Posts by Alexander Hayes3

@ Brenda Cook4,

I’m not sure if you grasp the situation here. My responses in that controversial thread were directed at Dawkins's claims, not at any specific user on this forum. I am effectively in a debate with Dawkins himself, not some random guy online. Because of that, I find it completely incomprehensible that you, acting as a moderator, feel the need to defend Dawkins's honor by handing out warnings.

Brenda Cook4 said:The point is that any criticism leveled at the Pope is immediately dismissed as nothing more than "stupid" or "nonsense."

No, that’s not what I meant. My point was that calling Ratzinger an enemy of education is just plain stupid. nLook, I’ve spent years digging through almost everything that tenured professor has published since 1968. I don't just skim the surface; I follow his speeches, his addresses, and every single encyclical like they're daily news. So, if you need me to justify having an opinion, here it is: Pope Ratzinger isn't some enemy of education. In fact, he is the absolute antithesis of that.

To suggest that Ratzinger is an enemy of education is simply absurd. In my opinion. It’s honestly so profoundly stupid that I find it hard to even wrap my head around such pure nonsense. Does having this opinion mean I deserve a red card?

I’m done arguing with you. I'll just wait until... hollowtrucker77 I’ll take a moment to actually look at what's going on here and let things play out exactly how he wants them to. As for me, I'm done. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, and I'm certainly not interested in arguing with anyone.

Peace be with you.

hollowtrucker77 said: I've cleared the warnings. You aren't the only one who lost their cool here, but I’m asking everyone to make a genuine effort to stay on topic moving forward.

You just took my warning away, and now I’m getting hit with it again—on the exact same post. I can’t be the only one who sees this happening. It feels like we're watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is too busy arguing over semantics to notice the engine is on fire. Take the recent discussions regarding the Catholic Church's stance on modern social shifts. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore how much friction there is between traditional doctrine and the way people actually live their lives today. I remember sitting in a small parish back in Ohio, listening to an old priest explain why certain traditions were non-negotiable, and even then, you could feel the tension brewing. Now, that tension has reached a breaking point. It’s not just about religion, though. It’s about the loss of a shared framework. When you look at how much influence figures like Dawkins have had on the cultural zeitgeist, you realize we aren't just debating theology anymore; we're debating the very foundation of how we perceive truth. People want certainty, but they also want total autonomy, and those two things are fundamentally at odds. The constant bickering on these boards doesn't help. We spend all our time nitpicking each other's logic instead of addressing the actual crisis of identity facing many Americans right now. It’s exhausting. from the second moderator (Brenda Cook4...but this time, I’m going to provide a much broader and more imaginative explanation:

It’s just trolling without any actual arguments. Instead of engaging, they just resort to patronizing you, acting like everything you say is stupid or "kindergarten level." It’s nothing but constant, baseless attacks.

Look, I know you're swamped with work and endless complaints from everyone else, but could you take a quick look at this post? I need an honest opinion: is this just a baseless attack without any actual arguments? I made a point to stay civil and address their points sentence by sentence, following the rules properly.

It seems this just confirms the general state of affairs regarding religion today: you can slander the Pope as much as you want without any fear of consequences. You can call him a pedophile, a criminal, an enemy of humanity, a Nazi, or an antisemite... yet somehow, Dawkins remains beyond reproach.

hollowtrucker77 said:Alexander Hayes3, the topic is about the Pope's visit to England, not about who the Pope is or who Dawkins is.
I pulled those posts because you aren't the only one who lost the plot here, but I’m asking everyone to please try to stay on track moving forward.
In fact, almost everyone in this thread has been flagged for extra warnings lately.

Look, Dawkins's comments were brought up specifically as a reaction to the Pope's visit to England. It isn't really a tangent—that quote from Dawkins is directly tied to the whole Papal procession in the United Kingdom.

But fine, I'll be more careful about staying on topic in the future.

Best regards,

Gregory Turner71 said:Yeah, this is exactly the kind of "psychoanalysis" that landed you a ban.

And who exactly was I psychoanalyzing? Dawkins?

When people start mass-analyzing the Pope, suddenly everyone thinks it's fine. So, I guess it’s okay to psychoanalyze the Pope, but Dawkins is some kind of untouchable saint?

Even though I’ve already filed a complaint regarding the bans, I want to lay out my case one more time. It comes down to two red cards I received simply because I stood up for the reputation and honor of the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. I expressed my view that the attacks on the Pope regarding pedophilia are actually the result of a much deeper hatred toward the Church, specifically because its principles clash with neoliberal philosophy. And that’s what earned me a card on this post:

The second time, I attempted to provide a detailed rebuttal to Dawkins's slander against the Pope. Dawkins called the Pope an enemy of humanity, an enemy of education, a promoter of superstition, a criminal, and so on. Yet, the person who posted those insults didn't get a single card.

But when I stepped up to defend the Pope and respond to that previous user's comments, I was slapped with a card—again, under the guise of "trolling":

It seems obvious from where I'm sitting that the moderator Gregory Turner71 disagrees with my perspective. He clearly holds such contempt for my views that he hands out cards just because my way of thinking doesn't suit him.

Has it really come to this, where any argument made in favor of the Pope and the Church is penalized? Is it truly acceptable to call the Pope the worst names imaginable, yet the moment someone calls Dawkins a fool, a card follows immediately?

Maybe this is off-topic, but why on earth did Mexicans decide to change the city's name back in '92?

Podgorica was actually a pretty great name for that city...

driftingdriver said:Who exactly is going to be this supreme being who gets to decide on a case-by-case basis what counts as fascism and what doesn't?

Look, I’m appealing to conscience and common sense here. Call it "judicial discretion" if that makes you feel better. In my view, in over 90% of these cases, the favoritism toward fascist ideology is blatant.

Take a user, for instance. If their avatar features a massive "U," their signature reads "I love U," they constantly drop slogans like "For the Homeland Ready," and they use an emblem with that specific white field... the intent is crystal clear. At the very least, it's a provocation designed to exploit loopholes in the rules. In situations like that, I believe a moderator should use their own conscience and common sense to judge the situation and issue a warning before things spiral out of control.

It’s the exact same story with communism. If someone argues that the means of production should belong to the workers, sure, that shouldn't earn them a strike or a ban. But if they start saying people at places like the concentration camps or Alcatraz got "what they deserved"—well, then once again, the moderator has a duty to react using their own conscience and common sense.

hollowtrucker77 As I was saying:
Since the law isn't even in effect yet, there's really no point in us reacting to something that hasn't actually been made illegal.

Why not? Seriously. Forum rules don't need to be a carbon copy of US Federal Law.Nowhere in US Federal Law does it state that user cloning or profanity is prohibited, yet somehow, the rules here on this forum still forbid it. It’s ridiculous.

Furthermore, US Federal Law doesn't actually prohibit someone from using a nickname like "Sranader" or "Sranjo," yet it’s explicitly banned under the platform's PDF policy.

So, I’m using this platform once again to make my point. I’m calling on the moderators and administrators here. They need to stop hiding behind the excuse that promoting Nazi ideology isn't strictly prohibited by US Federal Law. It’s a pathetic cop-out. Instead of clinging to legal technicalities to justify their filth, they should start making decisions based on their own damn conscience. Common sense..

Good grief, we’re actually talking about promotion now? fascist Why is it so incredibly difficult to just say it? We need to be blunt: we aren't going to allow that kind of rhetoric on this forum. I honestly don't know who is making a fool out of these people, but watching them try to play it smart by hiding behind "historical greetings" or "alphabetical nuances" is pathetic. It’s transparent. You can spot someone promoting Nazi ideology from a mile away. It isn't subtle, and it isn't clever. So, why aren't we putting an end to this? This whole situation is a disgrace. It flies in the face of everything decent and civilized.

If I were running the political sub here...

I am proposing an amendment to Article 5, Section 3. I quote,

On the Politics subforum, the following is prohibited:

...

- Glorifying or promoting Nazism, Fascism, racist ideologies, or any ideologies containing racist and xenophobic elements, including the display of their symbols.

I suggest replacing the phrase "Nazism and Fascism" with "Nazism, Fascism, and the Ustaše." While this should technically be implied, the glorification of the Ustaše on the Politics board has reached such levels that it’s frankly embarrassing. Much like Thompson, they are careful to distance themselves from Nazism and Fascism, yet they conveniently avoid condemning the Ustaše. It is completely absurd and paradoxical—but under the current Politics subforum rules, this kind of selective distancing is perfectly allowed.

swiftscout8 said:There is no such thing as a "reasoned debate" regarding the symbolism of the cross. Period. 🙂
A loud minority isn't going to silence a massive majority. We saw enough of that back in America.
And if you don't like how things work here, go live in an agnostic country... oops, turns out those don't exist.

Hold on just a second!!!

Who do you think you are, deciding which taboos we can touch with such an authoritative tone?? It’s very rare for anything on Reddit to actually get under my skin, but this is truly crossing the line!!!

Where do you get the right to dictate what can and cannot be subjected to criticism??

If the discussion stays within the bounds of civilized and cultural dialogue, where do you get the nerve to even suggest certain topics are forbidden?? Under what rules, and by what sane logic???

By that same logic, a Jew could claim you aren't allowed to criticize Israel, a Muslim could say you can't criticize Muhammad or the mujahideen, and a communist could insist that Marx, Engels, and Lenin remain beyond reproach... where would that leave this site? We might as well just talk about the weather—unless someone like you decides to put a taboo on criticizing fog or snow.

It's a disaster; this is hands down one of the worst things I have ever encountered on Reddit!!

👎

driftingdriver said:It feels somewhat absurd to start a discussion about banning the cross. Honestly, the only plausible reason for bringing this up is simple trolling. It doesn't really have anything to do with freedom of speech, does it?

Why is starting a thread about banning the cross considered absurd, yet it isn't seen that way when someone brings up banning the five-pointed red star symbol?

In any case, opinions on this vary wildly, which is clearly reflected in how many people show up to debate the topic. Some argue that both symbols share significant common ground—specifically, that horrific crimes have been committed under both icons throughout human history. So, why shouldn't we be allowed to discuss that? Naturally, provided it stays within the bounds of civilized, respectful conversation.

And I don't get this argument that "since 90% of the population is Catholic, it’s wrong to frame the cross in a negative light." Jews make up about 1% of the population—does that mean it's acceptable to speak negatively about the Star of David? The percentage of adherents to a faith is irrelevant; insulting someone's religious feelings is equally offensive (and potentially actionable) regardless of how many people follow that religion.

Finally, stating that "horrific crimes were committed under the symbol of the cross" isn't an insult to anyone; it's a historical fact. A modern believer (at least, I hope so) doesn't believe in committing atrocities in the name of the cross—so there really shouldn't be any reason to take offense.

Best regards,