Posts by Zachary Turner6

Bradley Sanders4 said:So a red card shocks you, but landmines and machine guns don't?

Since when are cards handed out based on whether someone is personally shocked? And since when did we decide hate speech is synonymous with militarism? Personally, I think the whole thing is nonsense—but then again, what does my opinion have to do with the rules?

Charles Fox10 said:He doesn't moderate PDFs. Politics forum.☕

We're negotiating, and we'll have an agreement very soon.

Please accept my apologies—I was typing in such a rush that I missed a spot. It certainly wasn't intentional.

So, the official denial goes like this:I mean, honestly—what’s even the point of using a clone? Charles Fox10...Powerlock, bubimir,...". 🙂

There’s no rush on our end—we’re just here to kill some time anyway.😁

You all should reach an agreement privately, ideally over a cold beer.

Besides, why don't the clones, Charles Fox10, Powerluck, Bubimir, or even the admins (William Bennett53, Michelle Evans, Ryan Vaughn7, ...) just start a thread? Put the rules in plain English: what are the ground rules, and what are the penalties for those who break them? It would make things easier for us—so we know exactly where to walk on eggshells—and it makes life easier for you. No more "I didn't know the rules" excuses from the users, no ambiguity, and no moral dilemmas or second-guessing when it comes to issuing warnings, bans, or permanent removals.
And don't be afraid to get heavy-handed—in fact, please do! I still maintain my stance that it's much better to hand out ten warnings or permanent bans to those violating the discussion guidelines and the politics forum than to constantly lock threads or delete posts.

lonebadger6 said:Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a regular user here, not as a moderator over in Politics, so my influence on this is exactly the same as yours... 🙂
Generally, I agree that any kind of number-padding should be penalized. I recently posted over in the Attorney General thread that I personally think we should penalize both those who deny the horrors of Jasenovac by citing negligible or insulting figures and those who claim there were 700,000 victims...
The same logic applies here.

The pay-gap is a bit more complicated, at least from where I'm sitting. The media constantly pushes the idea that women earn less on average without providing any real context, so I suspect most users reaching for that argument aren't acting out of malice or trolling, but genuinely believe it's true. Though, I highly doubt anyone actually thinks the levels of physical violence between genders are comparable...

I get that, but you are still a moderator—which means you can (if you actually want to, of course) share some of those experiences or the principles you follow when you're moderating.

Generally, I agree that anyone just throwing out numbers for clout should be penalized. I actually wrote recently on the Attorney General thread that I’d personally penalize both those who deny Jasenovac (or mention insignificantly small figures) and those who claim there were 700,000 victims.
The same logic applies here.

Thanks for the input.

The Pay-gap is a bit more complicated. At least, that's my impression. The media constantly highlights the fact that women are paid less on average without offering much context. So, I suspect most users—men or women—who reach for that argument aren't doing it with malicious intent or trolling; they genuinely believe it.

But if they are repeatedly debunked with actual statistics and logical arguments, and yet they stubbornly persist in their claims without providing any new reasoning? In your view—both as a user and a moderator—is that considered trolling or just destroying the discussion?

Unless I think someone truly believes, for instance, that the levels of physical violence between genders are comparable.

The ratio? No. Statistics don't lie. But the motive or reason behind the physical violence ratio...? Can we discuss whether men are a "more violent gender" or if they are simply physically stronger, making them more likely perpetrators than women? After all, how can we solve a problem without correctly identifying its cause?

briskotter13 said:Regarding the off-topic section, I viewed this thread as a space where we can offer suggestions to the Attorney General, who seems unsure about how to handle this herself. But she needs to figure it out, because I’m increasingly seeing men push back against female privileges. Sure, some are just nostalgic for the "good old days," but we shouldn't dismiss legitimate, reasoned arguments just because of that.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a tough spot. Honestly, I think they feel exactly how feminists felt a century ago—treated like oddities or weaklings, mocked and ridiculed. There isn't really an organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. They do it however they can, often bluntly or without much tact, but that shouldn't stop the conversation from happening.

To make matters worse, they have to fight through endless stereotypes, especially the one regarding the sheer scale of violence against women. It feels like our society has created a climate where discussing any male issues is considered distasteful until the issue of violence against women is fully resolved. That’s the "trump card" used to shut down any man trying to point out what bothers him. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic related to men. And frankly, if you look strictly at official statistics, that issue is being blown way out of proportion. I have to admit, I was surprised by the scale; we aren't talking about slightly inflated numbers here, but massive, astronomical discrepancies. Maybe that's not an exaggeration, but wanting to know how those numbers are calculated shouldn't be treated as a problem.

I wondered how this gets away with it, but reading this forum makes it clear. It’s not just that unverified figures are released into the public square; it’s that any attempt at criticism is immediately branded as misogyny. Why? Because apparently, "everyone knows" it's true. These widely accepted falsehoods and "creative truths" form the bedrock of every debate on gender relations. In reality, it’s impossible to touch on the vulnerability of men without first addressing the foundation: the creation of a negative public perception of men (violence, Pay-gap, patriarchy). I believe this is exactly why the moderation team hesitates to open threads about men—they worry about things spiraling out of control. If the scope is the problem, maybe it’s better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas resulting from feminist lobbying without mentioning the root causes of those quotas? To me, that looks like just another major evil fueled by political cronyism and nepotism.

I would love to see a dedicated thread on men opened here, followed by a formal invitation to federal equality institutions and various NGOs to join the discussion. I truly want to hear them explain the data points that we are supposedly expected to take on faith without questioning. I envision a debate where forum members aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and provided mathematical or statistical evidence for their claims. Just as there are male trolls, women can be just as bad, throwing out empty platitudes instead of actually engaging with sensible questions.

I think it's pretty obvious who the "nostalgics" are in these discussions.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a very awkward spot. I suspect they feel much like feminists did a century ago—viewed as oddities, weaklings, or just targets for ridicule. There is almost no organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. And they do it however they can—usually bluntly and without much tact—but that shouldn't be an excuse to shut down the conversation entirely.

I’d love for you to share your thoughts on those who are "blunt and tactless" (and I think you know exactly which user I’m referring to 😉)—has he ever made you wonder if he hates women, or have you, as a woman participating in the debate, ever felt uncomfortable because of him?

On top of everything else, they have to navigate a minefield of stereotypes, the most problematic being the narrative surrounding the prevalence of violence against women. A social climate has been engineered where discussing any male-centric issues is seen as distasteful unless the issue of violence against women is resolved first. It’s become the go-to "argument" used to stall any attempt by men to point out what bothers them. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic regarding men. And honestly, that issue is massively overstated if you look strictly at official statistics. I have to admit, even I was surprised by the scale of it; we aren't just talking about minor statistical padding here, but figures that are gargantuan in scope. Now, maybe that isn't an exaggeration, but it shouldn't be an issue to ask how those numbers are actually derived.

I want to ask lonebadger6 (and the rest of the moderators): if someone claims "a woman is beaten every 15 minutes in America," and they are met dozens of times with Department of Justice statistics regarding domestic violence cases—which are, at the very least, dozens of times lower (even counting reported cases, not just convictions)—and that person keeps doubling down on those claims, will that be treated as trolling in future threads? Specifically, the scenario where a person "isn't intentionally lying, but continues to state the same thing after it has been repeatedly and logically refuted"? Those are quotes from lonebadger6 earlier in this discussion.
If we start punishing people for "speculating on victim counts" (which, frankly, we should—because even if it were only 100 women a year falling victim to domestic violence in the US, that would still be a massive crisis requiring a serious response), then IMO, we should also be punishing those who intentionally weaponize false numbers. Doing so doesn't just demonize men; it insults the actual victims of domestic violence.

The whole Pay-gap issue has been dissected from statistical and methodological angles more times than I can count; if someone looks at the raw data—which shows that women globally earn less than men (an undeniable fact)—and somehow manages to conclude that "women are paid less FOR THE SAME WORK" (a purely arbitrary leap in logic), then I honestly don't think it's an insult to tell them their take has zero connection to statistics, logic, economics, or even basic common sense.
Personally, I’ve spent several massive essays explaining why that specific interpretation is logically flawed and economically baseless (if not outright impossible). And, of course, it isn't just me—it’s not even just other users here (including women like briskotter13, ChienSaintHubber, and many others), but also very serious economists and mathematical experts.

Are there "women's issues" regarding employment and the economy? Of course there are. We’ve debated some of them: hiring trends for young women, how pregnant employees are treated, getting young mothers back into the workforce, social discrimination against women in certain sectors... these are all legitimate problems. Trying to solve them doesn't help one bit when people constantly peddle falsehoods and illogical claims.

And will such claims be dismissed as mere trolling if they lack any actual argument beyond "that's just how it is," "I heard it somewhere," "I read it online," "you just don't get it and you hate women," or my personal favorite, "my neighbor's husband's sister once told me..."?

I was wondering how this even gets passed through, but reading this forum makes it clearer. It's not just that unproven numbers are released into the public sphere, but any attempt at criticism is immediately labeled as misogyny. Because apparently, that’s just "something we all know." These widely accepted untruths and "creative facts" form the foundation of every discussion regarding gender relations. In reality, it feels impossible to touch upon any topic regarding men's vulnerabilities without starting from the premise of creating a negative public attitude toward men (violence, the pay gap, the patriarchy). I believe this is one of the main reasons why the moderators hesitate to open threads about men—they worry about it spiraling out of control. If the issue is the breadth of the topic, maybe it's better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas—which were reached through lobbying by feminist groups—without mentioning the reasons those quotas exist? To me, quotas are just another major evil that feeds into political favoritism and nepotism.

Exactly. It is incredibly difficult to talk about quotas without touching upon the OFFICIAL excuses that necessitated them in the first place.
In logic, you cannot attack a conclusion without attacking either the premises or the method used to derive those conclusions from them.

I would love for a thread about men to be opened, with a formal invitation sent to federal equality institutions and NGOs to participate in the debate. I would truly love to hear them explain the data that everyone is supposedly expected to "just know" without verification. And let it be a debate where users aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and, above all, provided a mathematical and statistical explanation for what they are advocating. Just as there are male trolls, women haven't been lacking in throwing around various platitudes without the need to actually discuss or answer perfectly sensible questions.

Thanks, briskotter13. 🙂
It’s always a bit easier when a woman writes this stuff.

It's true that male trolls exist, and there are certainly misogynistic users on similar topics. As for me, and briskotter13 as well, we are simply interested in whether female and male trolls will be punished equally.
I genuinely enjoy debating topics with someone like north wind—we usually keep things incredibly civil, and honestly, we even enjoy to 😍—but when it comes to subjects like this, her arguments almost always devolve into condescension. It’s the usual "you have no clue," "do some reading," followed by endless facepalming, sipping coffee, and, quite frankly, insulting her interlocutors.
It seems whenever BadPig makes a joke in a much more harmless way or just wants to "grab a coffee," he gets hit with warnings EVERY SINGLE TIME without fail.
And when ZgSash loses his cool after a few posts like that—not at north wind specifically, but just in general—becoming rude or crude, he gets banned.

As for the guys—look, I’m not saying anyone should escape consequences if they deserve them. Quite the opposite! If they break the rules and undermine the discussion, they ought to be penalized. My only point is that it would be fair if the agitators and trolls on the "other side" were treated with the same level of scrutiny.

I remember back in the day, even Eugen C., who is a moderator now, had a style of discourse that nearly brushed against what you'd expect from a pillar of society, just positioned on the other side of the barricade. (Not a complaint about Eugen, mind you—he’s a dear 😉).

To avoid drifting completely off-topic, I have to say that I find myself agreeing with a rather problematic claim made by Dorian—specifically, the idea that "topics regarding men's rights won't be tolerated on this forum."

@Dorian, you provided a very detailed and reasoned explanation as to why this is the current moderation policy, but I simply cannot get behind those arguments. You shouldn't be able to silence or censor a potentially vital sociological, political, or even legal discussion just because the discourse surrounding it becomes inappropriate. Especially since you admitted yourself that it’s "always the same 5 or 6 people causing trouble." By saying that, you aren't just undermining those of us who would love to engage in this debate—and believe me, there are more than just a few of us interested in discussing this in a civilized, reasoned manner—you are also undermining the moderators and admins. You're essentially implying that the methods and mechanisms you've established (yourselves along with Anderlon, of course) aren't enough to maintain order—meaning you can't actually do your "job" (and I use quotes there because, frankly, I have no idea which of you are actually getting paid for this 🙂). But let's be real: you can.

In fact, whether you intended to or not, that statement places a taboo on a specific subject and kills the very concept of this forum being a space for the free exchange of ideas. Moreover, it dangerously implies that the political, ideological, and other stances of the Forum.hr administration heavily influence not just the direction of discussions, but the existence of the platform itself. Is that really the kind of reputation Forum.hr needs?

I'm not trying to strip your comment out of context, nor am I interpreting it as anything other than what I believe it to be (a slip of the tongue); I just want to point out that there are many users here who—as you've already seen in this thread—feel strongly about this. Besides, since lonebadger6 and I have already touched upon Tirelli, Varga, and Cacic—how is this statement, taken entirely on its own, any less sexist? That's a question many users might reasonably ask.

Of course, as Thomas Morgan67 pointed out, the Forum.hr administration has every right to implement whatever rules they see fit, provided they comply with American law. It's up to us to either accept them or take our business elsewhere. However, no one can stop us from expressing our disagreement with those rules, whether it's here on this forum or on any other medium.

I think the much better approach is the one you actually suggested: extremely rigid moderation of any such potential topics, using warnings liberally and being absolutely unapologetic about bans—even permanent ones if necessary. I'm confident that the wheat will be separated from the chaff very quickly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it looks like we’re dumping all this extra work on you moderators—mostly because half of this thread will probably end up being moved over to Politics anyway, which is where it belongs. I'm currently too deep in the thick of this discussion to step away, so if I end up getting flagged for dragging things out, I'll just take the hit—man to man, or woman to woman. 😁

We’re speaking in generalities here, of course—everything depends on the specific context. If "felixx" just drops a link to some bizarre study, then we're looking at trolling and misogyny, especially considering he's already dumped 875 posts of that exact flavor. But if that isn't the case, there’s really no point in punishing someone based on the assumption they *had* to know the link was inaccurate. Though, let's be honest, it usually isn't that hard to tell whether someone is being malicious or if they simply... don't know. Just to touch briefly on the specific example at hand—differences between male and female intelligence within the general population do exist. Superficial studies will typically show men as being more intelligent because they tend to be measured against a certain "similar" population. The actual truth is that men are more "scattered." To put it very simply: if you imagine 100 men and 100 women, you’ll find 10 geniuses and 10 idiots among the men, while the rest hover around the average; whereas with the women, you’d likely see 5 geniuses and 5 idiots, with everyone else clustering tightly around the mean.

I'm already well aware of this; we’ve hashed this out extensively in previous threads—going back and forth for ages—and my final takeaway ended up being almost identical to yours.

Besides, this is just some trivial research yielding a trivial data point. There’s no doubt that plenty of women possess an incredibly high IQ—that's a given. So, what exactly is the point of dropping a link like that into a debate about gender? Is the implication "we" are smarter than "them"? No. It’s a completely superficial statistic that tells you absolutely nothing about the capabilities of a gender, let alone the capability of any single individual. Honestly, there's a pretty good chance that anyone bringing this up in a discussion about gender is doing it with bad intentions—which, frankly, suggests they probably aren't one of the smarter ones in the room anyway.

Exactly—it’s a trivial point. A difference in cognitive ability (in this case, IQ) tells you absolutely nothing about who is more "capable" on an individual level. Even less so can you take statistical laws and map them onto a single person—unless, of course, that law applies to a sample size of either 0% or 100%. Any undergrad sitting through an advanced math lecture would tell you that those figures are little more than theoretical constructs.

You’re right on that second point—I definitely went overboard and caricatured things a bit too much. But honestly, the content itself practically invites that kind of reaction. What was even the point of bringing up Varga and Cacic? I'm not saying there was any actual malice intended, but that's exactly the direction this type of debate spirals toward. The fact remains: Tirello said something sexist. Period. Personally—and I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way—the whole comment about how "as soon as a man speaks, they all start jumping up and showing up..." makes it sound like the bigger issue isn't what she actually said, but rather the fact that men were reacting to it in the first place. It’s pandering to low instincts right from the introduction. Suddenly, the topic shifts from "this politician just said something sexist" to "men are being victimized and everyone is treating us unfairly." To me, it feels remarkably similar—and the underlying dynamic isn't all that different—to when certain ultra-nationalists start whining that Mexicans have more rights than Americans in the States.

I can't say I entirely agree with you there. If someone claims that women get a "free pass" on sexist remarks more easily than men, it doesn't necessarily follow that the person making the claim thinks the reaction should be identical for both.
Personally, I firmly believe that Cacic and Varga ought to be cautioned about their choice of words; regardless of whether their intentions are malicious sexism, a poorly timed joke, or just a clumsy slip of the tongue, certain phrases simply have no business being part of political discourse. Of course, I’m against people feeling offended by every little thing—like regionalism (which sounds much more sophisticated than calling it what it actually is)—but we should still strive for decorum and progress.
Furthermore—as a man myself, I feel somewhat obligated to call out sexist remarks made by other men. I don't want someone who represents the American people, and by extension, me, making those kinds of statements (speaking metaphorically, of course—they are speaking on my behalf).
That said, it’s hard to ignore the discrepancy between how the public reacts to their comments versus how they react to Nancy Tirello's. Just because I notice that difference doesn't mean I'm concluding that "male" sexism shouldn't be called out, nor does it mean I consider myself "oppressed" or "marginalized." But it does make me wonder: why is there such a gap?

Naturally, I don't feel threatened. In fact, I think my life is going quite well; I live significantly better than 99.9999% of the people on this planet. However, that doesn't stop me from taking an interest in certain issues, even if my motivations are more academic or salon-style rather than purely practical.

(I'm not suggesting that women are oppressed, nor am I saying that Mexicans are oppressed—not in the slightest. But for a variety of reasons, it's incredibly tacky to claim that women are privileged in American society. They might be in terms of parenting roles, but that's largely true everywhere in the world and was true even back when they didn't have the right to vote and were expected to stay in the kitchen.)

Well, yes, that is precisely the point: every demographic group has its own set of problems. We share many of them, but some are specifically—or perhaps more accurately, uniquely or frequently—tied to a particular group.
Identifying and addressing these specific issues doesn't somehow diminish the existence of problems faced by other groups, nor does it negate the need to solve them.

In the end, if we really want to get into the weeds—those three statements (Cacic, Varga, Tirello) aren't even comparable. Tirello's comment was more idiotic than truly sexist. That study was recently all over various media outlets, mostly in a trivial way. To me, the saddest part of the whole thing is seeing someone so, shall we say, "simple" holding relatively high political office. Not that it's anything new, mind you. It sounds like something a teenager would post on Facebook. But it's based on actual research. Varga and Cacic, however, made overtly sexist remarks. Especially Cacic. Varga came off as a bit foolish—it was a sexist remark, sure, but essentially benign. Cacic, on the other hand, had a very serious sexist outburst; behind a seemingly simple sentence lies deep-seated sexism.

I assume you're referring to this statement from Cacic: "Secretary Holy, don't bother your little head with economic matters; there are others to handle that."?

I don't know; to me, that looks more like a personal attack on Holy than outright misogyny. The only part that's condescending is the "little head" bit. By the way—I don't particularly care for Cacic as a person, and even if I did, I wouldn't condone that kind of rhetoric, but Holy really doesn't have the slightest clue about economics.😁I'm not trying to make excuses for Radimir—this is just my own two cents.

As for those other two comments, I'll give you that; they feel more clumsy and moronic than outright sexist. That said, everything is open to interpretation, and frankly, it feels a bit ungrateful to try and play judge and jury on the exact "level of sexism" in their remarks. They were stupid, unnecessary, and unwelcome. Period.

Forgive me for barging into this thread, but I’m finding a few things a bit unclear—could someone please shed some light on this?

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

So, if someone happens to stumble upon some claim online asserting that... The old debate resurfaces: are men, on average, more intelligent than women? It’s one of those topics that people love to throw around just to see the sparks fly. "I'm just relaying the findings from the study—no sweeping generalizations included"—really? Is that not just textbook misogyny?
Hmm.

Don't worry—I’m not about to start parroting the nonsense being peddled by those bottom-tier journalists. You know the type—reporters who couldn't be bothered to actually dig into the research they're citing, let alone verify if their methodology holds water, check the sample size, or see if their conclusions are even remotely grounded in reality.

So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. Look, she can talk about that, or she can talk about anything else for all I care—but she shouldn't lead with it in the opening post followed by three more posts that basically scream, "Nancy Tirelli said X, which is horrific, and honestly, being a man in this country is the worst thing you can be right now." It’s always the same cycle: if a man says something like that, everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, but instead, we get this narrative where men are the ones under threat, women can do whatever they want, and at this rate, women will soon have a legal permit to beat us up. I'm exaggerating a bit here—you get my point—but it becomes almost impossible to tell whether the actual issue is what Tirelli said, or the fact that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a miniskirt." (Again, hyperbole, but you see where I'm coming from.)

You’re caricaturing my position quite a bit—lots of non sequiturs and strawman arguments coming from your side. How exactly are you jumping to that conclusion? You're acting as if me suggesting a situation would cause a much bigger uproar if a man had said the same thing implies that I actually believe women are worth less, or that I hate them, or that I support sexual assault. That's a massive leap.
Whether I agree with that claim or not is actually beside the point—your logical progression just doesn't hold water.

I stand by every single word written by briskotter13 and Thomas Morgan67—they are proverbially pleasant and genuinely helpful conversationalists on just about any topic regarding the rights and injustices facing men.

We all know who the troublemakers are. Two of them have already been permabanned (felixx and Pillar of Society), Goldman Sachs rarely shows up anymore and avoids these specific topics, and ZgSash has his own particular way of talking (though I don't think many women have ever complained about him, *que non*?)—plus he’s usually more constructive than destructive in a debate. Then there's BadPig, who loves to poke fun, but very rarely crosses the line. That leaves only Prangija77, who simply refuses to compromise. So, where does that leave us?

I also find it frankly ridiculous that posts get deleted without any explanation provided within the thread as to why or how they were removed. What kind of pedagogical or preventative purpose is that actually serving?

mistyjackal14 As requested by Zachary Turner6:
And what exactly is it supposed to represent?

It looks like the phrase "former head of the Human Rights Campaign" refers to their current status—meaning they aren't in that position anymore—rather than implying they were out of office when those actions actually took place. As far as I can tell, that’s how it’s being phrased. He carried out those actions while he was serving as a representative for the LGBT community.

For some reason, there isn't much coverage on this online—it’s surprisingly quiet—but I stumbled upon a Swedish news site that actually lays out the details. Good grief, it looks like someone just ran this through Google Translate.

This was exactly what the President was up to:
If you take a look at the history of gender rights in Sweden, you’ll see a pretty massive shift in how society handles identity and legal protections. It isn't just some overnight change—it's been a decades-long evolution of policy and social norms that eventually reshaped their entire legal landscape. It’s actually quite fascinating to track how they moved from traditional structures toward more progressive frameworks. While most people focus on the end result, the real story lies in the incremental legislative battles that paved the way for current standards. It serves as a decent case study for anyone interested in how modern civil rights movements actually manifest within a Western democratic system.

Look, if any evidence ever surfaces—or if it comes to light down the road—that this organization was involved in crimes, actively encouraged them, or even just sat idly by knowing what was happening without reporting it, I will condemn them without hesitation. I’m not interested in playing devil's advocate for bad actors. But until then... what exactly are you planning to charge them with?

I’m honestly not sure why the phrase "anyone accusing all gay people of this is an idiot" and the Catholic Church keep popping up in every single one of your posts—it feels like some sort of reflexive defense mechanism you've developed. But from where I'm sitting, looking at the actual discussion here, nobody has actually accused the entire LGBT community of anything, nor has anyone even brought up the Church.

Since you didn't quite catch my point about the church—let’s try this instead: do you actually believe the USA is a kleptocracy? Look at the track record over the last few years—so many high-profile officials, from members of The Administration to various government agencies, have been hit with charges ranging from fraud and tax evasion to straight-up theft, embezzlement, and white-collar crime. We've seen people leverage their positions of power just to line their own pockets. Even the former Prime Minister ended up convicted for crimes committed while he was in office. So, I have to ask—does someone like George W. Bush, who served multiple terms as an elected leader, truly represent the interests of the American people?

It’s actually quite simple—really. An official from the organization. It’s quite the double standard—on one hand, they preach endlessly about tolerance and lecture us on how narrow-minded we are, yet on the other, they're out there committing horrific acts of violence against children. It’s pure hypocrisy.

And that is exactly why such an individual will never have—and frankly, never again will possess—any shred of credibility. How much that lack of integrity taints the entire organization is... well, I suppose that’s something only you seem to grasp.

It’s become perfectly clear to me why he exploited that specific group for his own gain—including those horrific instances of sexual assault—but I honestly can't wrap my head around why you all insist on dragging the entire LGBT community into this narrative every single time.

Again with the "sir"—you don't need to be so formal with me; we're just hanging out on a forum, after all. Feel free to drop the formalities and just call me by my first name, colleague.

Everyone here was more than happy to jump on the man himself—but the second you had a chance to hold the actual organization accountable, you all pivoted to dragging the entire LGBT community into the fray to soften the blow. Not one single person in this thread actually condemned the organization!

Based on what, exactly? It seems you're refusing to see that if we applied that same logic, plenty of local, regional, and even national branches of the Catholic Church—not to mention the US government itself—would be sitting right in the crosshairs of condemnation too.
I don't personally believe the entire US is subject to condemnation. Is that how you see it?

Paul Thompson3 said:Back in my high school, being punished for things you were supposed to already know would have been a capital offense.

Sounds like one intense high school! 😁

Paul Thompson3 said:I’m not sure which part you missed: Last year, from October 24th to the 26th, ILGA-Queer leaders and their affiliates held their 17th annual conference in Washington, D.C., under the auspices of President Barack Obama. It was actually a historic moment—the first time a head of state ever opened an ILGA conference via video wall. During the event, Obama gave a speech regarding LGBT rights, noting that while the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination based on "sex," the Constitution of the United States doesn't explicitly mention gender specifically.

If he isn't representing the country, then who exactly is?!

By Thor's hammer...
Here is what I was actually trying to get across: anyone attempting to draw conclusions about the ENTIRE homosexual community based on this single instance would be just as foolish as someone claiming they could judge the entire Roman Catholic Church based on the issue of pedophilia among priests (which, let's face it, is usually within the Catholic Church).
I’m using the word "foolish"—though "idiot" certainly fits—because anyone with even a basic high school education should recognize this as a classic logical fallacy of overgeneralization.

Claiming this sick individual represents the gay community globally or even just across Europe is about as logical as saying pedophiles within the Catholic Church represent the entire Catholic Church worldwide.

So, yeah—not even remotely close.

Jack Johnson6 said:You're arguing with ghosts.

Sure, the developed world's standard of living is becoming more accessible. But technology isn't making massive leaps; we're just scaling existing tech, and 90% of that expansion is just China catching up.

The developed world already had everything listed above, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then. Medical progress is enough to manage lifestyle diseases for now, but how you live still matters more than any medical gadget.

Epidemics? Look at the obesity and infertility epidemics. They aren't even limited to humans, so it’s not just about diet. The toxins produced by industrial civilization are turning us into sterile little balls of salt.

No, it’s nowhere near what it used to be. Some people mistake technological progress for being able to watch x times more clips on YouTube than five years ago. Real progress would be if food were ten times cheaper than it was 30 years ago. If building a house with water, sewage, and electricity were ten times cheaper. If transport were significantly faster and cheaper. If healthcare were vastly more affordable and accessible. And all of that without destroying the Planet like current tech does.

Industrial civilization gave us temporary comfort, and the price might be the destruction of the Planet.

Look, today you have access to the two greatest treasures in existence, aside from your health: knowledge and education (and let’s be clear, those aren't the same thing).
At every turn, it's incredibly cheap—cheaper than a cup of coffee, and certainly way less expensive than a pack of cigarettes. You carry your gateway right in your pocket. Even though about 70% of the infrastructure supporting those platforms is humming away behind the scenes tonight, you can tap into most of that information in an instant. Literally. The vast majority of that knowledge is completely free, barring the cost of your hardware (laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc.) and your service provider (your ISP—think AT&T or Verizon).

And you're telling me the internet hasn't fundamentally changed life? Well... clearly not yours. Mine? Immensely.
The lives of Larry Page and Eric Schmidt (though I could have just as easily listed Zuckerberg or Kim Dotcom) have been drastically altered by it.

It all comes down to perspective. In America, just like anywhere else, there will be people who find ways to profit from 3D printers, and then there will be those who don't.🤷

Of course I would. If they can harvest absolutely anything that might help someone—kidneys, skin, you name it—then let them take it all. The rest of me can burn for all I care.

I’ll make sure to include it in my will, just so there's zero chance anyone tries to contest my decision to donate my organs to those in need. Post-mortem, obviously.

I wouldn't sign up for the nationalist movement—purely because I have zero faith in revolutions (unless we’re talking strictly non-violent ones). However, if there were a movement *against* nationalism, I’d be right there in the thick of it ☕.

That said, I am actively working toward a national evolution 😍.

Maria Booth96 said:Go ask the President. 🤷
The administration claims their goal is to boost production, ramp up exports, and hit a 3% GDP growth rate. Just to get things moving.

They’re talking about investing in industry, science, consolidating land holdings, and lowering the cost of agricultural goods.

In plain English, that means cutting red tape for anyone looking to invest—except for one specific permit that takes ten minutes to grab; focusing science funding (roughly 40% tech, 40% natural sciences, 10% social sciences, and 10% humanities); ending subsidies for single cows or small poultry farms; and building a nuclear power plant in Cincinnati. (Since the President is from Cincinnati, obviously.)

We’re going to rezati socijala, even though we claim to be on the left, because you have to prioritize the economy over social spending. And since the Secretary of Sports knows everything about energy, he can just jump in and multitask; his ideas and international experience will surely carry the day.
Then there's regional integration while maintaining full sovereignty and cross-border cooperation.

It’s pretty easy to learn those buzzwords.🤣

The Secretary of Sport is now tasked with inventing a way to power stadiums and arenas using nothing but sunshine, wind, and pure good intentions. There won't be any taxpayer money for that. 😁

Honestly, if I were Deputy President, I’d announce the total abolition of state subsidies for failing companies. Or rather, if a subsidy is granted due to a company's "strategic importance" to the nation, it should come with the mandatory condition of firing the entire (obviously incompetent) management team.
Actually, since I'm just the Deputy, I wouldn't announce it—I'd just draft it and hand it to the President. What do you think, boss?

Jose Carter2 said:So, here’s the shadow cabinet idea.

Prime Minister - Samwell Tarly

Secretary of State - Powerlock
Secretary of Homeland Security - Richard Wilson4
Secretary of Defense - 🤷
Secretary of the Treasury - someid
Secretary of Commerce - the gipper
Attorney General - Vicky

Honestly, you don't even need more than this... all those other departments are just bloated shells designed to find cozy little jobs for political cronies...

How can you not know who the Secretary of Defense should be? Marasovac FTW! 😁 He’s so good I’d probably slot him into a left-wing coalition if I could.

And yeah, I actually agree with the gipper being Secretary of Commerce. He would 🙂 clean house of all the slackers and bureaucrats😁

Maria Booth96 said:It’s not the most heavy-duty topic, but does everything always have to be so serious?😍

So, look, we've got the current administration in Washington; honestly, I can barely tell them apart—it all feels pretty much the same to me, up or down.

I say we start our own little forum government right here on this politics board.
Alright, let's hear it. 😍

President, obviously, Pizvo
Vice President: Vacant

Secretary of Agriculture: Aunt Elsa—she actually knows her way around a farm, unlike the deputy coach.

Secretary of the Treasury: Charles Fox10 (everyone likes him, which is usually the worst job in the cabinet).

Secretary of Health and Human Services: felixx—it's his life's calling, with north wind as deputy.

Secretary of Sport: McAuliffe—easily the biggest sports nut among us.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Zionist (has some right-wing views, but he's a solid doctor).

Secretary of Labor: Gilda

Secretary of State: MC Ozy (better to be number one in the North America than last place in Europe).

Secretary of Defense: judolino

Secretary of European Integration: Rendolf (more moderate than Powerlock, but without London, we aren't going anywhere, so let him take the lead).

Secretary of Environmental Protection: Katarina riječki

Secretary of Commerce: somied

Secretary of Science: Ego

Attorney General: Vojky, no need to waste my breath.

Chief of Staff: Michael Minister

Secretary of Tourism: nasmijanonebo—she runs the tourism subforum and knows every vacation spot there is. Deputy is a realist.

Secretary of Homeland Security: drot13

Way too few women. 🤷

I'll bet we'd actually see some success, maybe even better than what we have now. 🤷

Who's stepping up for these roles?

Whoa! Straight to the top, straight to one of the most demanding roles. 😁 In that case, I’ll be the one doing all the actual work while Pizvo poses for the cameras. 😬

I’d also nominate Gingerin for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Additionally, I’d suggest a certain Marine as Deputy Secretary of Defense to serve under judolino, since he’s basically a walking encyclopedia of military strategy (especially regarding old-school tactics). Though, I’ll stick with judolino for the top spot, given his pacifist leanings. 😁

And while I don't mind Cuka, are we absolutely sure we don't want a firmer hand at the Treasury? I have a feeling Cuka would just balloon the deficit by handing out cash to anyone who asks. somied and Gilda wouldn't be able to make money fast enough to cover what Cuka would spend. 😁

Gary Parker87 said:Time Magazine just dropped a report confirming those suspicions about the Turkish military using chemical weapons against the Kurds, who are fighting for independence from the Islamist regime in Washington, D.C.

The photos were handed over to humanitarian groups in Germany back in September, and today, experts finally verified they're the real deal.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...711536,00.html

Absolutely horrific...😢

Every single crime needs to face sanctions—period. It shouldn't matter who the perpetrator is or who the victim happens to be.

The ball is in NATO's court here (since Turkey is a member of that particular military-political alliance): they need to issue warnings, then sanctions, then an embargo—in that order—if they don't fall in line.
Of course, the European Union shouldn't even consider them as a candidate while this is happening... unless they want to call it a "sensitive domestic issue." Honestly, the EU should probably follow NATO's lead on this one.

Sure, but where are the NATO leaders (the USA and the UK) now, ready to condemn "horrific Islamists" and "take action"? Look, I'm not advocating for intervention, but if they were able to send troops into Iraq and Afghanistan (and potentially Iran very soon) under the guise of "spreading democracy" and "protecting freedoms and human rights," they could at least find their voices and speak up about this.