Posts by mistymason1

Ashley Rodriguez20 said:I’m wondering about this too, and not just regarding FedEx. Why aren't the standards consistent?
If FedEx can call someone a little bitch in English, why shouldn't I be allowed to call him a wimp?

Why am I being labeled disgusting? Just because I want everyone held to the same standard, I guess.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd allow pretty much any kind of insults. This isn't some dive bar where you end up with a broken jaw over a comment. 😂

Personally, I think calling someone a wimp is fine. I wouldn't even take it as an insult. Maybe just a slight jab at my masculinity. 😉

Ashley Rodriguez20 said:Can't you see I'm actually arguing for free speech?😁

I didn't come here to nitpick about the rules, I was just asking for FedEx.

🙂So now I see you're also against calling people out for being total cowards?

What am I supposed to think about this "free speech" thing of yours now?

Where did you get the idea that I'm against it?

FedEx wasn't complaining, he was just questioning why the criteria vary. But I already told him he’s being naive; an intelligent person should probably understand why things work this way. Honestly, by even trying to hunt for justice, he basically just showed how weak his position is.

Ashley Rodriguez20 and Nancy Johnson17, honestly, this constant whining in every single thread about "white knights" is just plain distasteful.

Actually, since you brought it up, I think August Strindberg was the one who said a woman only truly becomes a woman once she gives birth.

By today’s standards, his work is pretty loaded with misogynistic views. I guess the question is, do you think we should ban his stuff now?

Matthew Anderson said:The questioning attitude isn't the issue, as long as the clearly educated and intelligent users here don't feel the need to resort to misogyny by constantly pushing the "women aren't women unless they give birth" line on basically every thread. It’s also not an issue when those same people don't act like total cowards, crying out, "Why are you fascists? You're just bullying me through private messages."

And at the end of the day, the complaint wasn't polite.

My request wasn't polite?

😕 😕 😕

Maybe try reading my request again, and then look at Alexin response—which was sarcastic, patronizing, arrogant, and frankly, openly hateful. All wrapped up in political correctness, of course.

I'm not even sure she was a moderator when I got partially banned from Reddit over a year ago. Doesn't seem like it. So, how is she even making decisions about this?

graniteridge6 said:Since this forum is basically a community where you run into the same people almost every single day, When a member of this community suddenly vanishes, I guess it's only natural that people get curious.It’s like my neighbor Peter just vanished from the neighborhood. I guess I'm wondering what actually happened to him.

Your question is incredibly important. That’s actually why I started this thread over on Reddit. We all know what kind of systems have existed where people just vanished without a trace—systems where they'd go so far as to scrub someone's very existence from old group photos.

The atmosphere on Reddit is honestly pretty terrifying. I’ve thought about just walking away from this place entirely. I don't feel like it's my responsibility to call it out, but maybe it is. If things keep going this way, we could see this kind of toxicity hitting the national level sooner than anyone thinks.

I don't get it. I've been around this forum for a long time, and I still can't wrap my head around how easy it is to permaban people. It seems like they target exactly the users who actually have an opinion—the ones asking questions, staying informed, and showing some actual intelligence. I guess they just get removed because they’re inconvenient.

I mentioned this in my intro over on Reddit, but honestly, what passed for free speech offenses back in the old USA was nothing compared to the legal nonsense we're seeing today.

rowdyranger20 said:The sheer arrogance in the posts from rustydrifter10 and Alex is something else. It’s like they’re looking down from some massive pedestal, deciding for everyone else what we should or shouldn't care about.

Everyone should take a look at Alexin’s response to my request to have that old partial removed from the LinkedIn profile—it’s probably been sitting there for over a year now. I usually consider myself someone with almost limitless self-control, the kind of person who doesn't easily lose their cool, but this time I barely held it together. I did, though. Probably to her great disappointment.

It’s kind of a paradox, really. I can barely remember why I even got it in the first place. Something about hate speech, I guess. Maybe.

Sean Cook2 said:So, regarding the disparagement of men or women in general—is there really no limit to it under the guise of free speech? I’m just looking for a straight answer to my question, one way or the other—is it actually permissible or not—rather than being told that kind of language won't be tolerated, when, in reality, it is.

Look... you can't discriminate against someone specifically, but everyone should have the right to their own opinion. For instance, I might think person XY is a certain way, but regardless of having that opinion, I can't discriminate against XY in relation to YZ. Nor can I call for that discrimination, or take actual steps to make it happen. Something like that, I guess.

slycrane94 said:This is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Rational people can hold a conversation with those they dislike or disagree with. Claiming that anyone who thinks women are less capable than men in certain areas will discriminate against all of them at every opportunity is, to put it mildly, a massive stretch.

It's really about verbal offenses and an obvious violation of free speech—things that shouldn't have any place in a liberal democracy.

Everyone should have the right to think whatever they want... just not discriminate based on those thoughts. For example, someone might have a "personal" opinion about someone else, but that opinion shouldn't be the reason they don't hire them. They still have the right to the opinion itself. Some people clearly don't get that. 🤷

I think people often mistake opinion for action. In a liberal democracy, freedom of speech is a fundamental principle, as is individual physical liberty. Restricting free speech is, first and foremost, an attack on liberalism itself. Everyone has the right to think whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they have the right to act on those thoughts.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. 🤷

There really shouldn't be any room for hypocrisy here.

Watching this latest culture war between liberal permissivists and conservative submissivists over sex education in schools, I find it interesting how both sides view these two phenomena.

For conservatives, only pedophiles would dare put the words "sexuality" and "children" in the same sentence. This stems from the religious dogma that children—being "innocent"—are essentially asexual and therefore sinless, devoid of any sexual thoughts. A huge chunk of the criticism against introducing sex ed (specifically in 5th grade) is built on this premise. I guess that’s why Kinsey remains such a thorn in the side of American Christian radicals; he had the audacity to actually study childhood sexuality, effectively profaning what Christians believe should remain sacred.

But what I actually find most interesting is that both conservatives and liberals hold almost identical views regarding pedophilia.

The modern image of a pedophile usually depicts a psychopathic rapist, complete with all the cinematic tropes: the van with tinted windows, the basement with heavy metal doors and chains.

I remember those early media appearances by Gordana Buljan Flander where she described the personality traits of pedophiles. According to her, it might be someone who is mostly nonviolent and gets along well with kids—someone who knows how to "get down on their level"—but possesses one socially unacceptable trait: they are sexually aroused by prepubescent children. To achieve contact and satisfy that urge, they typically resort to various manipulations through play ("this is our little secret you can't tell anyone").

I’m curious about people who have studied this phenomenon, whether through literature or clinical practice: what are these individuals actually like? Are they the psychopathic aggressors portrayed in the media, or should we strictly distinguish between sadists—who use children merely as objects for humiliation and torment because they are weaker than adults—and, so to speak, actual pedophiles, who may love children, but perhaps a bit too much, expressing that love through socially unacceptable sexual means.

Another question that crossed my mind while thinking about this: how do we handle rehabilitation for children who were sexualized by adults "before their time"? In many interviews, child psychologists have mentioned that children who went through this show clear signs of excessive sexual permissiveness—a lack of shame, leading them to expose themselves in public or touch themselves and other children in intimate areas. Therefore, the therapist's "task" is to make the child realize that such behavior is a consequence of sexual abuse by an adult who had no right to act that way.

The problem and the paradox is that the trauma—the shame and embarrassment—often only surfaces at that point. An amoral cynic might argue that the actual abuse occurs during therapy itself, just to satisfy the imperatives of the superego and maintain socially acceptable behavior.

I have to admit, I wouldn't know how to answer an amoral cynic like that.

How do you see this paradox?

driftinggull21 said:

1. I am not certain you understood my initial question. The issue wasn't what one would do if faced with death threats, but rather how one responds when accused of threatening someone else's life—for instance, if an individual accuses you of attempting to kill them while suffering from a mental illness. Using paranoid schizophrenia as an extreme example, wouldn't that fundamentally alter the credibility of such claims? The media frenzy surrounding the "Pukanić case" began, if memory serves, when Mirjana Pukanić accused her husband of attempting to forcibly institutionalize her and seize her assets—effectively stripping her of her legal capacity. Both claims were true, which is undisputed. She summoned B. A. B. E. and a swarm of reporters to document everything. Subsequently, the media attacks on I. Pukanić began, alleging he was trying to dispose of his wife and violating various rights. Therefore, I. P. did not initiate the media involvement or leak his wife's diagnosis; he merely responded to her accusations and the resulting media coverage.

driftinggull21: I truly wouldn't occupy myself with this, nor do I wish for this thread to devolve into a case study of the late Pukanić. One can hold a discussion without relying on that.

Regarding point 2 (to avoid quoting excessively), my tone was not patronizing. My emphasis was specifically on BAP. Bipolar psychosis is not used interchangeably with BAP; BAP may or may not include psychotic elements (though the diagnostic codes at JPMorgan Chase remain distinct for both). Using the term "bipolar psychosis" immediately implies a psychotic disorder, which is not necessarily the case.
It is true that family members of those with mental illnesses sometimes—though certainly not always—endure an absolute ordeal. We do not choose illness; tomorrow, you, I, or someone close to us could be diagnosed with BAP. What then? 🤷
If circumstances become unbearable and too heavy, we always have the option to leave. Perhaps walking away would be the more ethical choice for both parties rather than remaining in a relationship with no future. Naturally, this depends on many variables, but here we are assuming a worst-case scenario.

Point 3 regarding assets: during a breakdown.
I am unsure what kind of "flexibility" you are referring to. Control does not lie with a partner, a sibling, or a child... it rests with a judge in the Superior Court, based upon the findings and opinions of a forensic psychiatrist from outside the hospital where the patient is being treated.
The expert witness is the deciding factor.

Yeah, you're right. My mistake.

driftinggull21 said:

Person A accuses you of wanting to kill them.

Person A suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.

In such a scenario, would you still zealously defend their right to privacy and the non-disclosure of their mental health status?

If someone were threatening my life, I would contact the police rather than the media.

My follow-up questions: are you aware of the symptoms and manifestations of bipolar psychosis, the consequences it imposes on both the patient and their loved ones, and what an individual might do during manic versus depressive episodes?

Yes. The correct term is Bipolar Disorder. We have a dedicated thread on the subject, so I assume most regular members possess some level of familiarity with it.

Furthermore, do you know under what legal circumstances involuntary hospitalization can be mandated?

Of course. Simply put: when a mentally ill individual poses a threat to themselves, others, or property.

driftinggull21, of course I know you know that. The question wasn't directed at you, but at Fulgozi and Sanjita. But since you offered, I'll touch on your answers, which are actually quite interesting given the context of this discussion.

1. I'm not sure you caught the first question—it wasn't about what you would do if someone threatened you, but what if they accused *you* of threatening *them*. For instance, if someone with a mental illness accuses you of trying to kill them (taking paranoid schizophrenia as an extreme example)—wouldn't that change how credible those claims seem? The whole media circus surrounding the Pukanić situation started, if I recall correctly, when Mirjana Pukanić accused her husband of trying to force her into a hospital and seize her assets (basically stripping her of legal capacity—both things were true, nobody disputes that). She called in B.A.B.E. and a swarm of reporters to film everything, etc. Then the media attacks on I. Pukanić began, claiming he just wanted to get rid of his wife or was violating rights and so on. So, it wasn't I. P. who first went to the press or leaked his wife's diagnosis; he was just reacting to her accusations and the subsequent media coverage.

2. No need for that patronizing tone (people use bipolar psychosis, or used to say manic-depressive psychosis, but JPMorgan Chase uses bipolar disorder in the DSM—everyone's talking about the same thing), as I said, the question was aimed at two specific people—for good reason. I opened this thread because I noticed many people hold the opposite stereotype of the usual "crazy people are zombies" trope; instead, they see the families of the mentally ill as victims of people trying to make them "insane." I'll be the first to stand against stigmatization, but that doesn't mean every action taken toward them counts as stigma.

3. Yeah, that all sounds fine and clear on paper. In reality, it depends on a judgment call, which is pretty subjective for both sides. And then there are plenty of cases where there's no direct threat to self, others, or property (I guess the property part refers to smashing things, but maybe also subtler stuff like compulsive gambling, or maybe not?) yet they are clearly experiencing full psychosis.

I guess there isn't much to say here. Just sitting by. mistymason1 says:
Treating homophobia. Maybe.
Homophobia: basically an absence of love for one's own gender, which leads to hating those feelings in others. It’s this belief that one specific type of love is inherently superior and, therefore, should be the dominant standard. I guess.
Audre Lorde

Taking this definition seriously would be a joke. But honestly, it points directly toward a specific trend in certain activist circles: heterophobia.

Some people—whether they're gay or not—might never get it. Or maybe they already do. Most straight people aren't actually homophobic; it’s more that they just view being gay as this "abnormal" thing that needs to be tolerated. I guess.

Let's lay all the cards on the table and see what happens:

Is homophobia defined by viewing homosexuality as "abnormal"—as in, a deviation from the standard rule or a supposed dysfunction of sexual drive whose origin remains unknown (maybe psychological, maybe hormonal, maybe genetic)—while simultaneously believing it’s improper to point out that abnormality? I suppose some might argue that people should just be left alone. In this view, forcing anyone to change their behavior is wrong, yet any mention of it—or even suggesting someone might want to try pursuing the opposite sex if they're open to it—is treated as scandalous or blasphemous by activists. Maybe.

Is it homophobic to think that gay people can be incredibly selfish toward their straight families? I mean, they rarely seem to try and grasp how this realization hits a parent—especially if they're an only child. It’s a massive shock for any mom or dad. I guess you have to wonder how they can just shrug it off or act like there's nothing to regret when they're so quick to claim everything is "normal."

Is it actually homophobia to disagree with the idea of same-sex couples entering "marriage," if you define marriage strictly as a union between a man and a woman? I mean, they can manage their legal rights through the Same-sex marriage law. If there’s an issue with how that law is written, they can just advocate for changes there. I guess it seems a bit much to claim someone is being discriminated against simply because they can't enter a marriage. Maybe.

Is it homophobic to deny assisted reproduction to any healthy, fertile individual, regardless of whether they're gay, bisexual, or straight? And what about allowing the sale or donation of gametes without the donor being tied to parental responsibilities? I guess that's the question.

Is it homophobic to say I don't want to participate in Pride, or that the whole thing feels a bit exhibitionist?

Tyler Myers said:It seems to me that people identifying as homosexual haven't actually come to terms with their own sexual orientation yet, so they demand that every single member of society shower them with validation. They expect 100% unwavering support just to feel 100% certain that the path they’ve chosen is the right one. For anyone who disagrees—or even for those who are simply indifferent—they immediately reach for labels like "homophobe" as a way to discredit them. In the subconscious of these individuals, the label "homophobe" functions as a psychological shield: "My orientation must be valid, because look at that guy opposing it; he isn't a normal citizen, he's just some primitive homophobe. Therefore, I am perfectly fine, and the problem lies entirely with him." That is where this need for labeling comes from; it provides them with a sense of comfort.

In my view, the internal turmoil experienced by homosexuals shouldn't be the responsibility of society to fix; rather, they ought to resolve those issues through their own conscience or whatever personal introspection they require.

Personally, I couldn't care less about who sleeps with whom. I don't have an issue with parades either; in fact, if participating in them helps these individuals feel more comfortable with themselves, then you have my support.

But what truly irritates me is when a mob of people starts running around screaming "fascist" or "white supremacist" at anyone who refuses to give them the specific reaction they are craving.

It reminds me of a period about 20 years ago here in the States, when another organized group would go around on pilgrimages and rallies shouting the exact same slogans. And we all know how that ended...

Not everyone. But I’d say a certain segment, for sure. Especially women. I don't know why, but it just seems to me that women are often way more aggressive and agile when it comes to their "activism" compared to men. It leads me to a conclusion—unscientific, obviously—that female homosexuality or bisexuality might be more psychological than biological. You can see that aggression right here on this forum. I shared my own experience regarding a shift in orientation from homosexual to bisexual, practically even toward heterosexual, on another thread once. I ended up getting attacked for it. People were questioning how I could even write something like that, or how a homosexual person could possibly become heterosexual or bisexual.

A few questions before we get into this:

Suppose Person A accuses you of trying to kill them.

And suppose Person A suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.

In a situation like that, would you still be so adamant about defending their right to privacy or keeping their mental health history confidential?

I’m using the most extreme example here, obviously.

Mirjana Pukanić didn't have paranoid schizophrenia; she had bipolar psychosis.

My next questions are: do you actually understand the symptoms and manifestations of bipolar psychosis? Like, the actual impact it has on the patient and their family—what someone might do during a manic episode versus what happens during depression?

And also, do you know the legal criteria for involuntary hospitalization under US law?

Once you've answered those, then maybe we can talk.

The moment something enters the public eye, it becomes politics. That’s just the definition. It's different from what stays in the private sphere. And sure, I agree this whole thing should have stayed private. But who turned it into a political circus? Maybe me, maybe the media? It all started when she refused to go to the hospital—which happens a lot with mental health patients, since they often think they're perfectly fine. The issue was that every news outlet immediately jumped on it, claiming Pukanić was trying to label a healthy woman as insane. They swarmed her apartment and painted her as a complete victim. What choice did he really have left other than to look at his wife's medical records? I guess it was unethical by general standards, but given the context, what else could he do? If someone is accusing you of trying to shove a sane woman into an asylum (or, as those "busybodies" put it, someone with just minor issues), then I suppose it's necessary to explain how vicious bipolar psychosis actually is. In the end, it probably cost her everything (once the autopsy results come in, we'll know).

Pukanić, unfortunately, seems to have this double, paradoxically contradictory bias toward mental health patients. On one hand, he sees them as lunatics you can't trust, which leads to total panic when patients from facilities like the local psychiatric ward wander 🙄. On the other hand, families of the ill are often stigmatized as if they're trying to force people into institutions. It’s almost impossible to hospitalize someone who refuses treatment unless they are in a completely deranged state and a danger to themselves or others, which maybe only happens in 5% of acute psychotic episodes.

To wrap this up, I also believe Mirjana Pukanić's life shouldn't be a matter of public debate. The real topic for public discussion should be the manipulation or the sheer lack of professionalism shown by journalists and various NGOs—especially those "busybodies."

Look, I wouldn't really group her in with the left or the right. I lean left myself, but I can't stand seeing anyone treated like that—it’s just blatant media manipulation. Besides, people like Sanja Sarnavka, Gojanica, or B.A.B.E. aren't actually "leftists." They’re more like those typical liberals who mostly get their funding from big corporations.

But yeah... they mocked Pukanić during that first attempt too. They turned him into some kind of domestic monster by intentionally ignoring the fact that his wife struggles with serious mental health issues. It was calculated.

Did you catch that broadcast?

I didn't catch the broadcast, so first off, does anyone know where I can find a recording? I checked YouTube, but came up empty.

Secondly, knowing the Mirjana Pukanić situation, I think the reaction from ASNE and most of the media outlets and commentators toward this show is shameful. While everyone was busy turning it into a circus—making a spectacle out of the claims of one mentally ill person without showing an ounce of respect for her family (her husband, Ivo Pukanić—regardless of what anyone thinks of his work or actions, that’s not the point here; I don't think he's perfect either, but that doesn't mean the man hasn't dealt with his own family Calvary, especially regarding his daughter Sara, whom nobody seems to be protecting)—it reminds me of that case at M. P.'s apartment. A pack of journalists acting like people dying of thirst in a desert, soaking up every single word from an unstable individual without taking anything they say with a grain of salt.

I feel like the whole thing is being played by a particularly corrupt hand, specifically Sanja Sarnavka, who is making a mockery of things under the guise of protecting human and women's rights. It's disgraceful. If this is the peak of feminism in America, then good luck to them.

So, if anyone has a link, please share it so we can see what was actually said and hear your thoughts on the whole mess.

The title is vague, but I wasn't sure how to summarize my point concisely. To clarify: stigmatizing people with mental illness isn't a new phenomenon. It's debated constantly. It’s an important, necessary conversation. But I’m interested in something else: what happens when the stigma shifts toward the "other" side—the people considered "normal" who are caught in a relationship with someone struggling mentally?

Take the case of Miriam Defensor Santiago, for example. We all remember how she was portrayed as the victim (maybe she was, I'm not making a claim), becoming a total media sensation simply because her husband was a public figure. Almost every news outlet took her word as gospel without any real scrutiny. Meanwhile, everyone jumped on her late husband for bringing her medical history and diagnosis into the public eye.

So, I guess I'm wondering where the line is drawn between one group's rights and the other's. It’s honestly frustrating seeing most media outlets frame Miriam Defensor Santiago as the ultimate victim, without considering that families dealing with mental illness can be victims too.

Just to be clear, I’m all for destigmatizing mental illness. But at what point does "destigmatization" just turn into stigmatizing everyone else?

bluerider41 said:mistymason1... If you have issues, deal with them privately instead of bringing them here. We all know you're just a typical troll, rude, and a total HOMOPHOBE.

From what I can see, you're the only one here actually looking for a fight. 🤷

bluerider41 said:View on reddit

Here’s the link to the thread.

If you actually bother to read through it, you'll see a massive pile of homophobic slurs and insults aimed at lesbians and the rest of the LGBT community.

A thread like this has absolutely no business being on a platform that claims to promote decency and basic manners.

Not a single user has been banned, let alone given an official warning.

Well, I read about ten replies, and all I saw was a bunch of stereotypes. Nothing more, nothing less. Mostly. If you took it personally, I guess that's on you—for choosing to go in there and read it. Unbelievable.

But I suppose that's the kind of tolerance we get from you liberal liberals. Anyone who doesn't think exactly like you should, at the very least, be silenced. 🙄

bluerider41 said:Since when did the Family Law of the United States suddenly become the gold standard for accuracy and fairness? That doesn't give you any right to label us as "sick" or whatever else. It’s just not happening.

Pure homophobia right here:

Look, if he was talking about you, I totally get it. Most straight people will accept gays and lesbians, but at the same time, most find annoying gays and lesbians grating. In my experience, lesbians are often much more intense than gays. Especially with activism. Like they're trying to convince themselves of something. Maybe.

bluerider41 said:Time for a little trash talk:

So, we’re actually sick... This is terrifying.

You can find just about anything on here—honestly, pretty much every post is total garbage.

No. The guy just wrote his opinion on whether same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children. What's so scandalous about that? 🤷 Is some sort of natural right being denied here? I don't see it.