1236 posts shown.
Megan Ruiz13 said:Time to give you the view from the muški kutak...😳
And there they go again, the feminists are attacking. 🤷
Honestly, with this kind of PMS-driven feminism, the mods and regular guys on this forum are fighting battles every single day.
Scanning through the subforum, I’ve realized that censorship in the muški kutak only seems to target the moody feminists. Everyone else can blather on all they want until they drive my respected colleagues crazy... and then what? You're left with nothing.🤷
Look, if you can't handle some guy banter, just shut down the muški kutak entirely....
And regarding those gay topics—come on. This is the muški kutak: grabbing beers, watching TV, porn, boobs, hookers... and then suddenly, "oh, let's bring in the gay topics or we'll be violating someone's rights." Give me a break...🙄
Just open a separate subforum for gay people and call it a day. 🤷
Feminists have their own space, but nooooooo, they just *have* to invade the muški kutak....😁
That’s the kind of nonsense going on over there.
So, let me get this straight—you're claiming that the sentence "danas dijete malo tući" from your deleted (and I have to wonder, was it even a real post or just some cartoonish nonsense?) post is somehow just "male banter"?
I am actually laughing out loud here.
A little bit of futurism here: if—or rather, when—some individual or group (from that persistent collection of clowns we deal with) decides to hire some high-priced, flashy lawyer to discreetly threaten a lawsuit and a subsequent media circus (which isn't even particularly likely, since such stunts are perfect self-promotion for the individual or organization involved), the MK policy will pivot by about three hundred and sixty degrees before you can even finish saying "defend the status quo." Until then, moderation will continue under the principle of, "Man, here we go again, they’re messing with us on PŽK again—I get it, I really do—but look, we have to do this, just keep it low profile so we don't make waves now and regret it later..."
The thing is, no matter how much we have to admit there is an enviable level of skill in the "I'm going to screw them over, but I can't prove it" department (think atomic bomb metaphors or funeral processions during discussions about Pride parades—of course, nobody actually wants anything bad to happen to the participants, because who would ever think of being that malicious 🙄), there is always some clumsy, half-baked attempt at camouflage. Take, for instance, this: "In order to protect ourselves from this vile disease, we won't just take to the streets; the streets will be orderly and become a safe extension of our own backyards where our children can grow up without having to stare at that queer FILTH!"—which, I suspect, would be incredibly difficult to prosecute as a call to clean up neighborhoods or pick up cigarette butts in the park.
To support my thesis regarding the instant course correction triggered by the mere threat of a serious lawsuit, I offer just two words: Robert Pauletić.
Megan Ruiz13 said:Do you actually have kids? I'm curious if any of you people making such a huge deal about "patience" and "intelligence" in parenting actually have children of your own, or if you're just calling everyone else violent maniacs from the sidelines.
Kids go through certain phases where they can drive you absolutely insane. You can listen, plead, or spend all 24 hours of the day right next to them, but once they decide to be difficult, they are difficult as hell. They'll use everything—tantrums, breaking stuff, throwing themselves on the floor—just to get their way.
There really are those rare moments where you have to show some real firmness. It doesn't mean you have to slap them; a slap hurts. But raising your voice is necessary. Any parent knows there are times you might give them a swat on the butt—it’s not even about hitting, it’s more about that sudden correction that makes them jump.
But people are so quick to scream "abuse" at the first sign of discipline...
And I think a lot of people on the MK forums were just trying to express that same sentiment in their own way.🙂
It’s an absolute tragedy that your post—where you were essentially advocating for corporal punishment—got wiped out (and I’d honestly love to know: was it a cardboard cutout of a post?) because you think kids will become
obedient simply out of
fear. There were a few more
brilliant 🙄 sentences in there about how "instilling fear into their bones will make everything fine," but, well, I had work to do so I didn't bother 😢replying.
What you wrote over there has absolutely nothing to do with
raising your voice or any of the other sanitized rhetoric you're peddling here—which, frankly, just continues to prove a tragic lack of understanding regarding child development, regardless of how many kids you might have—but, I suppose, that’s beside the point.
Megan Ruiz13 said:There was no regret expressed, just an observation. I said that kids used to respect their parents and elders more, and weren't 5% as insolent as they are now. Then I said I don't know what the smart move is; hitting isn't okay, but raising your voice or giving them a smack once in a while probably is.
No nostalgia for the past, no calling for child abuse or domestic violence... just talking sense. That's why we're here. 🙄
Nice burn. You try so hard to explain things from your feminist perspective, and then some guy, a total MK-ovac, just tells you to shove it. 😁
Then the rest of us just sit back and imagine you dealing with that, and suddenly we're not so stressed anymore...🤣 😛
Anyway, it wasn't an insult... it's just part of the fight against feminists trying to wipe out the few men left. 😳
They completely miss the point of this guys' corner. 😉
I honestly think you still fail to grasp the nuance between saying "we
slightly discipline children today" and "we
under-discipline children today" 🤦.
Megan Ruiz13 said:Are we saying they aren't hit enough—or at all—if you just compare it to how things used to be?
What’s the issue? Is it not a fact?
How does my post end?
Look, you just cherry-pick words or fragments of sentences to get worked up over nothing. Most of the time you don't even show up in the threads, then suddenly you pop in out of nowhere just to start drama. 🤷
I honestly think you're missing the point entirely—the statement "kids
don't get hit enough today" isn't some attempt at a historical comparison (it’s strictly an expression of regret and an argument for fixing that
deficiency), or am I just failing to grasp that specific, highly questionable sense of humor that seems to baffle everyone else?
bluemason3 said:Look, a child is a different story. By definition, they're immature and haven't fully developed the cognitive tools to recognize certain things yet.
On the flip side, how do we describe an adult who still fails to recognize those same things? 😳
By the way, dictators almost always share one trait: they can't tell the difference between actual humor and making fun of their own "values."☕
Every single child has significantly more
developed mechanisms and a much better capacity for
recognizing things than some senile old woman—does that mean it’s perfectly fine to slap Grandma Hedwig when her own mechanisms and recognition skills fail her?
BTW, you are grossly underestimating both children and their actual ability to process things. On the contrary—and I am repeating this to counter the absolute nonsense that physical punishment from parents is actually a sign of neglect or a lack of care—a slap or a kick in the rear is nothing more than a disgusting shortcut. It's used because people want to follow the principle of "one kick in the butt speaks louder than a thousand words" just so they can get back to staring at math equations, sipping a beer, and engaging in typical male banter in peace.
loneraven25 said:...let's just put this thread back where it belongs,
and if it’s not something you care to read—well, you don't have to, does it?
Do you actually realize that you just basically drafted a proposal to abolish moderation on Forumu.hr?
The thing is, there isn’t any logical reason why your little demand would apply to just one single thread...
brightcrane56 said:The Family Law is honestly such a hypocrite; it actually dares to stick its nose into how parents raise their kids at home, yet it takes absolutely zero responsibility when that interference backfires. Look, part of growing up is testing limits, and someone needs to be there to tell a child clearly and firmly where those boundaries lie. If the family doesn't set those firm lines, then the streets, the police, or the courts definitely will.
So, here’s what I’m wondering: Is the Family Law going to step up and take accountability when a kid ends up struggling with addiction or falling into a life of crime because they lacked discipline at home—discipline that was essentially stripped away by laws banning physical correction as a parenting tool?
It’s common knowledge—if you look at the data—that addicts, and especially career criminals, almost exclusively come from households where they were never even looked at sternly, let alone disciplined through physical means. ☕
Brian Rodriguez14 said:I didn't say anything about advocating for illegal acts.
Actually, you did. Physical punishment of children is strictly prohibited under Family Law 🙂.
Brian Rodriguez14 said:Jezušek što... 😲
What is this...?
Either a moment of catharsis or just plain old nostalgia for the way things used to be. And how they used to function... 🤷
By the way, this forum should be open to everything, including the controversial stuff... like corporal punishment.
It’s basically going to turn into lemonade...
Really? Everything? Even advocating for illegal activities (or whatever the legal jargon calls it these days) within those topics?
I’m not just talking about physical punishment for children here; I mean other
actions that are strictly prohibited by law.
brightpuma said:So, up until now, MK has basically turned a blind eye to chauvinism, racism, and all sorts of other nonsense. But the second people start talking about raising kids? Suddenly, all these self-righteous moralists pop out of nowhere. 🙄
Hypocrisy at its finest... 🙄
Actually, it would be the height of hypocrisy if he somehow managed to prove that those self-appointed
moral guardians 🙂actually tolerated chauvinism and everything else on that list.
All of this sounds lovely in theory, but it’s frankly insufficient.
A moderator who fails to grasp that calling someone a "scumbag" constitutes verbal aggression—and that physical violence is strictly prohibited, while not all forms of hostility equate to abuse—could certainly improve their rather precarious standing on this specific thread by offering an apology.
There are far too many reasons to apologize, but the most glaring one is that a little bit of reading comprehension wouldn't hurt, a suggestion that is frequently ignored by the average user on these boards.
Otherwise (if there's no apology and no disciplinary action), it looks as though we are operating under the logic of "just delete it and pretend nothing happened"—which is the perfect breeding ground for those endless PŽK-Topica threads where people cry, "Oh, so you'll ban me, but when a moderator was openly advocating for the physical punishment of children over there, you just deleted the post, didn't you? Huh? Really?"
The worst part is, the author of such a thread would actually be right.
brightstag9 said:Great. Now I guess I need to write a PhD thesis detailing every single step of the election process. 😁 Honestly, if you use even a shred of common sense, you'll see this isn't some brilliant idea. If you need ten moderators, you hold a vote and the first ten people to hit the mark get the job. Simple. That would definitely be fairer than what we have now. So, how are mods actually picked today?
As for the rating system, look, I think the suggestion is solid. Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean we should toss the idea out. You implement safeguards to stop that from happening. It's like saying the government shouldn't hold elections because people might cheat, or we shouldn't have a court system because judges might be corrupt. That's a weak argument.
Plus, there'd probably be way less fighting with staff if the community actually chose its own moderators. Right now, it feels like nobody can figure out how to pick them. People aren't here for the mods; the mods exist for the people. If there are no users, the mods have nothing to moderate.
BTW, this thread is about suggestions for improvement, and your response to the proposal was basically "you don't pay for it and you can leave anytime".
I suspect things might be a bit more coherent if you actually specified which two moderators you feel are so "unthinkable," and perhaps offered a couple of your own suggestions for managing those digital files.
frozenowl3 said:Do you actually buy that?
It isn't really a matter of belief for me—it’s just a fact. Not every former moderator stepped down because they chose to.
Viewing the administration as some sort of monolithic, "all-for-one" cult is—well, I suppose it's just plain wrong 😁.
The moderators themselves end up taking hits on their internal performance scores—though, I should clarify, these penalties don't trigger any immediate, automatic consequences. However—and this is the crucial part—they serve as a very clear signal to the upper administration that something might be going sideways behind the scenes.
Even if we weren't dealing with a private community, and even if the system itself wasn't fundamentally flawed to begin with, the whole notion of using popular vote as a metric for selecting moderators is just... well, it’s simply unworkable.
Jessica Howard5 said:Did you even read my post? Twenty years ago. If someone had called that girl’s parents into the principal's office, they would've shown up instantly. They wouldn't have missed it. And let me tell you, before they even stepped foot on campus, she would've been ear-marked for a serious lecture at home. You know how it goes—where there's smoke, there's fire.
I bolded my point for you.
If you’ve been following my posts, I’ve already made myself clear: hitting kids is wrong. It isn't discipline; it’s just a pathetic outburst of frustration when you've run out of options. It’s about parenting, plain and simple. I have never laid a hand on my child, and I never will.
I’d listen to my kid, probably feeling pretty frustrated, and try to calm them down. I'd tell them every problem has a solution. No way am I calling a teacher at 10 PM. Instead, I’d head straight to the school to talk to the teacher face-to-face. If I heard what actually happened from their perspective, I’d be crushed. My first thought wouldn't be blaming anyone else—it would be looking in the mirror and asking myself how I failed to raise my child to act that way. I’d realize I dropped the ball on the parenting front and I'd go out and find professional help immediately.
Is that answer any clearer now?🙂
Of course I read your post.
In that post—much like most of yours, I suppose—you spend your time declaring those days from twenty years ago to be the "good old days" simply because "there was order," because teachers acted a certain way, students were different, and parents were different... as opposed to these supposedly terrible modern times where everything is awful and everyone is terrible, including the installation of these weird AC units in classrooms that only seem to cool down the "glamorous teachers in low-cut tops" (seriously, where? where exactly? 🙂), while the students in the same room are basically wilting in the hundred-degree heat.
So, here is my point: if those were such "good old days," why are you suddenly abandoning the very things that made them what they were? If you are glorifying an era defined by different pedagogy and different parenting styles, yet you simultaneously apply modern parenting methods yourself (which, let me be clear, is actually desirable and commendable), then you are either being inconsistent in how you judge the past versus the present, or you are being hypocritical—especially since you’re advocating for those "two stern lectures" for someone else's kids.
Jessica Howard5 said:Hahaha, what a demagogue you are, seriously. Yeah, I was raised that way back in the day. They taught us teachers were like second parents and they were always right, even when they weren't. And yeah, I messed up once (I'm emphasizing *once*) at school and a note went home for my parents to come in for a meeting. My dad—who wasn't exactly well-educated—gave me two swats first (there was no official code of conduct back then). He went to the school and found out I had been running in the hallway and accidentally slammed into the geography teacher who was walking out of class holding a globe. She got bruised up and the globe shattered. Dad went out and bought a new globe with his blue-collar wages, I apologized to the teacher, forgot all about getting those two swats, and school life went on.
Your demagoguery in these posts is becoming totally irritating. Everything is always black or white, hot or cold with you. It's right on par with those demagogic questions of yours about "losers" 😂
But let’s set my supposed demagoguery aside for a moment.
Looking back at my entire post, you haven't actually addressed the most critical—and frankly, most interesting—point: if you were to walk through your front door after work, find your daughter in tears and completely distraught, and then receive a notification that you need to head straight to her school... would you have already given her two preventative ear drops just in case? Because, well, where there's smoke, there's fire, I suppose.
Jessica Howard5 said:I honestly don't get these parents. Is it some desperate need to flex their "power" and act like they actually matter? Or are they just arrogant enough to think they can bulldoze through anything with their connections? Maybe it's just pure vanity regarding their little "princess"—the one at home who’s supposedly "polite," "hardworking," and gets "straight A's." Dad’s just too full of himself to handle anyone upsetting his precious girl. If someone can make her cry, then fine, he can be an arrogant jerk and harass people at 10 PM. (God, I hope it's the latter). Twenty years ago, if someone had called this girl's parents into the principal's office, they would've been there in a heartbeat to hear what was going on—and she would've gotten two ear-pullings before they even walked through the door, because where there's smoke, there's fire.
That’s my point: schools still haven't "grown up" enough to handle these problems properly. Principals are useless (even with the law on their side and a clear procedure in place), but what can you actually do when you're dealing with an "influential" dad? Who knows what will actually happen, especially when the principal is up for reelection this year. It sucks, but that's just how it is. Everyone gets intimidated when someone starts making a scene, forgetting that most of the time, it's just all bark and no bite.
The sheer amount of aggression and the constant advocacy for violence that keeps bubbling up in your posts is honestly terrifying. You seem to be glorifying some imaginary disciplinary method from twenty years ago as if it were somehow a desirable model for us today.
If you came home from work to find a child crying and upset, I suppose you'd start things off with those "two preventive swats" 🤦 just because you saw a little bit of smoke? Or is that kind of treatment reserved strictly for other,
evil children?
Charles Murphy6 said:Regardless of how that parent chose to phrase things—calling a teacher at their house at 10:00 PM is just plain wrong. No, it isn't normal. Look, I get it, his kid is upset, but what exactly did he hope to accomplish at that hour? And then he goes and switches from singular to plural mid-sentence—honestly, who cares about the grammar when the behavior is this erratic.
I would absolutely make sure there is a written record of this encounter, and I say that based on my own lived experience.
The official report should be filed with the school board; you’d coordinate with the administration to draft a formal memo for everyone I mentioned.
It certainly isn't normal, but I’d argue that the sheer fact of it being weird isn't quite enough to justify calling the police.
Charles Murphy6 said:wanderinggardener12, mistake number one here is that if someone starts making threats against you privately at home, you absolutely should have contacted the police immediately.
Second, since you aren't currently cooperating with the school counseling department, you need to draft a formal letter detailing everything you’ve just written and send it in this specific order:
- City Hall
- Child Protective Services
- FBI
You desperately need a paper trail proving your father threatened you because it is fundamentally insane for a parent to call your house at 10:00 PM and start hurling threats... whatever the case may be. They don't have that right, and frankly, they likely know where you live, so please, think about your safety...
I don't want to scare you—it's probably just some frustrated loser who thinks he's a big man over the phone—but you must report everything and demand written confirmation of receipt!!
Exactly—everything needs to be handled through official channels. Being cautious is paramount. Always make calls and insist on receiving follow-up documentation. There is a protocol that must be followed. If the parents fail to respond, the center must be notified because parents are legally obligated to respond to a summons at the school.
You can never be too careful.
The problem is, a father can spin a narrative in a heartbeat—he’ll claim he only called as soon as he got off work because his daughter was clearly spiraling and in tears, and that he wasn't "threatening her job," but rather expressing his opinion that certain educators deserve to be fired, or saying he might report them to the school board, or hoping they lose their positions... or some other variation of that. It always ends up being his word against hers.
And then there's wanderinggardener12, who filed a police report and—well, nothing happened.