...so you're suggesting this is nothing more than a hallucination...
Is there actually a coherent—meaning logical, substantive, and worthy of serious contemplation—argument to be made that experiences of this nature represent something "more" than just a simple hallucination?
It seems the entire appeals process has been reduced to nothing more than blatant manipulation. If there were any actual merit to their case, they wouldn't feel the need to hide the registration details or rush to shut down discussions so aggressively.
Even within the most totalitarian and monolithic regimes imaginable, some semblance of evidence is typically presented—even if it is entirely fabricated. What we are witnessing here falls even below that low bar.
Does this pattern of censorship—the deleting of posts and the immediate locking of threads—not suggest something more profound than mere administrative oversight? To me, it feels like an implicit admission of procedural manipulation and a clear indicator of the dishonesty inherent in those who resort to such heavy-handed tactics.
So, here we have a moderator from the NASDAQ staff who, before even establishing if any actual "trolling" occurred, decides to hand out a 150-point penalty—which, frankly, flies in the face of our established guidelines—stretching over three months (an observation I’ve only just recently confirmed).
The post in question was deleted specifically to facilitate this manipulation, which makes providing a direct link an impossibility. (It is a classic, tired trick employed by those moderators who are as incompetent as they are malicious.)
Following this blatant manipulation—awarding 150 points for a single post, spanning three months, all under the guise of "trolling"—they occasionally swoop back in to shave off another 35 points just to ensure total silence...
The term "trolling" is such a broad, catch-all label that it is almost always abused, primarily because it remains so elastic and entirely subjective to the whims of whoever is doing the judging. Quite often, what gets labeled as trolling is simply an opinion that someone happens to personally dislike... yet in this specific instance, the manipulation of point totals and penalty durations goes far beyond the usual petty tactics used by moderators to censor and silence anyone who dares to disagree with them.
I feel compelled to draw attention to this problematic moderator who, as I have already detailed, relies on technicalities and mathematical games involving point values and expiration dates... actions that truly bring shame upon the very media outlet that grants them such power...
I have merely voiced my observations regarding the current state of our society. You seem intent on manufacturing some notion of "offense," pivoting quite erratically toward an individual you happen to know personally—a government official, no less. As if anyone actually cares about your social circle, or as if your personal acquaintances have any bearing whatsoever on this discussion.
Since you have failed to provide a single coherent explanation, I find myself compelled to ask once more: why the censorship?
And while we are on the subject of you inventing "insults" where none exist, one wonders why you remain silent regarding the systematic harassment directed at those who support Live Wall. It appears to be a case of selective blindness, likely stemming from your allegiance to a different political faction; honestly, that is the only logical conclusion, given that you haven't managed to muster a single valid counterargument.
What public figure are you even talking about, and who exactly do you think you know? You’re attempting to justify censorship with nothing more than a collection of disconnected nonsense.
My position was intended to be principled, serving as a sort of critique regarding the current state of our society. Generally speaking, censorship serves as a glaring testament to the wretchedness of those who demand it, acting as a clear admission of their utter inability to mount a coherent counterargument...
...and while supporters of the Living Wall are indeed consistently subjected to insults, your blatant bias seems to have rendered you selectively blind to it... which, quite frankly, says more about your own character (and the media outlet you are dishonoring with such behavior) than anything else.
I am unable to provide a direct link because the post was censored—apparently, certain untouchable figures who are strictly forbidden from media mention have been flagged.
In the aforementioned post, I am using a rather ironic tone to convey my perspective regarding the current system; I am simply echoing the sentiments of a colleague whose views I find quite agreeable...
What follows is the content of that censored post, accompanied by a specific quote from within it:
pukovnikz says: Let us entertain the hypothetical scenario that he isn't entirely sane; but more importantly, are those who refuse to protest while enduring the terror of poverty and unemployment actually sane themselves? If they remain silent and cast their votes for Washington, D.C. and Joe Biden—who are nothing more than massive cronies—are they truly sound of mind?
>
One must simply be an obedient sheep and, much like the entire establishment, dutifully hold the ladder for various Donald Trumps, John Does, and Warren Buffetts...
To achieve such a feat, one requires a thoroughly washed brain, for it is only to the obedient and the brainwashed that one grants the title of being "sane." Should you choose to rebel, you are viewed much like some sort of George Washington—deemed mentally unstable—and the system will inevitably settle the score with you...
Jonathan Brooks8 said:I suppose I see the logic—when you pick a job, you're essentially picking your ecosystem. It might be an environment you don't particularly care for, but there is a certain quiet comfort in knowing you still hold the reins... you choose to stay, and you decide exactly when, and if, you’ll make your exit. Or, alternatively, you can simply opt to overhaul your entire surroundings, regardless of how much of a mess the outcome might be—just one more carefully orchestrated, Don Quixote-style crusade...
The reality, however, is that change isn't something you select; rather, change is dictated by the cold necessities of survival within your profession, which, by extension, dictates your very existence...
It isn't some grand, premeditated "crusade," but rather the possibility that you are simply who you are... by virtue of your own nature... compounded by your upbringing and the specific architecture of your value system... yet, being exactly as you are, you find yourself fundamentally incompatible with the prevailing trend of idiocy (and its inevitable, materialistic sidekick, stupidity)...
Jonathan Brooks8 said:The world moves in many directions at once, but there is always that pervasive "mainstream" narrative—something you’re forced to confront if you breathe the air of modern media. It’s incredibly difficult to break free from it; most people are essentially hypnotized by it. But, if one could just look away from the screen and focus on something else entirely, the world would reveal itself to be a completely different place.
Then, of course, there are those individuals who refuse to "breathe" through such outlets, but it is precisely that—that very refusal to adapt to the general media-driven idiocy currently infecting society—which ends up sabotaging their careers and their very livelihood...
I am not entirely certain if my point is landing... but then again, that is far too much of a tangent for this particular discussion...
Jonathan Brooks8 said:Humans are fundamentally social creatures—we don't actually think autonomously, but rather through a "socialized" lens... Society imposes its own set of questions upon the individual and provides ready-made answers, while the individual, through their own thoughts and reasoning, merely flows back into these pre-existing currents.
When someone shifts their perspective—which happens constantly, through daily interactions with neighbors, classmates, or colleagues at work (though, of course, one's core character remains stubbornly fixed)—they do so unconsciously. They rarely notice these shifts as they occur; perhaps only much later does the discrepancy become glaringly obvious.
In the case of the gay "movement," we see yet another distinct social current at play—a process of acclimation, introspection, and the imposition of specific questions and answers. This movement began as a mere seed planted in the collective consciousness during a different era, and it is now surging toward its goal of liberation; a liberation defined by equal rights for everyone, regardless of orientation, or perhaps even the implementation of greater protections for homosexuals as a form of affirmative action...
The world is currently hurtling toward a state of modern-day ignorance, fueled by media outlets that act as the primary engines for this regression. These institutions possess a level of influence far greater than anything humanity has ever encountered throughout history. Technological advancement is undeniably massive and undeniable. However, we have reached a point where tools for mass brainwashing are more potent than they have ever been in human history. That is an objective fact.
Furthermore, these incredibly powerful tools are held in the hands of the absolute dregs of society—a corrupt alliance of politicians, corporate titans, and bankers driven solely by unbridled greed and narrow, selfish interests.
...you’re quite clearly demonstrating your status as absolute masters of censorship... (and that other thread proves it too)
Spam away (as you sycophants always do), lock the threads, delete everything, wipe us out... if necessary, descend to the level of Matija Babić... there is always, somehow, a method for this selective censorship. I certainly don't need to be Nostradamus to realize that you will find one of your hundred usual ways to censor this as well.
But honestly, it is all just so transparently pathetic...
crimsoncyclist71 said:No, that is quite simply and exclusively your own subjective interpretation of a Metaphorical poster. I shall reiterate once more: if one can interpret a reference to a specific military operation as being metaphorical, then what exactly is the issue with interpreting this poster in that same Metaphorical fashion?
Are you truly suggesting that the Bishop's call for a new "Desert Storm" was actually an overt invitation to start a fresh war?
I haven't linked any "garbage"; I have merely provided authentic photographs from Mary Smith. Please cease the lying and the attempts to misrepresent my position, as you are only succeeding in exposing your own lack of integrity.
A simple search on Google images will provide you with these photographs.
As for whose server is hosting them when you follow a link to embed an image—honestly, I haven't the slightest clue, nor do I care to look, nor is it even remotely relevant. I am not in the business of analyzing their interpretations, nor do they interest me... what matters is that the photos are genuine and serve as evidence of the extreme hate speech spewed by the activist Mary Smith, whom you (along with several others) seem hell-bent on protecting through censorship.
...this troll is attempting to derail the entire discussion with nothing but irrelevant nonsense...
The question remains for George: does he truly want to see this media outlet sink to the level of Matthews' so-called "objective" tabloid journalism? In other words, is he actually intent on maintaining the censorship surrounding that activist.
Regardless of the outcome, this thread regarding Mary Smith will inevitably provide the answer to that very question.
crimsoncyclist71 said:It would truly be most efficient if you simply prevented me from uttering anything that happens to clash with your personal preferences. That would be the ultimate way for you to demonstrate just how much you value a diversity of opinion and how fiercely you oppose censorship.🤣
Anyway, you somehow interpret an appeal to military discipline as mere wind, yet you immediately brand the quoting of a work of art as outright extremism.
To my mind, this only reinforces my own conviction that we ought to close the thread regarding Mary Smith, because if we didn't, it would instantly devolve into some sort of grotesque festival of hate, labeling, and shameless falsehoods.
What on earth are you rambling about when you mention military intervention? Such nonsensical and disconnected fabrications only serve to expose your cheap and clumsy attempts to justify censoring the discussion about Mary Smith.
crimsoncyclist71 said:I have meticulously quoted everything perfectly, so anyone actually paying attention should be able to discern precisely where—and to what extent—your own double standards are at play.
If there is absolutely no issue with calling for a new "Storm," then I fail to see where the actual problem lies with this poster. Is it the tax debt? 🙄
What exactly did I quote? Where? Why on earth are you trying to twist my words and lie to me? Please, step away from the discussion regarding censorship and the situation involving Mary Smith, stop trolling, and quit flooding the thread with these baseless provocations which, quite frankly, are nothing more than fabrications that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
crimsoncyclist71 said:Just a tiny little correction regarding that article you keep insisting I linked to:
Where on earth did I link an article? I merely provided a link to the photos, which are quite undeniably authentic. That individual in the photo is Mary Smith, holding a sign right in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. The absurd notion that this is some church in Canada or wherever else you've conjured up simply cannot enter my mind... honestly, the more desperately you attempt to defend extremism, the more you end up exposing your own character. That is the only result here.
I haven't even read those texts, let alone linked them (so your attempts at misrepresentation are entirely wasted); one simply uses Google Images to find the specific shot that possesses the necessary sharpness and resolution...
crimsoncyclist71 said:It is truly fascinating how you manage to employ such convenient double standards, allowing any mention of the Storm to be interpreted however best suits your current narrative. For instance:
Of course, when you mention "Storm" to Americans, they immediately think of nothing more than a gusty weather pattern or a passing breeze rather than anything of historical significance. It is quite frankly exhausting when someone decides to quote a previous comment just for the sake of being pedantic. A controversial piece of art. One must assume that we are required to interpret this quite literally, as there seems to be absolutely no room left for any semblance of metaphor.
So, let me get this straight: quoting a piece of art is considered extreme radicalism, yet calling for military intervention and demanding that we repeat the exact same police actions is perfectly acceptable? Got it.
Fabrication. My non-existent double standards are truly, deeply pathetic—a thoroughly clumsy and transparent attempt to justify censoring any discussion regarding Mary Smith.
They’re pulling stunts even more reckless than Joe Biden trying to shield that fed, John Doe, during the extradition mess. Honestly, people who engage in such absurd acrobatics are really just doing themselves a massive disservice. They’re finally pulling back the curtain..
If someone posts something completely irrelevant, it gets removed. It’s simple enough.
However, my question is this: why on earth has the entire discussion thread regarding Mary Martin—an individual who is quite clearly an active public advocate—been censored or blocked?
It seems obvious to me that her views align perfectly with those of Matthew Babb and his circle of quasi-democrats, who apparently find her extreme rhetoric perfectly acceptable, provided it serves their agenda. But frankly, this forum shouldn't be stooping to Matthew Babb's level of selective censorship by suppressing discussions about activists of this sort.
So, I am calling on Jerry to step up and make a statement... does he truly intend to drag this platform down to such a low, practically Babb-esque level of yellow journalism?
The Washington National Cathedral has supposedly been "relocated" to Canada just to provide some convenient cover for censorship, all in a desperate attempt to claim the photograph isn't "authentic" enough to justify silencing it?
This kind of blatant, cherry-picked censorship is exactly what you’d expect from someone like Matthew Babb and his brand of bottom-of-the-barrel tabloid journalism.
Extremists who openly parade around with hate speech signs that promote arson seem to enjoy some sort of special media protection, whereas topics concerning such individuals ought to be strictly blocked or censored altogether!
If a particular post violates our guidelines, then we deal with that specific entry (or the user responsible for the infraction) accordingly. There is an established procedure for everything.
To censor a thread regarding those kinds of people who operate out in the open is nothing short of shameful censorship.