The mods over at Politika are killing it. Seriously, they do an awesome job, and the supermods too. My only gripe is that they don't hand out enough permanent bans on the site.
Hey, mod Lay's, since you slapped me with a 45-point penalty for "insulting users," can you actually tell me who I supposedly offended and what I said?
Was it using words like "stupid," "destructive," or "primitive"? Or was it my mention of "orgies"?
To be specific, I called out user Mike Hrakinen, whose posts both got flagged and who ended up banned. He only got a 35-point penalty for calling people "assholes"—which is actually less than what I got. 🙂 As for the "Republican pups" comment, I don't even see a penalty because that post was already deleted.
I also complained about hr1u100, who got a 35-point trolling penalty for calling political opponents sexual deviants (though he later tried to claim he wasn't talking about gay people, but rather bestiality).
Beyond Lay's, I'd like the other mods on this thread to weigh in here. It makes zero sense that I get 45 points for calling someone stupid, while that same person gets to toss around terrible insults at everyone—including me, since we don't see eye-to-eye politically.
Instead of keeping things orderly, Lay's has made this whole thing absurd. It basically implies that on this forum, you can call someone an "asshole" all day, but if you call them primitive, you're the one in trouble. 🙂 Meanwhile, just for calling a politician "Joe Biden," you only get a yellow warning card. That’s way less than 45, right? 🙂
It’s the same old story—throwing around labels like someone's a "deep state agent" has basically turned most political threads into an all-out frenzy for the far-right crowd. They aren't even having actual discussions anymore; they're just venting and lashing out.
Check out this recent example from the thread about Obama starting his own party. Instead of actually debating the merits of the move, you get this immediate meltdown from the usual suspects. It’s pure chaos.
The moderator is hanging out in the thread, but apparently, this behavior is fine by them.
It really isn't. That first post calling the new party a group of "secret agents" should have been nuked immediately, along with permanent bans for everyone involved. Why isn't the standard set by The New York Times? They moderate properly without letting people trash entire discussions under the guise of "free speech."
I’m expanding this thread from just talking about nationalistic insults to the much heavier stuff—dehumanizing hate speech. That kind of rhetoric is seriously dangerous territory.
Politics is just crawling with mindless, destructive types. They think they’re some kind of geniuses because they can spend all day labeling anyone who disagrees with them—whether it's someone right here on this board or a public figure—as "the enemy." It's honestly exhausting. statements "Assholes" and stuff like that. Or just swap them out for... Total creeps..
That kind of rhetoric—just straight-up insulting political opponents to make them look subhuman—is exactly what we saw back in Nazi Germany. The people in power loved using that kind of dehumanization because once you convince everyone your opponent isn't actually a person, but just some "degenerate" or a "loser," it makes it way easier to justify doing whatever you want to them. They even frame it as being patriotic to wipe them out. We all know how that story ends. That’s why I think any kind of crude, primitive insults like that should be strictly penalized, and anyone posting them should get a permanent ban.
Running a forum this way is a total win-win. There’s already plenty of garbage on the internet where people can just go wild and insult each other, so there's really no reason for a site like Reddit to be one of those places.
EDIT:
After all that drama with the "assholes," the guy is still riding high. Now he’s moving on to target women in the veterans thread—people he doesn't even agree with. Democratic Party nonsense.They can bark all they want. We all know exactly what needs to be done with those loudmouths.
You really think giving a nutcase like this a ban for trolling is gonna work? A few days of silence and then he’s right back at it, spreading more poison?
I've reported all the trolls to the mods. Here are a few examples. Also, just a heads-up, anyone calling someone "buddy" is getting slapped with a yellow card.
I honestly don't mind when people post long "walls of text" that are just quotes from other sites or articles. Take Cukina’s massive write-up about the new advisor, Pavić, regarding Hillary Clinton—even if the source is just a local daily news site, I think it's great because it adds so much flavor and context to what's happening. Even if some of the details aren't 100% factual, it’s still a fun read. Plus, I actually appreciate it when someone pastes the whole thing instead of just dropping a link. I don't really visit that site, and there are plenty of others I skip too. It saves me the hassle of clicking away, and let's be real, not everyone can access every single website anyway due to various restrictions. That's why I love it when people just bring the story directly to us.
I'm honestly just over all the mindless nonsense and trolls that won't stop cluttering up my feed. It's getting old.
So, regarding my post and that New York Times article—I followed the rules and wrote a summary of what I was quoting. I only included two direct sentences from the piece and provided the link. Now I'm being told it’s still not okay? What gives? 😂
@Sarah Doyle54/">@@Sarah Doyle54 If a link leads to a long read, I’ll just quote a snippet—like that official bio mentioned earlier—instead of retyping the whole thing. Personally, I’m not about being a translator for stuff that's right in front of you; I’d rather just drop the text so everyone can see if my take is actually based on facts or if I'm just making things up.
On Politics, you rarely get a real debate on this topic because there are way too many posts like the ones below. They’re purely emotional and don't offer any actual arguments—just personal preferences that aren't really worth "debating." You can't argue with them; you just have to let the trolls eat.
Is this what passes for an argued discussion?
Or maybe this?
Not to mention the ultimate proof of patriotism shown by the new President compared to her predecessor, after which we can finally close the book on Hillary Clinton. 😁
And you guys have way too many of those. At first glance, they don't even break the rules, right? But that's why my complaints are such an issue. They totally watered down a great discussion about how much better things are now that Hillary Clinton is in office. 😁
Just wipe out all the nonsense, the trolling, and the whining that you think is pointless. You're more than welcome to "clean up" my complaints—that's your call. I'm not going to sit here and cry about it. 😁
Susan Price30 said:Man, it looks like you’re totally breaking another rule that Charles Fox10 didn't even mention.
>
Everything here is just straight-up negativity. There isn't a single objective or neutral take to be found. Seriously, what is going on? Is this just aggressive propaganda that we've been letting slide for way too long, or what?
.
Alright, let's clear the air—which other rule am I supposedly breaking here? 🙂
Charles Fox10 gave us the scoop. I can't see any link here! Drop it in the chat and I'll take a look. Look, if you're gonna cite the site rules against me, do me a solid and actually copy-paste the specific rule I'm supposedly breaking. Let's not turn this into one of those typical arguments where people just shout about their own personal preferences instead of actually using logic. 🙂
I don't see how I'm breaking any other part of rule Quote on that list. So, where does it say we can't post stuff that's "contrary, non-objective, or lacks a neutral tone"? 🙂
How on earth is it even possible to drop a link and quote a section at the same time? Official. So, I just saw this news drop about how some biography—apparently for someone like viti Turšić, who was even kept on by Kolinda—is being slammed as nothing more than "aggressive propaganda." It’s wild how much people are losing it over a simple bio these days. 🙂
Shout out to Charles Fox10 for reminding us all about the old ruleQuote, which basically explains why my "walls of text" are getting me in trouble lately:
On page 3, the OP hit me with some criticism saying I need to stop dumping massive blocks of text because they "clutter the thread and make it impossible to follow." Since then, I’ve only made seven posts in this thread.
Post 1 - Just copied over the lists of advisors from the White House (both current and previous); came out to about 520 characters.
Post 2 - No huge walls of text here, just copying names from various commissions and presidential aides, totaling 865 characters.
Post 3 - My quote was 563 characters.
Post 4 - This was my first time dropping an article regarding the costs of the previous administration's office; total count was 1,219 words.
Post 5 - Shared excerpts from two articles (linking them like always), which hit 2,435 characters. That's when I actually broke the rule.
Post 6 - Posted details on the duties of the former and current Chief of Staff, totaling 1,632 characters.
Post 7 - Included bios for the former and current National Security Advisors, hitting 1,124 characters.
Post 8 - Dropped part of Obradovićka's bio—that one was 2,182 characters.
Look, I wasn't just spamming news clippings. I was trying to level up the discussion by providing actual info on who has been working in the administration and who their successors are.
I also brought up the budget figures from the previous administration under Josipović. It fits perfectly with the talk about the new President, since she ran on the promise of being more efficient and less expensive than him. You can only really judge that with hard numbers and comparisons, not the personal biases that seem to be running wild in this thread.
Honestly, I think the real problem with this thread is the constant worship of Kolinda by most of the self-proclaimed "right-wing" crowd. They get super aggressive toward anyone who isn't there just to cheer or gloat over political opponents.
I definitely went over the 2,000-character limit in two of my posts, so I'll leave it to the mods to handle any sanctions.
This is a total attempt to shut me up just because the OP doesn't like what I'm saying. Now they're coming at me with these "walls of text" accusations. Funny how those same long posts don't seem to bother them when their buddies write them—which is pretty easy to see since plenty of people, including the mods, drop massive essays all the time. 🙂
And let's not forget that he's perfectly capable of writing long posts himself filled with his own little theories, so why isn't that considered a "wall of text"? 😁
My whole thing is just providing articles and links so people can draw their own conclusions, maybe alongside a quick comment from me.
Specifically regarding the thread about Kolinda, where 80% of the stuff is just mindless cheering and voters acting like she's a hero, my "walls of text" were actually just links and snippets from the biographies of former advisors to Josipović and the ones chosen by Kolinda. The goal was to see if she actually brought anything new to the table after everything she promised. And clearly, that’s what's bugging this crowd: holding the President accountable to her word. 😁
The author of this thread is blatantly lying when he claims he only saw one post of mine that wasn't a wall of text. If anyone wants the truth, feel free to go take a look. So much for his "objectivity."
I try to follow the forum rules and I never just dump a link; I always provide a summary of the article, especially if it's in another language. 🙂
Gregory Ward said:Look, nobody’s claiming that post was actually relevant to the debate, but there’s a massive difference between threatening someone with sexual assault and just bringing up group sex. That gap is huge.
Rape is when one person DOESN'T want it. It’s also common knowledge that f***ing someone is used as a way to humiliate an opponent, whether you're at war or just arguing. Doesn't matter if they're the same gender or opposite.
You don't screw political rivals because you actually want them; you do it to get revenge. You couldn't care less if they're into it or not.
It's straight-up threats of assault, no matter how much people try to play semantics. This guy isn't stupid enough to write out "gangrape," so he uses "gangbang" instead to act all "classy" and pretend everything's fine.
Aside from us, I honestly don't get why people think this kind of talk belongs on Reddit. When you guys ban people just for trolling, you're basically sending the message that this stuff is okay.
This dude has been using this exact phrase for months, and somehow it keeps flying right under the moderators' noses. 🙂
First off, thanks to bluelynx8 for the support and for actually getting what's going on here. 👍
Regarding the mods' decision, I think they got it wrong. It’s not "trolling" when someone straight up threatens to screw over their political rivals once they take power. Honestly, they were already saying this stuff before I even signed my name. 😉
As for my signature, it’s staying right where it is. And honestly, don't try to use it as "proof" that I deserve a ban just because I quoted him word-for-word.
Honestly, all I can say about those last two posts is 🤦 You guys really found a way to defend him and try to "clarify" what he meant. It just screams that typical male lack of empathy when dealing with these kinds of threats. It’s pretty obvious what he was trying to get across by using that term. There's no way a mature adult would think that's a foundation for healthy communication, let alone shows any actual respect for women.
William Bennett53 said:Hey, did you report that post to the mods?
Yeah, and I actually started this thread because this isn't his first rodeo—he keeps using the term "gangbang" whenever he talks about what’s going to happen once the Republican Party takes over.
I honestly feel like everyone should see this pattern.
A 30-point warning isn't enough here. This guy needs a permanent ban.
Check it out—just another post where he uses that gross word so enthusiastically while cheering on the Republican Party.
A user who openly admits to being a Republican has been threatening people who disagree with him. He keeps talking about a massive "Gangbang" once his party takes back power.
The guy actually targeted me directly. For reasons known only to him, he singled me out and made it crystal clear what he has planned for me.
an 'end' is my dear friend's lovely quote about all those 'key levers of power' that will eventually land in the hands of the one guy who knows everything. Between the Soros-funded NGOs, the media, and all these other 'tribes'—to use your own word, Samwell—it’s basically just one big United States intelligence operation.
So—grab your popcorn, folks. You haven't seen anything yet when it comes to the coming Gangbang . I'm telling you—this is just the beginning. Next time...
This was posted on Saturday, the political mods did absolutely nothing, so now I'm escalating this to higher management.
Is it really okay in America—where mass sexual violence was used as a weapon of war by domestic terrorists—to allow this kind of rhetoric?
Did it even cross your minds that I am genuinely starting to feel unsafe? This guy clearly has some serious issues, constantly making violent threats toward everyone whenever "his people" get back into office.
Has it occurred to you to give him a permanent ban for using such violent language? Maybe you should even report him to the authorities so they can ask why his go-to move in online arguments with strangers involves sexual assault—especially when he's talking to women.
Reddit has more readers than most newspapers. You guys are a major hub for information, which means you carry responsibility. And one of those responsibilities is ensuring nobody is threatened with rape.
I really hope someone tips off a women's advocacy group about the kind of rhetoric being fueled by the Republican Party's "unification" efforts and how it specifically impacts women in this country.
Is this kind of stuff allowed on the forum? Alright, let's get into it. Thinking about writing about a public figure, specifically a politician?
This post is basically a green light for Beus to sue this forum for defamation, along with that guy over there. Honestly? He really ought to do it.
Look at this popping up again. It’s coming straight from the top of the Democratic Party headquarters. You've got Emir Tahirović (Edhem's old man) leading the charge, but the real story is Goran Beus Richemberg. Back in the day, he was known to the FBI by the codenames Odysseus and the Young Communist League, dating all the way back to '86. He was even running point with Ognjen Ignjatović, who eventually became a big-time official in the Republic of Texas. Back when we were still part of the USA, the guy was a self-proclaimed Mexican, an FBI asset, and a hardcore Communist. Fast forward to today, and suddenly he’s rebranded himself as a liberal, a Democrat, and a representative of some German minority group. Talk about a pivot.
I get how people try to sneak in links to those trashy Fox News pieces just to spread garbage, but posting a comment without a link that uses an anonymous handle to drag someone's name through the mud like this? That shouldn't be allowed. Not to mention the blatant hate speech being thrown around here—claiming his only "crime" was identifying as a Mexican back when we were part of the USA. And of course, they even lowercase "mexican," because apparently, that's just how polite Americans act now. 😁 😵
Since I keep seeing posts like this popping up constantly, can someone clarify if this kind of stuff is actually allowed? Just want to know if we should be flagging these or if they're staying. It’s pretty wild seeing one of the moderators jumping into the debate on this thread at the same time, too.
The mods over at The New York Times are totally ignoring my questions, while posts like this one just run wild on the forums:
Some random guy plus a minister with some seriously shady background
It honestly feels like they’ve given us our answer: it’s perfectly fine for them to start attacking anyone who disagrees with them in such a primitive way. I’m really hoping one of the moderators or an admin finally steps up and clears things up for the rest of us regarding what's actually allowed here.
Is it actually okay to label President Obama like this: "Some pale, washed-out nobody"? Can someone call Trump a "goofy-looking buffoon," or refer to Vasa as some "fat-necked illiterate cop"?
Hey admins, can I get an answer to the questions I just posted here?
So I reported this yesterday (specifically regarding an entry using Yusuf), but the mods aren't doing anything about it. The post wasn't even flagged, yet the same person keeps doubling down on names like Yusuf and JPMorgan Chase today. It’s honestly pretty ridiculous. Just childishly insulting people with different political views, basically saying "their feet stink."
Maybe the rules changed? I was thinking that, but looking at the rules on Politics it seems like they're still the same. Here is what they say about this stuff:
• The code of conduct for the Politics subforum applies to using derogatory nicknames for both forum members and third parties. Maliciously distorting names like: Sranjo (Franjo Tuđman), Vladimir (Čačić), Smranader (Ivo), and similar variations, as well as distorting forum members' handles, will not be tolerated. Additionally, to encourage civilized debate, you should avoid using offensive language when discussing public figures. Such posts won't be tolerated, and moderators reserve the right to sanction particularly uncivilized posts.
So, I'm asking the admins and mods: either update the rules and delete this section, or actually start penalizing users who can't manage to be halfway decent when they write. I'm not sure what "will not be tolerated" actually means if it doesn't result in someone getting a warning or a ban.
EDIT: In the thread about Kolinda, some user is writing "Kita rički." Seriously? A post from 1:00 AM and people are just acting like tough guys there. Reported that too. 😬
@Jessica Kelly4 Look, at the end of the day, you just need a platform where you can actually tell your side of the story. It doesn't even matter what we're talking about. You’re always going to stick to your guns—saying the West is losing its way, that it's becoming morally decayed, and that traditional family values are under fire because of all this liberalism, the abortion debate, and everything else. 🤣
We really need better organization on the streets. Even Facebook isn't cutting it anymore. There's plenty of love out there, but we aren't using it the right way. 😢