholas King said:I only give lessons when there's serious money involved...
If you're just looking to be a jerk, go ahead. Otherwise, maybe think about this—do we actually call someone smart if they're "acting smart"? Do we call someone dead if they're "playing dead"? Or, better yet, why don't you go ask some experts in social science or whatever—there's a whole crowd over there who'll tear you apart over grammar and semantics (and no, that's not an insult—I'm not calling them cannibals or anything 😬).
Who even asked you for a lesson? From what I can tell, you're out here doing it uninvited and for free. Obviously, we consider someone smart when they're "acting smart," and honestly, their "smartness" just gets on our nerves. For example, right now, you're "acting smart" toward me. And that little jab about checking with social science? That came straight from your "acting smart" routine. 😁 But at the same time, you're also "acting stupid" because it's pretty clear you're just trying to justify being insulting. 😁
You clearly have zero clue what I mean by "playing dumb"—it’s actually the exact opposite of what you think. It's what we say when we feel someone doesn't count as being clueless, because they're intentionally acting like they don't get what we're telling them.
So, "intentionally stupid"? What did I even write? When we call someone out like that, we're labeling them as clueless and blaming them for making themselves look that way—where's the misunderstanding in that? Are we calling him clueless? - Yeah. Are we blaming him for acting like it? - Yeah. That's just not how grown-ups or serious people talk. Honestly, I still don't get why any moderator would even resort to that kind of communication when they have every other tool at their disposal—unless it's just pure arrogance and ignoring the rules. Look at that other thread (the zalba against a moderator), where a mod basically tells a user "shut it"—that's the same thing: arrogance and total disregard for the rules.
Nicholas King said:What's actually offensive about saying "you're acting clueless"? It’s basically just calling someone out for playing dumb—like they're pretending they don't get what's going on just to dodge responsibility or act superior. It hits that nerve where you're essentially telling someone, "Stop being fake; we both know you know exactly what's happening." Simple as that. 😕
So, someone’s calling me an idiot now—and getting off on blaming me for the whole mess themselves. Real classy.
I don't get why the mods feel the need to be so rude—like, you have all those tools at your disposal, so what's the point of being such jerks? Is this just how they show off when they get a taste of power? The "Cacic syndrome"? Seriously?
Michael Vaughn2 is spot on—the guy who sent that private message needs to just apologize instead of acting like he’s Cacic. Saying "you're acting stupid" is straight-up an insult, so that whole "if I offended you" bit is just nonsense. Is it really that hard to just be honest, apologize, and admit that communicating like that doesn't fly on this forum? I’m rooting for the mods to lead by example here—show us how to actually de-escalate things so we can all see why those rules exist in the first place. 😉
feralranger said:And who exactly is claiming these are merely isolated incidents? 🤷 Such a convenient little phrase.
That is precisely how politicians describe their own ranks, isn't it? Meanwhile, the country is looted to its very foundation, and retirees are forced to scavenge through trash cans just to get by...
Oh, of course, in every single institution representing the state, everyone is perfectly honest except for those "rare" outliers. Honestly, it’s nothing more than a fairy tale told to naive sheep.
😁
The reality? Only a handful of people are actually honest. And even fewer are professionals.
Looks like the experts back home really missed the mark on this one—in most advanced countries, vaccination isn't some legal mandate; it’s actually left up to the parents.
So, you’re calling child abuse "humor" now? Is that the deal? A "Men's Corner" that just serves as a punching bag for those leftover, primitive types—is that what we're calling it? Why aren't people here actually calling out the people advocating for abuse, instead of constantly making excuses by claiming they're just being "innocent" or "naive"?
Look, kids who haven't been victimized aren't responsible for the way they're being raised—no matter how much they get on everyone's nerves. The blame lies squarely with the parents who failed at the whole parenting thing. And if anyone deserves to be targeted, it's them... though they can certainly defend themselves and strike back.
I noticed the same thing over on The New York Times—actually got slapped with a ban myself just for making a joke about Secretary Holy’s appearance. But then I see way worse insults flying around without any consequences, even coming from a moderator (Observer) who gets a free pass every single time. It’s wild. When I try to report actual trolls and spammers, they don't get a single warning, yet the people they're baiting end up getting punished instead. It's pretty obvious which users are the moderation favorites and who basically has a "license to troll."