Look, rowdyhawk10, I don't know if everyone claiming to be into Satanism is just messing around, but one thing is for sure—I haven't seen any Satanists popping up in threads about Christianity, Islam, or Atheism trying to preach their beliefs. It’s the exact opposite of those aggressive believers—mostly Christian types, I guess—who barge into Satanist threads just to insult people, troll, or start preaching their own gospel.
So, my suggestion? We should probably extend that ban on proselytizing to all the other religion-specific threads too—not just the main top-level ones.
If my memory serves me right—and it usually does—it was either 10, 25, or maybe 40. But honestly, I’ve always just kept it set at 40.
So, I finally bit the bullet and bumped it up to 60.
By the way, you guys seriously need to check out the AutoPager extension for Firefox. It basically loads the next page once you scroll halfway down—so it doesn't matter if there are a million posts per page or whatever.
I don't even know where to start with this one—it’s just... wow. I mean, honestly? It’s pretty much nothing. Just a total waste of breath. says: Oh, look at this—a whole bunch of former "big shots" gathering here just to try and play the moral high ground. Typical. 🙄 We should have just grit our teeth and kept moving forward—instead, now they're trying to settle some old debts by playing dirty with this whole retail situation. 👎
How can I even put this... I honestly feel like some people here are just white-knuckling it through the struggle while everyone else is just coasting along.
Look, I’m just saying—and I mean this in good faith here—that when we're closing out these stupid threads, maybe we could actually clean up that famous link a little? Instead of just slapping a raw URL in there, why not use some actual code to give it some descriptive text? Honestly, the specific wording doesn't even matter that much to me; it could be "FBI Community Guidelines," it could be "Read This if You Can't Read," or even something snarkier like "Already covered, genius" or "Do you even have eyes?"
hollowtrucker77 said:Just to be clear—I'm against this for the exact same reasons I was against having specific sub-forums for gay people. All of us—everyone included—are part of society. We all need more interaction and mutual understanding, and honestly, we all deal with similar struggles, even if they look a bit different on the surface. 🙂
QFT.
Look, one valid reason to open a sub-forum is when there’s just a massive influx of specific topics that would end up cluttering everything else up on any other forum—even just by sheer volume. Another good reason is to create a dedicated space for large groups with very specific shared interests.
But to me, setting up separate forums for minorities feels like ghettoization, which is pretty much the opposite of what actually helps us integrate.
You see this with Wheel Smith on the main forum. You have parenting sites where they discuss raising kids with special needs. I'm sure there are sections on health sites too. If someone with a disability needs career advice or legal help, they’ll find it way faster on a job board or a legal forum than in some ghettoized sub-section, simply because the experts in those fields hang out there.
No link. In the meantime, he just got slapped with a warning card for insulting other users. I mean—insulting atheists as a group—is actually illegal under hate speech laws (just ask a lawyer), carrying anything from three months to three years in prison, yet somehow it still goes unpunished here.
Look, don't get me wrong—I wouldn't be pushing this rhetoric if believers from all sorts of denominations hadn't spent the last while successfully baiting their way into getting tons of warnings and bans by claiming their "sacred" beliefs were being insulted. Which, let's be honest, any criticism—especially an actual argument—is going to do. ☕ So, at this point, all I'm looking for is—equality. If you aren't allowed to insult Christians, Muslims, or Hindus, then damn it, you shouldn't be allowed to insult atheists either—not even Satanists. But to prove that to an outsider... well, I’d probably need more time. I’d have to spend another year posting on this religion being a religious forum. And that’s a hell of a lot of work.
hollowtrucker77 said:steelskipper5, how exactly would you go about sanctioning that?? It’s pretty obvious that believers—just by the very nature of what they believe—carry this inherent sense of subjective exclusivity, right? The issue isn't really about enforcing the rules; the real struggle is finding the right weight for the scale so those rules actually work fairly. That’s why we see constant complaints about bias, whether it's coming from politics or religion. It is incredibly tough to decide here what counts as acceptable and what doesn't.
Look, I think I made my point clear enough this time: it's hate speech.
If the struggle is figuring out how to apply the rules equally to everyone, then yeah, the problem is someone's bias.
The Religion forum isn't a religion being a religious forum. In fact, the whole site isn't some religious forum. It needs to stay religiously neutral. If we let believers get away with intolerance or hate speech just because it aligns with their religious stances—basically pretending "freedom of expression" covers stuff that violates both basic civilized norms and American law—then we don't have equality. Not in society, and not under the law.
The rules are simple and straightforward. The real issue is just that people don't follow them, and the moderators here seem to enforce them pretty selectively. I can't really speak on Politics because I stopped jumping into that pit of filth a long time ago; back then, way too much hate speech was tolerated there, and as an American, I wasn't about to waste my nerves or my time on it. But I can talk about Religion.
If I were to say a certain group of believers is evil, immoral, or depraved, I’d probably lose 500 points for hate speech. I’d practically hand them to myself if I could (and the Religion mods can vouch for me—I've reported my own posts a few times, along with others, when I couldn't wait for the mods to clean up the trolling and insults before I lost my mind and snapped). But when some believer claims atheists are evil, immoral, or depraved? Nothing happens. And that’s what has to stop. I actually reported one specific post making that exact claim; now I’m just wondering if I’ll see the author get banned anytime soon. Knowing how things usually go around here, I’m almost certain I won't.
Anyway, I don't see what's so complicated about this. But hey, if you can explain it to me, I'm all ears.
rowdyhawk10 said:Look... the idea that only believers should be allowed to smoke is totally baseless—and honestly, it’s just unacceptable!
So why hasn't anything ever been done before? I mean—seriously—for years we've seen believers openly spew intolerance toward atheists, yet those posts just sailed right through without any sanctions. They were reported, sure, but nothing happened. So why is this specific case being penalized now, especially when there wasn't even any actual intolerance involved? It feels pretty inconsistent, if you ask me.
Look, agnosticism and atheism are also specific stances on religion, God, and morality—so people who believe in God don't get some kind of exclusive VIP pass to this subforum. It doesn't belong solely to them. If we actually turned the religion forum into a space strictly for believers—which, let's be honest, would be a disaster—it would just turn into one big, boring church where one specific group endlessly laments about their repetitive little fantasies.
And that’s exactly what Gary Patel was trying to prove with his little experiment—to show everyone how it actually works. So, I guess you're just punishing him for being right? 👎
Look, we aren't ever going to allow that—not that it’s even remotely possible in the first place. I mean, honestly, we're just not going to stand for those kinds of outbursts (like...) What are you even doing hanging out in a religion forum? You're an atheist—why are you even here?From now on, we’re going to have to start handing out bans—just straight-up carding people. If you see any posts like that, just report them immediately! Cheers. 🙂
So, here’s how the whole system works over at this forum—it’s honestly a joke. First, you report someone for obvious trolling, blatant intolerance, or straight-up hate speech. What happens? Nothing. They stay completely unpunished. Then, you say something way more mild—something barely even worth mentioning—and suddenly *you're* the one getting penalized. And then, once it turns out you didn't actually do anything wrong, they just wipe the penalty, promise they'll "do better" next time, and act like everything is fine. It’s unbelievable.
Is it going to go down the exact same way this time around? So, are you actually going to punish that kind of intolerance the way it deserves? Or what? And while we’re on the subject—what kind of sentence do you think they actually deserve? To me, saying stuff like "atheists, get off this religious forum" sounds exactly like telling Mexicans to leave the US, or telling Jews to leave Germany, or telling Black people to leave America. It’s basically hate speech. So, I'm curious—how exactly are you going to sanction that?
So, it looks like Gary Patel didn't actually do anything wrong, rowdyhawk10 failed to provide any real explanation, and the whole thread is being shut down just because it's "pointless."
Nothing is happening here... honestly. I remember back in the day when I used to defend moderator decisions like they were gospel. Now? I’m basically tearing them apart. Or maybe I just straight-up despise them at this point. Did I change, or did the mods change? Or is it both? And what exactly went south?
hollowtrucker77 said:rowdyhawk10 decided to sit this one out.
rowdyhawk10 Nah. He’s out here complaining about why the thread got locked and why the author got slapped with a JL Karton. I mean, honestly—it’s kind of a joke, especially when you consider how they never say a word when people are basically hunting down atheists in the Religion section.
Look, the experiment is working—whatever. I’m not even bothering to jump into the debates anymore. Honestly, I’m starting to think I shouldn't even bother going back. Religion—it just feels like it's going completely downhill every single day.
Plus, I just went through the entire rulebook again. I’m asking rowdyhawk10 to actually point out which specific rule in the Religion subforum my original post supposedly broke. I mean—if he felt the need to write up such a long explanation in a JL Karton, there’s gotta be something in the rules about it, right? Because I’ve looked, and I can't find anything.
Look, I'm not saying moderators don't have the authority to step in outside the literal rulebook, but you can't exactly cite a rule that doesn't exist.
Here’s yet another instance of moderation that I can only describe as straight-up idiotic. A thread proposing a perfectly legitimate experiment gets slapped with a ban, while the guy who started this whole mess stays totally untouched. Then you’ve got this troll thread—which doesn't even belong in the Religion section—hanging around for months because the mods just refuse to act on the endless complaints.
On one hand, they ignore blatant hate speech because maybe they’re afraid of misinterpreting it, or maybe they’re just too lazy to actually issue a permanent ban. On the other hand, they take something that clearly isn't breaking any rules and spin it as a call for a boycott, just because—I don't know—that's how they choose to see it. Honestly, even after Mostly Harmless arrived, things haven't really improved much. The mods are mostly MIA, and when they finally decide to show up, they usually end up doing more harm than good. It reminds me of our local small-claims courts in cases of assault—where the penalties end up hitting the victims just as hard as the perpetrators.
Seriously, I’m asking for an explanation here. Why hasn't religious users constantly trying to drive atheists out of the Religion section ever been punished—not even with a little JL Karton for trolling? Yet, a much milder suggestion from an atheist gets hit with this kind of sanction. It drives me crazy—why is "atheists, leave the Religion section forever" considered fine, but "atheists, let's all take a break from the Religion section for a week" is a punishable offense? I’m calling on the admins to weigh in on this. If I have to, I’ll dig up several examples of religious users attempting to exile atheists without ever receiving a single JL Karton, just to prove my point. But I’d really prefer a principled answer before I start going through posts one by one.
Jose Cruz9 said:He probably needs someone from the LJES to back him up with the argument that we’re all just animals—that it's perfectly fine to band together in clans, just like they do. After all, we aren't any different. We are essentially animals.
It is quite interesting how we have "experts" here who feel entitled to judge someone's work, even when it isn't unprofessional at all. They just decide whether to label it bad or good based solely on what serves their own interests.
steelskipper5 for moderator? That sounds like a perfect little corner for the hooligans... I can see him holding his own with them if he ever had to.😉
No, for God's sake. That's the last thing I need in my life—honestly.
Sarah Morgan2 said:oh steelskipper5, 😍 You won't believe this, but people actually can support and value one another without needing to belong to some specific clique or tribe. Maybe once you've gathered enough life experience and reached a certain level of maturity, you'll realize that at a certain stage of consciousness, an individual can feel secure and happy without falling into mindless herd mentality. You can exist as a self-aware, free individual. Don't get me wrong—I'm not judging tribes, nor am I questioning your need for them. Growth has to start somewhere, but there is a ceiling to what tribalism can achieve.
P.S. Since I’ve noticed you have this undeniable urge to jump into every debate—even though 99% of the time you're just here to spam—I’m going to use this opportunity to teach you a little lesson based on something you told Jerry Roberts15 in a previous post. You actually asked him for a psychoanalyst's degree just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a PhD to diagnose someone being nervous. Logically speaking, you clearly confused neurosis with simple nervousness, but then again, what's a few misplaced letters to a future linguist? 😍
I don't see what that has to do with this discussion—it’s not exactly clear to me, I guess.
Maybe you'll finally get it—once you've actually picked up enough life experience and some actual maturity—but there’s this specific level of consciousness where you can feel secure and happy without having to follow the herd. You know, just existing as a self-aware, free individual.
Maybe one day—if you ever actually manage to rack up enough experience, knowledge, and basic maturity—you'll finally realize that this whole "level of consciousness" thing is usually just New Age garbage. Maybe you'll finally realize that people like this—well, I guess you might actually get it eventually. Look, let’s just call it what it is—an ad hominem attack. It's the oldest trick in the book when someone runs out of actual arguments. Instead of tackling the point I made—you know, the actual substance of the discussion—they decide to just go after me personally. It's lazy, honestly. If you can't beat the logic, just try to bruise the ego, right? Typical. These outbursts are just killing any chance of a constructive discussion—honestly, it's happening here and it's happening over on the Social Science boards too.
Don't get me wrong—I'm not out here judging clans or trying to dismiss why you feel the need for them. I get it, really. Development has to start somewhere, and if that means sticking to a clan-based approach for now, fine. But let's be real—that kind of structure isn't going to be the final destination for actual progress.
Mmm, those projections are looking pretty tasty.
P.S.—since I’ve noticed you clearly have this massive need to jump into the discussion—even though, let's be honest, 99% of the time you're just here to spam—
Who's talking about what... 🤣
I’m going to take this opportunity—since I’m actually posting here—to give you a little lesson on something you said to Jerry Roberts15 in one of your previous posts. You actually asked him for his psychoanalyst credentials just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a fancy degree to diagnose someone being nervous. Obviously, logically speaking, you've totally confused neurosis with mere nervousness—but then again, maybe for a future linguist, that's all just a few insignificant letters anyway. 😍
Look, I’m not going to use this as an excuse to nitpick your little "typos" or whatever. I just want to be clear—I know exactly what I said, and I really don't feel like getting bogged down in some long-winded explanation here. Honestly, if I did go off-topic even slightly, you’d probably just jump down my throat and claim I was spamming anyway.
Look, maybe I’m crazy—but I’m definitely not an idiot.
PS: mediocre = good. It could be better, sure, but it’s a solid C+ leaning toward a B-, especially considering the circumstances and the environment it came out of... the same goes for Anić, so it isn't just pure nonsense & stupidity, but rather the absolute maximum a person could offer us at that moment, with the best intentions possible.
It's not full of stupidity, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. As far as I can remember, even Abyssus didn't say it was overflowing with stupidity—which is what a few of you seem to be implying.
Sarah Morgan2 said:Since people here constantly harp on about how we never provide "concrete evidence" regarding the inappropriate behavior—specifically the insults that bluerider2 lets slide for her inner circle of friends and colleagues—I figured I’d step in. Since we've already pivoted to a more review-style tone, and I really wanted to spare everyone from wading through this entire swamp of blatant nastiness, I'll just drop a small, seemingly insignificant slice of the material here. I’m asking the moderators to weigh in: is this kind of thing actually allowed, or is this still not considered a "concrete example" enough for you? Fine then, you asked for it: 🙂
Man. What kind of "insults" are we even talking about?
It's just a response to someone else being a jerk first.
If bluerider2 messed up by not sanctioning those insults, she messed up even more by failing to sanction the original trolling and verbal abuse that started it all.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone decides to start throwing punches, they deserve to get hit back.
Jerry Roberts15 said:Oh yeah, kiddo—freckled and blue-eyed as you might be—it is absolutely debatable! Look, sure, Anić has errors, logical hiccups, and inconsistencies. I get it. BUT NOT NONSENSE! "Nonsense" is maybe what happens when your mom stops wiping your runny nose, or when despite reading a ton of books (one a day, according to Abica!), you haven't actually learned a single thing—not to mention anything about culture. So, feel free to step up, you lot, along with those countless English majors looking down from their high horses to trash Bujas, and let us know once you actually contribute a decent dictionary to our tiny, struggling American culture. 🤮
Who are you to even talk about culture? Seriously. ☕
So, please—feel free to all chime in, along with those countless English scholars perched on their high horses looking down on Bujas—just let me know your criticisms once you've actually gifted this tiny, increasingly pathetic American culture an actual dictionary. 🤮
As far as I know, a newer version of Bujas's is currently being worked on. Look, if Bujas's vocabulary is barely mediocre—which, let's be honest, I think is pretty obvious—then there’s really no need to go out of my way to prove it. Just because we don't have anything better to work with doesn't mean Bujas is actually any good.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter—it’s still the best one we've got.