Posts by Nicholas King

Grace Kim80 said:Your comment about princesses isn't an ad, so—consequently—it has been deleted.

Editing posts just to alter their content is a massive, absolute no-no on any decent online forum.

The term "princess" is often used idiomatically to describe spoiled or demanding women—you know, the whole "princess and the pea" trope. If someone writes in an ad, "I don't want any mermaids contacting me," is that sentence going to be scrubbed too just because there's a "mermaid" user on this board? I mean, what kind of deletion spree awaits someone who simply doesn't want certain people reaching out? For instance, if they said they didn't want anyone named John to contact them—honestly, that seems no more bizarre than saying "I don't want anyone named Venus to message me."

Moderating by trying to read between the lines of a user's thoughts under the guise of "don't try to lecture us, we know what you really meant to say" is incredibly slippery slope territory.

Finally, ignoring is the mother of all moderation tools. It is far wiser to just leave a sentence alone when it’s actually doing zero harm—it isn't offensive, nor should it cause anyone to lose sleep or skip a meal—and instead, just let it serve as its own kind of advertisement.

In some randomly selected ad on the very last page, it says "I don't like rude, arrogant, or cocky guys with long hair and beards. Therefore, those types shouldn't even bother reaching out." That specific part is clearly an ad, but the phrase "don't let princesses contact me" is not. Are we absolutely certain that the female user with the long hair and beard actually isn't referring to someone specific—someone with long hair and a beard from a PDF file? (And let's set aside the "rude, arrogant, and cocky" bit; I have no idea why she would think I'd even want to reach out to her 😬 in the first place).

Moderation should not be used as censorship or as a way to protect the fragile egos of forum users.

jadewolf16 said:Honestly, we mostly just inherit swear words and drop them when the timing feels right—they only carry that much punch because you wouldn't dream of using them in polite company, right?

"Screw you!" (What you say to Marina Cilica when she's being a total pain)

"What the hell?" (When Marina Cilica loses her first set against someone like Knittel)

"You ain't getting squat!" (To someone who thinks they're gonna win big on their parlay)

"I got totally screwed" (When my bets at the sportsbook go south)

"Who cares?" (When people ask me about it because the Kansas City Chiefs won a game)

Or maybe it's just that certain phrase sticks with us because of the sheer emotion behind it the first time we hear it. For me, the absolute craziest one was back when I was, like, really, REALLY mad

"God almighty, damn it!"—I heard a famous local football player say that in my hometown for the first time. I was just floored by how blunt and intense it was, so now it’s basically top-tier in my book. And this guy? He was a pillar of the community in a super religious town, you know? Like, he couldn't have picked a wilder way to vent!

That covers one specific category of profanity. For those types, I get it—they just chant them like mantras, without giving a single thought to what the words actually mean.

My confusion really starts when someone drops a curse word that is clearly their own original creation—often specifically tailored for that exact moment. In those instances, you’d at least expect the person to have considered the actual semantic weight behind what they're saying...

BTW, you missed the absolute best one: "I don't give a damn" (meaning, I won't). 😁

Matthew Castillo5 said:Nicholas King, did you actually bother putting an explanation for those abbreviations in the thread title?

On a different note, look, I’m not going to sit here and lecture anyone about swearing when they're genuinely pissed off—even if the language gets pretty colorful. But when someone isn't even angry, and just starts dropping F-bombs or invoking God just because they feel like being obnoxious... well, honestly, that really rubs me the wrong way.

I didn't 🙂.

Personally, I don't mind if someone lets out a few choice words when they're genuinely angry—even if the profanity is particularly foul. But if someone isn't even upset and just starts swearing—especially using God's name—simply because they feel they can... well, that really rubs me the wrong way.

It’s quite a curious phenomenon, I suppose—this massive group of people who, while literally leaning against a church pew, manage to conjure up the most complex and elaborate blasphemous insults during a heated debate—insults that a simple-minded agnostic or atheist mind probably wouldn't even be capable of dreaming up.

It remains a bit of an enigma to me. And honestly, the moment we touch upon that subject, we find ourselves jumping straight into a full-blown forum war about religion and all that other stuff—which is something I try my best to avoid🙂.

ambermason16 said:I just tried it myself and I can bold things perfectly fine—no moderator privileges required, just using the standard options like I always have..

"The following errors occurred with your submission:

BB code b is not allowed."

I suppose the angels start weeping if a regular user wants to bold a single word in their signature, so I guess that explains it...

Michelle Evans said:This shows a real lack of understanding regarding how certain mental health struggles actually function.
You should check out the Psychiatric Couch forum under the OCD thread; I promise you that everyone posting there is fully aware of what they're dealing with. It isn't about "knowing"... it's about the emotions involved. As Martian7 already pointed out, someone who feels compelled to check if their front door is locked twenty-four times could easily be a Mensa member or a top-tier academic...

Robert Harris5 said:Maybe I should just try explaining this through a more irrational lens?

Now, let me be clear—I never suggested that being a perfectionist automatically makes someone unintelligent. Not at all. In my view, we really have to distinguish between two different sides of the coin here. On one hand, you have what I’d call positive perfectionism. This is actually quite a productive trait; it involves being thorough, staying precise with your work, and setting high standards that are actually grounded in reality. It's about striving for excellence without losing your footing. On the other hand, there’s this negative side of perfectionism that seems much more prevalent these days, and frankly, it’s quite debilitating. It prevents people from functioning effectively in their daily lives. This version is characterized by setting these impossibly high, unrealistic goals that simply don't align with a person's actual capacity or circumstances. It's a cycle that just doesn't serve anyone.
I don't necessarily believe that anyone struggling to solve their own problems is lacking intelligence, nor do I think happiness is reserved solely for the brilliant. It really all comes down to the nature of the struggle itself. Of course, if someone is genuinely distressed because they feel they lack physical beauty—perhaps obsessing over a perceived flaw in their appearance—you might question their judgment. Or perhaps you wouldn't? One could argue that such an obsession is simply a manifestation of perfectionism.

Martian7 actually mentioned that it’s a bit of a tough thing to explain. I certainly agree that someone dealing with those kinds of issues can still be a brilliant academic, though I just can't quite wrap my head around the idea that struggling to write a simple email wouldn't have something to do with their cognitive faculties.

Having issues actually hitting "send" on an email isn't—or at least doesn't necessarily have to be—the same thing as being unable to write one.

The whole thing about this non-nutritive garbage is pretty clear to me—basically, this shitty parable just amplifies the message of sheer stupidity they’re trying to push, and honestly, that isn't even the worst part about how crappy it is.

But, if we're strictly talking about maximizing the impact, getting aggressive and crude 😬 wouldn't the intended message be even more potent if it were handled differently? It feels a bit like saying, "Your nose is... rather large!"—I mean, sure, you could probably make it much stronger, much better. Or, you know, much more offensive. Not to mention the entire barrage of colorful retorts that such a "nuisance of a gesture" inevitably invites.

The actual reason for this thread will come a bit later, but first, let’s look at some general patterns regarding how Americans swear.

I don't really feel like dissecting the semantics of every single common profanity—that would be an incredibly tedious task, much too long. However, there are a few potent examples that actually force one to pause and reflect for a second.

So, do people actually think about the swears they utter? Is there some psychological component (let’s not even get into the background 😬) when choosing a specific insult, or do we just blurt out the first thing that pops into our heads without any real consideration of what we are actually saying?

For starters, take the notorious "suck my dick" (or alternatively, "stick it up your ass") that you constantly hear coming from macho types and homophobes: do they honestly believe that "the one doing the sticking" is somehow less gay than "the one receiving" (and we're talking about guys who would rather lose a vital internal organ than be perceived as gay—or at least want to maintain that impression 😬), or do they simply fail to process the literal meaning of their own words?

And here we go, slowly approaching the reason for the topic: yesterday, I had the pleasure of reading on a forum that I am, Quote, "annoying as hell". Let's ignore the context for a moment—it's truly irrelevant and uninteresting (one might say, terribly annoying 😁)—but the phrasing itself is quite intriguing: why, exactly, would a penis be considered "annoying" (implying it requires great effort; that it is exhausting—according to Merriam-Webster)? 😕

I once heard an explanation for the common phrase "stupid as hell"—the explanation was, admittedly, kindergarten-level (the idea being that a dick is stupid because it cries when it's having its best time 🤦), but it was an explanation nonetheless. What kind of explanation could exist for the "annoyance" of male genitalia—specifically such massive annoyance, given that the compound phrase is used as a much stronger figure of speech than "you're very annoying", "you're indescribably annoying", "you are soooooooo annnoyyyyying" or any other way to describe someone's immense exasperation? Nothing comes to mind for me, absolutely nothing.

I haven't been able to Google anything particularly meaningful on the subject, so I'm left wondering: if you were to encounter an association linking a dick to "annoyance," would you view it as a completely accidental and unconscious choice devoid of meaning, or do you believe that when people are swearing (and it's safe to assume we swear when our self-control is diminished), they occasionally stumble into a Freudian slip?

Out of all the subreddits that come to mind, the lack of moderators is only really palpable over on Trash and Gastronomy. It’s different over on Religion—that community just has a different vibe, and Stryker NYC hasn't really positioned themselves there as a technical support resource anyway.

Where exactly is this moderation gap becoming such an obvious issue? I mean, what is it specifically that's actually bothering you?

rustydrifter10 said:Look, as an admin, I don't believe I should be stepping in to moderate unless it becomes absolutely necessary—unless there’s really no other way to handle things. I mean, I'm still technically on the roster, even though I barely touch moderation duties anymore due to certain practical constraints... it just doesn't make sense otherwise. Currently, over at Gastronomy, I'm holding down the fort until we can find some solid reinforcements. It's a similar situation with the rest of the admins; many of them are also serving as moderators on various forums, but let's be clear—this is all temporary. So, in essence, we’re all acting as moderators for specific, situational reasons rather than in any traditional or classic capacity.

rustydrifter10 said:As I’ve mentioned before—and I really feel the need to clarify this point—the decision to install us as admins was made primarily due to certain technical requirements and practical necessities. It wasn't an arbitrary choice, I suppose; there were specific operational reasons behind it that necessitated our roles.

Is the font size insufficient? I mean, I might be overthinking this—perhaps my eyesight isn't what it used to be—but I can't help but feel that the current typeface is just... lacking. It feels a bit small, doesn't it? Maybe it’s just me, or maybe I’m being overly pedantic about the visual layout, but I find myself squinting more than I should have to. I guess it could be an issue of accessibility, or perhaps just a matter of aesthetic preference, but I’d argue it makes the reading experience unnecessarily taxing. Just a thought. 😕

I honestly can't wrap my head around how you can be so certain that the post hasn't been botted.

Andrew Diaz3 said:I feel like there's this huge issue in our society where people tie perfectionism to all these positive vibes like discipline, solid work ethic, or just being a "good worker," in the exact same way we act like constant grinding and zero sleep are just hallmarks of being ambitious and driven—but honestly, none of that is healthy because we're talking about total extremes here.

We also have to face the fact that we live in a world, especially here in the States, where you practically have to be a superhero in terms of your skills and how hard you hustle just to get noticed or to maintain a decent life. Instead of realizing that these standards are actually impossible and usually just lead straight to anxiety, depression, losing your zest for life, and massive stress, our culture actually encourages and rewards that kind of behavior.

I’ve struggled with perfectionism for as long as I can remember. Even when I was just a little kid, I felt like I had to do everything myself because I didn't trust anyone else to do a job "well enough." I remember back in elementary school art class, I’d often fail to finish anything on time because every single tiny line in my drawing had to be absolutely flawless; I always had such a brutal opinion of myself, and the only way I thought I could fix it in my own eyes was by being the absolute best at literally everything.

Obviously, you can't sustain that mindset forever, and now, in my early 20s, I’ve developed a whole laundry list of phobias, depression, anxiety, and all those heavy feelings. I find myself constantly second-guessing things in life out of fear that if it won't be perfect, why even start? It’s like the textbook definition of what happens when extreme perfectionism takes over. This thing seriously stops me from being truly happy, and I really believe there are so many other people out there dealing with the exact same thing.

I would give anything to figure out the root causes of my perfectionism, because I think understanding the "why" would help me finally tackle the problem, but I honestly have no clue how to pin it down. Is it something baked into my DNA? Maybe it’s just how I was raised, since both of my parents are the exact same way about this stuff? Or maybe it’s the pressure from society, or even my own financial situation that made me feel like perfection was the only way to climb out of the hole I'm in... the list just keeps going and going.

Maybe it’s just parental expectations?

rowdyjackal56 said:It all feels a bit too much like "perfectionism" being used as a convenient shield in spaces where people justify their neuroses by claiming "everyone just wants to reach their maximum potential in life." Let’s be honest: that’s a total fallacy. Personally, I don't even have a clear definition for what that supposed "maximum" looks like.
For instance, my own aim is simply to become the best version of myself. I want to be the best person I can be for my own sake—not as some metric compared to the neighbors—and I want to navigate life knowing I've acted with integrity.
I wouldn't call myself a perfectionist in the slightest, especially not when it comes to those arbitrary benchmarks of academic or corporate success designed solely to make others perceive you as "winning." Now, that doesn't mean I haven't achieved things; it just means those achievements don't carry any weight in my internal ledger. They were merely the byproduct of my genuine interests and who I happen to be. And since those things can evolve, I see no reason to make a grand production out of them.
What I'm trying to get at, particularly for those who find these traits within themselves to be "toxic" or debilitating, is that you actually need perspective from someone who *isn't* stuck in that same loop. You need to observe a different way of operating to truly understand and adopt a better modus operandi. You don't need a support group of identical souls just to pat each other on the back and whisper reassurances that you aren't alone in your dysfunction. Unless, of course, that's exactly the kind of echo chamber you're looking for.

Who actually wants to be exceptional all the time? Me, frankly. Or rather, I refuse to exhaust myself chasing it. I find a certain joy in being unremarkable because I couldn't care less about social status, provided I know exactly who I am and remain a decent person to myself and those close to me. I have my peace, and that's plenty.

That’s really it. We can probably lock this thread now 🙂.
Quentin Tarantino:

I wouldn't call myself a perfectionist...

Whether you are one or not—well, it doesn't actually matter.

The whole discussion has left me feeling somewhat muddled: to my mind, it seems perfectly logical—perhaps even the only sensible way to live—to aim for my absolute peak in everything I undertake—to ensure I'm never just "going through the motions," but rather putting my entire soul into it.

I don't see anything inherently flawed in that approach—as long as a person doesn't spiral into bitterness or rage because their personal best isn't the gold standard for everyone else; as long as they can recognize when they've hit their own ceiling and don't start throwing tantrums just because someone else's ceiling happens to be higher, then I suppose perfectionism serves as a pretty decent motivational driver.

Anthony Perez9 said:There’s really no need to go out of one's way to protect one specific brand of Christianity from all the others—unless, of course, they’ve convinced themselves they are somehow "critically endangered." 🤷

From what I can gather, the whole idea of "shielding one faith from another" is something only Susan Price30 seems to be pushing (and frankly, I agree that it's wrong for a multitude of reasons).

However, there is a very practical reason why we shouldn't just leave the "Religion" PDF completely untouched: the sheer amount of frustration felt by the many people contributing there. On the flip side, my proposed solution—which I thought was quite simple and logical—involved setting up a single PPDF with moderation levels designed to eliminate any disruption to the discussion. That approach would essentially leave nothing but those few protesters stranded, the ones who are actually just upset by the mere existence of differing viewpoints.

Susan Price30 said:official religion, state religion or—as it's more commonly used in certain countries—the official Church is a perfectly legitimate term. In fact, it’s actually the only term used, as far as I know...

Given the various meanings of the word "official," the most appropriate one here would be:

"official—meaning something enacted or recognized by the authorities"

Not only is your distinction between "official" and unofficial religions—especially declaring one religion to be nothing less than "state-run"—utterly nonsensical, but one could certainly say a few things about it from a legal standpoint as well.

OT: I honestly don't understand how the administration managed to take a relatively straightforward situation and turn it into this massive, sprawling debate.

It all boils down to one simple fact: everyone needs enough room to "breathe" on this site. Just as it’s absurd to argue that the Religion sub-forum should be reserved strictly for believers, it is equally absurd to deny users who want to participate a normal space to discuss what they want to discuss without feeling like their threads are being constantly locked up.

In short: under the Religion section, we could just create a dedicated sub-forum titled "Confessional Discussions" or something similar, where the moderators could prevent those instances of total irreverence—you know, the insults toward God or sacred symbols and other stumbling blocks. Essentially, a space where people (not necessarily just believers) could discuss religion through the lens of their own faiths.

The main Religion sub-forum would then remain as it is—in which case, one of two things would happen: either the constant flame wars would simply run out of steam, or passions would settle down there as well.

That way, all the current issues would be resolved: believers would have a place to talk peacefully (and no, it wouldn't be some echo chamber or ghetto or anything like that), and you'd eliminate the reason for the frequent complaints about allowing "the others" to have their say.

It is frankly grotesque that the "soap enthusiasts" have their own specific sub-forum for soap discussions (that's a random example, but the principle applies to all these thematic sections) where I assume it isn't necessary to go in and try to lecture them on who they should be, yet here we are, debating a completely equal problem and an equally obvious solution as if we were electing a Pope for the internet.

Carl Cox3 said:Why can't people grasp that a session with a therapist and an interview with an employer are entirely different worlds? They share nothing in common. 🙂

A psychologist isn't vetting your job skills; they are studying you through a completely different lens. Non-verbal cues, eye contact, and tone of voice are everything in therapy, yet those factors rarely matter to a hiring manager.

So, you’re actually trying to tell me that there’s no difference between talking to a psychologist and talking to an employer? I mean, I guess I see where you're coming from—sort of. You're suggesting a therapist only interrogates and tests you because their own life is incredibly dull and the local forums are dead quiet—which, frankly, isn't far from the truth—whereas an employer wouldn't give a single damn if you showed up to an interview wearing a wetsuit, picking your nose, and letting out a few loud, juicy burps during the meeting. It's a bold comparison, I suppose, but let's be real here.

granitegull51 said:Look, I’m by no means some kind of cybersecurity expert, but I’ve gone ten years without using an antivirus and haven't run into a single issue.

That logic is just as incredibly foolish as saying, "I’ve been riding my motorcycle without a helmet for ten years and nothing bad has happened yet."

I mean, if you're going to try and play with statistics—which you are, the moment you bring up your ten-year track record—then we might as well keep chasing nonsense: absolutely everyone—meaning 100% of those who get hit by a virus for the first time—had never been hit by one before that moment, much like how people who die without a helmet have certainly never died without a helmet 😬. So, following a line of reasoning just as nonsensical as yours, everyone without a helmet is destined to die, and everyone without AV software is destined to have their computer destroyed by malicious viruses.

granitegull51 said:It’s honestly better to just uninstall your antivirus altogether—since they really do nothing but hog system resources—and just run periodic cleanups using tools like Hijackthis. I mean, viruses and stuff aren't actually as dangerous as most people make them out to be. 🙂

🤦

That statement is just as reckless as telling a patient to ignore their doctors, ditch their medication, and try to fight off a serious illness all by themselves.

William Collins11 said:Well, I am certainly not an "active hater" of animals; I think that’s pretty obvious from my previous posts—as if I wanted to wipe out every living thing except humans. Other people's pets don't bother me, provided they aren't constantly invading my space... It's fine to grab coffee with a friend who brings their dog along, as long as that dog isn't jumping all over me or licking me. I don't find that cute or intentional or anything... it's just gross.

I don't "love" animals in the sense that they trigger any desire for closeness or petting—which, I assume, is why most people keep pets in the first place.

@Almost Rosey — I think I may have interpreted the concept of "beauty" too purely from an aesthetic standpoint in my last example. In other words, I can admire animals and be fascinated by them without feeling any need for companionship, ownership, or physical contact.

It was perfectly clear—you only seem to care as long as you aren't replying directly to me to disagree with my point 🙂.

William Collins11 said:I don't quite follow. Beauty is such a subjective concept—whether we are talking about people or animals. For example, I find snakes to be stunning creatures. I wouldn't want one as a pet, of course, but they are magnificent—their appearance and their natural habits truly fascinate me. It's the same with bees and ants; their social structures are a marvel of nature, and I find them beautiful because of that—it just inspires a sense of awe in me.

I am a bit confused about which animals are considered "beautiful in behavior"—after all, pets are trained; we teach them how to act.

I doubt anyone is actually offended by the beauty of animals (whatever that entails)—for me personally, it's the smell and the shedding that I can't stand, and I simply don't want that in my home. And yes, it does bother me when people judge me as selfish or cold because of those preferences.

@William Collins11 — those are just people I knew back in college. We saw each other every day for five years, so we’d chat over coffee about things outside of class, but I wouldn't exactly put them on my list of true friends.

If those statements were intended as a direct rebuttal to what I wrote, then you have quite frankly twisted my words 🙂.

My point was specifically about "active dislike" toward animals—meaning the idea that some people are genuinely bothered by the mere existence of others' pets—rather than a simple lack of desire to keep a pet in one's own apartment, which—given the mention of aesthetics—falls much more into the category of being indifferent...

It’s honestly such a shame—really, a genuine waste—that a topic with this much potential has devolved into this messy cocktail of shallow trolling and aggressive finger-pointing at pet owners by people who clearly don't get it (not to mention the occasional dramatic confession of deep-seated phobias masquerading as a simple dislike of animals). I suppose trying to debunk every single misconception posted here would just be pouring gasoline on an already raging fire, so I'll stick to one point: the square footage of someone's living space has absolutely zero bearing on the quality of a dog's life. If they have a decent owner, a dog could live in a tiny studio apartment in Manhattan and still thrive; besides, it is fundamentally wrong—and frankly, quite unfair—to blame the animals for the sheer stupidity of certain owners.

The core issue, if we're being honest, starts with how we categorize ourselves: there are those who love animals, those who "actively dislike" them, and then there's that middle ground of people who are mostly indifferent. If we use that framework, I'll admit that those of us in the "actively dislike" camp—meaning people who are bothered simply by the mere presence of animals nearby—are, well, strange. We aren't necessarily "weirdos" (defined as someone who lives differently than the masses, someone acting out of character or being an eccentric), but we are certainly odd (someone who deviates unexpectedly from the norm, someone who surprises others by being different from what is customary; peculiar)).

For instance, some animals are—quite simply—beautiful. They are beautiful in their appearance, they are beautiful in their "behavior" (I think my meaning is clear enough without getting bogged down in specifics), and they are beautiful just by existing—and that beauty exists independently of anything else. I find it difficult to wrap my head around how someone who isn't otherwise repelled by beauty in any other form can find the mere existence of animal beauty so incredibly bothersome.