Posts by Morgan Peterson

slyfox43 said:Original post:

http://www.reddit.com/post...3#post87722493

So, I’ve been flagged—hit with a 45-point penalty, no less—simply because I dared to respond to Hilderik’s assertion that I was cluttering the board with nothing but blatant propaganda. And yet, does Hilderik face any disciplinary action whatsoever for his own remarks? Of course not.

It seems there is a glaring double standard here: my worth is questioned, while his remains unquestioned.

For heaven's sake, if you're going to hand out penalties, why not apply them to him as well? What is the logic behind this?

From where I am sitting, your suspension appears entirely justified. While Hilderik hasn't directed his comments toward you personally, you have made it your business to target him directly. There is a massive distinction to be made there; your post was nothing more than a personal insult, and let me tell you, the moderators have zero tolerance for that kind of behavior.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A7 using Reddit

Samuel Turner2 said:Morgan Peterson scrubbed away the posts that were genuinely off-topic, yet she somehow overlooked the very first post that set this entire tangent in motion.

The warning from Morgan Peterson:

http://www.forum.us/showpost.php?p=8...postcount=1747

And she claims:
"Off-topic chatter and trolling have been removed multiple times. Before posting, please read the thread title. This discussion is strictly for sharing experiences following vaccination—either your own or those of your loved ones, if you wish to share. Posts such as 'billions died from the vaccine but they are hiding it' do not belong in this thread."

Yet, directly above that, we find a post with the following content:
"I have been weighing the worst-case scenarios for both getting vaccinated and remaining unvaccinated. Considering I have a friend (31) who battled COVID for 17 days—which left her mother with permanent lung damage—all back in December before vaccines were even available, I believe I’ve made the right call. This woman was nearly on a ventilator and still sees pulmonologists and allergists today. To me, the worst-case scenario is pure suffering followed by death."

Is that an experience regarding the aftermath of vaccination? It certainly isn't. So why does that remain untouched while my response to it was wiped clean?
Asking for a friend....

This was your reply:

I am weighing the same things. My dilemma is that I don't truly know the worst-case scenario involving the vaccine, and I suspect the side effects we currently recognize might not be the absolute worst it could get. After all, this is a vaccine utilizing a novel mechanism, and the political pressure driving this is deeply unsettling—especially since they've already ordered doses for the next two or three years when we still know so little about the virus itself. On what basis was such a decision reached? Dealing with this pandemic feels like walking into a room where you can smell something rotting, yet you cannot find the source.

The post you responded to is only partially off-topic, but yours? Yours looks as if it fell straight from Mars onto this thread—particularly that bolded section, which is nothing more than blatant trolling.
Are there not already four or five other threads dedicated to discussing vaccination policy and politics, or do you feel the need to hijack this one too?
The question is rhetorical, and the answer is quite simple: no, you do not.

First off, let’s get one thing straight: I didn't just hand you a ban out of thin air; you essentially walked right into it by racking up points.
Before this, I issued you a single yellow card, during which I politely requested that you refrain from posting nothing but images—especially when they're in languages that 90% of our users can't even decipher.
Did you somehow manage to miss my yellow card and warning?
Yet, somehow, a mere half hour later, you were diligently again reposting every single image I had already deleted?
Consequently, I handed you a 25-point penalty, because frankly, it is beyond belief that you missed the first warning. Are you genuinely playing dumb, or are you simply treating me as if I am the fool here, despite my very sincere attempt to be fair and avoid a penalty right out of the gate?
As far as I am concerned, that penalty stands, though if the site administrators wish to overturn it, that is entirely their prerogative.
As for the rest of your post, I simply lack both the time and the inclination to read it, much less provide a response.
Best,

swiftotter46 said:If that’s the case, why wasn't I just slapped with a ban and sent on my way?

Why was it necessary to scrub the entire post—meme and all?

Well, it is because your post isn't merely a single meme; rather, it encompasses an entire discussion. If you simply repost the meme by itself, it won't be deleted. Generally speaking, we don't issue bans very often, though we do find ourselves deleting content quite frequently; besides, once a post is flagged for a violation, there is a very slim chance it will remain standing. It is simply a healthier approach for the integrity of the entire subreddit.

swiftotter46 said:On the COVID-19 sub, my post was deleted and I even ended up with a strike on my account, all because they claimed I was "violating thread rules."

Here is the post in question: Screenshot

Could someone please enlighten me as to which specific rule, or indeed what kind of rule, I supposedly violated with this particular post?

Furthermore, I would kindly ask the moderators not to lock this thread immediately after responding, so that I might actually be able to follow up or pose additional questions. Thank you.

This thread is intended for memes and perhaps some brief commentary, not for starting debates.

Jacob Williams said:What exactly is the purpose of an "alternative" when that very alternative serves nothing more than to funnel the entire discussion into a single PDF, thereby effectively stripping away the weight of the socio-political dimensions of this crisis?

Politics has always functioned as a serious, comprehensive deep dive—a definitive document, if you will—designed to analyze how various phenomena and crises impact the very fabric of our society. This current circus, however, is rapidly morphing into an unprecedented economic, financial, and socio-political catastrophe, one that truly warrants more than just a single thread on the Politics section of Reddit. We are looking at a crisis that is fundamentally a socio-political issue, yet the specialized threads dedicated to such matters no longer seem to have a designated space for this specific emergency. Besides, wouldn't having a few more niche topics actually lighten your workload regarding the coronavirus coverage?

Regarding that matter, why don't you simply start a new thread dedicated to the coronavirus pdf? You could use the content above as your opening post, or perhaps find one of those similar discussions already in progress—I know there are plenty floating around—and then pin it right to the top of the coronavirus pdf section. We certainly aren't against anyone starting new topics; quite the contrary, we welcome them.
The only thing I truly want to prevent is the spread of those various—and please, don’t even try to tell me they don't exist—insane conspiracy theories drifting into different threads and cluttering up the posts of people who actually want to engage in high-quality discussions regarding diverse, primarily political, perspectives on the coronavirus crisis. Is it really too much to ask for some topical boundaries? This is exactly why I insisted that conspiracy discussions remain in their own dedicated space; there are actually some incredibly insightful posts over there that could easily pivot into much more serious subject matter. On the other hand, you have those individuals who claim to suffer sudden hormonal imbalances just by being near vaccinated people and then proceed to find them via Bluetooth. Honestly, where does it end?
I mean, honestly, where exactly is this headed? Are we truly expected to categorize this under medicine?
If you take the initiative to frame your topic properly and we can all reach a consensus on purging the absolute nonsense, then you will find yourself presiding over a truly high-quality space for meaningful discussion. Is that really too much to ask for?

Alright, let’s streamline things for those of you actually interested in contributing to our discussions; we have laid out three distinct alternatives where you can continue your threads just as you would in the politics section—whether you're diving into conspiracy theories regarding the coronavirus or hanging out in the chat; or perhaps discussing legal matters. All three of these topics are lightly moderated, and we only step in to issue penalties for severe violations of the Reddit rules, which I believe you all know quite well by now.
The choice of how to proceed is entirely yours. ☕

Jacob Williams said:I find myself left with just one pressing question. When we speak of "conspiracy theories," are we referring strictly to those fringe ideas that haven't yet been proven, or does the label also apply to things that have already become established facts?

The reason I ask is quite simple: it feels as though we have thoroughly drained the pool of available "conspiracies." There isn't much left to discuss here.

Well, from my perspective while monitoring and moderating the conspiracy threads, anything that moves beyond the realm of pure speculation is naturally discussed in other topics without anyone being penalized.
But forgive me, we simply cannot allow posts intended for other sections to clutter up the conspiracy boards, where unwary users might end up getting burned by misinformation.

Alright, you may proceed HERE.
Consider this a discussion thread where moderation will be somewhat more relaxed—much like those "conspiracy theory" threads—though we fully expect everyone to maintain a basic level of common sense regarding which rules simply cannot be broken.
Please keep in mind that all other threads regarding the coronavirus are not intended for conspiracy theories and will be moderated strictly according to the Reddit rules.
Best regards,

I already posted a response to you on the main thread—you were banned because you attempted to "offer money" in exchange for private information that nobody is under any obligation to provide. It isn't about whether you actually succeed in getting the data; it’s about the intent, which was fundamentally dishonest.
If you find yourself unable to trust people, well, what can I say? You'll just have to live with that. This is a public forum, and while everyone is free to express their opinions as long as they abide by the rules, you certainly don't have the right to demand evidence that someone would then be forced to publish publicly. It's quite similar to how you wouldn't have the right to grab a random woman by the arm on a street corner in Chicago and offer her cash for information; anyone would be perfectly justified in viewing that as harassment.
You brought this specific line of reasoning to the discussion, but I have absolutely no desire to see this become an accepted practice or to see others follow your lead.

Furthermore, your personal assessment that the forum users are merely trolls, or that there are no real consequences at play, doesn't hold water with me; I haven't gathered such an impression, nor do I see any reason to draw that conclusion based on his previous posts.
There are rare occasions, acting as a legitimate exception, where the content itself matters less than the character of the person writing it.
And if you ask me, the system described in that PDF operates entirely on the principle of trust; remember, when someone lies, they aren't really deceiving you—they are simply deceiving themselves.

Grace Edwards said:Wait, how are you even supposed to put a moderator on ignore? 🤔

🤣
But honestly, I empathize; there are days when I feel like putting my own self on ignore. It’s just one of those things.

David Mendoza4 said:Alright, so Mr. Beam had a question for the mod team, and I just decided to follow up with a question for another user.
I know it might be a little out of line, but I really don't see how I was being provocative or rude like you claimed later on.
Our posts were wiped clean, and we didn't even get an answer to our questions.
Plus, the whole thread got locked after only about two hours (was it really because of those three posts?)

Was all that drama actually necessary?

I removed those posts because they were entirely off-topic.
The reality is that the user in question has been permanently banned for reasons known perfectly well to both him and the site administration.
While I realize you might miss his presence, I saw no indication that he filed an appeal, and since our forum rules dictate that individuals must advocate for themselves, calling for an amnesty is completely pointless unless he makes the request himself—and even then, only if he chooses to.
Only at that point could we discuss the matter, and strictly within this space, not in the coronavirus PDF thread.

I didn't shut down the thread because of your three messages, but rather because of the ten or more deleted, purely inflammatory, off-topic posts that some users continued to spam even after I issued a warning.
I sincerely hope we can put this to rest now—not for my sake, but for the sake of those of you who actually want to use that space for its intended purpose.

mistybison said:I believe the main issue with the 'Coronavirus' subforum is its lack of a clear direction. It sits in this awkward middle ground—neither strictly serious nor purely casual. You can't mix high-level medical discussions with random conspiracy theories; those two things just don't belong in the same space. If the goal is to have a professional forum, it should be managed with the same rigor as our 'Health' or 'Natural Sciences' sections. We already have a dedicated spot for conspiracy theory discussions over in 'Alternative,' though the users there aren't quite as aggressive as those currently occupying the 'Coronavirus' section. Then again, social media today seems to prioritize clicks above all else, and unfortunately, nonsense tends to generate the most engagement, so... 🤷

I follow your logic, yet I find myself questioning whether such an ideal is even attainable.
The crux of the matter regarding the coronavirus is that we are navigating a global pandemic—a phenomenon that serves as a defining precedent of our era and remains largely unprecedented in human history.
Because of this, we are all essentially stumbling through the dark, attempting to investigate, listen, and place our trust in whoever appears most credible to us personally. Consequently, moderating this specific forum is an entirely different beast compared to something like 'Health'; so much information surrounding the virus remains incomplete, unverified, or misinterpreted, and the "facts" seem to shift almost daily.
Consider, for instance, how certain ideas once labeled as conspiracy theory have transitioned from speculation into lived reality, much like the implementation of vaccine mandates. For that reason, we don't penalize users for their convictions or for making predictions that might sound far-fetched, provided they aren't engaging in direct insults or violating the basic rules of forum etiquette.
As for the constant battle against trolls, that is a struggle we face across every single board on this site. This corner of the internet is no exception, and I highly doubt that simply raising the bar for "seriousness" would change the underlying nature of the discourse.

Off-topic posts are nothing more than mindless drivel designed purely to provoke; when people start clamoring for the reinstatement of permanently banned users, they are completely missing the point. None of this nonsense has anything to do with a single conspiracy theory, nor does it bear any relation to the coronavirus.
Moving forward, if you have grievances regarding the moderation team, I suggest you direct all your complaints here.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Honestly, I find myself wondering if there is even any point in trying to explain the nuanced differences between traditional vaccines, viral vector platforms, and mRNA technology to someone who is clearly this deeply entrenched in this specific discussion. It feels almost redundant at this stage, doesn't it?

Now, I find myself compelled to ask you for an answer to this rather condescending sermon—what is your own take on the differences regarding efficacy and safety among these three types of vaccines?
Because that distinction, whatever one might assume through a layman's lens, clearly dictates whether a person decides to accept a COVID shot or not.

mellowskipper said:I mean, any infection can cause problems like that, I guess. Kids today still die from strep throat because of complications or sepsis, despite having access to top-tier diagnostics, specialists, and antibiotics... yet almost every child has had it at least once or twice. So, I really don't see why there's such a massive rush to scramble for a vaccine...

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Reddit

Wait, what do you mean there isn't a vaccine?
We have Prevenar for pneumococcus, and it's part of the standard vaccination schedule here in Rhode Island. I actually went looking for that specific vaccine for my own little one back when it wasn't included in the routine shots yet.
And then there's the vaccine against meningococcus -

Tyler Ruiz502 said:About 15% cruised through it without a single symptom. (The other 85%? Just mild stuff.) But then... one. Two. Three. A handful actually ended up developing myocarditis.

Precisely. At this point, we aren't even discussing mathematics; we are simply discussing basic logic and reading comprehension.
Is it not true that not every child falls ill from the mumps, yet because a small fraction develops severe complications, we still vaccinate the entire population regardless?

If the original poster actually received an answer to their question, then why on earth is this thread still active?

Could it be that instead of posting over on the COVID-19 vaccine thread, people have decided to migrate here just to repost those links that were supposedly deleted?

There are more than twenty active discussions happening right now over on the COVID-19 vaccine thread; why not just pick one of those? I can assure you that nobody will delete a coherent, relevant, and respectful post containing a link to this video.

Drew Gonzalez5 said:Those are some pretty dangerous views. Do you ever actually question your own?

Every single day. Though, I suspect we aren't exactly questioning the same things, are we?

silverpuma61 said:Whoa, hold on. New math alert: apparently, a potential 20-30% unvaccinated population is an "insignificant and massive minority"?

MASSIVE? Really?

INSIGNIFICANT? Isn't every single life—every single vote—supposedly valuable? Or was that just something our leaders used to say to win us over...

For those of you pushing the vaccine, you're framing this as if people are being forced into it. In reality, the situation is almost the opposite; rights are being stripped away to pressure people into compliance because the people in charge lack the backbone to simply declare vaccination mandatory.

Another thing: Pre-COVID, childhood vaccination rates were sitting around 92-93%.

That leaves 8% as "anti-vaxxers."
THOSE are the anti-vaxxers.

In a situation where you're left with 30% of people who simply choose not to vaccinate, labeling them all "anti-vaxxers" is incredibly rude and quite frankly, shameless.

The vast majority of those people gave the most precious thing they have—their children—to the needle during "peaceful" times, only to be called anti-vaxxers by people like you.

It's disgraceful.

And look, I don't have anything against the rate reaching 70 or 80%.

But the moment my employer—pressured by a government that refuses to take responsibility—starts making my job conditional on vaccination, or a grocery store blocks me from entering because of it, while the state continues to insist that vaccination isn't mandatory, I’ll tell anyone pushing or supporting these tactics exactly what they are: human garbage.

Try to dial down the drama and read more carefully what I actually wrote—I was talking about that roughly 8 percent, not 30%. 🙄