Posts by Hannah Alvarez2

Noah Vaughn39 said:And honestly, these emojis have way too many masculine vibes. It feels totally lopsided. Either make them 40% female or just shut the whole forum down.

Whoa, are you assuming their gender?!?!? 😠😠😠

Christian Myers said:I honestly don't even know what to say anymore. People are posting all kinds of wild stuff, so you have to be smart about how you react, but look—violence isn't the answer. Obviously. We aren't trying to turn this country into the Wild West, even if some lowlifes on Facebook seem to be begging for it. And besides, who gets to play judge and jury? Who decides who deserves a machine gun to the face? It’s pure madness from both the people and the government.

The only reason you think it's "madness" is because you've never been backed into a corner where everyone is screwing you over and there's absolutely nowhere to turn for help.
I get the logic, I really do, but I'm just surprised we don't see more of it. If half the things I read about in the news—stuff people endure for years until they slowly lose their minds—happened to me, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to settle the score with a burst from an AR-15.

Adam Evans said:A good person performs good deeds simply because they are good and cannot resist the impulse to be kind, rather than because they expect anything in return.

The problem lies in being a naive fool and helping at your own expense.

Even worse is being a lazy egoist who inflates their own sense of virtue by pretending to do good while actually accomplishing nothing, much like what happened in your situation with the caretaker and the landlord.

Honestly, this guy is pure selfishness personified. He hands something off to someone through a third party, assuming everyone else shares his "noble" intentions, and then gets totally screwed over by that third person. Total selfish jerk, right? Just a complete piece of work.🤦
Even the dictionary definition hits the nail on the head here: The term describes the pursuit of one's own interests without regard for others or any concern for how your actions might harm them.
Wait, scratch that—my bad. Turns out he isn't technically selfish. But hey, at least you got to look like a total idiot in the process, right? 🙂

Look, OP, it feels like it’s better to just be brighteagle39. Because even if you actually try to do something good, and then some other person comes along and throws a wrench in the gears, there's always going to be some guy like this ready to talk trash and make you look bad.

Kyle Richardson16 said:Houses?
Man, do you seriously not remember landlines or plugging into the wall for dial-up?

Anyway, like I said, just grab Tapatalk

Wow, what a revelation! 🙏 It just hit me what this forum's logo actually is—I honestly thought it was some kind of house too!🤣

William Palmer7 said:Maybe try heading over to Google SafeSearch and toggling a filter there?
Alternatively, you could just type -site:website.com into your search bar.

Look, I totally get the whole "-site.com" trick, I just didn't feel like typing out that extra junk every single time.
But honestly, that safe search idea? That is pure genius. It never even crossed my mind to go that route! 👍

Hey everyone, I’m not even sure if I’m in the right spot here, but does anyone know if there's a trick or maybe an app that can automatically block Quora results from showing up in Google searches on an Android device?
Thanks!

Charles Gonzalez19 said:From the video description:

The Masons (specifically those French ‘Enlightenment’ types) labeled certain flourishing eras of Church history as dark ages—a classic diabolical inversion.

So, Dusparin’s church patron, Stjepan razum doba križarski rat i spaljivanje vještica, actually calls these periods the "flourishing eras" of Church history?!?

Man, this looks like something straight off of Spredex. 🤣

Daniel Chase13 said:🤣

Don't act like you don't see what's happening. Stop playing dumb.

It’s pretty obvious who holds those dark, morbid convictions about consuming human flesh—whether we're talking about infants or the deceased.

There's a certain group of people who seem to share the same mindset as Richard Dawkins—they're obsessed with breaking every taboo and pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable regarding cannibalism.

Look at this guy, he's a total clown. You actually believe that when an altar boy rings that bell and the priest lifts up a tiny piece of unleavened bread, that little bit of bread suddenly becomes THE FLESH OF JESUS! 😲😲😲
Isn't that literally the definition of transmutation? 🙂
And then you just sit there staring at it, licking your lips, thinking, "Man, I love this so much I could just eat it all up, yum yum."🤦
That’s probably why they don't let you bite the host—so you don't hear your teeth cracking, right?😂
But here you are, lecturing me about Dawkins and some "morbid obsession with eating people."
Buddy, if you're a good Catholic, you're basically doing that once a week!🐔

Daniel Chase13 said:Of course not.

It’s a bit like saying I hope you aren't backing Richard Dawkins's supposed desire to snack on human flesh or his little crusade against the taboo of cannibalism—unless, of course, you're a fan of that particular brand of "expertise" from Dawkins?

This post is screaming neurodivergence.

Look, honestly? If I were you, I’d stick a link to this whole thread right in my profile signature. Let everyone see what a total dumpster fire Zillow actually is. It shouldn't be on you—it’s a massive embarrassment for the mods over at Zillow and the admins too, since they haven't lifted a single finger to strip those 500 points they docked you for "harassment."🤦🤣

cosmicgull52 said:Oh, my bad! You were the one quoting me. I totally lost my place in this high-speed chess match we've got going on here.

Anyway, calling this a "dialogue" is a massive stretch when your entire strategy is just stacking up massive, convoluted sentences and throwing academic papers or Wikipedia links at me like they're some kind of holy scripture of pure BS. 👎

Honestly, trying to have a real debate with you feels pointless. It’s like trying to argue logic with a Flat Earther. Just a total waste of breath. 🙂

cosmicgull52 said:The guy above literally just took my old posts—where I thought I was being crystal clear—and slapped the racism label on them. 🤷

That’s exactly what I meant when I called out the arrogance. This dude thinks he can just pull whatever definitions he wants out of his own holy book of bullshit and act like he's explaining things to us. 🤦

cosmicgull52 said:You’d honestly think—especially if you explain it to someone over and over again—that people would finally get it. Like, the core issue is right there staring you in the face: there is a massive, undeniable statistical gap when it comes to racial representation in those top-tier, high-paying executive roles. It's not even a debate once you look at the numbers. 🤔

So then why don't you bring up Asians in the exact same context as white people? 😁

And watch out for that arrogance, man. If you don't lay it out for him clearly multiple times, he’s just gonna keep acting like he owns the place.🤣🤦Look, let’s be real: all those pseudo-intellectual jabs thrown at progressives—or honestly, any ideology for that matter—aren't actually arguments. They aren't based on logic or anything. It's just preaching. It's nothing more than someone standing on a soapbox trying to lecture you.

I’m honestly dying to know what the moderation team thinks about this whole situation. Look, I don’t usually hang out in the politics sections—I have no clue what the vibe is like over there or how heated things get—but this specific topic really grabbed my attention. I'm seeing people split right down the middle, and some folks are getting genuinely worked up over it. It feels like the mods have been stuck in the middle of a total whirlwind lately. So, I gotta ask: are these kinds of views actually okay here? Is this stuff within the lines of what the admin team allows, or are we dancing on thin ice? 🙂

cosmicgull52 said:Look, for anyone else out there who’s actually willing to dig a little deeper into this—no, you seriously can't be racist against a privileged race. It just doesn't work that way. By definition, racism isn't just about being a jerk; it carries this heavy weight of systemic oppression. We're talking about social norms and legal frameworks that have been baked into the system to repress one group over generations. That kind of institutionalized power play is completely absent here, for obvious reasons.

cosmicgull52 said:Look, we’re talking about affirmative action here, and honestly? It’s absolutely necessary. If we want to actually level the playing field, we have to take drastic measures. I’m talking extreme. Personally, I’d go as far as saying we should just ban white men from even applying for those high-flying, top-tier executive roles in most industries for like, 10 or 20 years straight. Period.

cosmicgull52 said:I can't stand this guy; he's such a total douchebag. Honestly, if we’re looking for a real man, he shouldn't be white.

cosmicgull52 said:Man, I’m right there with you—I’d happily strip the guns away from those guys too. Honestly, it’s not even a bad idea!

cosmicgull52 said:Look, let me just lay this out for you because I'm tired of seeing people dance around the truth. There’s no such thing as racism against white people. Period. End of story. It sounds harsh, I know, but hear me out. When we talk about systemic issues, we're talking about power structures and historical momentum that have been baked into the foundation of this country for centuries. You can't just point to an individual being rude or prejudiced and call it "racism" in the way we actually define it sociologically. It's like trying to say a single raindrop is causing a drought—it just doesn't work that way. If you want the actual data and the deep dive on how these social hierarchies function, just go check Wikipedia or some academic journal. The facts are right there if you bother to look.

cosmicgull52 said:Look, I’ve already spent way too much breath explaining to my buddy why you can't really have racism against an institutionally privileged race—and yeah, I mean even if I wasn't white myself. It feels like I'm preaching to the choir here while everyone else is just making noise, and honestly, I’m not some bored guy with nothing better to do than repeat the same tired points over and over again.

This kind of wild, hyper-capitalist economic gap, especially when it falls along racial lines, is just begging to collapse. One of these days, you're all going to look back at my "peaceful" solutions and realize they were actually a beautiful utopia. 👍

Paul Kern12 said:The absolute breaking point for me was when this user was basically low-key calling for or wishing for the assassination of Donald Trump:

Honestly, knowing who we're talking about here, I can't help but find this hilarious.🤣

Seriously, did you even bother reading the terms and conditions when you signed up? 🍿
Leave Gary alone! 🧐

Hey everyone, I know people have floated ideas like this before, but please just hear me out before you lock everything down. 😁

So, like the title says, let’s run an experiment. Take one of those "low-stakes" subforums where the topic isn't super heated and there isn't a moderator assigned yet. Instead of having the current mods pick someone—let's be real, mods are human and they naturally lean toward people who think just like them—let the users actually vote for their own mod democratically.

Also, we should probably set some ground rules for voting so we don't deal with a bunch of troll accounts or clones. Like, maybe you need at least 100-200 posts in that specific subforum to participate, and obviously, permanent bans for anyone using burner accounts to rig the vote alongside their main.

The truth is, there are tons of different sections here. And I’m not just talking about politics; personally, I don't post much (which means I don't read much either, so I'm mostly just clicking😁) in psychology, Reddit-style threads, or a few other spots. I see all kinds of stuff getting banned that a vocal minority complains about, while the HUGE quiet majority stays far away from those topics entirely because of how the rules and moderation work.

So, just think about it. I'm not talking about some "dead" section where people post once a week. I mean a subforum that actually has some life in it. If letting the community pick the mod turns out to be a disaster, hey, no harm done.

If it works? Awesome, we can roll it out to other sections. If it fails? You can swap the mod back with a single click of a mouse. The users would actually appreciate being heard, and nobody could complain about the outcome because they were the ones who picked the person.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Have a great weekend! 👍

test

Look, I’m asking you guys—please just let this guy back in. I remember him from when he used his old handle. Honestly, I never once agreed with those insanely well-argued, ridiculous rants he used to drop, but man, was he entertaining.

Noah Diaz said:Is that fair? Look, there's a huge difference between politely disagreeing in a few posts and just dragging a thread through the mud forever.

I guess the standard forum rules don't apply over at Alternative.

Thanks for nothing.

..... . . .. .

That whole thread follows its own lunar cycles—totally fitting for a place called Alternative. When the moon hits its peak, everyone just loses their minds and flocks to the thread because they simply can't help themselves.😬