Posts by Rebecca Rivera2

Kate Fisher73 said:Oh, please—let’s talk about Hi-Fi.
It’s honestly a bit disappointing that you felt the need to jump in at 2:40 PM to respond to a post I wrote at 2:00 AM—only to have it wiped out by a deletion about twenty minutes later. To me, that whole sequence serves as a perfect little demonstration of your own "inflexibility." It’s quite a funny irony, really: you spend all this time complaining about how inflexible everyone else is being, yet your own actions—this rigid, reactionary cycle of responding and then deleting—completely invalidate your entire argument. The logic just falls apart under its own weight. 🙂

It was actually written right then and there—it just didn't hit the inbox until later. And honestly, the whole truth lies in how we view those stubborn, incompetent politicians, moderators, bosses, or whatever else you want to call them when they're being nothing more than "inflexible."

Oh, please—give me a break. To hell with those thousand "brilliant" moderators. 😕Forget about this complaint for a second—why don't you just head over to the Philosophy PDF instead? We could actually have a decent conversation there regarding the nuanced difference between mere belief and true conviction. Honestly, it’s the perfect setting for it, especially since we’ve already laid the groundwork with that whole discussion on the nature of misunderstanding.
Warmest regards to everyone.

Thanks for reaching out and for the invite.

As far as deleting posts goes—honestly, public opinion isn't exactly a factor here anyway. Since this is a private forum, let's keep things strictly between us.A moderator can only perform a soft delete—which essentially means that any administrator still has full visibility into everything they’ve wiped. It’s designed that way to allow for oversight of deleted content, assuming a system like that is ever actually implemented to maintain some level of accountability.

Most radio and TV stations out there are privately owned—which matters—so you rarely see any host treating their callers with the kind of condescending attitude or using the specific vocabulary that this particular moderator seems to favor.

And besides, you can't exactly go around discriminating against people based on their religion or where they come from—not even in some local neighborhood coffee shop—because once a business is open to the public, those civil rights laws apply just as much as they do anywhere else.

Laura White21 said:Look, Hi-Fi, don't overreach here. Soccer has its own rulebook, and Reddit has its own. Have you actually bothered to read the rules?

So, what exactly is your grievance based on?

Whether or not playing with your hands is a violation in soccer—or any other sport—is completely irrelevant to my point...

The issue at hand is that the individual acting as the referee—the one with the power to issue penalties—is obscuring their decisions to ensure they lack transparency. It’s a classic maneuver used to mask double standards, bias, and general lack of objectivity. You see it everywhere: there are competent politicians and incompetent ones; there are skilled doctors and unskilled ones; and, naturally, there are competent moderators and incompetent ones. By operating in the shadows, poor moderators can hide their actions from public scrutiny. Many bad politicians would love the option to shield their activities from the public eye—and many do—but generally speaking, that behavior is viewed as both poor practice and immoral.

Deleting a post would certainly be justified if someone were to leak private information or something similar—essentially for the sake of protecting privacy—but those instances are truly the exception, not the rule.

So, it seems everyone has been dodging this specific question so far:

Picture this: a referee hands out a red card—which might be perfectly justified, or maybe it’s a total blunder—but then they actually ask to have the game footage wiped, just so the public won't see whether they were actually right about the call or not. In my opinion, that would be absolutely pathetic.
What would the verdict be on a ref like that? And please, give me your honest thoughts.

Well, there you have it—a perfect little illustration of what happens when basic decency goes out the window during a conversation. It’s a textbook example of how people can be incredibly rude when they communicate.

I can’t say I recall ever hearing a single TV or radio host—regardless of the network—who would dare to moderate a segment using such a low-rent vocabulary. It was truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. To make matters even more pathetic—if that’s even possible—we are talking about a print medium here...

ego said:Honestly, I am just so incredibly done with all of you—can we please, for once, stop giving these trolls exactly what they want? 😠

Honestly... you guys are really starting to get on my nerves.

So, we really need to talk about the current state of communication—specifically when you factor in the sheer lack of basic literacy being displayed lately. It’s becoming quite a struggle.

As for the matter of bias—which isn't even up for debate, considering Kate Fisher73 is busy playing defense for the moderator ego—I’ll be diving into that in one of my upcoming posts...

_

Kate Fisher73 said:Bryan Jones89, I’m going to give you the honest truth here—mostly because anything less would be doing you a disservice. From what I’ve gathered while digging through that Religion PDF, the sheer volume of religious dogmatism tends to far outweigh any of the atheistic arguments. It’s a lopsided comparison, really.

It’s poorly argued, factually incorrect, and—given the current state of the moderator hierarchy—frankly, a bit of a joke. It’s completely illogical.

You can’t exactly wrap "atheistic stubbornness" in cellophane and put it on a shelf, whereas religious dogma? That comes pre-packaged and ready for retail.

Once again, we’re looking at a complete lack of factual basis—just more of that typical, unreasoned stubbornness you see from the atheist crowd. It’s the kind of nonsense that’s been polished up to look presentable, but once you peel back the cellophane, there’s absolutely nothing of substance underneath.

I can't claim to be an impartial observer here—not even close.

It’s certainly not a glowing endorsement, but at least you had the decency to be honest about it. 😁

Look, Gregory Turner71, the way I see it—and this is just my two cents—there’s nothing inherently hypocritical about someone doubling down on their own stubbornness. A person develops a set of convictions, they hold them close, and they stick to them. It’s not hypocrisy; it's just being consistent.

I’m not sure if you’ve caught onto this pattern yet, but I have noticed certain forum members—and even a few moderators—acting suspiciously polite in specific scenarios, particularly when dealing with agnostics. It feels less like genuine courtesy and more like a calculated attempt to lure them into the fold, almost like a recruitment drive for their little club. To me, that kind of behavior is just another subtle form of religious narrow-mindedness.
Now you can finally tell me how Gregory Turner71 managed to go out and get himself an entire club already...

Well, you’re absolutely right—and since he clearly runs his own little "inner circle" in addition to holding down that moderator position, when you add those two factors together, you’ve actually just handed me an argument that supports my point entirely.

But then again, that "club" of his is really in a league of its own. javanIt’s raw—no fancy packaging, no cellophane wrapping to make it look prettier than it actually is. There isn't a hint of hypocrisy here, and frankly, nobody is being coddled.

It turns out that’s not even true—they're actively scrubbing the evidence and keeping the public in the dark, which is honestly pathetic. So, after more than two thousand posts without ever feeling the need to do this, I’ve finally decided to open a thread over on Reddit.

EDIT: I see your post was scrubbed, but I’ve decided to leave my response intact—since it pertains to the core issue at hand, namely, Gregory Turner71’s approach to moderation.

_

Kate Fisher73 said:I’m open to discussing just about anything—provided we steer clear of pure illiteracy and what I’d call "atheistic narrow-mindedness." I'll admit to being a bit biased there; I tend to view most of the believers on this Religion sub as folks prone to religious dogmatism, so I figure I might as well balance the scales. 😁

Personally, I have zero patience for fanaticism of any stripe—which is exactly why I once got into a heated debate with my local priest 🤣. He was essentially the mirror image of Gregory Turner71, just with the opposite ideological leanings. 😁

As for bias, I’m firmly against it too... though I find it curious that you're openly admitting to your own inclination toward it. If there’s an imbalance here, it was engineered by the anti-religious moderators. In fact, that lack of equilibrium is the core issue; it’s patently obvious that true objectivity and neutrality are impossible for human beings to achieve perfectly.

_

Gregory Turner71 said:I’m actually curious about this too, 🙂

Look, I’ve grabbed screenshots of certain things before, though certainly not everything. I just hope you don't decide to go on a frantic deleting spree to scrub your questionable posts—that would be even more pathetic than the mess you've already made...

Gregory Turner71 said:While you're busy playing detective and gathering your "evidence," try to refrain from the trolling that I eventually have to clean up...

Please, at least here, stop projecting your own habits onto me when we both know you're just as prone to them.

_

Kate Fisher73 said:I’m interested.

Should I prepare for abuse of power, online trolling, and that specific brand of dogmatic atheism—not to mention general rudeness or plain old illiteracy?
Or are you looking for a little bit of everything? If it's the latter, let me know what to pack... because there's quite a lot to cover here, and we're going to need some serious time...

_

Aaron Harris2 said:Great then... and I actually agree with that—he shouldn't be an underachiever in any capacity. And honestly, our colleague isn't. Far from it.
So, you've just handed me the perfect opening to use as an argument. Because frankly, it doesn't hold water. I met this individual—we aren't exactly buddies, mind you—and I stand by what I’m saying.
Got it?
🤷

I'm sorry, but no, that isn't "OK," because you're basing your entire stance on some vague personal impression (and perhaps you only know him superficially 🤷).
At any rate, your personal impression is just that—an impression—whereas I can actually cite substantial content as evidence. The real question is, does anyone here actually care about arguments?

I mean, why would a moderator delete posts... 🙄
Honestly, that almost brought a tear to my eye... almost.
I already explained my reasoning above.

They delete them to hide them—to make them vanish—which is precisely why the action is called "deleting." If they were actually in the right, there would be no need to erase anything; simply issuing a red card would suffice, allowing the rest of the community to see clearly that the call was justified.

Imagine if an NFL referee, after tossing a player out with a red card (a call that might be legitimate, or might be a total blunder), demanded that the game footage be wiped clean just so the public wouldn't be able to verify whether his decision was actually correct. It seems pretty pathetic, doesn't it?
What would your take be on a ref like that? But really, I'm asking you.

Aaron Harris2 said:Like I mentioned earlier, nobody is perfect—we all trip up sometimes. But those of us handpicked for these roles? We have much less room for error. If we mess up too often, we get replaced via the standard protocol—cold, clinical, and without any sentimental fuss.

Actually, that's not quite right. It’s similar to real life—some demonstrably incompetent politicians manage to cling to power indefinitely. In that sense, this forum is occasionally a depressing, yet faithful, microcosm of society at large. To those who work honestly and don't feel the need to mask their actions: please don't take my comments personally.

Just drop the whole "illiteracy" thing... you and your obsession with grammar and spelling... enough already... 🙄
Stop splitting hairs. Let the arguments stay where they belong—on topic—instead of forcing me to endure the 30th lecture on punctuation and typos... honestly, it’s becoming nauseating.

If this were strictly about poor writing skills, I probably wouldn't even bring it up—though, in my opinion, a moderator shouldn't be someone with sub-par literacy. However, let me reiterate: that is by no means the primary issue with Gregory Turner71's moderation style.

Aaron Harris2 said:Our job as moderators is simply to keep threads clean—filtering out off-topic chatter, trolls, spam, insults, and all that other nonsense. It isn't about personal vendettas or harboring hate toward people we don't even know... We just try to keep the discussions on track and alive. Sometimes that means deleting posts, and if some users end up with warnings, that’s on them—the rules are public and clearly laid out.

Anyone can slip up, but from my perspective, I have to be incredibly careful about staying on topic and avoiding tangents—even more so now than when I was just a regular user. And I’m fairly certain Gregory Turner71 operates with that same level of restraint.

I get what you're saying, really, but you jumped to defend another moderator blindly and without providing any actual reasoning. Honestly, I don't see the point in that kind of "defense."

Especially in scenarios where a moderator might be trolling, being rude in their communication, or—let's be honest—being completely illiterate... I could pull quotes to prove it if necessary...

The notion that moderators are infallible is complete nonsense. Just like in any other profession, you have the talented ones, the mediocre ones, and the totally incompetent ones. Now, an incompetent moderator isn't going to cause damage quite like an incompetent surgeon would, but defending someone based solely on the logic of "he's one of us" is just a defense lacking substance. On the flip side, I am perfectly capable of backing up my own criticisms with actual arguments.

Gregory Turner71 said:Look, Hifi, I get it—I’m a charming guy and hard to resist—but seriously, give me a break.

So, following the usual pattern here: absolutely zero actual arguments from you. And your sense of humor—if we can even dignify that with such a label—is about as sophisticated as everything else you contribute. It’s honestly pathetic. 😢

crimsonhound80 said:I can’t say I agree with your take—especially when we’re talking about low-effort posts like swearing or trolling, which people use as a way to try and prove their "intellectual superiority" over someone else.

There are plenty of users here who don't care if they end up getting banned or flagged; all they care about is making sure their "enemy" sees that one specific insult or "intellectual mic drop" they think they just landed.

That’s why those kinds of posts get wiped at the discretion of the moderator—it’s an attempt to prevent further flame wars from erupting.

That isn't really the point. If a post is genuinely problematic, it should be flagged with a warning so it serves as a lesson to everyone else—but if a moderator makes a mistake, that error should be out in the open, not cowardly swept under the rug.

Of course, the moderator—who is essentially untouchable and can't even be sanctioned for trolling or insults themselves (an immunity that Gregory Turner71 frequently abuses)—uses this method to hide behind their special status.

The real issue is that Gregory Turner71 constantly exploits his position to troll entire threads...
Again, if anyone actually wants the truth and needs links to back it up, I have them ready...

_

After logging more than 2,000 posts, I’m finally stepping up to start my own thread here.

Lately, Gregory Turner71—who, quite frankly, identifies as an egomaniac—has been employing a specific tactic: punishing users and deleting posts just to sweep the opposing arguments under the rug.

It’s a pathetic, cowardly way to operate. Let’s be real: he’s essentially using the delete button to mask his own lack of knowledge, his failure to grasp the very topics he’s supposed to be moderating, and his general inability to construct a coherent argument.

There is plenty of evidence to back up my claims if you look at the archives; many users have felt the sting of this firsthand. I’d encourage anyone else feeling the same to speak up with specific examples and solid reasoning...

From what I can gather by following the religion sub-forums, his arrogance, ignorance, and poor command of the language are constant points of frustration for a lot of people.

Ideally, a moderator behaving this way should be replaced entirely. But if for some reason that isn't on the table, then at least someone needs to step in and provide him with some basic education—if only to improve his literacy. There is absolutely no reason why a major site like Reddit should be embarrassed by the incompetence and lack of polish displayed by a moderator.

In principle, if a moderator is actually in the right, leaving the flagged post visible serves as proof of their correct decision.
Hiding a flagged post is nothing short of shameful. A moderator who is truly standing on solid ground has no reason to fear letting other users see the context of the discussion.

_

Hannah Davis18 said:God damn it, man. 😬
So just say right away that being a donkey is what gets you going.
Why couldn't Hannah Davis18 just be donkey-like? After a while, you realize having periods of sadness, joy, peace... it's the ups and downs that actually make us feel alive.
Besides, there's plenty of things in real life similar to being a donkey, so it's not exactly bliss when you get hooked: :diego maradona:.

Or, to put it in the words of Balašević from his song "portret život moj"...

***

You added such vivid colors to that portret život moj:
waves of blue, shades of lava, swirls of green.

And you didn't hold back on the black,
but without it, the white would have just faded away—
without the black, the white wouldn't mean a thing.

_

It’s nothing we haven't seen before—for ages now, snobs and uncultured types have operated under the delusion that foreign tongues carry more weight, so they overdo it by peppering their speech with loanwords, thinking it somehow makes them sound more sophisticated than they actually are. 🤣

That "other" language hasn't always been English, mind you; it shifts depending on the political and historical climate of the era...

Even our own literary giants played this game—you’ll find characters in novels who present themselves with grand aliases like Rudimir Bombardirović Šajkovski, all while hiding their true identity, say, Imbrica Špiček.

One should exercise restraint when using foreign terms... Overdoing it is almost always a symptom of a lack of actual culture. The most glaring example is the type who presents themselves as pure glamour super Fashion, yet spends their nights listening to (or singing along to) mindless pop trash... essentially, a double act of pretension: 🤣🤣

Keith Lee2 said:The wise guy doesn't even realize he's actually smart—it's kind of funny.
He won't get it until the whole crowd starts cheering his name.

I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case.

The crowd is far more likely to applaud a fool than a sage—and more often than not, the sage doesn't even notice the applause in the first place...