Posts by Jack Rodriguez7

As the headline suggests, I’d love to open the floor for some deep dives into the political landscape. The more granular and thorough we can be, the better.

You might want to take that opening post up with your moderators, because it’s clearly sowing the seeds of discord. To put it bluntly, they’ve set the bar far too high—or perhaps just in the wrong place entirely—regarding the dominant mindset and how this forum should be moderated.
Managing this thread should be a breeze—until it isn't. We’re talking about twenty pages in fifteen days before things get heated, then dropping to four pages in twelve once the dust settles. For a moderation team that seems all too eager to hand out bans the moment someone dares to disagree, it should be child's play.
But here’s the catch: discussing domestic violence is a minefield. Since we aren't supposed to frame fathers or children—specifically males—as potential victims, we end up with this absurd concept of "reframing." The very term feels like a bad joke when you consider that even the architects of our laws and international treaties can't agree whether unreported violence is ten, twenty, or thirty times higher than what actually makes it into an official report.
Ultimately, it’s like trying to moderate a discussion about sex where certain anatomical terms are strictly off-limits. It’s probably best if the conversation regarding the Istanbul Convention stays buried alongside theories about chemtrails and Alternative ideas, or we might as well just lock the whole thing down.

silentridge3 said:So,

The idea that the official title is "the Istanbul Convention" is essentially a lie—like a deceptive plot in a "movie"?

This is the crux of the matter: the title is misleading and serves to obfuscate the issue for anyone attempting to engage with it. The full, actual title is "Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence."https://rm.coe.int/1680462470
What the moderators seem to grasp perfectly—while the rest of us only realize it after a thread is locked or we're hit with a ban—is that the "domestic violence" component is actually "outside the realm of reality." This convention isn't designed to deal with children, specifically boys (and let’s not even get started on adult men), because the text itself repeatedly focuses on women and girls (even though it's clarified that "women" in this context includes girls under 18). Boys are directly addressed only once, and even then, not as victims, but rather as potential future aggressors—which, frankly, is quite a stretch from reality.

Recent examples in the US demonstrate the terrifying power such a convention holds, especially when wielded by NGOs (who, according to the treaty, act as the oversight mechanism). These groups often function solely as vehicles to push through the agendas of specific ideological orchestrators.
Right now in America, we are seeing an epidemic of individuals being accused of various sexual misconduct allegations dating back decades. Without getting bogged down in the specifics or the veracity of these claims, I will simply say: this provides a perfect blueprint for unfairly discrediting any man. What is truly disturbing is watching people lose their careers, their reputations, and everything they have built without a shred of tangible evidence, based purely on "he said, she said" (where the identity of the accuser doesn't even matter). No one wants to be associated with a "predator," regardless of whether anything has been proven. It's fascinating, really. For now, these tests are being conducted on celebrities, but the way this can be weaponized for political gain is clearly illustrated by the Strauss-Kahn case, where the accused was eventually cleared, yet the stain on his name remains forever.

Ultimately, this convention exists for precisely these purposes: to establish mechanisms that can be used to destroy or sanction political opponents, dissenters, or anyone standing in the way of global policy architects. The notion that some woman and her child will benefit from this is merely a pipe dream for those who view this convention as a way to force through what is already embedded in most European laws. It is almost better that many viewed this convention—which is, in truth, a disgrace to human rights—as the "introduction of gender ideology," leading them to fight against something that isn't even explicitly in the text.
This forum has taken a political stance and aligned itself with the mainstream, which is quite opportunistic and convenient today. There is no need to blame them; rather, one should express regret that an exceptional forum has become anything but a place for the exchange of opposing views—a quality that once allowed it to rise to the top of its class, particularly regarding politics.

And am I diving into conspiracy theories? That sounds suspiciously like the global left screaming about Russian interference whenever events don't unfold according to their expectations.

Alright, I get the picture. No need for further explanation. You can go ahead and lock it.

I’m genuinely curious about the reasoning behind my post from earlier this morning being scrubbed from this thread. There wasn't a single warning or even a courtesy notification explaining why it was pulled. Now, look, I’m not one to run to the management to whine—so please don't mistake this for a formal grievance—but rather think of it as a simple observation. Even if my comment stays deleted, I would truly appreciate some clarity on what exactly within my words ran afoul of the forum rules.

I recently stumbled upon some aphorisms by Duško Radović, and one particular line stuck with me: "Children, you can imagine what life is like when your school years are the most beautiful part, from the cradle to the grave."
The struggles I dealt with as a kid were just as devastating then as the ones I face now as an adult. The fact that I can look back today and see how those "childhood problems" were actually trivial doesn't do a bit of good for my younger self; it’s useless. You simply can't view those moments outside of their own timeline. In the heat of it, children feel misery just as deeply as adults do.

Chloe Roberts2 said:http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=4...&postcount=261

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=4...&postcount=263

That’s just the tip of the iceberg; you really need to dig through the other posts in this thread. I’m asking you—please, actually look at the rest of them. I honestly can't tell if we're dealing with deliberate trolling or some kind of collective psychosis. It's constant conspiracy theories about how fathers are being discriminated against, and things of that nature.

Please, appoint two more moderators and start handing out stricter penalties for these... these... well, I don't want to get flagged myself, but there needs to be order in the Politics section. These posts are genuinely unsettling me.

Chloe Roberts2, please, feel free to jump into the conversation. Based on what you just said, I'm certain you have different data regarding maternal custody assignments, the work done by the American Red Cross, recovery rates from psychologists (not psychiatrists), and so on.
Any information you can provide would be incredibly valuable for a discussion that—contrary to your perception—is aimed at the welfare of the children, not the fathers. You have to admit that when nearly 90% of women are granted custody (considering there are millions of single parents in America), a debate of this magnitude is absolutely necessary. If you can contribute, we would be very grateful. Well-reasoned opinions that counter the links you provided are just as welcome.

What are this user’s actual transgressions? Aside from being a staunch conservative—and doing so brilliantly—and engaging in highly reasoned debates with those who disagree with him, I’d truly love to understand why he was banned. In the posts that were scrubbed—which I actually managed to read before they vanished—I didn't detect anything more toxic than what you see from certain other users (mostly the left-wing (neo)liberals) whose posts go unpunished even after being reported. If anything, some of those deleted comments contained arguments so sharp they would have completely disarmed his opponents or forced them into a high-level debate. Son of the Homeland tends to be a bit blunt (I’m convinced it’s intentional), but we see that kind of discourse in many halls of Congress, and it always creates the friction necessary for a productive discussion.

I'm not sure if my curiosity regarding the reasons for this ban violates any forum rules, but honestly, if a high-caliber conservative contributor like him has no place here, then the rest of us who lean toward that side have nothing to look for on this site either.

This isn't just about removing a single member; it’s a clear political statement dictating what is permitted on this platform and what isn't. Fundamentally, we are talking about someone whom anyone seeking a decent debate would want present, whether they agreed with him or not. Clearly, there is a message embedded in his permaban intended for the rest of the community. I wonder if this site has fallen prey to the "political correctness" warriors, or if it’s starting to feel like it's under someone's watchful eye. In a situation like this, the end justifies the means—sacrificing one user for the perceived survival of the entire forum. If I'm wrong, please correct me with actual facts.

As for the clones, I was suspicious of Son of the Homeland after his first post, and by the second, I was certain it was actually Pillar Society. A colleague at work noticed the same thing. Interestingly, she is a very outspoken, far-left activist, yet it never occurred to her to report the clone. She joked(?) that this way, the "enemy" knows exactly what they are thinking. I find it hard to believe the moderators didn't catch on. It leaves me wondering: is there some sophisticated method for detecting clones where you remain innocent until proven guilty, or has the joke finally gone too far, leading the admin council to decide that Son of the Homeland simply couldn't compete in the category of impersonation?

darktiger12 said:I’m noticing that people here are starting to use these supposed "millions" of participants in lesbian street festivals around the world as some kind of "argument." Just yesterday on TV (RTL, of course, who else?), we saw a news report about "over a million" people attending a massive event in Rio de Janeiro. I think that might need a little bit of clarification.

It’s pretty interesting how the media can't seem to agree if there were 70,000 or 200,000 people at that protest in Paris, yet they are somehow incredibly precise when it comes to counting "a million" or "a million and a half" participants in a "gay parade."

So, besides the fact that those numbers seem to be pulled straight out of thin air and tossed out without any real basis, it feels like those figures are being used quite brazenly to manipulate the narrative—trying to create this false image of both a massive crowd and widespread public support for their "cause."

But things actually look quite different. Not only is nobody truly counting these participants—they just make up numbers and wildly exaggerate them—but there's other manipulation going on too. You see, the media often labels any tourist or curious bystander caught nearby as a "participant in the parade," and therefore, a supporter of the lesbian agenda. I heard a story about how a group of American high school students on a field trip ended up in Munich right during a local "parade"; they were just watching from the sidelines along with plenty of other tourists. But some ambitious "journalist" snapped a photo of them, and the next day, they saw themselves in some German tabloid labeled as "parade participants."

This tactic is used all the time, especially in huge cities like Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, or Rio, where there are always hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of tourists who naturally watch the street festivities out of curiosity, only to end up being photographed, filmed, and branded as "participants" in the media.

Furthermore, most of the actual participants aren't even lesbians, and certainly not gay men, because a large majority of those unfortunate people hide their inclinations and don't march around in public. Instead, you have a huge number of feminists (who are as close to them as "two peas in a pod" and often share memberships with lesbian organizations) and self-proclaimed leftist "activists," followed by various exhibitionists, sadomasochists, and all sorts of others who use this as a chance to publicly display their fetishes and show off the SM "wardrobe" and props they usually keep hidden at the bottom of their closets. And let's not forget the many male and female prostitutes from all walks of life for whom business simply booms during these times.

A good chunk of these types travel the world from one "parade" to the next, which helps create that impression of massive numbers. It’s a bit like how, in our neck of the woods, the same small crew gathers from everywhere to wander and provoke through street festivals in cities ranging from New York to Chicago or Los Angeles (where they don't fare quite as well 😍).

But the bulk of what we actually see are young, shallow, and superficial Westerners who are only interested in partying and an easy life. They are the same crowds we see at festivals like Žrč, at rave parties, or at massive "Love parades," which don't really differ much from these lesbian street orgies anyway. For these masses of mindless people, the cause doesn't really matter; in fact, many probably don't even know "what is being celebrated." All that matters is having enough colorful pills, Red Bull-vodka, and being able to shake to the same boring electronic beat for hours. Whether it's a Love Parade or a "gay pride," it's all the same to them. And these types often travel from one party to the next.

So, I’d just ask that we tone down with these claims of "millions" of participants in "gay parades" in this beautiful liberal world.

Just for the sake of comparison—back in 2011, organizers claimed over half a million people attended the gay parade in Paris. Meanwhile, police figures suggested the turnout was closer to 36,000. I’ll just state that figure off the top of my head so nobody thinks I wasted even a second researching such nonsense. Cognitive bias and propaganda are doing wonders here.
The same goes for the fact that this period in Paris is part of a series of events during a summer festival, and any gathering attracts huge crowds of tourists regardless of their gender, nationality, politics, or any other affiliation. It's typical for major global cities. I remember an event about 10 years ago when Brazil beat Germany in the World Cup final. A few hundred emotional Brazilian fans dancing the samba at Trafalgar Square ended up drawing tens of thousands of passersby (according to the police) who weren't even Brazilian fans.
So...

Justin Chavez said:then go start a discussion about the Rom community in America and have your fun there

We had a thread about the Rom population and politics, and it got shut down. Then we had one regarding Rom communities and crime, and that was also closed. My take? There are plenty of people—folks who live right next to these neighborhoods or deal with these issues daily—who would actually welcome a debate on the political implications of this demographic. I’m not talking about history lessons, cultural studies, or some patriotic fluff; I mean actual policy and political impact. Look, I get that it's a touchy subject, but the political friction is real. If a small group of under 3,000 Rom individuals in an area like Ohio is responsible for 50% of property crimes, while the other 125,000 residents carry the rest, you aren't looking at a minor hiccup—you're looking at a massive systemic issue. And that’s not even touching on other types of criminal activity where the statistics are just wildly disproportionate to their population size. So, my question stands: can we discuss the Rom community within the Politics subforum without the mods pulling the plug the second we stray from what passes for "politically correct" by today's neoliberal standards?

Jose White23 said:In this specific scenario, you have to consider that one participant likely crossed the line of self-defense by striking that woman multiple times. My stance remains that we are looking at a criminal act that hasn't quite transitioned into a political issue yet.

Regarding the Rom community, I agree—anyone can be subject to debate, just like anyone else. That previous thread had some pretty problematic elements. I’m going to touch base with my colleagues, and then I'll get back to you with our official proposal.

Fair enough. Perhaps the topic was opened under unfortunate circumstances, but the intersection of the Rom community and various types of crime is absolutely a political issue. And I'm not just talking about theft or physical violence; I mean the whole spectrum of illicit activity. A significant portion of this group lacks basic documentation, which makes identification nearly impossible in these situations. You see kids driving cars, illegal dumping sites popping up, underage marriages being common, and all sorts of fraud used to exploit social benefits and assistance. There is an entire catalog of offenses where American citizens of other backgrounds would face sanctions, yet the Rom community seems to bypass them entirely.
I concur—an isolated incident isn't a political crisis. However, once behavior that breaks the law becomes a systemic pattern within a large minority group, it transforms into a political problem. In my view, shutting down the discussion regarding the Rom community and crime was a mistake. They represent a political challenge in many European Union nations, and I believe we need to address this through open, reasoned debate.

It feels like political correctness is starting to suffocate this forum too. There was a thread discussing Rom crime, but it got shut down immediately. Even when Minister Ostojić spoke up about the issues surrounding Rom criminality, he got slapped down for it. It’s the exact same pattern we saw with the Chief of the Osijek Police Department.
This particular criminal act by the Rom community carries a dimension that sets it apart from their usual "outbursts." Anyone old enough to remember the sheer terror of targeted attacks on hospitals and clinics by extremist aggressors will see the parallel here. From the perspective of an average American, this minority group—which seems to enjoy incredible privileges—has essentially pulled off a similar stunt given their capacity. They stormed emergency room facilities, sending a loud and clear message: there isn't a single institution they feel any respect for. This is a massive political landmine. If we continue to tolerate these outbursts—which includes turning a blind eye and refusing to even discuss the root of the problem—it won't end well. It risks triggering an extreme backlash that no sane person in this country wants to witness. Personally, I believe we need to be able to discuss this topic with actual arguments, provided the moderators stay extra vigilant.

@redtiger15
I have my own personal reasons for staying quiet on certain subforums, and since your PM feature seems to be broken—I don't even see the option when I click your name, is PM disabled for you?—I’ll just drop a brief summary of the deleted conversation here. If you find any of this useful, feel free to move pieces of it back to where they belong.
I know quite a few people over at ExxonMobil, and since I had some personal skin in the game regarding this year's recruitment cycle, I figured I’d take the liberty of sharing what I’ve gathered. For the past few years, ExxonMobil has been focusing on bringing in young talent, specifically targeting those with the top-tier academic results. As it turns out, that hasn't exactly been the winning strategy.
ExxonMobil is currently planning to roll out a new job evaluation system alongside a major reorganization. So, where’s the catch? Well, for instance, ExxonMobil intends to outsource certain departments. Let’s say we’re talking about IT. An outside firm will step in, offering their expertise, and their engineers will handle the heavy lifting. However, at the same time, the company wants to retain a handful of internal staff to handle frequent, relatively basic interventions. Now, imagine hiring someone who won an IT Olympiad, can code circles around everyone, and holds a stack of certifications, just for that role.
Their skillset simply isn't required, and frankly, there's no way to utilize it. The specific roles being advertised don't offer much in terms of upward mobility or advanced training. In this scenario, "overqualified" is actually a liability; such a person will quickly become bored, depressed, and eventually transform into a disgruntled, toxic employee. Apparently, this has been proven 100% through practical experience. That is why the current recruitment drive is looking for the most "suitable" candidate rather than the most brilliant one (and I'm not talking about nepotism here). If there's a development team involved, they'll grab the best of the best. But for these other roles, they often seek someone who is mediocre across the board—someone without massive ambitions who will just perform the tasks with general satisfaction.
Of course, Americans tend to jump to conclusions and cry "nepotism" the moment a hiring pattern looks unusual. Honestly, whether that kind of thing exists at ExxonMobil, I couldn't tell you, but this all makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen this exact dynamic play out in my own professional life.
The bottom line is that the person with the highest test scores doesn't necessarily need to be hired for every opening because business policy dictates otherwise. The top scorer is definitely not always the optimal choice for certain positions, especially in departments that aren't part of the company's core operations and could easily be outsourced. If you need more specifics, hit me up via PM. I know the inner workings of ExxonMobil pretty well, but beyond what I've laid out here, I don't have any further intel on the recruitment process itself.

I think it’s painfully obvious what my issue is here and why I decided to speak up. You didn't just scrub the off-topic fluff; you went ahead and sliced out parts that were actually central to the discussion. If you had just deleted subjective opinions, I wouldn't be saying anything. But you even wiped my post where I was calling out unprofessional behavior. Honestly, I wouldn't have even complained if you’d just pulled my post entirely—but choosing to edit it this way, while selectively restoring bits like the fact that the guy was acquitted despite the police report, feels incredibly biased.
To be clear, I wouldn't be chiming in if you had just deleted the whole thing, but editing it to suit a specific narrative like this? That’s just plain one-sided.

crimsonsailor7 said:If you actually took the time to read his post, you’d realize that the tiny snippet left up was the only part even remotely relevant to the topic... the rest was just a bunch of personal attacks on two other members, which I'm definitely not going to stand for. It’s not about playing favorites or anything like that, it's just that that kind of toxic behavior isn't allowed here, regardless of what my own opinions or thoughts might be. Your post got pulled because it was totally off-topic and you were nitpicking the moderation, and honestly, neither of those things belongs in that thread

Anyway, thanks for looking out for my expertise and making sure I stay helpful around here 😉

I could certainly agree that parts of that post were likely unprovoked jabs at some very helpful members, even if the core reasoning was quite compelling—personally, I wouldn't have hit delete. However, if you had truly read the post, you would see that you only excised the section where the user claims he was exonerated after colliding with a Ford on a main thoroughfare while merging from a side street. From what I can gather, some members here argue that right-of-way on a main road is absolute, no matter what infraction the driver on that road committed. Others contend there are instances where a verdict is handed down in favor of the driver on the side street. By editing the post, you left only the portion detailing the police procedure regarding right-of-way, while scrubbing the part where he asserts he was cleared by the court in that specific situation.
I hope you realize how much you’ve distorted the original content through your intervention, thereby steering the entire direction of the debate.
Actions like this cast doubt on your impartiality. When people come forward to share their lived experiences, it isn't your job to act as judge and jury to decide what is "true" or "false"; rather, the discussion itself should reveal who is talking nonsense and who is telling the truth. If we start filtering content this way, it’s logical to expect nothing but ad hominem attacks, bans, and people walking away from the forum instead of an actual debate. If that’s your ultimate goal, then you're right on track.

Just putting this on the record: our moderator crimsonsailor7 isn't just scrubbing comments she dislikes; she’s actually editing them until they’re unrecognizable. I had the chance to look at a PDF "legal brief" where I compared the original post by user gone7sec to the version she edited. It wasn't just about cutting out things she deemed off-topic; she stripped away key parts of the remaining text, effectively gutting the logic to make sure the final product aligns perfectly with her own favorites.
Naturally, my own commentary on the matter was deleted, as per usual. I’m calling on the site administrators to please explain to crimsonsailor7 that the whole point of a forum is the free exchange of ideas, thoughts, and perspectives—not reshaping every user to mirror her own specific worldview.
On a side note, I actually put in some effort today to see if I could find even a single constructive comment from her in her capacity as a legal professional. After digging through a mountain of her posts, the number of actual pieces of helpful advice I managed to find was zero. If you tried to extrapolate any useful insight from the rest of her contributions, the result would be nothing short of disastrous.

A while back, I had this wonderful three-year-old dog who, for reasons I still can't quite wrap my head around, started acting aggressive toward small children. Even though we all absolutely adored him, I wasn't about to gamble with safety—especially since he’s a breed capable of doing some real damage. It was a heavy decision, truly, but I placed a few ads offering him for rehoming, being completely upfront about the behavioral issues. Only two "gentlemen" reached out, and I turned them down immediately; they clearly didn't know the first thing about dogs, and their intentions felt anything but humane.

I ended up calling an animal rescue group (I won't name names) to ask for help finding him a new home. I figured he might be a perfect fit for a family without young kids or perhaps some retirees who wanted companionship without the chaos. Before the kids showed up, he was perfectly socialized and peaceful; once they entered the picture, he'd start growling and retreating.

Initially, I was met with accusations that I hadn't taken proper care of him and that the behavior was somehow my fault. Fine. They said they'd see what they could do. A few days later, they called back saying they would bring in a canine behavioral specialist to attempt a treatment plan. Naturally, the bill would fall on me, and from the way they phrased it, I realized the cost would be astronomical. I declined, and just like that, the rescue went silent.

Around that same time, I got a call from a young guy who works professionally with dogs—a trainer and judge—who mentioned he wanted to take him in, work with him, and eventually gift him to his parents. That’s exactly how it played out. The dog is still with them today; I drop by occasionally to check in, and everything is wonderful. He even told me he’d handle the training for free because he views it as a personal challenge—sort of a "dog whisperer" type deal—and said if I ever wanted him back, I could, provided I just covered the cost of food while he was staying there. I didn't have the nerve to take him back, though.

Two months later, the rescue group called to check in on the dog. In passing, I asked if they had managed to find anyone else to adopt him. Of course, they hadn't, but they were more interested in knowing where the dog was and what I had done. When I explained the situation, I was met with a total verbal onslaught; apparently, that's not how things are "supposed" to be handled. First, they demanded to know exactly who I had given him to. I gave them the young man's number, even though I probably shouldn't have. They couldn't seem to get a hold of him (for some reason, since he was reachable by me on the first try), and then the harassment started: threats of filing official reports, insults, and incessant calls for several days straight. Not to mention, my phone would ring after midnight, only for someone to hang up the second I answered. I've never experienced anything like it before or since. The madness only stopped once I asked the young man to call them himself.
I really hope this is just an isolated incident and that other organizations don't operate quite this way.

I’ve been digging through the state auditor’s report regarding the university's operations, and frankly, it looks like there is more than just a few accounting errors happening here—it looks like actual criminal activity. Yet, for some reason, all the headlines are focusing on mere "irregularities" and "oversights." To me, this smells like a textbook case of high-level embezzlement. It makes me wonder: is this being handed over to the Department of Justice, or did this circle of "elite intellectuals" simply find enough loopholes to ensure they remain untouchable?

And what was the actual question being asked in the poll? Was it, "Should America join the European Union, or should we form some North American confederation?" Or perhaps, "Would you rather see us join the European Union, or face a Greek-style economic meltdown?" Maybe it was something along the lines of: "Are you ready to join the European Union as a full member while successfully preserving our national identity and sovereignty?"
There is enough room for manipulation in there to build a skyscraper.