Posts by Jeremy Diaz9

Jason Campbell70 said:Big deal, you caught my slip of the pen.🤷

Since we're discussing literacy here, all your observations regarding my spelling are entirely fair.

On certain subforums, I "tolerate" poor grammar, mainly because of how "serious" those specific sections are.
But on other subforums, bad grammar just discredits a user, making them look incompetent for any "higher" level of discussion.

"Say" is spelled with a soft 'c'.😁

Look, man, I don't think you grasped what I was actually getting at.
First, you jumped straight to the idea that if someone struggles with basic spelling or punctuation, they must basically have a lower IQ. In doing that, you just proved how incredibly arrogant you are.
Then, you typed out "New Yorker."
At this point, it doesn't even matter that you missed a single letter.
What matters is that I can prove you're illiterate according to your own standards, since people insist the term is "New Yorker."
So, by your own logic, you're the one who's intellectually inferior here.
Instead of actually listening to what I'm trying to say, you just keep venting...
I asked you how it feels when I shut down an actual argument with such an idiotic approach. You tell me!

Jason Campbell70 said:As far as I know, "American English" is taught in every single grade throughout elementary and high school.

If someone who uses a heavy regional dialect can still write properly on this forum—distinguishing between formal grammar and casual speech—then why shouldn't they? Like a typical New Yorker, for instance.

Because, in my humble opinion, the way people speak in New York is much closer to standard literary American English than the slang you might hear down in Florida.

Well, elementary and high school combined cover about twelve years of education.
And if a person was born in a small town in rural Ohio, for example.
What kind of influence do you think carries more weight?
And by the way, you didn't even spell that resident term right; you probably meant a certain type of urbanite, though some folks insist on a different spelling for it.
It's the same deal with someone from a mid-sized city like Des Moines; some say one way, others swear by another.
So, three things here: how does it feel to realize that, in your attempt at an articulated debate, you’ve been misspelling basic words?
Secondly, wouldn't that be considered a bit uncultured on my part?
Thirdly, following your own logic, why should I even bother talking to you if you're functionally illiterate?
So, go ahead, tell me—how does that feel?

Ethan Martinez11 said:Everything you're saying makes perfect sense—just not on every single sub-forum. ☕

If you wander into the Social Science section intending to debate linguistics, yet you can't decide whether to spell a word correctly or incorrectly, or if it's an option or an objection—well, that lack of basic knowledge renders you incompetent for any serious discussion. It’s akin to someone attempting to lecture on mathematics without being able to solve a simple equation, or discussing medicine while insisting the human body consists of 237 bones.

And frankly, I will always call out such individuals, regardless of how you feel about it, the moment I spot them. It’s the sheer audacity of those who refuse to master the basics yet insist on acting like experts. Trying to compete with true scholars—that is the primary issue.

Secondly, this forum is a medium of the written word. In this space, your grammar serves as your personal ID card. It speaks volumes about your education and your level of culture. Therefore, it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more careful here and there. Because as much as being corrected might irritate you (not that I do it often myself!), it raises the blood pressure of others just as much when people stumble over basic spelling or punctuation rules and nuances (or whatever else), making themselves look ridiculous. Moreover, it shows a lack of respect for others. I have realized this countless times, and if you actually took a moment to reflect, you would see the truth in it. Communication is a two-way street; if you expect concessions from others, you must be willing to make them yourself. Let's flip the script: why should anyone here have to struggle through your sloppy, half-baked ramblings? Is it really too much to ask to think for a second or two before hitting a key? Are we on the same page, or what? 😉

Finally, it is telling that those who grumble most loudly against proper writing are exclusively the uneducated. For the learned—or at least those who actually bother to learn something on this forum—it is never an issue. On the contrary, they are grateful for every lesson.

I suppose I have to agree there. I’ll be the first to admit my own literacy is lacking, mostly because back when I was in school, the official medium of instruction was a hybrid dialect used during the old era.
It was the same with our native language classes; we had teachers who were essentially ideological hardliners, constantly messing with our heads regarding grammar, spelling, and all that stuff.
On two occasions, though, we had professors who were true patriots, and they would completely overhaul how we wrote things, noting that what we were doing wasn't actually the proper American language.
I think anyone can see how that would cause a massive amount of confusion for a kid.
As for myself, I just accept the fact that I don't have much to contribute to discussions about linguistics on the Social Science boards.
You won't catch me participating in those debates.
However, if I happen to shut someone down on technical matters by using logic to dismantle their nonsense, then I’d expect a moderator to hand out a warning for pedantry.
There’s an old saying—I can't quite remember who coined it—that goes something like this:
When one side in a debate starts nitpicking their opponent's grammar or spelling, it usually means they've run out of actual arguments and have resorted to the lowest possible level of discourse.

Jason Campbell70 said:And it isn't just limited to Social Science circles.

People who lack the basic ability to distinguish simple spelling variations or fundamental grammar rules? I don't view them as equal participants in a discussion.

To put it a bit more "sharply." 😉

People from the Midwest have issues with certain pronunciations. Similarly, in places like Chicago, the local accent often leans toward a different vowel sound rather than the standard dialect...
And those individuals who get worked up about it, or who feel entitled to call commentators uneducated based solely on their accent, aren't exactly being "good faith" commenters themselves—to put it mildly. 😉
I suppose one is expected to be tolerant of regional differences within America?
What do you think?

I was wondering if any decision has actually been made regarding whether "lecturers" are going to be penalized in the same way as trolls?
Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.....

Drew Brooks8 As specified by Richard Wilson4:
It looks like the permanent ban on Constantinople has been lifted. Honestly, I think it was the right call.👍

If it turns out that Constantinople actually got banned from politics, then we’re just looking at yet another misguided decision.
Or if you look at it from another angle, it’s just one more way they turn the politics of the former Yugoslavia into a complete circus.
It seems like trolls and spammers just absolutely love this forum.

driftingdriver said:- You swear by the sanctity of free speech, yet here you are, caught in the paradox of trying to silence someone else's perspective! So, does my colleague actually have the right to express her views? Or does she not? She isn't dictating terms here; she is simply stating her position.

I have to admit, I’m not quite sure what this comment is actually getting at.

James Fowler52 said:Regarding the discussion here.
Consti is the type who writes one thing today and then goes completely the opposite direction tomorrow. I suspect his whole persona is basically just trolling. It seems to me that there might be some deeper issues at play with him too.

Personally, I only know Constantinople from reading stuff online.
It’s always the same pattern: a thumbs up here, a bit of vomiting, a little praise, a little spitting...
One topic about Constantinople is plenty, but two is just getting ridiculous.
What did he ever do to deserve this?

Aaron Lee97 said:I find it inherently unfair. He’s constantly provoking people with his signatures, using them as a way to promote his sexual orientation. It’s bound to grate on someone's nerves. Personally, I don't even bother reading his posts or responding to them; he hasn't said anything remotely intelligent or constructive. He is ambiguous and two-faced, so why waste breath on a debate? It's just like that banned user who re-registered under "dreknaštapiću"—completely useless, yet incredibly provocative.
It’s true that the rules aren't applied equally to everyone, but what can you do? That's life.
Besides, the motivation to write a post eventually fades. By the time you actually open a topic and hit send, the site moves so fast you could practically walk to the grocery store and back.

I think I’d make a distinction here...
There are certain users who are chronically banned, and honestly, you have to laugh at the absolute nonsense they manage to post.
That includes the guy using that ridiculous handle, plus those two geniuses from the science department—I can't recall their exact usernames off the top of my head, but their "contributions" have basically become legendary in the all-time greatest hits threads on Reddit....
I would never actually issue them a permanent ban.
They take a few days off, give the community a good laugh, and then they come back to stir the pot again for a bit.
In a way, they’re like the forum's mascots.
Without them, the place wouldn't feel quite the same...
Constantin is a different story entirely; he’s just an irritating spammer and a troll.
There isn't anything remotely charming about his posts.....

Drew Brooks8 said:An "expert" at insults? Please. There are so many rude people posting here every single day, and unlike him, they actually have some actual content behind their posts. I won't even try to dive into his headspace. He’s seemed two-faced to me before, too, but is that really enough for a permanent ban? We all have our flaws. This guy maybe opens the most threads on politics, but will he actually lose that PDF with this permanent ban?🤷

Do you think that PDF will actually lose quality now that he's gone? 🤣😂

Drew Brooks8 said:I just can't get behind this decision to issue a permanent ban to Constantinopolov. Even if he was being provocative or starting controversial topics, they could have just given him

a light sanction instead. I mean, the guy has been on Reddit for five years and barely has any strikes against him. It doesn't feel right. He gets hit with a lifetime ban while there are way bigger instigators out there, and unlike

them, he’s never actually launched personal attacks at anyone. There isn't hate speech in his posts. Sure, he opened all sorts of random threads, but honestly, he was mostly the one being

insulted, yet he always stayed civil. I truly feel bad for him because there are plenty of people much worse than him.😢

Also, I’d like to ask the admins to reconsider the permanent ban for Constantinopolov, if that's even an option.

Drew Brooks8 said:I just can't get behind this decision to issue a permanent ban to Constantinopolov. Even if he was being provocative or starting controversial topics, they could have just given him

a light sanction instead. I mean, the guy has been on Reddit for five years and barely has any strikes against him. It doesn't feel right. He gets hit with a lifetime ban while there are way bigger instigators out there, and unlike

them, he’s never actually launched personal attacks at anyone. There isn't hate speech in his posts. Sure, he opened all sorts of random threads, but honestly, he was mostly the one being

insulted, yet he always stayed civil. I truly feel bad for him because there are plenty of people much worse than him.😢

Also, I’d like to ask the admins to reconsider the permanent ban for Constantinopolov, if that's even an option.

The guy is a professional at being insulting, and he doesn't even realize it...
Constantinople isn't a polite commenter; he’s incredibly two-faced and sycophantic, and at times, quite downright rude.
Like I said, he lacks substance, which he tries to make up for with sheer cunning......

driftingdriver said:It’s because Constantinopol deliberately pushes these provocative topics, constantly trolling and playing dumb while dancing right on the edge of what's allowed, which inevitably leads others to pick fights and rack up warnings on his posts. And honestly, it just keeps happening. There was actually a noticeable uptick after that last topic you reported.

I reached out to the admin to request a permanent ban for him over on the Politics sub. He’s been permanently banned from Politics now.

Punishing other users in that specific topic is essentially pointless. If the topic wasn't designed to be incredibly biased with the sole intention of inciting and provoking people, those reactions wouldn't be happening in the first place.

I think you might be overestimating him; he isn't acting, that's just who he is.
Just so we're clear, I'm not attacking you personally. It's more that I don't think you've quite grasped Constantinopol's vibe. If I tried to put an actual number on his intellectual level, I’d probably get slapped with 500 points for being insulting.
So, think about it—is it really fair to ban someone from the site based on a lack of... well, let's call them "points"... hm?

driftingdriver said:I’m struggling to find anything substantial in what you're saying, aside from a whole lot of noise without any actual substance. Besides, looking at your history, you've only made fifty-three posts total, including this month—do you honestly believe you have a complete grasp on everything wrong with American politics? You don't have a single post on the topic there. Are you some kind of clone?

This is hands down my favorite moderator argument.
Why on earth would you think people aren't afraid of the truth?
Just tell me: has there ever been a single instance where a mod didn't immediately slap a ban or a warning on their first critic?
And why should anyone assume you mods are actually being fair?

Back at it again with the ad hominem attacks, and honestly, they’re being used in a completely wrong context.🤣

Higgs said:Intolerance is still intolerance...

Exactly my point...
A debate is supposed to be a debate, but just hammering home a single perspective isn't really a discussion at all...
It’s those subtle nuances that I guess the mods just can't seem to wrap their heads around...

Higgs said:And honestly, how are you any different from the person you're criticizing?

I’d say the difference is pretty damn obvious, if I may be so bold...

driftingdriver said:Freedom of speech? Why don't you head down to Times Square and start gathering signatures to ban the cross in America, then we'll see how much freedom of speech you actually have. Go ahead, organize a referendum, and if it passes, strip every cross off every church in the country. Maybe we could just tear the churches down entirely, similar to how the Taliban destroyed Buddhist shrines?

By that logic, why don't you gather signatures to stop the prosecution of pedophilia as well?

We are dealing with a trolling topic and pure absurdity here. As such, it’s been closed because it is meaningless and ridiculous. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the topic wasn't a debate about the cross itself, but rather about banning it.

Besides, why am I even continuing this argument when the Reddit rules clearly state:

..non-constructive national, religious and similar conflicts (trolling)

Simply starting a thread about banning the cross is trolling and a deliberate attempt to provoke conflict. The fact that the admins ignored the very rules they established isn't my problem, it's theirs—since they essentially wiped out the penalty on the original post. Then again, that's their right too.
As far as I'm concerned regarding this whole business about banning the cross, the conversation is over.

If anyone here is acting like a troll right now, I guess it's you.
Legitimate topics would include banning fascist symbols or communist iconography!
Why are those considered legitimate?
Because the arguments used are based on the atrocities committed under those specific symbols.
If you draw that parallel, it should be perfectly legitimate to hold a discussion regarding a ban on the cross for those exact same reasons.
And that falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech.
It's a separate matter entirely—I'm not the kind of person who would go around tearing things off someone's wall unless that symbol directly threatened the sovereignty or stability of the United States.
The same goes for real life; if someone tells me they support banning one thing or another, that’s fair game for a debate.
But if someone tells me they want to insult all our veterans, there isn't going to be a polite debate; you're getting slapped on the spot.
I assume you get what I'm trying to say.
Or perhaps you don't?

driftingdriver said:I’m not out here practicing any kind of censorship. My approach is pretty straightforward: I prioritize respecting the US Constitution and our national laws, and then I follow the Reddit rules. That’s really all there is to it. If I’ve somehow misinterpreted the forum rules, then the admins have every opportunity to overturn my decisions. It couldn't be made any simpler than that.

Article 38.

Freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed.

Freedom of expression includes, in particular, freedom of the press and other media, freedom of speech and public appearance, and the free establishment of all public communication institutions.

Censorship is prohibited. Journalists have the right to freedom of reporting and access to information.

The right to correction is guaranteed to anyone whose rights, established by the US Constitution and law, have been violated by public notice.

Article 40.

Freedom of conscience and religion, and the free public manifestation of faith or other beliefs, are guaranteed.

Regarding this, driftingdriver, I’m quoting the US Constitution, in case you happened to be unaware.
And since you claim to respect the US Constitution, I find it strange that these two articles escaped your notice...
By the way, if you actually want people to take you seriously, maybe stop using terms like "ad hominem," "flammable," or "indoctrination." You seem to throw them around somewhat haphazardly, and—God forgive me—it makes you look almost tragicomic.
One more thing: that "silent majority" of yours isn't going to return to the politics sub while you're busy playing judge and jury there.
You’ve managed to alienate everyone—the right, the left, and the liberals alike—simply because you come across as completely uncouth and incapable...
Now, I'll take my badge of truth, please. Thanks!

hollowtrucker77 said:If I could make one request, it would be this: it’s not actually a crisis when a dog bites a person; the real crisis is when a person decides to bite a dog.
🙂
It’s the same dynamic here on this platform; most of what we see is just a chorus of people complaining, whereas the ones who are actually satisfied aren't even bothering to chime in or browse this specific sub-forum.
If I were to step up right now and say that the admins are doing an incredible job and working incredibly hard, I’d be voicing something unpopular—something that nobody really wants to admit out loud.
And the truth is, those people really do put in the work behind the scenes to keep things running and keep us talking...
However, that entire side of the operation isn't public, and it certainly isn't open for everyone to inspect.
And even if it were, you'd just end up with a whole new group of dissatisfied critics anyway...
🙂

Since I didn't get my resolution, I'm not starting a thread—there’s really no point.
If there’s a rule stating that a user under a permanent ban can't post here using a clone account, then that same standard should be applied equally to everyone else who has been permanently banned.
I sent a polite message via DM to the moderator and one of the admins regarding this issue, yet the user remains active, facing nothing more than occasional three-day bans.
As for the owner, I have no intention of reaching out to her on principle; her typical response is that only those who failed to become moderators complain about them, which I find frankly distasteful, and I have no desire to engage at that level.
Furthermore, one particular moderator kept handing me off-topic warnings, seemingly with the full blessing of her boss.
Fine, let's assume I was in the wrong, but her boss didn't hand out a month-long suspension for someone going off-topic three times.
And it all seems to be justified by these arbitrary "judicial" convictions....
So, what is the purpose of the FBI?
Nothing, other than to celebrate birthdays, weddings, and funerals.
For anything else, it's essentially pointless.
The appeals just end up looking ridiculous and tragic...
That's all!

Jerry Martin19 said:Look, I don't care if people call me a snitch, because that's not what I am, even if I do report trolls like that. If there's something I don't want around me, I've gotta get rid of it. And if the solution is reporting it to a mod, then that isn't snitching—it's just solving a problem that I'd handle myself if I actually had those "privileges"...

At the end of the day, I suppose it's better to report someone than to lose your cool, snap back in the same tone, and end up getting a warning or a ban. Then you just have a bunch of people behind their monitors laughing, thinking, "Oh look, here goes another one..."