placidmarlin3 said:I’m not quite sure what kind of struggle you're having with understanding my posts, so feel free to read them several times if they don't click the first time. At no point have I blamed the people starting these topics or fueling conspiracy theories. My issue is with the fact that the moderators, under this thin veil of "tolerance," are effectively stripping the subforum of any capacity for reasonable analysis. They package diverse perspectives and various theories as mere trolling or insults to justify pushing them out. Now, if someone feels insulted simply because their theory doesn't hold water, that's ultimately a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, not a fault of the people pointing out the flaws—people who, as we see right here, end up being the ones targeted.
You could claim that staring at the sun cured your prostate cancer, for example, but if it turns out you don't understand the basic science required to support such a claim, or if more educated people debunk you at every turn, you can't complain about being insulted or belittled. In that scenario, the only person who should face consequences is you, because your incompetence and ignorance could genuinely endanger people's health. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the moderators tasked with maintaining order on the subforum. It’s entirely up to them whether you receive a warning or a ban for spreading unverified and potentially dangerous theories. Interestingly enough, the people losing access to Alternative seem to be exactly those who provide the necessary opposition to your worldview.
(I'm not talking about you specifically; this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the point).
As it stands, it looks like the moderators themselves are caught in some sort of internal conflict, so I honestly have no idea where this is all heading.
Good luck.
Maybe it’s just because the whole thing is built on nothing but trolling and straight-up insults. Seriously, just take a look at the introduction.
placidmarlin3 said:I’m not quite sure what kind of struggle you're having with understanding my posts, so feel free to read them several times if they don't click the first time. At no point have I blamed the people starting these topics or fueling conspiracy theories. My issue is with the fact that the moderators, under this thin veil of "tolerance," are effectively stripping the subforum of any capacity for reasonable analysis. They package diverse perspectives and various theories as mere trolling or insults to justify pushing them out. Now, if someone feels insulted simply because their theory doesn't hold water, that's ultimately a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, not a fault of the people pointing out the flaws—people who, as we see right here, end up being the ones targeted.
You could claim that staring at the sun cured your prostate cancer, for example, but if it turns out you don't understand the basic science required to support such a claim, or if more educated people debunk you at every turn, you can't complain about being insulted or belittled. In that scenario, the only person who should face consequences is you, because your incompetence and ignorance could genuinely endanger people's health. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the moderators tasked with maintaining order on the subforum. It’s entirely up to them whether you receive a warning or a ban for spreading unverified and potentially dangerous theories. Interestingly enough, the people losing access to Alternative seem to be exactly those who provide the necessary opposition to your worldview.
(I'm not talking about you specifically; this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the point).
As it stands, it looks like the moderators themselves are caught in some sort of internal conflict, so I honestly have no idea where this is all heading.
Good luck.
Look, if you're going to call someone out, you actually need to bring some real arguments to the table to show why their facts don't hold water; otherwise, you're just trolling, and honestly, nobody has the patience for that.
placidmarlin3 said:I’m not quite sure what kind of struggle you're having with understanding my posts, so feel free to read them several times if they don't click the first time. At no point have I blamed the people starting these topics or fueling conspiracy theories. My issue is with the fact that the moderators, under this thin veil of "tolerance," are effectively stripping the subforum of any capacity for reasonable analysis. They package diverse perspectives and various theories as mere trolling or insults to justify pushing them out. Now, if someone feels insulted simply because their theory doesn't hold water, that's ultimately a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, not a fault of the people pointing out the flaws—people who, as we see right here, end up being the ones targeted.
You could claim that staring at the sun cured your prostate cancer, for example, but if it turns out you don't understand the basic science required to support such a claim, or if more educated people debunk you at every turn, you can't complain about being insulted or belittled. In that scenario, the only person who should face consequences is you, because your incompetence and ignorance could genuinely endanger people's health. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the moderators tasked with maintaining order on the subforum. It’s entirely up to them whether you receive a warning or a ban for spreading unverified and potentially dangerous theories. Interestingly enough, the people losing access to Alternative seem to be exactly those who provide the necessary opposition to your worldview.
(I'm not talking about you specifically; this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the point).
As it stands, it looks like the moderators themselves are caught in some sort of internal conflict, so I honestly have no idea where this is all heading.
Good luck.
Look, nobody on this forum ever claimed they cured their cancer just by staring at the sun. What you’re actually bringing up comes from Hira Ratan Manek, an Indian practitioner who was scientifically observed over extended periods while he wasn't consuming any food at all. That alone gives the guy enough credibility to float his philosophy about sun-gazing. People have been discussing this on Alternative for ages, and honestly, citing Manek is an argument in itself. Your whole line of reasoning—that it's "scientifically impossible" to live off sunlight—is completely nonsensical. I mean, strictly speaking, it’s also scientifically "impossible" for a human to survive that long without eating, yet it’s been empirically demonstrated. So, what’s the actual takeaway here? It's pretty simple: science is currently just lacking sufficient knowledge. To lean on the argument that "if it isn't scientifically proven, it can't happen" is just pure nonsense because science isn't some finished, static collection of truths; it's a work in progress. Just because we haven't uncovered the scientific mechanism behind a possibility doesn't mean that possibility doesn't exist—science isn't a closed book. We don't even fully grasp the complex functions of our own organs yet, which says a lot about how much we still have to learn. Honestly, there are plenty of people out there who just wrap their own deep-seated biases in a lab coat and pretend they're presenting a purely scientific viewpoint. Yeah, right. 🙂 Honestly, those kinds of takes are fundamentally unserious when you look at them through any kind of scientific lens
But when people start attacking others by saying stuff like, "You belong in jail, you're telling people to stare at the sun and they might go blind," without even bothering to mention what was actually advised—let alone providing any actual context—that’s nothing more than pure trolling. It’s also pretty obvious when someone is just being insulting. If I were running the show as a mod, believe me, I’d be sanctioning intros like yours; I’d insist on nothing but civil communication rather than this passive-aggressive disrespect
placidmarlin3 said:I’m not quite sure what kind of struggle you're having with understanding my posts, so feel free to read them several times if they don't click the first time. At no point have I blamed the people starting these topics or fueling conspiracy theories. My issue is with the fact that the moderators, under this thin veil of "tolerance," are effectively stripping the subforum of any capacity for reasonable analysis. They package diverse perspectives and various theories as mere trolling or insults to justify pushing them out. Now, if someone feels insulted simply because their theory doesn't hold water, that's ultimately a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, not a fault of the people pointing out the flaws—people who, as we see right here, end up being the ones targeted.
You could claim that staring at the sun cured your prostate cancer, for example, but if it turns out you don't understand the basic science required to support such a claim, or if more educated people debunk you at every turn, you can't complain about being insulted or belittled. In that scenario, the only person who should face consequences is you, because your incompetence and ignorance could genuinely endanger people's health. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the moderators tasked with maintaining order on the subforum. It’s entirely up to them whether you receive a warning or a ban for spreading unverified and potentially dangerous theories. Interestingly enough, the people losing access to Alternative seem to be exactly those who provide the necessary opposition to your worldview.
(I'm not talking about you specifically; this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the point).
As it stands, it looks like the moderators themselves are caught in some sort of internal conflict, so I honestly have no idea where this is all heading.
Good luck.
Look, mods are human and they screw up sometimes, but the real problem with this forum is the sense of untouchability surrounding certain mods. When a mod makes a mistake, they almost never get corrected; instead, their decisions are protected and justified, no matter how biased or completely flawed they actually are.