Unacceptable bias and power tripping by the Lowe's moderator
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
mistymason1 received a partial ban on unknown? Why am I even asking? I simply cannot believe it.
I find myself standing with Nicholas King to support his appeal—demanding the reversal of this unjustly imposed partial ban. Having read his posts on numerous occasions, I have yet to witness a single blatant violation of this subforum's rules. What I see clearly, however, is yet another transparently organized clique of vulgarians—those incapable of engaging verbally—attempting through behind-the-scenes maneuvering to eliminate another high-quality forum member simply because he isn't to their liking. For what reason? Out of pure, unadulterated spite.
Respect basic democratic values; respect the fundamental human right to free speech and expression!
How long do you intend to purge all intelligent, literate individuals from this subforum, turning it into a cheap imitation while leaving only fools behind?
Let them speak! For heaven's sake!
Regarding this trolling, a few select words should be said. First, how is that considered an insult?
This was the very first post following the introductory post on the topic—beautiful, thorough, polite, and highly constructive.
Of course, it wasn't sanctioned because it wasn't classified as an insult, but rather "as" some comedic moment within certain feminist circles, presumably.
Insulting all women "there" who don't find giving birth "normal"? What kind of sacred, divine standard defines "normal" to you if that isn't it? Are women holy cows that one shouldn't touch the unnatural, twisted views of unknown and their cohorts? Goodness! Their "right" to give birth. But what if their right not to give birth directly encroaches upon the male right to reproduction?
Women whose views on giving birth "there" are deemed "not normal" actually insult the very essence of humanity within us; yet, we don't complain or report them, let alone demand they be banned or removed through any repressive means. Their views and their choices regarding birth are their own business.
unknown
My friend, a simple ban? How quaint. Should we instead settle things with a bit more flair—perhaps some kidney stone torture, much like the chaos in Libya?
Then justice might actually be served—and the sycophants and yes-men could live happily ever after... or so they think.
What irritates me most about this entire "situation" is the blatant promotion of groupthink—the calculated removal of anyone deemed "unsuitable"—which remains a profound insult to the human intellect.
Just send the man back to unknown and stop wasting your breath.
Will this country ever truly escape totalitarianism?
...
I find myself standing with Nicholas King to support his appeal—demanding the reversal of this unjustly imposed partial ban. Having read his posts on numerous occasions, I have yet to witness a single blatant violation of this subforum's rules. What I see clearly, however, is yet another transparently organized clique of vulgarians—those incapable of engaging verbally—attempting through behind-the-scenes maneuvering to eliminate another high-quality forum member simply because he isn't to their liking. For what reason? Out of pure, unadulterated spite.
Respect basic democratic values; respect the fundamental human right to free speech and expression!
How long do you intend to purge all intelligent, literate individuals from this subforum, turning it into a cheap imitation while leaving only fools behind?
Let them speak! For heaven's sake!
hollowmason64 said:Exactly—you charge ahead with your own agenda, and anyone who points out the "holes" in your statistics or viewpoints gets labeled as moronic, illiterate, or whatever else you care to conjure... not to mention on this the topic, which you've now latched onto, you insulted every woman who doesn't consider it "normal" to give birth 🙄
To put it bluntly—you’ve managed to irritate just about everyone who wrote a single word there. 🤣
Regarding this trolling, a few select words should be said. First, how is that considered an insult?
This was the very first post following the introductory post on the topic—beautiful, thorough, polite, and highly constructive.
Of course, it wasn't sanctioned because it wasn't classified as an insult, but rather "as" some comedic moment within certain feminist circles, presumably.
red_one said:Screw that! What do you think about?
Surely not a pot of chili!
Idiot!
Insulting all women "there" who don't find giving birth "normal"? What kind of sacred, divine standard defines "normal" to you if that isn't it? Are women holy cows that one shouldn't touch the unnatural, twisted views of unknown and their cohorts? Goodness! Their "right" to give birth. But what if their right not to give birth directly encroaches upon the male right to reproduction?
Women whose views on giving birth "there" are deemed "not normal" actually insult the very essence of humanity within us; yet, we don't complain or report them, let alone demand they be banned or removed through any repressive means. Their views and their choices regarding birth are their own business.
Patrick Brown7 said:I concur 🙏
The moderators aren't particularly demanding—hardly a burden, really 😁
but consider the performance he put on in this thread 😲
A permanent ban—not a partial one ☕
unknown
My friend, a simple ban? How quaint. Should we instead settle things with a bit more flair—perhaps some kidney stone torture, much like the chaos in Libya?
Then justice might actually be served—and the sycophants and yes-men could live happily ever after... or so they think.
What irritates me most about this entire "situation" is the blatant promotion of groupthink—the calculated removal of anyone deemed "unsuitable"—which remains a profound insult to the human intellect.
Just send the man back to unknown and stop wasting your breath.
Will this country ever truly escape totalitarianism?
...