Posts by Laura Chavez93

Go ahead and do whatever you please—but then what exactly are Crazy Borna, myself, pik, and Smartfart discussing? Are we all just hallucinating at this point?...

This isn't about hate speech—it’s simply how people communicate on Reddit, whether anyone likes that style or not. No one is forcing anyone to post there, nor is anyone being coerced into reading the threads.
It seems we’re dealing with a double standard here: if one activist calls out another activist, it’s fine, but if a regular Redditor says something blunt, they're the villain? By what metric are we deciding that certain groups deserve more sensitivity than others?
To truly grasp the culture and the specific way debates unfold on Reddit, you almost have to be a Redditor at heart—it's a difficult concept to convey to someone who doesn't frequent the site... the friction arises when outsiders wander in and attempt to police everyone else's behavior. When the veterans push back, the entire atmosphere shifts to accommodate the newcomers... the wild ones arrive and drive out the civil ones. 👎
To put it plainly: those who are constant contributors should arguably carry more weight than the tourists. If a newcomer wants to join the community, they should adapt to the existing culture, rather than demanding the culture change to suit them.

To be precise, they are effectively sanctioning the very style of discourse that CNN has always been defined by—the exact reason people gravitate toward the platform in the first place. Even the mere suggestion that things might get a bit more heated prompts the moderators to step in; they're already brandishing warnings and scrubbing any posts that don't align with their specific sensibilities.
Consequently, sharing links is essentially prohibited, as topics, posts, and entire threads are routinely deleted or hidden...

For those of us who have been following Dorian since the beginning, everything is perfectly clear—and if any supermoderators are keeping tabs on Dorian, I suspect they feel exactly the same way...

It isn't just about individual posts being removed—entire conversations are being wiped out 😕 threads are being shut down (often via emergency deletion) the moment they gain traction. It all traces back to that male version of the "bodies" thread—which, of course, had to be hosted here on Reddit because nobody else would touch it.
Lately, the moderators seem to be hovering over almost every thread, threatening people with bans—and not just anyone, mind you, but even members of the Council of Elders 🙄 while some long-term contributors are getting preferential treatment. Honestly, the atmosphere has become quite dismal compared to how things felt just six months ago.
Ignoring the elephant in the room won't make it disappear.
edit: I have a nagging feeling this very thread will be closed or deleted under the pretext that we've already covered this ground extensively and there's no point in rehashing it...

Jessica Nelson4 said:What really stresses me out is having to cover sales tax—sometimes upwards of $30 or $40—on items I already paid for with a card, only to have that money sit in limbo for weeks while payday is right around the corner.😁

The system really needs some better regulation because it’s frustrating when you pay for something and expect it to hit your balance instantly, yet there are times you find yourself waiting an entire month for the funds to clear.👍

On a side note, I haven't had any issues with JPMorgan Chase at all; they haven't asked me to fill out a single extra form beyond my business account, my personal checking, and my savings.

This could be a pretty useful heads-up if JPMorgan Chase decides to start being difficult—I’m actually getting ready to head in for a few transactions that require an in-person visit, so I’m bracing myself for the usual nonsense... hopefully, it’ll be enough to tell them that if they aren't interested in managing my funds, then ☕Chase is all I need.
One thing I am wondering, though—has anyone actually run into trouble for refusing to take a survey, or have people had their accounts frozen and been unable to withdraw cash from an ATM?

Fortunately, I now have everything documented with my name clearly listed in the header—so if people get worked up enough to start making actual threats, I can just hand this over to a friend of mine who practices law... I really don't have the energy to shuffle my funds over to another bank, especially since I'd likely run into the exact same mess there—as it stands, I at least have something tangible to work with if they decide to truly cause trouble.

I fail to see any pressing reason to make the trip over there ☕

So, I just received a notice in the mail—stating that I, as an individual, am required to show up at the bank 🍿
...

Please take those discussions elsewhere 🙂

Well, I managed to withdraw $33 from the ATM yesterday without any issues—no frozen accounts, no red tape, just everything functioning exactly as expected... which, frankly, is how things have worked for the last fifteen years since I first got my debit card—so I see absolutely no reason to change a thing ☕

Harold Evans4 said:Honestly, I’m still waiting for you to show us what kind of "response" you actually sent to Chase. 😁

I haven't sent anything—nor do I intend to☕ and if they decide to call, it will be one long, entirely futile, and quite frankly pointless waste of their time...

Harold Evans4 said:OFFTOPIC STE

Does anyone actually intend to stay on topic? 🤔

And with this negative interest rate situation—they’re essentially forcing your hand—you either lock funds away just so they can play around with your capital to turn a profit, or you opt to take your entire paycheck upfront 🙂
...

With Chase, it’s just one page of those standard anti-terrorism and money laundering formalities for individuals—plus the inevitable demand that you show up in person at a branch—while for businesses, it’s that same nonsense topped off with an additional ten-page questionnaire you’re expected to complete 🙂

hiddenviper13 said:They’re probably going to hit the brakes on the data harvesting for a little while. Their pathetic PR teams are likely sitting in boardrooms right now, panicking because they realized the public—basically just cattle to them, since bankers always view their clients as nothing more than livestock—is actually pushing back..

Once this quiet period passes, it's business as usual. They'll get right back to scraping data and running their shady operations, all thanks to the cozy little arrangements they have with corrupt judges and those career bureaucrats who couldn't care less about actually doing their jobs..

And then comes the endgame: phasing out cash entirely, following that classic New World Order playbook we've seen before:

I'm not entirely certain myself; I received a survey via mail with instructions to return it by October 31st.
I expect a follow-up call within the next ten days—my plan is to simply inform them they already have everything they need, and if they decide to get aggressive or start making threats... well, then things will get very unpleasant, very quickly.😈

So, there isn't some centralized credit bureau style database where banks are required to dump all this collected data—it just stays sitting within the bank itself... for what purpose, exactly? 🤔
Even if they did comply, it’s not like they’re going to tip off the police to let them know I'm not a terrorist—not that the police would even care—nor will they be calling the IRS to confirm I'm not laundering money... if I were actually a criminal suspect, wouldn't the police have already taken action by now—perhaps sending a SWAT team to my door?
Or would the IRS simply initiate an audit against me once they realized I was laundering funds?

briskjackal5 said:Well, it's probably because they aren't legally allowed to mess around with your data unless you give them the green light.
They aren't supposed to just peek at your numbers whenever they feel like it, you know? I mean, in principle, they're just there to process the transaction you ordered and that's pretty much it—they shouldn't even be looking.
Until they ask you, and until you say otherwise, they're stuck.

That's just because everyone here is being too cautious...
The people who actually provided their data aren't part of this specific thread. 😁

-Stipe

But why would they even need it? 🤷
Regardless—if they claim they won't take that data outside their system, citing some legal requirement that forces their hand,
why don't they just handle it internally?
I have nothing against a bank utilizing the data already in their possession, but I certainly object to being harassed with information they should already have—for instance, a woman mentioned being called on her cell phone just to be asked what her phone number was.🙂

placidmaker6 said:I’ve been with my bank for over 25 years, and yet, they just had the nerve to ask me yesterday—during an actual meeting with my personal banker—what my most common transaction types are and what my typical maximum spending limit looks like. Isn't the first part a bit redundant since it’s all right there in their own system? Honestly, though, giving them a heads-up on expected high-value transactions actually makes sense; wouldn't that make spotting and proving fraud way faster?

Can we just acknowledge the sheer absurdity of this? A major bank can see every single one of my transactions with two clicks of a mouse... yet they feel the need to interview the client about it.?!? 🙂
And the second question isn't any more logical—who on earth can predict future needs? One might start a business and buy a truck, or pick up some commercial real estate... perhaps sell a house to move into something larger and clear out the account entirely...

No, because they’ve actually passed these anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws—which banks then use as a convenient excuse to demand your private data under the guise of legal obligation.
though 🤔 ideally, this oversight should fall to the IRS, the SEC, and FINRA (for money laundering)—or perhaps the FBI when it comes to terrorism—and even then, it should only happen if there is actual, reasonable suspicion. It shouldn't involve labeling someone a terrorist or a money launderer simply because they hold a bank account... and frankly, I find it hard to believe that merely filling out a ten-page form will somehow instantly clear me of any suspicion ☕