Seriously, can someone explain why? This whole thread about mandatory military service is being shut down. Look, I get it—you guys have had some bad experiences with certain ideologies on this forum, but banning any discussion about women in the military and training is ridiculous. It’s like trying to talk about the American Civil War but telling me I’m not allowed to mention Stalingrad, Boise, or Slunj... Given the world we live in right now, we should probably be looking at the Israeli model. If things ever actually kick off, our allies in the European Union aren't going to step up to save us. We'll just end up stuck on a Wild West line running from Lincoln to Washington to New York to Chicago, forced to defend the entire European Union's interests by ourselves.
I wasn't. I was using the Alt-right movement as an (extreme) example of how we don't want people writing here—how they used to write about immigrants and feminism, which ended up turning some forum users permanently gray (I actually just banned an Alt-right recidivist, so maybe that inspired my response). I get that mentioning the Alt-right movement right after saying you're part of the reason topics get derailed could be misread. If that's how you took it, I apologize, that wasn't my intention.
And how am I responsible, other than the fact that I don't buy into the feminist agenda? I take pride in the fact that I built everything in my life with my own two hands. I took on the hardest jobs without complaining, starting at home, and then I paid my way through high school and college entirely out of my own pocket. After that, I paid for expensive certifications myself and gained real skills through massive sacrifices. That’s why I’m an uncompromising advocate for meritocracy. Feminism is the exact opposite of that. Quotas and meritocracy don't mix, and once you start feeling the effects of that personally, views like mine become inevitable.
Sarah Doyle54 said:Impossible; even if I truly wanted to be a tyrant forcing everyone to agree, the system won't let me. We moderators aren't just acting on whims; we're part of a collective. All our decisions, the principles we moderate by, and even our own positions in the admin hierarchy are subject to questioning, negotiation, and changes by that group. So, the collective acts as the corrective force. Specifically, on this forum, it means each of us has a certain level of autonomy for minor calls (like someone deleting a post, issuing a warning, or docking points to prevent a ban), but for the big stuff (like permanent bans, partial bans, or deciding how to handle sensitive threads), we decide together. And on top of us, you have super-mods and admins who can argue against or uphold our decisions based on logic.
The system is only a corrective factor until the management structure gets filled with people who all think exactly the same way...
Who exactly is setting those boundaries? You? And based on what? Now you're labeling me a white supremacist just like that. You have absolutely no idea how wrong you are or how much of an insult that is. People like you honestly terrify me. It’s fine while you're just venting on a forum, but what happens when you actually get the power to decide someone's fate through the system one day?
Éowyn FTW said:You clearly have no idea what discrimination actually means. How exactly is someone being discriminated against just because they got a ban on a US forum...
Take a look at my ban status and why I got hit. Some Stormfront troll has managed to infiltrate this forum pretty effectively, and they’re getting away with posting on some of the most sensitive topics we've ever seen. I'm not even here to talk about myself. I'll say it again: this isn't just about the bans. It's about how one specific ideology is being forced down our throats based on criteria that looks suspiciously like old-school American collectivist thinking—where the government decides they know what you wanted and did better than you actually did...
Éowyn FTW said:Look, this forum isn't some public park. The owner pays for the domain and keeps the lights on, plain and simple... 🤷
For God's sake, what does paying matter? He made the content available to absolutely everyone, so he doesn't get to act like he owns the place. Just because you pay some jerk money doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want or start acting like you run your own private country within the US...
Sarah Doyle54 said:What you’re calling an ideological clash, we call being fundamentally incompatible with civilization itself. I get why you see this as intolerance toward political or worldview diversity, but honestly, that’s just the paradox of tolerance: you can't tolerate the intolerant. 😉
The problem starts when you label every single opinion you disagree with as "civilizationally unacceptable" just so you can pretend your own views are the absolute, objective truth...
Sarah Doyle54 said:Exactly. And you’re largely responsible for the fact that feminist topics have been watered down into nothingness. Reddit isn't 4chan, and you can't use that kind of rhetoric here. Not even if you try to play it safe.
That's my point. Klonka—since she's such a champion of left-liberal thought—understands my "subtle" arguments better than I do. It’s honestly ridiculous to demand an argument that proves I'm acting like some 4chan troll when this place clearly doesn't want me to be "subtle." But fine, since we're playing this game, why don't you show me a single post where I even vaguely push 4chan-style ideas? Actually, forget it. I'm forwarding this whole thread to the admin. I think this is the first time I've ever actually hit the report button...
Casey Bennett said:... coming from someone who doesn't even post in politics talking to someone who has zero connection to the political section of the forum. Once again, absolutely zero evidence provided via links, just more of that vague "moderators have the right to do what the rules say, which I agreed to" nonsense. Brilliant.
Even with those "Swiss investors," you signed off on certain rules only to find out they didn't actually align with the law. This whole clause about moderators making "subjective judgments" has been abused for ages now just to scrub content that doesn't fit their specific ideology. Since this is a public space accessible to everyone, I truly believe these kinds of "subjective assessments" are completely inappropriate for how Reddit operates. The argument that if you don't like it, you shouldn't visit is ridiculous—it doesn't protect the owner from potential consequences when the content is so publicly visible. Of course, hate speech, toxic communication, or calls for violence need to be removed. But for a long time now, Reddit has been projecting a distorted image of what American citizens actually think compared to reality. And they’re doing it in a totally public way while hiding behind "privacy" whenever something clashes with the platform's own political slant.
Casey Bennett said:You already got an answer in the original post. You've been debunked, and now you're just spinning. That’s not how this works. The thread exists, so use http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=910340 If you think we need another one, feel free to start it. It’s up to the moderators to decide if we need yet another thread about feminism. Just like it says in the terms you agreed to when you registered.
That thread looks familiar. After five or six closed threads and about a dozen banned users, that one was left standing—and I’m pretty sure it was locked long enough to be buried anyway. Fine, okay, I admit I messed up this time. Sure, the owner is a private individual, but that doesn't make this site private since it exists in a public space without any membership barriers. Because of that, they can't hide behind "privacy" arguments the way some moderators try to. As it stands, they have to follow American laws, specifically those regarding anti-discrimination and freedom of speech. I'm not talking about "the KKK driving out Muslims" I'm talking about people trying to have a rational debate about the potential benefits and dangers of certain ideologies and viewpoints. Usually, topics like this turn into a total mess, just like this feminism one or stuff about immigration. Everything gets filtered out, and half the people with actual different opinions have either given up or been banned long ago. The internet is a public square. If they want to enforce private rules, then put up a wall where only members can access it—members who, even then, have to follow laws that align with the country's regulations. Then we can talk about privacy. If they want it that way, let us see a login screen instead of being able to see the content and all the surrounding ads. We live in a country with laws where public spaces available for viewing and participation can't be restricted based on ideology, which is exactly what's happening here...
Emily Patel70 said:This forum is private property. It isn't being funded by taxpayer dollars.
The fact that there are ads running doesn't change who owns the place.
You could start a blog about mansions and unicorns and delete every single comment that isn't written in hot pink, and you'd still be allowed to use Google AdSense.
Maybe take a second to actually learn what ownership means, how internet marketing works, or even read the Constitution before you start throwing around "freedom of speech" nonsense... see what it actually stands for.
You can buy a domain, build whatever kind of site you want, and set whatever rules you feel like, as long as you aren't breaking the law.
Just because you don't have to hand over an ID card to sign up doesn't make this any less of a private platform than the ones you listed.
Intellectual property—especially in IT—is such a gray area that our legal system hasn't even caught up yet, which is probably why you feel so confident being wrong. I’m telling you, you can’t just run a forum like this and act however you want, discriminating against people just because they disagree with you by hiding behind arbitrary rules. Just because a forum's operations might not be explicitly defined by law doesn't mean you can turn a public space into your own little ideological playground. Besides, we've seen plenty of cases where bloggers leaned way too hard on their "private site" status and ended up behind bars, proving that online expression still answers to real-world rules. If what someone writes on a "private" page can land them in jail for libel or slander, then there's no reason why discrimination based on differing opinions shouldn't be treated the same way...
Look, instead of us just going back and forth forever, I’m asking you to actually help me prove my point. The status of women has been a massive issue for ages, and honestly, for a lot of people, it's the single most important factor for whether our civilization survives or actually moves forward. Most of the issues women face get brought to light and tackled through feminist organizations. Basically, feminism is huge, and modern politics is almost impossible to imagine without feminists and activists fighting for women's rights. Since we have such a critical conversation happening regarding the role of women in society and the fight for gender equality at every level, I’m asking you to start a thread on the political sub about feminist activism in America. Elections are coming up fast, and if things go the way they look like they will, women are going to be left without their 40% again. We can't just let that happen without a serious debate...
PS This is just one example that hits close to home for me, having been part of these debates before.
Look, I’m talking about how inconsistent these rules are within the platform's own guidelines. You think any business could just post a sign saying "staff can kick you out whenever they feel like it based on a vibe"? Not happening. It's like if a Hilton was booked for active-duty soldiers, but then a group of rowdy fans from Mexico shows up at the front desk to check in. So what? Some people just refuse to grasp that what they call "virtual space" has become just as real as anything else. It's subject to the exact same rules as the physical world we used to think was our only reality...
I can't find anything because the search engine is broken. And look, it’s not just about people being petty or acting out. The whole "forum privacy" argument usually comes up when a user hasn't actually broken any rules, but they started a discussion or made a post that the moderators subjectively decide is better left unsaid for the good of the community.
PS Given your comparison, mine looks even more spot on...
I’ve noticed that whenever some disgruntled users start complaining, they get told this is just a "private forum" and if they don't like it, they can go find somewhere else. This supposedly private forum exists in a public space. There are publicly visible ads all over the place that fund the owner. There isn't a single feature here that makes this place private—like requiring proof of employment at a specific company, university affiliation, or a membership fee.
I hope we can agree that a forum of this nature (one where you don't have to prove you belong to some exclusive group) is a public medium. It should provide equal access to all users regardless of gender, race, skin color, or even differing opinions.
Sure, there are clubs that set specific entry requirements. If you don't meet them, you don't even try to go in, and that's perfectly legal. There are forums like that too. Back in college, we had a forum accessible only to students. My company has a private forum for employees, and another private forum where only clients under contract can participate. All of that is clearly stated during registration, and you can't sign up without those checks. That would be private. However, Reddit doesn't have any of those characteristics. Since the whole point of this place is to exchange experiences, ideas, and thoughts, and there's no clause banning any of them, I don't get how the moderators can hide behind the "privacy" excuse.
It would be like sitting down in a public restaurant and then having the "kind owner" kick me out because of my race or sexual orientation. "Look, sir, this is a private restaurant. I'm the boss, I make the rules. We don't serve people like you here, so go find somewhere else." And I just came in to grab a bite and a drink. What would the consequences be? First off, legal ones.
Just like a guest comes in to eat and drink (which is what a restaurant is for), people come here to present their thoughts (which is the fundamental purpose of being on a forum), yet they're told this is a private forum... I'm not getting into whether this applies to the left or the right. I just want to know on what basis the moderators can even claim privacy when there's zero justification for it, other than private ownership—which doesn't exempt the owner from following the Constitution and legal regulations. In my view, invoking "privacy" in this situation is a straight-up violation of free speech, especially when a user hasn't broken any basic site rules. Let the owner set conditions for access, and then let him deal with the fact that his massive membership base is reading his ads. You can't have it both ways. You can't be public when it comes to the ad revenue, but suddenly private when it comes to the content. Get real...
Sarah Doyle54 said:Look, a lot of what you see being posted here—and on similar threads—isn't actually "critical speech." Real critical discourse means actually digging into a phenomenon, weighing the pros and cons, and looking at how things actually land for women, men, and society as a whole. It’s about substance. Feminism isn't some monolith; it's split into tons of different schools of thought and factions. If you're going to try and critique it, you should probably do the homework first instead of just lumping everything together... blaming every single thing people dislike on some vague group of feminists who supposedly hate men or "advocate for undemocratic methods"...
This whole thing with the different schools of thought and factions is just a massive game of passing the buck to "other feminists." Every time someone faces legitimate criticism, nobody wants to step up and take accountability. Instead, they just point fingers at some other faction or school of thought, exactly like you said... What I’m actually getting at here is the specific movement supported by mainstream American feminists, backed heavily by government institutions—specifically the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. And yeah, I might bring up examples from other countries that have already started implementing similar practices, but that's beside the point... When I mentioned that most people see quotas as undemocratic, all you have to do is look at this thread. You'll see a rare moment where even the most stubborn, clashing personalities on this forum actually agree. And honestly? I’m seeing the same sentiment everywhere else, too. There's always a trap where you miss the bigger picture because you only listen to people who already agree with you. You stay stuck in that little echo chamber. I made sure to step outside of that... Feel free to jump in and share your take. I honestly don't see gender quotas as any kind of departure from the democracy we've always known... We can hash it out there.
Sarah Doyle54 said:As for that penalty you got, here’s exactly why it happened...
This is nothing but pure, unadulterated trolling designed to make feminism—or at least anyone you label a feminist—look bad. It’s a total setup. Honestly, it's just someone trying to get a rise out of people, which is miles away from the actual, high-quality debate you're trying to have here...
I don't care about the technicalities. This is all about your attitude, and frankly, I can control myself well enough to stay on the right side of the mods. As for this whole "rigging the system" accusation, let me set the record straight. Jelena Veljača represents exactly what modern feminism stands for today—someone who uses every public platform available to push opinions that, in the end, turned out to be total nonsense. You see the exact same mindset from American feminists pushing for quotas. Their entire argument is built on the idea that a woman simply cannot succeed in this society without them. To a young, educated woman, this isn't empowering at all. Instead of encouraging them to actually prove their skills, they’re immediately brought down to earth with the message: "Sure, you might be a genius, but if you're a woman without feminism—meaning, without those quotas—you'll never make it to the top." They claim there are endless glass ceilings blocking her way. Unfortunately, this isn't just some fringe opinion held by a relatively insignificant figure like Jelena Veljača. You see it everywhere in various women's advocacy groups and institutions. They're creating this toxic atmosphere that is incredibly discouraging for talented, capable young women today. There is a massive risk in blindly accepting this current patriarchal theory... but we can get into that later...
Sarah Doyle54 said:Regarding the moderation rules, you've got a point. I think standardizing them would be a smart move.
Glad we're finally on the same page about this. A thread needs crystal clear, non-negotiable rules that apply to everyone—it shouldn't matter who's posting or who's moderating. That's the only way we can actually talk about feminism without everything blowing up, especially since these topics get incredibly sensitive...
It’s not exactly a tragedy that my post (that thread about the 40% quota) was flagged as trolling. The issue isn't even that it's slightly off-topic; it's the fact that so many previous posts haven't been penalized at all. Even the post I was replying to wasn't sanctioned. That's just my take, though. If the mods see it differently, fine—I can either deal with it or find another forum... But there's something else bothering me. This is the fifth or sixth thread in the last two years that brings up feminism. When you're talking about implementing gender-based quotas, it's almost impossible not to mention the people pushing these agendas and how they operate...
You can't pin this topic down into some neat little box and still expect a decent debate. Sure, you could moderate it that way, but then we're right back to the point of this message. There are too many different moderators here, and they aren't on the same page. One mod lets things drift way off track, then another comes along and starts handing out warnings for posts that were actually encouraged by the first guy... It would be great if you guys could just standardize the rules. Every single thread touching on feminism follows this "carrot and stick" pattern that eventually leads to the whole discussion being shut down, even when it could have been a great debate. You might say you can't control everything, but you can. The people who used to be here—the ones the mods deemed worthy of closing threads—are gone now. It’s a shame, because some of them were top-tier posters who ended up being victims of this exact inconsistency, where a discussion is allowed to head in one direction only to be punished for it later...
I don't want to see that happen to this thread. If it's not "politically correct," or if the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission is basically breathing down the neck of this forum, then stop pretending there's any actual freedom of speech here. We're all just walking into a trap. Just be honest: tell us that critical talk about feminism is banned. It's the same way it happened when nobody is allowed to say anything about homosexuality anymore. At least then we can avoid the endless cycle of warnings and bans. If you want these threads to survive, moderate them consistently. These discussions are vital because they give both feminists and their critics a chance to actually lay out their arguments. Honestly, it’s in the best interest of feminists themselves; their movement gets slammed so often lately, and they always claim people just "don't get" feminism. Well, this is the perfect chance for them to explain why their push for methods many consider undemocratic is actually good for everyone...
Anthony Garcia19 said:I’m lost. It feels like we're deciding whether to start World War III or something... Like Jack Cook7 said, anything is possible if people actually want it to happen. But looking at the PDF, the politics MUST have the will to moderate this debate about one modern ideology and its leaders.
Look, this is hands down the most awkward topic you can bring up here. We've had people insulting politicians and individuals and all sorts of crap on this forum before, but nobody—except for the Gender Equality Ombudsman—ever thought to call this site a hate speech hub. And she did it right in her annual report to the US Congress. To them, feminism is the only truth, and anything else is just hate speech or misogyny. If you dare to question their theories—no matter how bizarre they are or how civilly and logically you present your case—you're the enemy. To be clear, I’ve seen how these feminists lobby the European Union to have anti-feminism labeled as being on par with fascism or racism. So, it makes total sense why moderators ask themselves, "Why even deal with this?" It's way easier to just play defense and shut down any thread about feminism than to risk those "tolerant" types labeling you a misogynist or someone who supports hate speech, rape, and discrimination against women just because you didn't immediately jump to react according to their feminist playbook. People will whine about free speech when threads get locked, but honestly, everyone moves on pretty fast... I've been through enough of these debates to know that even the most harmless observation about feminism can trigger labels that seem to stem from nothing but psychopathic disorders. Besides, we used to get threats about legal action over topics discussed in Politics, and we even got them from a very active feminist who’s been posting here for over a decade, despite her denials. Not to mention how, after a thread gets closed, I end up receiving straight-up sick messages via PM from burner accounts with maybe ten posts each...
You basically let the trolls and the bot armies run wild just so you’d have an excuse to shut down a thread for being "politically incorrect." With moderation this pathetic, there was never any other way this thread could end...
Charles Lopez3 said:She only ever suggested, a way better alternative entirely.
If you're really not feeling it, just go ahead and add own square of land to your list
right under the Golden Gate Bridge. Then you can finally be a landowner,🤣
Every single poll claims the average American actually voted to keep the socialist system alive back in 1990—they just wanted independence plus some shopping malls so we wouldn't have to trek all the way to Austria or Italy just to grab some decent clothes or groceries. I have no clue where all this nonsense came from. That wasn't even on the ballot.