Posts by steelskipper5

briskpuma23 said:I have zero interest in laws that turn citizens into informants.

This is a forum. My job, as a user, is to shut down someone using hate speech to win an argument and, if I see fit, report them to the admins. Dragging the police into all of this is just pathetic.

slybison8 said:In my view, any threat to file a report (which isn't actually filed), or making baseless allegations against someone, constitutes an abuse of the Law of the USA and its repressive systems.

Regrettably, the government might even encourage this by allowing anonymous tips and acting upon them, though that is perhaps a separate issue altogether...

The legal repercussions seem rather trivial. However, the damage caused by bullying someone or subjecting them to an investigation based on malicious or fabricated claims is truly irreversible.

But perhaps all of that is secondary. What matters most is what briskpuma23 wrote, which I feel perfectly articulates my own sentiment:

I suspect that a person who publicly threatens to report someone (or openly brags about doing so) is really saying much more about their own character than they are about anyone else.

I would suggest not doing that.

Unfortunately, the government even encourages this by allowing anonymous tips and acting on them, but that's a whole different conversation...

The legal consequences are a joke. The fallout from someone being harassed or subjected to an investigation based on malicious or fake reports is irreparable.

Someone who publicly threatens to report others (or brags about doing it) is saying way more about themselves than anyone else.

Don't do that.

briskpuma23 said:Threatening to call the cops or some other part of the government on another user is just cowardly. It kills the conversation. Besides, dragging outside elements into a discussion isn't how we do things here on this forum.

What I do think is fair is flagging blatant hate speech or threats of violence to the moderators and admins. You should demand they take action. But pushing that point until you get a permanent ban? That's a different story entirely.

slybison8 said:I don't think there's really any need to grant the other side "time to think"—in fact, maybe that’s precisely what makes this whole situation so unhealthy. Basic respect for an interlocutor usually implies that you assume they have already done their thinking before they ever hit send.

If you truly feel they haven't thought it through, then perhaps it would be better to just tell them that, rather than treating them like a child or someone incompetent who needs to be threatened with legal action. And that's happening despite the presence of a perfectly functional moderation and admin team.

So, by acting in such a patronizing manner, one ends up disrespecting Reddit and potentially misusing the laws and official agencies of the USA.

No matter how you spin it, I don't believe this is acceptable.

Look, if you honestly think he didn't put any thought into this, then just tell him—straight up. Don't go treating him like some little kid or an idiot who needs to be threatened with the Department of Justice or whatever. And honestly? Doing all that while completely ignoring the fact that we have a perfectly functional moderator and admin team right here... that's just unnecessary.

Look, when someone starts acting that patronizing, they aren't just talking to you—they’re basically trying to hijack Reddit. It’s sketchy, honestly. You start seeing people like this potentially weaponizing the Law of the USA and official government agencies just to win an argument. It's messed up.

Saying "how to turn to turn" just isn't acceptable. It makes zero sense—I mean, seriously?

James Patel20 said:I’ve been sitting here thinking about how we handle things around here, and I honestly feel like there should be an immediate rule added to the guidelines regarding users who threaten to call the police or file legal reports against other members during a discussion... it just seems like such a heavy-handed way to escalate a debate, and maybe a permanent ban should be on the table for anyone who uses that kind of intimidation tactic instead of just sticking to the argument at hand... it would certainly change the energy of the conversations if people knew they couldn't just weaponize the authorities to shut someone down... anyway, just a thought that's been weighing on my mind lately...

Since there have been quite a few instances lately where people actually ended up facing police reports or even full-blown court rulings just because of things they wrote online, I’ve noticed some users on Reddit starting to weaponize that concept... you know, using it as this sort of unspoken subtext or a veiled threat to shut people down, claiming they're "just joking" while they try to intimidate their conversational partners into silence by threatening them with legal action...

Just one example...

I've been noticing certain trends heading in that direction lately, and I can't help but feel a growing sense of unease... I truly fear it could end up causing permanent damage to this community and, more broadly, to the very concept of free speech that I believe almost all of us here stand for...

Brandon Lopez6 said:It’s totally normal for user numbers to fluctuate in any thread. People drop off for all sorts of reasons—getting hitched, having a kid, getting sick, whatever—and then new people jump in, so the crowd naturally shifts. But honestly, I’ve never seen a thread "die" so hard that it actually needs to be shut down, which is pretty much what analoglynx23 is implying here. ☕

*though I haven't really noticed anyone leaving just because of the mods.

There isn't less garbage; we just came up with better filters to catch it. Why bother rehashing the same stupid crap a thousand times just to make sure a thread doesn't look quiet for a few days? I'd much rather post nothing at all than some low-effort crap 🙂or some random nonsense like "the guy finished in the bathroom with the door open, am I pregnant?". 🙄

To be fair, there were more posts back when analoglynx23 was a mod, but let's be real: the stuff people used to post back then wouldn't fly today. I remember when you had twelve-year-olds constantly fighting in the threads, so they brought in the "no kids" rule, then the rule against linking profiles directly, then the rule against posting screenshots of names like Maw Swatkwic, then the rule about not posting screenshots of people who have 26 friends listed as family, and so on... I wonder how many posts were lost because of all that. It makes me wonder if those rules were even worth it. Because if we didn't have them, there would be way more posts, and the garbage wouldn't be considered "dead."

Every thread evolves with the times and new guidelines. Mods should stay on top of things and not let stuff like direct profile linking slide, even though I see it still happening despite being reported.
In my opinion, someone who doesn't follow their own rules doesn't really have much ground to stand on when accusing others of killing a thread.

analoglynx23 said:👋

I’m loving this; have any of you ever actually heard of the concept of self-managed socialism? The big slogan back then was "Factories to the workers!", or if we want to transpose that to this specific situation, "Garbage to the Garbage Forum Users." 😁

When I recently hopped back on and saw what this subforum has turned into—honestly, it kind of killed my desire to even bother posting here.
And look, don't go complaining about the mods. When I stepped away, I left them a subforum that wasn't exactly buzzing, but at least there were some ground rules in place. Maybe my mistake was failing to emphasize that when people start acting out, a mod needs to step in, hand out a few virtual slaps, move posts to where they actually belong, and then just sit back with a cold beer and a smile while reading thank-you notes from the ladies. It’s easy to get too cozy in that kind of laid-back atmosphere, and eventually, you just stop reacting—your reflexes get slow. Combine that with some personal stuff going on in my own life, and well, the results speak for themselves.

But then again... what massive contribution was there to moderate in this pile of garbage anyway? Just days of whining about spammers padding their post counts—stuff that should have been moved from the main garbage section over to Chatropic—or constant bellyaching about who’s feeling sick today and who isn't? Honestly, I made up for months of lecturing by spending an hour and a half skimming through posts, and it’s not like I stumbled onto anything fascinating; there's really nothing to say about how much value the users actually bring to this subforum. So, if you ask me, the real issue with Trash isn't a few images larger than 640p or a couple of unmoderated posts; it's the total lack of quality content.

Not to get too heavy here, but Trash needs maintenance from both sides—the moderation broom (or the sweeping brush, depending on how often you sweep) and the users who actually write decent or, well, less-decent posts. That’s why I think bringing on two new female moderators without actually getting people to engage on the site would just be moving air from one empty room to another. Everyone has their excuses for why they aren't posting, and the latest excuse is that the mods are inactive. Wouldn't it be a twist if things flipped and the mods were the ones everyone relied on for quality content?!?
Just write something, join the conversation, and honestly, even a local high school football coach could successfully moderate you guys.

John Palmer4 said:So, what you're saying is you're just a troll—and you're actually asking for permission to troll on this forum? 🙏

Arthur Flores2 said:That's just nonsense, steelskipper5—and for one pretty simple reason. I’m definitely not the only believer on this board who’s been banned from posting jokes about atheists. It’s just this forum policy about not mocking atheism—the exact same policy that, until recently, basically allowed people to hunt believers here or go off on any Catholic stuff they felt like (not that things are much better now). So, you guys get to dump all your crap on us, but we aren't even allowed to crack a joke about you? And then you have the nerve to whine about whether a joke is actually funny, acting like it isn't just a little bit of payback. Pathetic...🤮

Arthur Flores2 said:No. What I mean are those jokes where the real punchline isn't even the main point—it’s that secondary layer of humor that carries this sneaky, underlying jab aimed straight at the other side.

I mostly wrote them after getting into some heated debates about religion—you know how it goes—where we’d touch on a specific topic and then just let that question wander into whatever conversation felt right at the time. Religious jokes. He put together this perfect little joke—the kind of thing only the people actually stuck in those debates would even get. It was provocative, dark, and honestly, totally detached from reality. But hey, at the end of the day, they were just jokes. For God's sake, moderator...🤷

It’s like this kind of meta-humor—for instance, I’ll drop a joke just knowing damn well someone is going to react. Then, of course, steelskipper5 can't help himself—he just *has* to jump in and comment, getting all worked up because he thinks the joke isn't even funny. I guess for every single joke I tell from here on out, there's going to be a fresh commentary from him.I mean, if you think that joke was actually funny—well, I guess we just have different tastes. It wasn't even remotely humorous.So, more and more critics are popping up lately—people who seem seriously irritated by my lack of wit. Honestly? I don't care. I’m just going to keep posting my jokes regardless. But then, wouldn't you know it, the moderators finally swoop in—threatening me with a partial ban if I don't stop—just to shut down my jokes entirely. And before all that, Veronica actually had the nerve to give me a warning, telling me I needed to "raise the bar" on my sense of humor...

(Honestly, while all this is going on, I’m sitting here at home just laughing my head off—I mean, I’m practically losing control. It’s because I’m dealing with a bunch of grown adults who act like they're some kind of peak rationalists or whatever when it comes to their online religious nonsense. They're acting so high and mighty, too—it's ridiculous. And then, get this, they actually start acting like toddlers, running to the moderators to cry about it—basically tattling because they can't handle being teased with a few simple religious jokes....)

loneraven25 said:...look, I'm no cop or anything,
but could someone please explain this religious joke? I'm lost here...
🤷

Jason Clark7 said:

Is this answer just you acting on your own whim—just like with the Religion PDF partials? I mean, aren't we always supposed to check with the admins regarding any actions on this forum? We've always been told nothing happens without a "consensus from all the PDF mods," right?🤔

Dennis Jackson38 said:First off, let’s be clear: there is absolutely nothing illegal or against any US laws regarding a man looking for a woman to hang out with. 😁 The only real downside is the possibility that his Advertisement might just sit there without anyone responding.

Secondly, I was specifically addressing the issue of moderators displaying "negative personal biases toward certain types of relationships" while debating their own decisions. You have frequently pointed out yourself that such attitudes have no place in moderation, so I am quite puzzled by your sudden surprise at my observation. 😁

Thirdly, a couple seeking a third person to join them isn't any "nastier" than a girl looking for something casual in the grand scheme of things.

If the argument is about the specific WAY an Advertisement is phrased, then surely everyone should have the right to express their personal life choices through their own unique wording, shouldn't they?

Otherwise, are we going to start deleting posts from people whose worldviews don't align with those who prefer "long, romantic walks in the park" and "everything the youth enjoy"?

hiddeneagle3 said:So what would you do—deal with ten days of a crashed Reddit?

Bradley Ortiz said:unknown, thanks for the link 🙂
The only problem is I don't have an 8 GB thumb drive handy, haha...
So, I'm probably gonna have to install this via DVD 😁
I mean, there shouldn't be much of a difference between Windows 2000 and 3000
so Apple should run just fine.
I'll give it a shot tomorrow and let you guys know if it actually works.🙂

Paul Kern12 said:😕 Your perspective... Well, I am not imputing anything to him; I am simply reading what was actually written.
Admittedly, I didn't copy the entire post, but—at least to my mind—it seems quite clear what the poet intended to convey.

Paul Kern12 said:You might want to read that a bit more closely. He is claiming that all Christians—followers of a single church—are neo-fascists. Now, you certainly have every right to your own worldview, and I suppose that isn't really up for debate. However, it seems quite unfair to assert that those who hold different beliefs than yours are, in fact, neo-fascists.

Paul Kern12 said:Forgive my intrusion here. I notice there seems to be quite a bit of commotion surrounding rowdyhawk10—it almost appears as though he is some sort of protected figure within the religion subforum. Is it possible—and I say this without seeking any disciplinary action—to characterize a belief system that disagrees with our "protected" individual as fascist??? For instance, take today:

So, according to rowdyhawk10, all young Christians are neo-fascists...
I have noticed that he tends to use such labels for anyone who holds a differing opinion.
In my view, this style of writing is simply not appropriate—nor does it seem fitting for someone who claims to be a believer.