Jason Ortiz5 said:Wait, so the "solution" is basically paying for two books instead of one expensive textbook? 👏 Or did you actually think publishers would just slash their prices in half if they split the volume up? 🤔 I mean, I really doubt that'll happen... 😁 Though, I bet those big publishing houses would love to take you up on that idea...
Now that you've gone ahead and dismissed one of the potential fixes by stating exactly what you *won't* do, I'm just sitting here eagerly awaiting your—and I am certain, truly, your incredibly wise—proposal for actually solving this mess.
Jessica Howard5 said:I agree, it’s ridiculous. But honestly, when you look at who actually caused this mess, our kids are lucky they aren't dealing with even worse. Math—you need the textbook, the workbook, the practice manual, a notebook, plus triangles, rulers, compasses... the whole bit. English—textbook, reader, workbook, notebook... and now throw in geography with an atlas, history with an atlas, and we might as well just buy them a cart from Lime so they can haul all this junk to school.
Which of those items would you cut if you could?
The actual answer lies in printing complete curriculum packets for both semesters and switching to lighter-weight paper—not in reducing education down to whatever a teacher decides to dictate in class. Sure, that happens. It happens today, even if it wasn't how things were done back when I was in school 🧐. And yes, there are certainly parents out there who actually praise that kind of teaching style 🤦
loneraven25 said:...regardless of what was said above, I’m going to keep chaining my posts together one after another, which should help prevent any less-than-talented writers from flooding the zone if the clock is ticking... ...otherwise, we run the risk of someone dumping an absolutely ridiculous amount of content in a tiny window of time... ...and honestly, doing this just makes the whole thread much easier to navigate and read through, so I’ll continue to delete any Quoting without any prior warning, provided that the quote refers back to a post written earlier in the thread... (the only exception here would be the very first posts on subsequent pages)
You’ve essentially ruined what was becoming a perfectly good discussion by being unnecessarily exclusionary—basically deciding that your own unbacked opinion carries more weight than all the actual examples and scenarios we've laid out here.
Fortunately, the mobile carrier industry isn't exactly my field of expertise, so I don't have to worry about falling victim to your constant 👎nonsense.
BTW:
Multi-
somewhat preventing untalented posters from participating, provided the deadline is tight...
That sentence doesn't actually mean anything. It's just empty words, really. No substance whatsoever.
Nicholas Myers said:I have several reasons for doing this. First, when merging multiple threads, you run the risk of posts from other topics getting sandwiched between related ones, which breaks the continuity. It’s also much easier to manage merged posts if we ever need to split them back up later. On the Health forum, we frequently merge threads for various reasons I won't get into right now.
Furthermore, it's simply more efficient for me to work with consolidated posts. Having symptoms, complaints, and signs all contained in one single entry is far better than chasing them through several consecutive posts. It's partly a professional habit; in my day job, I prefer patient records to be centralized in one place whenever possible—it makes the workflow significantly faster and smoother.
It happens sometimes where a user describes a medical issue across several posts, and by the time they're done, some of those posts have already pushed onto the next page. That creates an annoying hurdle when you go to reply; you have to stop, scroll back to the previous page, and jump back and forth unless you end up quoting every single one of those individual posts.
There are other reasons why I merge posts, but I'll leave those out here.
I don't issue warnings or "card" users just for posting consecutively. In fact, I think I've only sent one private message regarding this, and that was only because a user was spamming consecutive posts, demanding to know why nobody was answering them immediately.
So, I hope I'll be allowed to continue moderating this way and keep merging posts as described. However, if the administration or my fellow moderators decide this practice is actually counterproductive or useless, I'll stop merging consecutive posts from the same author within short timeframes.
Thanks for the thorough breakdown 🙂. If I’ve managed to grasp your point correctly—and I assume I have—your reasoning (which, in turn, seems perfectly logical to me) stems from the specific nature of your PDF file.
I suppose I should mention that when I find myself Multiquoting, it's usually just a mechanical way of grouping adjacent posts together—it isn't driven by any deep motivations like the ones you've laid out here.
You provided an answer describing the specific situation where you do this—but, you didn't really clarify (my apologies if I somehow missed it) the reasoning behind it. So, what is the actual purpose of joining them? What exactly is the benefit being achieved here?
shadowpilot8 said:Objectively speaking, posting three one-liners in three consecutive posts is eyesore. Whether a moderator chooses to merge them depends on their sense of aesthetics or how much free time they have, but it isn't necessary. The forum won't collapse if they aren't combined.
I see it as having only two possible outcomes here: either those three one-liners are incredibly brilliant, witty, or actually provide some substance to three different authors—in which case, merging them would just dilute the impact—or they are just three mindless "I agree," "signed," or "LOL" comments that really ought to be deleted altogether.
Nicholas Myers said:On the US forums I moderate (Health and its related sub-forums), I frequently merge consecutive posts from the same user.
My criteria for merging posts depend on two things: the length of the content and the timeframe between them. If combining two or more posts results in a single manageable entry and they were posted close together, I merge them regularly. I don't issue warnings or bans just for posting sequentially; however, if I notice someone is constantly flooding the board with one-sentence posts, I’ll send a private message asking them to consolidate.
Beyond simple spamming, what bothers me more—and I see this quite often on the Health boards, especially from newer users with low post counts—is when people blast identical messages across multiple different threads. In those instances, I delete the duplicates and leave only one original post. If the behavior persists, I follow up with a warning via PM.
It’s a simple question, really: why exactly? 😕You’re putting in all this effort and wasting your own time—for what purpose? What is the actual benefit to the forum, the PDF, or the specific topic when you merge those kinds of posts?
Then again, if we are talking about substantive, meaningful posts, perhaps the author had a legitimate reason to keep them separate. But if the posts are just nonsense, then merging them isn't going to suddenly create some sort of critical mass of meaningful content.
So, I guess the real question remains: what is the point of doing that?
That’s exactly why I threw a question mark at the end. 😁
It would be nice if the other moderators actually showed up—honestly, having to reach out to every single one individually is getting old.
Multi-quote
Which part isn't clear?
The rules state that spamming will result in a ban—so, let’s be clear, spamming is the actual issue here. It’s a total misconception that failing to use Multi-quote automatically qualifies as spamming posts.
If we follow that logic, then spamming is basically being treated like some kind of malicious criminal act—which is just absurd. I honestly don't get why anyone would ever do that on purpose. The only thing I get from my account is the opportunity to listen to every single idiot, once they run out of actual things to say, start spouting nonsense about how my profile proves I have no life and spend 24/7 on this forum. Or, optionally, that I’m using this site to cope with my real-life frustrations (which, as everyone here clearly knows, I don't actually have).
It really gets under my skin when several different posts get lumped together into a single Multi-quote.
First off, it makes everything incredibly cluttered—I’m certain a huge chunk of people just give up on reading those massive walls of text.
Secondly, there’s a perfectly good reason why people respond to various users in separate posts: threads often branch out into several distinct directions. The fundamental visual issue with forums is their linear nature (much like the old-school Usenet 🧐) — so, by forcibly shoving multiple unrelated points into one basket, you're essentially mashing completely different conversational threads together.
Because of that, I find almost any application of this rule to be pointless, unnecessary, and frankly, counterproductive. Spam is spam, whether it’s squeezed into one post or spread across ten (I mean, does anyone honestly think they're "padding their stats"? It's not like you win a Rolex for hitting 10,000 posts, right?). Even those amateurish one-liners are better off being deleted entirely rather than being stitched into equally mindless Multi-quote posts.
In my opinion, threads are far more cluttered by people quoting entire essays just to write half a sentence underneath them, or merely to add a signature.
Stop enforcing this rule as if it were an offense; it just doesn't make sense.
Larry Walker24 said:He obviously doesn't know—since he just slapped a Wikipedia answer on a stupid question!
Honestly, you’ve completely missed the entire point of what this forum is supposed to be as a communication tool.
The whole idea here is discussion, specifically about sharing your own perspectives and stances. If you think someone's question is idiotic, you have options: you can just stay silent, you could point them toward a helpful link that actually answers their nonsense, or you could even joke around with them and risk a warning—but simply posting a copy-paste from Wikipedia
is a total failure. I mean, it's completely unclear to us how much satisfaction you supposedly get from just pasting external links instead of actually participating in the community.
velvetmaker3 said:Look, this isn't a school where you need to go off and practice, and he actually made himself quite clear; it's just that not everyone interpreted him the same way. Are you really sure everyone always understands you exactly the way you intend them to? If they don't, should they be practicing their understanding, or is it you who needs to work on being understood?
Sure, freedom of speech has limits, but you and I are coming at this from different angles. I’m advocating for free speech, whereas you aren't really fighting for free speech—you're fighting for the rule of law and the limited freedom of speech that stems from it.
If you were, say, a white person in South Africa during apartheid, would you also play the legalist and quote segregation laws, claiming they must be followed because they are supreme above all else?
Or if a majority in America ever voted in racist laws, would you stand behind them and quote them here just to silence anti-racists?
Freedom of speech, yes, but only if it aligns with official policy, which is how it works in North Korea, too.
Besides, there was no actual spreading of hate here.
That whole racism topic was pretty pointless; there were maybe five or six good posts, and the rest was just filler. But it shouldn't be a taboo subject.
If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they are a racist or why they believe what they believe. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily beat them with arguments. Or are they just afraid they won't be able to?
Look, if you’re so desperate to keep this little smear campaign going, fine—just say the word, because I honestly don't have the energy to keep going in circles with you.
The thing is, you were the one who started invoking the US legal system and constitutional rights regarding free speech in the first place:
"Free speech and the right to express opinions are incredibly important, and they are protected under American law. If other laws are used as a way to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be abused. "
I laid out exactly what the US legal framework dictates regarding this situation, and yet, suddenly, you've morphed into someone who—in the name of what you claim is "free speech"—is willing to just scoff at the actual laws of the United States and act as if you're somehow above them.
velvetmaker3 said:The author isn't some academic who can perfectly articulate every single thought. Honestly, even academics don't always pull it off. You have to understand the spirit of the post.
I wouldn't say he expressed himself poorly; he expressed himself quite clearly, and I understood exactly what he meant. Others, however, failed to grasp it and took the stance that he was justifying crimes as both logical and necessary. I suppose there's a chance I misunderstood him.
What he meant was that in the minds of Nazis, it was justified to crush a successful community that became a target of hatred due to its very success. When someone hates and possesses the power to suppress the object of that hate, it's logical that they will do so. The Nazis believed this was necessary for a higher purpose, making it essential to them. That's what he was saying; it's not an attempt to glorify it. If I recall correctly, some user on Reddit said they'd put a bullet in a racist's head, expressing their own hatred toward them. How much does a person like that actually differ from a Nazi? Is there any difference at all? Maybe just in the nuances? Or perhaps just in the target they're projecting that hate toward?
Look, if someone lacks the basic ability to write down what they actually mean, maybe they should just stay home and practice.
It’s not just about the specific quote you're pulling—even though it’s pretty clear what the guy was trying to say there—but the original post itself provided plenty of justification for being deleted.
Freedom of speech and expression is incredibly important, and it's protected under American law. If other laws are used as a pretext to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be exploited like that.
Honestly, you sound just like someone who starts shouting about their constitutional rights the second they get banned. Freedom of speech absolutely does not mean you can say anything you want. We aren't talking about internal forum rules here; we are talking about the US Penal Code. Take a look at Section 174:
(3) Anyone who, with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic hatred, or hatred based on skin color or gender identity, or for the purpose of disparagement, publicly expresses or delivers ideas regarding the superiority or inferiority of a race, ethnic or religious community, gender, or nation, or ideas regarding superiority or inferiority based on skin color, gender identity, or other characteristics, shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to three years.
(4) Anyone who, with the intent described in paragraph 3 of this section, uses a computer system to scatter or otherwise makes available to the public materials that deny, significantly diminish, approve, or justify the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to three years.
If I were to address you in this manner, what exactly would happen?
You don't need this.
Edit: Just to be precise regarding terminology—to "have a right" means to base one's actions (whether spoken or otherwise) upon some written or unwritten law, or perhaps an unwritten "social contract." People can certainly be racists, but they possess absolutely no right to be racists. Anything someone "has a right" to do cannot be subject to any kind of sanction—claiming a "right" to racism would imply that racism itself carries some form of legitimacy.
Edit to the edit: To prevent us from descending into a debate over who holds more authority here, it would be quite helpful if Vojky weighed in on the (non)existence of a "right to racism." In this particular matter, he undoubtedly possesses the greatest 😁.
Now that things are finally reaching a breaking point, I honestly think there’s a valid argument for just wiping this whole disgraceful thread from existence—meaning, we delete everything except for that penultimate paragraph in the opening post, because frankly, the rest isn't even worth the digital space it's occupying on our boards.
Please, don't view this suggestion as some legalistic maneuvering; rather, look at it as a necessary bit of housekeeping. 😁
mellowlynx68 said:I just want to know one thing: was Judolino reporting posts before he started swearing at people?
If he was, then the moderators should be penalized for negligence, while he only gets points for his first one or two posts (since everything else is just him insulting users). By failing to act, the moderators basically paved the way for his constant insults and hate speech.
But if he wasn't reporting others, then every single one of those posts should be penalized. Correcting a mistake regarding the Danube isn't his job—he should just be flagging it. Even so, he doesn't deserve a permanent ban because this whole mess happened because nobody was moderating. The mods just need a little 😬 nudge for not reading their own PDF.
From KZB: "I reported the thread both via the flag icon and through a PM to the moderator. ".
Beyond that, the moderator's post appears somewhere around the fifth or sixth entry in the thread; though, by that point, the discussion was already ripe for being locked or deleted (given that the opening post was likely litigious), and in that specific post, he’s essentially issuing a red card for any further intolerance. It would seem that didn't even happen—unless I misunderstood and those millennial-style red cards were actually handed out by Daniel Ward87.
Megan Ruiz13 said:It’s still not an excuse for acting like that, and they aren't responsible for shutting anything down. I've been on Reddit for nine years now. I've seen plenty of changes over that time, but one of the most recent shifts is this idea that users are here for other users, while the moderators and admins are the ones making all the calls and holding the power to "shut things down." The appeal process here? Honestly, I don't think it works. The moderation feels way too heavy-handed, but hey, those are just the rules.
Either you stick to your guns or you just roll over, regardless of how he handled things.
I’m all for free speech, but this forum still follows the laws of the country we live in. Under US law, we don't have absolute freedom of speech within those legal boundaries. Since the post was clearly racist, there isn't much point in trying to argue it. Besides, mods are only human; some might value freedom more than the rulebook, so they might let things slide occasionally. 🤷
If Judolino was actually that bothered by it, he had plenty of ways to stir the pot without getting banned. He could've done it without any trouble at all.
Look, I wasn't even pointing the finger at you. 😉
Third and final time: I am not advocating for the right to be abusive—what I am contesting is the total lack of timely intervention from the moderators and staff. That failure is exactly what caused this whole thing to escalate, leading to situations that—for days now 🤦—are being sanctioned under the label of "hate speech."
...one of the last points is that users are here for other users, while the mods and administration are the ones making decisions and holding the authority to "shut things down."
In other words, just shut up and mind your own business? Don't get involved, just post and don't ask questions? If we followed that logic, I suppose I could triumphantly toast and say, "Serves him right!"—since I've been told more than once that I've nearly lost my own relatives because of my mouth. But honestly, can you really just sit there calmly "doing your job" while absolute chaos unfolds in the next room? Would you just walk past a literal house fire because, hey, you don't have the authority to grab a hose?
It’s just not going to work. Users aren't just here to "interact with other users"; they are here because they expect the environment to be tolerable. I’m not a proponent of vigilante tactics, but there is a massive difference between someone acting out of pure malice and someone drawing a line in the sand after the "law enforcement" (the mods) has taken a completely indifferent stance.
So you either stick to that or just roll over and take it, regardless of how or why they decide to shut something down.
Fourth and final time 😁: I am neither advocating for nor justifying crude insults—but there is no hate speech occurring here.
and mods are human, maybe some people value freedom more than the rules, so sometimes they overlook things 🤷
😲 😲 😲
Following that logic (which I certainly do not support), Judolina also valued freedom more than the (forum) rules.
Megan Ruiz13 said:He could have handled this more politely. He could have just reported the whole thread, or started a new one about the appeal and laid out the argument that it’s about racism in a few sentences.
That said, free speech should be respected, including discussions about racism—the why, the how, all of it. You can't just shut down, delete, and punish every single thread that even touches the subject.
And it’s especially uncalled for to label participants as Hitler sympathizers. There's a clear line between hate speech and an actual discussion about it.
Having read the original post, yeah, it was definitely framed in a racist way... but there are plenty of ways to deal with that without stooping to that "level."🙂
And I’m basically giving him a free pass—absolving him of any wrongdoing whatsoever—but where exactly? 😕 Look, I’ll be the first to admit the guy was throwing gasoline on the fire and being straight-up insulting—he absolutely was. But at the end of the day, he was fueling the flames. Now, regarding the moderator's post—it’s sitting right there among the first ten comments in the thread. You can't just hide behind that tired old excuse of "mods aren't online 24/7" when it's that visible. He saw the opening post, and he chose not to step in or issue a sanction. This isn't some minor oversight that requires a user to report it; it’s a failure to act on something clearly presented from the jump.
With that being said, Freedom of speech is something we absolutely have to respect—it’s the bedrock of everything we stand for. I mean, if we start picking and choosing who gets to voice their opinions based on what's considered "acceptable" at any given moment, then we've already lost the plot. It might feel uncomfortable sometimes—and let's be honest, some people say things that are frankly infuriating—but the principle itself remains non-negotiable. If you start chipping away at the right to speak, even for people you personally can't stand, you're essentially inviting the government to decide what your own thoughts are allowed to be. It's a slippery slope, and once you go down it, there's no easy way back. We have to protect the right to dissent, period.And, let’s say, even when it comes to debating racism—the whole "why" and "how" of it all—it's just... well, I suppose we could dive into those discussions too. So, you can't exactly go around closing, deleting, or handing out punishments to every single thread that dares to touch upon this subject—not if you want to maintain any semblance of fairness. (...) That’s what I thought—well, at least that was my initial takeaway when I first sat down to read the opening post. I mean, let's be honest—the way he's positioned is just blatantly racist....
For crying out loud, just make up your mind. 😁
Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m actually advocating for closing things down? Honestly, I have no clue where you're pulling that from—it's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I suppose I should address this—though I'm not entirely sure where to start given how much has been left unsaid. It feels like we're just drifting through these discussions without any real sense of direction, which is... well, let's just say it's frustrating. Maybe I'm being too pedantic, but there seems to be a recurring pattern here that everyone is simply ignoring. It’s almost as if we've collectively decided to look the other way, which—if you ask me—is a bit much. I guess I'll just lay it out plainly, even if it feels like shouting into a void. What kind of topics would even touch upon this—I mean, what specific areas could we possibly dive into to address such a thing?
Moderating "social science" is a lot like working a toll booth at a Vicksburg rest stop on the interstate—twice a day someone rolls up and pays their fee, and the rest of the time you’re just sitting there grinding through Sudoku. 😁
Then, out of nowhere, this massive line starts forming, and you're just caught off guard—totally unaccustomed and unprepared. That's when the chaos kicks in: the mess, the congestion, the absolute shouting matches between pissed-off drivers—and you’re just standing there, paralyzed, not knowing what to do or how to handle it.
That is precisely how this moderated thread regarding racism went down. First off, the topic was opened by some newbie 🙄—highly suspicious. Secondly, they chose to open it on a subforum they know is under-moderated (rather than, say, Politics, where they wouldn't last five minutes)—also highly suspicious. Thirdly, the intro of the thread is dominated by yet another newbie 🙄—suspicious once again. It’s more than enough justification to "locate, lock, and ban."
And then, the most predictable thing in the universe happens: when people see that the firefighters aren't showing up (because there are too few of them, they're inexperienced, or they've lost their way), they start trying to put out the fire themselves, using whatever tools they have. Judolino might be doing it with kerosene, but even that is better—if we're being honest and fair (since he isn't an idiot who ignores the consequences)—than just sitting on one's hands and saying, "Damn, this isn't my fight." At this point, it doesn't matter who anyone is or who likes whom on this site.
To ignore the context in which this whole mess unfolded—to sanction someone without acknowledging that the administration made a massive screw-up (there are plenty of indictable sentences that sat unaddressed for days)—is, at the very least, incorrect.
Did Judolino offend people? Absolutely. But labeling him with "hate speech" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what hate speech actually is. Hate speech isn't just any expression of animosity. Even if he gets a permanent ban, the reason behind it matters. It’s not the same thing whether someone ends up in prison for stealing a chicken or for something much more severe.
The man was just fighting the fire the only way he knew how—and he messed up. But where were all of you when things were actually burning?
Edit: On KzB, it was written, "Believe it or not, people have the right to be racists." This is an incredibly, incredibly ambiguous sentence. The question is: does a person become a racist simply by having "racist thoughts" without ever acting on them, or only when they manifest that racism in some "external" form? What someone thinks about others is their private business as long as it remains a thought—though, I suppose, the possibility of never manifesting those thoughts is highly questionable.
However, in this specific situation, this debate is entirely pointless (and the quoted sentence is completely irrelevant), because we are talking about actions—about a clear manifestation of racism that would be punishable by much more serious measures than mere bans or temporary suspensions. The sentence regarding the "logical and necessary action in accordance with that hatred" could have—perhaps?—caused actual legal headaches for Reddit. In that sense, Judolino actually did us a favor, because now you have something to wave around in your counter-arguments.
rustydrifter10 said:Setting MK aside for a second, let’s be real—not all subreddits are created equal. You can't just allow the same level of "relaxed rules" everywhere, because if you did, some sections would absolutely fall apart given the topics they cover. I’m sure you know that better than anyone, trust me.
Regular explanations act as a sort of "independent subreddit policy."
The core Reddit rules apply to every single subreddit, though how strictly those rules are actually enforced can vary from one community to the next, sometimes with their own unique little twists and additions depending on the group.
And honestly, that applies to MK too.
I realize that not all subreddits are "identical"—look, at least this time nobody (so far 😁) has shoved Politics down my throat. But I’m not actually looking for total uniformity among all subreddits; I’m talking about those that exist somewhere in the middle regarding how casual they are. In what way is ŽK somehow "less identical" than MK? And finally, by what logic is LJES any less similar to MK?
But that isn't even the whole story. Fine, for the sake of moving this discussion forward, I will concede that the opening post in that thread was just trolling. However, if you actually looked at the thread, you would have seen clear instances of hateful sentences that weren't just jokes—and they were written right here on Reddit. When someone writes "drop dead" to another user, that happens on Reddit, and it doesn't matter whether it's happening in a joking MK thread or some other subreddit.
I’ll say it again: all those mistakes listed by kurin (and, if I understood correctly, the admin went through quite a bit of trouble to list examples of transgressions from years ago) are absolutely nothing compared to the (again, non-joking) statements written there. How else are we supposed to interpret his bias, if not as pure intolerance toward anyone who dares to challenge him? I've already said this: his views are a massive red flag for me too—but I dealt with that by breaking them down, mocking them, or whatever else was necessary.
Grace Wood5 said:The nonsense on MK is exactly what it is—stupid to some, hilarious to others. It’s perfectly suited for those of us who spend our time rambling around there. And yeah, whether people like it or not, the funniest part of most MK threads is when random outsiders swoop in, feeling somehow entitled to explain to us exactly "where we're going wrong." 🙏 If anyone is confused about the vibe we're going for on MK, they should probably take a moment to actually read the Real Women on MK 🤣 rules. A little bit of actual sense mixed in with the humor is always welcome. 😉 You can find good banter on pretty much any sub-forum, but on the "serious" ones, those threads usually get locked or deleted once everyone starts losing their minds. On MK, we don't do that, because the whole point of this sub-forum is to be casual and talk absolute trash whenever you feel like it. Nobody is explicitly forbidden from showing up and trying to lecture us on how to joke around; honestly, nothing would make us happier. 😁 There’s really only one danger here: what if you actually end up wanting to stay on MK? 😬
This constant refrain whenever MK gets mentioned completely misses the mark.
The issue isn't whether people are allowed to joke around on MK or how they do it; the real question is why that kind of behavior is exclusive to MK. If you look at recent history, similar antics on Reddit—which is supposed to act as a sort of "mirror image" of the PDF style—have led to vastly different outcomes.
What remains unclear is why, for instance, while everyone is busy fighting to protect certain characters or specific elements of MK, the notorious Kurtzius kura is simultaneously being slammed for supposedly "LJES-style" horrific violence against women—all based on sentences that would be laughed off as weak or overly sensitive if they were posted on MK.
The standard excuse offered is some kind of "independent PDF politics," which is frankly a joke: regardless of whether a sentence is written on this platform or another, its weight should remain the same. In a situation where you can speak one way on one site—because it caters to "those who ramble there"—yet face intense bias on another for much more benign comments, the entire set of rules becomes a farce.
Just because the woman who started the thread completely lost her footing in her own posts—which, I might add, felt like a gift from above to many of us—it doesn't mean the core issue has lost its scale or its importance.