And regardless of whether readership is declining or not, I fail to see how you could possibly argue that discrimination should be met with applause. It shouldn't be. 😁
Furthermore, I am curious: if we are operating under the rule that any hint of sexual content is prohibited in an Advertisement—even when merely implied between the lines—does that same restriction apply to our discussions here? 😁
If the admin mentioned a few pages back that people shouldn't be overtly seeking sex in their Advertisements and should just mind their phrasing, I have to wonder: why should any of us care what kind of companionship others are looking for? Truly, why does it matter?
We are talking about Lonely Hearts here, and everyone has their own unique way of being lonely and their own specific voids to fill. It is perfectly legal, and frankly, it falls outside our jurisdiction—or anyone else's for that matter. It seems quite absurd to suggest that one person has the right to edit someone else's personal criteria, unless those criteria explicitly state something like "I want to hook up" or "I'm looking for sex"—assuming, of course, that such directness isn't already deemed inappropriate for some reason (even though being upfront about needs is a healthy, normal part of most successful dates, but let's stay on track).
Following that line of logic, you would essentially be banning eighty-five percent of the articles and features found in any major print or digital media outlet today. Do you realize how much that would tank viewership and readership? The impact would be massive.
I fail to see why a site like US Forum would radically diminish its own engagement by enforcing the personal preferences of moderators and stripping away the right to diversity in what people seek.
It feels rather extreme to lump feminists into the same category as those answering for cold-blooded murders, simply because they hold exceptionally strong convictions. These two sociological groups aren't even remotely on the same playing field, making such a comparison deeply insulting on several different levels.
I think I'll just go with "hyper-feminism." It seems perfectly fitting.
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"?
What truly troubles me—despite the genuine efforts of a colleague who is otherwise quite decent and frequently active over at PIK—is the specific way certain moderator decisions are phrased. It seems that certain individuals, particularly when Meadow is involved, tend to rely on expressions such as: "Personally, both my colleague's view and my own regarding open relationships are negative."
I have observed this pattern on several occasions now, and I have made it a point to speak up and suggest that this practice needs to cease immediately.
When an individual holds a moderator position, and as I have already pointed out to them directly on PIK, they really should refrain from constantly injecting their PERSONAL opinions and convictions into any discussion involving the making of moderator decisions.
Not only does this fall short of being "professional," but it fundamentally contradicts the very rules of the platform and the core essence of the moderator role itself.
As a regular user, especially when we are navigating delicate topics like discrimination or prejudice against someone's lifestyle choices, I find that I am simply NOT interested in the moderator's PERSONAL stances. Furthermore, I believe that any sort of personal intolerance toward matters of individual freedom should NEVER be voiced while commenting on moderator actions or any other official decisions.
When moderators are performing their duties, they are executing administrative functions and necessary corrections; they are not there to broadcast PERSONAL views, moral principles, or denials of certain lifestyles.
Of course, within a standard discussion thread where we act as fellow forum members, those opinions are fine, but certainly not within the context of PIK.
I mean, if you’re sporting leg braces, then it really isn't all that clever.
But if you’re just your average Dogger, it actually comes across as quite funny.
Seeing two guys sitting on a park bench deep in the woods is a pretty dead giveaway that they've been smoking marijuana, so honestly, you can't really hold it against him.
Have you ever actually sought a formal diagnosis to determine if what you're experiencing is officially ADHD or something else entirely?
That being said, there are truly some excellent exercises out there; you can find a wealth of professional, highly effective advice and methodologies available online.
Popularity is essentially the byproduct of sociability—but I’m talking about that effortless, organic kind of charm. It’s funny, though, because you often see those introverted, almost antisocial types who end up having a massive following simply because they possess a sense of genuine authenticity that people find magnetic.
When someone adopts that desperate, "please love me" persona, it tends to act as a total repellent to others.
If your primary objective is to be popular, it feels much like aiming specifically for fame; it’s such an obvious, clumsy motivation that it inevitably makes your behavior seem forced and unnatural, and people can sense that lack of sincerity from a mile away.
What is it, precisely, that you are trying to achieve by chasing that?
It seems to me that you and your boyfriend have entered into a state of total symbiosis—almost like conjoined twins—and on top of that, are you perhaps exerting an excessive amount of effort when it comes to trying to forge connections with people in general?
The rules governing this forum are quite explicit and clearly defined, so I am at a bit of a loss as to what we are meant to accomplish here.
One simply cannot resort to calling other members hyenas or mentally unstable without anticipating a red card from the moderators. Those are the fundamental ground rules of the game. I suppose you technically *can* act that way, but if you do, you really should expect to be penalized for it.
It isn't as though there has been some grand conspiracy formed against you; rather, it seems that a series of various issues have just happened to pile up all at once, somewhat haphazardly. 😁
Drew Lee7 said:How exactly have I insulted you, Alex? If I stated that I’d prefer being with a "dim-witted" woman rather than a "brilliant" one, or if I expressed a preference for this over that, or shared my specific thoughts on a matter...
...what does any of that have to do with you personally? In what way have I insulted you?
Goodness, if an outsider were reading this, they might actually mistake you for some poor little lamb being cornered by a pack of hysterical women. 😁
No, Greenlander, your comments didn't bother me when you were simply discussing matters of personal taste. The issue only arose when you attempted to pivot from "this is the kind of woman I want" to a sweeping, global generalization along the lines of "women's rights and freedoms should be restricted." That shift is, quite understandably, irritating and uncomfortable for the women participating in this discussion who provided you with that feedback. You know perfectly well—and you know it very clearly—that this sort of rhetoric against female autonomy filters through almost all of your posts, whether subtly or otherwise. Please, don't attempt to play the victim here; you certainly aren't one. You step in, declare women to be inferior, double down on that stance repeatedly, and then expect us to show you respect. Dude, you aren't Solomon, and we aren't living in the Middle Ages.
Drew Lee7 said:And as for my views offending you, that truly isn't my concern; your views offend me as well, as I find them to be an affront to common sense.
There you have it. You wrap the accusation that I am "crazy" in layers of linguistic gymnastics, only to later try and pretend you never even made the claim. 😁
And who exactly is going to step up and protect us women on this forum? It’s honestly incredibly uncomfortable to sit here and endure your constant tirades where you imply our only roles are to spread our legs, clean the house, cook the meals, and keep our mouths shut. :/
I mean, sure, we can look out for ourselves in this day and age, but let's be real—you are systematically stripping us of our dignity.
He certainly has the right to express his viewpoint, yet he will inevitably face repercussions for engaging in discrimination and inciting hatred and violence, as well as for infringing upon fundamental human liberties. This is especially true given that he pursues this agenda systematically and on a daily basis through rather extensive presentations.
Drew Lee7 said:The concepts of being offensive or feeling humiliated are entirely subjective. For instance, while some Christians might find Pride parades deeply offensive, many in the LGBTQ+ community might find traditional Christian theology equally offensive—so where does that leave us?
Yes, they are subjective, absolutely. But precisely because they are subjective—much like how there are men who feel insulted if a woman serves them cold soup and subsequently resort to violence—we have established laws to maintain order.
Furthermore, there is a threshold regarding how much one can use a public square (such as this forum) to aggressively push discriminatory rhetoric.
Which is exactly what you are doing systematically. You were recently banned, quite rightfully, after stating on Lumber that we need to reconstruct our societal systems to restrict women's personal liberties.
Yet, here you return, continuing to introduce topics designed to plant those very same ideas. It is the sole focus of your writing.
There is a massive distinction between a user making a lighthearted joke about, say, "women being too bossy," or a harmless quip about "a woman's place in the kitchen," and the persistent pattern of behavior you are exhibiting. There is a vast difference.
And yet, you expect empathy and support? From whom? What exactly is your ultimate objective here?
Drew Lee7 said:Let’s examine this specific assertion: "I believe a woman's only purpose is to provide sex and ensure there's a clean house and hot meals; even if I say that, am I breaking any laws?"
It is the exact same principle that forbids us from claiming that people of color are inferior or that homosexuals are unwell.
Furthermore, such rhetoric serves as a catalyst for hostility, because myself—alongside many other women participating in this discussion—feel targeted by your open insistence that our role is merely to, and I quote, "spread our legs," cook, and stay quiet.
While you are certainly entitled to your private preferences, attempting to present such views as objective fact is quite another matter entirely.
And you have seen fit to broadcast this sentiment across several different threads just this month.
For someone who prides themselves so heavily on their capacity for logical reasoning, it appears your intellectual depth is unfortunately quite shallow.
Would you be so kind as to provide a direct link to the discussion thread right here, so that others might follow along and gain a clear understanding of the context?
If I may chime in. A while back, years ago, back when we were posting witty commentary for Television and reporting on all the drama inside the Big Brother house (please, for the love of Jesus, don't ask 🤦), a journalist from one very popular newspaper started copy-pasting the entire posts—some of us on the Reddit community—directly into his articles. As I was writing for a sister publication at the time, I sent an email to the editorial board, and he ended up facing quite a linguistic backlash; by the end of it, it became painfully obvious to everyone that he was just a copy-paster.
We were informed that we could pursue certain sanctions, though I'm not sure what kind they would have been, but we didn't feel like pursuing it; honestly, we actually found the whole thing a little bit hilarious.
However, whenever I was drafting my own articles and sourcing information from Reddit, I made sure to state that it came from Reddit and cited the exact thread where I found it, and on several occasions, I even explicitly included the username of the person I was quoting before presenting their post or excerpts.
So... dear seeker of answers, please don't take someone else's work without... asking. 😁
You probably WILL be tracked down for explanation or apology. 😈
Navigating the vast spectrum of individual perceptions within a single discussion thread is a remarkably delicate discipline.
However, we have reached a point where there is such an overwhelming saturation of the terms "troll" and "trolling"—used by general users alike, not just the moderators—that it has become genuinely impossible to gauge the boundaries of how far a person can push a debate before they cross the line into actual bad faith.
If you ask me, as long as a conversation remains engaging, active, and keeps the participants invested (it doesn't necessarily need to be polite or pleasant—after all, we are debating and sharing viewpoints here, not attending a Sunday service or a silent theater performance where everyone has to act like a ray of sunshine), I believe we could afford to broaden our definition of what constitutes trolling.
Of course, I fully grasp that on a subreddit like Politics, which is incredibly sensitive and exhausting for the moderation team to police, it’s impossible to allow too much room for purely personal biases. But regarding social subreddits, where the entire foundation is built upon expressing opinions against a certain topic... well, everything seems to be categorized as trolling these days.
I realize that applying such broad labels is the easier path, but truth be told, it is starting to cause friction. This is especially evident in user-moderator communications. It becomes particularly tricky because, if we strictly follow the rulebook, there are moments when even a moderator enters what could be described as a "quoted" trolling mode. (In my view, that isn't trolling, but from a user's perspective, it certainly feels that way, even if it's excused for the moderator).
Personally, I lean toward the idea that we should loosen the reins slightly and adopt a more tolerant approach to regulation.
That being said, if we are going to relax the rules, we absolutely must define those boundaries more clearly first.
And what exactly constitutes "disrupting the discussion"?
In my estimation, many people mistake a genuine disagreement for disruption, particularly when someone offers a well-reasoned, thoroughly explained counterargument that challenges their own perspective. 😁